While two days after an avalanche killed 13 Nepalese Sherpas on Mount Everest may not be the best time to highlight a vehicle named for the peak, Ford is going ahead with introducing the Everest Concept to the Chinese market at the Beijing auto show. The seven passenger SUV, larger and more expensive than the Kuga and EcoSport crossovers already on sale there, will take the slot at the top of Ford’s utility vehicle offerings in China. The Everest was developed by Ford’s Asia-Pacific design team in Australia and it will be built in China by Jiangling Motors, one of Ford’s joint venture partners there. The Everest Concept was previously shown at last month’s Bangkok Motor Show.
While the red hot Chinese market has cooled a bit, with light vehicle sales growing at an annual rate of 10-15% compared to the 30% growth seen in 2009 and 2010, SUV sales continue to be strong, with 40% growth year to year.
Ford CEO Alan Mulally has said that the new Chinese market Escort sedan will likely end up in the United States (with local revisions) the company had no comments about selling the Everest outside of China.
Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can get a parallax view at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading – RJS
Ladies and gentlemen, the Ford Durango.
Ya, my first impression: Chevrolet front end, Durango rear, and Ford emblems. Let’s see, now, if we can reach all the bases.
I like it. A little Explorer and Durango DNA mixed together. It looks like the Explorer hired a personal trainer, slimmed down and toned up.
Good summary toad. No wonder I like it. Slim and trim Explorango is a great recipe.
I agree. My wife owns a Durango and we love it; I happened to be behind an Explorer on the way to work today; and thought how boxy it looked compared to the Durango. This fixes it.
It’s not bad looking, but definitely has a “new for 2010” appearance.
Ford already had a Durango. After the LTD II-based Ranchero was dropped in ’79, they sent somewhere between 80 and 350 Fairmont Futura coupes to National Coach Corp. in LA from ’81 to ’82. The crazy trunk length and rear overhang on the Futura, made even crazier by removal of the rear windows, translated well to a pickup box. The conversion looks pretty close to factory.
Talk about lousy timing as well as an unwillingness to adapt to current situations !
Everest indeed ! Hell . Why not just call it the Dead Sherpa and be done with it !
The truck’s predecessors have carried the Everest name tag for over a decade, already.
Saying they’re insensitive about the name is like saying Porsche should stop naming its sports cars “9-11” just because.
And yes, they are going to sell it outside of China, since it is basically a T6 Ranger underneath the new sheetmetal, and markets from India to Thailand have received the previous one, and the Australian development center that designed it took the Australian market into account, as well.
There were unfortunately plenty of people who wanted Porsche to change the name. I think it’s pointless. Fortunately for Ford, people outside of this country and as sensitive to things like this.
@gtslngr
Ford’s naming convention for mid size SUV/CUV is starting all name with an ‘E’.
The only exception, apparently, is the Ford Territory in Australia.
I don’t think the Chinese will be as hyper-sensitive – it’s not like they poked them in the eye and called it the Ford Mt. Fuji.
That looks unibody, right? If so, I’m happy for China to have this one and leave us to our BoF construction. (They still have something BoF, right? Expedition?)
Its based on the global Ranger. We get the Explorer instead of this. I can’t blame Ford though, since the Explorer is typically in the top 20 in sales.
@bball40dtw
Maybe Ford don’t want to be in the top 10?
The Explorer has been the best selling medium-large SUV/CUV in the US for a couple years now. Its not going to sell more than the top compact cars, midsize cars, or compact CUVs in the US. The price and size are too large for many.
The Everest would not move more units or be more profitable than the Explorer here. The market has spoken on the Explorer in the United States. I hope the Everest makes it stateside. However, if it doesn’t, it will be because Ford has done the math and its not worth it financially.
Much better looking than an Edge.
I would hope so. The Edge looks dated compared to the rest of the Ford lineup. It has basically the same sheet metal from 2006 with a new nose and rear end.
If you look at the Edge Concept, this looks like a cross between that and the Ranger.
So an actual SUV ie- built on a ladder frame, with what looks like a SRA, but not for America?
Seriously?
Yes. Why would they bring this here when the Explorer and Edge move so many units? The Ford SUV/CUV strategy is already has a lot of overlap.
What creates hype, an actual vehicle capable to its designation, or a wanna be, based on a minivan platform. Doesn’t have to move half the vehicles, it would bring enough traffic into showrooms, that it would do fine. Most people would settle for the minivan explorer/edge but they still want the image of having something capable off a paved road or having the ability to tow and haul people.
I would certainly like Ford to bring this here. It would be easier for this to come stateside than the Ranger. Ford will just have to crunch the numbers on the cost to bring it here and possible loss of Edge/Explorer sales against the money they will make selling it. Since it appears the Flex is going to die anyway, I say bring it over.
If Chevy brings over the Holden Colorado 7 as the new TrailBlazer and it’s a success, Ford may be “forced” to bring this over.
Or at least, that’s what I like to tell myself. I hope the same situation will happen with the new Colorado and the T6 Ranger.
I think Ford would bring the Ranger/Everest over the opposite way of GM (Everest first than Ranger). Ford will protecte F150 profits above anything else
Ford’s platform strategy suggests the opposite.
The Explorer’s platform is shared with other North American vehicles. The Everest uses the non-North American Ranger platform.
For the most part, there isn’t much reason to use both of these platforms in the same markets. This is essentially an either-or proposition.
Pch-
Stop making sense.
Now the chicken tax people are going to show up….
I’m going to start calling it the “ostrich tax.” Those who spend the most time talking about it just use it as an excuse to stick their heads in the sand and not bother to do any research into the auto industry.
This whole business is oriented around platform sharing and cost amortization. When vehicles are or aren’t offered in a given market, streamlining often has a lot to do with it.
They’ll probably bring the small truck and brown diesel wagon crowds with them.
If someone could figure out how to build diesel wagons and compact pickups on the same platform, then we would have an internet sensation!
(The beancounters will demand that they both use the same manual transmission. Cost savings and all that.)
@Pch101
What about ‘poulet impot’, its has a European ring to it, but it isn’t German, like the VW van and pickups of the early 60s.
A long time for a tax don’t you think? You’d think the biggest economy in the world could organise itself in 50 years?
Apparently not.
There’s pretty much little reason to send the Everest over there. While it’s already built with crash safety in mind, and is one of the few trucks in that segment that comes standard with traction and stability control (required for the US)… it’s a ladder frame truck. The only car it would have competed with there is the Pathfinder (also based on the same global mid-sized pick-up formula as the Everest).
But the Pathfinder is a crossover now.
And nice as the Ranger platform (and possibly the Everest) is, it’s nowhere near as nice or as civilized as a good crossover.
Aside from the extra legroom, there isn’t much reason for hardcore off-roaders to get one of these over a five-door Wrangler, which is more capable.
Where is “there”?
The US has a nice selection of minivans, including by all practicalities crossovers, which are insecure minivans. Ford needs an SRA BOF SUV, they haven’t had one in a long time.
@Hummer
The US Big 2’s SUVs don’t have the 4×4 creed outside of the US. A minivan or CUV aren’t off road vehicles.
The Jeep Grand is working on this.
Even a Wrangler as good as it is off road is viewed as much as an iconic vehicle outside of the US as well.
US 4x4s generally aren’t viewed as serious off road machines.
Maybe and hopefully the Canadians’ will get this.
Yea and RoW offroaders don’t have the same following here either, that doesn’t make them bad choices. You’ve been talking up the grand Cherokee the past few days. The one vehicle you do like is a crossover, makes me wonder how capable those other offroaders Australia have actually are.
Besides you missed a very big point made a few days ago.
In Australia people want narrow tires for sand because its compacted. I’ve never encountered compacted sand, always loose beach sand where one wants the most surface area on tires.
ie what works in one place certainly doesn’t work everywhere.
How many muddy swamps or rocky mountain ranges does Australia have?
–
One last point- I welcome any ladder frame vehicle to the US, we are severely short.
The JGC is a unibody, but it does have integrated rail reinforcements that make it a lot more rugged than a crossover.
Yeah, I know, not the same thing.
You would probably like the Everest.
While the platform (again) isn’t quite as capable as the Wrangler Rubicon (though much more civil), we’ve taken the T6 (in pick-up guise) off-road a few times (and got stuck once… the mud seeping in through the doors ruined my socks…) and it’s a fairly rugged and capable one. Could use better break-over and articulation, but these are common issues with all stock rigs, and can easily be fixed with aftermarket fiddling.
Also, since these new global platforms are no longer compact, they can take a whole lot of wheel and tire. And there are already aftermarket parts for the platform, courtesy of the Ranger.
The question is whether the market is there. There are people who want these things, but are there enough of them who would want this (and not a Wrangler) to justify them inserting it into the line-up?
It doesn’t Need to compete with the wrangler, in fact offroading wasn’t the main reason why I would like to see it here. The bumpers make it clear it wasn’t made for offroad. The ability to tow, take payload and be rebuilt and worked on with ease give it enough reason to be brung over. The ability to offroad just means it will hold its value up and til the point it rusts apart or (in today’s world) the electronics make it to costly to keep going.
What value does a CUV have after 10 years? It’s not going to make as much sense as a 10 yr old car, truck, or SUV to keep running.
Not saying this “against you” just making the statement, wanted to clear that up.
I did a double take at the solid rear axle too. This is a great looking vehicle with the potential for off-road capability, do want!
In what year is this auto show taking place? 2104?
It’s interesting reading the comments from the Ford apologists on why this vehicle isn’t coming to the US…..even though it would sell.
This will sell quite a few in the US, so why not have them?
‘One Ford’……..the vison…..and Ford’s inability to globalise is vehicles.
If this can sell in the US so could the global Ranger.
This vehicle will be available in Australia with the 3.2 Duratorque diesel.
This vehicle would be great in the US with the 3.2 Duratorque and the new 2.7 Eco Boost and challenge the Grand Cherokee.
This will have superior off road attribute compared to any current mid size offering that Ford has in the US. Why? Because the Ranger is a very good off roader and a short WB ‘Ranger’ will be even better.
Ford does have the Raptor, but as nice as it is, it is the most expensive ‘quad’ around, a toy.
The Everest and Ranger will do fine in China and Thailand and Australia where there are still plenty of unmade roads. Most Americans never see a pothole or dirt road which is why they buy Sequoias at half the price of Landcruisers or Nissan Patrols. They like the idea of “off-road capability” but they won’t pay much for it.
@Spike_in_Brisbane,
I do agree with your sentiment, but they do sell the Grand Cherokee which is a capable off roader. But, as capable as the Grand is I don’t see to many in the Top End, not yet anyway.
I read an interesting article concerning the design of the Ranger/BT50, which will be in the Everest.
It stated that the wade depth of 800mm was for the SE Asian markets, due to the flooding they get during the monsoonal rains, just like we get up in the Top End and Kimberly Region in WA.
It’s been useful a few times for me already!
Why do the Chinese get the better designs? Between this and the Buick Park Avenue (Google “2013 Buick Park Avenue” to see what I mean), I’m really thinking that we’re getting the short end of the stick!
@matador
What the Chinese want will gradually influence more of what we get.
This vehicle wasn’t designed specifically for the Chinese market, but the global market (except the US) with One Ford in mind.
This will be a very good off road vehicle, especially with the 3.2 5 cylinder Duratorque. From what I’ve read it will have a 3 to 3.5 tonnes tow rating. Judging that the Grand Cherokee has a 3.5 tonne rating I would suspect this will as well. This will match the Rangers 3.5 tonne tow rating.
It will also have discs and coils all round with a live rear end.
It will have trailer sway, and all of the braking, traction, handling electronics and acronyms.
This will be a very good vehicle. I would say better than a Colorado 7.
I would think it will also be offered with the 4 cylinder 2.2 Duratorque for many nations.
While the Ranger platform is arguably superior, I actually prefer the Duramax 2.8 (esentially the same 200 hp VM Motori motor Chrysler uses in the Wrangler) more. The 3.2 lacks revs and the transmission programming is problematic.
The 2.2, though, I like.
Blandness personified. Just another box on wheels that shreds the global One Ford policy. What is the USP of this beast?
Why can’t our Explorer look like this instead of a bloated bulging behemoth?
Sure it’s basically a Ford-ified Durango, but I think the current Durango is one of the best looking SUVs you can buy…