the '04 is one of the most stable sport utes out there. You're confusing
it with the old '95 to 99 model. It would have been much safer to pull
it with the Explorer.

This was strictly because of perception, not reality. U-Haul will rent to
people who want to tow trailers with Mercury Mountaineers (which are really
the same vehicle as an Explorer in any meaningful way related to towing).

As for your statement "explorer flips worse than any other SUV." This was
never true, and since the Firestone tries were replaced, the rollover
accident rate for Explorers has dropped to almost nil. Even at the height of
the mania, Explorer never rolled over at a rate even close to Toyota
4Runners. 4Runenrs (before the latest refresh) had a much higher rollover
rate than Explorers, but the press never mentioned this fact. I wonder why?
And finally, the Explorers built since 2001 have almost no relationship to
the Explorers that were supposed to be so dangerous (but weren't). The
2001 - up 4 Door Explorers are completely different vehicles than the older
models. The U-Haul folks just got tired of fighting off the shark lawyers
that seem to circle around any hint of a problem (real or imagined).

Ed

Bingo-
There are several interesting gee wiz facts from the explorer/firestone
fiasco; but the most interesting one to me was the exact same tire was put
on another suv from the factory (Toyota or Nissan I believe) and had a "0%"
blowout and "0%" rollover rate due to tires.
Hmmmmm

This is total BS. Pinto's never had a solid tube from the gas tank to the
exterior of the vehicle. The tube was solidly attached to the vehicle, but
fit into the gas tank through a rubber gasket. You could unbolt the filler
tube from the side of the car and extract it from the vehicle. I owned two
Pintos, and personally removed the tube and gas tank from one in order to
empty water out of the tank.

The whole idea that Pinto's were uniquely fire prone is also misleading. It
is not just a misunderstanding of the facts, it is a deliberate lie spread
by trial lawyers looking for a free lunch. Early Chevrolet Chevettes
actually had much higher incident of post collision fires than Pintos, but
you never hear this, do you?

The most celebrated (by trial lawyers) Pinto fire case involve a collision
between a Pinto and a dump truck. The Pinto was backing down the highway
when struck by a truck at highway speed. There was no gas cap on the Pinto.
The assumption was that the driver had forgot to reattach it, and was
backing up to find it. The jury awarded the plaintiffs many millions, but
this later greatly reduced. I always thought this was a huge miscarriage of
justice.

From http://walterolson.com/articles/gmtrucks.html

"Remarkably, even the affair of the "exploding" Ford Pinto--universally
hailed as the acme of product liability success--is starting to look like
hype. In a summer 1991 Rutgers Law Review article Gary Schwartz demolishes
"the myth of the Pinto case." Actual deaths in Pinto fires have come in at a
known 27, not the expected thousand or more. More startling, Schwartz shows
that everyone's received ideas about the fabled "smoking gun" memo are
false.  The actual memo did not pertain to Pintos, or even Ford products,
but to American cars in general; it dealt with rollovers, not rear-end
collisions; it did not contemplate the matter of tort liability at all, let
alone accept it as cheaper than a design change; it assigned a value to
human life because federal regulators, for whose eyes it was meant,
themselves employed that concept in their deliberations; and the value it
used was one that they, the regulators, had set forth in documents.
"In retrospect, Schwartz writes, the Pinto's safety record appears to have
been very typical of its time and class. "

I suggest you read -

http://walterolson.com/articles/gmtrucks.html
http://walterolson.com/articles/crashtests.html
http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/07/the_myth_of_the_pinto_case.html
http://www.walterolson.com/articles/crashtests.html

I had the Ford recall applied to both of the Pinto's I owned. Three things
were done -

1) The length of the filler tube was increased to reduce the possibility
that it would be pulled out of the tank in a collision.
2) The attachment of the filler tube to the rear quarter panel was
re-enforced and tamper resistant fasteners were added.
3) A plastic shield was added under the tank at the front to reduce the
possibility that the tanks would be punctured by suspension components in
the event of a severe rear end collision.

I never once worried about the possibility of a fire when I was driving my
Pintos either before or after the recall. I still consider my 1972 Pinto one
of the best value cars I ever purchased. It always upsets me when someone
repeats the BS that Pintos were the particularly dangerous. They weren't. I
eventually replaced by first Pinto with a Datsun 280Z. It's gas tank was
every bit as exposed as a Pinto's. The filler neck was in a worse position.
The car was even smaller. Etc. I suspect that it was at least as much at
risk from a fire in a severe rear end collision as was the Pinto. I didn't
worry about it either. How about the thousands of Jeep products with rear
gas tanks? In many cases these are high enough so that they will be struck
directly in a rear end collision. I've always thought these were much more
vulnerable than the Pinto's gas tank.

Ed