A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Ford Explorer
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Explorer Reliability Issues?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old April 19th 05, 02:16 AM
Tony Wesley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Lt.Fuzz wrote:
> "Tony Wesley" >
> glegroups.com:


> > Witness the Suzuki vs Consumers Union court case.
> >
> >

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/Re...5?OpenDocument

[snip]

> Suziki ultimately lost that case, and so did Sharper Image - Ionizer

Air
> Cleaner.


You're correct on the second part. Sharper Image did lose.

Suzuki did not lose. Suzuki & CU settled out of court, with CU issuing
a partial retraction. Here's the bit from the "joint statement" issued
by CU & Suzuki that I refer to:

''CU's 1996 statement that the 1988 Samurai "easily rolls over in
turns" was limited to the severe turns in CU's short course avoidance
maneuver. CU's use of the adverb "easily" may have been misconstrued
and misunderstood. CU never intended to state or imply that the Samurai
easily rolls over in routine driving conditions.''

CU says this isn't a retracation, it's a "clarification."

Ads
  #42  
Old April 19th 05, 02:43 AM
Wesley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tony Wesley" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>
> > Suziki ultimately lost that case, and so did Sharper Image - Ionizer

> Air
> > Cleaner.

>
> You're correct on the second part. Sharper Image did lose.
>
> Suzuki did not lose. Suzuki & CU settled out of court, with CU issuing
> a partial retraction. Here's the bit from the "joint statement" issued
> by CU & Suzuki that I refer to:
>
> ''CU's 1996 statement that the 1988 Samurai "easily rolls over in
> turns" was limited to the severe turns in CU's short course avoidance
> maneuver. CU's use of the adverb "easily" may have been misconstrued
> and misunderstood. CU never intended to state or imply that the Samurai
> easily rolls over in routine driving conditions.''
>
> CU says this isn't a retracation, it's a "clarification."



Don't forget about the Isuzu Trooper... While they jury didn't award
damages to Isuzu, they did find a good number of CU's claims to be invalid,
one of which damagingly so. Ya gotta have something big on the front cover
to help sell the magazine, no? I think some of their factual data is good -
such as the report that listed used cars to avoid...such as specifically the
1994 Plymouth Acclaim/Dodge Sprit. We had one...piece of junk.
Unfortunately, I saw that article long after we had the car. :-) Now, when
it comes to something more subjective, such as a driver's ability to make a
vehicle tip when making a swerve...well...I don't see any way you can
scientifically test that. Seems the government has agreed. So why do they
keep doing it? Makes a nice front page story? Seems their latest target is
the 2001 Mitsubish Montero...

Wesley


  #43  
Old April 19th 05, 03:34 AM
Chris Cowles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I find it interesting that SUV manufacturers are now developing anti-roll
systems (e.g.. Nissan's "Vehicle Dynamic Control"), just like anti-lock
braking systems. I wonder what stimulated them to spend the R&D money to do
that? Bad press, maybe?

I don't think they'd do it if it didn't have at least some likelihood of
performing as described.
--
Chris Cowles
Gainesville, FL
'00 Coleman Mesa/'99 Chevy Astro

"Wesley" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't forget about the Isuzu Trooper... While they jury didn't award
> damages to Isuzu, they did find a good number of CU's claims to be
> invalid,
> one of which damagingly so. Ya gotta have something big on the front
> cover
> to help sell the magazine, no? I think some of their factual data is
> good -
> such as the report that listed used cars to avoid...such as specifically
> the
> 1994 Plymouth Acclaim/Dodge Sprit. We had one...piece of junk.
> Unfortunately, I saw that article long after we had the car. :-) Now,
> when
> it comes to something more subjective, such as a driver's ability to make
> a
> vehicle tip when making a swerve...well...I don't see any way you can
> scientifically test that. Seems the government has agreed. So why do
> they
> keep doing it? Makes a nice front page story? Seems their latest target
> is
> the 2001 Mitsubish Montero...
>
> Wesley



  #44  
Old April 19th 05, 12:54 PM
meldx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think Volvo also uses such a system in their SUV.

hey... your SUV can tip over, we'll install a anti-roll system...
hey... your rig can sway... we'll install a anti-sway device...

makes the manufacturer look good by installing band aids to the problems!

Mel

Chris Cowles a écrit:
> I find it interesting that SUV manufacturers are now developing anti-roll
> systems (e.g.. Nissan's "Vehicle Dynamic Control"), just like anti-lock
> braking systems. I wonder what stimulated them to spend the R&D money to do
> that? Bad press, maybe?
>
> I don't think they'd do it if it didn't have at least some likelihood of
> performing as described.


  #45  
Old April 29th 05, 01:50 PM
Wesley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mapanari" > wrote in message
...

> > Don't forget about the Isuzu Trooper... While they jury didn't award
> > damages to Isuzu, they did find a good number of CU's claims to be
> > invalid, one of which damagingly so. Ya gotta have something big on the
> > front cover to help sell the magazine, no? I think some of their
> > factual data is good - such as the report that listed used cars to
> > avoid...such as specifically the 1994 Plymouth Acclaim/Dodge Sprit. We
> > had one...piece of junk. Unfortunately, I saw that article long after we
> > had the car. :-) Now, when it comes to something more subjective, such
> > as a driver's ability to make a vehicle tip when making a
> > swerve...well...I don't see any way you can scientifically test that.
> > Seems the government has agreed. So why do they keep doing it? Makes a
> > nice front page story? Seems their latest target is the 2001 Mitsubish
> > Montero...
> >

>
> That SUV is a death trap.
>
> I used to sell those POS and none of the salesmen would demo them when it
> was raining becuase they would constantly spin out; the back end would
> break lose under the slightest pressure and spin the whole vehicle in a
> cirle or two!
>
> I finally had to leave that place because we couldn't sell anything,
> especially when there was a Toyota and Honda dealer right next door. I

was
> starving.
>
> The Mitsibshi van is now the worst made van in the world according to some
> consumer magazines.


Funny...I own 2 Troopers and have never had anything near that sort of
problem. Unless you count driving around on slick snow-covered roads and
intentionally making it spin. When were you trying to sell them? Right
after CU trashed their sales?


  #46  
Old April 29th 05, 11:39 PM
Tom Shaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

All Consumer magazines stink. Especially CU.
TS
"Mapanari" > wrote in message
...
> "Wesley" > :
>
>>
>> "Tony Wesley" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> > Suziki ultimately lost that case, and so did Sharper Image - Ionizer
>>> Air
>>> > Cleaner.
>>>
>>> You're correct on the second part. Sharper Image did lose.
>>>
>>> Suzuki did not lose. Suzuki & CU settled out of court, with CU issuing
>>> a partial retraction. Here's the bit from the "joint statement" issued
>>> by CU & Suzuki that I refer to:
>>>
>>> ''CU's 1996 statement that the 1988 Samurai "easily rolls over in
>>> turns" was limited to the severe turns in CU's short course avoidance
>>> maneuver. CU's use of the adverb "easily" may have been misconstrued
>>> and misunderstood. CU never intended to state or imply that the Samurai
>>> easily rolls over in routine driving conditions.''
>>>
>>> CU says this isn't a retracation, it's a "clarification."

>>
>>
>> Don't forget about the Isuzu Trooper... While they jury didn't award
>> damages to Isuzu, they did find a good number of CU's claims to be
>> invalid, one of which damagingly so. Ya gotta have something big on the
>> front cover to help sell the magazine, no? I think some of their
>> factual data is good - such as the report that listed used cars to
>> avoid...such as specifically the 1994 Plymouth Acclaim/Dodge Sprit. We
>> had one...piece of junk. Unfortunately, I saw that article long after we
>> had the car. :-) Now, when it comes to something more subjective, such
>> as a driver's ability to make a vehicle tip when making a
>> swerve...well...I don't see any way you can scientifically test that.
>> Seems the government has agreed. So why do they keep doing it? Makes a
>> nice front page story? Seems their latest target is the 2001 Mitsubish
>> Montero...
>>
>> Wesley
>>
>>
>>

>
> That SUV is a death trap.
>
> I used to sell those POS and none of the salesmen would demo them when it
> was raining becuase they would constantly spin out; the back end would
> break lose under the slightest pressure and spin the whole vehicle in a
> cirle or two!
>
> I finally had to leave that place because we couldn't sell anything,
> especially when there was a Toyota and Honda dealer right next door. I
> was
> starving.
>
> The Mitsibshi van is now the worst made van in the world according to some
> consumer magazines.
>
> --
> ---Mapanari---



  #47  
Old May 4th 05, 10:56 AM
Ed H
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The "Ford towing Guide" lists different towing capacities for several of
their vehicles depending on which tire size is purchased with the vehicle.
--
Ed, Sandy, E.J. and Misty
2001 Rockwood Freedom 1950
1994 Ford Explorer XLT


"Tom Shaw" > wrote in message
...
> All Consumer magazines stink. Especially CU.
> TS
> "Mapanari" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Wesley" >
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Tony Wesley" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Suziki ultimately lost that case, and so did Sharper Image - Ionizer
>>>> Air
>>>> > Cleaner.
>>>>
>>>> You're correct on the second part. Sharper Image did lose.
>>>>
>>>> Suzuki did not lose. Suzuki & CU settled out of court, with CU issuing
>>>> a partial retraction. Here's the bit from the "joint statement" issued
>>>> by CU & Suzuki that I refer to:
>>>>
>>>> ''CU's 1996 statement that the 1988 Samurai "easily rolls over in
>>>> turns" was limited to the severe turns in CU's short course avoidance
>>>> maneuver. CU's use of the adverb "easily" may have been misconstrued
>>>> and misunderstood. CU never intended to state or imply that the Samurai
>>>> easily rolls over in routine driving conditions.''
>>>>
>>>> CU says this isn't a retracation, it's a "clarification."
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't forget about the Isuzu Trooper... While they jury didn't award
>>> damages to Isuzu, they did find a good number of CU's claims to be
>>> invalid, one of which damagingly so. Ya gotta have something big on the
>>> front cover to help sell the magazine, no? I think some of their
>>> factual data is good - such as the report that listed used cars to
>>> avoid...such as specifically the 1994 Plymouth Acclaim/Dodge Sprit. We
>>> had one...piece of junk. Unfortunately, I saw that article long after we
>>> had the car. :-) Now, when it comes to something more subjective, such
>>> as a driver's ability to make a vehicle tip when making a
>>> swerve...well...I don't see any way you can scientifically test that.
>>> Seems the government has agreed. So why do they keep doing it? Makes a
>>> nice front page story? Seems their latest target is the 2001 Mitsubish
>>> Montero...
>>>
>>> Wesley
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>> That SUV is a death trap.
>>
>> I used to sell those POS and none of the salesmen would demo them when it
>> was raining becuase they would constantly spin out; the back end would
>> break lose under the slightest pressure and spin the whole vehicle in a
>> cirle or two!
>>
>> I finally had to leave that place because we couldn't sell anything,
>> especially when there was a Toyota and Honda dealer right next door. I
>> was
>> starving.
>>
>> The Mitsibshi van is now the worst made van in the world according to
>> some
>> consumer magazines.
>>
>> --
>> ---Mapanari---

>
>



  #48  
Old May 12th 05, 04:08 AM
Wesley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well, I was going to let this drop as I was tired of arguing with someone
who is basing their judgment on hearsay and limited driving of the vehicle
in question. I was doing some reading today on a web page that was talking
about insurance and linked to hwysafety.org which has info on vehicle
safety/collision/theft ratings. I found some info that I think needs to be
passed on. After this message, you'll not hear anything more from me on
this subject, everyone's probably tired of it.

Take a look at
http://www.hwysafety.org./vehicle_ra.../ictl_0903.pdf Maybe
you can argue the montero is a bad vehicle as far as safety goes...by this
chart (look on page 4, right column) it's listed as the worst in injury
ratings. This is info compiled by insurance companies that they use to
determine how much they are going to charge you to insure a give vehicle.
Imperical data. Not someone's experience based on whether they can make the
wheels spin on a wet road. Now look and tell me where the Isuzu Trooper is?
Granted, it's not at the top, but it's not anywhere near the bad ones on the
bottom.

Now let's jump over to http://www.hwysafety.org./srpdfs/sr4003.pdf and take
a look. How likely are you to get killed in a given vehicle.. If CU wants
a rollover-prone candidate to pick on, why on earth aren't they bashing the
Chevy Blazer? It's listed as the single worst vehicle in this report.
Again, the Trooper comes out in the middle of the road. There are much
worse vehicles that could be chosen...I'll keep driving my Trooper and be
happy with it.

The data seems to paint a different picture than you do...

I'll stop my "yammering" now...

Wesley


"Mapanari" > wrote in message
...

> Your "Logic":
>
>
> Funny, I know 2 Nazis and they've never killed any jews.
>
> Funny, I believe in God and so therefor he exists.
>
> Funny, I'm a white male, with two eyes and a moron, therefor, all white
> males with two eyes are morons.
>
> Funny, I've owned two GM vehicles and they're were pieces of ****,
> therefor, ALL GM vehicles are pieces of ****.
>
>
> Get it?
>
> And see, son, if you don't go out on a rainslick road and practice to see
> what makes your car break and at what speed, then when you get into a bad
> sistuation you're ****ed.
>
> Imhe, the Trooper broke free under very light acceleration and a very easy
> turn. Scared the **** out of me. Just like the 1985 Mercedes Benz 4

door.
> It broke so easily that when it rained I never took it out.
>
> Conversely, my Mitzu Turbo Eclipse I couldn't break it out unless I tried
> really really hard. Great car.
>
> The Montero also scares the **** out of me and Consumers Reports agrees.
> It's not acceptable.
>
> Son, you can yammer all you want about your limited and narrow-perspective
> prejudices and suspend your belief in rational thinking, but I hope you
> don't have innocent little kids with your when you drive your Trooper

piece
> of **** on the road; they're helpless and they're trusting you to be

smart,
> not a prejudiced smart ass.
>
> --
> ---Mapanari---



  #49  
Old May 30th 05, 01:14 PM
Big Shoe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Very interesting information, thanks for the link!

On Sat, 28 May 2005 04:37:04 -0000, Mapanari >
wrote:

>"Wesley" > :
>
>> Well, I was going to let this drop as I was tired of arguing with
>> someone who is basing their judgment on hearsay and limited driving of
>> the vehicle in question. I was doing some reading today on a web page
>> that was talking about insurance and linked to hwysafety.org which has
>> info on vehicle safety/collision/theft ratings. I found some info that
>> I think needs to be passed on. After this message, you'll not hear
>> anything more from me on this subject, everyone's probably tired of it.
>>
>> Take a look at
>> http://www.hwysafety.org./vehicle_ra.../ictl_0903.pdf
>> Maybe you can argue the montero is a bad vehicle as far as safety
>> goes...by this chart (look on page 4, right column) it's listed as the
>> worst in injury ratings. This is info compiled by insurance companies
>> that they use to determine how much they are going to charge you to
>> insure a give vehicle. Imperical data. Not someone's experience based
>> on whether they can make the wheels spin on a wet road. Now look and
>> tell me where the Isuzu Trooper is? Granted, it's not at the top, but
>> it's not anywhere near the bad ones on the bottom.

>
>Well, no no one is saying that the IZuzu trooper hasn't changed drastically
>in the last 10 or 20 years.
>
>Izuzu for too long, knowingly kept an unsafe vehicle on the road, like
>Suzuki Samurai, secret reports not made public about deaths, just like Ford
>and Bridgestone/Firestone did.
>
>Once you betray my trust so you can bail out with golden parachutes and
>never spend a day in jail for the thousands of deaths you contribute, like
>the Ford Pinto and people burning alive, you've lost me as a customer for
>life.
>
>
>
>>
>> Wesley
>>


  #50  
Old July 21st 05, 05:59 AM
Richard Minami
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Okay, so from my original posting a few months ago, I have some news about
our new Explorer! Turns out I got to tow out little tent trailer with my
father-in-law's big F250 diesel. Here's the story:

We left around 3 p.m. on Friday to go camping. We figured it would be a 4
hour drive from South Seattle to Soap Lake, in eastern Washington. Going
over Snoqualamie Pass (after going over Tiger Mountain pass - not a big
one), I happened to look back and saw that we were smoking! Keep in mind,
this is a 3 month old 2005 Explorer with about 2,300 miles on it! I drove
to the next big shoulder, since it was running fine, with no warning lights
on the dash. Got out, took a look and saw the smoke was from transmission
fluid blowing all over the exhaust pipe and chassis (and on the front of the
camper)! After a few hours on the cell phone with Ford Roadside Assistance
(not - at least in the sticks!), they couldn't do anything for me. They
wanted to tow me to Ellensburg, another 45 miles east of Seattle, instead of
towing me about 45 miles back to Issaquah (a Seattle suburb). I got on the
phone with my dealer from Auburn, and he set me up with a tow back to their
shop. I might have to foot some of the bill, since Ford will only pay up to
35 miles (Auburn must be like 40-50 miles from where we were stuck). But
it's worth it to have it close to home. In Ellensburg, we'd have no way to
move the camper, or we'd need to stay in a Motel. We got home about 10:30
after having my brother pick me, the wife and 2 kids up. A flat bed took
the Exploder and towed the camper.

We got up the next morning. Took the aforementioned F250 to the Ford
dealer, sat in the parking lot for an hour and modified the wiring (my
Mickey Mouse job...), then towed the camper to Soap Lake, for less than 24
hours of fun filled, swimming and camping. It was really literally, like
not even knowing the thing was back there! Nice and straight, didn't slow
down on the rolling hills with the rig in overdrive at 75. It was just
diesel noisy. As for the smell, well no one was tailgating me. I don't
mind the diesel smell. It's the smell of POWER.

Monday, the dealer found that the problem was a kinked breather hose for the
transmission. It just built up pressure from all the heat and elevated RPM,
and started blowing fluid out. They dropped the pan, checked things out,
and things seem good. Runs the same, just has dirt on the undercarriage
now.

All I could think about, waiting for the tow was "I wonder if this would
have happened in the Honda?" I guess it's not a design problem, just a
workmanship problem. I hope this is the last problem with this. Otherwise,
I will really know that these have reliability issues, just like back in
'94.

It is a pretty red though. And it still smells new inside. And it does
have the get up and go I've come to love about the Explorers. (old Honda
Passports and S10 blazers seemed to just shift, get louder, and stay the
same speed) Anyway, hope y'all enjoyed the story. Sometimes, I just feel
better telling it to someone. By the way, our dealer in Auburn is awesome.
They literally helped to pluck us off the side of the highway.

Richard Minami
2005 Ford Explorer XLT Sport 4x4 (red!)
1994 Honda Accord LX
1997 Coleman Yukon


4/11/2005 "Richard Minami" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>
>
> 4/7/2005 "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!
> >>
> >>

> >

>
>



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
92 FORD EXPLORER HYDROPLANE PROBLEM AT 45 MPH OR MORE.. [email protected] Ford Explorer 10 December 26th 04 11:48 PM
Ford Explorer XLS 99 Larry St. Regis Ford Explorer 3 October 24th 04 04:08 PM
FS-Automotive Industries --Several issues 1937 and 1938 Mike Petty Antique cars 0 July 14th 04 01:22 AM
Not rec... But it's a 4X4! Explorer 4X4 question Clem 4x4 4 February 8th 04 10:27 PM
Article: GPS Vehicle Tracking System Issues for the Buyer Johann Blake General 0 January 16th 04 12:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.