Everyone likes change. If change didn’t happen, then you’ll still be making phone calls in a booth, and you wouldn’t be reading stuff like this over the Internet. However, as much as change is generally good, there’s a fine line of being too conservative and being too radical. If there’s too little change, you’ll be branded as ‘been there, done that’. If you’re too radical, they’ll say you’re weird. Finding the exact mix is the key to being well-received.
Take a look at the Ford Everest, for example. When it was announced way back in 2003, it was dubbed as the future of mainstream Filipino transport. At the time when Toyota was hawking its Revo and Mitsubishi its Adventure, Ford presented a much more modern, much more robust vehicle that can go anywhere and can still seat the extended family (naturally). Unfortunately for Ford, the other car makers followed suit and soon, you have the likes of the Fortuner and the Montero Sport nipping at the heels of the Everest. A full model change was done in 2007, though that particular incarnation just managed to close the gap, but didn’t show something particularly mind-blowing.
Ford certainly knew this, and come this year, refreshed the Everest once more. Though it’s being touted as an all-new vehicle, in actually, this is something like a Version 2.5. The metal wrapper is new and it looks handsome in a rugged sort of way, especially in this new metallic copper color. Since the Everest is based off the Ranger, it takes on the pick-up’s new cues. For instance, gone are the squared-off headlights and in its place are swept up ones. The grille is now much larger too, emblazoned with the words ‘Everest’ for that added tough touch. The fenders are now filled with gigantic six-spoke 18-inch alloys. The side mirrors now prerequisite-ly house the turn signals, while at the back, the brake lamps have been smoked for a much more sophisticated look.
As handsome as the Everest is, upon closer inspection, you cannot deny that the styling is fussy at best. The faux silvered brake ducts and fender vents, for instance, are cues that work on a sporty hatchback but not on a two-ton SUV. And then, you have the issue of that large 18-inch alloy wheel. It certainly looks good on the four corners of the Everest, but not when it’s stuck on its back as a spare tire. At a time when the spare tire is often hidden from view, the Everest showcases its ‘asset’ in all its glory. Worse, this same spare tire hinders access to the rear wiper and makes an already challenging vehicle even more difficult to park due to the increased length.
Since this Everest is a mere revision of the old one, the interior remains largely unchanged. This may play to those who have always loved a straight-forward cabin, but if you’re expecting something with a bit of style, then you’ll be better off somewhere else. The driver’s seat cannot be adjusted for height, but at least the steering column can be tilted. This gives a very truck-like driving position, where you’ll be more hunched towards the steering wheel than you normally would in other cars. The truck-like atmosphere is heightened even more with the Everest’s lack of a dead pedal as well as the umbrella-type parking brake.
The same is true for everyone else. For example, the person riding shotgun will complain for the lack of seat width—not good for long-distance driving. But while the people at the front may be clamoring for comfier seats, those in the second row will revel in the king-sized leg room. Thanks to the Everest’s long wheelbase, the middle row occupants can cross their legs with space to spare. But, once they put uncross their legs, their knees will end up slightly raised because of the Everest’s tall floor. It’s even worse for those on the third row because of the primitive headrest-less configuration. And you can’t even lean on the seatbacks for long because you’ll just end up hitting the rear glass.
Though the Everest’s long length should have translated to a cavernous cargo hold, this isn’t true. The cargo flexibility is meager at best. First, the second row flips up in a 50/50 split rather than the standard 60/40. This severely limits the passenger count of the second row to one when loading long objects, compared to two (in a squeeze) on other SUVs. And then you have the third row that simply folds as one whole piece. This means you can either fit luggage or a sixth person for that trip to Baguio. Plus, the third row lacks any sort of sophisticated locking mechanism. Need to stow the third row up? You need to latch it to the second row’s headrest with a strap. You can’t get cruder than that.
The revamped Everest range sees the ‘Limited’ moniker replacing the ‘XLT’ as the top-of-the-line models. The four-wheel drive model is only available as the 3.0 Limited, but the P 1.695-million price tag is prohibitive for the Filipino buyer, even for those who’re buying through financing. The rear-wheel drive only 2.5 Limited, at P 1.470-million, is at the sweet spot, and it’s nicely speced for the price. You get all the toys the 3.0 Limited has including leather seating, matte wood trimmings and a full-featured audio control system with an auxiliary input jack. On the safety front, even the 2.5 Limited gets four airbags, ABS, rear parking sensors and limited slip differential.
With all the toys loaded in, you’ll usually read ‘why go with the 3.0-liter when the 2.5-liter engine has more than enough spunk.’ If you’re satisfied just puttering around the city and being overtaken by Montero Sports and Fortuners, then it’s alright. But once you’ve tasted the 3.0-liter, it’s a different animal altogether. And that’s surprising, given the 2.5-liter DuraTORQ gives up just 13 horsepower and 50 Nm of torque over the 3.0-liter model. Like all other Ford DuraTORQs, the 2.5-liter unit feels smooth at idle. There’s none of the diesel clatter and interior rattle commonly associated with a lean burner. However, compared to the 3.0-liter, the 2.5-liter needs some time to gather momentum. It feels sluggish from a standing start, but it does give satisfying jolt when the revs climb up. Meanwhile, the five-speed automatic (the sole transmission on the Limited) does the job quite well, though there’s noticeable shift shock and lag perhaps because the slush box was designed with the Explorer (and maybe the 3.0-liter DuraTORQ) in mind. Because of the transmission lag and the need to continuously rev the engine, the week’s mileage was just 7.68 km/L, a figure actually comparable to that of the 3.0 Limited!
Before the update, the Everest was known to have balanced the ride/handling equation quite well. It managed quite well despite the pick-up based suspension (Double Wishbones upfront and leaf springs at the back). It certainly doesn’t handle like a sportscar, but it’s commendably stable and predictable through corners while giving forgiving ride. However, that’s all changed with the 2009 model, and it’s down to the 60-series tires. The 255/60 R 18 tires are a pimpmobile’s delight, but it doesn’t do wonders for the low speed ride. Whereas the old Everest can run over the little ruts and bumps without jarring the cabin too much, the new tires make the occupants jiggle about. The larger tires should have made the handling better though, and maybe it has, but since the test was done primarily on city streets, the improvements aren’t noticeable (maybe except for the heavy steering wheel, which is pain during parking).
In the end, though the Ford Everest has substantially changed for 2009, the changes are far from enough. In fact, Ford has stuck on giving mere cosmetic changes (some of which are questionable), without improving the mechanical bits. Ford could have used this opportunity to modernize the Everest and put it in serious contention with the market leaders. Instead, the Everest is for the most part, unchanged. And from the brand that pioneered this segment, that’s a shame.
By Ulysses Ang | Photos By Ulysses Ang
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.