Related Photo Galleries
What is a "carbon footprint size"?
Vehicles are not tested against each other. They are tested on what they new things they bring to each of their segments. The Explorer's segment has far more better SUVs and didn't out shine any thing we haven't seen before. Once again, this wasn't a comparison.
The Explorer has been resoundlingly criticized by many reviews, not just Motor/Truck Trend. It is no longer a true SUV...its FWD, not body on frame, no V8 option either. The MyFord Touch info system has been branded a bad idea and Ford is trying to rectify that. The Jeep Wrangler with the Pentastar and new Mercedes transmission would be my choice for SUV of the year
So the fact that the Explorer is about 20 inches longer, meant for a completely different class of vehicle, is about 2 seconds slower and weighs oh at least 500lbs more than the Evoque has nothing to do with the engine now being "weak" but just their plain bias? As the article states, "The engine in this package is a very large disappointment." I will say however, Ford should be commended on what they are doing with the ecoboost engines and this is definitely a step in the right direction and I hope they continue along this path, but this vehicle was definitely not worthy of winning this award.
You are really hypocritical. You trashed the Ford Explorer Ecoboost in this testing and in your previous reviews because of a "weak" engine. Yet you name the Range Rover Evoque Sport Utility Vehicle of the year. It has the same exact ecoboost engine thats in the Explorer with the same power rating. Built on same platform as the Explorer with all the same design elements. Your bias against Ford could not be more obvious.