The guts of the E-trac are completely different. Only 2 pcbs................All models of the Explorer's have 3.
[attachment 104610 RIMG0029.jpg]
From what I can see, there are a lot less possibilities that would make the pcb's susceptible to separation with the way they are held in place. It's a far better method of assembly construction. I feel it's mainly to do with that 1 single Philips screw , that you should be able to see in the pcb, in the foreground of the picture above.
[attachment 104611 RIMG0031.jpg]
[attachment 104609 RIMG0030.jpg]
In my opinion, one of the benefits of what I can see out of all of this , is the reliability and less chance of the PCB's coming separating from each other IF you were to say accidentally drop this detector. This has NOT been a big problem in the past with the Explorer's for me but it COULD explain
some of the occasional weird problems experienced my some users of the Explorer's in the past.
There is still the usual "dremalling" of the values off the face of the main cpu chip and also to the smaller one's. This was also what occurred inside the previous Explorer's. The main CPU is not as easy to view and the actual lcd is mounted above it. I am not game( to separate these .............not yet anyway). So telling the difference is not going to be easy.
Realize that utilizing the COMPLETE abilities of a cpu is also reliant on many factors and the simplicity of connection between components has to also be a consideration.
In this picture used as an EXAMPLE

disregard the black bits)
[attachment 104613 300px-Motherboard_diagram.png]
It might help to understand that the MAYBE same CPU in the Explorer generation
MAY have been used differently because of a "re jigging of location" and a re-programming with a faster access to relevant components. There is no way of telling this and we are only going to ever know based on what we are told because viewing the values are not an option for us who want to assert ourselves that there IS a different CPU.
I also feel that the consolidation of the amount of components on the PCB's may also indicated that less was used to achieve more. This fact might also confirm the use of a faster cpu to achieve the result...........I think.
BUT
more so to the point ,
based on what I have tried detecting with the E-trac as compared to the Explorer's, searching in some CERTAIN soils and ground conditions......it's NOT really the same. It's SIMILAR.....in my opinion a BETTER detector in many respects. It's an easier detector to use, that I feel has somehow been modeled in many ways around...dare I say it(it's just my opinion)....the Whites MXT or it's M6.
AS IT'S BEEN SAID.....TIME WILL TELL
David E Di