(first posted 7/28/2016) Not to impugn its impact on the automotive industry in any way, but the Taurus is not the most influential Ford of the past thirty years. While the Taurus once again wakened the idea that an American family car could successfully exhibit a trendsetting design, apart from its styling, the Taurus’ basic premise as a six-passenger sedan and eight-passenger wagon wasn’t a new concept for Ford. However, the same cannot be said about another Ford introduced just a few years later.
The 1980s saw one of the most tremendous shakeups in the American automotive industry since the 1950s. Big cars and four barrel carburetors were out, front-wheel drive and electronic fuel injection were in. Muscle cars were all but dead, replaced by smaller sports coupes, many of them powered by turbo four-cylinder engines. To put things in perspective take the Chrysler New Yorker. In only five years, Chrysler’s flagship nameplate lost over 45 inches in length and saw its standard engine go from a 7.2L V8 to a 2.2L four cylinder.
The dramatic shift in consumer tastes was probably more drastic than any other period in automotive history. The popularity of imports skyrocketed, in both the mainstream and luxury classes. The demographic of consumers buying 2-door Cutlasses a decade earlier were now buying 4-door Accords. The very definition of a luxury car took on a dual meaning, as America was now seeing nearly as many expensive European luxury sedans offering firm bucket seats, taut handling, and cockpit interiors as it was soft, pillowy Cadillacs with wire wheels and vinyl roofs.
Although American automakers were losing market share against European and Japanese manufacturers for passenger cars, they still owned the light truck market, and continue to do so today. With vehicles classified as light trucks subject to less stringent corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, increasing production of these vehicles was an even more attractive option to U.S. automakers.
The full-size sedan and to a far greater extent the full-size station wagon, what had once been the quintessential family vehicles, were rapidly falling out of favor among the buying majority. Although the characteristically higher image-conscious import buyers could find solace in Volvo and Mercedes wagons, even middle Americans were growing ever aware that the full-size American station wagon was totally “un-tubular”.
Two types of vehicles emerged as the spiritual successors to the full-size family station wagon. The first (or chronologically, the second) vehicle was the minivan. As it’s been well-documented on this site before, Chrysler basically created the minivan in 1983, and owned this segment for the next two decades. The other type of vehicle was of course the 4-door SUV.
Although SUVs had been around for decades, with Ford’s own Bronco greatly helping make the SUV somewhat mainstream in the 1960s, SUVs, which were predominately 2-door until the 1980s, were still largely seen as either recreational vehicles or as necessary transportation for those who lived in snowy, mountainous areas — not as a practical and logical family vehicle for average Americans. But that was all about to change.
During the 1980s, the image of the SUV changed from one that was purely utilitarian to one that was fashionable. Helped by the introduction of compact SUVs including the S-10 Chevy Blazer/S-15 GMC Jimmy, Ford’s own Bronco II, and most notably the XJ Jeep Cherokee which was available with four doors, SUVs became as routine sights in mall parking lots as they were at national parks.
Roughly the same size as the original Bronco, the Ranger-based Bronco II failed to achieve the same success as its Jeep Cherokee rival — partly due to its smaller size and lack of a four-door “family friendly” model, and partly because of its quickly damaged reputation, a result of its high tendency to roll over. As the ’80s progressed, consumer preference rapidly shifted from two to four doors, and SUVs were not immune to this trend.
Going back to the drawing boards and improving upon the Bronco II’s inadequacies, Ford created what would soon prove to be their smash-hit of the 1990s, and a vehicle that would influence the coming decades right up to the present like few other vehicles have done. Called the “Bronco II four-door” during early development, this vehicle was ultimately christened as the Explorer, but in hindsight, Ford would’ve been more apt to call it the “Conqueror”.
Like the Bronco II, the Explorer was derived from the Ranger pickup. In fact, all three vehicles shared the same headlights, front-end styling, and dashboard. Unlike the Bronco II, the Explorer sat some 2.5 inches lower, 2 inches wider, rode on a substantially longer wheelbases (longest in class at 102.1 inches for the 2-door and 111.9 for the 4-door), and improved structural rigidity, all for better road mannerisms and increased (but still not perfect) safety when it came to rollover risk. Ahem, Firestone.
Taking a play out of Jeep’s book, Ford chose wisely in offering the Explorer with four doors, and focusing marketing around the 4-door model. At 184.3 inches long, the 4-door Explorer measured nearly a foot-and-a-half longer than the XJ Cherokee, and eight inches longer than the newly-introduced 4-door versions of the Chevy Blazer and GMC Jimmy.
With more space, more power, more car-like ride and handling (thanks to a relatively soft suspension), interiors that offered greater comfort and better materials, and utilizing many newer components, the Explorer quickly became the benchmark of its class, and sales immediately took off.
Explorers were naturally available with the ever-important four-wheel drive. This part-time system used a Borg Warner electronic transfer case, and featured an independent front suspension (via Ford’s “Twin Traction Beam” system) and a solid beam rear axle with optional limited-slip differential. Unlike competitors, Ford offered simple push-button controls located on the instrument panel, allowing drivers to shift on the fly into 2- or 4-wheel drive. Permanent rear-wheel drive-only models were available for those living outside the snowbelt.
Front and rear anti-roll bars, anti-lock front disc/rear drum brakes, power steering, and skid plates were also standard. Transmission choices were either a 5-speed manual or 4-speed automatic with overdrive. Regardless of transmission, all Explorers were powered by the same pushrod 4.0L Cologne V6, initially producing 155 horsepower (later, 160) and either 220 lb-ft of torque with the automatic or 225 lb-ft with the manual.
Unlike the GM triplets (which as of 1991 also included the luxury Oldsmobile Bravada), but much in the way of Jeep, the Ford Explorer covered all bases in terms of trim levels, ranging from the spartan XL with knitted vinyl seats and manual crank windows to the luxurious Eddie Bauer with its lower gold cladding and sport leather buckets.
Inspired by the Jeep Cherokee Limited, but introduced in response to the all-new Jeep Grand Cherokee’s Limited trim level, from 1993-on, Ford offered the ultra-luxe Limited, with its monochromatic exterior appearance, unique grille and lower body cladding, special cast aluminum wheels, and unique front buckets with driver’s three-position memory and premium gathered leather seating surfaces with contrast piping and velour seat back inserts, exclusively on Explorer 4-doors.
Like Chevy and GMC, but unlike Jeep, 4-door Explorers were available with a front 60/40 split bench seat, bringing seating capacity to six. A rarely-seen option, this front bench seat was only available in base XL and mid-level XLT trims, and a further nod to the notion that many Explorers were purchased not merely to haul a carload of kids, but for more hedonistic values.
Even in base trim, the Explorer’s interior was generally a more pleasant environment to spend time in than its competitors. With as much of an ergonomic “cockpit” styled interior as was possible in a truck-based vehicle, the Explorer’s interior not only looked, but felt higher quality and more contemporary than its rivals, whose interiors dated back to the early-1980s.
And this was part of the draw of the Ford Explorer – its interior was among the most car-like in its class, making it appeal to buyers who had never owned an SUV or truck before. Car-like ride and handling, and the Explorer’s physical size, were also major pluses, as this translated to easy maneuverability and familiar sensations to Americans coming from traditional big cars and wagons.
In fact, the Explorer was actually shorter and narrower than a concurrent Taurus, and it was some seven inches lower in overall height than a full-size Bronco, ensuring its easy fit in both parking spaces and suburban garages. Furthermore, what the Taurus did not have was the Explorer’s commanding view of the road and go-anywhere capability. And oh, did the Explorer go places.
Introduced in March 1990 as a 1991 model, sales of the Explorer already reached 140,000 in the U.S. before 1991 even began. Selling above 275,000 units annually for the next four years (about 100,000 more than either the Blazer or Cherokee), it was clear that Ford was onto something with the Explorer, and other automakers scurried to release improved or totally new sport utility vehicles to capitalize on this very lucrative market that was growing with no end in sight.
The minivan may have been the prodigal sensation of the 1980s, but as Ford’s own literature stated, SUVs were “fast becoming the vehicles of the nineties”. With few automakers having yet succeeded in perfecting their minivans, they quickly moved on to developing SUVs, which were not only far easier to execute, but represented higher profit margins.
With the economy reaching new heights, wallets getting fatter, and gas prices remaining at low levels, conspicuous consumption was on the rise and the SUV was the new symbol of the American dream. Starting at $13,820 ($22,402 adjusted) for a base rear-wheel drive XL 2-door in 1991, prices had risen to $17,770 ($28,805) for this same model by 1994.
The more popular four-wheel drive, 4-door Explorers started at $16,393 ($26,573) in XL form in 1991, rising to $20,430 ($33,117) by 1994, with the range-topping Limited four-wheel drive beginning at $28,710 ($46,539) that year. By comparison, a 2016 base front-wheel drive Explorer starts at $31,160 and a 2016 four-wheel drive Explorer Platinum starts at $53,235.
Although the Ford Explorer was by no means single handedly responsible for the SUV craze, it deserves much of the credit for being the vehicle that brought the SUV into the mainstream. Transforming the SUV from a rugged alternative to a wagon or minivan to the preferred choice in two-box design vehicles, the Explorer’s appeal was widespread, spanning from young single adults to families with children to empty nesters.
(table: Office of Transportation Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy; Explorer classified as a “medium SUV” due to engine displacement falling between 3 and 5 liters)
Upon the Explorer’s release, SUV sales in the U.S. began increasing at an exponential pace, becoming the fastest growing segment in the auto industry. Representing just 7-percent of total vehicles sales in the U.S. in 1990, this number had grown 19-percent by 1999, and continued growing at rapid pace until gas prices took a sharp turn upward in the early-to-mid-2000s. With fuel economy once again a major concern of both automakers and consumers, it looked as if the days of the SUV might be numbered.
But even high gas prices couldn’t weaken Americans’ passionate love affair with their SUVs, and automakers soon found a way to greatly improve their SUVs in this area, by basing them on front-wheel drive car platforms as opposed to rear-wheel drive truck platforms. In doing this, the positive attributes of the traditional SUV were retained: high seating position, commanding view, rugged looks, generous interior space, and available all-wheel drive.
Although they didn’t have the same off-road capability, the fact of the matter was that few owners ever took their SUVs off-road, using them as grocery-getters instead. And by utilizing platforms that also underpinned front-wheel drive sedans, these “crossover” SUVs offered substantially better fuel economy, improved car-like handing and ride quality, and greater space utilization, much in the way of a minivan but with somewhat more of the macho appearance SUV buyers preferred.
As for the Explorer, it achieved its highest annual sales during 2000 at 445,157 units, the second-to-last year of its second generation. As one of the pioneers of the segment, Ford stuck with its rear-wheel drive, body-on-frame layout longer than most competitors through the 2010 model year, by which point sales had decreased to their lowest levels ever, in 50,000-60,000 range.
An all-new fifth generation Explorer was released for the 2011 model year, now riding on the Taurus’ Volvo-derived front-wheel drive unibody platform, and soon offering four-cylinder power for the first time. Offering numerous enhancements and refinements over previous generations, the fifth and current generation Explorer has seen its sales increase every year since its introduction, selling 224,309 units in 2015, its highest since 2005.
As of 2016, it is the fifth best-selling SUV/CUV in the U.S., and the best-selling mid-t0-large sized SUV/CUV. Additionally, SUVs (including crossovers) now account for the greatest percentage of new car sales in the U.S. among any bodystyle. Apparently Ford was onto something with the Explorer back in 1990.
Oregon Ford Explorer XLT photos by Paul N.
Related Reading:
1984 Ford Bronco II (COAL)
1998 Ford Explorer (COAL)
Very familiar feature on the roads in NZ Explorers were moderately popular until the release of the Territory which killed Explorer sales, no parts availability is becoming a problem for older models though 3rd and 4th tier manufacturers do supply suspension parts I met one, he reconditioned a harmonic balancer for me and showed me bushes he was moulding for Explorers quite a clever guy.
Landmark vehicle. This was the standard “car”, for a long time, it seemed like everyone and anyone had one at some point in time. My folks owned four or five Explorers, and only downsized off the last one just last year.
My mother steadfastly insisted “don’t call it a truck!”, and eventually I accepted her logic. Some people will argue these are “real SUVs” because of the body-on-frame and rear-wheel drive, but these really were not trucks at all, more an evolution of the BOF station wagon. The Explorer was the original soft-roader, designed for a nice highway ride and classic American automotive goodness. And if you had some snow or a loose road, they had you covered too.
It was a bit of a “soft-roader” by the standards back then. But still it was far more capable off-road than a BOF station wagon and most of today’s CUVs. My Sport took me everywhere I needed to go back in my more adventurous single days.
I liked the BOF explorers. Some people I knew were early adopters, adding a new ’91 Eddie Bauer edition to their late 80s MB 300 wagon and XJ6 fleet.
THE Explorer for me will always be the 2nd generation, however, as it was what all upwardly mobile dads drove during my 90s childhood.
More than the Taurus, the explorer was the spiritual successor to the LTD in that way.
I didn’t much like SUVs during the peak SUV era, rightly (and unhappily from my perspective) seeing them as supplanting the large BOF sedans which I had loved since I was old enough to distinguish one car from another.
Now I miss them, a bit, because I think of that era–roughly 1996-2005 or so–with much happiness, and they remind me of it. A big Excursion or even just the rare clean 2nd generation Explorer brings a smile to my face now.
Brendan, This article is not only a comprehensive review of the Ford Explorer, it is a comprehensive review of the evolving American automotive scene over the past 50 or 60 years.
When you say “In only five years, Chrysler’s flagship nameplate lost over 45 inches in length and saw its standard engine go from a 7.2L V8 to a 2.2L four cylinder.” I clearly remember living through those changes and at first being perplexed, then disappointed, and then slowly realizing what was happening and why.
To those who wonder why all those cross-over vehicles (and some mini-vans) are in the supermarket parking lot, I’ll point them to this write-up.
Nicely written piece on what happened and why.
That reference to the New Yorker’s metamorphosis was eye opening. Good writing (and that’s a big part of what continues to attract me to CC) requires good editorializing and insightful comparison and contrast, I think, and that Chrysler reference was exactly that. I’m neither fan nor foe of the SUV in general, but was not a big proponent of them as daily suburban family transportation when they were all the rage. In the late 90’s I often scratched my head over families opting for SUVs over cars or minivans, choosing a sedan and a smaller minivan (’97 Quest) for family transport when I was raising children, but when viewed from the perspective reflected in that reference to the New Yorker the whole “SUV Craze” starts to look so much more practical, doesn’t it? Another good write-up, Brendan.
I fully agree with this article. The Explorer was a very influential vehicle and they were everywhere on the roads, in driveways and garages!
So much so that we seriously considered buying the two-door model. Why? so Wifey could take our dog everywhere! We held off, though, because although I liked the Explorer, I didn’t want to jump on the SUV bandwagon. Of course, a few years later I acquiesced to that bandwagon by letting Wifey buy her 2002 CR-V. We still own it, but it’s getting rather creaky… but probably lasting a lot longer than any Explorer would, I hate to say.
Great article!
The 1st and 2nd generation Explorers were fairly robust apart from their appetite for ball joints. Their truck origin provided a sound albeit crude foundation. The Cologne V6 was adequate at best and in SOHC form provided better power but suffered a little longevity wise due to the Rube Goldberg timing chain arrangement. Most of these disappeared during cash for clunkers. The 3rd gen was a revelation ride and handling wise with the 4 wheel independent suspension but $4 per gallon gas was its downfall.
To me the Explorer is and was garbage. Every friend I knew that had one experienced problems with them monthly.
Also they made so many squeaks and random noises when just driving them.
That must be why they faded out after 2-3 years.
As far as lasting longer, doubt it. Saw 3 first gen Bronco II’s plying the streets today running errands. and a Honda, as good as they are, is not a Ford truck. You will never see catalogs of restoration parts for a CR-V, like we have for Ranger, Bronco II and now Explorer. My ’83 Ranger just keeps getting newer every year. 🙂
I’m very glad that CC now has a comprehensive Explorer article – every time I see a 1st generation Explorer I think about what an influential car/truck it was. Great job on this piece — very thorough.
I never realized that the Explorer was shorter and narrower than the Taurus. Having spent considerable time in both, I wouldn’t have guessed. A friend of mine bought a new ’92 Explorer XLT — green like the featured cars, but with the rare 5-spd. — and I remember thinking how much an improvement it was over the Bronco II. While Bronco II’s were bouncy and cramped, the Explorer felt great on the highway while being manageable in parking lots, etc. After seeing its benefits in utility and comfort, I understood why so many people bought them.
Interesting graph, too — we all know how SUVs ballooned in popularity, but the graph really puts it into perspective.
+1. Graph is fascinating; 1988 saw a sharp decline in small SUVs and a commensurate jump in medium SUVs. Can anyone here answer why?
I’m thinking there’s 2 possibilities for that change in 1988:
1) The government could have changed its definition of what constitutes a Small or Medium SUV. One thing that points to this being the case is that total SUV sales maintained a steady growth rate and the decline in Small SUV sales appears to be matched by an equivalent rise in Medium SUV sales.
2) That timeframe matches when Consumers Reports published its rather damning article about Small SUV rollover risks. That report really cut into mini-SUV sales, and it’s conceivable that many buyers opted instead for more stable Medium SUVs.
Or… it could be something else, but those are my best guesses.
As someone who had to share the backseat of my Dad’s ’96 Explorer with my 2 brothers in my early teenage years, I can attest to the fact that these were indeed pretty narrow. Since I’m the oldest I pretty much never had to sit in the middle seat, but battles usually ensued over real estate on long road trips.
At around the same time my divorced mother had a ’93 Taurus wagon which even back then I considered a far more practical vehicle. Despite my lobbying, my Dad would never do any off-roading in the Explorer, so I couldn’t understand why he bought it. Practicality eventually won out as it was replaced with a Chevy Venture.
Overall though, these Explorers were pretty well built and a huge improvement over the Bronco II. I still see lots of early Explorers on the roads out here, many of them seeing severe back road bush buggy duty. They’re getting pretty rusty though.
Very enjoyable article. Ford sometimes gets things very wrong, but this generation Explorer got everything right, especially when they added the 5.0 Windsor.
Both the Teal and Red Explorers above still look great.
“As for the Explorer, it achieved its highest annual sales during 2000 at 445,157 units, the second-to-last year of its second generation.”
And I can give you one major reason why sales tanked in the following year (2001): The Ford Explorer/Firestone Wilderness AT recall.
The news of tire failures on Ford Explorers exploded in the media around early October of 2000, when I purchased my Ranger. After that, the Explorer’s sales faced not only the stigma of the tire recall and being the last year of a six-year-old design, but production was halted while until another tire supplier was found. Then, the 2001 model year was abbreviated to make way for the all-new 2002. And when the 2002 did appear, it got some flak for ditching the live rear axle and if I remember correctly, it was pricier.
All of which contributed to a significant drop in Explorer sales at the turn of this century. And to this day, it’s been reported that U-Haul will still not allow their trailers to be towed behind any Ford Explorer, even those produced on the subsequent platform with no mechanical relationship to the ones produced prior to 2002.
You’re definitely right about the Firestone debacle – it was a flurry of press coverage and I remember it really taking the nation by storm. In retrospect, wouldn’t it be nice if our most pressing issue today was faulty tires?
U-haul was so adamant about not renting any trailers to Explorer owners that they didn’t change their policy regarding trailer rentals until 2013 – more than two years after a totally different structure debuted on the Ford, and many years after the Explorer had Firestone tires as standard equipment.
In a prime example of corporate stupidity, U-Haul had no qualms about renting out a trailer to owners of the Mountaineer or the Aviator, despite those vehicles being identical to the Explorer.
Ah, thanks for the correction on my “to this day” comment regarding U-Haul’s refusal to rent trailers to Explorer owners.
Still, 2013…really?
FWIU the fallout from this wiped out every cent of the profits Ford had made from the pre-2001 Ranger-based Explorer. Ford might as well have made their sporty family car for the ’90s an Escort GT wagon (at least *that* would’ve handled!)
“FWIU the fallout from this wiped out every cent of the profits Ford had made from the pre-2001 Ranger-based Explorer.”
[citation needed]
Ford made an absolute and unheard of killing on the Explorers. A ranger chassis with an enclosed body, jack up the price by tacking on accessories and leather seats, etc. The margins on these things were obscene! Yeah the fallout from the firestone debacle was bad, but not THAT bad.
So how did Bridgestone buying a lot of tires for Explorers wipe out all the profits that Ford made on the Explorer? As I pointed out below 1 Explorer put more profit in Fords pocket than any other consumer vehicle they had, as much as selling 10 of those Escorts. Not only were the margins high on the base vehicle, many consumers were buying them with lots and lots of high margin options.
So no, even if Ford had purchased the replacement tires $400 wouldn’t have even put a dent in the $5000+ profit earned from each Explorer.
Dude; it was a lot more than just the cost of replacement tires. This report places Ford’s losses at $3+ billion. There may well have been more. Did you consider all the litigation from the folks that died/were injured?
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/23/business/fi-1362
The biggest loss of all was diminished future sales. How much did that cost Ford? Untold billions.
Your comment has a rather dark implication that it was all ok to let this happen in the first place because the legal/recall costs would be less than the mega profits.
Of course it wouldn’t have cost Ford more to have a higher recommended inflation pressure in the first place. And maybe a less-flaccid suspension setting. Shades of the Corvair and Pinto all over again.
The tires were made to Ford specs. The cheap pickup underpinnings of the Explorer were the reason Ford people told customers to underinflate the tires to produce an acceptable ride and that consequently led to the tire failure under certain conditions.
In the trial it was revealed that other manufacturers’ tires in SA suffered the same failure when underinflated.
Because of the Explorer we now all have unnecessary tire inflation monitoring. That’s the real legacy.
Oh my yes, this became the “it” vehicle of the early 90s. Ford simply nailed the look on these, both inside and out. They took the dimensions of the Fox body wagon that had never sold that well, made it taller, more expensive and added 4wd and sold a bazillion.
If only they had built them like the XJ Cherokee. Head gaskets and the worst rusting since Fords of the early 70s turned these into prime Cash 4 Clunkers fodder. My mechanic called them Exploders.
I love your big articles, Brendan! The details regarding trim levels are nowhere else to be found. I personally was not attracted by the macho appeal of SUV’s. I saw them as wasteful vehicles for mostly suburban use. It was in the late 2000 on a boy scout trip that I drove an Explorer the first time. I then immediately understood it’s appeal as a comfortable highway cruiser Plus. The Plus standing for all those other capabilities such a towing and off-roading and conquering bad weather.
Great write up Brendan. The Explorer was definitely a big hit that created a legacy still being felt today.
Of course I’m going to have to chime in and say that without the Taurus I don’t think Ford would have been in the right state of mind to create the first gen Explorer.
Sophisticated driving dynamics? The Taurus introduced that into the midsize segment.
Upscale and ergonomic interior that is head and shoulders above the competition? Taurus did that.
User friendly labeling on the engine? Premiered on the 3.0 Vulcan.
“While the Taurus once again wakened the idea that an American family car could successfully exhibit a trendsetting design, apart from its styling, the Taurus’ basic premise as a six-passenger sedan and eight-passenger wagon wasn’t a new concept for Ford.”
That wasn’t what was so impactful about the Taurus. The Taurus shifted the paradigm of what a car could be not based on passenger capacity, but due to the combination of the car offering sophisticated European handling with traditional American sizing standards, all in a front wheel drive package. Prior to the Taurus, this had never been done before.
This is exactly what Ford did with the Explorer, taking a truck and installing a sophisticated ride and handling balance into the mix. I have to give the Taurus the title of the most influential modern Ford because it developed the formula first while simultaneously introducing a brand new design trend into the mainstream. The Explorer was attractive no doubt, but it borrowed heavily from its competitors. Nothing wrong with that of course, it just wasn’t the trendsetter like the Taurus.
The Explorer looks like a prophetic vision today due to the runaway success of crossovers in the 2010’s. No one in the 1990’s knew that was going to happen, just like Ford didn’t know how the Taurus would be received in the market upon its introduction. The Taurus is only diminished because contemporary tastes have shifted in another direction.
100% agreed. Taurus had meaningful impacts on Accord and Camry, both of which struggled to match its size, value and peppiness allowed by its mostly standard V-6.
Toyotaphiles love to point out how Ford studied the 92-96 Camry for the’96 Taurus. Well, Toyota studied the 92-5 Taurus for the 1997 Camry. Naturally, they swapped places. Camry became cheaper and more in line with consumer tastes, while Taurus went upmarket, and then got deconented in a vain attempt to make it price competitive and profitable again. Ford made mistakes, but it was copying the successful second generation Taurus that netted Toyota a win.
Judging from the tailgate, the owner of the featured Explorer must be a real Round Peg/Square Hole type in MA.
Sliding into early one today leaves me with the same impression as does sliding into classic Mustang: Snug
Thanks for the article from a solid RBV fan (Ranger Based Vehicle)…
I worked for a Ford dealership from ’95-’98 and briefly again in ’09-’10. Being a semi-rural community, these rigs were extremely popular, somewhat more so than the Taurus and definitely more so than the Escort. Even though several were destroyed during the Cash For Nice Cars program, there’s still plenty of them on the road.
Funny what a difference two more doors made. Still would like to find a Bronco II.
I remember eating breakfast one morning at a dinner across from a Firestone dealer. I counted 18 Explorers parked around the shop waiting for replacement tires which were in short supply. It appeared that Firestone didn’t have enough in stock to handle the crush. This make me pause about SUVs in general.
However, I eventually bought a Ford Escape which I enjoyed so much that I bought a second Escape. I now understand why SUVs and CUVs are so popular.
Yeah, these were very, very, very popular in the mid-90’s. I had 3 friends (2 named Bill) that all had the exact same black Ford Explorer. I hadn’t a clue WHO was pulling up the drive. So then 2 of them and myself wanted to take a camping/canoe trip. One didn’t want to go over his lease miles and the other didn’t want sand in his “SUV”. So we took my Chrysler LHS. Those Explorers were very, very versatile too – sitting in driveways not being used for their intended purpose.
About this time period, “rollover” accidents were suddenly occurring all over the Metro Detroit freeways. I had never heard of “rollover” accidents unless it was a tractor/trailer before. My pet sitter had a pending lawsuit with Ford because she flipped her Explorer and hit her head on both side windows….even though she was wearing a seatbelt. Figure that one out.
” she flipped her Explorer and hit her head on both side windows….even though she was wearing a seatbelt. Figure that one out.”
Long neck, ha ha!
One of my daughter’s friend’s dad bought her an Explorer when she got her driver’s license, and not long after, she flipped it going around a sharp curve on a side road here. Not really hurt, but the judge ripped the father a new one for buying her such a vehicle with hardly any driving experience!
As someone here said, “GM still builds GM cars. They just have a box on the back.” The SUV is really just the continuation of the traditional BOF American car. Funny that now they’re finally getting on the unibody FWD train.
My aunt had a series of Explorers in this time frame. I was never impressed with any of them. I thought the Escapes she’s had (two of the old boxy models and one of the the newer ones) were much nicer vehicles.
I’ve had two Eddie Bauers (1992 and 2002) plus an XLT (1998) as well as a 2012 Escape Limited.
While I like the Escape, the Explorers (especially the 2002) were better in myriad ways. My 2002 had better leather, more adjustment in the seats, memory seats, adjustable pedals plus a lock button in the back cargo area (which was remarkably handy). It also had wood trim, albeit fake, but it gave the cabin some warmth. The drivetrain was smoother too. The Escape has too much hard plastic and looks too blah with all that shiny black plastic that picks up fingerprints like no other.
I wonder how much Ford of Germany made selling the millions of V6s to Ford USA. The vast bulk of this engine had to be going stateside.
Given how heavily Dearborn relied on Köln for these engines on US RWD models & the US$/DM exchange-rate, why didn’t they simply transplant the tooling to N. America & take advantage of lower American labor costs? The 4L version was used exclusively on Explorers, & the 2.8/2.9L take-rate on the Scorpio couldn’t have been that high.
Maybe they couldn’t afford to stop work at the Köln plant.
Back when these were selling like ice cream on a hot summer day the biggest customer complaint was “this rides too rough”. Most buyers were coming out of cars and minivans and wanted the trendy SUV and had no concept of what these vehicles really were. They wanted the ride height and macho looks. I’d encounter about 5 to 10 customers every month asking why is the ride so harsh. Of course this was after they had just spent gobs of money on their Eddie Bauer or Limited. In as uncondescendingly a manner as possible I had to explain that you just purchased a truck with 4WD. This exact issue is what led some genius at Ford to lower the tire psi spec to 26. Ok for dunes on the beach but absurd anywhere else.
My brother and SIL have had a first year Explorer, then a Navigator, then changed to various Jeep products, and finally have a Q7. Most, but not all of these rode too bouncy for me. I still remember the A6 my SIL drove. It was truly a great riding and looking car. All in all I still prefer riding in a car and love my ’05 Park Avenue.
The Explorer phenomenon was crazy, probably the biggest example of people ironically trying to be individualistic by buying the same thing as everyone else that I’ve ever seen. We got ours new, a 1998 V8 model, and loved it (until of course we sold it two years later). The in-laws had a 1996 which influenced our decision and it was head and shoulders above their Jeep Cherokee in terms of comfort/convenience factors. For many of my contemporaries in California at the time, this was their first-ever new American vehicle of any kind after years of Japanese or European default purchases. Just the number of choices available on the order sheet was a revelation as compared to the imports.
We lived through the Firestone debacle as well, I remember calling dozens of tire shops to find a set of replacements. Once they decided to do it, Ford handled the recall pretty well, I remember they gave the choice of either going to a Ford dealer or a Firestone service center and the tires would be replaced without a bill (but you had to wait for inventory which was an issue) or you could find your own ANYWHERE and send a copy of the receipt. We took the latter option and received a check very quickly after submitting the receipt. So in my experience they handled the recall extremely well and it didn’t leave me with a negative impression of Ford at all.
The Explorer phenomenon was crazy, probably the biggest example of people ironically trying to be individualistic by buying the same thing as everyone else that I’ve ever seen.
This. And it happens over and over… And whoever taps into the next wave makes a killing in on it.
Folks are so afraid of not being socially accepted by not buying the in thing.
1960s: Mustang
1970s: Cutlass Supreme
1980s: Chrysler Minivan
1990s: Explorer
I’m a little foggy on the 2000s and 2010s, but I’m sure there is something similar.
2000s: Any FWD crossover
2010s: Bike/Uber to work and forgo car ownership (you think I’m being sarcastic…)
2000s: Hummer/Escalade (Or any big SUV like that) on one hand, Prius on the other.
2010s: Crossovers and Teslas (At least, here in SoCal. Don’t know about the Midwest)
2000s: Pre-Katrina, big, full-size SUVs, primarily after the big, $25k federal tax credit ‘stimulus’ for business vehicles with a GVW of over 6000 pounds was enacted. There was a huge run on those tanks back then after that. Chevy dealers, in particular, couldn’t keep Tahoes and Suburbans on the lots.
Of course, post-Katrina, suddenly it was the Prius (which had its own tax credit) that everyone wanted.
2010s: That’s a tough one. There really doesn’t seem to be any one specific vehicle (or even type of vehicle) that typifies what the majority of the car-buying public has had an insatiable lust. If gas prices had stayed high, it probably would have been some sort of EV, probably the Volt due to its revolutionary ability to operate both on electricity or gas. But low gas prices have pretty much tempered demand for an EV of any sort.
By the end of the decade, it will probably be some type of small CUV. Those new Honda HR-Vs seem to be quite popular with the only thing holding down sales a rather limited supply. Maybe it will be something along the lines of the Jeep Renegade. But if gas prices go ballistic again, some sort of EV will end up being the ‘must have’ vehicle of the decade..
Paul
Feel free to bash the early models of the Ford Explorer’s. In this case it would be well deserved. I even admit that everyone I knew that had the 1st, 2nd, and even 3rd generation had tons of problems.
They also mad a ton of squeaks and rattles when driven. Go ahead Paul and lay into the Ford Explorer. It would be well deserved to bash this model.
I always preferred wagons for doing a better job combining sedan ride, handling and center of gravity, with the extra cargo-room. My brother used to drive a ’94 Toyota 4-Runner, and never off-road. But despite that and my advice, he kept putting big knobby Goodyear Wranglers on it. That thing was noisy on the highway and scary in the corners!
I wonder if US regs hadn’t given trucks & SUVs a pass for awhile, wagons would be more common today?
Happy Motoring, Mark
Australian design rules also gave utility vehicles a pass, no crash standard requirements to pass, it was a world wide thing.
Twenty years ago, the radio station I work for gave away two new XLT models with the 4.0 V6. Sponsors all over the area were enlisted to host sign-ups, and I’d take one of the Explorers to each sponsor’s location, entry box in hand. People would line up 100 deep at some of these sign-ups.
Often there’d be a time crunch, meaning I’d, ahem, tested the capabilities and limitations of these Explorers a few times on local highways. Even though I’m a lifelong Chevy guy, I appreciated the Ford’s execution, the fit and finish; the ride was pillowy but both wallowed all over the road like a pig…as if they had soft tires. Naah, they couldn’t have had underinflated tires on BOTH Explorers?
Oh, what we didn’t know in 1996…
I’ve long forgotten the winner’s name but they were understandably giddy at having won TWO Ford Explorers, and our promotions department immediately went out and leased…
A ’97 Blazer LS 4-door.
Which, compared to the Explorers, was quite competent on curves…a must when they give you 45 minutes to take an hour’s drive. And it’s W-series 4.3 V6 ran circles around the Explorer too, with 3-4 MPG better fuel economy.
So, better presentation with so-so road manners or so-so presentation with better road manners? I’ll take the latter. Then again, I’m a Chevy guy.
A co-worker owned an Explorer Sport in White. The argument would come up with each oil change…and the service tech would set the tires at 32 psi, without fail. And after a somewhat scary, squirrelly ride home, my friend would have to reset all four tires at the factory-mandated 26. Just like clockwork.
The revolution aspect of the Explorer story, however, can’t be denied. They were as much “the 90’s” as Hootie, Garth Brooks, and Seinfeld.
I didn’t find my Sport to be scary or squirrelly at higher tire pressures. I never inflated to just 26. Mine was a ’98 though with the IFS. It didn’t handle like a car, but it wasn’t bad for a short wheelbase truck at the time.
I never had issues with mine at 32psi either. It’d get wild if the rear was at 26 and the front at 32 though, a GF at the time spun mine at 55mph, and it was bolt upright. Mine was a 95 though. I also lowered it an inch. I also kept good quality tires on it (Goodyear Wranglers or Michelins)
I’ve driven that 95 like a race car, and it did have a tendancy to lift an inside rear wheel on hard turns at speed, but never felt unsafe, as the unloaded tire even with a posi would limit speed in hard turns.
I know that it’d do 115mph flat out and it’d be fine.
I’ve owned a 90s Blazer (and several other versions of that platform). The contestant was far better off with the Fords.
These 1st gen Explorers were the father of the SUV explosion. I think the narrow track, short wheelbase. higher ride height, low tire pressures and especially Twin I beam front end which could jack up and tuck under like a swing axle VW combined with the Firestone tires were all responsible for it’s roll over problems.
Nice detailed write up, SUV’s were never my thing, but I could see the appeal and they really did explode in popularity as the other makers jumped on the bandwagon.
Ugh. I got why the Explorer sold well, as it clearly looks good and has that rugged thing going on. But this car, to me, represents everything that is wrong with American car buyers. People didn’t NEED these. A mini van or wagon did everything these did for 90 percent of the buyers with better space utilization, fuel economy and safety. People WANTED these because of the image. I remember reading articles about 90s European cars like the Megane Scenic and all the hatchbacks that were sold there and couldn’t understand why we don’t embrace vehicles like those.
While most were sold to people who didn’t need them, I can assure you they did fit the real needs of millions of Americans. America is not Europe.
No, it’s not. And I recognize that many of people use these for hauling things and in the snow. And my roommate in college had a GMC Jimmy that I borrowed a few times and I did like sitting up high. And I also recognize that many of the cars in Europe are too small, too quirky, and often too under built for American driving conditions. It’s just funny to me how so many people growing up had these when all they did with them was go to K-Mart and back.
If we’re gonna argue about what people “need,” we don’t “need” anything more luxurious or powerful than a Trabant.
A minivan certainly would have been a more logical choice for the need I wanted met in 1991 when I bought my ’91 S10 Blazer 4 door…but no way in hell I was gong to drive a minivan around all he time. I always referred to it an “ugly station wagon” since with two wheel drive that is pretty much what it was and what I used it for: sometimes hauling stuff, sometimes hauling Scouts to camp. Then again I think my S10 spent more time “off road” than most of it’s four-wheel drive contemporaries.
Great write up Brendan, helps show just how influential the Explorer was and still is. On an semirelated note, I’d like to find a Navajo somewhere, shouldnt take long with my current luck at finding CCs.
Yeah you’ve been finding a lot! Last Navajo I saw was several years ago driving in front of me. Not the right time or place to whip out my phone and attempt a poor quality driving shot 🙂
Last year in Westmoreland County, PA, I saw this Navajo and tried to get a picture. The last one I had seen before that was around 2006, abandoned in a motel parking lot in Upstate New York. The last time I had seen a running one before that…who knows?
Great write-up Brendan.
I had a ’98 Explorer Sport that was my first nice vehicle I got after landing my first job out of college. It was everything I wanted at the time. After moving away from my hometown and my parents, I needed something of my own to haul my snowmobile, bike, and canoe around along with some moderate off-roading to get those to where I wanted to. After two Mustangs and a Probe, I wanted something sporty. My dad had had great experiences with 2 Rangers so the Explorer was immediately on my radar. The 2-door Explorer Sport 4×4 with the 205 HP SOHC 4.0 and 5-speed transmission was just the ticket. I found a nice 2-year old one and bought it. It fit my needs perfectly at the time and was actually pretty fun to drive. And even the 2-door was roomy enough to haul around 4 people fairly comfortably.
It was awfully thirsty though. Despite it’s rather small size It wouldn’t break 20 MPG on the highway and on top of that it only had a 17 gallon tank. On a good day I could maybe make 250 miles on a tank of gas. And then there were the problems. Front suspension, cam chain tensioner, rear end, 4wd, instrument panel, and a host of little things like the door locks and thermostat. After just 3 years I was fed up so I sold it and got a 4Runner…which was more reliable but not nearly as comfortable or powerful.
One thing I can say is that even with all its problems, it never left me stranded. Can’t say that about the 4Runner that replaced it.
I remember the days where Explorers roamed the streets in huge quanitites… everybody seemed to have one and everybody seemed to want one. Every refresh seemed to make them more and more attractive too.
I’ve never owned one, but I do own the big brother Expedition, and I love it!
I had a rather irrational loathing for Explorers, as soon as they became the next hot thing. Sheep lining up at the Ford dealer ready to overpay for a vehicle that was inevitably not really the best thing for them.
They were soft, mushy, and deadly boring. They were the Country Squire of the 90s. I had an irrational loathing for those too, back in their day. 🙂
I had a 2nd gen Explorer, a 95 XLT 2wd 5 door. I bought it from my brother in law in 2001 with 103,000 miles on it. I drove it through the remainder of my college, my first job and my second job, I kept that thing for 14 years and put 240,000 miles on top of its original 100,000. Body-wise it never gave me any issues, and up to about 160,000 miles it was flawless. as it aged, things wore out, it needed head gaskets a few times till I had the heads milled true again, it went through heater cores and radiators probably due to the warped heads, one set of ball joints, a set of rear axle bearings and post clutch packs. I replaced the leather seats with cloth ones because I hated burning my behind in the Texas summers. It’s biggest weakness was the 4R55E tranmssion, it broke the intermediate band at 225,000 and one rebuild later it was in good nick, at 345,000 though it finally killed itself, and lost drive completely. I sold it for cheap.
It always got better than EPA mileage, once I squeaked 30 out of it. but it mostly got 17 and 22. I took it on lots of trips to Colorado where it was pretty good out there, and it ate up interstate like a ’70s barge,with super comfy front seats (when the back seat is up, kind of a uncomfortable when the back seat was folded down) and was a whole lot bigger inside than it looked. It was about the same footprint as an 1980s GM A-body.
I still love the 2nd gen models. It was the right combo.
The 1st and moreso 2nd generation Explorers are perhaps the second most common model of vehicle that I’ve seen down in Mexico when I travel for work, after the Nissan Tsuru and D21/D22 pickups. You can’t swing a dead cat without seeing at least 2 or three at a time. I’ve always been a skeptic and bought into the “exploder” stigma until I saw just how damn resilient these things are when exploited in those conditions and with negligent maintenance. The typical scene is a battered and dusty 2nd gen Explorer bouncing down a dirt or cobblestone street, front wheels cocked out with massive camber from what I assume is totally shot ball joints.
They are actually very simple and durable vehicles for the most part, excluding as exFordTech mentioned the front ball joints and timing chain tensioners/guides on the slapped together SOHC variant of the Cologne 4.0L. The 5r55e transmission is known to develop some solenoid-pack related issues sometimes at lower mileages (I knew of a USDA ’98 start having shift flare at 58k miles). Stick with the old workhorse OHV Cologne motor, or the 5.0L V8 (which gets the beefier 4R70 transmission) and you’re all set.
These early Explorers have earned my respect the hard way, by showing their grit in the third world.
Now the third gen, don’t get me started! Unmitigated disasters IMO, stick with the V8 models if you insist on going that route. 4th gen (last of the BOFs) seem better, but still far off the formula of gen 1/2.
Indeed. Underneath that Eddie Bauer leather, and once you push aside the white driving glove crowd (clowns?) who bought most of these here in the states, there is a Ford truck there. My ’83 Ranger, while not exactly stock, has earned its keep, and then some.
One thing that really shows just how big of a deal the original Explorer was are those sales numbers. For a couple of years those sales numbers were enough to put it in 3rd place in the US right behind the F-series and C/K series making it the #1 selling passenger vehicle in the US. So while the press was making a big stink how the Accord and Camry had surpassed the Taurus as the best selling “car” Ford was laughing all the way to the bank as their Taurus and all sorts of customers were trading in their sedans for Explorers which at the time had both the highest profit margin and highest average profit per vehicle in their consumer line up. My friend’s father who worked for Ford at the time told me that they had to sell 10 Escorts or 4~5 Taurus vehicles to make the same profit as selling one average Explorer.
I suffered in the backseat of a Ford Explorer on a ride from Dallas to Fort Worth about 15 years ago. It was the most uncomfortable miserable vehicle that I ever rode in. The fact that Ford’s marketing team convinced every other housewife that they needed this turkey instead of a minivan, demonstrates the importance and power of marketing.
Hated these! From the start these looked like ugly pickups with one of those bed covers on them, which look stupid on pickup trucks themselves. I thought every adult collectively lost their minds when this segment exploded, in my eyes it seemed purely like minivan backlash. My most personal memories of the Explorer was the Tempo quality interior with that ill fitting antiseptic plastic utilitarian dash, door panels and trim that the low end Ford product of the period tended to have. The (front)seats were nice on more uplevel trim packages but that’s the only highlight, anyone who’d consider an Explorer interior luxurious is literally thinking through their ass. And ironically enough the ingress/egress sucks, the ergonomics suck and they still feel cramped – tall people may disagree due to the extra height, but everything protrudes and intrudes, the console thingy, the door armrest/switchplates and even the seats themselves by being of the high back variety have an impeding feel. Tallness really skews the reality of interior volume.
Aesthetically I thought these looked soft and weak compared to the SUVs of old, not just because they were 4 door vs 2 either, the Cherokee looked rugged, the Explorer looked like a poseur, and every generation since lowered and lowered the ground clearance to the point where it can’t even claim that anymore. The complete irony of the Explorer’s success is it’s segment is essentially sold as the only way to get a traditional American car, yet the 2 box bodystyle and the indistinct cookie cutter styling that comes with it (hey, one end and the roofline are effectively dictated hardpoints) are exactly what many American car fans don’t like about European hatchbacks. The current Explorer may as well be a 4×4 Golf, that scenario really doesn’t seem at all different to me.
I don’t know what you are comparing the Explorer with in terms of comfort, space and interior quality, but it evidently isn’t other mid-sized SUVs of the same era. I drove most all of them in the 90’s, and for all its other faults the boxy Explorer set the standard for interiors and usable space IMO.
I’m not a big fan of the current Explorer, but it drives very nice and tows 5000 pounds. It has an inch more ground clearance than my ’98 did and offers a 3rd row of seats. Pretty far from a Golf.
” It has an inch more ground clearance than my ’98 did” Ah the old numbers game. Check where that old explorer had it’s lowest clearance measured: under the rear axle diff housing. Elsewhere, it had 9-10 or so, with decent angles of approach and departure, and good articulation from the rear end (thanks to said solid rear axle). Throw in a part time true transfer case with low range, and you have yourself a respectable if not stellar offroad vehicle.
Now look at the new crossover Explorer: it has a bit less than 8 inches of clearance, but that applies to almost the entire underbody (which doesn’t have a sturdy frame to absorb a hit to the underside either). The nose protrudes way in front of the front wheels, and has a low-hanging apron. Forget about offroad, this thing can hardly clear a curb at a supermarket! Poor articulation, mediocre AWD system that doesn’t have a ‘hard locking’ feature to the center diff, no low range.
For inclement weather I’ll take the new Explorer any day for the FWD-bias and smoother ride that will hold the slipper road better. For offroad tasks, it isn’t even close!
I’m not comparing those aspects to other SUVs of the era, they are all equally guilty. These things were being bought in droves as family haulers and as a child during the SUV boom I can say first hand there was Zero, Nada, ergonomic or comfort benefit to these over your average family car of the time. All the extra interior room was above your head, everything actually surrounding you was about as tight as say a RWD 70s compact like a Fairmont or Nova, as you’re essentially locked in place to whichever door you entered from due to the driveshaft tunnel and mandatory console thingy. Minivans, which I am no fan of either mind you, were far superior as far as that went, you can practically play musical chairs inside of a minivan.
gtemnykh explained the ground clearance perfectly. I doubt you’ll be seeing any 2016 Explorers at off road events in 2036, but there’s plenty of 90s ones in 2016. They’re Transverse FWD 2 box 5 door hatchbacks, a super sized golf.
“I can say first hand there was Zero, Nada, ergonomic or comfort benefit to these over your average family car of the time.”
Except, of course, for the more chair-like seating position and excellent visibility along with putting child seats and cargo at a height that was easier to deal with.
It strikes me as odd that Ford recycled the same nose on such a game-changing vehicle. From the front you’d think it was just another Bronco II
A good friend got one when they first came out, a blue XL strippo 4 door 5 speed. It was a bear to drive in Houston traffic but highly utilitarian with two young boys and their flotsam.
Interesting how Ford created or vastly improved a specific market yet again, starting with the Mustang, the Country Squire, the Taurus and now the Explorer. In each of those areas GM was always forced to play catch-up.
Just returned from 2 weeks vacation with the now-retired Trooper. Man I miss the comfort, room, visuals and utility of that beast, especially with the kids and schlepping all their stuff to the beach and camp, etc. Don’t miss the mpgs and meandering “I’ll get to it” steering response, but that was a great car. Of course getting back in the Outback makes me feel like I’m at Laguna Sega…
As always, a great and interesting write up Brendan!
One of my oldest friends drove a hand-me-down 1997 Eddie Bauer 4-door (in the quintessential Green/Tan two-tone) from the time I met her in 2006 right up until this year. I spent a lot of seat time in that car and even drove it a few times. When I met her ten years ago it was in so-so condition, but boy was that thing a total POS by the time she replaced it this year.
I didn’t know modern vehicles could deteriorate so spectacularly while still technically functioning. The car would have failed any sort of safety inspection years ago had our state required that sort of thing. The freaking SEATBELT buckle failed (she just tucked the belt under her butt while driving so she wouldn’t get a ticket). Has anyone ever seen that component fail on a car before? Other odd failures – the little sliding plastic orange indicator on the column shifter broke, so you had to “feel out” which gear it was in, the backlighting for the entire IP just failed completely, the fancy 90s-era ” digital message center” had all sorts of weird electrical glitches.
The ride was incredibly bouncy, granted it had 250k on the original struts, but that thing was straight up scary to drive. The steering was hardly any better, and the whole thing felt less secure than a ’70s luxoboat sedan, which I’ve also spent plenty of seat time in.
Mechanically, the car just kept going and going and going. It must’ve have had north of 300k by the time it was hauled away this year after nearly 20 years. The engine had a horrible knock/misfire, the suspension slammed, crashed, and rattled over any sort of bump, and the beige leather seats were ripped and stained beyond anything I’ve ever seen, but that horrendous heap kept starting up and taking my friend to work every day. She only replaced it once she secured a more stable job and could swing a loan on a 2010-ish Escape, a VASTLY more stable and car-like vehicle.
For all its faults, I understood the appeal. The car “felt” big and substantial which equates to “nice” for a lot of people, especially smaller women and/or people who don’t give a flip about cars. When it was less worn out I’m sure all the leather and trip computer BS seemed luxurious. When bought used these vehicles are an attainable way for working class families to feel “rich” and “safe”. Her mom replaced it with a similarly loaded mid-2000s GMC Envoy. A compact sedan would fit their limited budget so much better and have much lower running costs, but when you can only afford a car loan and not a mortgage, a blingly SUV is your only ticket to feeling the ‘American Dream’. From that perspective, these heaps make sense.
How unbelievable that a much newer, car-based vehicle is VASTLY improved over a 300k+ Explorer with the original shocks. Only more unbelievable that someone would drive a vehicle with 250k on the originals and complain about its ride quality.
People beat the crap out of a Ford, don’t maintain it for nothing (shocks are so cheap and easy, ignoring them is highly indicative of how the rest of the vehicle was *not* maintained) and still complain about how it ran/drove at 300k. If only it were a Toyota, then we could brag on minor issues like a $10 junkyard seat belt buckle and $65 worth of shocks being the worst of its 300k beat-to-hell life.
Despite the mommy-mobile stigma, the original 1984 Chrysler minivan was basically a good design, and a decent alternative to the station-wagon. But the chronically faulty automatics fitted to many of them, and other quality control issues, put them on my do-not-buy list. Since then, minivans have evolved to mimic one of the worst designs of full size vans – horrible engine access! Another reason I prefer wagons.
Today, mid ’90s Toyota Camry & Corolla wagons in good condition sell for a hefty premium over the sedan versions.
Unfortunately, the only decent Asian wagons availible here now are from Subaru, with mandatory 4-WD to penalize gas mileage, and flat-four engine designs which can make routine repair & maintenance a real chore.
Happy Motoring, Mark
If you want an old wagon with massive engine space, why not a RWD Volvo?
Im just glad modern vans arent copying the 90s Toyota Previa engine placement.
Had a 93. Drove it for 9 years. Took 2 kids through hockey and baseball up to near 300,000 km. Aside from regular maintenance we spent almost nothing on it. Best vehicle we ever had. It used more gas than the Buick before it but that additional cost did not even put a dint into the Buick repair bills. Beautifull looking 83 Buick Lesabre Limited. But the most expensive 60,000 kms I have ever seen over 5 years I had it. It only had 160,000 kms when I got rid of it, but I did a radiator, 3 torque converts, 1 complete transmission, 5 cruise control units, (1 per year). Electronic ignition and 1 carb….. Plus more… Oh well… Everybody needs at least one lemon…
Seems to be a lot of inconsistency in the reliability of them. I’ve seen plenty like yours where they were great. But mine was an utter POS and so were plenty others I knew. I wonder if they just struggled keeping up with demand.
Family had a v6 01 Sport Track Explorer briefly, it wasnt too bad and survived being rear ended by an unattentive Texan in a Land Rover, was backed into too which left a chip in the plastic tailgate.
Soon the automatic transmission went out, was having starting issues too. The craptacular gas mileage (19-20 hwy) meant it would be replaced with a first gen Scion xB.
I was always impressed how Ford could consistently best GM by inventing or exploiting a market segment that GM either ignored or was slow to develop. First it was the station wagon, that starting in the ’50’s Ford carefully designed and marketed to families, while GM treated them as an afterthought. Then there was the ’58 4 seat T-Bird. Although the purists may have been shocked, it greatly outsold its 2 seat predecessor and was the first luxury personal car. GM had nothing like it until the ’63 Riviera. Then of course the iconic Mustang, which started the pony car era, the ’86 Taurus (the American Honda Accord), and the wildly successful Explorer, the first SUV women would drive in any numbers. It also seemed to me that in the ’80’s Ford was the first to sense a widespread demand for pickup trucks beyond those in traditional work/farm use, offering highly optioned, comfortable models marketed to young males and suburbanites.
In reading about the histories of the Ford family, Iacocca, DeLorean and other auto executives, the corporate cultures were quite different at GM and Ford. New ideas were a tough sell at GM, with its layers upon layers of top-heavy management and board members. Ford was essentially run by one man, Henry II. An insufferable autocrat with many faults, he was smart enough to hire brilliant people and give them the freedom to innovate. Things could be done much quicker at Ford, which attracted impressive talent all through its management ranks.
But now, it’s the opposite. GM is building and entering into segments that Ford once dominated (Minus the Ford Trucks and Utilitarian Vehicles). So the tables have turned. GM has entered the Premium segment (Cadillac) where Ford Lincoln cannot.
Much to be preferred is the export version of the pre-’95 Exploder. Instead of the cheap, nasty, all-but-useless plastic toy headlites of the domestic model, the export model got brackets and bezels for 200 mm × 142 mm standard-size headlamps. That is the format of the large rectangular American sealed beam, though the export vehicles used European H4 replaceable-bulb units in this size. The export grill is kind of fugly, but the nicer US grill is a direct swap.
The European version is not good. Here is a true American Explorer(1991) in Russian! It is in very good condition! I am currently doing small repairs!
Daniel Stern
For some reason this model year Ford Explorer, even thought it started the SUV craz (minus the Chevrolet Blazer). They were pron to a ton of issues.
The Landmark Ford / Most influential (new) Ford of the past 30 years over here was a bit smaller.
These just keep rolling along with their rusted out bottoms and the front wheels
sagging and pointing in different directions. What they do here in St Louis is
get the heap licensed in Illinois. No personal property tax no inspections.
Easy as pie.
First gen Taurus brought Ford back from the brink. First gen Explorer made Ford rich.
Burning Man 1994. No Rules. Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer Edition, cream leather, algae green paint. Rental company who either hadn’t heard of BM or the guy liked us because we “mega-ditto’d”. Flying across the playa with cameras and guns out. Explosions. Fires. Blown tire in a streambed, we had a full spare. Some died, some killed, some just got stuck. We done neither and none of it. Here’s to that Explorer.
I know I’m late to this post…
I started college in 1990 driving a white 1976 BMW 2002 that I picked up for $3,500 in 1987. I bought it from our neighbor a year before I turned 16, but I’d saved money mowing lawns and life guarding at the pool when the deal came my way. How does this relate to a Ford Explorer?
Well, I was a very outdoorsy kid, and the little 2002 lacked the ground clearance to go where I wanted to go, so I began to look fondly at four wheel drives…no one called them SUVs-not yet. Between my freshman and sophomore college years, my father took the plunge and traded his 1982 528 in for the newly introduced Ford Explorer. It was a 1991 “Light Sandalwood” metallic XLT with a manual transmission. He had it all of two months when he got a promotion and a BMW 5 series company car. $4,000 was my buy-in on the Explorer, which I obtained by selling the 2002 for $4,450 cash (a regret I carry to this day).
Despite immediately pining for the 2002, I really did love the Explorer. It was capable enough to get me up into the mountains, as well as the Interstate drive to campus 3 hours from home. In the very early days, it actually had a “cool” factor before every suburban family (like my own) had one. No one thought I was driving my mom’s ‘SUV.’
My friends and I had some great times in the Explorer. One particular memory is getting a call from my roommate’s girlfriend. She and her mother were stranded about an hour outside of town during the infamous Blizzard of 1992. As a bunch of testosterone-fueled college boys forum the Deep South with no snow driving experience, we headed out in my Explorer to pick them up. The Ford performed flawlessly.
Despite some of the known troubles, my ten years and 150K miles with the 1991 Explorer was reasonably trouble-free. The well-known ball joint issues led to tie rod issues, which led to me trading it just before the Firestone issue came to light. My trade allowance on a new Toyota 4 Runner: $4,450–very symmetrical discounting inflation.
The only other major problems I can think of were a rear main seal that seeped oil…$14 seal and $1,400 labor to pull the engine (I declined). As a foreshadowing of the front end troubles, the front tires (even my Michelin replacements) on my Explorer were all but impossible to balance—there was always a slight shimmy at 55-65 mph.
Better late than never!
I’ve never seen a manual transmission Explorer, so much so that I was beginning to doubt their existence. Cool that you owned one!
The worst new vehicle I have ever driven was my parents 1993 Explorer, manual transmission, and, I think, no options of any kind. A sneakily dangerous
ride with unpredictable ABS, wonky handling, and weird vibrations at speed that the dealer could not address.
My first Explorer was a 1991 SOHC V-6 AT XLT. I bought mine used, and it had a towing kit, but overall looked to be well maintained at about 60K miles. I was overall pleased with it until I had a harrowing trip down Old Priest Grade by Yosemite. The brakes apparently heated up despite my light foot and lower gear selection. By the time I got to the bottom I had both feet on the brake pedal and I was straining at the steering wheel for even more leverage. I stopped about 2 feet into the intersection at the bottom of the mountain, and luckily there was no cross traffic. I had it until 2001, when I got the 2nd gen 1998 XLT “Exploder.” It had 36K miles, and the SOHC V-6 had noticeably better power, so that I didn’t feel like I was wheezing along on the Interstate. The brakes had been much improved, now with discs all around. Gas milage was about the same at about 17mpg. My wife and I christened her “the Mule,” as she got us into and out of off-road peril more than once. It wasn’t perfect, but I can’t cast any significant fault for her 210K miles. She just got retired in a crash due to an errant driver in July. Her body hardware was getting weak, and I had recently noticed a very small leak on the driveway, but she started and ran on demand every time (except for the crankshaft position sensor). But I was convinced she was ready to go at least “to the moon” (250K) or farther. Didn’t burn a drop of oil. The air bags worked perfectly, and she was a mangled mess at the end, but the Mule was my best vehicle ever. I’ll never own another vehicle for 21 years, but I enjoyed every year with this one.
Even CC-in-scale has one!
In a perfect world, the Pinto, the Bronco II, the Exploder, and the spark-plug problems on the tired, wheezy, underpowered “Modular” motors would have the Ford Executives in prison for mistreatment of their customer base.
How on earth is is possible to throw industry standards to the wind, design not one but two versions of a spark plug so incompetently that one breaks off in the cylinder head and has to be extracted with special tools invented for the purpose…while the other non-industry-standard spark plug gets spat into the underside of the hood, due to having nowhere near enough threads holding it into soft aluminum cylinder heads? Adding injury to insult, the first recommended plug change happens AFTER the warranty has expired.
Similarly, the Firestone 500, and it’s clone the 721; and the tires supplied to Ford for the Exploder, should have resulted in charges against Firestone executives with lengthy prison terms and no parole.
America could be rid of two horrible corporations, and instead they’re continuing to infect the vehicle world. And–Government being government–We the People are stuck with tire pressure monitors at great expense and considerable hassle, due to Ford’s and Firestone’s undeniable lack of ethics.
A pox on both companies; and best wishes for bankruptcy.