Sport Trac Review says nice things about Ridgeline

I thought the following quote from the review was very complimentary to the Ridgeline.

Unfortunately for Ford, the parameters for judging the Sport Trac have changed due to the packaging brilliance of the Honda Ridgeline. The Sport Trac lacks the Honda's locking, in-bed, weatherproof trunk and its two-way tailgate, but it has a few small bins and a full-size spare tire tucked under its four-foot-long cargo floor. The Honda's bed is five feet long. The Ford's rear seats don't fold up as quickly or as neatly as the Honda's. The Sport Trac's cabin is handsomely turned out, but it lacks the Ridgeline's plentiful storage bins. The Ford's optional heated windshield with microwires embedded in the glass is a nice trickle-down feature from Land Rover, though.

If it can't beat Honda in packaging, Ford tries to surpass it in powertrains by offering both the previous 210-hp, 4.0-liter V-6 and a newly available, 4.6-liter V-8. ... :D

Here is the Sport Trac review if anyone is interested in reading about a Ridgeline Wannabee
2007 Ford Explorer Sport Trac (http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/trucks/0605_2007_ford_explorer_sport_trac/)

COOL!! :D :p

I thought the following quote from the review was very complimentary to the Ridgeline.



Here is the Sport Trac review if anyone is interested in reading about a Ridgeline Wannabee
2007 Ford Explorer Sport Trac (http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/trucks/0605_2007_ford_explorer_sport_trac/)

I concur Fred, The best part is the "Big Three" will be on there toes trying to play follow the leader for a while and in the end finally start to begin offering better engineered products to the public.

I read a review about the ST somewhere (I don't remember where I read it and when/if I do, I will post the link) that said something like (Paraphrasing a bit here), "The '07 ST is an improvement over previous models, but unless you need the extra HP and towing capacity, go and buy a Ridgeline".

I thought this quote from the article was interesting:

Ford also undercuts the Ridgeline in base prices, with the Sport Trac retailing for between $24,940 and $30,235, versus $28,320 to $35,190 for the Honda. Although the Ford doesn't ooze the feeling of quality and refinement that the Honda does, that price differential should be enough to make a lot of potential buyers forget they ever needed an underfloor trunk.

For me, the trunk was the killer feature that swayed me immediatly into buying the RL.

I thought this quote from the article was interesting:



For me, the trunk was the killer feature that swayed me immediatly into buying the RL.

The logo on the grille was all I needed to know. It's a Honda, 'nuff said.

from the article:
Ford also undercuts the Ridgeline in base prices, with the Sport Trac retailing for between $24,940 and $30,235, versus $28,320 to $35,190 for the Honda.

I think the above might be misleading because the low end Sport Trac is two wheel drive which is substantially cheaper than what the Ridgeline has in the RT trim. At the high end I wonder if the $30,235 Sport Trac has Navi and a moon roof. :confused:

from the article:

I think the above might be misleading because the low end Sport Trac is two wheel drive which is substantially cheaper than what the Ridgeline has in the RT trim. At the high end I wonder if the $30,235 Sport Trac has Navi and a moon roof. :confused:

Come on now, give the Ford lovers something to hang onto, the writer seemed to give Ford the backhanded cudos. Plus the stated cheaper price, as long as you don't match up features.

from the article:


I think the above might be misleading because the low end Sport Trac is two wheel drive which is substantially cheaper than what the Ridgeline has in the RT trim. At the high end I wonder if the $30,235 Sport Trac has Navi and a moon roof. :confused:

You nailed it, MF. That price does not include Navi. If you want a moon roof add $850; If you want the head curtain airbags (Which of course is standard on all trim levels of the RL), that's another $600. Not to mention, at $30+ the ST comes with cloth seats. If you want leather, add $1000. Satellite radio, add $200. Last but not least, you want a heated windshield, add another $300.

I'm no math whiz, but a comparably equipped ST gets up over $33,000 in a hurry...and that's with no Navigation....which is not even an option.

You nailed it, MF. That price does not include Navi. If you want a moon roof add $850; If you want the head curtain airbags (Which of course is standard on all trim levels of the RL), that's another $600. Not to mention, at $30+ the ST comes with cloth seats. If you want leather, add $1000. Satellite radio, add $200. Last but not least, you want a heated windshield, add another $300.

I'm no math whiz, but a comparably equipped ST gets up over $33,000 in a hurry...and that's with no Navigation....which is not even an option.

Come on now, you are making the ST owners feel bad, like they got ripped off.

Come on now, you are making the ST owners feel bad, like they got ripped off.

Now, I wouldn't say that....I just don't think they got the biggest (best) bang for their buck. :D

Similar Review in USATODAY today:

"Ford has redesigned its Explorer Sport Trac sport-utility pickup using the hardware and features of the latest Explorer SUV, which translates into a huge improvement over the previous Sport Trac.

The vehicle blends the regular Explorer's passenger compartment, suspension and powertrain with a stubby pickup cargo bed on a wheelbase about 16 inches longer than Explorer's. You could consider it a midsize, crew-cab pickup as easily as you could regard it as a type of SUV. Though Sport Trac is truck-based, rather than a car-based crossover SUV, it is mannerly enough to rival Honda's Ridgeline crossover-utility truck.

Ford always has marketed the Sport Trac as an Explorer model because studies showed that people would pay more than if it were sold as a Ranger crew-cab pickup. Explorer and Ranger shared some basic hardware back then, though not today.

What makes the 2007 Sport Trac much better than its predecessor:

• The '07 has independent rear suspension instead of the rougher-riding, clumsier-handling solid rear axle. That and the long, 130-inch wheelbase mean the Sport Trac soaks up most road irregularities without fuss. The independent rear suspension, combined with an improved frame and relatively tight, 36-foot-wide, turning circle, allows Sport Trac to be maneuvered with surprising agility and driven with uncommon verve.

• The Mustang GT V-8 engine is an option, the first time a V-8 has been available. Its 292 horsepower and 300 pounds-feet of torque are slightly less than in the Mustang, and Sport Trac is about 1,200 pounds heavier.
Have no illusions that Sport Trac is more than pleasantly enthusiastic under the spurs.

• The frame is an incredible 444% stiffer than the previous model's, removing a lot of flex and wiggle that hampered the previous Sport Trac, especially when loaded.

The test truck was a high-end, $34,000 Limited V-8 four-wheel drive. Styling isn't radically different than what's come before, but the 2007 tester drew a lot of double takes, interested stares and parking lot fawning.

The test truck did a generally marvelous job gliding smoothly, confidently through the daily errands and traffic trials of suburban life.
The feeling of poise was abetted by close-to-comfortable seats. Very nice steering and brakes were pleasant surprises, too.

The automatic transmission — a modern six-speed — paused a bit before downshifting, though the shifts themselves were quite smooth. And the engine-transmission link appeared to be on a coffee break, sometimes going from less throttle to more throttle. It can be disconcerting waiting for the drivetrain to deliver if you need to go from slow to fast right now.
Sport Trac has, hooray, conventional front door handles — finger cups scooped out of the arm rests — not just the low-mounted straps that make the doors so awkward to use on the Explorer. But don't expect those good handles on Sport Tracs until July, when the regular Explorer should get them, too.

The Sport Trac's interior is similar to that of the regular Explorer, so you're stuck with the silly faux chrome finish on the vent rings and door-latch handles. Not only chintzy looking, the sheen reflects too easily in the windshield. As on the Explorer, Sport Trac's fuel and temperature gauges are small and tucked where they're hard to see.

The '07 Sport Trac's cargo bed has higher sides than before, so it's able to enclose more stuff. And the payload is a commendable 1,300-plus pounds (depending on model).

The bed is plastic, so it won't scratch and rust. And it has three useful below-floor storage bins, none rivaling Honda Ridgeline's generous under-bed trunk, but all likely to be useful for jumper cables, tow hitches, first-aid kits and the like. Drawback: The higher sides on the cargo box make it hard to lean over far enough to reach the latch for the front storage box.
An optional, hard bed cover makes the cargo bed what Ford considers "weather resistant," but not guaranteed weather- or waterproof. Latches on the bed cover are improved and easier to use, as is the fold-in-half feature. The tailgate gets helper torsion bars from the Ford F-150 pickup. Tailgates are heavy; the help is welcome.

The only way to get some desirable features — leather upholstery and heated seats are prime examples — is to get the pricey Limited version, which gives you running boards and other items you might not want.
As a midsize truck, rather than full-size, Sport Trac has only modest rear-seat room, and the back seats won't win any comfort awards. The design makes it difficult to attach and fully tighten the top tether on today's child seats.
Fuel economy is close to appalling. The V-8 tester struggled to deliver 12 mpg around town. That's not unreasonably far from the 14 mpg official in-town rating, but so what? It's lousy, and so is 14. At least Ford recommends lower-price, regular-grade fuel. The V-6 is rated only 15 in town.

The '07 Sport Trac is an enormous improvement and is a generally pleasant vehicle in many uses — simple commuting, load-toting, highway cruising. Tweaks to the powertrain and the interior could take it from a good choice to an outstanding one — for those who can afford the fuel."

That's not really a glowing review, is it? :(

Ah, man, tl...you beat me to it. I just saw this review today. I espeically thought the 12 MPG, city driving, with the new V-8 was interesting. Let's see.... a $34,000 pickup that gets as bad, or even worse mileage, than a full sized pickup....yet you don't get the towing of a full sized pickup, the interior room of a full sized pickup (or RL for that matter), or even the payload of an RL. Oh yeah, and again, this price doesn't include navigation....but at least you get a V8 that gets terrible gas mileage!!!

Yeah, you get a lot more for you money with a ST....NOT!!!!!

I'm not going to bash another truck, but there is something that strikes me funny about this issue.

The Ford guys have been bashing the Ridgeline for over a year now for not being more of what they would call a real truck. But when Ford tries to re-create something to be more like the Ridgeline, they can't come close, though it is encouraging that they're trying. We push each other to get better through competition.

RO3

If I'm going to spend $34k and get 12 mpg, I'm getting a Nissan Titan.

Well, I find it funny.....I went over to the Sport Trac site a while back and read what they were saying about the RL. Not that it matters all that much, but I was interested. Needless to say, it was not very flattering. I read one thread there, where a RL owner was trying to talk to them about their RL vs. the ST, in a very civilized manner, and all the ST folks could basicallysay was, "The RL sucks" and, you couldn't compare the '06 RL with the '05 ST because it was comparing apples to oranges

Now....What I find funny, is the majority of the folks over there where saying the RL wasn't a truck because it could "only" tow 5000 lbs., and no person in their right mind would own a truck that does not have a solid rear axle. So, what does Ford do with their '07 ST? They get rid of the rear axle in favor of an independent rear suspension and, with doing that, it only tows about 5000 lbs. (More if specially equipped. I bet the same could be said for the RL).

I'm sure the ST owners would come back with something like, "Yeah, well we don't claim the ST is a 1/2 ton pickup either....or an pickup for that matter.... it's an SUV". Whatever...if it looks like a duck.....

Well, I find it funny.....I went over to the Sport Trac site a while back and read what they were saying about the RL. Not that it matters all that much, but I was interested. Needless to say, it was not very flattering. I read one thread there, where a RL owner was trying to talk to them about their RL vs. the ST, in a very civilized manner, and all the ST folks could basicallysay was, "The RL sucks" and, you couldn't compare the '06 RL with the '05 ST because it was comparing apples to oranges

Now....What I find funny, is the majority of the folks over there where saying the RL wasn't a truck because it could "only" tow 5000 lbs., and no person in their right mind would own a truck that does not have a solid rear axle. So, what does Ford do with their '07 ST? They get rid of the rear axle in favor of an independent rear suspension and, with doing that, it only tows about 5000 lbs. (More if specially equipped. I bet the same could be said for the RL).

I'm sure the ST owners would come back with something like, "Yeah, well we don't claim the ST is a 1/2 ton pickup either....or an pickup for that matter.... it's an SUV". Whatever...if it looks like a duck.....

Yeah, that's what I meant, too.

I couldn't help myself, but I went over to one of the ST sites, just to see what they were saying about the '07 ST. Obviously they are all pretty excited about it. That makes sense. The ST hadn't been updated in quite some time and the old platform was getting a little dated. To tell you the truth, I don't mind the looks of the ST, and it would seem to be a decent vehicle. Not that I would even think about buying a Ford, but it's not bad looking.......put some lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig.

But even their own ST members are making disparaging remarks about the '07 ST. They are a little disappointed with the poor MPG of the V8 and they are even complaining that it's not as fast as they had hoped. I think ST enthusiasts were hoping for a really hot little truck, but ended up getting a heavy/thirsty pig of an SUT, that has given up much of it's "truck" aspects in exchange for becoming more like an SUV....and for the most part, ST owners are none to happy about it.

Another Sport Trac Review has come out and the reviewer campares it to the Ridgeline often. Like in the following quote:

I am also surprised that this Sport Trac doesn't feel more powerful than our long-term Honda Ridgeline. I thought that the Sport Trac would really benefit from a V8, but even 292 hp doesn't seem to motivate this 4793-lb vehicle to do very much besides suck down fuel. OUCH! :eek:

The title of the review is: Not so Sporty: 2007 Ford Explorer Sport Trac
(http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060509/BLOG06/60509004)