Last post on Oct 31, 2011 at 3:14 PM
You are in the Ford Explorer
What is this discussion about?
Ford Explorer, Mercury Mountaineer, SUV
#1715 of 3348 My thoughts exactly........(quoted from USA Today article)
Jan 08, 2004 (10:09 am)
"It's a perfectly capable tow vehicle," said Stuart Bourdon, automotive editor of the California-based publication.
"The bottom line is, if you don't overload the vehicle and you've got the proper tires with the appropriate ratings and they are properly inflated and you drive with common sense, you really shouldn't have any problems."
I guess I just don't get it, I've owned 1 of each generation of Explorer, I found all to be very wonderful vehicles (had a 1994 and 1997). The 2004 I just bought is wonderful, so much improved, Ford did a darn good job addressing a lot of the problems that the prev generations had. I'm impressed and glad I stuck with Ford.
#1716 of 3348 U-Hell is a conservative, cash-pinched business
Jan 08, 2004 (10:50 am)
that has been in payment trouble several times in the last 20 or so years. their type of business requires slavish devotion to minimizing risk (aka, low-margin but necessary, and if they do it right, they make a living.) I suspect it is a cheap gut reaction to schools of lawyers sniffing about for blood in the water, and not necessarily related to the suitability of their trailers to the road.
a lower, wider, longer tow vehicle will generically improve the survivability of any towing mishap, because you would expect the tow to break off before flipping the tow vehicle in case of a major issue.
that said, I don't expect anybody who maintains their vehicle and uses it within range to have any trouble, even with the high-hat trailers U-Haul used to provide until the early 1980s (and the first chapter-11 I was aware of.) present stuff is lower and less likely to provide an issue than some of the rigs I used to pull moving from one city to another on a just-out-of-college type budget.
no, I think they're on an atomic-powered risk-avoidance kick. if you rent, as always, do your own vehicle or trailer check before hooking up and signing the acceptance sheet. if you've got creaky tires, dinged or dark lights, or silly-looking running gear, talk gently but firmly with the representative. that's the best way to insure you have a solid experience, not a sordid one.
for most people in many places, U-Haul is about the only choice they have in rent here, leave there. if any of this concerns you, investigate other options.
personally, just because they've got their nose in the air, my response this morning is of the "yo' MOMMA" variety. but make your own evaluation, I have used their trailers behind several vehicles (not on my exploder or the previous ranger,) and nobody died and nobody tried in those experiences. they just have too many lawyers on staff right now.
Jan 08, 2004 (11:41 am)
A 1970 Shoop 2-horse trailer with my 94 2-dr, it was a huge trailer, very tall and very wide. It did fine, I also pulled that trailer with my 1994 Mazda B4000 (Ford ranger), the truck weighed 3000 lbs, the trailer weighed 3500 empty, pulled it with 1 horse in there. No problems at all. Probably not the smartest thing I've ever done, but nobody died.
#1718 of 3348 I suspect this silliness will hurt U-Haul more than anybody
Jan 08, 2004 (12:16 pm)
which is about par for the course when people start spouting off without testing things out first. if they added up the miles traveled on explorer/mountie tows of their trailers and compared it to other vehicle types, they'd almost certainly find no difference.
as I understand the case in question from the news report I have seen, it's another case of suing everybody in sight because a couple renters had => KILLER TIRES! <= tm peel apart on 'em, and one carful flipped over. U-Haul is caught up in the sewer backwash of those crummy tires.
the CEO who presided over the cleanup for the tiremaker has announced his retirement, BTW, at 59. I expect the superhuman effort he put forth pretty well wore him out, and he needs some time to smell the roses and do fun things. I will remain charitable this early in the new year and not name the company yet again, as they have not created any new scandal since he started "kickin' and takin' " around the company. the guy retiring took over after the homeboys from across the sea denied in the face of their own engineer testifying before congress that they had inconsistent manufacturing and insufficient material in the tire lines sold for explorers for the design load.
anybody who stuck their chest out and said, "I am too good to have trouble," and kept those lousy things instead of getting them replaced, put a gaff in the sidewalls and call for a flatbed tow to the tire store now. meanwhile, if you need a trailer to get the furniture or projection TV home from the mall, call the locally-owned rental joints first.
#1719 of 3348 Drone/Whine from Front End
Jan 08, 2004 (12:44 pm)
I have an 03 MM, V-8, AWD, 17 inch BF Goodrich with plenty of tread left which has 35k mile on it. At my 30k service I brought this matter the service managers attention and the front wheel bearings where replaced however it did not solve the drone/whine problem. I know it is not tire noise as the noise does not change over/on different road surfaces. Has anyone had a similar problem? The noise is very noticeable in the 40-50 mph range. I will be bringing it on on Monday for the 35k miles service and would like to be prepared if anyone has any information. I have owned many other 4wd and awd which have never had this problem. Thanks in advance.
Jan 08, 2004 (2:20 pm)
have the front differential and transfer case fluid checked. I didn't have the issue in my 2k exploder, but I did have ugly dirty fluid at 24,000 which I promptly had changed out on both diffs and the transfer case. no untoward issues at 49,000 miles as a result. a dry or contaminated power drive case could be the issue.
I would expect that the noise level would be proportional to the RPMs if it was the transfer case, and proportional to the highway speed if it was the front diff.
any sort of a U-joint could also be a villain. this means the half-shafts to the front wheels could also be at issue. if there is a torn or leaking boot on either wheel, the chances become very good indeed that this is the issue. there should be a change in the noise characteristics on turning towards the bad half-shaft to aid diagnosis.
you are right to suspect tire wear as causing a difference in noise, and also right to suspect it will change characteristics on different roads. since you didn't get that, tires are less likely. internal inconsistencies could still cause tire noise, and doing a front-to-back rotation would be the last chance to pin it on tires, if you are so inclined.
#1721 of 3348 ball joint
Jan 08, 2004 (2:48 pm)
We got new right lower ball joint for 2000 Mountaineer AWD on 11/2003 (at 30K miles)
Ford didn't honor the Warranty .(we bought it 1/2000)
now we have told we need right upper ball joint replacement.(37K miles)
another $300 job.
We never replaced the "ball joint" on any other cars we own/owned. (last 20 years, we had total of 8 cars)
Is just our Mountaineer or all Mountaineers having this problem?
Jan 08, 2004 (3:52 pm)
I just unloaded a 1997 Ford Explorer V8/AWD that needed upper and lower ball joints at 57k. I was pretty surprised that they wore out so quickly. Total job parts & labor was going to run approx $1000 for all 4 ball joints and no, I didn't fix it, drove it right to the dealer loose front end squawking for all it was worth.
Jan 08, 2004 (6:16 pm)
OTOH, I've had 4 Explorers/Mountaineers. Have only had to put ball joints on the 94, at 120,000 miles. I consider that to be acceptable, so I can't explain your problem, unfortunately. But I would say no, they're not all like that.
#1724 of 3348 upper control arm and ball joint
Jan 08, 2004 (7:50 pm)
The repair shop(not the dealer) guy said we need to replace upper control arm.
He said it's same thing as ball joint.
Is it so?
I don't want him to pull my "short" legs.
(people thinks I'm a naive Asain women, haha)