I was 22 when Ford introduced the Explorer. I was sitting in my living room watching TV with my girlfriend when we saw our first commercial for it. We were both blown away by how attractive this little truck was, and how useful it looked. We knew that neither of us was in this four-door SUV’s target demographic, but we both could see ourselves driving one anyway.
The Explorer’s front end made it clear that this was a derived from the Ford Ranger and had kinship to the Bronco II, which preceded it. Clearly, this was no clean-sheet design. Yet it managed to look fresh and novel.
So many first-generation Explorers went to that giant junkyard in the sky during Cash for Clunkers in 2009 that I was surprised and delighted to come across this one in the big-box store parking lot. But the novelty had long since worn off. Within a few years of its debut, the Explorer was everywhere. Families abandoned the minivans they never wanted anyway to buy them. They had gathered the full stink of the cookie-cutter family hauler, and my girlfriend and I turned up our noses and looked elsewhere for automotive inspiration.
Wow. This is incredibly rare. I lived in Connecticut where seemingly every other Oldsmobile Silhouette and Jeep Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited was sold. I can’t remember ever seeing one of these.
I remember seeing lots of Mercury Mountaineers and second gen Explorer Limiteds.
But a first-gen Explorer Limited? I never even knew these existed.
I never quite understood why the Cherokee, while always popular, didn’t dominate the sales charts like the Explorer did, as the Jeep was a better vehicle.
I surmise that it’s a combination of:
Harsher ride
Price
interior packaging
Dealership networks
Advertising
GM also might have pulled this off with the Blazer, had they introduced the second-gen four-door as planned in 1990 (IIRC) rather than delaying until 1995.
Jeep was in an odd place in the 1990’s. There were a lot of living veterans of WWII and Vietnam then. It was almost a type of “stolen valor” to drive a Jeep and not be associated with law enforcement or military duty.
Ford did not have that identity crisis.
I also think Ford Explorer had more plant capacity than Jeep Cherokee, so Ford was able to deal on volume and sales incentives more than Jeep.
Add that there was a lot of Taurus, Crown Victoria, Windstar, and Thunderbird owners that traded in and moved to Explorer. Jeep had to lure “conquest buyers.”
Independent Jeep stores were a lot more common back then. They weren’t all tied up with Chrysler-Dodge as much. So people trading in a Monaco or LeBaron still had to go out of their way to get to the Jeep dealer.
There weren’t really any sales incentives on the Explorer of this era, instead many dealers had ADP stickers on them and people payed it.
I think the dealer network and brand perception (Jeep’s rugged offroad image may have actually been a deterrent for people looking for a family hauler, in the early nineties) were significant, but I think the packaging was a big deal too. The Cherokee was much smaller and even the Grand Cherokee wasn’t particularly roomy with the inside spare of the first ZJ generation. The Explorer in 4 door form really was a useful size.
The Cherokee is a worse vehicle by a long shot as a family wagon for the reasons you listed.
Harsher ride
interior packaging
So even though the Cherokee was cheaper it wasn’t appealing to the mass market looking for a family wagon.
Having spent a significant amount of time riding and driving in both, the explorer had a significantly better ride (ifs) and smoother power train choices, especially with the gen 2 5.0. Finally, there was the quality (or perceived quality).
Cherokees were great rigs too, and I love the amc inline 6, but it was…not great on the NVH front.
I’d take the cherokee today over this gen. 5.0 gen 2 though? For anything other than a dedicated offroader, I’d pick the explorer.
The Grand Cherokees usually out sold the explorer in New England, as James mentions the explorer were not as common around here (also in CT) in the first gen (much more so in the 2nd). Not sure if it was dealer network or something else ( New Engenders do love Jeeps and Subaru)
While I agree the Cherokee was a worse ride then the explorer I think the ZJ grand was much better at least in the examples Ive been in.
It’s a 1994 according to the CA smog check database and was last tested (and passed) in 2015. It’s interesting they let you use a different states’ plate on each end, the rear looks like one of yours (?).
https://www.bar.ca.gov/pubwebquery/vehicle/pubtstqry.aspx
Perhaps the Limited was still worth too much to give it up and trade into a Corolla at C4C time. The script “Limited” badge seemed like such a shout out to the vestiges of Iacocca-ism at Ford, was this the last use of the script font there? That badge style sure didn’t fit in with the rest of the Explorer line up, but they did seem to sell decently well. That teal green would have been car lot catnip back then.
No. The second-gen had the same Limited badge.
My Aunt Frieda has a 2000 Explorer Limited EXACTLY like that one! Has the 5.0L V8 too.
If you had one of these back in the day, you were the man (or in this case, woman)!
I don’t think generations born after 1999 will ever experience or appreciate “trim levels” like we did.
The Explorer Limited was the equivalent of a BMW X5 today. While the XL could have been used as farm equipment on a ranch somewhere in the mid-west.
The Limiteds of this generation seemed to come in Limited Edition paint colors. I don’t think this shade of green was available on the more pedestrian models, and the badging was color matched to the Limited trimmings. I knew a family who had a deep purplish one. I think it may have even had purplish-maroonish piping on the leather seats, which were a tan color. The owner was an older gent and a real “Man’s man” kinda guy who took constant ribbing from his sons for driving a purple station wagon. He even had whitewalls mounted on the lacey spoke wheels (these are painted, they were originally polished). It really was a “unique” look. (pic is from the web)
I don’t think there were Explorer-specific paint colors. This purplish shade looks to me like the “Dark Cranberry” that was on several FoMoCo vehicles from 1991-94. It was never a common color, and I paid attention because my 93 Crown Vic was that shade. A good waxing would subdue the purple tint a bit and give it more of a dark maroon look (albeit one with a purplish twinge).
You are correct that this is Dark Cranberry as also found on Crown Vics and lower level Explorers. However it was just one of 3 colors available on the Limited, they others being the Deep Forrest Green and Oxford White, also available on the lower level versions.
I should have thought to have thrown this subject over to the resident Color Guru. A little Googling shows you’re spot on. I guess on smaller vehicles or broken up as the color was on the lesser Explorers (usually with grey two-toning) it didn’t strike me as quite so purple.
They used the same basic script style font for the 1998 Windstar Limited, both the badges on the outside and embroidery on the seat backs and floor mats. our 2002 Grand Marquis LS has the very rare Limited package which uses that same script only this time it is just on the seats and floor mats.
I think many states that only require a rear plate will let drivers have just about anything on the front.
Back when I lived in Pennsylvania (in the 1990s), I had a Saab that used to have a front plate, so to fill up the empty space, I put on a license plate from Guam. I’m not sure that sort of thing is allowed in all 19 rear-plate-only states, but judging from this Explorer, it seems that Indiana doesn’t have a problem with it.
I never understood the logic in a state’s decision to go with only a rear tag.
It would seem that law enforcement would want the vehicle identifiable from both ends.
Of course I live in a state that requires both a front and back tag, and if you leave the tag off of the front, you will get cited for it.
Maybe the states that feel you only need one tag for identification of the get away vehicle, in that such a vehicle will be driving away from you.
Having now segued to the criminal element for the moment: It can’t be the cost savings (labor-wise, anyway… perhaps in materials). Aren’t these plates made by prisoners?
Now if I were to purchase a Mazda 3, I’d prefer there to be no front tag. With the shape of the grille, and where they put them here in Maryland, it just doesn’t look right. And I would think you’d have an overheating problem. Dealers usually put the tag right in the center of the grille on a Mazda 3.
That’s why I like the rear-plate-only states!
But seriously, I think cost savings (both in terms of gov’t costs, and those passed on to vehicle owners) are the most frequently cited reasons for using only one plate. Law enforcement (and now traffic camera
thievescompanies) usually object.Not all states still use inmate labor for license plate production, but I think Maryland still does. Some times it doesn’t work out so well — about 15 years ago there was “labor unrest” among the inmates, and Maryland had to get plates made by New Jersey for a few months. Those plates had different-looking letters & numbers since they were New Jersey’s dies — you still see them around sometimes.
Yeah, that series of NJ Maryland plates looked so wrong!
I think the series started with like 3CN-A05 or somewhere around that sequence…. it was definitely “Charlie-November”, IIRC.
The first time I saw a set of those, I thought the car was sporting some very poorly forged license plates. I thought to myself, ‘these look like NJ tags’. It turns out I was right.
Yes, it was the CN series —
Rick Kretschmer’s License Plate Archive says that the series ran from 1CN-A01 to 9CN-Z99:
http://www.ricksplates.com/maryland/mdcurr-per.htm
Yeah Eric, I can get lost in Rick’s website for HOURS.
I’ve been there a few times before. But I noticed the CN series when it happened, long before I discovered his website.
Thanks for the link!
I know the last I checked they were made by prisoners in my state. My state also makes you replace them every few years since the reflectivity degrades. They do charge you twice as much for a set for your car than they do for a single for a trailer. So yes it does cost more but they pass that on to the public, and you can bet they sell them at more than the cost of the inmate labor, materials and distribution.
I’m pretty sure it’s not illegal to put a different state’s front plate on here. I have heard of some people getting harassed by the cops for it but that’s about it.
I live in a one plate state and back in the 1980s I liked putting an old license plate in the front. For years I had a 1961 plate of the same state (until it rusted away), and found it an interesting IQ test on parking enforcement (I had at least two tickets written with the front plate #). I stopped putting a front plate when I learned that radar cops were trained to aim for the front plate (never mind that headlights are (were?) parabolic reflectors), so now I’m sans front plate or even a plate holder. Never got hassled about my front plate ever, even in two plate states because people don’t seem to know when they see an out of state plate whether its one or two plate. It wasn’t until 2000 did my license plate actually match the state I was living in at the time.
My brother was working at a Dodge/Isuzu dealer at the time and they were taking in a lot of ‘Cash For Clunker’ trades. Part of the deal was the vehicle had to be running and the dealer was obligated to destroy the engine, which they did by pouring some concoction into the engine oil while it was running and waiting for the engine to seize. I asked my brother what was the most common ‘Clunker’ trade-in and he said early 90’s Explorer. Many came in dirty and obviously unused for some time barely running with blown or about to blow head gaskets. Many also had transmission problems. No matter, as long as they came in under their own power!
Yes this era Explorer was the #1 C4C victim, but then again it was the #1 selling passenger car from the era of vehicles that were new enough to qualify for C4C but not new enough that they weren’t worth more dead than alive.
My buddy sent one to the crusher, it was his daughter’s car, ran well at 240k but considering he had paid $2k for it about 18 months earlier he really couldn’t pass it up. So he got a new car and she got his old one that got too good of MPG to qualify.
Most of them were dangerously rusted-out and distinctly sagging in back, at that.
I wrote my “representatives” and told them in no uncertain terms to take the Cash for Clunkers program and stuff it. No way would I turn any of my vehicles in. I’ll do the same if it comes around again.
the concoction turned to glass at operating temp and fused the engine together. I absolutely hated this and had to do it at my dealership at the time. We did a really nice Navigator and placed $20 bets on how long it would take to lock up, I won that one it took about 2 minutes. You watched the oil pressure drop and the engine started making really unhappy sounds. Then when you turned the key nothing but a solid clunk sound. We did a 4,0 Cherokee afterwards which I thought would take longer, but it was a quick death. A sad end to some pretty decent vehicles.
It is sad to think about some of the cool vehicles that got destroyed. Youtube has some wild videos about this process including many 4.2 I6 Landcruisers that didn’t want to die.
Equally sad that all the vehicles were scrapped in their entirety – they could not be used for parts.
In reality, I did observe a C4C vehicle having parts sold off of it. My in-laws turned in a problematic ’00 Expedition in NH. Quite awhile later I found it, in a MA scrapyard. It had been picked over quite well. My Father in law’s anguish over seeing it again in that condition was saddening to see.
There was no prohibition on selling parts from them. If you go find Murlie Martin’s JY posts from the era you’ll see cars with C4C scrawled on the window and the engines painted day glo orange to note that they had received the treatment. Yes some did go straight to the crusher because the large supply meant yards stuffed were overstuffed with vehicles.
It was a boon for the Jeep guys as the 8.8″ rear with 3.73s, Track Lock and disc brakes makes a great upgrade for Cherokees and YJs.
The self service yards were full of vehicles with “C4C” written on them, but I do seem to remember that by the letter of the law that they were supposed to not be salvageable, I was surprised at the time to see all of them at the dozen self service yards I frequented, I expected they’d go straight to the crusher.
Yes the VIN was supposed o be “black listed” in the state’s system so that it couldn’t be registered for road use again.
Super green, heaven forbid someone actually fix their old vehicles with good parts from these vehicles. Everybody forgets the reuse part of recycling.
Meanwhile, there were scads of Geos and clapped out 80s-90s econoboxes with fist sized rust holes puffing blue smoke from their tailpipes running around while all this was happening. Those weren’t clunkers apparently.
I had a Lexus ES250 at the time with over 200K on it. I wanted to trade it in so bad. It missed the cutoff by 1 MPG. I think the cutoff was 22 MPG and the Lexus was rated 23 MPG.
It also irked me that they used gas mileage rating when the cars were sold new.
First of all the testing especially back then was a joke. Didn’t factor in up-hill driving or changes in elevation. Even without that, the car was almost twenty years old with over 200K on it. It was lucky to get 20 MPG in reality.
And then we get to twenty year old emissions equipment and seals which as you note, wasn’t good.
The cutoff was 18mpg. You got $4500 or $3500 depending on the fuel economy of the car you purchased to replace it with with the greater amount being available if the difference met a certain threshold.
https://money.cnn.com/2009/07/29/autos/clunker_tips/index.htm
Yeah. The ES250 was rated at 19 MPG. Missed it by 1 MPG.
I watched a few videos back then. I was fun to see how long some engines kept going. Some of it was really sad though. I remember one Ranger in particular that was a low mile, showroom clean Grand Pa special. The trade in value was as much or more than the C4C rebate, and at least around here they could have sold it in an instant for $7995. I really don’t think that Grand Pa really wanted to see the truck killed, so I doubt they would have had a problem with “trading it in”. So the dealer could have made more money and a good truck wouldn’t have been destroyed.
Wow, I have not seen an early Explorer in ages, let alone a Limited. I actually never understood the Limited – after Ford had put so much equity into the Eddie Bauer trims, I would have thought the EB would be top dog. But then maybe they wanted to charge more and not pay Eddie for the used of the name?
I still remember seeing my first Explorer (an EB 4 door) in the dealer lot before they were allowed to be sold – still with all of the plastic everywhere inside. It was an early arrival and I went with another guy at lunch to see it after his Ford salesman called to suggest he take a look. It was one good looking car.
It’s funny, I don’t remember seeing huge numbers of Explorers in the NYC suburbs in the early 90s but they were all over Beaverton in the mid-late 90s.
It seems that between the tire pressure related rollovers and the arrival of better competitors the Explorer’s star faded after 2000 despite the introduction of a newer platform with IRS.
I’ve never driven or ridden in one although I expect it would feel a lot like an early 90s Ranger with a loaded bed
Out West in areas where the rust bug doesn’t bite, Obama’s Cash for Clunkers was viewed by many for what it was…a well-publicized gimmick to get people to spend money on a new car so the politicos could claim that they had “stimulated” the economy and “cleaned” the air. Given that, a good-running, well-maintained older car was often worth more as a functional vehicle than what it would get as a clunker. Sure, if you had a Whatever in Pennsylvania with rust patches as big as your fist, blowing blue smoke out the tailpipe and a rear window smashed out by a car burglar, you’d get rid of it. But my 1992 Mercury Sable wagon wasn’t going out as an Obama Clunker.
The State of California got in on the act, sending out notices that “your car is eligible for Cash for Clunkers.” They ignored one restriction, though; the “clunker” had to be younger than 25 years. I got such a letter regarding the clunker-eligibility of my 1963 Corvette Sting Ray!
The first time I became aware of a truly bad new vehicle design was when my parents bought a new, stripped, Explorer in 1993. Rear wheel drive, manual transmission, no options at all. My CJ7 was much more competent on the highway, handling wise, shockingly, and the ABS on the Explorer would activate randomly when the brakes were tapped. I once got up on two wheels on the freeway at about 75mph when the brakes began to pulse, abject terror is an accurate description. With under 30k miles on the odo, it developed an intense vibration above about 50mph that the dealer was unable to identify or correct. It was purchased back by Ford if I remember correctly.
I drove one of these once, 4wd with a V6 and a manual, and man what a dog. To be fair it was at least 15yo at the time.
Ford had a real hit with these, and they looked really good when they were new, but they did not age well.
I had grown up with auto derived station wagons, my Dad loved them. He also had a short bed Chevy stepside, extremely popular at the time. I went the minivan route when I needed a family hauler and replaced our Cougar. I never liked the old pick up with the cramped cabin and short bed. I still liked station wagons, though my Wife doesn’t and there were fewer choices as the 90’s progressed. For passengers the minivan was great, but until stow and go, removing the seats was really inconvenient. It couldn’t be done if you were out somewhere and found something great at a yard sale. I’d always poo-pooed the SUV until I got one. Then I discovered how versatile they could be, better than the old fashioned wagons. Now I can’t see any benefit of a conventional sedan.
I hated cash 4 clunkers also. Most of the cars traded in weren’t real clunkers, I knew clunkers. Lot’s of good cars ruined. They’ve all been cycled out of the wrecking yards, years ago.
People hate station wagons. But they love crossovers. I think of SUV’s as being based on trucks. What is a crossover but a station wagon on stilts. Why is a Honda CRV not a station wagon?
Since I had a Ranger that I loved and it only cost me $12,000 new – I couldn’t get past the fact that the Explorer was a Ranger with stuff all over it. Every time I got into one, I saw a Ranger dash and all that leather padding and fancy interior crap and just couldn’t fathom why anyone would pay $30,000 for a Ranger.
A 93, in the same color it seems, for sale locally. So they are around still.
That is not a limited.
I had a ’93 Explorer XLT when C4C came out. I was still driving it at the time even though it was getting really rusty. The biggest reason why I didn’t, or more like couldn’t participate in that program was that I couldn’t afford to buy a new vehicle, especially one that would replace the versatility of it. I don’t think most people drive “clunkers” by choice.
I was down in Mexico (Puerto Vallarta outskirts) for work around 2014-2015 and it was like a 1990s domestic SUV reunion (or: escapees of C4C). It seemed like every 4th car on the road was a 2nd gen Explorer or ZJ Grand Cherokee. 1st gen Explorers were not uncommon either, same with old S10 Blazers/Jimmys, etc. My understanding is that many Mexicans that are able to come to the US (legally or not), in addition to their wages, use some of that money to buy a cheap used car in the US and run it back to the home country either to use themselves or to resell for profit. The SUVs are well liked: cheap to buy, simple and generally robust mechanicals that hold up to rural mexican conditions. The only vehicles that outnumbered domestic SUVs on the roads were Nissans, mostly older home-market D21s, D22 “NP300”, and the ubiquitous “Tsuru” B13 Sentras.
Given the rust-free climate, I think the final first gen Explorers on the road will be seen South of the border.
Cash for clunkers 😡 You bring back terrifying memories. I needed a part for my ride and went to a huge salvage yard in Queens. There sitting waiting to be destroyed were dozens of classics. I saw tri-five Chevies, Cadillacs, cudas, and Mustangs. I was gobsmacked these cars some in perfect condition all awaiting the jaws of death. I pleaded with them but they advised once they took possession of the vehicle there was absolutely no way to release it.. Was beyond tragic. As I pulled out I saw a beautiful 1972 Eldorado being destroyed 😢
That had nothing to do with C4C or at least not legally since it was based on the MPG listed on the EPA website and those cars never had an official rating so they couldn’t qualify. Heck even those that did have ratings but were after the “purge” didn’t qualify. So no car from the 70’s or older was a true C4C victim.
I saw plenty of these Explorers in Boston. I don’t know why Connecticut would be any different. The Explorer was a well balanced design. The Cherokee and the S-10 Blazer had a similar problem. The Blazer was stretched from the 2-dr, but not enough. The rear doors were fairly narrow.
The company I worked in at the time had Explorers and Blazers as company vehicles. The Explorers were either Excellent or horrible. Several had engine or transmission failures very quickly.
I was helping a friend look for a used car during the Cash for Clunkers program. The Explorer was the perfect vehicle for him based on his needs and price range. I saw the perfect one on a new car dealer lot. You guessed it. It was in the Clunkers section. This perfectly usable vehicle had to be crushed. It could not be used for parts. No mention was made of the energy required to build a new car.
I looked at the other side of the lot and there was this old car. I found out that a grandfather had died and his wife inherited it. She sold it to her grandchild so they could use it as a trade in on a new car. It was a mint condition 1968 Mustang Fastback. The salesmen were drooling over it and trying to figure out how to sneak it out of the program and save this classic. I wonder how many were saved. And how many were needlessly crushed and lost forever.
A 1968 wouldn’t have qualified, as mentioned above the car had to have a MPG rating below a certain threshold. Official ratings didn’t exist in 1968, since the official test wasn’t created until 1975, so no it would not have qualified for C4C.