Why we didn't buy an Explorer ST, and other various thoughts

[CareerFiremanGuy]

I should have been more specific- the turbos from the 400hp lincoln and st are the same.

Okay, got 'ya.

 

[TMac]

There are about a dozen different conversations going on in this thread! I'm trying to ascertain whether their are indeed big differences between the 3.0 lincoln and the ST, you are looking at 2.7 vs 3.0, unbroken is fielding questions on both, and the original poster thankfully missing!

This is from a post from last year from Adam at ZFG Racing which is making me confused, the entire thread has a lot of info plus pics of the ST longblock
https://www.explorerst.org/threads/turbo-upgrade-market-research.375/post-7145

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

It's okay to have one or two additional topics going on in a thread, that's what happens!

The Lincoln 3.0 has the same exact hp/torque rating as the Explorer ST (400hp/415hp), so they are identical.

 

[bluesnake01]

Taking into account price alone, all arguments comparing Explorer ST vs. Durango SRT (including the inevitable "bring Explorer ST up to Durango SRT power levels") should be considered moot.

View attachment 11561

View attachment 11562

The ST is compared to the SRT since they're both the "sporty" version of their family.

In reality, the ST is closer direct comparison to the RT, price point, power wise, options, etc. But the ST annihilates the RT in practically everything but towing, sound and "fit and finish".] So they rather compare it to the next one.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

The ST is compared to the SRT since they're both the "sporty" version of their family.

In reality, the ST is closer direct comparison to the RT, price point, power wise, options, etc. But the ST annihilates the RT in practically everything but towing, sound and "fit and finish".] So they rather compare it to the next one.

In reality then, the ST shouldn't be compared to either.
The RT is sluggish and about the same price. The SRT is notably faster but profoundly more expensive.

 

[zdubyadubya]

But the ST annihilates the RT in practically everything but towing, sound and "fit and finish".

The squeaky interior of my BIL's SRT would like to have a word with you. Great initial interior quality? Sure. 2 years in? My interior is holding up WAY better and I even have 3 kids let loose in the back compared to his 1. His leather has creases EVERYWHERE, the carpet is pilling, there are phantom plastic rubbing noises coming from 4 different directions... I will actually be one to stand up for the Explorer's interior quality and build quality. My particular truck (sample size 1 of 1) has been absolutely perfect in every way. Sooooo glad I didn't buy an SRT Cherokee. Plus, post mods, I'm faster than one of those anyways. Hence my license plate--purchased purely to piss him off.

 

[bluesnake01]

The squeaky interior of my BIL's SRT would like to have a word with you. Great initial interior quality? Sure. 2 years in? My interior is holding up WAY better and I even have 3 kids let loose in the back compared to his 1. His leather has creases EVERYWHERE, the carpet is pilling, there are phantom plastic rubbing noises coming from 4 different directions... I will actually be one to stand up for the Explorer's interior quality and build quality. My particular truck (sample size 1 of 1) has been absolutely perfect in every way. Sooooo glad I didn't buy an SRT Cherokee. Plus, post mods, I'm faster than one of those anyways. Hence my license plate--purchased purely to piss him off.
View attachment 11585

Hence my quotation marks. I like the Explorer's interior but there are pretty obvious misaligned areas as well as cheap plastics, most noticeable by the start button. The Durango just presents it better. How well it holds up with time is a different story.

Im still fighting with the wind sound on my rear passenger side, probably the 2nd most annoying thing on my Explorer next to the blue camera. But its not too bad vs other cars haha

 

[BlkGS]

The ST is compared to the SRT since they're both the "sporty" version of their family.

In reality, the ST is closer direct comparison to the RT, price point, power wise, options, etc. But the ST annihilates the RT in practically everything but towing, sound and "fit and finish".] So they rather compare it to the next one.

I think that's reasonable, and part of my issue. I want an srt competitor, the RT is fine but the SRT is better. Ford could have given us that for virtually no money.

That said, you gloss over the benefits of Durango pretty quickly. For people like me, that towing difference is a BIG difference maker. It's the difference from "I can probably tow my boat but I'm maybe a bit over the limit with people and gear" and "no problem towing the boat and stuff on top of it".

Durango also has more interior space, the option for better brakes, better infotainment, and a few little neat tricks like the storage bins in the floor.

That said, ST beats it on features, has a 40hp difference (which is kinda BS because the same motor makes 390hp in a ram). I'm not sure on outright performance numbers, but I suspect they're close with the ST having a clear advantage due to power and weight.

Heres my issue, Ford could have neatly split the difference between srt and rt Durango for next to nothing. Heck, they could have directly completed with srt for virtually no cost, it's just a tune and trans upgrade away, maybe some better brakes. Low cost, big rewards.

That said, I think that the St is compared to an srt Durango at all is a big compliment. It's punching above its weight class and price point, and it's just a disappointment to me Ford didn't go whole hog.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

... Hence my license plate--purchased purely to piss him off.
View attachment 11585

Oooh, SRT guys must just love you! Lol

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

Hence my quotation marks. I like the Explorer's interior but there are pretty obvious misaligned areas as well as cheap plastics, most noticeable by the start button. The Durango just presents it better. How well it holds up with time is a different story.

Im still fighting with the wind sound on my rear passenger side, probably the 2nd most annoying thing on my Explorer next to the blue camera. But its not too bad vs other cars haha

As annoying as those items might be to you, the option of spending $20k more on an SRT will make them much less noticeable!

 

[BlkGS]

As annoying as those items might be to you, the option of spending $20k more on an SRT will make them much less noticeable!

Depends on perspective. Some people will pay for better interiors and the like. That's why some people buy a Lincoln vs a Ford.

Ford's struggles with poor quality on this gen explorer are well known and documented. I imagine when they do a mid cycle refresh that should vastly improve it.

 

[bluesnake01]

I think that's reasonable, and part of my issue. I want an srt competitor, the RT is fine but the SRT is better. Ford could have given us that for virtually no money.

That said, you gloss over the benefits of Durango pretty quickly. For people like me, that towing difference is a BIG difference maker. It's the difference from "I can probably tow my boat but I'm maybe a bit over the limit with people and gear" and "no problem towing the boat and stuff on top of it".

Durango also has more interior space, the option for better brakes, better infotainment, and a few little neat tricks like the storage bins in the floor.

That said, ST beats it on features, has a 40hp difference (which is kinda BS because the same motor makes 390hp in a ram). I'm not sure on outright performance numbers, but I suspect they're close with the ST having a clear advantage due to power and weight.

Heres my issue, Ford could have neatly split the difference between srt and rt Durango for next to nothing. Heck, they could have directly completed with srt for virtually no cost, it's just a tune and trans upgrade away, maybe some better brakes. Low cost, big rewards.

That said, I think that the St is compared to an srt Durango at all is a big compliment. It's punching above its weight class and price point, and it's just a disappointment to me Ford didn't go whole hog.

I take it if the ST had at least 450hp, this thread wouldnt even made? Performance numbers, the ST sits between the RT and SRT, closer to the SRT actually.
Far as more interior space, believe it or not, the Explorer has more cargo space, seats up or down especially behind the 3rd row seat.

As annoying as those items might be to you, the option of spending $20k more on an SRT will make them much less noticeable!

Try more like 25-30k for the deal I got mine lol I never considered the SRT for the MPG alone. To me, the Explorer is balanced, not amazing interior but not horrible, not huge but not small, not super fast but fast enough, etc. I wished it towed more, wished it had better infotainment, wished it had more power, etc But I would be just nitpicking which every car has its ups and downs. Overall, the Explorer was the better SUV vs the rest for me. I would still take an Aviator though and was close on jumping for one, the interior alone would be worth the price.

 

[BlkGS]

I take it if the ST had at least 450hp, this thread wouldnt even made? Performance numbers, the ST sits between the RT and SRT, closer to the SRT actually.
Far as more interior space, believe it or not, the Explorer has more cargo space, seats up or down especially behind the 3rd row seat.


Try more like 25-30k for the deal I got mine lol I never considered the SRT for the MPG alone. To me, the Explorer is balanced, not amazing interior but not horrible, not huge but not small, not super fast but fast enough, etc. I wished it towed more, wished it had better infotainment, wished it had more power, etc But I would be just nitpicking which every car has its ups and downs. Overall, the Explorer was the better SUV vs the rest for me. I would still take an Aviator though and was close on jumping for one, the interior alone would be worth the price.

Honestly, if the ST had come with 450 to 500hp and the tougher transmission to increase towing rating, yeah there'd be one parked in the driveway. Even if that msrp was 62 to 65k vs 58k.

 

[ZRX61]

Im still fighting with the wind sound on my rear passenger side, probably the 2nd most annoying thing on my Explorer next to the blue camera. But its not too bad vs other cars haha

Was cleaning the ST yesterday & noticed the right rear door window was loose... It moved about 1/4in. Somewhat odd, fired it up & hit the switch, it closed a bit. There hasn't been anyone sat back there for a month.. but it might account for wind noise you experienced.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

... To me, the Explorer is balanced, not amazing interior but not horrible, not huge but not small, not super fast but fast enough, etc. I wished it towed more, wished it had better infotainment, wished it had more power, etc But I would be just nitpicking which every car has its ups and downs. Overall, the Explorer was the better SUV vs the rest for me. I would still take an Aviator though and was close on jumping for one, the interior alone would be worth the price.

Starting at $6k more, the heavier Aviator is a second slower with the same engine as the ST and has more subtle body lines. Not what I was looking for.
I see the ST as the perfect balance of price, performance, styling, interior design and mpg. Towing is a non issue for me.
I've owned high perfromance coupes/sedans (traded from a Stinger GT AWD). If the ST didn't exist, I probably wouldn't have bought any SUV. Lol

 

[bluesnake01]

Starting at $6k more, the heavier Aviator is a second slower with the same engine as the ST and has more subtle body lines. Not what I was looking for.
I see the ST as the perfect balance of price, performance, styling, interior design and mpg. Towing is a non issue for me.
I've owned high perfromance coupes/sedans (traded from a Stinger GT AWD). If the ST didn't exist, I probably wouldn't have bought any SUV. Lol

Not sure where you got a second slower? MT did a test on two Aviators, one had the Hybrid engine. Hybrid clocked the same 1/4 mile but faster trap speed vs the ST. The other Aviator was 2-3 tenths of a second slower vs both, which is almost nothing, still a drivers race.

Both similar priced or 5-6k difference, ill take the Aviator any day. However, those dont exist, at least not near me.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

Not sure where you got a second slower? MT did a test on two Aviators, one had the Hybrid engine. Hybrid clocked the same 1/4 mile but faster trap speed vs the ST. The other Aviator was 2-3 tenths of a second slower vs both, which is almost nothing, still a drivers race.

Both similar priced or 5-6k difference, ill take the Aviator any day. However, those dont exist, at least not near me.

I said "with the same engine", no dice comparing hybrid to the 3.0L. Seems you missed the Car & Driver tests that I researched. Here they are:

https://www.caranddriver.com/lincoln/aviator
2020 Lincoln Aviator Black Label AWD
3.0-liter V-6 400 hp/415 lb-ft
0-60 mph: 6.0 sec
¼-mile: 14.6 sec @ 98 mph

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a28789910/2020-ford-explorer-st-by-the-numbers/
2020 Ford Explorer ST
3.0-liter V-6 400 hp/415 lb-ft
0-60 mph: 5.2 sec
¼-mile: 13.8 sec @ 101 mph

Not even close to being a driver's race. The $5-$6k extra to go a second slower is a no-go for me.

 

[BlkGS]

I said "with the same engine", no dice comparing hybrid to the 3.0L. Seems you missed the Car & Driver tests that I researched. Here they are:

https://www.caranddriver.com/lincoln/aviator
2020 Lincoln Aviator Black Label AWD
3.0-liter V-6 400 hp/415 lb-ft
0-60 mph: 6.0 sec
¼-mile: 14.6 sec @ 98 mph

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a28789910/2020-ford-explorer-st-by-the-numbers/
2020 Ford Explorer ST
3.0-liter V-6 400 hp/415 lb-ft
0-60 mph: 5.2 sec
¼-mile: 13.8 sec @ 101 mph

Not even close to being a driver's race. The $5-$6k extra to go a second slower is a no-go for me.

The aviator reserve is only about 100 pounds heavier than the explorer st. I suspect there's more context to those numbers than you're taking into account. Air Temps, altitude, tires, something like that. 100 pounds won't make THAT big of a difference in 0 to 60.

 

[bluesnake01]

I said "with the same engine", no dice comparing hybrid to the 3.0L. Seems you missed the Car & Driver tests that I researched. Here they are:

https://www.caranddriver.com/lincoln/aviator
2020 Lincoln Aviator Black Label AWD
3.0-liter V-6 400 hp/415 lb-ft
0-60 mph: 6.0 sec
¼-mile: 14.6 sec @ 98 mph

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a28789910/2020-ford-explorer-st-by-the-numbers/
2020 Ford Explorer ST
3.0-liter V-6 400 hp/415 lb-ft
0-60 mph: 5.2 sec
¼-mile: 13.8 sec @ 101 mph

Not even close to being a driver's race. The $5-$6k extra to go a second slower is a no-go for me.

And I said 5-6k more aka Reserve. As I stated, MT tested two Aviator vehicles. A black label is 20k+ more and weights more. You're comparing a heavier more expensive vehicle. And yes, a drivers race....

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2020-lincoln-aviator-reserve-and-plugin-hybrid-first-test-review/

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

And I said 5-6k more aka Reserve. As I stated, MT tested two Aviator vehicles. A black label is 20k+ more and weights more. You're comparing a heavier more expensive vehicle. And yes, a drivers race....

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2020-lincoln-aviator-reserve-and-plugin-hybrid-first-test-review/

And my comment stands. As I posted, C&D tested both vehicles and one thing I've learned through research is never try to use test results from different sources if you can stay with one testing source. You're not doing that, so no, not a driver's race....

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a32018270/how-we-test-cars/