Explorer Reliability Issues?

A very elaborate and very expensive trailer hitch with sway control. Most sway control is a simple friction slide affair that damps sway. The Hensley uses an entirely different approach involving the geometry of a set of steel bars.

Anyone with a trailer sway problem has basically three choices of how to handle it.

1. Friction - cheap, and a bit more effective than nothing. This is an add-on to a standard weight-distributing hitch, not built into it. About 0.
2. Dual cam - a more effective approach than friction, and built into certain weight distributing hitches. Quite effective, and adds less than to the cost of your 0 WDH.
3. Hensley - the nuclear weapon of sway control - and you pay for it, too. About 00, IIRC.

In my opinion (and it is only mine) if you have such a huge sway problem that you need a Hensley, then something is drastically wrong with your setup and you are living on borrowed time anyway.

Again in my opinion, the best thing about the Hensley Company is that they make McKesh mirrors, which are superb.

Bill

If you happen to notice, OTR trucks use turbochargers full time, with varying degrees of boost. There are also passenger cars and trucks that use them as well, as OEM items. It's not so much that you want a boost of power for a few seconds, but an overall increase in efficiency in engine performance. These not only increase horsepower, but improve fuel efficiency by bringing the air:fuel ratio closer to optimal levels. As for drag racing using a supercharger, it's not a great idea, as there is a certain amount of lag time before the blower can come up to speed, and in a race of such short duration, it would already be over before the blower could come online. The better item for this application is a supercharger, which is mechanically linked to the engine, via a belt drive, and uses a certain percentage of horsepower to run the compressor, as opposed to the turbocharger, which is driven by exhaust gases, and is adjustable by adjusting at what point and percentage the wastegate opens.

I would love to have a turbocharger on one of these 4.0 L motors, if for nothing else, than to improve overall efficiency.

Hmmmm ....maybe I need to ask Jim Warman about doing this. It sounds intriguing.

"Bill Jeffrey" wrote in message news:Hzy5e.11439$Xs.496@fed1read03... | Jean - | | You are exactly right about that. In situations like that, I would kill | for a decent supercharger that would boost the pressure back up to | something near sea level. | | I've looked. There are a lot of shysters out there selling mini-blowers | that are too small to do much of anything. There are also a lot of | leave-rubber-at-the-light kind of macho dorks who think of a | supercharger as something to get a burst of power to leave someone else | in the dust. But boosting intake pressure above sea level for more than | a few seconds is liable to harm an engine that isn't designed for it. | What I am looking for is something that will bring pressure back to sea | level and no more, and can operate for a half hour at a time without | hurting itself or the engine, as I negotiate a mountain road. Haven't | found anything. | | Any ideas? | | Bill | -------------------------------- | | Jean wrote: | > Bill Jeffrey wrote: | >

| >> Richard - | >>

| >> In Nov '01, I bought a 2002 Explorer ... The vehicle has | >> been adequate, but no more than that, pulling this trailer into the | >> high Sierras and over Loveland Pass and Vail Pass in Colorado. The | >> combination of steep grades and high altitude just kill the engine's | >> output. | >

| > It's not surprising that your Explorer couldn't cope with the mountain | > passes. Based on my readings, you have to derate the capacity of a | > vehicle anywhere from 2% to 4% per 1000 feet of altitude above sea | > level. So for Loveland Pass (~12000ft altitude), that means you lose | > anywhere from 24% to 48% of towing capacity - which makes towing your | > 3500lb camper kinda iffy. | >

| > Jean |

No. Smaller wheel/tire (actually, smaller circumference) means more pulling power available. However, that smaller circumference means a smaller tire patch on the road surface, which means less friction available for stopping. Also, less ability to put that pulling power to the road (slipping upon accelleration). It's a compromise, like most things. You can get better tires to help with traction. These will also have lower tread life (unless you want to pay some really high dollar amounts for the tires).

I've never heard that before.

No, superchargers are not used on street cars for fuel economy, but for accelleration numbers. OTR trucks use turbo/superchargers to boot HP and torque, becasue of the loads they carry; anormally aspirated diesel engine with that kind of power output would be far too heavy.

Obviously, you meant turbocharger here, instead of supercharger.

It wouldn't, though. A preasurizer, whether turbo- or supercharger, forces more air into the engine, which requires more fuel. If the 4.0 L engine delivers adequate performance, a turbocharger will not improve fuel mileage. If it doeasn't, the only time a turbocharger will increase power is during acceleration, when economy is already at its worst. (Or at WOT while cruising, which is kinda wrong on the street.) Since a gas engine designed to run on the street with a turbo will have a lower compression ratio that one without, overall economy will be lower. If the CR isn't lowered, each use of the turbo hurts the engine, and that's expensive.

There are reasons it's not done. You are far from the only one intrigued, and no where near the first. :-)

Hmmm... Maybe I should buy a newer Explorer?

Hmmm...good question. I'm pretty sure it doesn't keep that from happening (RPM's seem to stay the same, etc), but I'll definitely pay close attention and find out for sure. My original thinking was that it could potentially help with gas mileage (engine not having to work as hard due to quicker upshifts and not as quickly downshifting) assuming I don't get too heavy in the pedal. If it's not allowing the torque converter to lock up, that definitely wouldn't help gas mileage!

Thanks,

Wesley

"Richard Minami" wrotenews:d32mek$ivq$ snipped-for-privacy@gnus01.u.washington.edu:

Have you ever heard of Consumer's Report magazine?

They take no advertising nor free cars and rely upon thousands of yearly reports directly from consumers instead.

You should never buy any America car unless it's a rebadged jap car, and you learn that Mercedes Benz, Jaguars, Hummers and many GM products are the worst made cars in the world.

CR April issue with the year end auto issue update was on sale this month or last. Get it.

Also, according to reports, Exploder sales are way down and your resale value is now shit due to bad resale value coupled with horrible gas prices.

And of course, what in the hell are you thinking about buying a brand new car for unless you just won the lotto? The day you drive it off the lot, especailly an american car, it loses about 40% of it's value. If you have to have an exploder, buy a 2004 lease return and bargain like a demented lebanese trader.

HTH

The figures I quoted were taken from Ford and Chevy towing manuals (circa 1992) and relate to the vehicle's ability to pull a load. I'd guess that the figures primarily relate to the engine, with maybe some consideration for the tranny also.

Jean

When it comes to automobiles, Consumer Reports should be called Consumer Opinions because their ratings are all about what gets reported. Everyone's experience is different - I personally have driven nothing but Chevy trucks since 1988 and all three of my vehicles have performed far better than CR indicated they would, but CR never asked my opinion so I don't give much credit to theirs.

As for initial depreciation, you only take the hit if you actually go to sell the vehicle. Keep it and nothing happens. The same for resale values - it only matters if you're going to re-sell the vehicle. This is the basic truth for all vehicles - it's only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. You can claim your foreign truck is worth more than my domestic, but if nobody is willing to pay you for it then the point is moot.

One problem with off-lease vehicles is that you don't really know just how your used vehicle was treated by the person who leased it before you. Leased vehicles are notorious for not having been broken in correctly, not having received the best or most timely maintenance, and not have been driven in the most conservative manner. For some folks that's OK, but for others not so much and they prefer buying new. Plus financing is more appealing on new over used so that plays into it for some folks.

Cheers - Jonathan

OK, "that" in my post referred to a loss in braking ability. Are you saying that the figures you read include braking ability, or "vehicle's ability to pull a load", which is a different thing from a vehicle's GCWR?

CR's car ratings are based on faulty data,and this has been known for decades. They rely on reader feedback, which is notorious for being out of touch with reality. Just for starters, CR's readership can not be considered to be a cross sectiuon or even an averaging of the nation's auto buyers. Add to that the fact that many more people are willing to complain than to compliment, and that the readers are constantly being fed CRs opinon that domestic cars are crap, and the fact that people who answer such requests for feedback from a magazine will trend to agree with the opinion of the magazine (else they wouldn't buy it), you get a very biased rating.

However, they are not unbiased. They've been know to change their tests in order to get the desired results.

Witness the Suzuki vs Consumers Union court case.

1. After more than three dozen runs in the Samurai on CU's established avoidance maneuver, CU's professional drivers rated it highest of all the vehicles, and expressly stated "no tendency to tip up" and "no real problem" in the written evaluations. See Plaintiff's Statement of Genuine Issues ("GI"), =B6=B6 440-41;

2=2E After the Samurai completed the standard testing without incident, CU's editor-in-chief, Irwin Landau, remarked that "If you can't find someone to roll this car, I will." Motion at 23-25; GI =B6 445; 3=2E CU's technical director, R. David Pittle, then asked to drive the Samurai. After nine more runs and after departing from the established track, the Samurai tipped up. Motion at 24-25; GI =B6=B6 452-54; 4=2E After the tip-up, Pittle directed the chief of CU's auto test division, Robert Knoll, to prepare a new "modified emergency avoidance maneuver" and replicate Pittle's path. GI =B6=B6465-67;

The figures I referred to only apply to the vehicle's ability to pull a load. Below is an excerpt from a Trailer Life article (see web page at

): "When evaluating a vehicle manufacturer's tow rating, consider the altitude where you plan to travel consistently. Naturally aspirated engines lose approximately 3 to 4 percent of their power per 1,000 feet increase in elevation. If the manufacturer does not specifically indicate whether altitude has been taken into account in the ratings, reduce combination weight by about 2 per cent per 1,000 feet of increase in elevation to maintain performance."

The gist is that you need to derate the towing vehicle's GCWR if you are going to tow at high altitudes.

Jean

Thanks for your response. One thing I noticed is that there are a lot of reviews for this, from consumers, who feel strongly. They either LOVE them, or they HATE them. I think I read only one review that said it ok. We really only considered buying new since I'll know how it was taken care of. I guess I won't know how hard it may have been test driven. We kept our old Explorer 11 years, I'm not too worried about depreciation. Our financing rate isn't the best, but Ford gave us $1,000. Not too shabby. I just hope I get a well built unit. I think my old one was built before a long weekend or on a hangover Monday. Many things went wrong. I almost can't believe I just bought another. But I've spoken with other owners who have only changed fluids. That's what I'm hoping and praying for! Richard

Yeah, my father-in-law has an F-250 he uses to pull a 35 foot 5th wheel. Diesel, very nice. But it only seats 6, and since my wife will be the primary driver, a big rig is out of the question. I'm sure the F series would pull anything real nice. Richard

It is speculation, but I believe it must be true. All the heat generated by the brakes must be disipated to the air. Reduce the denisty of the air and the rate of heat transfer is reduced. I know that for electronic devices you must derate heat sinks at higher altitude. This must be true for brakes as well.

Ed

I got curious enough about this that I broke out the performance manual for my "work vehicle". One of the charts there is entitled "Brake Cooling Schedule". Using only the portion that deals with altitude, and following a convenient line, at Sea Level the cooling time is less than

1/3 of the time than is published for 10,000 pressure altitude.

Since the only difference I allowed for would be the air density, the OP is correct in that when operating at higher pressure/density altitudes, the braking efficiency would be compromised by the fact that the brakes take longer to cool between applications.

OK, I've heard it now. :-)