I moved from a XC to the CT.
Don't get me wrong, the XC was a pretty good bike, better loaded up and on the road. Too much easily broken expensive bits for off-road, although people do take them onto the lanes. Build quality wasn't that impressive, it's premium price for average quality. And hope to god you don't need warranty in the second year, because Triumph err on the side of 'it's not a warranty item', or 'it's wear and tear' - They are quite poor, unless you have a very good dealer who'll stand your corner for you.
I've never had so many recall letters as I did in the two years I had the Tiger!
The XC had a poor suspension setup, only adjustable at the rear (nothing at all for the front), so I'm glad to see they've ditched that and gone all WP. Not sure about the Cruise, yes we'd all like it for long runs, but the Explorers Cruise is so complicated you nee three hands to turn it on! I hope they have addressed this on the XC. Also TC on the explorer is complicated (not like the CT and it's one button), I hope they have a new system on the XC.
I bought the XC because I thought it would make a good bike, looked good(ish) and had British Pedigree, it didn't really live up to my hopes and dreams, and I'm a little tainted with Triumph (I've seen too many poor condition bikes after the British winter) as they have an air of 'rip off' about them. I don't mind paying good money for a bike, but I expect quality for that.
In a funny twist, I was offered more against the CT (for the Tiger) by the Honda dealer, than I was for an Explorer from the Triumph dealer - how does that figure?