Print 48 comment(s) - last by ShoePuke.. on Apr 12 at 10:46 AM

New premium SUV is packed with Ford's high-tech features, options

The beloved SUV is finally starting to shed its "gas guzzler" distinction, thanks to vehicles like the new 2013 Explorer SUV from Ford Motor Comp. (F).  Ford unveiled this morning its upgraded model, which brings a new marquee submodel, the Ford Explorer Sport.

Ford has been putting a lot of pressure on fellow automakers with its premium package consumer vehicles, which often offer features sets that are quite competitive with its rivals' luxury brand vehicles.

The Explorer Sport has been empowered with Ford's twin-turbocharged, gasoline direct injection (GDI) equipped "Ecoboost" branded V6 engine, which previously popped up in the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO, the 2010 Ford Flex, the 2011 F-150, and a pair of Lincoln branded vehicles (the MKS and MKT).

Ford did not list the exact horespower of its latest tuned Ecoboost V6, but it's expected to deliver over 350 hp, while offering up 16 mpg city, 25 mpg highway.  

Ford Explorer

Ford says that's anticipated to be 3/2 mpg better (city/highway, respectively) than Chrysler's Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango R/T with 5.7L Hemi engines, and 3/4 mpg better than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport (Land Rover is a Tata Motor Comp. (BSE:500570) subsidiary previously owned by Ford).

Aside from beating its rivals by double digit percentages in the fuel economy department, the new SUV is rated to tow up to 5,000 pounds.

Ford Explorer 2

The model also comes with special new trim and the rejuvenated distribution of MyFord Touch, which was added to the base Explorer model in 2011.  The vehicle also has a high-tech set of options, which include Active Park Assist (APS), Blind Spot Information System (BLIS), and Push Button Start.

In July of last year, Ford introduced a "lesser" four-cylinder EcoBoost version of the Explorer.

Source: Ford

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This is good?
By SoCalBoomer on 3/28/2012 5:09:17 PM , Rating: 3
16 mpg city, 25 mpg highway

Seriously? My Dodge Ram 2500 Cummins gets far better than that city and just under that highway. He routinely gets 18-19 mpg city and around 20 highway - and it's a 97. (Yes, I've made a small modification to the fuel ramp but it's a very common mod)

RE: This is good?
By chrnochime on 3/28/2012 5:23:25 PM , Rating: 3
Can't really tell you why it's worse than your diesel truck, but considering it's ~4900lbs which is really heavy, I don't think the mpg rating is that absurd. The new Durango gets about the same mpg, and that weights even more I think.

I'd love to see a diesel crossover available here like in Europe, but alas, that will most likely never happen.

RE: This is good?
By aebiv on 3/28/2012 5:21:02 PM , Rating: 2
Really heavy vs a truck with a Cummins 6bt engine? :\

You need to re-define "really heavy."

RE: This is good?
By chrnochime on 3/28/2012 5:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yay really heavy compared to cars I mean. I know the cummins is like 6600lb which is a full 1700lbs heavier, but that is body on frame vs unibody. As an unibody vehicle the explorer's weight is right up there.

RE: This is good?
By Samus on 3/28/2012 6:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
you can't compare apples to oranges here. no matter what you do to a petrol engine (even implementing diesel technologies such as direct injection and turbo charging) it will never beat a diesel.

there is headroom in tuning ecoboost, but their is more headroom with diesel. i've heard of Golf TDI's getting 60mpg with new injectors, tuning and good driving habits. no petrol engine will ever do that in a 3,600lb car for the same reason this 5,000lb truck will never get 30mpg. 25mpg in this suv with 350+hp on tap is pretty good. my 2001 explorer 5.0 had 220hp and could never break 20mpg. it was also substantially less safe.

i really don't understand manufactures' reluctancy to at least offer a diesel option in these to test the waters of demand. there is no accurate way to gauge consumer buying habits until you actually sell a product. even if its special order, put one on the lot for a test drive and i bet a surprising number of people will order them.

RE: This is good?
By robertgu on 3/28/2012 7:46:33 PM , Rating: 3
i really don't understand manufactures' reluctancy to at least offer a diesel option in these to test the waters of demand.

Say it with me: "Regulations, regulations, regulations."

With the new pollution regulations in markets like California, the "Diesel Advantage" is nearly killed off. What do I mean? With the requirements of DPF (Diesel Particulate Filters) driving down MPG. Research if you don't understand why DPF would drop MPGs so much. The requirement to have to buy and fill Urea, and the fact that diesel fuel regs have pushed it's costs to be considerably greater than even high-test gas (91+ octane). At least in California the majority of diesel economic advantages have been removed. Considering whatever direction California moves for auto sales, the rest of the country follows cause of economics of scale, we thus do not diesel being a very popular option with consumers and automakers.

Disclosure: I owned two diesel F250 trucks, built before the new regulations a 2003 and 2005. My observed MPG kills my friend's 2011 F250 with all the new emissions equipment.

RE: This is good?
By Dan Banana on 4/1/2012 10:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
you can't compare apples to oranges here. no matter what you do to a petrol engine (even implementing diesel technologies such as direct injection and turbo charging) it will never beat a diesel.

Your generalization falls a bit short where the latest gasoline engine technologies like Mazda's non-diesel SkyActiv G are concerned. Efficiencies as good as the Skyactiv diesel won't be achieved but current gasoline efficiencies are greatly expanded, even over some diesels and the engine costs are less.

RE: This is good?
By Argon18 on 3/28/2012 5:40:09 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly. When will Detroit wake up and realize that ALL trucks and suv's should have modern clean quiet turbo diesel engines, like most vehicles in europe. More reliable, longer lasting, much better fuel economy, way more torque, all things that a truck or suv buyer would value. My '06 mercedes e320 CDI makes 369 ft/lbs of torque and gets nearly 40 mpg. Put a similar engine into the f-150, explorer, etc. and people WILL buy it.

RE: This is good?
By chrnochime on 3/28/2012 5:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
Friend was in europe and told me he rented a 1.6(or is it 1.5) liter diesel punto or something. I'd be happy if my DD has a 2.0T diesel under the hood here in the US...

RE: This is good?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2012 6:17:57 PM , Rating: 3
My '06 mercedes e320 CDI makes 369 ft/lbs of torque and gets nearly 40 mpg.

33 MPG isn't "nearly" 40 MPG. Stick to the facts please.

Secondly the reason diesel doesn't get adopted in America has nothing to do with the manufacturers. It's the goddamned EPA who's made it cost prohibitive to certify small cheap engines.

Plus the ENTIRE fuel tax structure is stacked against diesel here, unlike Europe.

RE: This is good?
By aebiv on 3/28/2012 6:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I know another E320 owner who gets an average of 38mpg, so yes, I would consider that "nearly" 40 MPG.

And yes, our brilliant government pushes against Diesel since we love Ethanol so much :|

RE: This is good?
By twhittet on 3/28/2012 10:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I know another E320 owner

Who cares? Why can't people understand the difference between "my friend once got" and EPA numbers?

RE: This is good?
By aebiv on 3/28/2012 11:06:58 PM , Rating: 1
When has the government been accurate?

RE: This is good?
By Spuke on 3/28/2012 11:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
When has the government been accurate?
Irrelevant. You can take the EPA numbers of various cars and compare them. I can't use personally observed numbers at all cause they VARY anywhere from straight up lies to hypermiler drivers.

RE: This is good?
By Dr of crap on 3/29/2012 8:13:21 AM , Rating: 2
WHOA, wait - really?!!?

You think the EPA sticker on cars is ACCURATE! REALLY!

Your need a good dose of reality!

"once got" and "I get mostly...." is the usual numbers for that car with that driver. And mostly likely NOT EPA sticker numbers.

RE: This is good?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2012 8:48:58 AM , Rating: 2
It may not be accurate, but it's far less myopic than these "my friend got" style arguments.

Would you believe I got 100 MPG in my Impreza yesterday? I saw it happen, do you deny me? I got 100 MPG! You cannot argue. If I say it, it MUST be true, according to your logic.

(I started at the top of a mountain, put it in neutral, and coasted the whole way down)

See that's always what's missing in those "my friend got" stories. What exactly they were doing when they "got" that MPG.

RE: This is good?
By chucky2 on 3/29/2012 10:59:38 AM , Rating: 2
While I understand what you are saying about anecdotal evidence, it is widely understood that the EPA testing cycle is not accurate, and this inaccuracy impacts diesels ratings, along with other things such as start/stop technology.

One only needs to head over to Fuelly and start looking at observed numbers vs. EPA for that vehicle/engine vs. Fuelly gas counterpart of same vehicle, and one can see what advantages diesel has over gas.

Even with Tier II Bin 5, there is no real argument when looking at fuel economy and performance (performance in respect to how 98% of normal people drive), diesel trumps gas. The only argument then is one of additional cost. And that will depend on what is bought, and how long one plans to keep their ride...


RE: This is good?
By bah12 on 3/29/2012 11:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
It's not meant to be accurate. It is meant to be accurate ONLY when comparing it to other EPA numbers not ignorant anecdotal real world examples like the OP has given. ANY car can be driven better or worse than the EPA rating, thus comparing any real world example to it is retarded.

RE: This is good?
By chucky2 on 3/29/2012 12:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
Not meant to be accurate? Then what is even the point? The tests should be as accurate as possible, since those numbers are what J6P (Joe Six Pack) are basing their mpg knowledge off of. That's an amazing statement.

Real world examples are important to the person who had the real world experience. They shouldn't just be discounted because you don't like them.

If you want a better sample size, go look at Fuelly. Same vehicle, different fuel. You can't argue against that trending and say diesels a.) don't have a mpg/performance advantage over gas, and b.) aren't putting up impressive mpg/performance numbers.

Not that I'm a fan of EU and 'The Rest of the World' BS people go ranting against the US about, but, 'TRotW' has already figured out the best fuel to use, and it's diesel. Equipped properly with necessary (not, unnecessary) emissions equipment, there really is no reason to chose gas over diesel. Unless you are not keeping the vehicle long term or are a drag racer.


RE: This is good?
By theapparition on 3/29/2012 1:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
The previous poster stated it a bit incorrectly.

The EPA numbers are hyper-accurate, and repeatable. However, they may not reflect real world use. Some people will get much better numbers, some will get much worse.

So what's the point? It provides a controlled set of conditions to compare vehicle A to vehicle B. In scientific parlance, it's called a control. Without that, every manufacturer would have their own tests and claims would be continually manipulated.

But internet posts that aren't scientifically valid, are under widely varying conditions, along with a heap of exaggeration, shouldn't be taken as absolute claims about mpg. Yes, real world results are important, but only if you have the exact same driving habits, live in the same climate with the same density altitude, and experience all the same conditions. Otherwise, someone else's experience is going to be completely irrelevant to you.

RE: This is good?
By chucky2 on 3/29/2012 2:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, you are correct here, the EPA testing proceedures, which result in the mpg rating, act as a control. The point is, if the control for the highway number consistently results in very high %'s of gas vehicles not able to hit the highway number in Reality, and consistently results in very high %'s of diesel vehicles blowing past their control numbers in Reality (thus doing a disservice on the window sticker), something is very wrong with your control.

Of course, one could argue that the gas and diesel drivers are driving different on the highway. With the sample sizes available on Fuelly, plus reported type of driving, I submit that the EPA (and whoever is pulling their strings) doesn't want to be bothered to fix their controls.

Controls...they're controlling something, just not Reality.

RE: This is good?
By bah12 on 3/29/2012 3:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
Let me clarify. The other poster explained it better, but the point of EPA numbers are for comparison nothing more. Accuracy really has nothing to do with it. In fact the test could come up with a index number. Where Car A had 159.2 and Car B had 160.3 the usefulness would be that as a buyer you would know that Car B is better.

Real world is obviously all that really matters. My whole axe to grind here is that people compare the 2 numbers as if they were comparable, they simply aren't. It doesn't make either one "useless", but it does wholeheartedly make them incomparable. And yes generally speaking diesel has a higher efficiency under the same load, and I'd love to see more.

Of course I'd argue that a lot of that advantage diesel has from turbo charging and direct injection which is very mature if not standard in diesel, but pretty new to mass produced gas engines. That's precisely why Ford's solution is a step in the right direction it may not close the gap completely but does the best you can expect from gas.

Let's also not forget that even when a diesel beats a gas, it still has to beat it by a large enough % to cover the current gap in price otherwise what's the point.

RE: This is good?
By chucky2 on 3/29/2012 3:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
And this is my problem with the EPA numbers and hence test protocol. If gas engined car A has a mpg for highway of 38, and the same vehicle with a diesel, car B, has a mpg for highway of 42, a buyer is going to say, Oh, car A gets 4 mpg less on the highway than car B.

But in Reality, car B driver the way most drivers drive on the highway, is not going to get 38, it's going to get 33, 34, maybe 35 or 36 if it's really lucky. Same car, same driving style, same Reality, car B is getting 44-46 mpg. So the difference in Reality, where it actually counts, isn't 4, it's 8 or 9 or 10 mpg.

Now go back when doing the purchase, and completely taking out the performance one gets while getting "42 mpg" vs "38 mpg", people do the math and say, Wow, between the slightly increased purchase price (for cars), plus the increased cost of fuel, not sure if diesel is worth it.

Yet in Reality, if they'd factored in the 8-10mpg difference, they'd d@mn sure be wanting the diesel. And again, that excludes the performance benefits the economical diesel has over the economical gasser.

The EPA has failed here, and in doing so, screwed up public perception and by that, screwed up their pocket book... (well, US auto manufacturers hand in hand helped also, but not bringing over their CD offerings, but that's another subject entirely...however related).

RE: This is good?
By chucky2 on 3/29/2012 4:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
Typo in my second paragraph above: First 'car B' should be 'car A'.

RE: This is good?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2012 4:11:48 PM , Rating: 1
Sigh...really man?

The EPA cannot factor in every possible driving habit, traffic conditions, weather patterns etc etc that effect mileage.

But what they DO provide for the purposes of this discussion is a controlled method, across the board, for determining mileage. Is it always accurate? No. Is it more reliable than "Pappy Joe said he got 30mpg today"? YES.

Real world examples are important to the person who had the real world experience. They shouldn't just be discounted because you don't like them.

Assuming that everyone on the Internet is telling the truth, or KNOWS what they are talking about, is a slippery slope. I can reference EPA numbers, you can look them up and see I'm not full of crap. The same can't be said of he said she said.

RE: This is good?
By chucky2 on 3/29/2012 6:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
The EPA can factor basically everyone on the highway doing 65 miles an hour - at least - and in most cases, more like 70 mph or 80 mph. Their highway numbers suck for accuracy. I don't drive enough city to know if those are as inaccurate as well, but, given how inaccurate their highway numbers are, I've got to think city is just as screwed up.

It's great that numbers can be compared, it really is. And the almost totally clueless public can have a really easy go of it. Too bad they're comparing meaningless number A to meaningless number B, but then factoring that meaningless result into a very meaningful decision. If the window sticker had in big bold red words 'These numbers are totally inaccurate because of our F'd up test protocol, don't even bother using them to base your purchase decisio on', I could see maybe arguing the EPA numbers were somewhat useful.

They're not.

Pretending they're useful in any relevant way when comparing gas vs. diesel is even more insane.

The EPA could actually solve this by breaking their city/highway into a 5 group number system, and then designing Realistic test protocols around each of those five groups. But then, people would actually know that their gas Explorer gets 6 mpg in stop and go traffic. And we can't have that...

RE: This is good?
By PoikilothermicX on 4/2/2012 7:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
If you go to the site you will actually see ACTUAL mileage beside EPA mileage.

The current EPA testing methodology is biased against diesels but benefits hybrids. There are many reasons for this the biggest is you have 2 totally different technologies who excel at very different things. Real world city mileage sucks ass. Unless you have a hybrid or something with start/stop I really don't care what you drive cause it will suck. This morning on my way to work I got 35mpg (according to my cluster) but on Friday I got 19.5mpg. This morning I didn't hit any lights but Friday I spent more time idling than I did actually moving.

Hybrids excel in town. They tend to not be so great on the highway because they have high weight and low power (given their size... Prius... Corolla size, Yaris engine, Camry weight...) while diesels have better weight (tho it's becoming a problem due to all the added emissions equipment) and really excel on the highway as their torque allows them to just cruise down the highway without breaking a sweat.

RE: This is good?
By Dan Banana on 4/1/2012 10:41:26 AM , Rating: 2
Accurate? Yes but not if you have a lead foot or chronic road rage or both simultaneously.

RE: This is good?
By silverblue on 3/29/2012 8:49:07 AM , Rating: 2
Diesel is more expensive than unleaded in the UK, and I should point out that our fuel is massively more expensive than yours to boot. :(

RE: This is good?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2012 6:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
What do you expect? This thing weighs tons and tons and is about as aerodynamic as a brick.

I love how people talk as if we can snap our fingers and wrought amazing MPG out of any car design. I'm pretty sure that all things considered, this is about as good as it gets for this vehicle mileage wise in a non-hybrid solution.

RE: This is good?
By ShoePuke on 3/28/2012 9:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
Why didn't they compare to BMW x5d... because there is no comparison. I have documented getting a best of 29.4mpg on long runs on the hwy (avg. on hwy 27-28), and combined driving avg. 23-24 over the last 16 months (worst tank was 21.2mpg). These are not Imperial gallons either. Man I love diesel... 5000# curb weight, 425 of torque... RRAARRGGHH.

RE: This is good?
By Spuke on 3/28/2012 11:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
Why didn't they compare to BMW x5d
Because the X5d is a diesel?

RE: This is good?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2012 1:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
And let's compare the price of the x5D to an Explorer Sport shall we? lol. Gee I wonder why they didn't directly compare the two...

RE: This is good?
By chucky2 on 3/29/2012 12:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
OK? They will require AWD for the 3.5L TT EB. A "4x4" Explorer Limited with the most expensive package (which will likely get it into BMW territory) puts the Explorer at 46000. That's with the normal 3.5L V-6. Now add on the TT EB cost, and the rest of the Sport package cost. You'll be closer to $50k than $40k.

The x5d is $56k.

Unless you are right on the edge, anyone who is dropping $50k for a Ford should be able to 'stretch' and make $56k for a BMW. I'm a Ford guy, from a Ford household, and I know which I'd rather be driving...

RE: This is good?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2012 1:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO! $56k BASE MSRP. Meaning absolutely NO options or accessories. In reality that vehicle doesn't exist. I've never heard of a BMW dealership stocking a BASE model vehicle with no options. And people certainly don't crawl over themselves to buy them.

You're trying to compare a bone stock BMW that doesn't exist in the wild to a Explorer with a ton of options and packages stacked on? Yeah that's really fair. Let's see what happens to your "$56K" BMW once we do the same...

Hmm an $83k X5d is what I put together. With typical packages and options etc etc that you would find on on a showroom.

RE: This is good?
By chucky2 on 3/29/2012 2:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
That's awesome that you loaded out an x5d. Now load out an Explorer and x5d as equally as possible. Now tack on for the 3.5L TT EB in the Explorer. Now the extras in the Sport package. Now realize you're driving a Ford Explorer when you could be driving a BMW x5d for just a few thousand more. (be sure to factor in free maintenance while under warranty for the BMW)

Now go to sell it, and see how much more you get for the BMW than the Ford.

Now go cry you got the Ford...

The End.

RE: This is good?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2012 4:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but where in the hell do you see me saying the Explorer is the better vehicle? Or a better buy than a BMW? I wasn't aware that was the argument I was making. Why are you bringing up resale value into this as well? Wtf man, that has NOTHING to do with this.

Now go cry you got the Ford...

See wtf are you talking about with this kind of thing? Stop trolling and LISTEN.

My point, and Spuke's, is they really are NOT directly comparable. One is a diesel and a more expensive (regardless of what you think), the other is not. The "Sport" is already a top trim level model, according to Ford. Sorry but there is NO WAY you can get an equivalent X5d for just a "few" thousand more.

RE: This is good?
By Spuke on 3/29/2012 4:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
Now go to sell it, and see how much more you get for the BMW than the Ford.
The Sport is going to be the top model in the range and the expected base price is $40k. The current Limited model starts at $38k. A loaded Limited is $50k so a good guess for a loaded Sport would be $52-$53k. A BASE X5d costs $56k. A loaded one is in the $80k range. NO ONE buys a stripped BMW. No such car exists as Rec mentioned. BMW shoppers don't crosshop to Ford generally (although the Boss 302 does get crosshopped with the M3).

RE: This is good?
By chucky2 on 3/29/2012 6:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
They are mostly comparable in that they're the same size, have power engines, and given the Eco in EcoBoost, supposedly 'green'. That they'll also be in the same ballpark in price is just more justification for comparing them.

If you can afford to drop $53k on a Ford Explorer Sport, you can afford to drop $58-$62k on a BMW x5d. Are those two rides comparable in features? The Sport isn't out yet, so we don't really know.

I'm betting they're pretty darn close in features. Unless one is scraping buy just to get the Sport, you'd have to be insane to get the Ford over the BMW.

<---longtime Ford owner, will continue to buy Ford (hard to beat A plan + incentives)

RE: This is good?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2012 8:06:01 PM , Rating: 1
Okay I'm trying not to sound frustrated, but sir, I cannot even find newly USED X5d's for less than $50k. You are low-balling the cost of the BMW seriously. And why? Just to make a tenuous point?

I guess everyone should buy BMW's and nobody should buy anything else? If you can afford a V6 Accord, you can buy a 3 Series. If you can get a 350Z, you can buy an Z4 Roadster. Etc etc. Like seriously?

RE: This is good?
By Spuke on 3/29/2012 11:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
If you can afford to drop $53k on a Ford Explorer Sport, you can afford to drop $58-$62k on a BMW x5d.
You're STILL missing the point. NO ONE buys a stripped BMW and at $58-62K, that car is still stripped. For $62k you get the Sport Activity and Premium Sound Packages. That's it!!! No Nav, no HUD, no keyless entry, no 4 zone climate control. Or maybe you could skip the Sport Activity and get the Premium Package which gets you the Nav and 4 zone climate control but no HUD or Sport Activity package.

And at $62k you're talking $9k over a LOADED Explorer. You said a person that can afford $53k can afford another $9k?? Well that's ~$400 a month difference in price (people in this price range still make car payments). Definitely NOT chump change and something car buyers in that market just shrug off. LOL! And they definitely do NOT sacrifice amenities for a badge.

RE: This is good?
By chucky2 on 3/30/2012 3:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of people driving around in base BMW's. Yes, the AVERAGE BMW owner isn't buying a base BMW. A base x5d to someone who's buying a Ford Explorer is already going to be loaded - there is no reason for them to upfit it.

Compare as like as possible Explorer Sport (whenever the option is avaiable) to a base x5d. My bet is you don't need to add anything significant to the base x5d to have it compete feature-wise with the Explorer Sport.

Anyone in this economy buying a $53k SUV for onroad use, which, face it, will be the only use the Explorer Sport ever sees, can most likely pony up another $3-$5k for a base or base+ x5d.

The very few who can't, well, they can enjoy their overpriced station wagon.

RE: This is good?
By ShoePuke on 4/12/2012 10:46:48 AM , Rating: 2
I guess more than point to a specific model/manufacturer, I was voicing my displeasure at Detroit choosing over and over not to offer mid/small diesels. Sometimes my diesel evangelistic tendencies cloud my view of topic relativism. I was a Ford driver for nearly half my life (93 Ford Aerostar 545,000 miles that cash for clunkered into a 335d).

RE: This is good?
By Spuke on 3/28/2012 11:10:22 PM , Rating: 3
My Dodge Ram 2500 Cummins gets far better than that city and just under that highway.
What's the EPA rated fuel economy of your diesel pickup? Oh that's right, those trucks are exempt from that. Get back to me after you've run it through the EPA tests.

Why do some people insist on comparing apples to orangutans? Seriously, your post makes you look ignorant.

RE: This is good?
By bah12 on 3/29/2012 11:41:30 AM , Rating: 2
THANK YOU!! I knew when I clicked it the first post would be some moron comparing his real-world MPG to the EPA numbers listed here. Why do idiots still think this is valid? Just about any smart driver can beat the EPA numbers, they are just there for EPA to EPA comparison any other comparison is invalid. Yet here is another 50 post thread, and he's rated up, even though is post is a retarded waste of time.

RE: This is good?
By SoCalBoomer on 4/6/2012 4:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
Why thank you for your educated, erudite, and EPA centric reply. Much appreciated.

Listen, my post was regarding the MPG and the quoted EPA mileage is NOT impressive, even for an SUV/crossover.

My comparison was meant to be a contrast. Let's take a big, heavy truck and compare the mileage I get in it (and it's pretty typical for 12 valve Cummins powered Rams) to this little Explorer (little compared to "real" trucks) which has modern engine technology. I believe I mentioned that my truck was a 97 - so here we are 15 years later and this Explorer can't get more than a couple MPG better than my 1997 behemoth?

The reason I got rated up is because other people actually GOT my post. Too bad you didn't.

“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki