Last Wednesday, Standard and Poor’s downgraded the Ford Motor Company’s credit rating. “We expect the company's financial profile to weaken further during 2006,” S&P declared. “A period when the US economy and U.S. light-vehicle sales are robust." So, good market, bad products. After spending a week driving an Explorer Sport Trac, I’m inclined to agree. Any automaker misguided enough to try to sell this vehicle in the world’s most competitive light truck market is heading for a fall.
At least the previous generation Sport Trac (as well as the Explorer it was based upon) looked sporty. The new Sport Trac looks like an F-Series that tried to fit between two semis– and didn’t. While the Sport Trac’s front end boasts more chrome than a ’53 Buick, the rear is dull and rubbery, dominated by its bed cover. The combination of a full-size four door cab and a relatively tiny bed makes the Sport Trac look like a backyard El Caminofication, or a domestic version of Subaru’s dorktastic Baja. Either way its dissonant design proclaims the truck a cheap afterthought fashioned from an existing platform.
You know that monster conventional bomb the military is hot to test in Nevada? They ought to drop that bad boy on Ford’s parts bin. Some of the worst pap from last week’s Focus found its way into a vehicle that costs twice as much. The roof bins (for sunglasses and remote) are especially depressing; they’re flimsier than a Uwe Boll plotline. Once fondled, the ignobility haunts the rest of the cabin. The Sport Trac’s radio and its pointless faux-carbon fiber trim are also lifted from the Focus—to no appreciable effect. And the door handles are both confusing and dangerous; passenger’s hands naturally rest upon the handle.
Further evidence of ergonomic oversight abounds. The button that switches the Sport Trac into 4-Low is positioned immediately above the passenger’s temperature control switch. A chilly female friend nearly caused a busted axle at a stoplight. The decision to include an info readout right between the tach and the speedo is equally questionable. During my eight days with the Sport Trac, the trip computer continually reminded me that I was traveling just 12.7 miles for every gallon of fossil fuel. That’s just sad.
The Sport Trac’s gas-guzzling 4.6-liter V8 generates 300 ft.-lbs. of torque at 3950rpm. That’s enough twist to trump the Honda Ridgeline in a tow-off. [Same goes for the only marginally less thirsty Sport Trac V6.] Although none of these abbreviated pickups is what you’d call a proper workhorse, the only thing worse than the Honda’s feeble payload is the Sport Trac’s. Well, that and the Chevrolet Colorado’s; but you’d have real trouble finding a truck bed suffering from a worse case of dwarfism (49”). When I hauled some 10-foot PVC pipes, I had to throw someone in the back to secure cargo that extended more than four feet from the Sport Trac’s truncated tail. Why Ford does not simply rip-off Chevy’s “midgate” is a question best left to Standard and Poor’s.
The tonneau cover adds insult to injury. Woe betides anyone who has to subject their knees to rock shards when they crawl underneath it to release the final latch, or carry the heavy thing in the rain. Of course, there are plenty of superb Ford F150’s out there ready, willing and able to cater to serious schleppers. Surely, offering “lifestyle” haulers something that combines sporty handling with a modicum of utility is the vehicle’s raison d’etre, non?
Guess again. With the detuned ‘Stang GT mill’s 292 horses under hood, the Sport Trac’s tip-in is suitably aggressive. And then there’s a lot of sound and fury signifying… nothing much, with a constantly upshifting six-speed working against accelerative aggression. At speed, all’s right with the world: smooth V8, rear drive, bags of torque. As soon as you have to turn or brake, bad things happen. The Sport Trac’s steering is as disconnected as a cell phone. Dive, squat and roll intimidate, and then punish the vigorous driver. Mashing the stoppers summons a symphony of “conks” and more random movements than a terrier chasing a butterfly.
The Ford Sport Trac doesn’t humiliate itself compared to its two main rivals, but it embarrasses anyone daft enough to buy one. Not only does the Ford Sport Trac fail to qualify as a “real” pickup, not only does it threaten to commit haptic homicide on its occupants, but it’s clumsy, thirsty and ugly. Sometimes there’s a good reason why genres remain separate: a “hybrid” ends up being the worst of both worlds, rather than the best. It’s equally true that sometimes multinational car companies lose the plot. Unless Billy’s FoMoCo figures out what it does well and sticks to it like glue, the whole show is in real danger of cancellation.
[Ford provided the vehicle reviewed, insurance, taxes and a tank of gas.]
This review had me laughing so hard I nearly El Caminoficated myself.
Hey Bill, gas is at $3/gallon. What should we do?
Bill: I know, let’s roll out a butt-ugly half pickup/half ute that gets 13 MPG! That’s the ticket! (To bankruptcy).
If it had a midgate, it might be sueful, as it is it’s just stupid. Too short to haul a dirtbike, not safe from thieves, sucks gas. Add typical Ford reliability (They don’t call them “Exploders” for nothing), and you gots a winner, yessir!
How much money was wasted on this paice of crap that could have gone to improving the Five Hundred or Fusion?
Ford’s sales numbers released today tell the story.
The Sport Trak has been around for several years – in fact, I’m pretty sure it predates the Subaru Baja.
Jonny, I’m surprised you didn’t mention that the “bed” on the Sport Trak is made of plastic, which pretty much eliminates much of its usefulness as a truck.
What’s odd is that Ford of Argentina makes a 4-door Ranger that is everything the Sport Trak should be but isn’t. Since it’s sold outside the US, needless to say, it’s available with a TDi motor. And even though it looks identical to a US model Ranger (except for the 4-full sized doors), the chances that we’ll ever see it here are zero. (sigh)
I would just like to make one comment that got left out of the review — like the Ridgeline, the new Sport Trac has an in-bed trunk. Unlike the Ridgeline’s, which is right at the leading-edge of the bed and easy to access, the one in the Sport Trac is all the way at the back bed next to the cab — hence, useless, especially when the tonneau is in place.
An “in-bed” trunk is pretty useless if you’re using the truck like a truck. If you have a load in the bed you can’t get to it. In the case of the Ridgeline, who wants to unload a truck load of whatever you’re hauling to get to the spare if you have a flat?
Of course, someone who was going to use it like a truck would buy a real truck. Most people who own either a Sport Trac or a Ridgeline won’t haul anything more than groceries in the back so it’s a moot point.
Ford’s Sport Trac Limited 4×4
Proof that we are truly living in The Matrix.
Just give me the blue pill. I don’t want to know anymore.
Another “FF”=Ford Failure
It’s too bad they won’t import that argentine Ranger, GM is doing it with the Monaro and the Opel GT. It seems like a smart move to take an already existing platform that works and develop that for the american market, rather then try and copy a s***ty platform that “might” capture a “lifestyle” segment. Stupid….
Ford should try setting some trends rather then try and follow them.
Wow…Johnny busted out Uwe Boll. I’m quite impressed. It’s a perfect compare and contrast – everything that is wrong with the movie industry in the US and everything that is wrong with the auto industry in the US.
The only piece that doesn’t fit is that Boll is a multi-millionaire, despite producing completely laughable junk, and keeps getting more video-game related films to helm.
Wonderful review, JL…wonderful review.
Ronin317,
But you know Billy Ford is three months away — tops — from asking automotive journalists to box.
I, for one, cannot wait.
http://tinyurl.com/rrc2t
liquidflorian: the Monaro import is coming to an end, and the Opel GT is being exported, not imported. (It’s the Saturn Sky Red Line.) GM will be importing the Astra from Europe in exchange, though I still fail to see how this make sense given that GM builds the Astra in Mexico too. If I were dreaming, I’d say it’s because they don’t build the turbodiesel version in Mexico. Alas, it isn’t to be.
Wow, a whopping 12.7 MPG! That’s a full 2 MPG less than my very-full-size Chevrolet Avalanche which has more displacement, horsepower, torque, towing capacity, cargo room, passenger capacity and according to Jonny, more handling!
Jonny, what was the highway MPG of the Sport Trac? Can it beat 17.7?
Ford has taken several steps backwards from the wonderful 1993 Ranger 4×4 I used to own. Guess the “Limited” moniker is for the number of expected sales.
The 4.6 V8 has to be the most overrated engine in the last decade. As dreadful as GM’s car lineup generally is, their V8s are works of wonder. My LS2-equipped GTO (aka Monaro) will whip any ‘Stang currently available (Shelby version not encountered yet!). Why does Ford continue to stick with a decade-old underpowered, inefficient, poorly tweakable engine? That one has baffled me for years now.
Hey, Jonny Lieberman, how about you save the flowery words and witty expressions for your day job as ghostwriter for Dear Abby and just report the cold hard facts and opininions for guys that like sporty trucks. You really know nothing about the Sport Trac. The 2007 is really not that different from the older model which you claim to like. The composite bed is tougher than steel as it won't dent, and the tonneau cover is easily entered from either front or back if you are smart enough to use the key. Your additional out-of-article comment about the bed-front storage bin being useless is further proof that you really don't understand the use of the tonneau cover, and if you fail to understand something so simple why should anyone take anything else you say about the Sport Trac as authoritative? Insulting people that would buy the vehicle as daft is a pretty moronic thing to do as the vehicle does sell, and sell well, despite Ford’s almost stealth marketing campaign. This vehicle fills a niche and has been restyled to compete with the Johnny-Come-Lately Ridgelines and Coloradoes, and Avalanches, which are also selling well, so obviously there are a lot of “daft” people out there as you insult. Lastly, Ford markets the vehicle as a SUT, not a pickup,; so you might want to consider that when you discuss its hauling and cargo capabilities.
Mustangs have out sold any car GM has built to compete against it. Sales numbers prove what people want to buy, not the HP ratings. Now to the real reason I am maaking this post. The button that switches the Sport Trac into 4-Low is positioned immediately above the passenger’s temperature control switch. A chilly female friend nearly caused a busted axle at a stoplight. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge about a automobile would know you can not drop a Ford vehicle into 4×4 LOW without the tranny in neutral, food on brake, and vehicle at a dead stop. The tonneau cover adds insult to injury. Woe betides anyone who has to subject their knees to rock shards when they crawl underneath it to release the final latch, or carry the heavy thing in the rain. The toneau cover can and is supposed to be removed from the outside of the vehicle. Because of your incompetance and ignorance does not mean it is a bad design. Not only does the Ford Sport Trac fail to qualify as a “real” pickup,… Ford does not market the "Explorer Sport Trac" as a truck. It is an SUV, hence the name Explorer Sport Trac. It has the comfort of a SUV, but extra space in the back for anything you could need. Sure it doesn't do what a real pick-up can do, but for the average guy living in a housing development, we all need a truck-like vehicle with room for 4, but still fit in a garage. No 1/2 ton truck will do that. The Sport Trac will do that and still look good, though not as good as the 2001 to 2005 Sport Trac does, but Ford is still the market leader in the vehicle segment. Tom
None of you bone-f'in-heads have ever owned an ST, obviously. Yes it get's better gas mileage. Chevy Crapalanch is a big piece-o-crap. "Wow, a whopping 12.7 MPG! That’s a full 2 MPG less than my very-full-size Chevrolet Avalanche which has more displacement, horsepower, torque, towing capacity, cargo room, passenger capacity and according to Jonny, more handling!" – Uh…no it has less of everything. Less HP per weight ratio, same goes to towing. AND less room. Comparing a full-sized truck to a mid-sized is a bit off-kilter eh? Just because some idiot gets 12.7 MPG does not make it gospel. That's way under the printed MPG rating. The article's author stated: "but it embarrasses anyone daft enough to buy one." – Thanks, and you're an asshole. Obviously not attuned to people's needs; the size of the ST, icluding it's bed, has a market which you really just pissed off. It's been a hot seller since 2001, asswipe. It's practical, for practical people. Not once have I found the bed to be inadequate in the years I've owned a Sport Trac. Not everyone needs to haul anything longer than the bed. The composite bed is also a jewel of an invention, and is farily indestructable. IU find most of all that the vehicle is a perfect size for parking in my garage and in other tight spaces. I pull a 4000lbs camper with my '01 Sport Trac, no problems with the V6. The V8's torque is class-winning for this sized vehicle. Let's seeyou litle weenies with a full-sized truck haul as good as mine. I got the wheelbase and the tow capacity well above any Ridgeline and pass hulking full-sized gas guzzlers pulling hthe same load s all the time. I have a friend with a 5.7 litre and he complains when pulling even less weight than I. The ST is the subject of envy, so I guess I can see where you "real truck" advocates would try to put it down. Hey I don't care much for the looks of it either, it ain't THAT bad however. You never even mentioned the lack of the power-down rear window? Job 2 will include this and redesigned handles! No mention of that either. Ever hear of anythign called "research?"
Sounds like a bunch of jealous, penis-envy a$$holes who wanna own a Sport Trac. I especially laugh when I'm hauling my 4000 lbs camper with my '01 Sport Trac passing the crapalanches and chevy's and F150's left and right as they struggle with their little loads. I especially laugh when Ridgeline can't even carry that capacity. That's when I show them who the "real truck" is. Laff!
First off…Mustangs have out sold any car GM has built to compete against it. Sales numbers prove what people want to buy. Horsepower ratings do not always sell the vehicle. The LT1 Camero and GTO prove it. Sure it is fast, but they were ugly and are ugly. Now to the real reason I am making this post. The button that switches the Sport Trac into 4-Low is positioned immediately above the passenger’s temperature control switch. A chilly female friend nearly caused a busted axle at a stoplight. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge about a automobile would know you can not drop a Ford vehicle into 4×4 LOW without the tranny in neutral, foot on brake, and vehicle at a dead stop. The tonneau cover adds insult to injury. Woe betides anyone who has to subject their knees to rock shards when they crawl underneath it to release the final latch, or carry the heavy thing in the rain. The toneau cover can and is supposed to be removed from the outside of the vehicle. Because of your incompetance and ignorance does not mean it is a bad design. Not only does the Ford Sport Trac fail to qualify as a “real” pickup,… Ford does not market the "Explorer Sport Trac" as a truck. It is an SUV, hence the name Explorer Sport Trac. It has the comfort of a SUV, but extra space in the back for anything you could need. Sure, it doesn't do what a real pick-up can do, but for the average guy living in a housing development, we all need a truck-like vehicle with room for 4, but still fit in a garage. No 1/2 ton truck will do that. The Sport Trac will do that and still look good, though not as good as the 2001 to 2005 Sport Trac does, but Ford is still the market leader in the vehicle segment. A mid-gate is a waste. Who wants to drive around with dirt and dust flying into the cab? I know I don't! Tom
Who buys a Sport-Trac anyway? What are the demographics? For whom is it intended? And who are those people that really buys it?
To me, it looks a little gayish. Like someone who wants to be tough, but are not allowed to watch heavyeight boxing.
Who buys a Sport-Trac anyway?
About 70,000 per year.
What are the demographics?
Actually, the market that buys it is not the same ones it was intended for. Those that buy it use it as an SUV, but with a useful bed that can get dirty without trashing the interior. Someone that likes to be able to haul something that will not fit in the back of an SUV, but still have the look of an SUV.
I don’t like the new body style, but that is subjective. I think Chevy Avalanches look stupid, but there are some people that love them. I think the Honda Ridgeline looks goofy. Again, some people like driving a Front Wheel Drive vehicle that is converted to an AWD setup. IMO, that is a waste. I have no use for an F-150 because I don’t use my Sport Trac as a truck all the time, and I don’t use it like an SUV all the time. If I need a yard of dirt, I haul it. If I tow my trailer piled full of crap, I can do that too. I can go on vacations towing a camper behind me. When I am not using my Trac as a truck, I have room for 4 friends to ride along with me in comfort. I still get over 20 MPG going to and from work.
I am 33 years old and the Sport Trac fit perfectly for my lifestyle. It fits in my garage, but isn’t hard to park into small parking spots. For me, it is a win-win.
I couldn’t imagine driving an Avalanche around town and trying to find a parking spot with the other idiots that don’t know what the painted lines in the parking lot are for.
Tom
The first picture caption, “From the Neither Fish nor Foul School of Automotive Design”, confirms my suspicion that what I read in another review a little while ago was not, as I had hoped, a pun. (There, it could have made sense as such in the context; here, it wouldn’t.) So unfortunately it’s a spelling error; one that I don’t know whether to put at mr Lieberman’s or mr Farago’s door, but perhaps they can get shared custody of it.
The way to spell it when you’re not trying to be funny is, “Neither Fish nor Fowl”.
HTH!
I own a 2004 sport trak and love it. I drove 4000 miles with my wife and 2 kids and all of our luggage while on military leave. I then shipped it to Hawaii and have put a an additional 15k on it. I get 20 mpg and it fits just fine in the small parking spaces here. I take it 4 wheeling and have never gotten stuck. Sure I wish the clearance was a little higher but it handles great on or off road. Even when I drove through a mud puddle that was higher than the hood and sucked water in the intake. With a little help from wd40 as starting fluid I started it and emptied a couple of gallons of water out the tail pipe. That was a year ago and it is driving fine. By opening the front of the tonneau with the key I can fit everything my family of 4 needs to camp for 2 or 3 days in the bed. The pioneer sound system is great and the sunroof and rear window open creates plenty of breeze when I don’t want the ac on. The sport trak is a great vehicle that I use daily for driving or hauling or playing.
13 mpg? I have bought a 2007 sport trac and have never seen the mpg go below 15mpg. And as for the handeling I found it night and day between my old 2001 Explorer and my new one. Plus I think the door handles are cool. But you are right about the low range button
I do wish that the all-plastic box, in 6-foot and 7-foot lengths would find its way as an option on the lower liftover 2WD Ranger.
I use my Ranger in a light urban delivery setting
( I deliver magazines part time and am a former full-time courier) and a plastic box negates the disadvantages of a liner in trucks that don’t carry car engines or bulk gravel on a regular basis. I agree that a real metal box should remain available for people whose 1/2 ton+ is harsher material than paper.
One thing that I don’t get about the people who buy SportTracs and their ilk is why they don’t buy a real standard-cab stripper pickup with a useable box for hauling and an economical sedan for taking the kids to school, commuting , shopping, etc. Most such combinations would cost no more than the Jack of all trades/master of nothing junkers like SportTrac, F150 SuperCrew, Ridgeline, Baja, etc.
Many people buy those jack of all trades trucks because they like the ability to tow 5000 LBS, haul a yard of stuff (The first gen Sport Trac’s bed was just over 1 cubic yard) take the family out, and still only take 1 parking space, 1 vehicle to insure, and 1 vehicle to keep maintanance on.
Two vehicles means two vehicles to pay insurance on, two parking spaces, and two vehicles to maintain.
They do 99% of what the average person needs. Why would ANYONE need two vehicles to do what the Sport Trac can do?
I have an ’02 Sport Trac. I tried the full size truck but since I wasn’t working construction anymore the bed went unused- a lot. So I went to the SUV but found that when I did want to haul something it never fit. For the casual, DIY’er the bed works out fine. Sure, sometimes you have to be creative (you need a sheet of plywood to haul a sheet of sheetrock- good thing Home Depot takes returns).
There are a number of reasons I went with the Sport Trac rather than an F-150.
1. $10,000 – was about the difference in cost at the time between the Sport Trac and the F-150 short bed. Is 1′ 6″ (don’t forget the Sport Trac has the bed extender) worth that much to you.
2. If you have a partner, and they are not a truck lover, then you have a compromise that works. (the driving and parking capabilities have been explained in other posts already).
I have found it to be a good vehicle. I like the rubber floor instead of carpet in the interior (why did they go with carpet in trucks in the first place?) I don’t worry about wether or not my feet are dirty knowing I can clean it out with a broom.
I would have prefered reinforced tie downs. The graphite flexes (and the plastic bed liner even more so) when I tie down a load. However, clean up is easy. Another advantage… had someone do some damage to the rear fender. On a steel bed the damage area would have rusted. No fear with a graphite bed and I was able to pocket the repair money.
With regards to power and fuel. I’ve got the 6 cyl., 4×4, and beefed diff. for towing. I average 17mpg under normal load. Not great but not horrible. On the other hand I have towed my boat (about 3500lbs) across the country a number of times now. Take it out of overdrive and I am pulling up mountains at 65mph+. Power and torque have never been a problem.
The way I see it, a car is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. I, for one, am pleased that Ford came out with something that fit my lifestyle in my price preference.
I have a 2007 Sport Trac Limited V8. We also own a 2007 Tahoe LTZ – but hate to put anything in it (like fertilizer…) that can damage, wear or smell up the beautiful interior. We did not want a full-size truck because parking in our city – and in other major cities – is a major issue. We love the size, features and handling of the Sport Track (we also use it to pull a Yamaha Rhino for off-roading). The only thing we wish was better is the mileage. We just took a trip to Yosemite – about 800 miles round trip (with some sight seeing). The wife and I drove the LTZ – got 15.6 overall MPG. My son drove his 5.3 V8 2006 Chevy Silverado Crew Cab- got 15.3 overall. My other son drove our 07 Sport Trac V8 – got an even 14.0 overall. For the 800 mile trip, the Sport Track took 6 more gallons of gas than the Tahoe LTZ (800/15.6=51.3 gal; 800/14=57 gal. At $3.30 per gallon, that amounted to just under $20 more in fuel cost. Was that a big deal to my son? No way! He loved the ride, the bed with the factory cover, the navigation with Sirus. He and his family felt safe and secure on the mountain roads – with plenty of power to pass. Would I like more mileage? Sure – who would not. But if getting more mileage means I give up other features I love about the ST, then I will keep the ST and spend a few more bucks in gas. Now, if I drove 30,000 miles a year, it may be a different story! Still, the ST fulfills a need in our life. A Silverado or F150 would have its bed empty 95% or more of the time. Then – where do you park it? Oh, we drove the Toyota and Honda’s – nice vehicles, but lacked what I consider are important features of the ST. It has 14,000 miles on it – and not a problem!
I am an owner of a 02 sport trac. It has more than enough power with the 4.0 v6. Towing is rated at just over 10,000 pounds, with a 6,000 pound tongue weight. People complaining abut fuel economy??? Are you serious???? 18-19 mpg with mine and it has a towing package with 4:10 gears factory. With the cargo cage flipped and the tailgate down you can fit about 10 full 4′ x 8′ sheets of plywood in the back with no problems at all. With the posi traction rear in it, I rarely need to use the four wheel drive, it wheels really well. I’m going to install 33″ tires and a 3″ body lift. Just tighten the front torsion bars to give it an extra 1-1/2″ up front and I’m done. IMO, the sport trac is superior to a truck in fuel economy, and turning radius, it fits 5 people easy, and if I need 10′ or longer lumber in it I put it through the power rear window. What’s not to love about these great 4 x 4’s????
Hmmm, I hear a lot of false statemenst about the Sport Trac. I have a 2008 ST. My wife and I LOVE IT!
I commute 60 miles round trip in heavy traffic (45 – 60 minutes for 30 miles) and my average mileage is 21 MPG with the 6 cyl. My around town average is 17 and when I am on the open road (vacation from Los Angeles to northern New Mexico) I was getting between 25 and 27 MPG!!! Call me daft if you want, but this is better than I was getting in my 1998 Ranger XLT with a V6. I was only getting 19MPG on my commute and the best milage I ever got was 24MPG on the open road.
As for the statement about it being ugly. Have you seriously looked at the Ridgeline?? It is any eyesore from all angles.
I do agree with one complaint. The FORD Tonneau cover is too heavy. That was fixed by shopping around and ordering a cover manufactured in, of all places, the United States. The cover only weighs 30 lbs, is easy to install and remove. Has the hinge in the center and is very durable. 45 minutes and it was done. Now I can travel with my luggage in the bed and not worry about it getting wet.
I thought about getting and F150 crew cab, but I don’t want a vehicle that is that wide. The bed is more than ample for getting groceries, camping and carrying the amount of lumber I need for week end projects. If I was in construction I would need the full size bed.
Johnny Lieberman comes off as a absolute idiot with his “Review” of the ST. He totally missed the point of the ST. I’m guessing he wants everybody to buy stock in Toyota & Nissan or drive BMW, AUDI and VOLVO.
If you don’t like Ford, just say so up front. We can then read your slanted review with the jaundiced eye it deserves.