I was driving an the highway a few years back daydreaming in the fast lane, When I realized the car in front of me was going slower then me. I cut the wheel to the right kinda hard and changed lanes. At that point the explorer started rocking side to side. It had a feeling like it could have flipped over if I wasn't steering the way I was. Scared the bajebers out of me as that was the closest I've ever come to flipping a car.,,
Any Good Years For Ford Explorer?
- Thread starter lancerplayer
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: HWEaton
Originally Posted By: lancerplayer
Were there any good years for the Ford Explorer? Anyone have a good experience owning an Explorer?
Yes. Those models that were called BroncoII's....
Yeah, you got your choice between the computer controlled carburated 2.8 or the head cracking 2.9 engines, the same A4LD transmission as the Explorer, except it's the much weaker version, the weak Mitsubushi manual trans, the incredibly weak Dana 28 front axle, and the weaker 7.5" rear axle.
Exactly WHAT makes any of that better than a 1st gen Explorer with a stout 4.0 V6, excellent M5OD manual trans or updated A4LD, Dana 35 front axle and 8.8" 31-spline rear axle?
Ford NEVER bought transmissions from Mitsu.
My friend has a 98 XLT 2WD. It's almost the perfect Tahoe wagon. However, it has a thirst for fuel and I have yet to change his transmission fluid and filter. As long as those forsaken Firestone Wilderness AT/Radial ATX aren't on them and you keep the tires at 35 or a touch higher, you'll be fine.
Originally Posted By: HWEaton
Originally Posted By: lancerplayer
Were there any good years for the Ford Explorer? Anyone have a good experience owning an Explorer?
Yes. Those models that were called BroncoII's....
Exactly WHAT makes any of that better than a 1st gen Explorer with a stout 4.0 V6, excellent M5OD manual trans or updated A4LD, Dana 35 front axle and 8.8" 31-spline rear axle?
Ford NEVER bought transmissions from Mitsu.
My friend has a 98 XLT 2WD. It's almost the perfect Tahoe wagon. However, it has a thirst for fuel and I have yet to change his transmission fluid and filter. As long as those forsaken Firestone Wilderness AT/Radial ATX aren't on them and you keep the tires at 35 or a touch higher, you'll be fine.
Dad had a Mercury Mutineer ... 2004, I think. This was the first SUV he ever owned. Compared to his Mercury Grand Marquis the Mutineer:
1) rode rougher
2) was slower
3) got worse gas mileage
4) was more expensive
I just didn't see the point. To me, the thing was just crude. I understand the newer ones have a better suspension ... more sure handling and a better ride quality.
I never though the rollover issue was quite the problem it was hyped up to be. But still, it's usually when you are sliding sideways and the tire pops or hits something that SUVs flip over. Happened to a friend of mine a decade ago (but in a Blazer).
Dad went back to Mercury Grand Marquis ... and is happier in those cars.
1) rode rougher
2) was slower
3) got worse gas mileage
4) was more expensive
I just didn't see the point. To me, the thing was just crude. I understand the newer ones have a better suspension ... more sure handling and a better ride quality.
I never though the rollover issue was quite the problem it was hyped up to be. But still, it's usually when you are sliding sideways and the tire pops or hits something that SUVs flip over. Happened to a friend of mine a decade ago (but in a Blazer).
Dad went back to Mercury Grand Marquis ... and is happier in those cars.
I have a '97 Explorer at home and a '03 explorer at work. Both a 4.0 SOHC engines. If it is a 2nd gen, find out if the timing chain work has been done. My '97 has 151,000 miles on it now and runs like a top. No problems with the engine or transmission. The '03 gets a rougher life at work, but has done fine.
Lots of steals on 2nd gens - they are a dime a dozen! Very comfortable vehicles. Check the rockers for rust (hidden under covers usually). Someone mentioned the vehicle swaying in a rapid maneuver - classic symptom of a broken sway bar link in the front end. Easy and cheap repair.
The '97 will be sticking around until the engine dies or its in an accident. It is our vehicle of choice when taking a trip anyways.
Lots of steals on 2nd gens - they are a dime a dozen! Very comfortable vehicles. Check the rockers for rust (hidden under covers usually). Someone mentioned the vehicle swaying in a rapid maneuver - classic symptom of a broken sway bar link in the front end. Easy and cheap repair.
The '97 will be sticking around until the engine dies or its in an accident. It is our vehicle of choice when taking a trip anyways.
Originally Posted By: nthach
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: HWEaton
Originally Posted By: lancerplayer
Were there any good years for the Ford Explorer? Anyone have a good experience owning an Explorer?
Yes. Those models that were called BroncoII's....
Yeah, you got your choice between the computer controlled carburated 2.8 or the head cracking 2.9 engines, the same A4LD transmission as the Explorer, except it's the much weaker version, the weak Mitsubushi manual trans, the incredibly weak Dana 28 front axle, and the weaker 7.5" rear axle.
Exactly WHAT makes any of that better than a 1st gen Explorer with a stout 4.0 V6, excellent M5OD manual trans or updated A4LD, Dana 35 front axle and 8.8" 31-spline rear axle?
Ford NEVER bought transmissions from Mitsu.
Yes they did. Ford used Mitsubishi FM132, FM145, and FM146 manual transmissions in the Ranger and Bronco II.
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: HWEaton
Originally Posted By: lancerplayer
Were there any good years for the Ford Explorer? Anyone have a good experience owning an Explorer?
Yes. Those models that were called BroncoII's....
Exactly WHAT makes any of that better than a 1st gen Explorer with a stout 4.0 V6, excellent M5OD manual trans or updated A4LD, Dana 35 front axle and 8.8" 31-spline rear axle?
Ford NEVER bought transmissions from Mitsu.
Yes they did. Ford used Mitsubishi FM132, FM145, and FM146 manual transmissions in the Ranger and Bronco II.
Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
Dad had a Mercury Mutineer ... 2004, I think. This was the first SUV he ever owned. Compared to his Mercury Grand Marquis the Mutineer:
1) rode rougher
2) was slower
3) got worse gas mileage
4) was more expensive
I just didn't see the point. To me, the thing was just crude. I understand the newer ones have a better suspension ... more sure handling and a better ride quality.
I never though the rollover issue was quite the problem it was hyped up to be. But still, it's usually when you are sliding sideways and the tire pops or hits something that SUVs flip over. Happened to a friend of mine a decade ago (but in a Blazer).
Dad went back to Mercury Grand Marquis ... and is happier in those cars.
Right but comparing a SUV to a "luxury" car doesn't make sense. Tell dad to get a lincoln SUV if he wants luxury.
Dad had a Mercury Mutineer ... 2004, I think. This was the first SUV he ever owned. Compared to his Mercury Grand Marquis the Mutineer:
1) rode rougher
2) was slower
3) got worse gas mileage
4) was more expensive
I just didn't see the point. To me, the thing was just crude. I understand the newer ones have a better suspension ... more sure handling and a better ride quality.
I never though the rollover issue was quite the problem it was hyped up to be. But still, it's usually when you are sliding sideways and the tire pops or hits something that SUVs flip over. Happened to a friend of mine a decade ago (but in a Blazer).
Dad went back to Mercury Grand Marquis ... and is happier in those cars.
Right but comparing a SUV to a "luxury" car doesn't make sense. Tell dad to get a lincoln SUV if he wants luxury.
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
1991-1994 models are good except for the A4LD automatic. M5OD manual ones are reliable. Some people never have problems with their A4LDs, but they need regular maintenance to last.
I have the opposite opinion - I had a 1993 4WD Explorer with that Mazda 5 speed and it was weak junk.
I had to replace the master cylinder early, and the slave started leaking early in life. Of course you have to pull the transmission to replace the slave, so I just put up with it and added fluid every few days until the slave blew - which it did a few years later, fortunately a few feet out of the driveway.
The Mazda M5 transmision is a clunky piece of junk. I had a transmission shop resurface, rebuild, replace everything from the flywheel to the rear end, and it was a little better, but still clunky, imo.
I got a '97 Expedition with the 4 auto and gave the Exploder to the kids, and they loved it. I had a tough time giving them the 97 Expedition because they liked the Exploder so much, but they still have the Expedition and use it for pulling their boat.
The Ford SUV's are great products, but I would avoid that M5 like the plaque.
1991-1994 models are good except for the A4LD automatic. M5OD manual ones are reliable. Some people never have problems with their A4LDs, but they need regular maintenance to last.
I have the opposite opinion - I had a 1993 4WD Explorer with that Mazda 5 speed and it was weak junk.
I had to replace the master cylinder early, and the slave started leaking early in life. Of course you have to pull the transmission to replace the slave, so I just put up with it and added fluid every few days until the slave blew - which it did a few years later, fortunately a few feet out of the driveway.
The Mazda M5 transmision is a clunky piece of junk. I had a transmission shop resurface, rebuild, replace everything from the flywheel to the rear end, and it was a little better, but still clunky, imo.
I got a '97 Expedition with the 4 auto and gave the Exploder to the kids, and they loved it. I had a tough time giving them the 97 Expedition because they liked the Exploder so much, but they still have the Expedition and use it for pulling their boat.
The Ford SUV's are great products, but I would avoid that M5 like the plaque.
Have an 05 Eddie Bauer with awd. It's been a good reliable vehicle so far. A little thirsty with the awd, but I travel a lot for work and I feel better with pretty wife hauling my kids around in something with better traction abilities in the cold Alberta winters. I run synthetic oil and ford filters and motorcraft plugs/wires(a must for the 4.0's)
Originally Posted By: nthach
Ford NEVER bought transmissions from Mitsu.
http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/ManualTransmission.html
Start reading.
Ford NEVER bought transmissions from Mitsu.
http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/ManualTransmission.html
Start reading.
06+ 4.6 3V. You will be grinning. In the current gens, the V8 is a no-brainer if you can find one. They are hard to find though. The V8 gets better MPG than 4.0.
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Originally Posted By: HWEaton
Originally Posted By: lancerplayer
Were there any good years for the Ford Explorer? Anyone have a good experience owning an Explorer?
Yes. Those models that were called BroncoII's....
Yeah, you got your choice between the computer controlled carburated 2.8 or the head cracking 2.9 engines, the same A4LD transmission as the Explorer, except it's the much weaker version, the weak Mitsubushi manual trans, the incredibly weak Dana 28 front axle, and the weaker 7.5" rear axle.
Exactly WHAT makes any of that better than a 1st gen Explorer with a stout 4.0 V6, excellent M5OD manual trans or updated A4LD, Dana 35 front axle and 8.8" 31-spline rear axle?
Ive owned 2.
An '88 XLT and a '90 XL that i still use as a daily driver with 184,000+ miles on the clock.
The heads do crack. One of mine did, and the 2.9 ended up getting rebuilt.
2 new world man. heads went on at $150 a peice. CHEAP!
The cv driveshaft got replaced, but the 7.5 is still good.
Only had the lube changed once in all those miles too.
The '90 has the dana 35 front diff. And the bigger Exploder....uh sorry EXPLORER brakes.
(little B2 humor there)
Auto trans? Never a problem.
Guy that rebuilt the engine sez the trans is same as in the 1/2 ton trucks.
Plus this is no "soccer mom special".
Its been wheeled up in the s.w. colorado mountains quite a bit.
My only complaints are:
Needs lifted about 2" to 4".
Needs MORE power.
NEEDS a LS or LOCKER in that 7.5 rear.
Other than that, i'll let yall know when she hits 250,000! ;-)
Oh, as for Explorers , 1991 to 1994.
The rest of those auto-4x4 models are for getting kids to the game on time!
(SHEILDS UP CAPTAIN!) >;-D
Originally Posted By: HWEaton
Originally Posted By: lancerplayer
Were there any good years for the Ford Explorer? Anyone have a good experience owning an Explorer?
Yes. Those models that were called BroncoII's....
Exactly WHAT makes any of that better than a 1st gen Explorer with a stout 4.0 V6, excellent M5OD manual trans or updated A4LD, Dana 35 front axle and 8.8" 31-spline rear axle?
Ive owned 2.
An '88 XLT and a '90 XL that i still use as a daily driver with 184,000+ miles on the clock.
The heads do crack. One of mine did, and the 2.9 ended up getting rebuilt.
2 new world man. heads went on at $150 a peice. CHEAP!
The cv driveshaft got replaced, but the 7.5 is still good.
Only had the lube changed once in all those miles too.
The '90 has the dana 35 front diff. And the bigger Exploder....uh sorry EXPLORER brakes.
(little B2 humor there)
Auto trans? Never a problem.
Guy that rebuilt the engine sez the trans is same as in the 1/2 ton trucks.
Plus this is no "soccer mom special".
Its been wheeled up in the s.w. colorado mountains quite a bit.
My only complaints are:
Needs lifted about 2" to 4".
Needs MORE power.
NEEDS a LS or LOCKER in that 7.5 rear.
Other than that, i'll let yall know when she hits 250,000! ;-)
Oh, as for Explorers , 1991 to 1994.
The rest of those auto-4x4 models are for getting kids to the game on time!
(SHEILDS UP CAPTAIN!) >;-D
Originally Posted By: OAS
Auto trans? Never a problem.
Guy that rebuilt the engine sez the trans is same as in the 1/2 ton trucks.
The A4LD wasn't used in 1/2 ton pickups. The results probably would not have been good if they had.
I have an appreciation for Bronco IIs, and would definitely like to own one at some point, but the Explorer does have heavier duty components. If I were building an off road toy, a '91-'94 Sport with the TTB suspension and M5OD would be my ideal vehicle to start with.
Auto trans? Never a problem.
Guy that rebuilt the engine sez the trans is same as in the 1/2 ton trucks.
The A4LD wasn't used in 1/2 ton pickups. The results probably would not have been good if they had.
I have an appreciation for Bronco IIs, and would definitely like to own one at some point, but the Explorer does have heavier duty components. If I were building an off road toy, a '91-'94 Sport with the TTB suspension and M5OD would be my ideal vehicle to start with.
I had a 92 with the 4.0 and manual transmission. Also, had manual hubs. I sold it with 325k on it. Very reliable with very little that goes wrong.
So was there a common engine between the explorer and the aerostar? A few years ago I would see the odd one at the side of the road with a trail of oil leading to it... Did they have oil lines that broke or something major let go with the engine?
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
So was there a common engine between the explorer and the aerostar? A few years ago I would see the odd one at the side of the road with a trail of oil leading to it... Did they have oil lines that broke or something major let go with the engine?
Aerostars used the 4.0 also used in the Explorer, as well as the 3.0 used in Rangers and Tauruses. Broken oil lines is NOT a common problem on either engine.
So was there a common engine between the explorer and the aerostar? A few years ago I would see the odd one at the side of the road with a trail of oil leading to it... Did they have oil lines that broke or something major let go with the engine?
Aerostars used the 4.0 also used in the Explorer, as well as the 3.0 used in Rangers and Tauruses. Broken oil lines is NOT a common problem on either engine.
- Status
Similar threads
