Ford Explorer U251 reliability?

[Falcon_LS]

So my boss has a '10 Explorer XLT with the 4.0L Cologne and 5R55S transmission with a conventional 3.55 axle ratio, which he's looking to sell off because he's moving to another country. Mileage is just over 12,700 miles, exterior is black with a Light Camel (light caramel color) interior. I've driven it quite a few times, and ended up liking it quite a bit, so I'm tempted to buy the truck and started researching reliability and long term ownership. Just wondering if anyone here has one, and what their ownership experiences have been like.

Bit of background, the truck was involved in an accident back in March '12, which was repaired by the Ford/Lincoln dealer. A Toyota Corolla smashed into the passenger side rear bumper, and the repair involved replacing the rear bumper and passenger side tail light assembly, as well as a dent in the rear gate (which has also been painted).

Maintenance wise, it's been serviced by the Ford/Lincoln dealer who uses Middle Eastern sourced Castrol GTX 10w30. The oil "meets the requirements of API SL" and has no ILSAC accreditation. We had a discussion about this over a year ago, and my boss has made sure they use Motorcraft Syn Blend 10w30 since, which is what Ford recommends in this part of the world. Nothing else, other than tire rotations, has been done to it.

The only thing I'm not a fan of is the fact that the transmission has no dipstick, and the downsides to the vehicle are:

- Swirls in the paintwork
- 2 hairline scratches on the passenger side rear door
- What appears to be a coffee stain on the front passenger side floormat
- Some cat hair, which doesn't bother me too much having 3 of my own.

All in all, it just needs a bit of detailing and it should be fine.

 

[oilstudent24]

You might research the transmission and servo

 

[UNC151]

While I cannot speak towards to overall car, as for the lack of transmission dipstick, most of the new Fords are this way (my 2010 FX4 does not have one either). Barring a leak, there should not be an issue without it, save for having the dealer perform service. I do not consider this to be a problem, I have had my transmission fluid and filter replaced twice (13.3K and 71.4K--but I tow quite a bit).

I would not let the lack of the dipstick sway you in either direction--it should not be a deal breaker.

 

[Rand]

transmission has no bad flaws. I had 2002 ranger and it went 100k with no issues. The engine had no issues either. just a timing chain recall when they revised the timing chain system .. but that was back in 2002

The engine has been around mostly the same since 2000 or so in exploders, (2001 in ford rangers.)

Power is good esp. above 3000rpm. It is not an old school truck engine with alot of low grunt although it does not really lack power.

My Dad just traded his 2005 ranger with 103000 miles and it had 0 work done to the engine.. probably the best part of the truck was the 4.0

 

[L_Sludger]

Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS
So my boss has a '10 Explorer XLT with the 4.0L Cologne
Wow! The Cologne motor, seriously? That motor is prehistoric!

 

[stranger706]

Those are nice trucks. 2010 was the last year of the full frame Explorer before they changed to the unibody version. The drivetrain is pretty solid.

The 4.0 dates back to the late 80s. I think it started out as a 2.8 or 2.9 liter. During the 90s it got bigger, new SOHC heads and timing chain problems. The timing chain was fixed for 02+ model. Thats really the only issue this engine has ever had. Your 2010 example will be bullet proof. Gas mileage will be pretty bad. You'll struggle to break 20 mpg on the highway.

The transmission is an old design as well. It started out a 4 speed in the early 90s. They added a gear to it, changed the name and tried to fool everyone but its still a 20+ year old design. They had some issues when they added the 5th gear but that got fixed around 2002 as well.

The 2006-2010 model run was one of the best reliability wise.

 

[exranger06]

The 5R55S transmission, despite having a similar name to the 5R55E, is a completely different transmission and shares no common parts. The 5R55E is the one based on the A4LD, which is in turn based on the C3 that is 20+ years old. The 5R55S is only about 10 years old.

 

[Falcon_LS]

Wow, thanks very much for all the info!

Originally Posted By: oilstudent24
You might research the transmission and servo


Thank you!

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
While I cannot speak towards to overall car, as for the lack of transmission dipstick, most of the new Fords are this way (my 2010 FX4 does not have one either). Barring a leak, there should not be an issue without it, save for having the dealer perform service. I do not consider this to be a problem, I have had my transmission fluid and filter replaced twice (13.3K and 71.4K--but I tow quite a bit).

I would not let the lack of the dipstick sway you in either direction--it should not be a deal breaker.


I agree. It's just that I have a habit of checking the ATF once a week, making sure it's still that bright red and doesn't smell burnt or anything like that. Is a T-Tech the only way to service these units?

Having said that, I was a bit annoyed when Ford ditched the torque converter drain plugs. My '00 Crown Vic had one, and so does my '01 Grand Marquis, but my '03 and '07 Grand Marquis didn't.

Originally Posted By: Rand
transmission has no bad flaws. I had 2002 ranger and it went 100k with no issues. The engine had no issues either. just a timing chain recall when they revised the timing chain system .. but that was back in 2002

The engine has been around mostly the same since 2000 or so in exploders, (2001 in ford rangers.)

Power is good esp. above 3000rpm. It is not an old school truck engine with alot of low grunt although it does not really lack power.

My Dad just traded his 2005 ranger with 103000 miles and it had 0 work done to the engine.. probably the best part of the truck was the 4.0


I've noticed that actually, the engine sort of "comes to life" over 3,000 rpm!

Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
Wow! The Cologne motor, seriously? That motor is prehistoric!


Link

Originally Posted By: stranger706
Those are nice trucks. 2010 was the last year of the full frame Explorer before they changed to the unibody version. The drivetrain is pretty solid.

The 4.0 dates back to the late 80s. I think it started out as a 2.8 or 2.9 liter. During the 90s it got bigger, new SOHC heads and timing chain problems. The timing chain was fixed for 02+ model. Thats really the only issue this engine has ever had. Your 2010 example will be bullet proof. Gas mileage will be pretty bad. You'll struggle to break 20 mpg on the highway.

The transmission is an old design as well. It started out a 4 speed in the early 90s. They added a gear to it, changed the name and tried to fool everyone but its still a 20+ year old design. They had some issues when they added the 5th gear but that got fixed around 2002 as well.

The 2006-2010 model run was one of the best reliability wise.


Originally Posted By: exranger06
The 5R55S transmission, despite having a similar name to the 5R55E, is a completely different transmission and shares no common parts. The 5R55E is the one based on the A4LD, which is in turn based on the C3 that is 20+ years old. The 5R55S is only about 10 years old.


Thanks for the info! Now it's even more tempting.

It's actually the body on frame construction that appealed to me in the first place, although I do agree about the fuel economy. I drove the truck for almost a week, and even if I babied it and used cruise control, I was barely able to make it to 18.5 MPG, average was about 17.8. My boss couldn't get past 16.

Having said that, it's still tempting thinking about a 3.89 or 4.10 axle ratio, which would also give me an opportunity to upgrade to an LSD. My Grand Marquis had synthetic 75W-140 axle lubricant from the factory, not sure if the fluid in the Explorer is synthetic or mineral based though. If it's mineral, maybe a switch to synthetic might yield slightly better fuel economy with the factory 3.55s.

On the other hand, I've got no problem with the transmission being an old design as long as it's reliable. I'm not too keen on 7-8 speed autos or CVTs. Haven't been able to look at the manual just yet, but I reckon this unit uses Mercon V?

 

[bdcardinal]

That trans uses Mercon V, and the diff should have had 75W140 from the factory.

The other weak point on these is the rear wheel bearings, they go out a lot.

 

[Falcon_LS]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
That trans uses Mercon V, and the diff should have had 75W140 from the factory.

The other weak point on these is the rear wheel bearings, they go out a lot.


Thanks for the info!

Does it have a serviceable fuel filter by any chance, or is it in the fuel tank?

 

[bdcardinal]

Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
That trans uses Mercon V, and the diff should have had 75W140 from the factory.

The other weak point on these is the rear wheel bearings, they go out a lot.


Thanks for the info!

Does it have a serviceable fuel filter by any chance, or is it in the fuel tank?


2C5Z-9155-BC

 

[SwampSurvivor]

I've always heard that the 5r55 are bad transmissions ... The valve bodies get plugged.

 

[artificialist]

Keep in mind that the upper and lower ball joints typically last ~90,000 where there is no road salt. The other front end components aren't all that great either.

 

[Falcon_LS]

Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
2C5Z-9155-BC


Thanks! Refreshing to see a relatively new vehicle come with one of those, when they're disappearing from others.

Originally Posted By: Miller88
I've always heard that the 5r55 are bad transmissions ... The valve bodies get plugged.


So shorter service intervals are in order? Or maybe full synthetic fluid?

Originally Posted By: artificialist
Keep in mind that the upper and lower ball joints typically last ~90,000 where there is no road salt. The other front end components aren't all that great either.


Seems much of the suspension components these days are sealed and not serviceable. Maybe a set of Moog serviceable joints would solve that issue?

 

[bdcardinal]

Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
2C5Z-9155-BC


Thanks! Refreshing to see a relatively new vehicle come with one of those, when they're disappearing from others.

Don't worry, the new Explorer eliminated the filter.

 

[Falcon_LS]

That doesn't surprise me one bit.

 

[jeepman3071]

Sounds like a worthy purchase to me. I agree on the 4.0 being a solid engine. My buddy had a Ranger with the 4.0 SOHC and it ran great until he sold it at 180k miles. My neighbor has an '08 or '09 Explorer with the same drivetrain and interior and he loves it.


You also know how the vehicle was maintained, which is a big one. Soon after I bought my Jeep I discovered the previous owner wasn't good with maintenance.

 

[Whimsey]

Isn't the 4.0 Cologne engine a push rod engine? If so then it's a real solid, though not poweful engine. My wife had that engine in her 1996 Explorer. It ran great, easy maintenance. She traded it at 155,000 miles for a new 2002 Explorer with the 4.0 SOHC. That engine was a dog. It chewed up it's timing chain tensenor cassettes, both front and rear at 36,500 miles. Ford would not warrranty. It was over a $3,000 job. The dealer wanted to work with us but Ford would not budge. Traded the vehicle in. She still loved the Explorers so she purchased a new 2005 Explorer with the 4.6 V-8. In a 123,000 miles the only non maintenance issue was the aluminum housed rear diff. It was repaired twice under warranty. It's nosier than my 2002 F-150's rear diff but hasn't gotten any loader in the last 50,000 miles.

Whimsey

 

[SwampSurvivor]

The 4.0 cologne was originally a pushrod engine. The last variation of the 4.0 cologne was SOHC.

 

[Falcon_LS]

The deed is done!

Only thing I realized, which I hadn't noticed before, is the lack of Ford's keypad entry system. I'm delighted nevertheless, and it just turned 13,000 miles.