 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / October 2007Towing with an Explorer
Once again, U-Haul has told me they will not rent anything to be towed -- trailer, vehicle tow dolly -- if you are towing with an Explorer. None. Nothing. No exceptions. I have two utility trailers -- flat, open -- one is 5W X 8L, the other is 6W X 12L -- I tow them with my 2004 Explorer and my 97 Mazda B4000. Have towed all sorts of stuff without a problem -- in all kind sof weather, all kinds of roads -- I'm careful not to go crazy and try to exceed trailer weight limits. What is U-Haul's problem??? >Once again, U-Haul has told me they will not rent anything to be towed >-- trailer, vehicle tow dolly -- if you are towing with an Explorer. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >What is U-Haul's problem??? The Explorers prior to 2003 had serious stabilty issues (these were the ones that rolled with a rear blow out) Undoubtably their legal department does not trust model at all even today and does not want to buy into potentail liablity with it and rent you a trailer to pull with it. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>Once again, U-Haul has told me they will not rent anything to be >>towed [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > buy into potentail liablity with it and rent you a trailer to pull > with it. Not true. Media created hype. And you don't even have the model year right. Explores were completely redesigned for the 2001 Model year (except for the "Sport" models, and the "Sport Trac). The Explorers most often alleged to have a problem were the 1996-2000 models The truth was, of vehicles in it's class, the four door Explorers had the second best injury loss ratings (the four Jeep Grand Cherokee was better - slightly). The driver death rate due to roll overs for Explorers was much better than for 4Runners, Pathfinders, S10 Blazers, etc. The fact is, that model four door Explorer was one of the safest vehicles in its class, despite the media BS and the defective Firestone tires. the Explorer Sport models had a much worse safety record (shorter wheelbase) but even they were safer than 4Runners and S10 Blazers. U-Haul doesn't rent to people towing with Explorers because the media hype created a feeding frenzy among trial lawyers. Anytime there is an accident involving an Explorer the sharks attack. U-Haul will rent to people with Mountaineers - which is the same vehicle as an Explorer in any way meaningful to towing safety. Ed >>>Once again, U-Haul has told me they will not rent anything to be >>>towed [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > right. Explores were completely redesigned for the 2001 Model year > (except for the "Sport" models, and the "Sport Trac). I mistated this - I should have said - they were completely designed during 2001 for the 2002 Model year (you could buy the "2002" models in early 2001). Ed > The Explorers most often alleged to have a problem were the > 1996-2000 models The truth was, of vehicles in it's class, the four [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ed > Once again, U-Haul has told me they will not rent anything to be towed > -- trailer, vehicle tow dolly -- if you are towing with an Explorer. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What is U-Haul's problem??? Think about it for a few, look at the last line of your first paragraph and then compare to how many fools have blown by you 80mph while they were towing.. Whitelightning On Oct 15, 12:41 pm, "Whitelightning" <white.lightni...@verizon.net> wrote: > > -- trailer, vehicle tow dolly -- if you are towing with an Explorer. > > None. Nothing. No exceptions. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Whitelightning Well, you're right there -- I can't tell you how many times some clown towing a trailer of some kind with a pickup or a car has whipped past me at well over the speed limit. And, thanks to SnoMan for his comments about pre-2003 Explorers. I'm not a professional driver so I tend to read the owner's manual and read the warning labels and do what they say. > On Oct 15, 12:41 pm, "Whitelightning" <white.lightni...@verizon.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > And, thanks to SnoMan for his comments about pre-2003 Explorers. Except they are bullshit. It has been proven over and over again, these so called "serious stability issues" were all tire and driver related and not "serious stability issues" at all. > I'm not a professional driver so I tend to read the owner's manual and > read the warning labels and do what they say. > Except they are bullshit. It has been proven over and over again, these > so called "serious stability issues" were all > tire and driver related and not "serious stability issues" at all. It does not matter. Explorers roll over -- so the story goes -- so U-Haul does not want any involvement with them. Period. They also will not let you pull a trailer with a convertible. If they don't want the business, take your wallet elsewhere. >Except they are bullshit. It has been proven over and over again, these so >called "serious stability issues" were all >tire and driver related and not "serious stability issues" at all. Oh now we hear from BS Troll. They were driver related only as much as it happened when driving and do not blame it on tires either because no vehicle should be so unstable that a blown rear tire at speed is basically a almost sure ticket to a roll over. It was a combo of GG, soft suspension and front TTB swing axle. In 03 the front and rear suspension and drive axles were quietly redesigned because of the massive lawsuit over that vehicle. And, BTW, some blame tires but Ford even recommand tire pressure below the needed amount for load on them for ride purposes which contributed to their failure and stabity issues. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>Except they are bullshit. It has been proven over and over again, these >>so [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com SnowBlower You are spewing misinformation!!! Shut your ignorant pie hole! Larry Webster, a test-driver for Car & Driver magazine was able, in a test simulating dozens of tire blowouts, repeatedly able to bring a 1994 Explorer to a stop without a single rollover, even at speeds of 70 MPH. According to Forbes magazine, car experts and NHTSA claim that the vast majority of crash accidents and deaths are caused not by the vehicle, but by the driver, by road conditions or some combination of the two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer Rollover and Firestone Tire Controversy Main article: Firestone vs Ford Motor Company controversy In May 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) contacted Ford and Firestone about a higher than normal incidence of tire failures on Ford Explorers, Mercury Mountaineers, and Mazda Navajos fitted with Firestone tires (later including Ford Ranger and Mazda B-Series pickup trucks). The failures all involved tread separation- in which the outer tread carcass would delaminate and cause a rapid loss of tire pressure. Ford investigated and found that several models of 15 in (381 mm) Firestone tires (ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness AT) had higher failure rates, especially those made at Firestone's Decatur, Illinois plant. Ford argued that Firestone was at fault. Ford's argument noted that its SUVs and pickups equipped with Firestone-competitor Goodyear tires experienced no rollover issues, even at low psi levels. Since most Explorer, Mountaineer, Ranger, B-Series, and Navajo tires have been replaced, the rollover reports have subsided, further lending credit to Ford's position that the design of its vehicles were not at fault. Part of the rollover issue was poor driver reaction to the tire blowout.[1] When a tire blew, the driver experienced a large jerk and many drivers reacted by jerking the wheel in an attempt to regain control. This action causes a shift of the vehicle's weight, which results in the roll-over of the vehicle, especially when this occurs at higher speeds (many reports of roll-overs were of vehicles being driven at speeds of 70 MPH and above). Larry Webster, a test-driver for Car & Driver magazine was able, in a test simulating dozens of tire blowouts, repeatedly able to bring a 1994 Explorer to a stop without a single rollover, even at speeds of 70 MPH.According to Forbes magazine, car experts and NHTSA claim that the vast majority of crash accidents and deaths are caused not by the vehicle, but by the driver, by road conditions or some combination of the two. U-Haul trailers On December 22, 2003, U-Haul, the largest North American equipment rental company, announced that they would forbid their outlets from renting trailers to persons planning to tow behind Ford Explorers due to liability concerns. ! > Larry Webster, a test-driver for Car & Driver magazine was able, in a test > simulating dozens of tire blowouts, repeatedly able to bring a 1994 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > by the driver, by road conditions or some combination of the two. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer Yup a professional driver with fore knowledge of what was going to happen. Whitelightning > ! >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Whitelightning Yup, It is a controlled situation that proves the problem is NOT a "serious stability issues" with the explorer. Pull your head out. > Yup, It is a controlled situation that proves the problem is NOT a > "serious stability issues" with the explorer. Pull your head out. Just because I can avoid a roll over in a situation where my sife can not does not mean the vehicle is okay. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that blow outs on the interstate have been happening for as long as we've had interstates, and the Explorer is the first to make headlines as a model that is particularly prone to a roll over that arises out of a blown tire. I submit that a professional driver on a closed course does not provide the data set that dozens of crashes involving non-professional drivers on the highway will provide. I'm not suggesting that everybody with an Explorer should trade it in, I'm only suggesting that if U-Haul wants to refuse business to Explorer owners, it has ample reason to do so. >> Yup, It is a controlled situation that proves the problem is NOT a >> "serious stability issues" with the explorer. Pull your head out. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the data set that dozens of crashes involving non-professional drivers on > the highway will provide. I suggest *any* automobile will crash and roll after a blowout on the highway with an IDIOT at the wheel. Add to that a giant lot of defective Firestone tires installed at the factory, and walla! You get a ton of bad press (Think Intel floating point PR SNAFU) from a bunch of misinformed (think SnowBlower here) "do gooders". As has already been pointed out, there is NO design or stability problem with any of Fords Explorers. As has been aptly proven over and over again, the media making a big stink about something has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. Intel floating point error GM pickup side impact gas tanks Ford Ranger Firestone rollover Ford Crown Victory gas tank leaks after high speed rear end impacts George Bush's fake national guard documents > I'm not suggesting that everybody with an Explorer should trade it in, I'm > only suggesting that if U-Haul wants to refuse business to Explorer > owners, it has ample reason to do so. >>> Yup, It is a controlled situation that proves the problem is NOT a >>> "serious stability issues" with the explorer. Pull your head out. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I suggest *any* automobile will crash and roll after a blowout on the > highway with an IDIOT at the wheel. The "experts" at the highway safety department would suggest different. While I'm sure you can create a precise set of conditions that can cause *any* vehicle to roll over, those conditions do not exist in the vast majority of cases where the Explorer will roll over all by itself. The vast majority of blow outs on the freeway do not result in a roll over, indeed the blow out on my car did not even cause my car to swerve inside its lane, much less cross the line to the adjacent concrete. I had a blow out doing 85, and if it weren't for the noise I would not even have known something had changed. My point is that your assertion that *any* automobile will crash and roll over is false. Somebody that knows far more about this sort of stuff than you know says the Explorer is something to stay away from. Once again, I'm not advocating that the Explorer should be sent to the scrap heap just because it is an Explorer, I'm only saying that if U-Haul wants to stand back from that vehicle, it has plenty of reason. >>>> Yup, It is a controlled situation that proves the problem is NOT a >>>> "serious stability issues" with the explorer. Pull your head out. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The "experts" at the highway safety department would suggest different. NO THEY WOULD NOT! In May 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) contacted Ford and Firestone about a higher than normal incidence of tire failures on Ford Explorers, Mercury Mountaineers, and Mazda Navajos fitted with Firestone tires (later including Ford Ranger and Mazda B-Series pickup trucks). The failures all involved tread separation- in which the outer tread carcass would delaminate and cause a rapid loss of tire pressure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer Absolutely NOTHING to with the explorer design or stability. > While I'm sure you can create a precise set of conditions that can cause > *any* vehicle to roll over, those conditions do not exist in the vast [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > something had changed. My point is that your assertion that *any* > automobile will crash and roll over is false. *Any* automobile will crash and roll after a blowout on the highway with an IDIOT at the wheel. You likely wouldn't have rolled an Explorer with your blowout either. > Somebody that knows far more about this sort of stuff than you know says > the Explorer is something to stay away from. Who??? Present your links! What information are you privy to that the rest of us are not? U-Hauls (and SnowBlowers) position is not based in reason, logic or law, they don't count. > Once again, I'm not advocating that the Explorer should be sent to the > scrap heap just because it is an Explorer, I'm only saying that if U-Haul > wants to stand back from that vehicle, it has plenty of reason. Sure you are. You are missing the point, I do not care that U-Haul will not rent trailers to drivers of the Ford Explorer. I don't care jif U-Haul says they will not rent to drivers of red trucks. THEY think they have solid footing to be dumber than a rock, and I agree with their stand. That is, I agree that they have a stand and they are working hard to stick to it. I'm not debating the validity of the stand, I only accept they are taking one, and I know why they are taking it. When U-Haul comes out and says that drivers of white trucks can not rent a traler, then I might have a problem because my truck is white. Frankly, I go out of my way to not rent U-Haul stuff, so whom they will or not rent to makes very little difference to me. I agree with U-Haul that they can elect to not rent equipment to be used with a particular type of automobile. They can not elect to rent to a particular person, but they can elect to not rent to drivers of Fords if they want to not rent to those vehicles. If you feel differently, then get yourself a lawyer. I hope you lose. I'm not suggesting U-Haul is making a sound business decision or even a valid one, I'm only suggesting they own the equipment and they are exposed to liability from a certain tow vehicle and they are trying to eliminate the exposure, and I agree with them that they can and should limit the liability, even if you and I both know the liability is not what has been presented. From a business perspective, they could not possibly rent to enough Explorer drivers to cover the loses if only one of them crashed while dragging a U-Haul trailer down the road. If they choose to not rent to Explorer drivers, they are way ahead of where they would be if they rented to all of the Explorer drivers and one had a crash where U-Haul was dragged into court. > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:07:50 GMT, "My Name Is Nobody" > <nobody@msn.com> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > basically a almost sure ticket to a roll over. It was a combo of GG, > soft suspension and front TTB swing axle. How can one person get so many facts wrong. The Twin Traction Beans and Twin I-beans were gone for all 1995 Explorer models. The 4 Door Explorer was completely redesigned in 2001 (2002 model year), including a change to independent rear suspension. Explorers were not particularly prone to rollover - 4Runners and S10 Blazer had much higher rollover rates than 4 Door Explorers. 2 Door Explorers were more likely to rollover, but still not as bad as 4Runners or S10 Blazers. > In 03 the front and rear > suspension and drive axles were quietly redesigned because of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for ride purposes which contributed to their failure and stabity > issues. Even Firestone, at the height of their attempt to cover-up their defective tires, confirmed that the tire pressure recommended by Ford was at least 5 psi greater than necessary to safely support the maximum load. They wanted to increase the recommended pressure to 30 to provide even more margin....of course they made this claim after shipping tires to Ford for many years with full knowledge of the pressure Ford was recommending. I had a 1996 Explorer, with Goodyear tires. They were of the same size and type as the "bad" Firestone tires. Goodyear never claimed that the pressure recommended was too low - and more importantly - the Goodyears were not failure prone. Ed > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com > Once again, U-Haul has told me they will not rent anything to be towed > -- trailer, vehicle tow dolly -- if you are towing with an Explorer. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What is U-Haul's problem??? The Explorer collected several weeks worth of bad press about 8 years ago. U-Haul will not rent equipment to be drug around behind the Explorer because they don't want sh.t to land on them should the Explorer roll over. It's not you. >> Once again, U-Haul has told me they will not rent anything to be towed >> -- trailer, vehicle tow dolly -- if you are towing with an Explorer. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > It's not you. ...and according to the link here, the silliest thing is that while U-Haul banned the Explorer, it say the Mercury Mountaineer is OK because it has had no issues with them, even though they are the same vehicle. Must be that the trim package makes all the difference in aerodynamics or something. :) Anyway, this just proves it's a beancounter/lawsuit issue dating back to the Firestone tire issue and not something like a design flaw in a particular model vehicle... http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2004-01-08-uhaul-ford_x.htm I actually like U-Haul as they seem to be the only national company where you can rent a trailer, not just trucks..... IYM >...and according to the link here, the silliest thing is that while U-Haul >banned the Explorer, it say the Mercury Mountaineer is OK because it has had >no issues with them, even though they are the same vehicle. Must be that >the trim package makes all the difference in aerodynamics or something. :) It likely came with a different tire package >Anyway, this just proves it's a beancounter/lawsuit issue dating back to the >Firestone tire issue and not something like a design flaw in a particular >model vehicle... I would say that a VERY high tendancy to roll over with a rear tire failure is indeed a "design flaw" No passanger vehicle should be so unstable by OEM design. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com umm- o.k. - You must not have read carefully...Yes you may be correct about the earlier Explorers using Firestone tires, etc, etc. However, U-Haul will still not rent trailers to newer re-designed Explorers. Therefore, my statement about U-haul being silly for continuing to ban the newer Explorers and not the Mountaineer is still valid, as well as my statement that it's a beancounter/lawsuit issue and not a design flaw... A bulletin from U-Haul: A bulletin issued to U-Haul dealers last month, which was obtained by The News, says the company's move was "based on the negative perceptions of Ford Explorers ... we are separating ourselves from the negative public perception and its potential consequences." IYM >>...and according to the link here, the silliest thing is that while U-Haul >>banned the Explorer, it say the Mercury Mountaineer is OK because it has [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com >However, U-Haul will still not rent trailers to newer re-designed Explorers. >Therefore, my statement about U-haul being silly for continuing to ban the >newer Explorers and not the Mountaineer is still valid, as well as my >statement that it's a beancounter/lawsuit issue and not a design flaw... It is simple, they does not trust the brand/name plate. Yes the Mountaineer is same chassis but it was not involved in the lawsuit and Uhaul is wisely stayig away from that mess. Lawyers are funny about that. A name can make on the difference in the world in a lawsuit. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>However, U-Haul will still not rent trailers to newer re-designed >>Explorers. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that. A name can make on the difference in the world in a lawsuit. > ----------------- How would you defend, "well, maybe the Explorer is more stable today than before 2003 <or whenever>, but you knew it had problems in the past and you strapped one of your trailers to the back of one anyhow. Now that vehicle is resting on the side of the highway on its roof, with 4 dead people inside and three other cars run off the road with injuries to those occupants, and it was all caused by your trailer." You could not defend such a wild argument, and once it was uttered in a courtroom, you (Uhaul) would have a huge burden to show how the crash would have happened anyway, even if a Penske trailer was being drug down the interstate. I agree with you (Snoman), U-Haul is doing the right thing by staying as far as possible from the Explorer. It might not be convenient for Explorer owners, but U-Haul should never attach its equipment to one of them ever again. >I agree with you (Snoman), U-Haul is doing the right thing by >staying as far as possible from the Explorer. It might not be convenient for >Explorer owners, but U-Haul should never attach its equipment to one of them >ever again. Yes the loser here is the consumer in the long run but the feeding frenzy that some lawyers have created today over this stuff leaves some bussinesses with little choice but to "cover their ASSets" ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>>However, U-Haul will still not rent trailers to newer re-designed >>>Explorers. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > convenient for Explorer owners, but U-Haul should never attach its > equipment to one of them ever again. OK - I guess I understand the point about staying away from the nameplate "Explorer", but if you were a beancounter at U-Haul, to cover your a.s wouldn't you think you should ban the Mountaineer as well? Suppose (God forbid) something similar happens to somebody one day towing with a Mountaineer. Couldn't a lawyer have a field day because the 2 vehicles are carbon copies? The reason that they haven't had an issue (yet) with a Mountaineer is more than likely the volume of the identical vehicles slapped with an Explorer plate vs. a Mountaineer plate. It's probably a 30:1 ratio. <just a SWAG> So would you just wait until something happens, or do some preventative maintenance and perhaps save a life or two as well as a ton of $ for U-haul? I guess that's what I find "silly".... To the OP - I guess if you really want to tow a u-haul with your Explorer, you could always pick up a Mountaineer and Mercury plate and grill from the junkyard or ebay and turn your Explorer into a Mountaineer....Don't think it would be very cost effective though... :) IYM >Suppose (God >forbid) something similar happens to somebody one day towing with a >Mountaineer. Couldn't a lawyer have a field day because the 2 vehicles are >carbon copies? Not really because it was not part of tire/rollover suit problem so it has no "history" of its own. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>Suppose (God >>forbid) something similar happens to somebody one day towing with a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com ummm... yes it was. The Explorer, Mountaineer and Mazda version Navajo were all named: "In May 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) contacted Ford and Firestone about the high incidence of tire failure on Mercury Mountaineers, Ford Explorers, and Mazda Navajos fitted with Firestone tires." "In 2000, a huge punch came to the Mountaineer with the Firestone vs Ford Motor Company controversy, where a large amount of rollovers were happening involving Explorers and Mountaineers." "Ford and Firestone have both blamed the other for the failures, which has led to the severing of relations between the two companies. Firestone has claimed that they have found no faults in design nor manufacture, and that failures have been caused by Ford's recommended tire pressure being too low and the vehicle's design. Ford, meanwhile, pointed out that tires manufactured by the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company to the same specification had a spotless safety record when installed on the SUVs. Ford's conclusions were confirmed by NHTSA in their report into the tire failures, published in October 2001." "a subsequent NHTSA investigation of real world accident data showed that the SUVs were no more likely to roll over than any other SUV. A product recall was announced, allowing Explorer, Mountaineer, and Navajo owners to change the affected tires for others." Anyway, I'm not trying to stir up the whole Firestone issue again. Just still trying to understand why the U-Haul ban is limited to only the Explorer. (incidentally, I had forgotten about the Navajo since it was only out for a couple years in the early '90's, so I checked U-Haul's site and the Navajo isn't banned either - just the Explorer) So based on the available information, since it was determined by the NHTSA and accepted (despite personal onions) that it was the tires and drivers and not a design flaw, could not a lawyer have a field day because the 2 vehicles are carbon copies and U-Haul's beancounters should/could have banned their usage in rentals as well before something happened/happens? IYM > umm- o.k. - You must not have read carefully...Yes you may be correct > about the earlier Explorers using Firestone tires, etc, etc. > > However, U-Haul will still not rent trailers to newer re-designed > Explorers. U-HAUL DOES NOT CARE. They do not want to be part of anything related to the Explorer. It's not silly. It is silly to you, but to the bean counters at U-Haul, this silliness makes loads of sense (or cents as the case may be). They can come out tomorrow and refuse to rent a trailer to operators of white (color, not brand) trucks. Assuming white is the most common color for a truck, this would seem to preclude lots of future business, but if they wanted to take such a stand, my advice would be to sell your holdings in U-Haul. > Therefore, my statement about U-haul being silly for continuing to ban the > newer Explorers and not the Mountaineer is still valid, as well as my > statement that it's a beancounter/lawsuit issue and not a design flaw... It's a bean counter issue now, but it was a design flaw. Just ask the bean counters. > I would say that a VERY high tendancy to roll over with a rear tire > failure is indeed a "design flaw" No passanger vehicle should be so > unstable by OEM design. This is not true - Explorers did not have an especially high rollover rate. 4Runners and S10 Blazer actually had a much higher rate. However, even though the rate was lower, there were so many more Explorers on the road, the total number of Explorer rollovers was noticeable. Ed |
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
|
©2009 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.