U-Hall ? never again. . .

Didn't know that, but did notice if you run through the "get a quote" dealie on their web page, it does come back with "This vehicle is not authorized to tow U-Haul equipment. U-Haul does not rent behind this tow vehicle. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. Is there a different vehicle that you can use for towing?" Tried it for both a '96 and a '04. However, for a Hyundai Accent with a Class3 (5,000 lb) hitch you get "Our records indicate this is a recommended towing setup; however, all towing is subject to inspection. We suggest you have your vehicle inspected free of charge at any U-Haul Moving Center prior to the date of your move." Liability concerns no doubt...

Select a Mercury Mountaineer instead of a Ford Explorer, and it becomes a 'recommended setup' instead of a 'not authorized' one. What a difference a few bits of plastic trim make for towing capacity!

Not knowing much about U-haul or Ryder, I will risk a statement that the real problem, just like with our disappearing health care, is not the rental company but the unlimited greed of the lawyers.

Yeah, I was going to say that they will rent to Mountaineers, and Navajo's all day long *rolleyes* What a bunch of buffoons!

The REAL funny thing was, just 2 months ago their webpage featured an EXPLORER with a Uhaul shitbox behind it !

They must have gotten their nuts sued off, because they are WAYYY too cautious. I tried to rent a small trailer last month with the Explorer, and of course was told "NO" ... So I asked if my F-150 would be okay, and they said "sure, no problem"

So I go and get it, and come back, sign the papers, swipe the CC, and when I go to hitch up the guy says " Sorry, we can't allow our trailers to be used with a bumper hitch .... Do you have anything with a Class III hitch ? " YEAH, my F#$@%^#$@#$ Explorer that you ALSO won't let me use !!!

I was pissing barbed wire by the time I left that joint!.... I drove right up the street to a Penske place, and wham, bam ..... I was on the road with my trailer in 10 minutes AND FOR LESS $$$!

I hope they regulate themselves out of business!

More fallout from the Firestone tire debacle.

"... we are separating ourselves from the negative public perception and its potential consequences." IOW, lawyers can get almost any jury to believe the Firestone lie that all this was Ford's fault, so U-Haul is limiting their exposure to lawsuits. The public does not understand that the Mountaineer is the same vehicle, so it remains a viable towing vehicle to U-Haul which, I am sure, is well aware that the two are the same vehicle. Juries aren't mzde up of U-Haul people, though, so what the public perceives is what U-Haul (indeed, any company) must deal with.

Bill, I think that lawyers are an incentive, not a cause..... it is John Q. Public being the cause.

Once upon a time in Alberta, lawyers were regulated..... if they did an hours work, they HAD to charge an hours time. Lawyers were eventually deregulated and joined their American cousins in "commission" work. Roughly put, the "victim" (AKA the idiot) does something too dangerous to be aired by Americas stupidest human tricks and sues the Plaintiff (usually Mr. Innocent Bystander). I shouldn't need to explain what happened to "frivolous" lawsuits when Alberta lawyers were deregulated.

Uhaul didn't see the Explorer as more dangerous.... I believe that Uhaul saw Explorer DRIVERS as being dangerous - but more dangerous to Uhauls corporate well being than to each other.

Before any of these new people get their panties in a knot, they must realize that this NG represents a miniscule portion of the Exs sold over the years. It is a very small portion of the posters here that will add to your insurance premium or make it difficult to rent a trailer.... It is the vastly superior number of sheer idiots that have gone from an import that corners like it was on rails to a truck based SUV ... even after they slept through physics class and are constantly amazed that, after all these years, gravity still works.

What bothers me is U-Haul does'nt take into account the different suspension system of the 2002(& newer)Explorer and that of the earlier models. They are two different cars, with the exception of the name. I'm suprised FOMOCO is ignoring the issue. It seems U-Haul has singled out a single model because of its name or model...sounds like something that was done in Public School Districts, years ago.

Because it's not based on FACTS, it's based on paranoia, and liability.

Does a Mountaineer have different suspension than an Explorer ? How bout a Mazda Navajo ? But yet they ar perfectly acceptable tow vehicles.

The FACT is that there is NO reason the Explorers should be singled out, but they are.

Don't look for logic in an illogical problem!

This has been happening for a while. Hey, if they want to lose business, that's their problem.

It's funny how U-haul doesn't complain about the Mountaineer, though. They must think the different logo has something to do with it.

But the funniest thing I saw last week was on an Explorer---the Calvin cartoon character pi$$ing on the U-haul logo.

Hey, maybe we should manufacture some stick-on Mercury logos that will temporarily stick over the Explorer logos, and sell them outside U-Haul stores :)

Better yet, they could be blister-packed and sold AT U-haul as "Explorer U-Haul safety kits "

I gotta disagree here, Jim. U-Haul doesn't see the Exp-lorer drivers as dangerous; they see that if anythiong goes wrong when one of their trailers is towed by an Explorer (and they know that not just Explorers have things go wrong) that a jury is already primed to think that the Explorer is a dangerous vehicle, thanks to the way the media and Firestone handled Firestone's tire problem. The cited case was about the *Explorer* having a problem, not the driver. I don't see anything anywhere linking U-Haul's actions to the drivers; it's the vehicle they are concerned about (actually, the vehicle's reputation), and they said so.

I think you are missing the point I'm making. Juries don't know about, nor do they care about, different suspensions. They are, quite simply, not smart enough to understand such fine points, and instead mark attempt to entertain, er, educate, them as more lawyer flim-flam.

Look at how many people will still say the problem was Ford's fault, even after Firestone admitted they had a problem with their manufacturing that caused the problem. The fact that Ford stepped up and went beyond what was required to try to make things right is seen as an admission of guilt on Ford's part.

I think this one sums it up quite well... the UHaul decision is the epitome of our overly litigious society, where when something happens it's always somebody else's fault.

I tow a travel trailer with my 2000 XLT. With the V8, tow package, trailer brakes, weight distributing hitch, etc it tows pretty good. I've even had to do some evasive maneuvers at highway speeds and everything stayed in control very nicely. The only thing I don't like is that the rear suspension is a bit soft. Some airbags in the rear would make that pretty nice. You just have to remember that you are driving an SUV with a big load and drive appropriately.

Overall a nice vehicle. Too bad Uhaul won't get my business anymore. I had rented a trailer from them last November. It towed like it wasn't even there. I guess I have an excuse to buy a good util trailer now :)

- Scott