Nathan Williams, our man in the street in London, caught something a bit different: the new gen3 Ford Everest, a BOF SUV that is built and sold mainly in the Asia-Pacific region, and is essentially an SUV version of the global Ranger pickup.
It is not destined for Europe or North America. So why was it driving in London?
Since many of us will not be familiar with the Everest, let’s do a quickie history. It first arrived in 2003, built in Thailand, Vietnam and India. It had a 2.5 L turbo diesel, and shared some 60% of the Asian Ranger’s parts. It was sold in SE Asia, Middle East, India, Central America, The Bahamas and Africa. This is the initial version. It got no less than four facelifts between its intro and 2014, its final year.
The second generation arrived for the 2015 MY, based on the T6 Ranger generation. It had a shorter wheelbase, and was shorter overall. A wider range of engines were available, including 2.0 and 2.3 L EcoBoost gasoline fours and 2.0 L EcoBlue turbo diesels as well as 2.2 and 3.2 L Duratorq four and five cylinder diesels. A 2018 facelift coincided with one on the Ranger.
The third generation was unveiled 6 days ago. It’s a three-row BOF SUV that sits on the revised T6 platform underpinning the new Bronco as well as the redesigned 2023 Ranger coming later this year. Depending on the market, buyers will be able to choose between rear- or four-wheel drive. They will also be able to choose between 2.0- and 3.0-liter diesels, as well as a 2.3-liter gasoline engine—all of them turbocharged. The sole transmissions announced are 6- and 10-speed automatics.
Obviously the question is: wouldn’t this make a suitable competitor to the Toyota 4Runner, as the Bronco only comes in two-row versions? But Ford is concerned about it eating into Explorer sales, so it will remain forbidden fruit.
n
The 4Runner competitor Ford needs in order to get my attention as a 4Runner owner.
For me, the lack of a third row isn’t what keeps the Bronco from competing directly with the Toyota; it’s the compromises in cargo space and noise control that come from the Bronco having removable doors and roof. It’s far less compromised than the Wrangler in that regard (4Runner + Wrangler / 2 = Bronco), but I’d still prefer a traditional fully sealed cabin on my off-road capable SUV.
But yes, there’s probably no room for the Everest in the market. The 4Runner’s 140K annual sales don’t provide a very big pie to steal slices from, so it would likely compete with the Explorer and in some cases Bronco, as noted.
Ford does deserve credit for keeping an Australian design centre and proving ground – the second and third gens of the Ranger and Everest were entirely done here – if for no other reason than GM departed in quite disgraceful circumstances. There surely must be some logic in keeping a toehold in a mature, stable, fully democratic nation that is (nominally if not actually) in the fastest growing region on earth. Drop “nominally”: go straight up from here to the North Pole and you’ll find heaps of new talent, but I can’t immediately think of a stable, actual democracy across all that distance. GM, of course, knew better…
The Ranger and Everest themselves seem to do alright in comparisons, though they’re hardly paragons of the cutting edge, albeit in a field that doesn’t require it. They’re not for me (an irrelevance) but man, in person, the Everest seems awfully big.
Far, far too big for London, so maybe it was there to test…….stiff lips and drizzle resistance?
It was probably testing in london to see how well it can cope with sitting in traffic moving at walking pace the entire day
Rangers et al cope with crawling traffic in Auckland ok as usual theres a fleet of Ranger utes where I work and it was the best selling pickup last quarter here Hilux no2,
theres 3 models of each they are either slow and hold up speed limited trucks tailgating you in anything when you are speeding or sitting in your blindspot preventing lane changes
Testing in London because it’s primarily (only?) marketed in RHD countries and England has some useful test or photography locations?
In North America and Europe, a lot of SUV/CUV never leave the roadways. Having a full frame isn’t really of any benefit for those vehicles, and in several ways it’s a detriment.
In less developed countries, having a full frame can be useful, even for on-road vehicles.
I had no idea Ford had an Everest. Nice name, and of course it fits with their all-SUVs-have-to-start-with-the-letter-E rule. Which brings up the matter of their North American naming ladder for their SUVs, which I always thought was pretty hilarious: Escape, Explorer, Expedition… OK that’s a nice progression as the vehicles move up in size and (presumably) capability: from escaping, to exploring, to going on an expedition, a much more serious venture. Makes sense. But then, for the biggest, baddest SUV of them all (at least back in the early 2000s or whenever they made the thing): Excursion. Excursion! Like seniors going on a bus trip, or a family heading off for a picnic. Absolutely laughable. What idiot at Ford thought that was a good idea? Everest would have been a much better name for that vehicle here.
We called them “Incursions”.
They seemed enormous and invasive at the time, but now do not stand out from the typical 4-door half ton that are sold by the millions.
Ha. “Incursion” is much more appropriate, indeed.
Eh, Excursion was as ok as a name, but Everest would have been better. Fitting name for the biggest of them all!
Used Excursions, if you can find one, are ridiculously expensive. They have achieved cult like status and their owners seem to love them.
Well, the Excursion did look very bus-esque with its slab sides…
Good point!
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen so much tire sidewall on a new car. But the un-camo-ed car has less.
If this came to North America it would just be another SUV in a lineup of SUVs. The Bronco Sport already is an Escape with better looks and a better name, this would be an Explorer but with BOF construction many are still mourning the loss of. The whole move to cancel sedans in favor of SUVs seemingly was justified and even applauded by some as being the smart financial move but it seems like all these emerging models and subbrands of SUVs inevitably will end up cannibalizing their own sales if they aren’t already, and something like this would just split the Explorer buying base in half.
Shame because I think this is substantially more handsome and appealing to the current Gen CD6 Exploder. BOF SUVs for whatever reason always look more sure footed and rugged than unibody, with a few notable exceptions that all happen to have Jeep badging.
It’s not like sedans haven’t stepped on each other’s toes in the past. You had Escort, Tracer, Tempo and Topaz all vying for basically the same customer. And it was worse at GM where divisions seemed more worried about copying eachother by getting THEIR version to sell so they could compete with eachother in the marketplace.
Back to Everest, I think it could sell here as Expedition Sport in far fewer numbers than Explorer (which would be easier to live with and more economical for families with little to no intention to hit the trials), offering a not-too-big BOF 7 passenger off-roader. But, aside from internal competition, it would hurt Ford’s CAFE ratings and unless its imported, there’s nowhere to build it since the only logical place (Michigan Assembly, where Ranger and Bronco are built) has its hands full.
I absolutely know sedans did that, I actually think there was sound sense in culling the sedan lineup to focus on making better products that profitably sell. What I don’t think was wise was cutting the Focus Fiesta and Fusion and then immediately getting to work on adding more unnecessary SUV models to re-bloat up the lineup and then some.
Escape, Explorer, and Expedition was enough, Bronco doesn’t need to exist along side them because the Explorer and Expedition were nothing more than 4-door Bronco and Bronco II successors.
The Bronco competes with the Jeep Wrangler. The Explorer competes with the Grand Cherokee and presumably now the Expedition competes with the Wagoneer. Nobody else sells a (direct) Wrangler competitor.
But the Bronco absolutely was a great idea to add to the lineup, nobody who was considering a Wrangler was looking at an Explorer and certainly not an Expedition but they would (and do) look at a Bronco. Any Bronco sale is almost certainly an additional sale for Ford, not a zero sum game.
And I mean the “idea” was great, Ford has done a lot to generate bad publicity with it to date via the manufacturing issues and seemingly screwing over its loyal customers that were first in line by re-jiggering the allocation process and now some (many?) of its dealers are trying to stick it to those with reservations by holding them for (markup) ransom. At least that’s the publicity that’s out there.
Ford (US) killed the Fiesta and Focus as they were tainted via the transmission debacle and for whatever reason they couldn’t make (enough?) money with the Fusion. I guess the Mexico plant capacity is useful for the Escape, Bronco Sport, and Maverick instead of the Fusion, although it’s doubtful that the Maverick (at least in the trim that everyone seems to want and they are sold out of in base hybrid $20k trim for what, the next year?) is any more profitable than the Fusion was. Today a 40mpg Hybrid Fusion that sold for far more than $20k seems like a great idea.
The Ranger based Bronco, yes, but the Escape based Bronco Sport, no, it has really no reason to coexist with the Escape or vice versa, I don’t believe they are drawing in buyers with it but splitting the market who’d buy one or the other anyway simply based on your preference on styling, which is funny because the Bronco Sport looks like an updated first/second generation Escape. Why does Ford need two flavors of the fundamentally same car? That sort of thing was deemed wasteful and unprofitable on sedans 20-30 years ago with the culling of coupe variants, why is it any more logical now on vehicles with roughly the same level of practicality?
The bigger Bronco is still way too green to judge but I do wonder while it might draw in many would-be Wrangler buyers if it cannibalized some Explorer sales as well. It may not be a dedicated family SUV but it’s not like it would be wholly inadequate as one either depending on the buyer’s needs. It’s not the diametrically opposed difference between a Fusion and a Mustang GT like the seemingly soon to be old days of niche vehicles.
“That sort of thing was deemed wasteful and unprofitable on sedans 20-30 years ago with the culling of coupe variants, why is it any more logical now on vehicles with roughly the same level of practicality?”
Because coupes were dying in the ’90s and ’00s, while CUVs are as popular as ever. It’s never been about logic, only capitalizing on buyer preferences.
I could see the 4-door Bronco stealing a few Explorer sales, though.
The 4Runner has a third row?! Pretty sure its two-row, 5 passenger only.
Instead of Ford going after the ancient 4Runner, maybe Toyota should go after the Bronco, and the Wrangler by extension, with a smaller SUV with a removable top/doors, etc. Even the relatively half-azz FJ Cruiser is still in demand, years after it left our shores. This should give Toyota a clue that a real, MODERN competitor would be a hit.
The third row in the 4Runner is an option. For tiny people use only.
Always thought that the 2006-2015 Everest was the 2nd generation.
2006 was the facelift of the 1st gen. It’s probably not a coincidence, but that looks a _lot_ like the US Explorer at the time, only narrower and with a solid rear axle vs. IRS.
Ford’s diesel engineering team is based in the UK..