Explorer Reliability Issues?

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:42:40 -0400, Jean > wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:16:45 -0400, "C. E. White"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Big Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>I believe the brakes will not be as effective at high
>>>altitude becasue the less dense air will not cool them as
>>>well.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>
>> 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

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?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:08:19 -0000, Mapanari >
wrote:

>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 **** 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

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.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Mapanari wrote:
> 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/Re...ca89ff88256b4=
8007a0465?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"), =B6=B6 440-41;

2=2E 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 =B6 445;

3=2E 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 =B6=B6 452-54;

4=2E 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 =B6=B6465-67;

Big Bill wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:42:40 -0400, Jean > wrote:
>
>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:16:45 -0400, "C. E. White"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Big Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>I believe the brakes will not be as effective at high
>>>>altitude becasue the less dense air will not cool them as
>>>>well.
>>>>
>>>>Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>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
>
>
> 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?
>

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

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


"Jonathan Race" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> 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
>
> "Mapanari" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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 **** 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
>>
>> --
>> ---Mapanari---
>
>

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


"respk" > wrote in message
...
>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.
>
> Richard Minami wrote:
>> 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!
>>
>>
>

Big Bill wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:16:45 -0400, "C. E. White"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Big Bill wrote:
> >
> >> >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.
> >
> >I believe the brakes will not be as effective at high
> >altitude becasue the less dense air will not cool them as
> >well.
> >
> >Ed
>
> 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

C. E. White wrote:
>>>I believe the brakes will not be as effective at high
>>>altitude becasue the less dense air will not cool them as
>>>well.
>>>
>>>Ed
>>
>>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 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.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:48:10 -0500, Karl Lindholm
> wrote:

>C. E. White wrote:
>>>>I believe the brakes will not be as effective at high
>>>>altitude becasue the less dense air will not cool them as
>>>>well.
>>>>
>>>>Ed
>>>
>>>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 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.

OK, I've heard it now. :-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Tony Wesley" >
glegroups.com:

> Mapanari wrote:
>> 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/Re...5afca89ff88256
> b48007a0465?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;
>
>

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.