• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.

I've got a 2020 Explorer Loaner


Yup. My wife and I each have very small performance front wheel drive hatchbacks for daily drivers. We're looking at a small SUV that is a bit larger and more comfortable for longer trips with more passengers, and can carry more cargo - a small station wagon, but with a bit of power, an AWD system for good snow/rain traction (not off road), and still decent handling and economy. There's even one with a manual trans we want. That is what people buy these for, not for off road. We don't want it lifted too high as that would ruin the on-road handling.

If for the most part, you're not out of the city (and therefore, like me, needing to deal with snow being blown in), then I found my Fit to be more than capable, with studded winter tires. I haven't looked to be sure, but as of 2015/2016, the current model offered a manual transmission. Their cargo space is CAVERNOUS, and my 2010 was quite comfortable for a 2.5 hour road trip. HOWEVER, while it was fine for me when I lived in the city, living now in a small town, in a part of town that's quite open, I'm not sure that the Fit would cut it.

In the same way nobody buys full size trucks for use as trucks, they're just 4dr sedans. Even when you see a truck with one of the serious off-road packages it's likely just for show and is rarely if ever taken off road.

That's just it. For all the complaining around here that Ford doesn't offer what a few off roaders want, and somebody telling me that if I'm not planning to do what they think an SUV is meant for I should buy a sedan so that EVERY SUV can be equipped to be truck like, that's not what people want.

Ford is responding to customer needs/wants. Ford is building vehicles for what most people are using them for. And, like you and me, most people aren't going off road, but we need the capability and room. Remember back before the 2011 Explorer came out? Ford's model line for SUVS was:
Escape: Small unibody with car like handling
Edge: Bigger than the Escape. Unibody. Car like handling
Taurus X: One step up from the Edge, essentially a Ford Frestyle. Unibody. Car like handling
Flex: Similar size to Freestyle (Taurus X). Unibody. Car like handling
Explorer: Bigger than the Flex. Body on Frame. Truck like handling.
Expedition: Bigger than the Explorer. Body on Frame. Truck like handling.
Expedition Maxx/XL (replaced excursion): Biggest SUV in Ford's lineup. Body on Frame. Truck like handling.

Here's the thing that we need to remember, too. Ford did something smart. Each of their SUVS that were unibody corresponded in a way to a sedan.

Escape=Focus
Edge=Fusion
Freestyle/Taurus X=Taurus/500
Flex=Crown Vic

NONE of these sedans, prior to 2012, were available as a hatchback or wagon (Taurus wagon was cut in 2006/07). In 2012, Ford brought out the Focus hatch (Focus previously (2000-2007) had a hatch and a wagon, though). And neither of the wagons available had AWD. So, Ford did something smart, building an SUV/Crossover to correspond to each sedan (exept the Fiesta). But, what they found was that nobody was buying the Flex, they went up to the Explorer, so the Explorer was moved to unibody, and gained car like handling.

If you think about it, killing off the sedans, and making their corresponding crossovers more car like, is a smart move, and not just because it streamlines the model lineup. Making the biggest SUVS more car like? Well, they're not off-roaders any more, they're people movers. The minivan craze ended, because people were shifting to SUVS. That's why Explorer and Expedition became more car like.
 
Last edited:
It looks, by the way, like the EcoSport might be an even better option. It's on the Fiesta platform. Smaller than an Escape, but higher ground clearance, and less money. It's a quirky look (but so is the 2020 Escape), but it might grow on me. Mind you, it's probably going to be a while before I can buy another brand new vehicle.
 
If for the most part, you're not out of the city (and therefore, like me, needing to deal with snow being blown in), then I found my Fit to be more than capable, with studded winter tires. I haven't looked to be sure, but as of 2015/2016, the current model offered a manual transmission. Their cargo space is CAVERNOUS, and my 2010 was quite comfortable for a 2.5 hour road trip. HOWEVER, while it was fine for me when I lived in the city, living now in a small town, in a part of town that's quite open, I'm not sure that the Fit would cut it.



That's just it. For all the complaining around here that Ford doesn't offer what a few off roaders want, and somebody telling me that if I'm not planning to do what they think an SUV is meant for I should buy a sedan so that EVERY SUV can be equipped to be truck like, that's not what people want.

Ford is responding to customer needs/wants. Ford is building vehicles for what most people are using them for. And, like you and me, most people aren't going off road, but we need the capability and room. Remember back before the 2011 Explorer came out? Ford's model line for SUVS was:
Escape: Small unibody with car like handling
Edge: Bigger than the Escape. Unibody. Car like handling
Taurus X: One step up from the Edge, essentially a Ford Frestyle. Unibody. Car like handling
Flex: Similar size to Freestyle (Taurus X). Unibody. Car like handling
Explorer: Bigger than the Flex. Body on Frame. Truck like handling.
Expedition: Bigger than the Explorer. Body on Frame. Truck like handling.
Expedition Maxx/XL (replaced excursion): Biggest SUV in Ford's lineup. Body on Frame. Truck like handling.

Here's the thing that we need to remember, too. Ford did something smart. Each of their SUVS that were unibody corresponded in a way to a sedan.

Escape=Focus
Edge=Fusion
Freestyle/Taurus X=Taurus/500
Flex=Crown Vic

NONE of these sedans, prior to 2012, were available as a hatchback or wagon (Taurus wagon was cut in 2006/07). In 2012, Ford brought out the Focus hatch (Focus previously (2000-2007) had a hatch and a wagon, though). And neither of the wagons available had AWD. So, Ford did something smart, building an SUV/Crossover to correspond to each sedan (exept the Fiesta). But, what they found was that nobody was buying the Flex, they went up to the Explorer, so the Explorer was moved to unibody, and gained car like handling.

If you think about it, killing off the sedans, and making their corresponding crossovers more car like, is a smart move, and not just because it streamlines the model lineup. Making the biggest SUVS more car like? Well, they're not off-roaders any more, they're people movers. The minivan craze ended, because people were shifting to SUVS. That's why Explorer and Expedition became more car like.
We're out in the sticks on a gravel lane off a small road, but for the most part neither of us is going to be out if the snow is too deep for the car. It's usually light snow and ice that's a problem here. If it gets deep I'll dig out the lane with the loader or my neighbor will plow it. The ST and my 500 Abarth are fine until it's too deep, and both get great mileage, but they're both small and a bit harsh on long trips. They made the Jeep Renegade for a couple of years with the same 1.4L turbo 4 as my Abarth and a 6sp with AWD. It won't get the mileage of a Fit but not too bad either. We've no need for anything bigger than that, plus their resale value sucks and they can be had for a reasonable price.
 
So if the entire under body is at 8 inches, nine inches you're not getting through nine inches of snow. But if a small piece (or a few small pieces) is at 8 inches, but the rest of the body is at 12 inches, you can get through a drift up to the bottom of the body itself? Is that the idea?

That is the general idea. Less surface area to bottom out and drag through a drift with a smaller single point than a pretty much flat bottom vehicle. It depends on what the lowest point is too. On my Honda CR-Vs, it was the exhaust pipe where it looped under the rear propeller shaft. Fine for snow but you don't want to hit a rock or a big chunk of ice and risk ripping your exhaust off.
 
My wife's Fiesta ST obviously has little clearance, but with 4 Prielli snow tires the thing is unstoppable in snow or ice otherwise.

The 4WD vs AWD debate has been going on forever. The difference is if you have a differential or not. If not then power is sent to each wheel regardless of if it has traction, but then it cannot turn at a different speed. This works the same on each axle as it does from front to back - in turns all 4 wheels must turn at a different speed if the tire is not slipping. As soon as you introduce a differential into the system, then power is not sent to both
wheels/axles, it is sent to the one with least traction. You must add something else to try to fix that, but all such systems are reacting to slip before they work, whether it be friction (clutch packs, Torsen), viscous couplings, or a processor activating the brake on the spinning wheel. It must already be slipping before it works.

On the road AWD beats 4WD most of the time because without a differential you can't have it engaged for a lot of nasty conditions.

I used to be into full sized Jeeps (Grand Wagoneers), and all the ones I had came with the NP229 viscous coupled transfer case and the front axles turned all the time. With a limited slip in the back they had impressive traction in any on-road condition, and probably were decent off road but serious off road is not my thing. We had a 2004 Santa Fe that had a similar system and was also great in snow. Both were gas pigs, though the Jeeps were obviously worse. The computer controlled systems that engage clutches and/or activate brakes can get around that mileage problem.

AWD is equal to or superior to 4X4 in a lot of ways until you get into a situation that requires low gearing. My CR-Vs with winter tires were veritable Billy Goats in ice and snow and I was never stuck with them.
 
AWD is equal to or superior to 4X4 in a lot of ways until you get into a situation that requires low gearing. My CR-Vs with winter tires were veritable Billy Goats in ice and snow and I was never stuck with them.
The only time I used 4WD LO on my Jeep was when I towed my friend's full sized Bronco out of my yard. ;missingteeth; It had a part time case and an open rear diff.
 
The only time I used 4WD LO on my Jeep was when I towed my friend's full sized Bronco out of my yard. ;missingteeth; It had a part time case and an open rear diff.

Yeah, 4WD low is more for trails than anything else. Perhaps the occasional tree that needs dragged as well. Did that a couple of summers ago at a friend's camp. My clutch was less than happy a couple of times.
 
AWD is equal to or superior to 4X4 in a lot of ways until you get into a situation that requires low gearing. My CR-Vs with winter tires were veritable Billy Goats in ice and snow and I was never stuck with them.

I drove a CRV before I bought the fit (2008). I had it out on the highway, and when I came back into the city I asked the salesman for permission to take it somewhere where I knew there'd be deep ruts, and a fair amount of snow. It hardly flinched (but I don't think the snow was 12 inches deep). I'd have bought it (it handled REALLY nice, but my wife didn't like the price, so I bought the Fit.
 
That is the general idea. Less surface area to bottom out and drag through a drift with a smaller single point than a pretty much flat bottom vehicle. It depends on what the lowest point is too. On my Honda CR-Vs, it was the exhaust pipe where it looped under the rear propeller shaft. Fine for snow but you don't want to hit a rock or a big chunk of ice and risk ripping your exhaust off.

Thanks. I'll keep tuck that away somewhere, and when I'm buying, I'll know what to look for.
 
We're out in the sticks on a gravel lane off a small road, but for the most part neither of us is going to be out if the snow is too deep for the car. It's usually light snow and ice that's a problem here. If it gets deep I'll dig out the lane with the loader or my neighbor will plow it. The ST and my 500 Abarth are fine until it's too deep, and both get great mileage, but they're both small and a bit harsh on long trips. They made the Jeep Renegade for a couple of years with the same 1.4L turbo 4 as my Abarth and a 6sp with AWD. It won't get the mileage of a Fit but not too bad either. We've no need for anything bigger than that, plus their resale value sucks and they can be had for a reasonable price.

That's pretty much the situation my friends are in. Well, the road past their house is a more major grid, but they're 8 miles to pavement. They bought a Focus because they couldn't get an Escape for the price they wanted to pay. I think they looked at an Edge, but didn't like it. They find that the Focus is too low when the road gets really wet and mucky. The grid they travel the farthest on is a major grid, so it's fairly well maintained, but then they go just short of a mile on their grid road (grids are gravel roads) before they get to their lane.

I looked at a Focus when the 2012 came out, and I drove my step mothers (but not on the highway). They handle nice, and the hatchback has lots of cargo space. BUT, the back seat had less leg room than my Fit, and it's a bigger car.

I also looked at the Fiat 500 (I think your Abarth is a sub model of the 500, right?). They're quirky, almost cute. Somewhat comfortable driving position, but NO room in the back seat, and with the back seat up, less than half of the room that my fit had with the back seat up.
 
That's pretty much the situation my friends are in. Well, the road past their house is a more major grid, but they're 8 miles to pavement. They bought a Focus because they couldn't get an Escape for the price they wanted to pay. I think they looked at an Edge, but didn't like it. They find that the Focus is too low when the road gets really wet and mucky. The grid they travel the farthest on is a major grid, so it's fairly well maintained, but then they go just short of a mile on their grid road (grids are gravel roads) before they get to their lane.

I looked at a Focus when the 2012 came out, and I drove my step mothers (but not on the highway). They handle nice, and the hatchback has lots of cargo space. BUT, the back seat had less leg room than my Fit, and it's a bigger car.

I also looked at the Fiat 500 (I think your Abarth is a sub model of the 500, right?). They're quirky, almost cute. Somewhat comfortable driving position, but NO room in the back seat, and with the back seat up, less than half of the room that my fit had with the back seat up.
With 8mi to pavement I'd be looking for something with more clearance, a suspension beefy enough to handle rougher surfaces and some truck tires. Even without the mud or snow dirt roads get rutted and bumpy and will be hard on a car suspension. Still, It's not rock crawling and I'd probably prefer AWD there too.

The Fit is a nice car and I have often thought I'd like to have one, and I know they have good cargo space. It's smaller than the Focus and about the size of my wife's Feista. My Abarth is the performance version of the Fiat 500 and is another 16" shorter than the Fiesta! I bought it for commuting, although adults can sit in the back fairly comfortably - but it only has 2 doors. With both you can get quite a bit in there with the seats folded down, but with passengers there's not much cargo room left.
 

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

TRS Events

Member & Vendor Upgrades

For a small yearly donation, you can support this forum and receive a 'Supporting Member' banner, or become a 'Supporting Vendor' and promote your products here. Click the banner to find out how.

Recently Featured

Want to see your truck here? Share your photos and details in the forum.

Ranger Adventure Video

TRS Merchandise

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Sponsors


Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad


Amazon Deals

Sponsored Ad

Back
Top