Explorer sport track

I am planning to get a sport track by march of 2005, probably a one to two
year old. Any warnings or anything to lookout for? 2X2 or 4X4?. Mostly city
driving with occasional Kayaking trips.

"Xrayjuan" > wrote in message
...
> I am planning to get a sport track by march of 2005, probably a one to two
> year old. Any warnings or anything to lookout for? 2X2 or 4X4?. Mostly
city
> driving with occasional Kayaking trips.
>
>

So far, my wife's Sport Trac(20,000 mi) has had the 4x4 module replaced, a
transfer case seal, both headlights (moisture), the belt tensioner, and a
speaker replaced. Also major air leaks around both front doors and the right
rear door. All fixed under warranty except the door leaks. They tried twice
to fix them, but we still have a lot of wind noise coming in around the
doors.
Oh, if you're looking for good gas mileage, you might want to look
elsewhere. Still, my wife likes the truck and that's what counts.
H

Xrayjuan wrote:
> I am planning to get a sport track by march of 2005, probably a one to two
> year old. Any warnings or anything to lookout for? 2X2 or 4X4?. Mostly city
> driving with occasional Kayaking trips.
>
>

Not an answer to your question, but rather a question to you. Why do
you (or anyone else for that matter) want a Sport Track. I can't for
the life of me figure out the attraction to those things. It seems that
the bed is too short to do anything useful with it and you can't just
fold down the back seat to get more length to the cargo area like you
can with a regular Explorer.

It just seems to me that it would make more sense to get either a Ranger
pickup (quad cab?) if you really need the outside cargo space or a
regular Explorer if you don't.

Opinions?

-Fred W

"Fred W" > wrote in message
...
> Xrayjuan wrote:
> > I am planning to get a sport track by march of 2005, probably a one to
two
> > year old. Any warnings or anything to lookout for? 2X2 or 4X4?. Mostly
city
> > driving with occasional Kayaking trips.
> >
> >
>
> Not an answer to your question, but rather a question to you. Why do
> you (or anyone else for that matter) want a Sport Track. I can't for
> the life of me figure out the attraction to those things. It seems that
> the bed is too short to do anything useful with it and you can't just
> fold down the back seat to get more length to the cargo area like you
> can with a regular Explorer.
>
> It just seems to me that it would make more sense to get either a Ranger
> pickup (quad cab?) if you really need the outside cargo space or a
> regular Explorer if you don't.
>
> Opinions?
>
> -Fred W

Here is my Opinion Fred,

Most people who own trucks don't haul full sheets of plywood around very
often if ever, and don't generally need a full truck bed.
I have always owed and driven full sized long bed Ford pickup trucks, since
1979.
If you would consider driving any one of these three undersized trucks, the
Sport Track is a very intriguing option. I just ordered my New 2005 F-450
Crew Cab 4x4 DRW 9 foot bed, But I have to admit as a full time single
person economical commuter vehicle, the Sport Track looks very appealing to
me.
If you don't really have the need for a full truck bed, and if you are
hauling dirty things you don't want on your explorers carpet, garbage cans,
potting soil, wet dogs, what ever, but most of the time only haul your own
butt around, this is a great design, the best of both worlds.

:-)

351CJ wrote:
> "Fred W" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Not an answer to your question, but rather a question to you. Why do
>>you (or anyone else for that matter) want a Sport Track. I can't for
>>the life of me figure out the attraction to those things. It seems that
>>the bed is too short to do anything useful with it and you can't just
>>fold down the back seat to get more length to the cargo area like you
>>can with a regular Explorer.
>>
>>It just seems to me that it would make more sense to get either a Ranger
>>pickup (quad cab?) if you really need the outside cargo space or a
>>regular Explorer if you don't.
>>
>>Opinions?
>>
>>-Fred W
>
>
> Here is my Opinion Fred,
>
> Most people who own trucks don't haul full sheets of plywood around very
> often if ever, and don't generally need a full truck bed.
> I have always owed and driven full sized long bed Ford pickup trucks, since
> 1979.
> If you would consider driving any one of these three undersized trucks, the
> Sport Track is a very intriguing option. I just ordered my New 2005 F-450
> Crew Cab 4x4 DRW 9 foot bed, But I have to admit as a full time single
> person economical commuter vehicle, the Sport Track looks very appealing to
> me.
> If you don't really have the need for a full truck bed, and if you are
> hauling dirty things you don't want on your explorers carpet, garbage cans,
> potting soil, wet dogs, what ever, but most of the time only haul your own
> butt around, this is a great design, the best of both worlds.
>
> :-)

You must be joking. I would *never* consider an Explorer (of any
flavor) as an *economical* single person commuting vehicle. If it's
just one or two people and you aren't hauling any cargo a car would be
infinitely more suitable for the task.

As far as occasionally hauling dirty things, a rubber cargo area liner
would probably take care of that, though I supposed you may have to
"crack a window" if you'll be hauling the trash cans.

To me, it's the flexibility of the regular Explorer cargo area that puts
the U in SUV. Personally I think they could drop the S as I don't see a
whole lotta sport going on there... ;-)

-Fred W

And as an aside, leaving your dogs out in an open pickup bed should be
punishable by law. Would you drive around with your kids bouncing
around back there? The closed cargo area of a regular explorer is
infinitely better for that purpose.

"Fred W" > wrote in message
...
> 351CJ wrote:
> > "Fred W" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>Not an answer to your question, but rather a question to you. Why do
> >>you (or anyone else for that matter) want a Sport Track. I can't for
> >>the life of me figure out the attraction to those things. It seems that
> >>the bed is too short to do anything useful with it and you can't just
> >>fold down the back seat to get more length to the cargo area like you
> >>can with a regular Explorer.
> >>
> >>It just seems to me that it would make more sense to get either a Ranger
> >>pickup (quad cab?) if you really need the outside cargo space or a
> >>regular Explorer if you don't.
> >>
> >>Opinions?
> >>
> >>-Fred W
> >
> >
> > Here is my Opinion Fred,
> >
> > Most people who own trucks don't haul full sheets of plywood around very
> > often if ever, and don't generally need a full truck bed.
> > I have always owed and driven full sized long bed Ford pickup trucks,
since
> > 1979.
> > If you would consider driving any one of these three undersized trucks,
the
> > Sport Track is a very intriguing option. I just ordered my New 2005
F-450
> > Crew Cab 4x4 DRW 9 foot bed, But I have to admit as a full time single
> > person economical commuter vehicle, the Sport Track looks very appealing
to
> > me.
> > If you don't really have the need for a full truck bed, and if you are
> > hauling dirty things you don't want on your explorers carpet, garbage
cans,
> > potting soil, wet dogs, what ever, but most of the time only haul your
own
> > butt around, this is a great design, the best of both worlds.
> >
> > :-)
>
> You must be joking. I would *never* consider an Explorer (of any
> flavor) as an *economical* single person commuting vehicle. If it's
> just one or two people and you aren't hauling any cargo a car would be
> infinitely more suitable for the task.
>
> As far as occasionally hauling dirty things, a rubber cargo area liner
> would probably take care of that, though I supposed you may have to
> "crack a window" if you'll be hauling the trash cans.
>
> To me, it's the flexibility of the regular Explorer cargo area that puts
> the U in SUV. Personally I think they could drop the S as I don't see a
> whole lotta sport going on there... ;-)
>
> -Fred W
>
> And as an aside, leaving your dogs out in an open pickup bed should be
> punishable by law. Would you drive around with your kids bouncing
> around back there? The closed cargo area of a regular explorer is
> infinitely better for that purpose.


Bzzzzt! Wrong...

Bull****! Spoken like a true "soccer mom", it is obvious you have never had
the need of a real truck or had a real dog for that matter. Sounds like
your perfect vehicle would be a minivan.

No I'm Not kidding about the Sport Track being an *economical* commuter
vehicle! Beats the hell out of my current 6800 pound 460 powered single
person commuting vehicle!!!

Yes I would put my dogs in the open bed of my truck, attached, as is
required by state law. I do so quite often.
Every time they swim in the ocean and get soaked and covered with sand, or
in a river and get soaked and covered with sand or mud. Obviously you
don't have any dogs, not real ones anyway. Your silly little rubber mat
aint gonna protect anything. My dogs are between 90~150 pounds and if one
was in the back of your cute little explorer on your silly little rubber mat
right after one of there regular jaunts to the beach, and they shook you
would be trying to figure out how to get the wet sand and mud out of your
defroster vents on your dash and everywhere else in the vehicle.

You may not believe this, but before all of this "legislation to protect
idiots from themselves", when I was growing up there were no seatbelt or
helmet laws, and people and kids most often rode unbelted, and often rode in
the back of open pickup trucks, and lived complete, long, intact lives as
well. Get off your high horse about you perception of how I transport my
dogs, you discount the use of an outdoor area on a vehicle with a silly
argument, just because you don't care for a style of vehicle. That little
outside space offered by the Sport Track just might be more then enough
outside bed space for a lot of folks...

Damn, If you don't really want to hear others opinions, why are you asking
for them?

351CJ wrote:

> Bzzzzt! Wrong...
>
> Bull****! Spoken like a true "soccer mom", it is obvious you have never had
> the need of a real truck or had a real dog for that matter. Sounds like
> your perfect vehicle would be a minivan.

Ouch. Nice language and an excellent example of gratuitous name
calling. I hope it made you feel better.

Do I have the need for a "real truck"? No, not presently or I would
probably buy one and ditch my current Explorer XLT. It sure would not
be an explorer sport track, so what's your point? When we lived in the
woods in Maine we had the need then to plow the 1/4 mile driveway and we
had a nice old International 3/4 ton 4x4 for the job.

I do currently have a dog, a 3 year old Lab. We have always had dogs.
We had 3 dogs at one time, but last year 2 died (of old age). We
transport them in the back of the XLT with a barrier or in crates.

For the record, I'm a 47 y/o male, and our kids are grown and long past
soccer playing age so I guess I'm not a "soccer mom".

We have (and will likely) never own a "mini-van" because they are of
limited use in my opinion. The only thing that they excel at is people
carrying and I very rarely have a need to carry more than 5 people.

>
> No I'm Not kidding about the Sport Track being an *economical* commuter
> vehicle! Beats the hell out of my current 6800 pound 460 powered single
> person commuting vehicle!!!

Yeah, right. Because a lot of people commute in F-450s right?

I don't get it? You already own the "real" truck, why would *you* of
all people have a need for a sport track as a commuter vehicle? Ever
hear of something called a car?

>
> Yes I would put my dogs in the open bed of my truck, attached, as is
> required by state law. I do so quite often.

Obviously I was referring to those that do not attach them, as is often
the case. Not all states have the same laws you know, and even in
states that do, it is not a priority for the police to enforce it.

I have no problem with putting dogs in the open back if they are
restrained or in crates.

> Every time they swim in the ocean and get soaked and covered with sand, or
> in a river and get soaked and covered with sand or mud. Obviously you
> don't have any dogs, not real ones anyway. Your silly little rubber mat
> aint gonna protect anything. My dogs are between 90~150 pounds and if one
> was in the back of your cute little explorer on your silly little rubber mat
> right after one of there regular jaunts to the beach, and they shook you
> would be trying to figure out how to get the wet sand and mud out of your
> defroster vents on your dash and everywhere else in the vehicle.

So you couldn't do that in your "real" truck?

Ironic. You denigrate my Explorer as a "cute little explorer" but you
want to buy an Explorer Sport Track? I'm not following your logic here.
Does it somehow become more masculine and acceptable when the rear
cargo area is uncovered?

>
> You may not believe this, but before all of this "legislation to protect
> idiots from themselves", when I was growing up there were no seatbelt or
> helmet laws, and people and kids most often rode unbelted, and often rode in
> the back of open pickup trucks, and lived complete, long, intact lives as
> well.

I am not a proponent of laws trying to protect people from themselves.
Far from it. I'm actually a closet libertarian. In fact, I generally
do not even favor the current crop of seatbelt laws because they are an
infringement on personal liberties... except when it comes to young
kids (and perhaps dogs?) who cannot makes these decisions for
themselves. Other than that, I believe the "Darwin factor" takes
precedence.

> Get off your high horse about you perception of how I transport my
> dogs, you discount the use of an outdoor area on a vehicle with a silly
> argument, just because you don't care for a style of vehicle. That little
> outside space offered by the Sport Track just might be more then enough
> outside bed space for a lot of folks...

You apparently misunderstood my post. My thinking actually is that *if*
you really need the outdoor space (as you seem to), then a 4 foot bed
would *not* be enough. Essentially the same vehicle (with a bigger bed)
is already available as a quad cab Ranger. That was the crux of my
question about the Sport Track.

>
> Damn, If you don't really want to hear others opinions, why are you asking
> for them?

I did (do) want to hear other people's opinions, but not egotistical
diatribes about how manly they are and about how their dog is bigger and
gets dirtier then my dog.

Personally, I do not waste my money burning gas in my V8 Explorer to
transport myself back and forth to work. There are cars in my driveway
that do that far more economically, safer and more enjoyably.

I'm sorry that you can't discuss these things without becoming so
emotional about it. I guess it was the thing about transporting the
dogs in the open back that set you of. It was probably my fault for not
being clear enough. I should have said "*loose* in the open back".

-Fred W

My wife has an Isuzu Rodeo at the moment, we were considering a Dodge Ram
pickup or a F150 both are a little too big for the tight parking spaces and
both are V8, and sport track is more compact and six cylinder. She only
carries small stuff on her Rodeo and occasionally I will carry some
landscape waste.

"Fred W" > wrote in message
...
> Xrayjuan wrote:
>> I am planning to get a sport track by march of 2005, probably a one to
>> two year old. Any warnings or anything to lookout for? 2X2 or 4X4?.
>> Mostly city driving with occasional Kayaking trips.
>
> Not an answer to your question, but rather a question to you. Why do you
> (or anyone else for that matter) want a Sport Track. I can't for the life
> of me figure out the attraction to those things. It seems that the bed is
> too short to do anything useful with it and you can't just fold down the
> back seat to get more length to the cargo area like you can with a regular
> Explorer.
>
> It just seems to me that it would make more sense to get either a Ranger
> pickup (quad cab?) if you really need the outside cargo space or a regular
> Explorer if you don't.
>
> Opinions?
>
> -Fred W