bye bye exploder

souldoubt88 · Jul 27, 2009

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/07/end-of-the-road-for-ford-explorer-sport-trac-pickup-truck-in-2010.html

Ford is killing off the midsize, crew cab, body-on-frame pickup truck after a decade of manufacture as the company prepares to relaunch the Explorer nameplate as an all-new unibody crossover, and in the wake of dramatically slowing demand for the Sport Trac model.

"unibody crossover" :bawling:

Will · Jul 27, 2009

Yeah, well. Ford is a business. They had to go to the brink to realize that a plank-on-frame light-duty truck isn't as good as a unibody. Only vehicles that endure loads capable of distorting the unibody design need to have frame rails. A Ranger would be fine as a unibody too, as would the F150.

And F250 and above is an anything goes vehicle. It has to be designed to way exceed it's printed specifications because you just don't know what people are going to do. Like watch the asshole at the quarry pour in 7,500# of crushed stone and suddenly wonder why the hubcaps have disappeared under the lip of the fender. Or drive a 9,500# trackloader to the front of the trailer before realizing the front tires of the truck are up in the air. These things don't often happen in an Explorer Sport Trac.

85_Ranger4x4 · Jul 27, 2009

They had kind of had an odd niche, they were too small to do very much, and too expensive (IMO) for what they where.

Odd though, they just redesigned the Sport Trac a couple of years ago.

Ford made unibody fullsize trucks way back I think in the '60's. I kind of like having seperate bodypanels on a truck, so it isn't really rocket science to get a fender replaced, or once they get some age on them a bed.

The new F-150's are safe, quiet and comfy enough there really isn't a reason to justify going unibody on them... especially with the people that are more concerned about a truck riding like a car flocking away from them for the forseeable future anyway.

rusty ol ranger · Aug 2, 2009

What are they doing with the expedition?

Really, the explorer (or the expedtion) hasnt been a decent SUV since they were redesigned around 03 or so. When they switched to IRS and a go-kart ride height.

later,
Dustin

Will · Aug 2, 2009

85_Ranger4x4 said:
Ford made unibody fullsize trucks way back I think in the '60's. I kind of like having seperate bodypanels on a truck, so it isn't really rocket science to get a fender replaced, or once they get some age on them a bed.

Those '61-'63 Fords were not unit-bodies. They were plank on frame construction but the cab and bed were one piece. I do not know why they stopped that project but I can guess that loads in the bed were causing problems with opening doors and such.

A unit-body, unibody, whatever just means that the frame is welded to the body. You need less frame when you weld it to the body, and in small cars there are two subframes--one for the rear suspension and one for the motor and front suspension. The old compacts--Falcon, Fairlane, Mustang were like this. If Ford had welded the frame to their integral cab/bed on the '61-'63 trucks it would have worked. The frame would have stiffened the cab and the cab would have stiffened the frame--and the frame could have been lighter.

There were contemporaries that were successful. The VW bus was a one-ton capacity van and had a C-channel frame welded to the body. the early Econolines were unibodies as well.

There's nothing wrong with having the frame and body in one piece. It's not a symbol of weakness. An Abrams main battle tank is of that construction, as is the USS Iowa.

exbass94 · Aug 2, 2009

rusty ol ranger said:
What are they doing with the expedition?

Really, the explorer (or the expedtion) hasnt been a decent SUV since they were redesigned around 03 or so. When they switched to IRS and a go-kart ride height.

later,
Dustin

Have you ever even ridden in a newer Explorer? They are a far better and nicer vehicle than the older Explorers. If you want to go off-roading, then yes an older Explorer is way better. But for on-road driving (which is what 99% of Explorer owners only do) the new Explorer is 1000x better. My uncle has a 2006 Explorer and it's light years ahead of my 1994 in terms of build quality, handling, power, and acceleration.

ozzy85 · Aug 3, 2009

They should offer woodgrain on new Explorers, they're just station wagons anymore. The new Country Squire.

85_Ranger4x4 · Aug 3, 2009

Will said:
Those '61-'63 Fords were not unit-bodies. They were plank on frame construction but the cab and bed were one piece. I do not know why they stopped that project but I can guess that loads in the bed were causing problems with opening doors and such.

A unit-body, unibody, whatever just means that the frame is welded to the body. You need less frame when you weld it to the body, and in small cars there are two subframes--one for the rear suspension and one for the motor and front suspension. The old compacts--Falcon, Fairlane, Mustang were like this. If Ford had welded the frame to their integral cab/bed on the '61-'63 trucks it would have worked. The frame would have stiffened the cab and the cab would have stiffened the frame--and the frame could have been lighter.

There were contemporaries that were successful. The VW bus was a one-ton capacity van and had a C-channel frame welded to the body. the early Econolines were unibodies as well.

There's nothing wrong with having the frame and body in one piece. It's not a symbol of weakness. An Abrams main battle tank is of that construction, as is the USS Iowa.

I used to work with a guy that had restored a F-250 or else I wouldn't have known they existed. He said coupled with the 3/4 springs it rode rougher than a normal split bodied truck which is why he thought they never caught on. He sold it before I met him so I dunno if it is true or not, I do know both of my trucks do a fair amount of flexing between the cab and the bed which probably takes some of the harshness out of the ride.

Tanks and warships wouldn't function if they had to rely on a traditional frame. They use their armor for a frame, like a turtle uses its shell for a skeleton.

Unibody construction is fine for cars and stuff (Explorer's included) but I really don't see what the advantage would be for a truck... aside from making it impossible to make different bed configurations for different uses unless they still made a normal "plank on frame" truck beside it. Gooseneck/fifth wheel hitches would also be out.

souldoubt88 · Aug 3, 2009

It was more the "crossover" part i was refering to..... does that mean FWD, i hope not.
Fords current "crossover's"
Edge

Tauras X

Hence the tears. No Bronco + no explorer= :sad:

Mudhound · Aug 3, 2009

Man, I thought that they couldn't screw up the "X" more than they allready have. It has gone from capable iwth a little modding, to "Hey y'all. Git in. We's gonin' to tha mawl."

Evan · Aug 3, 2009

They had already ruined the Explorer anyway. Might as well make it unibody.

Unibody, independent suspension, etc. is better for the average Joe. It rides better, gets better gas mileage, etc.

But for offroading a frame on body is definitely better. Main reason being you can work on it easier as you have a real frame to tie to for suspension fabbing, etc. Other nice thing is that you can swap the body...many hardcore wheelers go thru bodies every 5-10 years.

The good news though it that first gen Explorers are a dime a dozen and in easy supply, just waiting to be locked, lifted, and have big rubber thrown under them. So it doesn't matter if Ford ruins the new Explorers for the offroad community.

rusty ol ranger · Aug 11, 2009

exbass94 said:
Have you ever even ridden in a newer Explorer? They are a far better and nicer vehicle than the older Explorers. If you want to go off-roading, then yes an older Explorer is way better. But for on-road driving (which is what 99% of Explorer owners only do) the new Explorer is 1000x better. My uncle has a 2006 Explorer and it's light years ahead of my 1994 in terms of build quality, handling, power, and acceleration.

No, but i have riddin in a Newer expedition.

Not really impressed. It rode nicer, and was a lil quicker then my 97, but it lacked ground clearance, and the "solid" truck like feeling.

later,
Dustin

Speedwagon · Aug 12, 2009

Maybe they will introduce something like so:

Or, at least we can hope.

yellowford · Aug 14, 2009

The 02 up explorers came from the factory with more ground clearance than 2ng explorers. They can fit 31's easy stock and 33's with a minor body lift and strut spacers. I currently own one and miss my 2nd gen it towed much nice with the 5.0 and my 3rd gen has a stiffer ride compared to the more bouncy ride of the 96.

bye bye exploder

Member

Forum Staff Member

Forum Staff Member

2.9 Mafia-Don

Forum Staff Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Forum Staff Member

Member

New Member

New Member

2.9 Mafia-Don

Member

New Member

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Member & Vendor Upgrades

Truck of The Month

Recently Featured

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Events

25th Anniversary Sponsors

Check Out The TRS Store

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Amazon Deals