Find Reviews by Make:
Ford gives us [via Facebook] as good of a view of the 2011 Explorer… as you’ll get from the seat of a 2011 Explorer. Unless this is some kind of appeal to the spelunking lifestyle segment (you never know), we may have a new ridiculous pillar size champ on our hands.
Are pillars the new tailfins?
40 Comments on “What’s Wrong With This Picture: Modern Visibility Edition...”
Read all comments
For a second there, I thought that was a sunroof. WTF? That’s just insane.
Its funny you say that.
It took me a while to figure out the orientation of that picture…
Those C pillars.. are monstrous!
They’re D pillars. Presumably they’ve done enough market research to prove that the average SUV driver never looks at their rear view mirror, so they’ve done the obvious.
Greg Locock:
Thanks for the correction, it occurred to me 2 min to late that it was a D Pillar in question…
Off topic: am I the only one that feels TTAC is unbelievably slow today and locks up firefox? Did someone spill molasses in the server?
Twotone
Isn’t this growth in pillar size due to new roof crush standards? Or the new focus on roof crush numbers at least? That’s my feeling.
If this is what the D-pillar looks like, one has to wonder what the A-,B-,C-pillars look like; is there any room left for side windows?
BTW, beautiful red canoe … just makes me totally have to buy an Explorer… I’m not sure how this teases me to want to search high and low for more info on the car…
BTW, I am most interested to see what the rear hatch looks like … I’m kind of wondering if they will have an add-on tent a’ la Aztek…
I’m guessing that this heralds the return of C-D opera window, with B/C portholes for the passengers?
Good point — yes they are the new tailfins. A portion of pillar growth may be related to crush standards, but form does seem to increasingly dominate function, e.g., the use of swept-back windows rather than ones running parallel with the D-pillar profile. I guess the latter would look too much like a wagon or minivan. Horrors.
Not much different than the FJ which is probably the target.
I don’t think so. I tested FJ and paid special attention to the rearward visibility, which turned out to be quite good, for a semi-modern SUV. I was more disappointed by the A-pillars which were made wide enough to destroy all of the benefit of them being upright. Also, Ford ought to target 4Runner, not FJ. FJ is a speciality item like a Jeep.
Haven’t seen much explanation from the car makers regarding the thick pillars/small green house design trend, but someone posted on TTAC a while back a quote from a Chrysler rep saying that high door sills were mostly for the appearance of greater security.
That’s right, the appearance, not the reality. I won’t be convinced that those thick pillars are any stronger until I’m shown that their full width is structurally significant, not just sheet metal skin. Look at a real race car, where rollover resistance is stiffly regulated, and quite likely to be tested someday. Simple 2-inch tubing is all you need, right? Consider, if you like, the B-pillars in my Subaru Forester. Not very thick, but rescue crews are having difficulty cutting through them with the Jaws of LIfe. That’s because of the very high-strength alloy reinforcement at that point. Illustrated and highlighted in the Subaru owner’s magazine, that reinforcement was only a few inches wide.
It’s and echo of the Hummer look. A small piece of flat glass, very suitable for up-armoring. One of the reasons I find most new car designs not just visually unappealing, but repulsive when I consider the psychology behind them.
I hate modern car styling and the lack of visibility that comes along with it, I don’t know of any new government roof crush standards. I want visibility. I don’t care if the Cd gets higher, and I lose an MPG or 2. I want thinner pillars, I rather see out of my car than have rollover “security,” which I doubt is the real reason, this thick pillar high belt-line craze started. someone once posted steel is cheaper than glass, plus since most consumers like this style I’ll guess most consumers and automakers win. I guess I’m an oddball.
We’re just in a baroque period. Give it time– or buy an older model that’s about to be replaced.
I want thinner pillars, I rather see out of my car than have rollover “security,” which I doubt is the real reason, this thick pillar high belt-line craze started.
What you want is irrelevant. If the G says we need rollover “security” because disproportionate numbers of drunks, cell phone addicts, and Grand-Theft-Auto driving teens the driving public lose control, then EVERYONE will have rollover “security”.
No market choice.
No visibility needed – you’ll soon have 40 airbags so your car is totaled after a 10mph ding…
Yes, if this keeps up it’s just a matter of time til they figure out that the ultimate “cool, secure style” is NO windows at all. They’ll use cameras and project images of the outdoors 360 degrees on the interior surfaces. Then the law enforcement occifers will have to have xray goggles so they can invade your priv^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H enforce the law.
No, stationwagon, you are not an oddball. Just sensible. One of the biggest reasons my wife and I bought an Escape is that it is one of few little SUVs with good visibility. The driver can even see the hood!
One of my cars is a ’60 Studebaker. The rear visibility is wonderful. There were no roof strength standards in those days, but then, neither were there when Detroit was turning out overturned bathtubs.
So the most pointless vehicle in history becomes useless as well. Considering the source…that’s not surprising.
This is what happens when you design a vehicle when you only intention is to have something to put a name on.
Plus, Ford has done copious amounts of damage to the Explorer name…there is no reason to save it. Same with Taurus.
At least Ford didn’t run itself into the government poorhouse…
The Government has given Ford BILLIONS of dollars.
Not sure on the exact amount, but the government has _loaned_ Ford some money, for specific purposes, which any automaker could apply for, and others who were solvent did at the time (and who also received loans).
Ford didn’t forget how to balance its checkbook then go crying home to mommy and daddy when the rent came due.
Thinnest sheet metal in the industry, lowest materials expenditures per vehicle in the industry. I guess that’s what it takes these days. I’m not buying it. Literally.
Ford didn’t forget how to balance its checkbook
The hell they didn’t.
That is the exact reason they had to pull almost 25 BILLION in loans…and mortgage everything including their own logo to get it.
Someone who knows how to ‘balance a checkbook’ would not have had to take those loans.
And let’s not forget the 9 BILLION that the government set aside for Ford ‘just in case’. That is what that baboon Mulally was doing when he was in front of congress…getting money. And since the government can’t use that NINE BILLION it set aside…that’s as good as taking it.
Ouch. Loathe as I am to agree with Simple Simple Silvy, he’s right about Ford’s past financial ineptness. That said, I look at Ford’s mortgaging of itself as a far more noble gesture than running to the feds for help. Ford bet on itself on fix things; GM and Fiasler cast their lot with the government.
On that note, Nullo… I wouldn’t say the other two domestic-branded automakers ran to Mom and Dad when they came up cash-short. No, instead they broke into their neighbors’ homes and stole everything they could, with the feds’ help.
Dark days for capitalism, that’s for goddamn sure. But that doesn’t matter — right? — as long as people enjoy driving their new Camaros or Lacrosses. Ditto test drives of 556-hp Cadillacs.
Driving around Boston in an ’08 E 150. The A pillars are huge. I have to be extra cautious turning to avoid pedestrians.
Everyone knows Obama and his socialist buddies hate rear visibility…wait, is this the car company he didn’t take over?
Pillars are the new tailfins, if tailfins actually had to support several times the weight of the vehicle.
The pillars are an unfortunately necessary evil… but the high door sills and window lines are what really burns me. Yeah, they may make soccer moms feel more secure. They also make it easier for them to mow down soccer kids in a parking lot.
…and for a while there, a lot of us thought we’d eventually have cars like the Jetsons. http://jellyflux.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/jetson.jpg
Doesn’t seem to have a lot of leg room, front or rear.
I know there is a lot of talk about the pillars, but I am seeing a very small opening in the rear. I know the pillars are causing it, but the lack of an opening to me is worse than the visibility problem.
I suppose these are the “Eh?!” pillars, then…
That picture looks somewhat distorted, although I have no doubt that the pillars are still plenty wide.
Who was the previous ridiculous pillar size champ? The FJ Cruiser? I thought that the Kia Soul had some big ones, or maybe it was just that it had a particularly narrow hatch.
Are you sure we are looking out the back of a Ford and not out the hatch of a submarine?
Six feet wide minus a foot for wraparound windows minus two feet for pillars equals no plywood sheets going through that hatch! And the floor is crotch high too. What a rotten design. If there’s one place utility ought to win out over style it’s the hatch of an Explorer.
[gratuitous awkward double-entendre comment referring to boobs and the letters A, B, C or D.]
Those pillars look backwards – their long dimension is parallel with the rear of the vehicle. The back of that vehicle has to resemble a PT cruiser, with a door that an armored car would be envious of.
I saw a trio of the new Explorers on I-94 last Monday in swirly camouflage and no extra fake panels. They look really good from all angles, and have a greater general appeal than the Flex. There was no indication that the rear hatch was any narrower than the rear hatch in my 2003 Pilot or 2005 XC70. The rear cargo area in the photo is the same width as the rear wheel well intrusions, but lacks the little indentation to the rear of the rear wheel wells present in both my cars. Maybe that lead to the illusion of a narrower rear hatch.
Very nice. Given the overall length I’d say it looks nicely balanced, more aerodynamic than before, and it looks like they’ve solved the weight distribution problem..
Oh wait are we talking about the canoe or the Explorer?
Ford should be careful. In this day and age of attention Photoshoppers, someone might actually take all those pieces and put together an SUV.
It remains to be seen until the dimension specs are posted, but this looks to me like it might be just a restyled Taurus X.