 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Explorer / July 2005Explorer Reliability Issues?
Well, we've almost pulled the trigger on a brand new 2005 Explorer. What are peoples' opinions on their reliability? I'm forgoing a Honda Pilot, going with an Explorer due to my towing needs, and I guess, future wants. The Honda tows 3,500 lbs, or 4,500 if it's a boat. (? I guess it has to do with aerodynamics of a boat trailer vs. a regular trailer) That will probably tow our Coleman tent trailer fine (~2,100 lbs loaded), but leaves no upgrade path (probably want a hard sided travel trailer in the next few years). I called my buddy who sells Fords. I'll be meeting him on Saturday. I also e-mailed some friends about this. Man, are they pushing me toward the Honda Pilot! We almost went with the Pilot, but the towing and lack of features just kind of turned me off. Also, Honda's stability control is only available on the EX with leather model, not the EX with cloth seating, because they consider it a "luxury item". Hmmm, sounds like a safety item to me! Anyway, now I'm second guessing my decision a little. I know the Explorer will pull it better, probably won't be too bad (our '94 was a HORRIBLE experience the first 3 years, but not bad the last 5 - not sure if my standards went down after the warranty expired, or it just had everything replaced - e-mail me directly for the whole story), and should be a better experience than our last Exploder. But I guess I'd just like to hear from other late model owners how they feel. I knew a lot of 1st generation Explorer owners who had their transmissions die right around 70,000 miles. Mine is still factory, at 120,000. (I've changed tranny fluid frequently since I tow) I plan to keep this one at least 10 years, if not more. The newer models are built to last longer, right? Thanks in advance for everyone's input!  SignatureRichard Minami '94 Explorer XLT 4x4 '94 Honda Accord LX '97 Coleman Yukon One should note that U-Haul will not rent a trailer to someone towing with a Ford Explorer. They don't consider it a "safety issue", but it is a direct result of lawsuits from accidents involving this combo (Explorer + U-Haul trailer). Check out the A/C. I have heard several complaints that the 2005 Explorer A/C blows cold air only on your feet! The max tow trailer weight depends upon the engine size (V-6 or V-8), the axle ratio (3.55 or 3.73), and the size of the wheels (16" or 17") and 4X2 vs. 4X4. Note that on some Explorer models (and this is typical of other manufacturers too) if you take the GCWR minus the curb weight of the vehicle, you come up with a max trailer weight that is LESS than that listed. Oh, yes, add the weight of gas, driver, passengers, and cargo in the Explorer to reduce that number even more. Check out the specs (on the car and in the actual manual in the glove box) for the particular vehicle you are thinking of buying: GCWR, curb weight (empty), and listed max trailer weight . Often the manual also lists the maximum allowed square footage of the front of the towed vehicle (important mostly if you are looking at a TT in the future). I can't find this listed for Ford SUV's, but the trailer max frontal area for all their properly equipped trucks and vans is 60 sq. ft. (i.e. 7' X 8.5') > Well, we've almost pulled the trigger on a brand new 2005 Explorer. What > are peoples' opinions on their reliability? Please elaborate on how wheel size influences max tow weight. Thanks in advance. SignatureChris Cowles Gainesville, FL > The max tow trailer weight depends upon the engine size (V-6 or V-8), the > axle ratio (3.55 or 3.73), and the size of the wheels (16" or 17") and 4X2 > vs. 4X4. I believe max tow rating is related not just to the actual size of the wheel, but to the size of the brake rotors and pads which come stock with the larger wheels from the factory. This is just a guess. If you look at web sites which list different models of vehicles (such as my Expedition), they list different GCWR with different wheel sizes (17 inch vs.16 inch), as well as axle ratios, engine sizes, etc. Some of the limitation in towing ability is in the braking ability of the tow vehicle. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Cowles" > Please elaborate on how wheel size influences max tow weight. > Please elaborate on how wheel size influences max tow weight. > > Thanks in advance. Two ways - 1) Larger wheels and tires effectively lower the gear ratio. 2) Larger wheels and tires weigh more. This is a double hit to your braking an acceleration. When stopping you not only have to burn off the extra forward inertia added as a result of the extra weight of the larger wheels and tires, but you also have to burn off the extra rotational inertia. Bigger tires and wheels are both heavier and have a larger diameter - this makes them a better flywheel - which is not a good thing when you are trying to change speeds (either slowing down or speeding up). Ed > -- > Chris Cowles [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > axle ratio (3.55 or 3.73), and the size of the wheels (16" or 17") and 4X2 > > vs. 4X4. Thanks. Basically, the smaller the wheel/tire the easier to pull/stop. > Two ways - > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> > 4X2 >> > vs. 4X4. >Thanks. Basically, the smaller the wheel/tire the easier to pull/stop. No. Smaller wheel/tire (actually, smaller circumference) means more pulling power available. However, that smaller circumference means a smaller tire patch on the road surface, which means less friction available for stopping. Also, less ability to put that pulling power to the road (slipping upon accelleration). It's a compromise, like most things. You can get better tires to help with traction. These will also have lower tread life (unless you want to pay some really high dollar amounts for the tires). >> Two ways - >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>> > 4X2 >>> > vs. 4X4. SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" I saw a 2004 or 2005 explorer pulling a Uhaul last weekend. I wondered about that because I tried to rent one once for my 2000 XLT and was denied. Are you sure the UHaul policy is not related to the model year? Could be that this guy knew someone at UHaul or got someone who didn't know better. -troy Here is the statement from the UHaul web site just now when I pretended to try and rent a trailer using a 2005 Ford Explorer RWD as a tow vehicle: "This vehicle is not authorized to tow U-Haul equipment. U-Haul does not rent behind this tow vehicle. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. Is there a different vehicle that you can use for towing?" "tfandango" >I saw a 2004 or 2005 explorer pulling a Uhaul last weekend. I wondered > about that because I tried to rent one once for my 2000 XLT and was > denied. Are you sure the UHaul policy is not related to the model > year? Could be that this guy knew someone at UHaul or got someone who > didn't know better. Richard - In Nov '01, I bought a 2002 Explorer 4-DR XLT with the (kinda small) V-8 and factory towing package. The latter seems to include a 3.73 LS rear end, 5-speed overdrive automatic trans, Class III hitch and 7-pin connector. It is rated to tow somewhere around 7000 pounds - which it will NOT COME CLOSE TO DOING if you venture out of the flatlands of the midwest. For this reason I would not consider the 4.0 V-6 if you expect to tow. At the moment, I have about 85K miles on it (we drive a lot). Perhaps 20K of that involved towing low-profile camping trailer which I weighed put on a scale and found about 3500 pounds. The vehicle has been adequate, but no more than that, pulling this trailer into the high Sierras and over Loveland Pass and Vail Pass in Colorado. The combination of steep grades and high altitude just kill the engine's output. Overall, this has been a great vehicle. I replaced the OEM Michelins at about 80K, and just last week replaced the OEM battery. I change oil religiously every 3K, but other than that haven't had to do anything to it. My only complaint is that the tranny REALLY REALLY needs a Tow Mode - it behaves very improperly when the camper is behind it. (I think this is the 5R55W trans.) I also wish it had a tranny temp gauge (but that's minor) and an extra tranny cooler. I hope to get another 80K out of this vehicle, and don't see any reason why I shouldn't if the tranny holds up as it has so far. At that time, if the new models have a Towing Mode, I will probably replace it with another Explorer - otherwise, I may look around. Bill Jeffrey ========================= > Well, we've almost pulled the trigger on a brand new 2005 Explorer. What > are peoples' opinions on their reliability? I'm forgoing a Honda Pilot, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > longer, right? > Thanks in advance for everyone's input! > Richard - > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > combination of steep grades and high altitude just kill the engine's > output. ....snip It's not surprising that your Explorer couldn't cope with the mountain passes. Based on my readings, you have to derate the capacity of a vehicle anywhere from 2% to 4% per 1000 feet of altitude above sea level. So for Loveland Pass (~12000ft altitude), that means you lose anywhere from 24% to 48% of towing capacity - which makes towing your 3500lb camper kinda iffy. Jean >> Richard - >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Jean I've heard you lose about 2% of your power for each 1000 ft of altitude, but never heard about derating your towing capacity for altitude. The brakes, powertrain (except for power) and suspension don't change with altitude. The loss of power is self-limiting concerning towing. SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" > >Jean > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with altitude. > The loss of power is self-limiting concerning towing. I believe the brakes will not be as effective at high altitude becasue the less dense air will not cool them as well. Ed >> >Jean >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Ed I've never heard that before. SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" >>>>Jean >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I've never heard that before. The figures I quoted were taken from Ford and Chevy towing manuals (circa 1992) and relate to the vehicle's ability to pull a load. I'd guess that the figures primarily relate to the engine, with maybe some consideration for the tranny also. Jean >>>>>Jean >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Jean OK, "that" in my post referred to a loss in braking ability. Are you saying that the figures you read include braking ability, or "vehicle's ability to pull a load", which is a different thing from a vehicle's GCWR? SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" >>>>>>Jean >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > "vehicle's ability to pull a load", which is a different thing from a > vehicle's GCWR? The figures I referred to only apply to the vehicle's ability to pull a load. Below is an excerpt from a Trailer Life article (see web page at http://tinyurl.com/5fnlv ): "When evaluating a vehicle manufacturer's tow rating, consider the altitude where you plan to travel consistently. Naturally aspirated engines lose approximately 3 to 4 percent of their power per 1,000 feet increase in elevation. If the manufacturer does not specifically indicate whether altitude has been taken into account in the ratings, reduce combination weight by about 2 per cent per 1,000 feet of increase in elevation to maintain performance." The gist is that you need to derate the towing vehicle's GCWR if you are going to tow at high altitudes. Jean > >> >Jean > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I've never heard that before. It is speculation, but I believe it must be true. All the heat generated by the brakes must be disipated to the air. Reduce the denisty of the air and the rate of heat transfer is reduced. I know that for electronic devices you must derate heat sinks at higher altitude. This must be true for brakes as well. Ed >>>I believe the brakes will not be as effective at high >>>altitude becasue the less dense air will not cool them as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ed I got curious enough about this that I broke out the performance manual for my "work vehicle". One of the charts there is entitled "Brake Cooling Schedule". Using only the portion that deals with altitude, and following a convenient line, at Sea Level the cooling time is less than 1/3 of the time than is published for 10,000 pressure altitude. Since the only difference I allowed for would be the air density, the OP is correct in that when operating at higher pressure/density altitudes, the braking efficiency would be compromised by the fact that the brakes take longer to cool between applications. >>>>I believe the brakes will not be as effective at high >>>>altitude becasue the less dense air will not cool them as [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >altitudes, the braking efficiency would be compromised by the fact that >the brakes take longer to cool between applications. OK, I've heard it now. :-) SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" Jean - You are exactly right about that. In situations like that, I would kill for a decent supercharger that would boost the pressure back up to something near sea level. I've looked. There are a lot of shysters out there selling mini-blowers that are too small to do much of anything. There are also a lot of leave-rubber-at-the-light kind of macho dorks who think of a supercharger as something to get a burst of power to leave someone else in the dust. But boosting intake pressure above sea level for more than a few seconds is liable to harm an engine that isn't designed for it. What I am looking for is something that will bring pressure back to sea level and no more, and can operate for a half hour at a time without hurting itself or the engine, as I negotiate a mountain road. Haven't found anything. Any ideas? Bill -------------------------------- >> Richard - >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jean If you happen to notice, OTR trucks use turbochargers full time, with varying degrees of boost. There are also passenger cars and trucks that use them as well, as OEM items. It's not so much that you want a boost of power for a few seconds, but an overall increase in efficiency in engine performance. These not only increase horsepower, but improve fuel efficiency by bringing the air:fuel ratio closer to optimal levels. As for drag racing using a supercharger, it's not a great idea, as there is a certain amount of lag time before the blower can come up to speed, and in a race of such short duration, it would already be over before the blower could come online. The better item for this application is a supercharger, which is mechanically linked to the engine, via a belt drive, and uses a certain percentage of horsepower to run the compressor, as opposed to the turbocharger, which is driven by exhaust gases, and is adjustable by adjusting at what point and percentage the wastegate opens. I would love to have a turbocharger on one of these 4.0 L motors, if for nothing else, than to improve overall efficiency. Hmmmm ....maybe I need to ask Jim Warman about doing this. It sounds intriguing. | Jean - | [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] | > | > Jean > If you happen to notice, OTR trucks use turbochargers full time, with >varying degrees of boost. There are also passenger cars and trucks that use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >increase horsepower, but improve fuel efficiency by bringing the air:fuel >ratio closer to optimal levels. No, superchargers are not used on street cars for fuel economy, but for accelleration numbers. OTR trucks use turbo/superchargers to boot HP and torque, becasue of the loads they carry; anormally aspirated diesel engine with that kind of power output would be far too heavy. > As for drag racing using a supercharger, it's not a great idea, as there >is a certain amount of lag time before the blower can come up to speed, and >in a race of such short duration, it would already be over before the blower >could come online. Obviously, you meant turbocharger here, instead of supercharger. >The better item for this application is a supercharger, >which is mechanically linked to the engine, via a belt drive, and uses a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I would love to have a turbocharger on one of these 4.0 L motors, if for >nothing else, than to improve overall efficiency. It wouldn't, though. A preasurizer, whether turbo- or supercharger, forces more air into the engine, which requires more fuel. If the 4.0 L engine delivers adequate performance, a turbocharger will not improve fuel mileage. If it doeasn't, the only time a turbocharger will increase power is during acceleration, when economy is already at its worst. (Or at WOT while cruising, which is kinda wrong on the street.) Since a gas engine designed to run on the street with a turbo will have a lower compression ratio that one without, overall economy will be lower. If the CR isn't lowered, each use of the turbo hurts the engine, and that's expensive. > Hmmmm ....maybe I need to ask Jim Warman about doing this. It sounds >intriguing. There are reasons it's not done. You are far from the only one intrigued, and no where near the first. :-) SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" Why don't you just add an aftermarket tranny cooler? We bought a 2002 Isuzu Trooper new new in April of 2003...rated to tow 5000lbs, and we tow an 18" travel trailer that the title says is 2400lbs empty. The auxilliary tranny cooler (bought from Adavance or Autozone, can't remember for sure which) went on around the same time I was putting on the hitch and accessories. My theory is that it's cheap insurance! Even though the Trooper has a 10 year/120k drivetrain warranty... :-) It has a "power mode" button, which definitely helps. It tends to upshift too quickly without it...I've gotten to the point I like to just leave it in that mode all the time. Problem is it then likes to downshift way to quickly if you have to punch it... Did you replace the OEM Michelins with the same thing? Just wondering what to put on the Trooper when it finally wears out its original shoes (only up to 16k so far). It's got 16" Bridgestone Dueler's on it now... Wesley > Overall, this has been a great vehicle. I replaced the OEM Michelins at > about 80K, and just last week replaced the OEM battery. I change oil [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > this is the 5R55W trans.) I also wish it had a tranny temp gauge (but > that's minor) and an extra tranny cooler. Wesley, if you leave your PowerMode on all the time, you probably restrain the lock converter of the Overdrive to kick in . Mel Wesley a écrit: > Why don't you just add an aftermarket tranny cooler? We bought a 2002 Isuzu > Trooper new new in April of 2003...rated to tow 5000lbs, and we tow an 18" [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>this is the 5R55W trans.) I also wish it had a tranny temp gauge (but >>that's minor) and an extra tranny cooler. Hmmm...good question. I'm pretty sure it doesn't keep that from happening (RPM's seem to stay the same, etc), but I'll definitely pay close attention and find out for sure. My original thinking was that it could potentially help with gas mileage (engine not having to work as hard due to quicker upshifts and not as quickly downshifting) assuming I don't get too heavy in the pedal. If it's not allowing the torque converter to lock up, that definitely wouldn't help gas mileage! Thanks, Wesley > Wesley, if you leave your PowerMode on all the time, you probably > restrain the lock converter of the Overdrive to kick in . > Did you replace the OEM Michelins with the same thing? Just wondering what > to put on the Trooper when it finally wears out its original shoes (only up > to 16k so far). It's got 16" Bridgestone Dueler's on it now... Yes - they were great tires, so I replaced them with exact duplicates. It also meant that I could buy 3 (instead of 4) and use the still-brand-new spare as the fourth. Bill I used to have an V8 AWD Explorer which we used to tow our 25' TT about 5000#. It towed it just fine as far as power goes. The only thing I noticed was that on a long hill the air conditioning would start to blow warmer air and then cool back down when we crested the hill. I also towed with a hensley hitch since the wheelbase is so short on the Explorer. Would not have tried it without one. I now have a F150 Supercrew that tows the trailer with power and control to spare. I still use the hensley. It also lets us move to a larger trailer when ready. If it were me, I'd forget about the Explorer and move to the F150 Supercrew. Basically you get a more powerful truck, with more room, with a longer wheelbase, with better brakes, etc. for about the same price as the explorer. The only down side to the supercrew vs. the explorer is the enclosed and heated bed on the explorer. The f150 has a 5.5' truck bed. I have it covered with a cap but it is separate from the cab. So if you have a dog or something that you want out of the elements, the the supercrew wouldn't provide that. IMHO having driven both. The f150 is a much better towing vehicle than the explorer and would give you the extra towing capacity you want in the future. > Well, we've almost pulled the trigger on a brand new 2005 Explorer. What > are peoples' opinions on their reliability? I'm forgoing a Honda Pilot, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > longer, right? > Thanks in advance for everyone's input! >I used to have an V8 AWD Explorer which we used to tow our 25' TT about >5000#. It towed it just fine as far as power goes. The only thing I >noticed was that on a long hill the air conditioning would start to blow > warmer air and then cool back down when we crested the hill. I also >towed with a hensley hitch since the wheelbase is so short on the >Explorer. Would not have tried it without one. I think the loss of AC is because trhere's a vacuum switch that cuts power to the compressor when the vacuum drops beyond a certain point - as when pulling hard, for example. SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" > >I used to have an V8 AWD Explorer which we used to tow our 25' TT about > >5000#. It towed it just fine as far as power goes. The only thing I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > power to the compressor when the vacuum drops beyond a certain point - > as when pulling hard, for example. I don't think they use a vacuum switch anymore. I think it is just built into the PCM logic. When you go past a certain power level, the PCM cuts off the compressor and at least in some cases, the alternator as well. Ed >> >I used to have an V8 AWD Explorer which we used to tow our 25' TT about >> >5000#. It towed it just fine as far as power goes. The only thing I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Ed Hmmm... Maybe I should buy a newer Explorer? SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" I used to have a similar problem with a 1978 Ford van I used to drive...towing or on a long acceleration, it would throw the front heat/ac system up on the windshield instead of the dash, and the rear heat/ac would turn to heat. I was told it was a vacuum leak somewhere in the system, but no one could ever pin it down and wasn't worth a bunch of $$ to figure out. What is a "hensley hitch"? I've not heard of that before... Wesley > I used to have an V8 AWD Explorer which we used to tow our 25' TT about > 5000#. It towed it just fine as far as power goes. The only thing I > noticed was that on a long hill the air conditioning would start to blow > warmer air and then cool back down when we crested the hill. I also > towed with a hensley hitch since the wheelbase is so short on the > Explorer. Would not have tried it without one. some info on their site. http://www.nosway.com/ The way I see it, it's a no-sway Weight Distribution hitch sounds like they try to simulate the hitch as if it was a Pin hitch (same as for a 5er) Mel Wesley a écrit: > I used to have a similar problem with a 1978 Ford van I used to > drive...towing or on a long acceleration, it would throw the front heat/ac [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>towed with a hensley hitch since the wheelbase is so short on the >>Explorer. Would not have tried it without one. > What is a "hensley hitch"? I've not heard of that before... A very elaborate and very expensive trailer hitch with sway control. Most sway control is a simple friction slide affair that damps sway. The Hensley uses an entirely different approach involving the geometry of a set of steel bars. Anyone with a trailer sway problem has basically three choices of how to handle it. 1. Friction - cheap, and a bit more effective than nothing. This is an add-on to a standard weight-distributing hitch, not built into it. About $100. 2. Dual cam - a more effective approach than friction, and built into certain weight distributing hitches. Quite effective, and adds less than $30 to the cost of your $200 WDH. 3. Hensley - the nuclear weapon of sway control - and you pay for it, too. About $3000, IIRC. In my opinion (and it is only mine) if you have such a huge sway problem that you need a Hensley, then something is drastically wrong with your setup and you are living on borrowed time anyway. Again in my opinion, the best thing about the Hensley Company is that they make McKesh mirrors, which are superb. http://www.nosway.com/ Bill Yeah, my father-in-law has an F-250 he uses to pull a 35 foot 5th wheel. Diesel, very nice. But it only seats 6, and since my wife will be the primary driver, a big rig is out of the question. I'm sure the F series would pull anything real nice. Richard >I used to have an V8 AWD Explorer which we used to tow our 25' TT about >5000#. It towed it just fine as far as power goes. The only thing I [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >> longer, right? >> Thanks in advance for everyone's input! Okay, so from my original posting a few months ago, I have some news about our new Explorer! Turns out I got to tow out little tent trailer with my father-in-law's big F250 diesel. Here's the story: We left around 3 p.m. on Friday to go camping. We figured it would be a 4 hour drive from South Seattle to Soap Lake, in eastern Washington. Going over Snoqualamie Pass (after going over Tiger Mountain pass - not a big one), I happened to look back and saw that we were smoking! Keep in mind, this is a 3 month old 2005 Explorer with about 2,300 miles on it! I drove to the next big shoulder, since it was running fine, with no warning lights on the dash. Got out, took a look and saw the smoke was from transmission fluid blowing all over the exhaust pipe and chassis (and on the front of the camper)! After a few hours on the cell phone with Ford Roadside Assistance (not - at least in the sticks!), they couldn't do anything for me. They wanted to tow me to Ellensburg, another 45 miles east of Seattle, instead of towing me about 45 miles back to Issaquah (a Seattle suburb). I got on the phone with my dealer from Auburn, and he set me up with a tow back to their shop. I might have to foot some of the bill, since Ford will only pay up to 35 miles (Auburn must be like 40-50 miles from where we were stuck). But it's worth it to have it close to home. In Ellensburg, we'd have no way to move the camper, or we'd need to stay in a Motel. We got home about 10:30 after having my brother pick me, the wife and 2 kids up. A flat bed took the Exploder and towed the camper. We got up the next morning. Took the aforementioned F250 to the Ford dealer, sat in the parking lot for an hour and modified the wiring (my Mickey Mouse job...), then towed the camper to Soap Lake, for less than 24 hours of fun filled, swimming and camping. It was really literally, like not even knowing the thing was back there! Nice and straight, didn't slow down on the rolling hills with the rig in overdrive at 75. It was just diesel noisy. As for the smell, well no one was tailgating me. I don't mind the diesel smell. It's the smell of POWER. Monday, the dealer found that the problem was a kinked breather hose for the transmission. It just built up pressure from all the heat and elevated RPM, and started blowing fluid out. They dropped the pan, checked things out, and things seem good. Runs the same, just has dirt on the undercarriage now. All I could think about, waiting for the tow was "I wonder if this would have happened in the Honda?" I guess it's not a design problem, just a workmanship problem. I hope this is the last problem with this. Otherwise, I will really know that these have reliability issues, just like back in '94. It is a pretty red though. And it still smells new inside. And it does have the get up and go I've come to love about the Explorers. (old Honda Passports and S10 blazers seemed to just shift, get louder, and stay the same speed) Anyway, hope y'all enjoyed the story. Sometimes, I just feel better telling it to someone. By the way, our dealer in Auburn is awesome. They literally helped to pluck us off the side of the highway. Richard Minami 2005 Ford Explorer XLT Sport 4x4 (red!) 1994 Honda Accord LX 1997 Coleman Yukon > Yeah, my father-in-law has an F-250 he uses to pull a 35 foot 5th wheel. > Diesel, very nice. But it only seats 6, and since my wife will be the [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > >> longer, right? > >> Thanks in advance for everyone's input! > Well, we've almost pulled the trigger on a brand new 2005 Explorer. > What are peoples' opinions on their reliability? I'm forgoing a Honda [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > built to last longer, right? > Thanks in advance for everyone's input! Have you ever heard of Consumer's Report magazine? They take no advertising nor free cars and rely upon thousands of yearly reports directly from consumers instead. You should never buy any America car unless it's a rebadged jap car, and you learn that Mercedes Benz, Jaguars, Hummers and many GM products are the worst made cars in the world. CR April issue with the year end auto issue update was on sale this month or last. Get it. Also, according to reports, Exploder sales are way down and your resale value is now sh.t due to bad resale value coupled with horrible gas prices. And of course, what in the hell are you thinking about buying a brand new car for unless you just won the lotto? The day you drive it off the lot, especailly an american car, it loses about 40% of it's value. If you have to have an exploder, buy a 2004 lease return and bargain like a demented lebanese trader. HTH Signature---Mapanari--- When it comes to automobiles, Consumer Reports should be called Consumer Opinions because their ratings are all about what gets reported. Everyone's experience is different - I personally have driven nothing but Chevy trucks since 1988 and all three of my vehicles have performed far better than CR indicated they would, but CR never asked my opinion so I don't give much credit to theirs. As for initial depreciation, you only take the hit if you actually go to sell the vehicle. Keep it and nothing happens. The same for resale values - it only matters if you're going to re-sell the vehicle. This is the basic truth for all vehicles - it's only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. You can claim your foreign truck is worth more than my domestic, but if nobody is willing to pay you for it then the point is moot. One problem with off-lease vehicles is that you don't really know just how your used vehicle was treated by the person who leased it before you. Leased vehicles are notorious for not having been broken in correctly, not having received the best or most timely maintenance, and not have been driven in the most conservative manner. For some folks that's OK, but for others not so much and they prefer buying new. Plus financing is more appealing on new over used so that plays into it for some folks. Cheers - Jonathan > Have you ever heard of Consumer's Report magazine? > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > HTH Thanks for your response. One thing I noticed is that there are a lot of reviews for this, from consumers, who feel strongly. They either LOVE them, or they HATE them. I think I read only one review that said it ok. We really only considered buying new since I'll know how it was taken care of. I guess I won't know how hard it may have been test driven. We kept our old Explorer 11 years, I'm not too worried about depreciation. Our financing rate isn't the best, but Ford gave us $1,000. Not too shabby. I just hope I get a well built unit. I think my old one was built before a long weekend or on a hangover Monday. Many things went wrong. I almost can't believe I just bought another. But I've spoken with other owners who have only changed fluids. That's what I'm hoping and praying for! Richard > When it comes to automobiles, Consumer Reports should be called Consumer > Opinions because their ratings are all about what gets reported. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> >> HTH >Have you ever heard of Consumer's Report magazine? > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >HTH CR's car ratings are based on faulty data,and this has been known for decades. They rely on reader feedback, which is notorious for being out of touch with reality. Just for starters, CR's readership can not be considered to be a cross sectiuon or even an averaging of the nation's auto buyers. Add to that the fact that many more people are willing to complain than to compliment, and that the readers are constantly being fed CRs opinon that domestic cars are crap, and the fact that people who answer such requests for feedback from a magazine will trend to agree with the opinion of the magazine (else they wouldn't buy it), you get a very biased rating. SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" > Have you ever heard of Consumer's Report magazine? > > They take no advertising nor free cars and rely upon thousands of yearly > reports directly from consumers instead. However, they are not unbiased. They've been know to change their tests in order to get the desired results. Witness the Suzuki vs Consumers Union court case. http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/0/dd8b92f5afca89ff88256b48007a 0465?OpenDocument >From the Court's "FACTUAL OVERVIEW" 1. After more than three dozen runs in the Samurai on CU's established avoidance maneuver, CU's professional drivers rated it highest of all the vehicles, and expressly stated "no tendency to tip up" and "no real problem" in the written evaluations. See Plaintiff's Statement of Genuine Issues ("GI"), ¶¶ 440-41; 2. After the Samurai completed the standard testing without incident, CU's editor-in-chief, Irwin Landau, remarked that "If you can't find someone to roll this car, I will." Motion at 23-25; GI ¶ 445; 3. CU's technical director, R. David Pittle, then asked to drive the Samurai. After nine more runs and after departing from the established track, the Samurai tipped up. Motion at 24-25; GI ¶¶ 452-54; 4. After the tip-up, Pittle directed the chief of CU's auto test division, Robert Knoll, to prepare a new "modified emergency avoidance maneuver" and replicate Pittle's path. GI ¶¶465-67; >> Have you ever heard of Consumer's Report magazine? >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > division, Robert Knoll, to prepare a new "modified emergency avoidance > maneuver" and replicate Pittle's path. GI ¶¶465-67; Suziki ultimately lost that case, and so did Sharper Image - Ionizer Air Cleaner. Consumer Reports has never lost a case and they've been up giant corporate interests and hordes of pricey lawyers. > > Witness the Suzuki vs Consumers Union court case. http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/0/dd8b92f5afca89ff88256b48007a 0465?OpenDocument [snip] > Suziki ultimately lost that case, and so did Sharper Image - Ionizer Air > Cleaner. You're correct on the second part. Sharper Image did lose. Suzuki did not lose. Suzuki & CU settled out of court, with CU issuing a partial retraction. Here's the bit from the "joint statement" issued by CU & Suzuki that I refer to: ''CU's 1996 statement that the 1988 Samurai "easily rolls over in turns" was limited to the severe turns in CU's short course avoidance maneuver. CU's use of the adverb "easily" may have been misconstrued and misunderstood. CU never intended to state or imply that the Samurai easily rolls over in routine driving conditions.'' CU says this isn't a retracation, it's a "clarification." > > Suziki ultimately lost that case, and so did Sharper Image - Ionizer > Air [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > CU says this isn't a retracation, it's a "clarification." Don't forget about the Isuzu Trooper... While they jury didn't award damages to Isuzu, they did find a good number of CU's claims to be invalid, one of which damagingly so. Ya gotta have something big on the front cover to help sell the magazine, no? I think some of their factual data is good - such as the report that listed used cars to avoid...such as specifically the 1994 Plymouth Acclaim/Dodge Sprit. We had one...piece of junk. Unfortunately, I saw that article long after we had the car. :-) Now, when it comes to something more subjective, such as a driver's ability to make a vehicle tip when making a swerve...well...I don't see any way you can scientifically test that. Seems the government has agreed. So why do they keep doing it? Makes a nice front page story? Seems their latest target is the 2001 Mitsubish Montero... Wesley I find it interesting that SUV manufacturers are now developing anti-roll systems (e.g.. Nissan's "Vehicle Dynamic Control"), just like anti-lock braking systems. I wonder what stimulated them to spend the R&D money to do that? Bad press, maybe? I don't think they'd do it if it didn't have at least some likelihood of performing as described. SignatureChris Cowles Gainesville, FL '00 Coleman Mesa/'99 Chevy Astro > Don't forget about the Isuzu Trooper... While they jury didn't award > damages to Isuzu, they did find a good number of CU's claims to be [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Wesley I think Volvo also uses such a system in their SUV. hey... your SUV can tip over, we'll install a anti-roll system... hey... your rig can sway... we'll install a anti-sway device... makes the manufacturer look good by installing band aids to the problems! Mel Chris Cowles a écrit: > I find it interesting that SUV manufacturers are now developing anti-roll > systems (e.g.. Nissan's "Vehicle Dynamic Control"), just like anti-lock [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't think they'd do it if it didn't have at least some likelihood of > performing as described. > I find it interesting that SUV manufacturers are now developing > anti-roll systems (e.g.. Nissan's "Vehicle Dynamic Control"), just like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't think they'd do it if it didn't have at least some likelihood of > performing as described. That's because the Izuzu trooper and Suzuki almost went out of business due to the bad publicity; just like the Audi with the sticking gas pedals. They still haven't recovered and are an also-ran now, besides making overpriced pieces of crap that is. The Bridgstone/Firestone tire fiasco is another reason....about 1/2 the problem was not the tires, it was the high center of gravity and no anti- roll and weak suspensions. See, many SUVS are simply car-like boxes loaded on top of small pickup truck frames and axles; old technology, too high and too heavy. Pickup trucks have always been exempted by the crooked politicos and congress from more stingent safety rules and regulations and thus putting a SUV box on top of an already unsare/old desiegn chassis is a recipe for disaster. SUVS are classified as trucks also, hence their bad desiegns, low gas milage and immense profits to the car companies, and millions of dollar in annual bribes...errr...campaign contributions to the congress and senate. Signature---Mapanari--- >> > Suziki ultimately lost that case, and so did Sharper Image - Ionizer >> Air [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Wesley That SUV is a death trap. I used to sell those POS and none of the salesmen would demo them when it was raining becuase they would constantly spin out; the back end would break lose under the slightest pressure and spin the whole vehicle in a cirle or two! I finally had to leave that place because we couldn't sell anything, especially when there was a Toyota and Honda dealer right next door. I was starving. The Mitsibshi van is now the worst made van in the world according to some consumer magazines. Signature---Mapanari--- > > Don't forget about the Isuzu Trooper... While they jury didn't award > > damages to Isuzu, they did find a good number of CU's claims to be [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The Mitsibshi van is now the worst made van in the world according to some > consumer magazines. Funny...I own 2 Troopers and have never had anything near that sort of problem. Unless you count driving around on slick snow-covered roads and intentionally making it spin. When were you trying to sell them? Right after CU trashed their sales? >> > Don't forget about the Isuzu Trooper... While they jury didn't award >> > damages to Isuzu, they did find a good number of CU's claims to be [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > intentionally making it spin. When were you trying to sell them? Right > after CU trashed their sales? Your "Logic": Funny, I know 2 Nazis and they've never killed any jews. Funny, I believe in God and so therefor he exists. Funny, I'm a white male, with two eyes and a moron, therefor, all white males with two eyes are morons. Funny, I've owned two GM vehicles and they're were pieces of sh.t, therefor, ALL GM vehicles are pieces of sh.t. Get it? And see, son, if you don't go out on a rainslick road and practice to see what makes your car break and at what speed, then when you get into a bad sistuation you're f.cked. Imhe, the Trooper broke free under very light acceleration and a very easy turn. Scared the sh.t out of me. Just like the 1985 Mercedes Benz 4 door. It broke so easily that when it rained I never took it out. Conversely, my Mitzu Turbo Eclipse I couldn't break it out unless I tried really really hard. Great car. The Montero also scares the sh.t out of me and Consumers Reports agrees. It's not acceptable. Son, you can yammer all you want about your limited and narrow-perspective prejudices and suspend your belief in rational thinking, but I hope you don't have innocent little kids with your when you drive your Trooper piece of sh.t on the road; they're helpless and they're trusting you to be smart, not a prejudiced smart a.s. Signature---Mapanari--- Well, I was going to let this drop as I was tired of arguing with someone who is basing their judgment on hearsay and limited driving of the vehicle in question. I was doing some reading today on a web page that was talking about insurance and linked to hwysafety.org which has info on vehicle safety/collision/theft ratings. I found some info that I think needs to be passed on. After this message, you'll not hear anything more from me on this subject, everyone's probably tired of it. Take a look at http://www.hwysafety.org./vehicle_ratings/ictl/previous/ictl_0903.pdf Maybe you can argue the montero is a bad vehicle as far as safety goes...by this chart (look on page 4, right column) it's listed as the worst in injury ratings. This is info compiled by insurance companies that they use to determine how much they are going to charge you to insure a give vehicle. Imperical data. Not someone's experience based on whether they can make the wheels spin on a wet road. Now look and tell me where the Isuzu Trooper is? Granted, it's not at the top, but it's not anywhere near the bad ones on the bottom. Now let's jump over to http://www.hwysafety.org./srpdfs/sr4003.pdf and take a look. How likely are you to get killed in a given vehicle.. If CU wants a rollover-prone candidate to pick on, why on earth aren't they bashing the Chevy Blazer? It's listed as the single worst vehicle in this report. Again, the Trooper comes out in the middle of the road. There are much worse vehicles that could be chosen...I'll keep driving my Trooper and be happy with it. The data seems to paint a different picture than you do... I'll stop my "yammering" now... Wesley > Your "Logic": > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > of sh.t on the road; they're helpless and they're trusting you to be smart, > not a prejudiced smart a.s. > Well, I was going to let this drop as I was tired of arguing with > someone who is basing their judgment on hearsay and limited driving of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > tell me where the Isuzu Trooper is? Granted, it's not at the top, but > it's not anywhere near the bad ones on the bottom. Well, no no one is saying that the IZuzu trooper hasn't changed drastically in the last 10 or 20 years. Izuzu for too long, knowingly kept an unsafe vehicle on the road, like Suzuki Samurai, secret reports not made public about deaths, just like Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone did. Once you betray my trust so you can bail out with golden parachutes and never spend a day in jail for the thousands of deaths you contribute, like the Ford Pinto and people burning alive, you've lost me as a customer for life. > Wesley > Signature---Mapanari--- Very interesting information, thanks for the link! >> Well, I was going to let this drop as I was tired of arguing with >> someone who is basing their judgment on hearsay and limited driving of [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >> Wesley All Consumer magazines stink. Especially CU. TS >>> > Suziki ultimately lost that case, and so did Sharper Image - Ionizer >>> Air [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > The Mitsibshi van is now the worst made van in the world according to some > consumer magazines. The "Ford towing Guide" lists different towing capacities for several of their vehicles depending on which tire size is purchased with the vehicle. SignatureEd, Sandy, E.J. and Misty 2001 Rockwood Freedom 1950 1994 Ford Explorer XLT > All Consumer magazines stink. Especially CU. > TS [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> some >> consumer magazines. "Tom Shaw" <tshaw01@comcast.net> wrotenews:i6Kdnb2TfrYNKu_fRVn- pA@comcast.com: > All Consumer magazines stink. Especially CU. > TS Right. They tell you that the Peugot you paid full price for was a piece of sh.t, AFTER you bought it becuase you were too lazy to do any research before you went and got f.cked up the a.s, and now you hate CU becuase they made you feel stupid. Signature---Mapanari--- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.