(first posted 3/1/2017) Every once in a while some magazine or newspaper gets the idea to write an article about a high profile public figure that ponders whether the individual in question can balance parenthood and a demanding career simultaneously. Traditionally, these hard-hitting examples of investigative journalism phrase the query as something like “can Natalie Portman have it all?” The question is obviously ridiculous for several reasons, most notably because it tends to assume that very successful women have a hard time managing a proper work life balance, and also because millions of women without the resources of an A-list actor have no problem raising kids on their own.
But the “having it all” question is relevant to the Ford Explorer, which exited the 90’s with strong sales and a solid reputation. Multiple factors insured that wouldn’t last.
Is the story of the Explorer also the story of late twentieth century America? Both found themselves in very favorable positions at the dawn of the 21st century. Even without counting sales of the Mercury Mountaineer, the Explorer dominated the SUV segment, becoming an institution ten years after its debut. The United States similarly experienced a largely successful decade, as the dissolution of the USSR extinguished any fears that communism could present a viable alternative to the western ideals of democracy and capitalism. In 1992’s The End of History and the Last Man political scientist Francis Fukuyama declared ideological conflicts a thing of the past. The relatively short Gulf War, which occurred a year before the publication of Fukuyama’s book, was the exact kind of international cooperation envisioned by scholars and policymakers in the new world order of the post Cold War era. But events like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the attack on the USS Cole, the Hainan Island incident, and September 11th, 2001 demonstrated the fallacy in believing the United States and its western allies could permanently alter global affairs simply through economic and cultural hegemony.
Similarly, the Ford Explorer couldn’t have it all. Neither could Ford, although not for lack of trying. CEO Jacques Nasser took the George Lucas approach to the Blue Oval by replacing a tried and true formula with complete excess. To be fair, some of his business moves were downright prescient: his focus on e-commerce, satellite radio, and more broadly, efforts to make Ford Motor Company something other than a manufacturer of vehicles. Considering what Ford is currently planning for the future, Nasser’s moves look like smart business decisions when viewed through a contemporary lens.
Nasser’s folly was with the big ticket items. The nearly perverted fascination Lucas exhibited toward Jar Jar Binks resulted in the Gungan’s antics being the most visible fault in a movie filled with mistakes. Premier Automotive Group served the same function within Ford. Although the $6.45 billion acquisition of Volvo continues to benefit the company, the combined expense of also purchasing Land Rover and the subsequent launch of the Premier Automotive Group strained resources, which diverted attention away from Ford’s core products.
Amidst all the corporate reorganizing, acquisitions, and business experiments that characterized the tumultuous Nasser era, the Firestone recall debacle stands out as the most damaging to Ford, and more specifically, the Explorer. It’s worth pondering if a less chaotic Ford could have tackled the situation with more urgency, but regardless of the counterfactual, the upheaval at Dearborn and the incidents of rollovers created the perfect storm of crisis that no doubt made a number of consumers reconsider their desire to own an Explorer.
As for the tire controversy itself, all of the back and forth between Ford and Firestone makes it hard to singularly blame one party for the mess that resulted in tragedy for some and inconvenience for others. Both companies knew the Explorer didn’t handle adverse conditions with the utmost confidence. From there the narrative gets considerably more fragmented. While Ford pointed to evidence that the Explorer apparently experienced far less trouble with Goodyear tires, Firestone claimed their tires showed no issues when equipped on the Ranger. Despite other charges each levied at one another, no definitive conclusion was reached, but Ford did take a $3 billion hit to its bottom line when it recalled the tires in question.
Outside of the spat between the two formally cooperative companies, the handling of truck based utility vehicles presented a natural liability in emergency maneuvers, especially when compared to regular cars. In the days before standard traction and stability control, this presented a real problem that didn’t limit itself to the Explorer. But Ford’s SUV was the most popular and therefore the most visible by default.
Our featured Explorer is an XLT, which improved upon the base XLS by adding a tilt leather-wrapped steering wheel, cruise control, cloth sport front bucket seats with manual lumbar support, 6-way power driver seat, high series floor console (armrest, cupholders, rear radio/air conditioning controls), overhead console (compass, outside temperature display, front and rear reading lights), remote keyless entry, AM/FM/CD player, illuminated visor mirrors, cargo cover, floormats, fog lights, and a roof rack. Notable options included the 5.0 L V8 paired with a 4 speed automatic transmission and a permanent all-wheel drive system, a reverse sensing system, front side-impact airbags, and leather bucket seats.
Aside from the regular four door model, Ford also continued producing the two door Sport. The 2001 model year saw the Sport gain some Ranger inspired styling and a new tailgate.
Ford also debuted the Sport Trac, which would only share the Explorer name for its first year. This cult favorite rode on a lengthened second gen Explorer platform and stayed in production even after the 2002 redesign of the four door model.
Just how competitive was the Explorer at the very end of its second generation? Its primary competitor, the Jeep Grand Cherokee, had less horsepower and torque with its standard inline 6 when compared to the Ford, but the optional 4.7 L V8 had an output slightly higher than the aging 5.0 that had been a staple in the Ford lineup for quite some time. In terms of dimensions, the Explorer measured 190.7 inches in length, a bit over 9 inches longer than the Grand Cherokee. The Explorer also had a longer wheelbase to the tune of about five inches, although the Jeep had about two inches of width over the Ford.
The Dodge Durango, which surfaced in 1997, bested the Explorer in every dimension and by 2001 also came equipped with the same 4.7 L V8 found in its corporate sibling, the Grand Cherokee.
Around this time a number of other SUV’s in what I like to call the “178 in” class (referring to total length) also fought for attention.
The Honda Passport/Izuzu Rodeo combo, Nissan Xterra, Nissan Pathfinder, and Toyota 4Runner all fit this general size category.
Chevy’s Blazer and its badge engineered stablemates, along with the Jeep Cherokee, also soldiered on, but by this point in their life cycles they were considerably outdated and quite a bit smaller than their counterparts.
With the exception of the Pathfinder, all of these vehicles sold less in 2000 than they did the previous year. Shoppers bought roughly 17,000 more Explorers during the same time period.
While the Explorer won the sales battle of 2000, storm clouds gathered on the horizon in the form of the crossover.
Subaru continued to eke out small sales gains with the Forester.
The Santa Fe did the same for Hyundai.
Ford fielded its own crossover with the Escape.
The SUV dominated paradigm couldn’t last forever.
Just as the end of the Cold War presented America with a brief honeymoon period in the 90’s, the Ford Explorer entered a changing landscape after enjoying a successful decade of growth. The Explorer’s comeback from near irrelevancy probably stems from the positive interactions car shoppers had with this generation, and should serve as a reminder that even if you can’t have it all, you can still get by just fine.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1992 Ford Explorer by Brendan Saur
Curbside Classic: 1997 Mercury Mountaineer by Brendan Saur
COAL: 1998 Ford Explorer XLT V8 by Jim Klein
Those Explorers(like the featured vehicle) were everywhere in the 90’s and 2000’s.
About the tire issue. In my time working for Firestone and then Ford I changed about 500 sets(each Explorer had five tires that needed to be changed out) and I never saw any defective tires at all. While there might have been a bad batch or a few bad tires most of the issues and accidents were because of user error. Most Explorer buyers were first time SUV buyers who had no idea that a SUV handles differently then a car. (of course I also blame schools for not making physics a graduation requirement as it is simple physics that a vehicle with a high center of gravity that it will tip over going 60 on an off ramp)
Other causes were low tire pressure. No tire is going to be safe if it is low on air pressure.
Of course the media widely reported this tire “issue” leading to a huge panic. But then the media and politicians(of all political stripes and parties) like to use the time honored idea of blame an individual or company for the issue instead of blaming the real culprit: The individuals in the public that are incapable of realizing that if you change lanes or speed around an off ramp at 60 in a vehicle with a high center of gravity then you are going to roll over. Or if you don’t bother checking your tire pressure and keeping the tires inflated correctly then there will be issues.
I drove my 1992 GMC Jimmy for 5 years and I never rolled it. I have had my Chevy pickup truck for 2 years and have not rolled it. Because I know how to drive a vehicle with a high center of gravity.
IIRC, the primary origin of the Explorer’s tire issues were previous owner complaints of a too-stiff ride. Ford initiated a quick-fix of simply lowering the recommended tire pressure and, as Firestone contended, this is the chief culprit of the rollover problem.
Of course, Firestone tires were still pretty miserable. Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone’s tight friendship assured that new Fords would exclusively get Firestone tires for decades, regardless of the low quality of the tires. Frankly, I’m not certain that a higher quality tire (say, Goodyear) would have had the same issues, even at the lower tire pressure that Ford was recommending. The cheap construction of Firestone tires, combined with the low tire pressure and high center of gravity of the Explorer for new drivers who didn’t have a clue how differently an SUV would drive compared to a regular car, created a deadly combination at highway speeds.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Explorer’s days are numbered but, with the advent of much better riding CUVs that are nearly as big as the Explorer in its heyday, there are a whole lot of better alternatives, particularly considering how expensive a new Explorer (even a base strippo) has gotten.
The current Explorer is a CUV and the best-selling in its class.
I never had any issues with the Wilderness A/Ts on my ’98 Explorer. They weren’t great, but they weren’t bad as far as OEM tires go. Better than the General Grabbers Ford replaced them with.
While certainly smaller than a full-size SUV, I’m not sure I would classify an Explorer as a CUV (particularly the current version which seems pretty damn big). IIRC, the original RAV4 is considered the first CUV, with the Escape being Ford’s entry into the specific category.
The separation would be of from which vehicle the platform is derived. The Explorer originates from a truck (Ranger) and is normally RWD, whereas the true CUV is car-based and is normally FWD propelled.
Likewise, while the RAV4 is considered a CUV, I’m not so sure about the 4Runner.
The current Explorer is absolutely a crossover. The D4 platform came from the Volvo P2, which was first used for the S80.
The current (2011+) Explorer is a full-sizeish* FWD/AWD crossover on the unibody D4 platform.
1991-2001 Explorers, 91-03 Explorer Sports, and 01-05 Sport Tracs were Ranger-based compact SUVs (RWD/4WD).
2002-10 (07-10 Sport Trac) models were mid-sized SUVs (RWD/4WD with IRS) on a unique platform.
*I say full-sizeish because although it’s based on the same full-size platform as the Flex, the third row legroom is more in line with midsize CUVs.
The RAV4 is definitely a car-based unibody FWD/AWD CUV, and the 4Runner is definitely a truck-based BOF RWD/4WD SUV.
With seven seats, the current Explorer is an MAV (Minivan Avoidance Vehicle).
Yes, sort of. But seven seats can mean a full-size vehicle, or a mid-size 3-row vehicle, where the third row is not meant for constant use. The only true “MAVs” are full-size CUVs, not 3-row midsizers, since all modern minivans are full-size vehicles (78″ wide, 120″-ish WB) to accomodate larger child seats, among other things. Other sizes of minivans were supplanted by various sizes of CUV. And the only full-sized CUVs are GM’s Lambda crossovers and the Flex/MKT. Every other OEM fields a minivan in that segment.
I regard the whole genre as UAVs – Urban Assault Vehicles. 🙂
I wouldn’t mind a new Explorer, but the size is more than we needed. Bought a new Escape Titanium instead with Ecoboost 2l. Too many toys I said, but how can one do without them…. Lol
In 2001 I bought a brand new Ford Ranger with Firestone tires. I never had a problem with them, in fact they were excellent tires and wore extremely well. As I remember they were made after the so called “bad” tires. The spare however was one of the so called “bad” tires, identified by a yellow dust cap on the valve stem. This was how Ford got rid of their stockpile of “bad” tires, by making them spares. For what it’s worth, I never used the spare and when rust got the best of the Ranger, I sold it for parts, keeping the tires including that spare. It’s been on my current truck without a problem for 5 years now and is wearing very well.
No Ford did not get rid of their stockpile of bad tires by using them as spares. If you are running on tires from 2001 you are driving a time bomb.
I should have used the word “questionable” instead of “bad”. There was an AP article in the New York Times, dated Oct 6, 2000 that discusses the matter. The article states that the spares are marked on the sidewall “For Temporary Use”. Mine did not say that, but did wear a yellow dust cap on the Valve stem. I had, but no longer do, paperwork that came with the Ranger that spelled out that the Yellow dust cap signified that this was a temporary spare, not for permanent use. This was a way to unload a bunch of unsaleable tires. It would have been cheaper to provide a donut spare for a temporary spare otherwise. As for running old tires, when you buy an old car you never know how old the tires are, or question it.
You are right that most people don’t know or ask how old a set of tires are in years when they buy a car but that doesn’t mean that running old tires is a good idea. It isn’t hard to know exactly how old your tires are, by law they all have a date code on the sidewall.
Awareness of the danger of old tires is growing many mfgs actually state in the owner’s manual that tires should be replaced after a certain number of years regardless of the amount of tread on the tire. better tire shops will also refuse to repair or mount tires beyond a certain age.
Yea, 99% of the Firestone issue was grossly under inflated tires often combined with grossly overloaded vehicles AND hot weather.
I used to watch the stories on the news and get really irritated that no reporter EVER walked up to the other 3 tires and took a reading.
Just drove me crazy.
Add driver slamming on the brake when a tire blows to the mix as well.
I had a 95 Explorer that I loved. At about 15,000 miles, it seemed to flat-spot after being parked overnight- (among other symptoms). At the time, I did not bring it in to the dealer to get diagnosed, but the symptoms were weird enough that I was wondering if my bearings were shot or something funny in the suspension.
I did not drive it long distances for about a year (forgoing trips or using another car). When the news broke and I got new Michelins, the difference was amazing. And no more weird noises or thumping.
In retrospect I know the dealer would have stonewalled so I would never have known what was wrong until I got new tires or the tires got bad enough to blow out. My tires looked fine to me, and I can imagine that my tire dealer thought the take-off firestones were fine and did not need to be replaced. I know the new tires were better and I’m glad the recall happened.
PS. I’m pretty careful with my cars to make sure they are in good shape. The tires superficialy looked excellent. I kept the pressure at exactly 32psi all around.
Dig into it a little deeper and you’ll find that the Firestone tires in question were produced at 3 different plants. The failure rate of the tires from one of the plants was something like 3 or 4 times that of the best of the Firestone plants. However the best of the Firestones had something like twice the failure rates of the Goodyear tires. Ford was proactive in the situation, when Bridgestone would only agree to foot the bill for replacing the tires from the worst plant and not recall tires from the other plant Ford did so on their own dime.
There was nothing wrong with the original tire pressure settings other than the vehicle was over tired. That meant the correct pressure was basically at the minimum pressure. Firestone only created the low pressure hoopla to try and divert attention away from them and hang the blame on Ford.
What’s the deal with the Sport Trac? I saw one in Scotland and thought “Look at that weird Ranger”.
So did they make the Ranger into a car and then made it back into a truck, or am I missing something? It’s like a sci-fi show where somebody experiences some weird alteration after teleporting.
The Sport Trac was a long-wheelbase Ranger with a crew cab and (very) short bed.
One of the more notable features was a unique lowering rear window. It only had three positions: closed, partially open a few inches, or completely open. It sounds kind of goofy that the user couldn’t determine how much they wanted the window to be open but, frankly, I can’t imagine why an infinite amount of window opening adjustment would ever be needed.
Not exactly – the Sport Trac is a lengthened Explorer – not a Ranger. Not that it’s all that big of a difference. The 1st gen Trac used mostly Explorer Sport bits and pieces with some unique to the Trac only interior parts. Rubber flooring with carpeted mats and lots of little hexagonal trim motifs. The base model Trac even came with this weird removable backpack center armrest contraption. I’ve seen one in the wild with that option. The early 1st gen had a part-time 4WD hi/lo – not sure when AWD was made available. The 2nd gen Sport Trac was pretty much aligned with the 3rd gen Explorer – floor shift console being the biggest visible interior change, optional V8 being the biggest mechanical change. Fun fact – the tailgate is the same as that era’s F-series stepside – I keep mine locked, since it’s pretty easy (if you’re strong enough, sucker’s heavy!) to lift it off the mounts and make off with it.
The first-gen Sport Trac was the American version of the crew cab Ranger (compact pickup truck) that we never got. It sat on the same 126″ WB and had many of the same mechanicals (engine, trans, axles, etc.)
The second gen Sport Trac was a LWB Explorer-based midsize SUT. It had IRS and an available V8, and was wider and longer than the first compact model.
The upcoming midsize Ranger will be roughly in between the first Sport Trac/Ranger and the second Sport Trac in size.
Aah. It makes more sense now. I still find the concept a bit strange but it hadn’t occurred to me that there was no double cab Ranger.
There was, but not for the North American market. The first-gen Sport Trac was almost the same dimensions as a SuperCab/6′ or Double Cab/5′ Ranger.
I went from being entirely ambivalent about this “jellybean” generation (95-01) of this Explorer to really quite liking and respecting them. A large part of that was seeing just how ubiquitous they still are down in Mexico when I was down there for work. Beaten on mercilessly, maintained under less than ideal conditions, and they just keep on trucking. Often seen with the front wheels cocked out with massive negative camber from terminally shot balljoints, dusty and dented but running and driving. Likewise here in the US these old Explorers are still common family haulers in poorer working class neighborhoods. Parts are cheap and readily available (plenty of donors in junkyards), the truck construction helps in terms of durability in urban environments with crumbling infrastructure and is easy to work on. Gotta watch out for transmission issues on the 5spd autos (solenoid issues mostly), and the timing chain tensioners going on the SOHC version of the Cologne 4.0L result in an engine-out job to fix the rear chain. The V8 variant with the larger 4R70 transmission is perhaps the way to go, or else an earlier truck with the simpler OHV 4.0L Cologne. Sticking with RWD if the climate allows it likewise can save a bit on both purchase price, save a bit of gas, and reduce complexity in interests of reliability.
I quite like this generation of explorer, and we had one in our family as a utility vehicle at our family house in Rhode Island, a 1999 (I think) XLT with the 6 and leather. It replaced a 1995 GMC Jimmy of similar specifications and the Explorer was noticeably more fun and solid to drive.
That said, it’s achilles heel became apparent as soon as my children were born: No third row and therefore not enough room for car seats and passengers.
I would argue that car seat size and car seat and seatbelt laws and norms changed rapidly in the 1990s, and those changes caused a bifurcated market for family haulers: wagons and crossovers were fine for families with 1 child under eight, but for those with two kids in car seats at the same time, a third row was required in order to drive car pool or have other passengers. There simply wasn’t enough room nor enough seat belts (5) in a two row vehicle.
So the Escape, Santa Fe, Forrester, Xterra and others took part of the market, but the other half went to minivan’s, the next gen explorer, tahoe’s, expeditions, and the rest of the three row SUV’s.
Ford produced way too many of these, and after the Firestone fiasco, they couldn’t give them away. I remember one of my friends talking about his parents getting a brand new 5 speed strippo for $15k out the door. The Explorer had gone from belle of the ball to pariah. I really don’t think you can understate how much damage those rollovers did to the Explorer, even if it was a decent car after you put new tires on it.
It’s fascinating that since the Explorer debacle has long ago blown over, new Explorers are now, once again, priced exorbitantly.
I’ve owned two of this era Explorers – my 97 Eddie Bauer and my current 01 Sport Trac. Other than being under powered – in that grand Ford tradition of providing just enough HP in the standard engine – I’ve enjoyed owing them both. Both bought as used cars for well below market value – the Eddie Bauer at the height of the roll-over tempest and the Sport Trac when fuel prices spiked a couple years ago. The Eddie Bauer performed perfectly the whole time I owned it, somehow dodging the intact manifold gasket nonsense. The Sport Trac needed gaskets at 60K and I just heard that tell-tale whistle again a couple of weeks ago – along with a rough idle – that tells me it’s gasket time. Other than that they were both exactly what I knew they were – truck based critters that aren’t near as capable as they look but more than good enough to do what I needed them to do, while being comfortable and weather-proof. If you drive that era Explorer like you would a conventional small FWD sedan yeah, you’re going to have some problems on sharp, decreasing radius curves and aggressive lane change maneuvers. Whether that’s the consumers’ issue or the manufacturers’ is an interesting question – how much educating is the maker responsible for? Did Ford purposely train their sales staff to underplay the truck-based handling characteristics of the Explorer so as to keep the “SUVs are the safest thing on the road” perception going? Probably not – but the result was a small number of people flipped their SUVs doing things that would’ve just been normal driving in an everyday sedan. And Ford definitely was aware of the handling quirks of the Explorer – the soft recommended tire pressure specs are evidence of that! Were they liable for the billions they paid out? Not so sure about that – but somewhere a handful of lawyers got fabulously wealthy…and by Explorers have never flipped me into a ditch!
I don’t recall the exact circumstances in which the Explorer’s deadly handling problems occurred, but it seems like it was a specific series of events, beginning with too low tire pressure. That, in turn, caused the sidewall of a poorly constructed Firestone tire to heat up at highway speeds to the point that it would blow-out.
Then, the sudden movement of the vehicle would cause a startled driver to overcompensate. At highway speed, with a high center of gravity vehicle, a rollover then became a much higher possibility than with a lower height car.
I believe your summary is spot-on. Ford specifically designed the next generation Explorer to be a bit wider and with a lower center of gravity to make it a bit more predictable in emergency situations.
> Did Ford purposely train their sales staff to underplay the truck-based handling characteristics of the Explorer so as to keep the “SUVs are the safest thing on the road” perception going?
Beginning with the second generation, the Explorer was designed to ride as much like a car as possible. (Specifically, a classic RWD BOF domestic car, which many younger drivers already were not familiar with.) And the marketing certainly pitched the Explorer as a car-replacement.
So consumers found this attractive thing which looked like a truck, drove like a car, had all the car comforts, but actually still essentially handled like a truck. It is fair IMO to give them a pass on this if they were confused.
Sport track is my fav. But I still can’t help think of jurasic park when I see an explorer.
Same here RE: “Jurassic Park”.
These were examples of Ford’s maddening tendency to combine some really appealing qualities in a vehicle with some real failures.
The cars were attractive, solid feeling and nicely sized and powered. BUT they were championship rusters and suffered numerous durability failings well beyond the tire fiasco. A friend owned one of these and got rid of it after about 5 or 6 years when the flywheel required replacement. Why would a flywheel fail in a car that new?
I recall reading that these were popular choices for Cash for Clunkers trades, which took a lot of them off the road. Now, I could see a V8 model as a cheap utility vehicle.
Several close friends had these year Exploders as they called them. Every one suffered a transmission failure before 100k miles. They rusted in the usual spots but it was the electrical components that annoyed the most. Radios that quite working. Power windows malfunctioning. Charging systems leaving them stranded on the roadside. These seemed to center around the 2000-2003 time period so I’m not sure if the newer ones improved. I do still see many 2002 on up versions still driving around though.
The issue with the Explorer is a bit more complicated than just stupid drivers going too fast on off-ramps.These were marketed as ‘do-everything’ vehicles that could be used like any regular car. Any top-heavy vehicle is at higher risk of rollover during an emergency maneuver, where the driver simply may not have time to slow down to a ‘safe’ speed. Also, the type of knobby off-road tires commonly fitted to these vehicles were not designed for optimum cornering, and less tolerant of extended, high-speeds on paved roads in very high temperatures – conditions many of these vehicles were subjected to, far more often than slogging through snowdrifts or muddy wilderness trails.
Happy Motoring, Mark
I got rid of my ’98 Sport after 3 years because it was such a POS. Looking over the receipts it was literally in the shop every 2 months on average. But I personally know many people never had any issues at all with them, and my dad’s Rangers were always great. Reliability was very hit or miss.
It was frustrating, since it was so much more comfortable and capable than the 4Runner that replaced it. And for all its issues, it never left me stranded like the 4Runner did.
I can see the comfort angle given the 4Runner’s high floor and cramped cabin (until the 4th generation when it went to a significantly wider Prado 120 platform), but how was it more capable? More power? Also curious to hear what happened with the ‘yota that stranded you. My ’96 Limited has been a fantastically utilitarian and useful vehicle, if a bit lacking on really long road trips (10+ hour drives are not its forte, but I do them regularly in it).
Unless I’m mistaken, the 4Runner is the last surviving vehicle available in the US that really fits the body-on-frame mid-size SUV class that the Explorer popularized as the modern family station wagon. I was behind a brand-new 4Runner today in traffic, complete with dealer plates, and really had to think if they were still building them new, or if I was looking at a bizarrely clean used one.
It reminded me of how appealing this class of vehicle was, pairing decent towing capacity with moderate size and very competent winter handling with 4 or AWD options.
My understanding is that Ford will be bringing back a true successor to the article subject Explorer in the form of a reworked Ford Everest and named Bronco for the North American market. I’m really looking forward to its debut and it will probably make my short list for future vehicles.
What I really hate about new CUVs is the sloped rear hatches. I used to be able to carry 2 bikes upright (with fork locks) in the back of my Explorer and 4Runner. Between the boxy cargo area and the opening rear glass they were much more versatile everyday haulers than most new CUVs that best them in volume specs.
The lack of affordable SUVs these days is one reason I moved to a crew cab pickup.
Much agreed.
Agreed 100% with both of you. My 4Runner has been an absolute swiss army knife for me. Towed twin axle uhaul trailers across the city twice when I moved, hauled motorcycles, canoes, mountain bikes, dogs in the back. It took us across the beaches of OBX (another trip planned this summer), winter road trips to visit family back in NY, and even gotten us out of a tight spot after some flash flooding when we were camping a few summers ago:
youtu.be/JTneGPG2ZrM
Will at some point buy a newer one, but with only 138k miles on it, my ’96 has another several decades of life left in it.
Which begs the question- why the hell are they so damned popular?
If I had to choose an SUV it would have to be able to carry larger things like certain appliances, boxes etc. The backs of many of these silly little cute utes is virtually useless unless you fold down the rear seat which affectively makes it a two seater. A minivan is still way better at these things but nobody wants them anymore.
The 4Runner (a 2000) was underpowered for towing and sometimes refused to start in the cold. It also just up and quit twice on the highway, only to start up and run fine 5 minutes later with no codes being thrown. The Explorer seemed to always have something wrong with it, but nothing like that.
The 4Runner was better off-road, though the Explorer wasn’t bad.
Really weird symptoms Phil, and definitely not the norm for 3rd gens as a whole. Loose battery terminal?
I’ve towed 2500-3000ish with mine before and it manages fine in the flat midwest, but I can definitely see a torquier Ford 4.0L making easier work of things.
I towed 3500 lbs with my 1997 4Runner 3.4L/auto and it was ok around town but not a comfortable hauler over a longer distance. Not so much the drivetrain, but the short wheelbase, soft rear springs and lack of rear travel meant that it would bottom out with people and trailer hitched up. My 2006 Tacoma is much better at towing/hauling and when I added airbag helpers on the back it made it about as good as a V6 tow vehicle can be.
jakengle I installed Monroe air shocks on the back of my ’96 and it has helped tremendously with carrying loads and trailer towing. I just keep a tire pressure gauge and compact bike hand pump in the truck. 30 psi for regular driving, 45psi when carrying loads, works like a charm! You’re right though, the short wheelbase coupled with tall ground clearance and relatively low weight (3750lb for a automatic 4wd V6) makes for a less-than-ideal towing rig.
Great post and excellent handling of a vehicle that was loved by many and drew a decent amount of hate, not always rational, from others. As with any sales leader, its visibility made it a target, and targeted it was by people ranging from environmentalists to folks that consider the Honda Civic to be the only rational vehicle choice for every person on the planet capable of driving a vehicle.
A minor correction regarding the debut of the Dodge Durango. Its initial engine line up included the 3.9 V-6 as standard, although there is debate as to whether any were actually built with the V-6. Chrysler’s venerable 318 cu 5.2 V-8 was the defacto standard engine until 2000 when the new 4.7 was introduced, Chrysler’s first new V-8 since probably the 1960s. The ancient 360 cu V-8 was also made available, and helped establish the modern era of performance at Chrysler, creating another competitive niche against the Explorer that Ford never really answered.
The 4.7 is a nice runner, reliable and handles a 5,000 lb trailer with ease. Unfortunately, when paired with the 4 speed auto, towing package and full-time AWD, it is quite thirsty (personal experience).
FWIW, I’ve never quite understood the phenomenal sales success of the Explorer in comparison to the also great, but much lower sales figures for the Durango during the years they were both on the market.
Having driven a 2000 Explorer XLT V8 when it was new (as a company vehicle) and then briefly owning an ’03 Durango 4.7 as an older used vehicle, The Durango’s driving dynamics were far and away better than the Explorer’s. I still view the Durango as the better vehicle on the grounds of styling, interior comfort, handling and just about every other criterion one could judge 2 similar vehicles by, and yet the Explorer outsold it by large margins. I can’t help chalking that phenomenon up to a certain amount of Mopar discrimination among the buying populace. Maybe it’s just my perception, but I came to really respect my Durango, while I still view that Explorer as an unrefined and rather haphazard pile of bolts.
Much agreed – I still have my 2002 Durango that I purchased new. While the specs and actual user experience of the Durango simply blew away the Explorer, the Durango suffered classic “Chrysler-itis” when it came to sales. It sold phenomenally well for a Chrysler product, but being a Chrysler product, portions of the market were never going to buy it.
The Durango was good, but I don’t think it blew anybody away. It didn’t come out ahead of the Explorer in the MotorWeek review above.
It probably depends on what you were looking for. For me, the Durango styling was far superior to the rather average looking Explorer that sometimes suffered a face only a mother could love.
I had driven several period Explorers and liked them, but when I was handed a 2002 Durango as a rental car, I was smitten. The 4.7 is a really good drive – and was much improved over the initial 5.2 (318) that MotorWeek tested. The third row was very usable for my family, the front seating position was much more accommodating to my 6’1″ frame, and its towing capacity was a given with an (almost) standard V-8. The Mopar AWD system from the Jeep line was one of the best of its era, and frankly outperforms my 2012 F-150 AWD mode in terms of smooth, seamless operation.
The second generation Explorer SUV seemed to benchmark the Durango, and I liked it much better than the first gen.
Manufacturers are frequently criticized for fleet sales to rental companies, but in my case that rental experience earned Chrysler a retail sale.
Edited for a bit more clarity. Thanks!
We owned two different Explorers, a mid-nineties version (with part-time 4WD) that was purchased used, and an early-oughts version (with AWD) that was purchased new to replace the first one. Both of them had the 4.0 V6/4 speed AOD drivetrain, which, as some have said, provided adequate power but not much more. Both of these vehicles were my wife’s daily driver so my seat time was pretty much limited to vacation trips. As I remember them they were competent enough on the highway except for a noticeable thrash from the engine room if pressed. During our ownership we didn’t have any trouble with the tires or anything else, of course neither vehicle had or accumulated that many miles under our stewardship.
For what it’s worth our 2009 Highlander, with the 2.7 liter four/6 speed auto combination is a much better vehicle than either of the Explorers. The Highlander is front wheel drive which is more than adequate for how we drive; the only time either Explorer went off road was when my wife backed off the edge of the driveway coming out of the garage. The Highlander, even with the four, seems to be more responsive than either Explorer and gets better mileage as well.
Wow the Explorer’s 4.0 must have been really slow then because I have driven the 159HP 2.7 in the Tacoma pickup and was very unimpressed. Did this engine make more power in the Highlander?
The 2.7 in our Highlander probably has around 170-175 HP. In my opinion Toyota did a much better job of matching the transmission shift points to the engine’s power curve than Ford did with the 4.0 V6. It also helps that the Highlander has six forward gears vs four in the Explorers. The Highlander is certainly not a hot rod but I have never been concerned about not having enough power when merging into traffic, and it will run at 75-80 MPH all day without seeming strained. The two Explorers, on the other hand, seemed sluggish when accelerating up to highway speed and seemed to make an annoying droning sound at Interstate speeds. The Explorers weren’t bad vehicles per se but in the end they remained Ranger pickups with a station wagon body.
I had several friends who had 90’s and later 4.0 litre Explorers and every one of them were excellent.
The all were running well with very high mileage when sold or traded and two of them wound up with over 300000 miles and no major problems at all.
I remember driving the one with 360000 miles in 2007 and it was still peppy, solid, and no one would have thought it had that kind of mileage.
My favorite one was a big Mopar nut buddy of mine who’s wife wanted a got a loaded Eddie Bauer and he had to accept it,, he will admit now that it was the best vehicle he ever owned.
Ah the nineties! An era of unbridled optimism, a booming stock market, and no large scale political or military quagmires to speak of. It was a magical time when parents still religiously indoctrinated their offspring with the mantra that education and hard work equate to success. I’m sure parents still tell the kiddies this today, but back then, they actually believed it!
And seemingly every household had at least one Explorer in the driveway, usually a mid-level XLT, resplendent in bright, vibrant colors we no longer see today. Blue, burgundy, and how many shades of nineties teal & green? Say what you will, but it sure beats the hell out of Fifty Shades of Grey!
Somewhat surprisingly, it would be many years before I first sampled an Explorer of this vintage. Throughout the nineties, the family ride in teenage Eric’s household was a ’91 Camry DX wagon. It was a steady if unexciting workhorse that was woefully underappreciated at the time.
It wasn’t until 2004 that I first drove this generation Explorer, when on a job I was tossed the keys to a low-mileage ’01 XLS with the SOHC 4.0. I had no real expectations in mind, but I came away from the experience completely underwhelmed, perplexed at how middle-America could be so spellbound by such a crude and unrefined vehicle. Yes, it did have plenty of space, but it was also loud and coarse and rode crudely over bumps. I can’t imagine it would’ve been much better when new. Having read all of the period reviews, I had been led to believe that the Explorer was one of the more sophisticated SUV’s of its time. Which lends the question, was the competition significantly worse?
That’s a question I can’t answer, but having much later driven, a ’91 Mazda Navajo LE, I can at least verify how vastly improved the second generation was in terms of overall refinement. But still, it’s hard to fathom that people actually enjoyed driving these crude conveyances. Based on the current overwhelming dominance of CUV’s, I would surmise that they didn’t.
It’s all relative. Explorers were comfortable for a small truck and had all the amenities of a car. That’s what made them an instant hit. By ’01 they were pretty long in the tooth, but the competition wasn’t significantly more refined.
These and other things are why I still miss the 90’s. If only our economy would get back to those levels and we still had some of the great stores we lost during the new Millennium.
The Explorer not only dominated the SUV market it was the best selling passenger vehicle for a number of years, out selling the Camry and Accord and coming in third overall behind only the F series and the Chevy C/K.
It was not the CUV that did the Explorer in it was the Expedition and a refined Tahoe. Around here the progression of the must be seen in vehicle went from Explorer, to the Grand Cherokee very briefly, to the Expedition and then Tahoe. $4 gal gas is what made all of that go away not CUVs.
IIRC, there was another issue with the Firestone tire recall campaign.
As the “bad” tires were removed, some were being sold on the secondary market as “slightly used”. Once Firestone got wind of this, an additional procedure was instituted to drill large holes in the sidewalls and treads to prevent the tires from being resold.
I had a 95 XLT 5 door, with 2wd. I put 250,000 miles on that dude. Best car I’ve ever owned. It had 350,000 on it when the transmission finally died a second time, and while I thought about it, it wasn’t worth fixing it, and I was tired of it after 14 years of ownership with me.
It looked nearly new,despite my attempts to rearrange the front end in a minor collision, drove like new, and was as reliable as an anvil. Useful as well. I hated to get rid of it.
I lowered it an inch all the way around, That alone improved the driving dynamics of it substantially., and having spun it on the highway at 60mph thanks to a tire shop following Fords recommendations for tire pressure and not mine (I like them at 32-35) on the rear tires, it made for a tail happy creature before I could air up the rear tires.
Actually, it seems as though the Explorer concept is alive and thriving, at least in Chicagoland. The current crossover generation has become ubiquitous, being used as everything from basic family haulers to upscale SUVs to police vehicles. While law enforcement never went for earlier Explorers in large numbers, the current vehicle is otherwise doing exactly what the original SUV did: serving as a modern Country Sedan/Country Squire (which had great reputations and desirable imagery as “The Wagonmasters.”). The Explorer continues to be practical and can be dressed up or down depending on use, plus it has the added advantage of the high seating position which is now the default for the U.S. market (sorry sedans, but the majority are looking down on you…). Most buyers still view the Explorer as an SUV, because it is tall and has “truck-like” styling cues–they neither know nor care that it is based on a car platform. Ford simply kept pace with the times and offered a more up-to-date and easy-to-drive tall vehicle to keep SUV fans satisfied.
While I understand the rise and predominance of the SUV during the early to mid 90s (I grew up in the early to mid 2000s, so even four dollar a gallon gas didn’t stop these things from being popular). I always have to question why the Explorer rose on top. I always wondered what gave it the popularity over something like the Jeep Cherokee or Isuzu Rodeo. Was it the price? Was it because it was a more domesticated example of a previously niche vehicle segment? Was it the size? What was it about the Explorer that gained traction and made itself top dog in the market?
As for the Firestone controversy, I think it’s not really clear who’s at fault. I think it’s a three way tie between Firestone, Ford, and the consumers for the numerous problems and controversies, but to single one party out as the sole owner of the smoking gun seems disingenuous and short sighted.
I never cared for the Explorer myself, I would never own one, I think if I were to get an SUV, it would be something besides an Explorer. But then my track record of feelings on Ford is very mixed. On the one hand, my buddy’s 2014 Ford Focus and the 2016 model my family rented in Europe were both very nice, well equipped cars, even if the styling leaves me cold. On the other hand, my Dad’ former 2000 Ford Taurus and my other friend’s 05 Expedition (Nicknamed the Farming Silo in both an affectionate and derogatory manner) just reek of horrible design choices, cheap plastic interiors, and aging worse than a rotting onion in the middle of Death Valley. Granted, the latter two examples were beat up and clearly wheezing for life, while the former were well maintained and taken care of, and there is a substantial gap between the two. But, compared to my experiences with GM and Mopar, Ford comes out the weaker of the big three. I guess the lesson to take is, if you buy a Ford, don’t buy one from 97-09 (roughly) and don’t buy one with nearing 100k on the odometer.
No small part of why the Explorer came out on top was because it was a Ford.
The Jeep, as a Chrysler product, always carries the stigma of being a Mopar in a large segment of the population. That, and the regular Cherokee had a decidedly very cramped rear seat with difficult ingress and egress.
The Isuzu Rodeo was rather crude, as was the Montero. I had a bit of time in both. Just finding an Isuzu dealer would have been a challenge in some parts of the country, and, as it turns out, consumers rightfully had doubts if the brand would be around for the long term. By and large, the Isuzu brand was only lusted after by the entry level buyer and the credit challenged.
Whoops. Montero was a Mitsubishi. As kids used to say when I was a youngster, “Same Difference.”
Also, it wasn’t until 1998 with DaimlerChrysler that the Chrysler and Jeep sales channels would be merged. Thus, a Chrysler-Plymouth dealer in a rural area ended up with no SUVs to sell, yet the Ford dealer across the street had plenty of Explorers. (Franchise laws probably didn’t help, either.)
I’d argue the gen 2 Montero was 200% the truck that a Ford was. Much better 4wd system and hardware (‘true’ full-time mode, optional rear diff lock) and a much more overbuilt vehicle in general. The Ford had the stronger motors and more widespread dealer network, as well as better prices I bet. It may also be the case of the Explorer having a softer ride rather than the serious-offroader tune on the Mitsubishi. Interior room and amenities were similar, with the Mitsubishi actually having the edge in terms of overall space for people and cargo.
The Ford was definitely more readily available across the country, at more attractive prices, and with styling and features that appealed more to average American wants/needs IMO.
I’d say all of those factors. The Explorers had nicer interiors than the Jeeps, especially in Eddie Bauer trims. Also rear ingress/egress is pretty awkward in the XJ from my experiences, similar to the Blazer. I wouldn’t choose the Explorer either myself, but there isn’t a single current CUV I could see myself in so I think what the Explorer offered over some of it’s more capable competition is what appeals to buyers of crossovers.
Plus they were clearly products that Ford seemed to favor producing, as every update the Explorer received did make them better than the last, and they came frequently. While the entire car line withered on the vine on aging, or ancient underpinnings, with decontment across the board. Whether the customers perceived that kind of favoritism and saw it as an asset is debatable, but given the degree of success it was likely a factor, especially for brand loyalists not satisfied with head gasket eating Tbirds or ovoid Tauruses in the showrooms.
I was the kind of person that thought that SUVs were generally wasteful and seldom used for their intended purpose. In 1990 I bought a new short wheelbase Dodge Caravan and drove that for ten years. I found it useful, comfortable, and it drove well. I replaced that with a used top of the line ’96 Chrysler Town and Country LXI, and for seven years I loved it. It was really roomy, and really plush. It would easily handle long roadtrips cruising at up to 85 mph. securely. I still thought that SUVs were wasteful. I bought a new 2007 F150 long bed and was amazed at well it handled and how quiet and comfortable it is. Last a year I bought a well used but well maintained, ’97 Explorer XLT V8 Explorer. It has over 250,000 miles on it now. It is very comfortable and fully loaded. It seems pretty quick, not as fast as my ’96 Mustang GT but pretty good. The 5.0 litre V8 sounds really throaty, even with the stock exhaust. I found the window sticker with the paperwork, and was amazed that it stickered at 29,990.00, without 4WD!
I really like the compact size of the Explorer compared to my F150. I find it useful to have two tows of seats. I find that loading and unloading it is easier than my truck, where I have to reach over the tailgate, like any pickup. Handlingwise, the old Explorer is just good enough, it tracks well but the ride and handling is much “busier” than my F150 which sticks in the curves amazingly well. (I know that my example is pretty high mileage but it had a ton of maintenance done to it)
I’m thinking I will replace my truck with one of the last truck based Explorer models, These have IRS, and a third row seat.They are a little bigger than the older models but smaller than the Expedition. I think that the Expedition is mostly just porky, with little extra room inside. This time I’ll try to find a much lower mileage example. Just my two cents.
One of the symbols of the 90s to me, a time I very much enjoyed and wish could have continued beyond my high school and college and into my young professional years but was ripped away by 9/11 and then the 2008 crash. That being said, although nearly everyone had one, seemingly, usually in medium blue, I never cottoned to these. I preferred the Suburban, and the Excursion.
I bought a 2001 Explorer Sport in 2000. I still have it and drive it all the time. With 117,000 miles it’s the best! I owned a 1985 Ford Ranger and drove it for 15 years. It was great! I saw that the Ford Explorer Sport is coming back.. If that’s true, I will definitely buy another one.
We had a 1996 XLT with the V6, it was slow, not that comfortable and very thirsty. I think it was kinda pretty, never had problems with the tires. Did have problems with the transmission, the neon brake light, the keyless pad and the rear AC. To be honest I always liked the XJ Cherokee better, it drove better, had a better engine, and has proved to last a LOT more than the Explorer without electrical or mechanical gremlins.
I can’t say it is the same everywhere, but since switching from BOF to unibody construction the Explorer has bounced back in sales to the point that in North Florida it is almost as ubiquitous as the new Escape. It remains to be seen if the Explorer’s latest engineering….problem (the carbon monoxide leaks into the passenger compartment) will seriously undermine sales.
Looking back on this whole premier auto group thing, I feel that had Ford just bought Volvo then Ford and Volvo would have been good to go. Volvo benefited from Ford’s large amounts of capital. and Ford benefited from Volvo’s high technology and safety.
It is when Ford decided to by Land Rover and Jag that crap started happening. Land Rover and Jaguar brought nothing to the table for Ford. Despite being so pricey, they were poorly made and unreliable. Plus Ford really did not need them. Lincoln was doing decent and Ford was making better 4×4 vehicles then Land Rover could. Not to mention that the well heeled money crowd was forking over money hand over fist to buy top of the line Explorers. Ford should have just offered a Lincoln badged Explorer and they would have been fine. But Ford was making money left and right and had to have a Halo Marque, like Mopar did with Lamborghini a decade before.
I remember driving these back in the day. They all handled like absolute garbage, got bad gas mileage and were slow. I never did understand why people liked these so much and I still don’t now. What a bunch of steaming piles.
I drove a Sport a few years ago for a shortish test drive on a snowy, hilly, 2 lane road. It seemed okay, the standard AWD pulled the vehicle along reasonably, but coming out of a car (a Ford Taurus) you felt like you were sitting high up….like on a stool, and for such a short car it felt heavy/sluggish with just 2 adults on board.
Oddly, I came very close a few months after that drive to buying a 98 Mountaineer. It had the then standard V8, with the older 4 speed automatic transmission. The Mountaineer seemed fairly decent, the V8 was obviously better at pulling along the heavier SUV, but in flat as a pancake Florida the V8 borders on overkill.
Back in the 90s I would have bought the slightly smaller/more reasonably sized S10 Blazer, but as probably regretted the purchase. IMHO these Explorers were some of the best built vehicles….certainly better than that Blazer.
If I’m reading the numbers right, Ford sold something upwards of 5 million of the RWD/4WD Explorers. Not exactly what you’d call a marketing failure, in spite of the Firestone fiasco. To this day, the Ford Explorer and the Jeep Grand Cherokee still dominate the mid-sized SUV sales charts.
One interesting fallout from the whole tire controversy is that U-Haul will not rent you a trailer if you tell them you plan on towing it with one of these Explorers. I guess the liability should you roll it is just too high. They must have been pretty scared as these Explorers were very popular so I have to imagine they lost a bit of business because of that.
The funny thing is they don’t have a problem renting you a trailer if you have a Mercury Mountaineer or a Mazda Navajo despite those two vehicles being mechanically identical to the Explorer.
Mr brother-in-law, who had a ’91 Explorer, would always borrow our Suburban when he towed his boat or cargo trailer. Ironically, the Explorers weren’t well suited to tow anything beyond a light trailer- combination of a relatively short wheelbase, not a lot of power, and a front suspension that had some interesting camber changes when you loaded the rear of the truck. In ’97 he found a permanent solution and bought a Suburban of his own. He still has it- keeps it around for specifically that reason.
Let’s look at Firestone, and a little Ford history:
https://www.autosafety.org/firestone-500-steel-belted-radials/
Radial tires are big news in America, largely but not entirely owing to the Gas Crisis. Firestone sells heaps and piles of Firestone 500 tires, which blow the steel belts and end up killing 40+ people. This is EVENTUALLY taken seriously enough to rate a Congressional Investigation–but not before Firestone sues to prevent results of a survey conducted by an independent investigator from going public.
What does Firestone do? First, they tell people that the current production is “improved”. They lied, and it was proven. They pay a $500,000 fine for killing forty people. Then, they spend a huge pile of money advertising the New and Improved “721” which replaced the “500”. Firestone forgets to mention in the advertisement that the 721 is a 500 with different sidewall styling.
I purchased a Chevy Nova, used, the car came with the hateful 721s, but in apparently lovely condition. Within a month, I’ve got a shifted belt, the tire bounces so bad I can hardly steer it; and it all happened from hummmm to jumping in a few miles. I replace one tire, with a used tire of NOT FIRESTONE construction.
Wasn’t long and I’ve got another failed 721, and I scrapped all of ’em. The used tires that replaced the 721s lasted the rest of my ownership–several years of 60-mile-per-day highway commute.
Firestone has a long, sad history of defective tires. Firestone should have gotten the “death penalty” instead of a half-million dollar fine back in ’78.
Ford has a long, sad history of primitive, juvenile suspension systems, plus the total disregard for consumer safety as evidenced by the Pinto. Ford should have gotten the “death penalty” for the Pinto debacle.
Put the two companies together and you’ve got a perfect pairing for disaster. As far as the Exploder goes, I lay out the blame 66% Firestone (they KNEW the tires were crappy), 33% Ford (they KNEW the suspension design was crappy.)
Aside from the folks affected by the blowouts, every car buyer in America is STILL BEING SCREWED by these two companies in the form of Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) regulations, which came into being as a direct consequence of Firestone and Ford not bothering to provide safe products. This regulation mandates expensive, unneeded (if the tires and suspension are adequate) crap (and thus the tooling and expertise to service this mess) inflating (pun intended) the price of every new vehicle sold, and adding to the lifetime cost-of-ownership at tire-service time.
The payload rating for the original Explorer is lower then the Ford Taurus Wagon, according to the owners manuals.