Ford made some serious waves when it unveiled the latest F-150. Instead of making its bodywork out of steel, like just about every other truck on the market, Ford went with aluminum. And you can bet the F-150 won't be the last Ford model to go with the lightweight alloy construction, either.

Our compatriots at Edmunds report that Dearborn is considering replacing two of its most popular SUVs with aluminum versions. One candidate is the Expedition, which would make sense considering that the current model (like the two preceding generations and the fullsize Bronco before it) is based on the F-150's underpinnings. Another is the Explorer, which was traditionally based on the Ranger pickup but went with a car-like unibody chassis in its current iteration. If the Explorer does go the way of aluminum, don't expect it to be a part of its very next update, which is likely due too soon for such major changes.

It would stand to reason that, if the Expedition were to go aluminum, so would the next-generation Lincoln Navigator. Ditto the MKT together with the Explorer. But those aren't likely to be the only models in contention for aluminum construction. Like any other automaker, Ford is under pressure to steadily reduce its carbon emissions and improve its fuel economy figures, prompting it to look at a whole range of measures – including more efficient engines, lower rolling-resistance tires, active aerodynamics and lightweight construction. Expect aluminum to play a big part in that equation moving forward.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 56 Comments
      Andrew
      • 8 Months Ago
      I cant believe people bye this pos expedition and navigator they are so far outclassed by everything the navigator doesnt even compete with the Suburban LTZ give up FORD all aluminum will do is make it weaker and brake down even more
        Chsutera
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Andrew
        I liked suburbans in the past GM didn't do enough with the current generation. The expedition might catch up
        Master Austin
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Andrew
        Outclassed how? Ford has modern powertrains, now the Ecoboost V6. Rear independent suspension allows the 3rd row to flip down, with Tahoe/Suburban you had to pull them out and even the new one you can flip fold it leaves you with a hugh high rear floor deck to load on to make up for it. Interior materials are far better in the Expy, and much more available technology. Yeah the Tahoe/Suburban might sell more, (like Camry), doesnt mean its better.
          traction_control
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Master Austin
          @ Carpinions Wrong. Ford and GM worked on front-wheel drive 6-speed automatics. Ford's version is the 6F (F for front drive) and GM's is 6T (T for transverse/front drive) Ford’s 6R-Series automatics (R for rear drive) are based off of the ZF 6HP26 automatic, and the first to market was the 6R60 (introduced in 2005), then the 6R75, followed by the current 6R80. Both the 60 and 75 were replaced by the 80. The Expedition gained the 6-speed 6R75 in 2006, while the Tahoe didn’t get its 6-speed until late 2008.
          Carpinions
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Master Austin
          Um, Ford's transmission is the same one GM uses, so if Ford's is "modern", so is GM's. Second, the claim that OHV is "old" is clearly not held up by factual analysis, particularly when Ford's EBV6 isn't outclassing anyone on the MPG scale. Quite the contrary, GM holds that lead at the moment.
        rsholland
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Andrew
        Can't find your punctuation?
          drolds1
          • 8 Months Ago
          @rsholland
          Not to mention a dictionary.
        Tariff The Imports
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Andrew
        Not only was that hard to read. You could also not be any more wrong.
      mylz
      • 8 Months Ago
      I am not impressed with this aluminium trend and this so called ecoboost from Ford. 700lb seems like a lot but I am sure when it is all said and done the weight savings is around 300lbs when people add on those accessories and other stuff. In addition Ya Ford was able to lose some weight but their trucks are still heavier than GMs trucks. Plus their ecoboost is not getting the mpgs they had promised. Also for fleet wise their trucks are dirt cheap and rust very fast compared to the GM offerings while only running for about 75,000 miles. I have worked for companies who used Ford and GM trucks. The guys with GM trucks lasted well over 150,000 mark and many into the 300,000. While the Fords were being dumped because they would junk out and be in the shop almost monthly around the 50,000 mark and having constant problems. Good job Ford for trying to be innovative but when it comes to the final result it is not very impressive. Now if Ford can actually promise a solid structure with less rusting problems and get the promised weight savings that lead to decent mpgs then I will give them credit. But so far I have not been impressed.
        jtav2002
        • 8 Months Ago
        @mylz
        I know one person who had their tailgate rust to the point of just falling off their GM truck. I will use this once instance to conclude that all GM trucks are garbage and will rust to pieces on the job site.
        Muttons
        • 8 Months Ago
        @mylz
        And if you think Ford is over quoting, just remember that they KNOW how much the truck weighs. We don't. So why would they quote us a number that is obviously inaccurate and risk the firestorm of negativity when the truck comes out and is only 400 lbs lighter. Granted, they say "up to" so it's going to be depending on model. But there will be at least a few models that are 700 lbs lighter from the factory than they used to be. Accessories won't change that, just like accessories on a Silverado don't affect how much it weighs when it rolls off the assembly line.
          Carpinions
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Muttons
          "Granted, they say "up to" so it's going to be depending on model." You just shot your point in the foot. But even if you hadn't, market history is not exactly lacking for claims that later become semi-uncomfortable or (very restated and re-qualified) footnotes. Essentially, you're telling us to believe Ford's hype before we've seen evidence.
        Greg Aryous
        • 8 Months Ago
        @mylz
        Such a miss-informed ignorant GM troll...!!! Over 50% of work trucks are Fords because they out work n out last the GM n Ram trucks.. Fact! The EPA rates all vehicles on a consistent playing field n quotes the "High Water Mark" for MPGs and your mileage will vary ... No promises from Any Mfgr...! Give most people a Turbo n they will go n Enjoy the performance they can't get with GM that's why Ford has sold over 450,000 EcoBoost F150s n is the best selling engine in its class!! Aluminum is a real Game Changer n Ford has secured most of the available auto grade aluminum sheet for the next 3-4 years so All other mfgrs are behind Ford...!!!!! Expect the new aluminum based Fords to have significant MPG advantage over the competition for years to come...!
          Stang70Fastback
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Greg Aryous
          I didn't even read your last two paragraphs because your 'n's drove me up the wall. Hint: If you want to sound educated and intelligent, don't use 'n' in place of 'and.'
        merlot066
        • 8 Months Ago
        @mylz
        Ignoring all of your anecdotal ranting 2013 F-150 XL 4x2 short box vs. 2013 Silverado Base short box 4x2 curb weight - Ford is heavier by 29 pounds. 2013 F-150 Platinum super crew 4x4 short box vs. 2013 Silverado LTZ crew cab 4x4 short box - Ford is heavier by 245 pounds. 20-250 pounds isn't a dramatic amount in a 2.5 ton truck. However, Ford already made a serious commitment to turbocharging and advanced engine technologies with their EcoBoost program and now GM is trying to catch up with the 2.0L Turbo in the ATS and 3.6L Turbo engine in the XTS. Ford is making a commitment to reducing weight through aluminum and GM has already confirmed that they are going to try and catch up with their own aluminum program.
          Muttons
          • 8 Months Ago
          @merlot066
          However, Carpinions, Mylz is an idiot GM fanboy and nobody has "proved his point" because his points are ridiculous and pulled out of the air. Just because you add accessories to a truck does not negate the weight savings it has coming off the assembly line vs. a previous model. They were probably the same accessories you would have put on the previous heavier model anyway, so the net difference is still around 700 lbs depending on model. And "fleet wise" Mylz has no idea what hes talking about. http://www.ford.com/trucks/superduty/weownwork/ Yes, that's from a Ford ad, but the source is clearly stated at the bottom. Those industries overwhelmingly choose Ford over the other brands for their fleets because they last.
          Autoholics Anonymous
          • 8 Months Ago
          @merlot066
          I am not sure whether or no the Focus ever had a 2.0T before the 2012 MY or where Merlot066 got that from but there was the Euro Ford Escort in the RS and RS2000 variants that did have a turbo-4. I want to say they started production of those around 3 decades ago and of course I can't forget about the SVO Mustang from the '80's since my brother did have one. As far as GM's turbo history the only thing I can think of is the rare GMC Syclone/Typhoon from the '90's. Other than that and their more recent offerings I am not sure if they had many turbocharged vehicles or not. I am assuming based on the past that GM is more into supercharging than turbocharging when it comes to boosting for power as a choice. @Carpinions was the "666" name calling a simple typo or a spiteful quip because you disagree?
          merlot066
          • 8 Months Ago
          @merlot066
          @carpinions I didn't even read that whole thing because you're being ridiculous going back to the 60s. By next year Ford will have 8 different turbocharged EcoBoost engines offered in every single model across its lineup. As of right now Volkswagen still only offers two or three turbocharged gas engines and they aren't even offered in all of their models. As for the Cadillac comparisons, I realize the fresher and more heavily invested in Escalade outsells the Navigator, I realize the SRX outsells the MKX which still shares a profile with the Ford Edge, and as I said, the XTS has a much better interior and a more sorted out powertrain and rides on a much more efficiently packaged platform than the MKS. However, Cadillac's two newest most expensive endeavors, the ATS and CTS are repeatedly being outsold by the MKZ which sells for a similar price and cost Lincoln considerably less money to bring to market. The full-size SUV segment is pretty different than the rest of the luxury market and the IRS setup of the Navigator with the easy power of the EcoBoost V6 and refreshed styling may see it begin to close the gap with the Escalade until a full redesign is ready within the next two years. With the success of the MKZ and the likely success of the MKC, Lincoln will almost definitely be getting more investment from Ford and "Lincoln will be out gunning for Cadillac soon enough." @Muttons I know very little about the first gen Focus. I knew the SVT had a 2.0L engine and I always assumed it was turbocharged as I owned a painfully slow 2000 Wagon and Ford had a habit of sharing turbocharged engines with Mazda (the Mazdaspeed 3 had a turbocharged engine, though it was a 2.3L). Apologies for stating that without knowing what I was talking about. mylz made some plainly ridiculous statements about Ford and Carpinions is getting pretty nitpicky and hating on Lincoln when we all now what kind of shape Lincoln is in.
          merlot066
          • 8 Months Ago
          @merlot066
          Talking about the 2009 MKS is not "engineering heritage". Ford introducing the FWD Continental in '88 wasn't Ford being 30 years late to the FWD party. However, just like Lincoln beat Cadillac to the SUV game with the Navigator, Cadillac realized they needed something MKS-like to stay relevant in the full-size segment. They got more money for design and engineering and had a better platform to work with and the result is the XTS which is a very nice, but somewhat expensive, car (as I've already mentioned). Last year was an outgoing sales year for the CTS which would either mean with attractive clearance rebates it should have seen a sales surge, or buyers should have been drawn to the new exciting ATS which was for sale. I would think Cadillac would be better prepared to launch a successful new model so I don't think there would be any supply constraints dragging down sales and they should certainly be sorted out by now. As it stands, the MKZ outsold both the CTS and ATS yet again and set an all-time monthly sales record for itself. It also had its best November sales ever in 2013 and pulled Lincoln to sales increases through January and February despite the majority of the industry posting losses due to the severe winter weather. The MKZ is much nicer than any Buick and commands a considerable price premium. While Cadillac has decided to price themselves into the stratosphere with the Germans, their lukewarm sales may have them changing their mind on that strategy (see Silverado). EcoBoost is a MPG solution with far fewer sacrifices than driving a Prius. Some of Ford's more overweight models may see the benefits of EcoBoost engines diminished, and IMHO the 1.5 and 1.6L EcoBoost engines need to be scrapped and started over. But as a whole, EcoBoost is a runaway success and is a major reason consumers are looking at Ford. By the end of this year the Fiesta, Focus, Fusion, Escape, and Explorer will all have two EcoBoost engine options. The Flex and Mustang will have one. The Expedition will possibly be EcoBoost only, but that hasn't been confirmed yet. And the F150 will be dropping a V8 and adding a second EcoBoost engine. And by the end of this year Ford will have 8 different EcoBoost options. The 1.0L 3 cylinder, 1.5L, 1.6L, 2.0L, and 2.3L 4 cylinder, and the 2.7L, 3.5L car-tune, and 3.5L truck-tune V6. The EcoBoost engines in the F-150 and Expedition are significantly different and are built around different turbos (which are the heart of the engine). It's either 7 or 8 depending on whether you want to split hairs again. Not sure if you want to keep going on with this. The comment section is usually nothing more than watching Honda trolls like Aaron.mt make idiots out of themselves. Cheers for the solid discussion though.
          Carpinions
          • 8 Months Ago
          @merlot066
          You just proved his point. Even if Ford were to pull off a 700 lb reduction, which configuration is that going to be in? Because I can pretty much guarantee it's not going to be across the board given that even half-ton pickups come in a high number different configurations. GM already reduced up to 300 lbs from its trucks in the latest generation, which is not insignificant, and merely means that some of Ford's gains are actually catching up before they can pass GM. I'd also tell anyone thinking aluminum will completely revolutionize the game to look at Audi. They've been using aluminum in *cars* longer than anyone, and their cars are some of the heaviest in their segments. These days, with trucks having almost as many amenities as at least a Lincoln/Cadillac, that's going to be where the aluminum strategy will meet its greatest challenge. As far as turbos on engines goes, The Ecotec 2.0 has been turbo'd for almost a decade now, before Ford's 3.5TTV6 came out. Ford was also not the first to go with an NA/turbo setup in the midsize segment; Hyundai did that first. Chevy's 1.4T Cruze came out before the current Focus and its lineup, and while the current Fiesta hit the market before the Chevy Sonic, the Sonic had the 1.4T first. And how is Cadillac playing catch-up with the 3.6TT in the CTS? Lincoln doesn't have a thing that could hope to compete with that car, or its engine. GM has also had turbo engines in its small crossovers for some time. Everyone is doing turbos these days, even traditionally turbo-phobic Lexus and Honda. Ford was hardly the first. Ford and GM's turbo legacies essentially follow a similar path going back to the late 70s.
          Carpinions
          • 8 Months Ago
          @merlot066
          merlot666, "However, nobody else has a turbocharged engine program as aggressive as Ford." VW? Audi? Mercedes? BMW? This is a specious claim that also ignores the FI GM has been doing for the last 30+ years, be it turbo or SC. There are times GM went with "Lincoln currently does not directly compete with the CTS and I never said that." You didn't have to. You spoke specifically about 2 Cadillac products, and I responded not just about Cadillac, but about GM as a whole. "Cadillac copied Lincoln exactly" This is so far off the mark I don't even know where to start. Cadillac has been doing FWD cars since the 1960s. Lincoln's first entrant with that configuration didn't come until the late 1990s. To say Cadillac copied the MKS, given Cadillac's breadth of experience in the FWD game, AND given the fact that the XTS outsells the MKS 3 to 1, is to display an utter ignorance of their market when all it takes is a Google search and a few minutes of reading. The XTS's predecessor was already a FWD platform. And oh darn, Cadillac happens to be offering a TTV6 in the CTS that's being put in the XTS now. By your logic Audi and BMW are just as much of an influence on Cadillac's move as Lincoln; in fact even more so, since Cadillac actually has cars that can be credibly compared to models from those brands. I don't recall that an MKS versus A6/5-series/E-class has ever been done. I think you know why. The XTS may not compete with those cars either, but so far the market has clearly spoken, and Cadillac's car is selling quite well, not even counting for the Buick LaCrosse, which is on the same platform and serves as a sales 1-2 punch for the MKS. Cadillac has no MKC competitor? What rock have you been living under, man. SRX ring a bell? Which sells like crazy BTW, having had 3 very consistent sales years over 50k units for a luxury make? That's more units a year than the very popular Acura MDX. Lincoln is so forward-thinking they're one of the last entrants into that market segment, barely edging Lexus in time to market. Way to give failure the thumbs-up. "Lincoln will be out gunning for Cadillac soon enough." Well, Cadillac's sales never dipped below 100k units even in its worst times during the last 15-20 years. Lincoln's did and have for many years now. Cadillac is winning 2:1, so the pressure is on Lincoln, not Cadillac or GM. Cadillac realized it was do-or-die time over a decade ago. Can Lincoln do the same? There are a lot of naysayers because their actions have not been worthy of the game they're trying to play. Believe it or not, it may sound like I'm a Cadillac fanboy, but I'm just stating facts. I hope Lincoln figures it out and the US has more than 1 luxury make. But so far, I'm not seein' it.
          Muttons
          • 8 Months Ago
          @merlot066
          Carpinions, I agree with most of your points, you seem to have a level head without the fanboy issues a lot of commenters have, but I have to disagree about the SRX competing with the Lincoln MKC. It does not. The SRX is built on the Theta Premium platform, which is a little larger than the Theta that underpins the Equinox and Terrain. It clearly competes in the C/D size class with the larger MKX (which it destroys in sales to be honest.) The MKC is firmly a C-class vehicle and will be smaller than both the SRX and MKX. Right now it would compete with the Audi A3, Mercedes GLA and Range Rover Evoque but really nothing from Cadillac. They would need something on the Delta II platform to compete in that class. Buick seems to have gone a size smaller with its Encore on the Gamma II but again, not a Cadillac and not competing with the MKC.
          Carpinions
          • 8 Months Ago
          @merlot066
          @ merlot066 "I didn't even read that whole thing because you're being ridiculous going back to the 60s." How is it ridiculous if on the one hand you want the "engineering heritage" argument to work in your favor, but then dismiss it when someone else uses it? My point is perfectly valid. "...the ATS and CTS are repeatedly being outsold by the MKZ..." In what way? All 3 cars essentially sold in identical numbers last year, which means Lincoln is still missing out, on top of the fact that 2013 was an outgoing year for the prior-gen CTS. The 2 year-old MKZ is selling as well as a car at the end of its 6 year run. But let's assume your numbers for a second. It's the Ides of April, and it appears the MKZ is about 1700 units ahead of the CTS, and 2000ish ahead of the ATS. Talk to me at the end of the year, because you're basically assuming Lincoln's going to pull it out when they didn't the last 2 years with the same car on sale. Further, the MKZ's 2 best years of sales were its first two full years ever one sale back in 2006 and 2007. It has yet to beat those numbers since, which means it's fighting a bit of an uphill battle against its own history. But neither the ATS nor the CTS competes with the MKZ. The MKZ competes with Lexus ES350s and Acura TLs, Toyota Avalons, and Buick Regals/Lacrosses. The MKZ is not playing in Cadillac's space. Lincoln is still chasing down Buick, frankly speaking, whose sales are even more voluminous just in North America. "By next year Ford will have 8 different turbocharged EcoBoost engines offered in every single model across its lineup..." OK. And what's the end-game for that strategy? MPG? Because that's pretty well not determined yet, and turbos, while making low-end power, also use more gas on the boil, often just as much or more than an NA engine. The vast majority of Fusions, Focuses, Fiestas, Tauruses, Mustangs, Escapes, Edges and Flexes also don't have the turbo engine option in them, so they can offer all the turbo engines they want, but that's not where the most sales come from other than the F-150. Also, where are you getting 8 engines? There's the EB 3-cylinder, the EB 4-cylinder, the EB 2.7 that isn't out yet (which likely uses the 3.5's bottom end), and the EB 3.5. What other engines are there? Are you counting the versions that get put in Lincolns and other Ford vehicles as being "different", even though it's just the ECU? Again, doing a 'Net search, only 4 such engines are listed. Let's see, GM has 2 turbo 4s and a twin turbo 6. Well that's 3 engines to Ford's 4. VW has 2, though if you count VAG as a whole, they've got at least as many as Ford, and probably more when you count their turbo 5s.
          Muttons
          • 8 Months Ago
          @merlot066
          Merlot, I like that you are defending Ford. What I don't like is your penchant for stretching the truth. It makes Ford fans look bad. The SVT Focus NEVER had a turbocharged engine. It was a NA 170 hp 2.0 liter 4 cylinder. Ford has a turbo history but it is much more scanty than GM's. More recently than any ecoboost engine (2008), Chevy had the Cobalt SS which had a turbocharged DI 2.0 liter engine that made 260 hp and held the FWD lap record at the 'ring for a while. They just didn't market it the way Ford did. That's always been GM's downfall. In this case they didn't put it forth as a new line of engines used across the brand meant to increase performance AND fuel economy. Ford did it right and built public perception of turbocharging. Neither company invented turbocharging so it's moot to argue about it. They've both done it in past years and Ford has just marketed it better.
        Kip
        • 8 Months Ago
        @mylz
        You mention Ford needs to address their rusting problem. I won't argue whether they have one or not, but will point out that aluminum doesn't rust.
      Greg Aryous
      • 8 Months Ago
      Yup!!! Lots of next gen Fords are going aluminum thanks to the ground braking new F150. Next is SD trucks n the Exped n Nav because they are all made at the same plant in Louisville... Then full size cars Taurus n Lincoln's n Explorer SUVs.... This gives Ford considerable market advantage n best in class MPG by a wide margin with 9-10 speed autos n next gen EcoBoost engines...!
        Carpinions
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Greg Aryous
        Where is this 9/10-speed Ford tranny you speak of? Because their trucks are getting an 8-speed developed alongside GM, who is also getting that transmission.
          traction_control
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Carpinions
          That 10-speed tranny is called the 10-speed 10R80 manumatic, and it is indeed on the way. The 9-speed is for front-wheel drive, so no rear-drive based pickups or SUVs will be getting that.
      thedriveatfive
      • 8 Months Ago
      Since they are doing all this work they should hurry up and make a new Bronco
      Revis Goodworth
      • 8 Months Ago
      Duh. While Government Motors is patting themselves on the back claiming to have new full-sized dinosaurs brought to market, Ford knows better - it did a mild refresh on the current version but knows full well that the true new product in this segment will be the next gen Expedition and Navigator. Government Motors will gloat as they always do, but Ford will once again smash that smile off their face as has been commonplace since the bankruptcy of GM and Ford saving itself.
        jtav2002
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Revis Goodworth
        Meh, as much of a sh*t storm GM has themselves in right now, I've always found when it comes to the full size SUV offerings the GM options were far superior to what Ford has offered. There are plenty of Ford vehicles I do like and have liked, the full size SUV has never been one of them.
      nlt624@aol.com
      • 8 Months Ago
      GM needs to step up their game. The interior of the Expedition STILL looks better than the brand new Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban. And when the heck with GM put the dang gearshift on the floor where it belongs?????
        bullitt2605
        • 8 Months Ago
        @nlt624@aol.com
        Not to mention the exterior horrible front ends of the TYS group.
        Jordan White
        • 8 Months Ago
        @nlt624@aol.com
        Why does the gearshift need to be on the floor in a large SUV? With it on the column, it means more space for either a bench seat (don't know if they do this anymore) or more storage/cupholder space for the passengers.
          MTU 5.0
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Jordan White
          I don't think you can get a Suburban/Tahoe/Etc with a bench seat. I believe they do this to share the shifter on the Silverado/Sierra and save money. For a pickup truck, I would prefer a bench seat in the front. Suburban/Tahoe/ Expedition, not so much, as they have the third row seating, so the extra belt up front isn't really necessary.
        Carpinions
        • 8 Months Ago
        @nlt624@aol.com
        I've been in both; the Expedition's interior is NOT better. And put the gearshift on the floor where it takes up needless space, like in Ford's FS SUVs? The "column shift is old!" argument belongs in the same trash bin as the one about OHV being obsolete.
        Muttons
        • 8 Months Ago
        @nlt624@aol.com
        Negatory. Sat in a new Yukon. The interior is amazing. The Expedition is still old.
      ebonys57
      • 8 Months Ago
      Once again,FORD will show Garbage Motors how its done.
        Chsutera
        • 8 Months Ago
        @ebonys57
        I'm not a GM guy either but GM has been using aluminum in body panels in their vehicles for years. The new CTS came out with aluminum doors and the hoods on most GM vehicles are aluminum.
          Chsutera
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Chsutera
          So? The point is that GM has used aluminum before. Ford is not the first one to use aluminum. It doesn't matter if it's suvs or not.
          traction_control
          • 8 Months Ago
          @Chsutera
          That would concern cars, not SUVs. The Expedition has used both aluminium hoods and liftgates since 2003. Only now, for 2015, has GM finally added a aluminium liftgate to the Tahoe and Suburban. GM is a bit behind in using aluminium in its SUVs.
      Brodz
      • 8 Months Ago
      Aluminium
        Bernard
        • 8 Months Ago
        @Brodz
        Yes an aluminium soda can, aluminium trash can, or sorry "waste bin," aluminium foil... How about no? We Americans will say aluminum so we don't sound some overly excited putz for an incredibly common and ordinary material. Keep your extra syllables back in your "old world."
      RGT881
      • 8 Months Ago
      Ford must dump the D9 ancient platform underneath the Taurus, Flex and Explorer. I think the latter market is hugely important and I believe that Explorer name is invaluable and thus it should be on par with Germans and also it must be sold worldwide. Look, I work for and with well to do people and they drive Explorers, but are are always itching towards something more premium. These customers must be locked into Ford ecosystem and by that I mean, Explorer needs to be up to modern standards and offered in multiple trims with with top notch levels of equipment. Also, I would put a diesel in there as an option. Oh and Ford Edge has all the character needed to be a fair RE Sport alternative for the middle class. Has anyone read Clarkson article on Golf R, he's spot on luxury and performance being hidden in a volume brand offering. I don't want to show off my wealth, but still want the goods. Hence Ford strategic planning from my view.
      Richard
      • 8 Months Ago
      I like. Very classy looking.
      BipDBo
      • 8 Months Ago
      mustang Mustang MUSTANG!
      Robert Moore
      • 8 Months Ago
      i'm surprised that Ford would go the aluminum route with the Explorer and Expedition, and given that they're up for a next generation redesign this would make sense.
    • Load More Comments