My U-Haul rental location says that due to several law suit's that they will not attach any of their equipment to Ford Explorers. I called the U-Haul rental information number and found out that it is true. The effective date was December 22, 2003. I have a 2002 Explorer and since U-Haul has about the only enclosed trailers you can get? I am out of luck on a move that I was going to make on December
29th. My guess is that this may have a negative impact on the sales of Explorers.Don Hazle
I went to the U-Haul Reservation Web Site (
"Advisements for the vehicle doing the towing: Sport-utility vehicles cannot tow U-Haul towing equipment if the top or any portion of the top is not a hard top, or is removed."
Ed
D> My U-Haul rental location says that due to several law suit's that
This is very strange that the online site will allow you to make a reservation with an explorer. I attempted 2 different dealers and neither of them could make the reservation. It is also very funny that the U-Haul web site shows an explorer towning a trailer.
Here is the note I got from U-Haul as a result of my email to them"
Don Hazle
***********Dear Mr. Hazle,
Thank you for your inquiry.
In order to ensure the protection and safety of our customers U-Haul is prohibiting any year and make of Ford Explorer to tow our trailers. If you have an alternate vehicle to do the towing we can assist you with your reservation.
When renting U-Haul equipment, safety has always been our number one priority. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused and appreciate your understanding of our policies.
Sincerely, Deanna Gilling U-Haul Customer Service
It is especially weird that they don't allow the 2002 and newer Explorers to tow their trailers. These Explorers have almost nothin in common with th eolder models. I wonder if they will allow Toyota
4Runners to tow trailers? 4Runners (at least the older version), have one of the highest death rates of any 4 door 4x4.Ed
Okay, I have a Mazda Navajo, and a Mercury Mountaineer I can use are those okay sir ? If not, I can borrow my neighbor's Ranger ;)
Ignoring his agents wishes,"Chief_Wiggum" flung open the hotel room door and announced to the gathering crowd:
what, specifically is U-Haul have against Explorers?
**********************************************************************People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.
-Unknown
Remove "die spammers" to email
Not being able to answer for Uhaul, I'll stick my foot in my own mouth....
I would guess that Uhaul simply hasn't had time to remove the Explorer and references to it from their web site - Last time I checked, only bad stuff happens suddenly in real life.
As for "picking" on the Explorer..... the Ex has easily been the best selling vehicle of it's type/class (I'm going by observation rather than exact sales numbers, here). Most first time Explorer owners are unfamiliar with the handling characteristics of anything based on a truck platform.... many others are new to the world of DIY repairs (no, I'm not picking on anyone or suggesting anything - a little more on this later)... some are a combination of the two.
My guess is that Uhaul is trying to minimize their liability.... what with the proclivity for some to "poo-poo" the idea of extra considerations or instructions when driving a heavily laden vehicle yet "lawyer up" real quick when they hurt themselves and have the possibility of a handy scapegoat.
I can't say for where any of you live, but I get treated to the sight of some bumpking hauling 300 or 400 gallons of water in the back of a half ton (one Imperial gallon is 10 pounds). I get to dodge bits and pieces of an "adequately secured" load on the highway. I get to see "well maintained vehicles driven on nearly flat tires. I could go an and on.... but one over-riding thing I see is the old "I didn't think that it mattered....".
It's probably not anyone here that they are targetting, but I bet there are a lot that aren't here that deserve a good whack on the pee-pee for some of their complacency and apathy when it comes to their cars. The Ex is the one that hit the news and the others happened when it was old hat...
Now... for the DIYers.... I'm not going to pick on anyone but it is very true that a 'little' knowledge is a dangerous thing.. then there's the "that's good enough..." brigade. Those that drive around with cracked brake hoses because their brakes still work (for now).... those that do pad slap after pad slap with no consideration of rotor thickness..... Again, these folks probably aren't here - but look up and down your street..... ow many of those folks are here???
Hoping everyone has a safe and happy holiday.... my fire department pager hasn't gone off..... yet.
Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net
Jim,
I could not agree more with your criticism, but this is a technical group, and we all want to learn. Are you saying that they are singling out the Explorer just because it's so popular? If they are scared of lawsuits, why don't they refuse to hitch a trailer to any SUV's, or just stop renting trailers at all? Is there something in the the design of the Explorer which makes it less suitable for hauling a trailer in some way? Or are we, the Explorer drivers, more likely to do 85MPH on a sharp curve with underinflated tires and grossly overloaded trailer behind than Blazer or Cherokee drivers? As the owner of an Explorer (with good brake hoses and rotors well above the minimum thickness, by the way) I would like to know such thing before I rent a trailer from their competitor.
platform....
Most likely it's a U-Haul reaction to lawsuits such as ..
I'd have to go along with AZGuy for the most part - this has been the atention grabber and there are (in my neck of the woods, anyway) more of the Exs on the road than say the little Blazer thingee or the Derange-o. More vehicles means more (numerical) screw-ups - and that's what sells newspapers.
That someone participates in this NG shows that they have more than a passing interest in their vehicle..... quite the opposite of so many drivers on the road ("What kind of car do you have?" - "Ummmm..... errrr.... it's white one.... yeah a white four door one...." - similar conversations happen more often than you think).
Look at the person beside you on your next commute..... they sit in their small car applying make-up, reading, shaving, talking on the cell phone - absolutely anything is possible and most of it has little to do with paying attention to their driving. One or more of these happy campers has a very ggod chance of buying an SUV as their next vehicle - add unfamiliarity with the vehcile dynamics to their favourite preoccupation..... When they do buy their SUV, there's probably a better than even chance it will be an Ex and the newsmongers will have more fodder.
It's not so much Explorer drivers will commit sins.... it is that sinners will likely choose Exs over other SUVs. That Uhaul is singling out the EX probably has more to do with history than premonition.
Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net
mattered....".
HMMM? Deanna didn't say anything about Mountaineers. I hope this fact slipped by them as I rent motorcycle trailers from them several times a year and don't feel like buying one.
I don't know why they'd do that. The article only mentiuons Ford in passing. It was Firestone, not Ford, that was involved in this suit along with U-Haul.
During the Firestone-Explorer dust-up, Ford was never in real danger of being found *legally* liable. Firestone responded to a Ford request for tires that would be both safe and cost eff4ective as an OEM tire, and Firestone certified their tires as such. Ford didn't make the tires, and Ford had nothing to do with Firestone's problems, other than using the Firestone tires with no knowledge of the problems.
U-Haul is only doing what more and more businesses are doing; protecting their bottom line, regardless of the facts.
Bullshit, Ford filled and recommended running the tires at a lower air pressure (TO HELP SOFTEN THE RIDE) then Firestone's recommended pressure for that tire.
Ford twisted Firestones arm to certify those tires for 26psi for a softer ride and the lower pressure increases rollover resistance. wth
So you're saying that FORD was trying to make the tires safer by INCREASING rollover resistance ?
I thought that softer tire pressures would decrease rollover resistance ????
Try again. Firestone knew exactly what the pressures would be before they supplied them. Think about it: if Ford changed the pressures AFTER Firestone specced the tires, they would have simply refused to supply the tires; the application would have changed. Firestone warranted the tires to be safe *as applied to the vehicle*.
Firestone agreed, warranting the tires to be safe. They knew exactly what the specs were. Even if what you're implying were true, it doesn't cover the eventualities, since it was a manufaturing defect on Firestone's part the rendered the tires unsafe. That was not Ford's fault, and no manner of Ford bashing can make it so.
Your correct: Ford tried to make the Explorer safer by reducing the tire pressure to 26psi, which DECREASES the rollover resistance. I got it turned around. wth
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.