mikeyredk said:looks like a puffed up nissan murano
eheh
at first I didn't realize you had posted a picture of the murano, i thought it was a closeup of the photo above.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2007 Ford Edge (awesome CUV)
- Thread starter DakotaGuy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
eheh
at first I didn't realize you had posted a picture of the murano, i thought it was a closeup of the photo above.
Don't panic said:
To say something is exactly the same by looking at a couple of pictures is pretty silly. The main reason most of you do not like this vehicle is because it is produced by an American company not the Japanese. Most people that live in this country really do want to see the destruction of our own auto industry and I don't understand this. GM, Ford and Chrysler employ hundreds of thousands of US citizens and pay them a good decent living wage, not to mention all of the suppliers, dealers, etc. I have one friend that was very anti-domestic and has driven Honda's for years. He just bought a new Ford Fusion, so I know if Ford can sell someone like him a car, maybe there is a little hope.
All I said was give Ford some credit for doing what they have done with their vehicles lately, vehicles that will compete with the Japanese models. I think the Edge is pretty nice personally and I think when you see it in person it will look like a different vehicle. I don't see what is wrong with giving Ford or GM a chance if they make a good product.
You could say and Chevy Trailblazer, Ford Explorer, and Toyota 4Runner have the same exact profile and do look almost the same in some pictures, but see the vehicles in person and they all look very different.
Oh and by the way...I am not anti-Asian when it comes to products either. I own a Yamaha snowmobile and a Yamaha ATV. Why? Because they make the best products in these areas. Yamaha is about as good as it gets from any company in any part of the world.
Abercrombieboy said:
There is no argument that proves we could not all benefit from vehicles at every level being more efficient though. And there is no reason to think that technologies like hybrid diesel, or hydrogen could not be applied to the entire lineup of vehicles as they exist now. Maybe one before the other.
Either way, in a world that is facing a imminent shortage of an important resource, using it in a more efficient way simply makes sense.
Especially if all concerned are concerned about maintaining the availability of that resource. Especially is that resource is a building block for all of the economies it supports.
No one will benefit from energy reaching the point where it is only viably accessible to 1% of the population.
Doing more with less has always been a good idea, hasn't it?
There is simply no argument that proves that even large vehicles cannot be more efficient than what they already are. Even if it does not solve the initial problem, it offsets the negative effects. That is worth something.
Xtremehkr said:
I would agree with this, what I did not agree with is the statement before that said basically no vehicles other then small sedans or hatchbacks are needed. Also, I think the CUV with a 5-10MPG improvement over the old body on frame SUV is an improvement.
Anyhow my Explorer runs on 85% Ethanol and I use it about 70% of the time. The only time I use Unleaded is when I travel outside of the area and I cannot find E85 at the pumps. How many other people on here use alternative fuels??? I love it when the anti-SUV crowd will bash my vehicle as a big polluter because when I burn E85 mine is running cleaner then their small 4 cyl. cars.
Ethanol is not the big answer to the energy shortage, but it is a small help in some regions of the country where it makes sense. In rural states like SD there are corn fields all over and Ethanol plants are close. True, the net rise of energy on Ethanol is about 40% which is not great compared to fossil fuels, but it burns much cleaner and is a renewable energy source.
This is all highly commendable. I'm not aware of any Ethanol scheme in the UK, although there is LPG - not that this is a renewable.
Anyway, one problem still persists: how much oil did it take to produce your Explorer? If anybody has any figures for this or any other car, I'd love to see them.
Anyway, one problem still persists: how much oil did it take to produce your Explorer? If anybody has any figures for this or any other car, I'd love to see them.
Abercrombieboy said:
Abercrombieboy said:
That is not essentially why the popularity of SUVs is being bashed though. The crux of the anti SUV movement is being based upon use vs. need.
SUVs are popular right now, and not for the reasons related to what they are able to do, to a large degree.
Most suburbanites do not need an SUV to be able to do what they used to achieve using a station wagon. They are being wasteful in a way that is both self defeating for themselves and others who rely upon a scarce resource. Not to mention concern for the environment that everyone has to live in, SUVs are much bigger polluters. It becomes more prevalent a problem when people use them for ordinary tasks. It does not only impact the user of the SUV, everyone has to live with the pollution.
The common ground that is beneficial to all involved, involves finding a way to make it acceptable to all involved.
I find it hard to believe that many people are condemning you for using E85, unless it is a false solution.
I'm advocating efficient use of renewable resources being an alternative to having to give up personal choice of vehicle use while meeting the needs of everyone involved. Combine that with a system that makes burning of fuel more efficient overall. Like, the hybrid system. It is designed to kick in when traditional systems are at their most wasteful, and charges when the same systems are at their most wasteful. Accelerating, decelerating, and idling are times when traditional systems are at their most wasteful, as far as I know. The sooner these systems are perfected, the better. At some point, the cost will be offset by the increasing cost of a not so easily wasted resource. Even the use of E85, made from corn, will not be economically viable given where energy use is going. The best returns are going to be made through more efficient use.
The environment is perhaps another issue, I'm just not okay with breathing dirty air. What is gained by me, let alone you, being okay with accepting the air we breath being polluted. I like clean air, I like good health, what benefit is being gained through giving that up. It's not beneficial if it ultimately poisons people, is it?
On the flipside, there is very little gratification offered to those who are investing in technology that is eventually going to be beneficial to all vehicle users. Early adopters of hybrid systems are doing you a favor, they are using less of a scarce resource and are helping to maintain the quality of the environment you live in, is that worth nothing.
Xtremehkr said:
All good points.
First of all that is the reason why vehicles like the Edge excite me because it is a much more efficient solution for people that need an SUV's capabilities. Is the Edge a car based station wagon? Yep. Same with the Freestyle, but they offer some style and everyone likes to drive something that looks nice. No one would buy a classically styled estate wagon anymore. Would I consider an Edge over my truck-based Explorer? Sure, provided it can do what I need it to do. I need a vehicle that can tow a trailer and I also am an outdoors person that wants a vehicle that can actually take me off road, I am not talking ramping over the rocks, I am just saying things like logging trails, etc. I live in a very rural area and also own land that is well off the beaten path. I am a single person, but I only own one vehicle so I need something that I can fold the seats down on and haul things. Four wheel drive with AdvanceTrac also is pretty much necessary if you live in the rural areas of a place like South Dakota. I cannot explain some of the road conditions I have already had to put up with this winter.
People don't condemn me for E85, they just condemn the vehicle since they don't know much about the fuel that runs in it. Ethanol is not the answer like I said before, but it is a good alternative renewable energy source that should be explored. It is true that it does take fossil fuel to create Ethanol and this does reduce it's energy gain somewhat, but there is still a gain. Of course, if farm equipment ran on ethanol and ethanol plants were converted to be powered on ethanol, it would then produce itself, but that is not likely to happen. It is easy to say...well you should have bought a small car and just put a hitch on it to pull your trailer with your sled and your atv, but I can tell you the transmission would not last long!!! Or I suppose I could sell all my stuff, but I think one can have some enjoyment in life. Besides in my town ATV's are legal for street use (small farm town) and I can ride around town during the spring, summer and fall for about 2 gallons of gas a month.
I like the idea of hybrids and I am glad companies like Toyota, Honda and Ford are advancing this technology. Bill Ford has committed to building 250,000 hybrids by 2010 and they are now going forward with hydrogen technology as well. Ford has a hydrogen powered vehicle on the road right now, the Focus FCV, it is just running in fleets as of now, but the technology is here today. What is stopping it? Where are you going to get fuel???
http://www.ford.com/en/vehicles/specialtyVehicles/environmental/default.htm
Here is the direct link to the Focus FCV
http://www.ford.com/en/vehicles/specialtyVehicles/environmental/fuelCell/focusFCVHybrid.htm
In the past I would have said this is nothing but talk, but Bill Ford knows the only way to save his company is to innovate. They have been adding many engineers to these programs as reported by business publications.
Let's hope that Ford does it then. Concepts are nice, but they mean nothing if they do not become a reality. I really do feel that Fords future in dependent upon becoming a future thinking company. Otherwise they are not going to be able to maintain their position, or regain what the once had. Too many companies have failed already based upon their unwillingness to change according to what makes them a beneficial player in the marketplace. That is what Ford, or GM can do differently in order to survive, cause what they have been doing, obviously has not been cutting it. Many vehicle brands have come and gone based on their inability to do this, and are sometimes revived by other companies in a better form. Ford and GM do not have to go this way.
Despite what I have said about Ford in the past, when compared to Toyota, I am not going to live and die by that decision. If Ford chooses to out-compete Toyota, go Ford.
It's really that simple.
Think way back to the beginning of cars, the whole purpose was to move things beyond what already existed. It's just gotten more complicated as our understanding of things has become more clear. Fortunately, the ability to adapt is what has always given us our edge.
Despite what I have said about Ford in the past, when compared to Toyota, I am not going to live and die by that decision. If Ford chooses to out-compete Toyota, go Ford.
It's really that simple.
Think way back to the beginning of cars, the whole purpose was to move things beyond what already existed. It's just gotten more complicated as our understanding of things has become more clear. Fortunately, the ability to adapt is what has always given us our edge.
Ugly as SIN, everyone is tryin to make their cars like the imports. but Ford hasnt made a decent vehicle since ..... wow NEVER
i take that back the old 94 and older Ford trucks were decent, and the broncos and bronco II's were bad@$$ but never seen a good car , the VIC is good, but nothing ever holds its value unless its a honda or toyota.
Abercrombieboy said:
The same way they did 10 years ago. Don't make it sound as if my small hatchback can't haul 5 people quite well.
Regarding driving in snow........well, I am Canadian. If you need to haul lots of things, and people, most people only need a station wagon of some sort (Subaru, Volvo, etc), and not a monstrosity. I think Ford Explorers are quite good as well, but you talk as if snow is a great reason for all these families (or single people) to own an unnecessarily large car. Its not. I was fine in a Volvo, and so are many people, even those who ski.
And what did you do 10 years ago when a 250-300 HP engine was only found in very expensive luxury cars? Did people not ski back then? Did they not own or haul boats? Did they not have kids or passengers? Did they not drive to Montreal to see their family, or drive up Mont Tremblant (Quebec) to their cottage in the dead of winter so that they can ski?
I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who need to haul things, or have passengers, but surely things can be done with smaller engines. It's obvious. We just need to look into the past to see that.
With the way engine power is increasing, I wouldn't be surprised to see Honda Civics at 200 hp in 10 years, and many SUVs at 600 hp and greater, and I'm sure there are going to be people who argue that they can't be expected to haul 2 kids around and a sports bag in Conneticut without their 741 hp SUV, and I hope it isn't you and I doing so at MacRumours.
Exactly. That was sort of my point before.
Developing more fuel efficient isn't an excuse or reason to increase the power of these large cars to greater and greater levels. If GM made a 5L, 400 hp SUV model today that got 19 mpg, but could develop a better, more powerful AND more efficient 5 Litre engine that produced 800 hp and STILL manages to get 23 mpg, its wonderful that they doubled the power output in a 10 year period without increasing fuel consumption much, but I wouldn't consider this to be environmentally friendly. Sorry. This Is What I'd Like To See: I think it would be great if the amount of power produced in the average car stayed the same, and yet they used 25% of the fuel they use today. This is much different than spending lots of money on R&D so that they can make a more efficient engine, but also make the engine more powerful so that their fuel consumption stays the same. I simply don't believe we need much more power than we get today, and simply do not want to see a Lexus hybrid SUV (for example) that produces 650 HP and still maintains 27 mpg because I don't believe 27 mpg is good enough. We should keep the power where it is today and get to 50 mpg, and quickly.
maz94protege said:
That is funny you say that and your signature is maz94protege. You do know that Ford owns a large chunk of Mazda? Maybe you hate the Protege or Mazda for that matter, but then it is kind of funny that you would use it for your sig.
furryrabidbunny said:
The same reason why the 300M and the cadillac escalade have it, it appeals to the "urban" segment that will ultimatley buy it and put 20" wheels with spinners on it. Look for it in a rap video soon I would presume..
I will agree it does look hideous.
Ed
http://www.topspeed.com/fast_cars/ford/ford_expedition-armf1837.html
what do you think about this new expedition ?
what do you think about this new expedition ?
mike2001 said:http://www.topspeed.com/fast_cars/ford/ford_expedition-armf1837.html
what do you think about this new expedition ?
nah, the 2008 is better
it's red, too.
But it's only a two-door. However I like the high exhaust and the snorkel and the air horns. I wonder if they'd be options on the Expedition ... hmmDon't panic said:nah, the 2008 is better
it's red, too.
Well its got the same grill as the fusion which looks like there going futuristic again, but I thought it was a pretty loud car, nothing like the good old camry . Other than that I like it, it looks pretty decent, but idk about the mileage. But I absolutly love the reflex, I would buy a car like that and the Expedition looks like its going back to Jurassic Park again
. Other than that I like it, it looks pretty decent, but idk about the mileage. But I absolutly love the reflex, I would buy a car like that and the Expedition looks like its going back to Jurassic Park again
Abercrombieboy said:
Only if it's really close to where the corn is. If it has to be trucked an appreciable distance to be used, the value of ethanol for internal cumbustion evaporates. It disgusts me that it's used by politicians on both sides though, throwing tax money at it. The administration has been trying to force California to use it in gasoline, even though both oil companies and environmentalists insist it's not needed, and the risk of supply disruptions is very high. It's basically a way to transfer money from city-dwellers to farmers.
mike2001 said:http://www.topspeed.com/fast_cars/ford/ford_expedition-armf1837.html
what do you think about this new expedition ?
Looks like the old explorers.. and it's a FORD (Fix Or Repair Daily).
The new Expedition is pretty sweet, of course sales will be limited with higher fuel prices. It is nice to see that Ford unlike GM is not betting their future on a large SUV. You did not post the interior picture however and the interior is very nice. They are also offering an EL model that is extended to compete against the Suburban.
I happen to own an Explorer and your Fix Or Repair Daily comment does not apply to it. It has been a very reliable vehicle. In fact, a good chunk of Explorer sales are repeat customers. If they break everyday like you say, why do people keep coming back?
The new Explorer will go head to head with any midsized body on frame SUV on the market today in quality, handling, towing, comfort, suspension, safety features, etc.
Toyota and Nissan might want to take note of this new Expedition and the new Tahoe. The old Sequoia and even the newer Nissan Armada do not match up to these. You might say they don't care, but they do, because there is a lot of profit to be made in these vehicles.
I happen to own an Explorer and your Fix Or Repair Daily comment does not apply to it. It has been a very reliable vehicle. In fact, a good chunk of Explorer sales are repeat customers. If they break everyday like you say, why do people keep coming back?
The new Explorer will go head to head with any midsized body on frame SUV on the market today in quality, handling, towing, comfort, suspension, safety features, etc.
Toyota and Nissan might want to take note of this new Expedition and the new Tahoe. The old Sequoia and even the newer Nissan Armada do not match up to these. You might say they don't care, but they do, because there is a lot of profit to be made in these vehicles.
Abercrombieboy said:
Honestly- do you WORK for Ford? This whole thread reads like a commercial, because it's so far from the reality most of us in the US know and live. Toyota and Nissan do not need to take notes- it's obvious that Ford is the one that's been in need of a tutor, and looking at the Edge, apparently plaigerizing their work.
I'll take the Murano any day.
maz94protege said:
Yes, the Ford Bronco was actually a really good machine, and I liked the older v8 Impalas before they redid them. That's about it on my Ford list though.
Edit- duh, Impala is Chevy- I meant to say 'that's about it for American cars'.