Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Saturday December 3, 2016
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads. 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-20-2015, 07:23 AM   #1
AVANTI R5
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 73805
Join Date: Nov 2004
Vehicle:
2017 911 Turbo
Miami Blue/ pdk

Default Is this the new Ford Everest or Bronco?

Quote:
I remember when I realized that Ford SUVs in this country have names that start with the letter E.

It happened when Ford discontinued the Excursion in 2007. I realized that the remaining Fords were the Escape, Explorer, Edge, and Expedition. Those SUVs made up Fordís alliteration-happy little world and I wondered what the company would choose next. My thought was something along the lines of Everest.

Itís a name that conveys strength and capability, itís foreboding and nearly impossible to conquer. Itís the perfect name for a SUV, but it never came to fruition in the United States.

The Ford Everest has, however, existed in Asia, South Africa, and Australia since 2003. Could it finally come here?


An Australian website says,

While no doubt ready for everyday duty, Ford has given the Everest serious off-road ability you wonít find in softer rivals such as the Toyota Kluger. It starts with a proper four-wheel-drive system, not the sort of road-focused, slip sensing and front axle-biased reactive setup you might find in a smaller Honda HR-V or Volkswagen Tiguan. An 800-millimetre [31.5-inch] water wading depth should make creek crossings a breeze, while 225mm [8.9 inches] of ground clearance is handy to have too. The Everestís four-mode terrain select system, hill descent control and electronic rear differential lock promise to put it among the best in its class when the going gets rough.

With talk of the Ford Ranger coming back to the United States, it would make sense that the Everest would follow. After all, the Everest and the Ranger share a platform, so adding production here would be a breeze.

To make things a little more interesting, we also know that Ford is considering a new Bronco on the Ranger assembly line. Itís possible that the Bronco will simply be the Everest, rebadged for the U.S. If thatís the case it could go up against the Jeep Grand Cherokee. Itís also possible that the Bronco could be something completely new that more closely resembles the open-top Jeep Wrangler.

It makes sense for Ford to leverage the Rangerís platform and sell the Bronco and Everest as separate vehicles. If, that is, the company can get away from vehicles that only start with ďE.Ē

Would you be happy if the new Ford Bronco was a re-badged Ford Everest?
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
AVANTI R5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 09-20-2015, 09:11 AM   #2
scatsob
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 164986
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: International
Location: everywhere
Vehicle:
2017 undecided
some sort of blue

Default

Looks 4-runnerish. I like it.
scatsob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2015, 10:13 AM   #3
daveyboy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 35419
Join Date: Apr 2003
Default

Quote:
Would you be happy if the new Ford Bronco was a re-badged Ford Everest?

F no!

Real Broncos have always had a removable top!


Either chop the top or call it something else... .
daveyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2015, 12:09 PM   #4
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2014 GLK/allroad
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

It's good looking
Body on frame like a 4 runner is a must
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2015, 05:55 PM   #5
4S-TURBO
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: west coast sound
Vehicle:
1977 Marantz + JBL L
LEDs on waffles

Default

Durango-ishy.
4S-TURBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2015, 09:58 PM   #6
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2014 GLK/allroad
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

Good call turbo
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 12:30 PM   #7
blubaru703
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 71380
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: International
Default

New expedition???
blubaru703 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 12:38 PM   #8
Obababoy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 158888
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Baltimore area
Vehicle:
2011 STi EFR 7163!
07 GT30 WRX sold :/

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
It's good looking
Body on frame like a 4 runner is a must
Not a must...Jeep Grand Cherokee does great with its air ride...I would probably prefer the simplicity of body on frame but I don't think any NEW designs will be body on frame..
Obababoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 12:52 PM   #9
subyski
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 202642
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Centennial, Colorado
Vehicle:
08 Impreza,80Vette
68 Impala, 15 SantaFe

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4S-TURBO View Post
Durango-ishy.
That's what I see too.

I think this would be a great Bronco. Keep the price in check and give the body on frame 4Runner some competition. The Tahoe/Yukon's are too expensive and not really offroad vehicles but more body on frame street family hauler vehicles.
subyski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 02:05 PM   #10
RallyColtTurbo
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 16819
Join Date: Mar 2002
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Lake Elsinore, CA
Default

Why the body on frame love?

A PROPERLY designed unitbody SUV should be more rigid, lighter, more space efficient, and less expensive than a comparable body on frame design. (this coming from a loyal LR3 owner who thinks it's almost perfect, even @5500 pounds and body on frame)
RallyColtTurbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 02:21 PM   #11
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2014 GLK/allroad
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

Well sure, engineering can be made to work with a unibody no doubt, but a body on frame can produce the strength and tow rating far cheaper than a unibody. At least I would think it would I would also bet a body on frame could handle more abuse and tow more. But I am not a 4x4 expert.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 02:22 PM   #12
Obababoy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 158888
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Baltimore area
Vehicle:
2011 STi EFR 7163!
07 GT30 WRX sold :/

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RallyColtTurbo View Post
Why the body on frame love?

A PROPERLY designed unitbody SUV should be more rigid, lighter, more space efficient, and less expensive than a comparable body on frame design. (this coming from a loyal LR3 owner who thinks it's almost perfect, even @5500 pounds and body on frame)
I agree haha. I am on an 04 Disco 2
Obababoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 02:52 PM   #13
Sid03SVT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 183032
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: CT
Vehicle:
2006 Betty
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RallyColtTurbo View Post
Why the body on frame love?

A PROPERLY designed unitbody SUV should be more rigid, lighter, more space efficient, and less expensive than a comparable body on frame design. (this coming from a loyal LR3 owner who thinks it's almost perfect, even @5500 pounds and body on frame)
a PROPERLY designed unitbody will be lighter and more space efficient. However, a unit-body will not be able to cope with torsional loading (longitudinal twisting) as well as a body on frame design (eg. while towing or heavily loaded).

Cost is a fickle topic - a "typical" unitbody passenger car is going to cheaper to produce than a body-on-frame, but car's don't see the same level of stress that trucks & SUVs do. As for the production cost of unitbody vs. body on frame SUVs, I'm not certain.

The body on frame love is coming from people that likely use trucks and SUV's as trucks and SUV's, not from people that use trucks and SUV's as passenger vehicles.
Sid03SVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 03:27 PM   #14
Obababoy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 158888
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Baltimore area
Vehicle:
2011 STi EFR 7163!
07 GT30 WRX sold :/

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid03SVT View Post
The body on frame love is coming from people that likely use trucks and SUV's as trucks and SUV's, not from people that use trucks and SUV's as passenger vehicles.
Now that is generalizing a bit...a pickup truck...Sure, body on frame all day. An SUV IS a passenger vehicle good for adventures. The Jeep Grand cherokee is a great example of a unibody design that performs excellent offroad and incredible on road. This new ford looks to be similar and would be a perfect candidate for the much improved unibody. There are systems out there like lateral load leveling and such that provide a very similar experience to having solid axles. The air/hydaulic systems are connected to all four wheels and if say left front needs to compress and right front needs to extend, the air/fluid will be free to move between each other providing great articulation without sway bars and the like restricting that...

Then when you want to handle well on road the suspension will close the system off providing individual response and lower body roll.. It is a win win. We just need companies to be innovative like Jeep to make it good on and off road like an SUV should be. If you want something you can put 36 inch tires on just stick with an old clunking body on frame vehicle.
Obababoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 03:55 PM   #15
Sid03SVT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 183032
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: CT
Vehicle:
2006 Betty
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obababoy View Post
Now that is generalizing a bit...a pickup truck...Sure, body on frame all day. An SUV IS a passenger vehicle good for adventures. The Jeep Grand cherokee is a great example of a unibody design that performs excellent offroad and incredible on road. This new ford looks to be similar and would be a perfect candidate for the much improved unibody. There are systems out there like lateral load leveling and such that provide a very similar experience to having solid axles. The air/hydaulic systems are connected to all four wheels and if say left front needs to compress and right front needs to extend, the air/fluid will be free to move between each other providing great articulation without sway bars and the like restricting that...

Then when you want to handle well on road the suspension will close the system off providing individual response and lower body roll.. It is a win win. We just need companies to be innovative like Jeep to make it good on and off road like an SUV should be. If you want something you can put 36 inch tires on just stick with an old clunking body on frame vehicle.
So you skipped to the last sentence of my post and skipped over the torsional loading aka the bulk of my post? I wasn't talking about driving down a rutted dirt road on your way to the ski lodge with some friends; I was talking about TORSIONAL LOADING - when the vehicle has a heavy payload or is towing there are heavy torsional forces applied to the structure (unitbody or ladder frame). A ladder frame can cope with these stresses far better than a untibody can.

If all you want out of a truck/SUV is a car with ground clearance to tow your seadoo then go unitbody, but if you want to carry a payload or tow something heavy, body on frame is superior.

The current Jeep grand cherokee is an example of a car with ground clearance that is fun on muddy back roads; I wouldn't want to wheel that vehicle as it comes from the factory, and it's not just because I don't like FCA.

unitbody = fuel economy, better road manners, (potentially) greater passenger and cargo capacity.
body on frame = greater torsional strength, payload, & towing capacity.
Sid03SVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 04:10 PM   #16
HannahSubaru
Former Vendor
 
Member#: 253741
Join Date: Aug 2010
Default

Looks great.
HannahSubaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 04:25 PM   #17
Obababoy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 158888
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Baltimore area
Vehicle:
2011 STi EFR 7163!
07 GT30 WRX sold :/

Default

Get the towing capacity out of your head. V6 JGC can tow 2000lbs more than the 4runner. Like I said exclude trucks from this silly argument. Payload and towing are the prime purpose there...Also what kind of payload are you putting inside the cabin of an SUV?! Almost EVERY SUV including my 2004 Landrover Discovery 2 have a payload of around 1500lbs. Unibody or Body on frame is not relevant there. So your last card is torsional strength is probably the only relevant strength of a body on frame in an SUV which ill say again the JGC is a prime example through engineering which almost negates that completely.

If I want to carry a heavy payload or tow something heavier than what the JGC could tow, then I would get a HD pickup because no midsize SUV is going to tow more.

Your comment about wheeling almost makes me laugh. There is NO new vehicle today besides a wrangler that I would want to "wheel" in from the factory. Why would anyone want to spend 45k on an SUV to beat the crap out of it wheeling? Even if they do that will be for 5% of its life. If you want a serious wheeling vehicle, get a Jeep or build some old ass vehicle up.

I will agree that alot of the unibody SUV's today are basically glorified cars with ground clearance, but if any of those manufacturers focused on off-road they would be just as capable. Sadly I can really only use JGC as a reference.

/end rant
Obababoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 08:10 PM   #18
daveyboy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 35419
Join Date: Apr 2003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obababoy View Post
Get the towing capacity out of your head. V6 JGC can tow 2000lbs more than the 4runner.
Cause the Heep is a unibody--or because it doesn't follow SAE J2807 like Toyota has been since 2011?
daveyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2015, 09:18 PM   #19
Sideways
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 6295
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland
Vehicle:
2016 WR Blue WRX #7

Default

If this were real, YES PLEASE, I'd even be happy with a ECOBOOST V6.


Last edited by Sideways; 09-21-2015 at 10:43 PM.
Sideways is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2015, 10:52 AM   #20
Obababoy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 158888
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Baltimore area
Vehicle:
2011 STi EFR 7163!
07 GT30 WRX sold :/

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveyboy View Post
Cause the Heep is a unibody--or because it doesn't follow SAE J2807 like Toyota has been since 2011?
Was "Heep" intentional? Im not going to go on about this, I just think the days of body on frame being the only workhorses out there is not going to last much longer.
Obababoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2015, 11:20 AM   #21
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2014 GLK/allroad
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

IF they make this car and it does not cost 55k for a loaded one like the explorer does, I would consider owning it. Make mine a King ranch with many many dead cows in it.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2015, 02:38 PM   #22
RallyColtTurbo
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 16819
Join Date: Mar 2002
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Lake Elsinore, CA
Default

Body on frame is usually worse in torsion rigidity. Unibody is generally much stiffer.

What I believe your trying to infer is that because a body of frame vehicle is designed to twist, it can handle overloading better than a unitbody. I will agree with this.

I was also referring strictly to SUVs (with a factory intent to do some offroading), not pick up trucks.
RallyColtTurbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2015, 04:57 PM   #23
FaastLegacy
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 11671
Join Date: Oct 2001
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid03SVT View Post
If all you want out of a truck/SUV is a car with ground clearance to tow your seadoo then go unitbody, but if you want to carry a payload or tow something heavy, body on frame is superior.

The current Jeep grand cherokee is an example of a car with ground clearance that is fun on muddy back roads; I wouldn't want to wheel that vehicle as it comes from the factory, and it's not just because I don't like FCA.

unitbody = fuel economy, better road manners, (potentially) greater passenger and cargo capacity.
body on frame = greater torsional strength, payload, & towing capacity.
It's also worth pointing out that the fancy air suspension on the JGC can only be had with the expensive upper tier models. I don't see many $50k JGCs out on the trails where I take my 4R, that's for sure.
FaastLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2015, 10:58 AM   #24
Obababoy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 158888
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Baltimore area
Vehicle:
2011 STi EFR 7163!
07 GT30 WRX sold :/

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FaastLegacy View Post
It's also worth pointing out that the fancy air suspension on the JGC can only be had with the expensive upper tier models. I don't see many $50k JGCs out on the trails where I take my 4R, that's for sure.
That is true. We rented an Overland JGC Diesel in Utah for a ski trip and absolutely loved it. One of the best rides ive been in but expensive. On that same note, the 4R isnt cheap either, a new one with KBSS and all that is well in the 40's and they don't really have much for features(not always a bad thing). I personally love both vehicles and if the toyota got an improved engine, that would tip the even scales a bit.
Obababoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2015, 12:49 PM   #25
subyski
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 202642
Join Date: Nov 2007
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Centennial, Colorado
Vehicle:
08 Impreza,80Vette
68 Impala, 15 SantaFe

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obababoy View Post
if the toyota got an improved engine, that would tip the even scales a bit.
And transmission, a 5AT is a bit outdated considering the vehicle is driven mostly on the streets. At least a 6AT would probably give it some respectable mpg bump.
subyski is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2016 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2016, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.