5.0 Ford Exploder Mini-Review

No, they're the best car in the world, ever.

And faster over the Alps than every supercar ever built.

Hardly surprising for a 1995 vehicle. OTOH it's difficult to know from your comment, or lack of it, what exactly you were complaining about.

Can you produce a quote from anyone other than you making such a claim? No, I thought not.

OTOH your fuckwitted assessment of "cross country rockets" is still on Google.

The one I was driving is a 2003 model, 305 ci V8. It handles like it's on stilts, the build quality is shocking, the plastics are out of a

80s Yugo, it's particularly slow for a 5.0 V8 - nice torque and noise though.

The only two good points are that it's a nice driving position, and the aircon works very well!

Mike P

Then it wasn't a 5.0 litre, if it was a V8 it was a 4.6 litre.

280 cubic inch, V8.

It's a 4x4, what did you expect it to handle like, a sports car?

In what way? Did anything break while you were driving it? I've had one for nine years. So far nothing has broken on it not even the smallest thing. So in what way is the build quality shocking?

As indeed is common on all American cars of that era. That said, the trim wears well, it will still look the same at 240,000 miles. So although it's no Range Rover in looks, unlike the Range Rover it will still be in good condition after a hard life.

Possibly because it doesn't have one? Although one has to wonder why your think 0-60 in 8.2s is particularly slow, and indeed what you expected from a 4x4. The 4.6 Range Rover of the same era takes over 9s to hit 60, for example.

I prefer the 4.0 V6 to be honest.

Uh huh, now what were you comparing it to?

Seriously? Even, like, a 2 litre Nissan Primera?

Sorry, it was a 2002 model...

I think you'll find, if you check, that the 305ci "Windsor" V8 was in the model I was driving

Fair point, but the 2003 Cherokee I'm driving around in at the moment

*feels* a lot more stable and confidence inspiring

Lots of loose trim and rattles, especially from the rear

They've all worn shiny, though I take your point about the range rover.

Nailing the throttle from a standing start took over 11 secs to hit an indicated 65mph, 2 people in, no luggage and 1/2 tank of fuel. Not strictly accurate, but not 3 secs out either.

Saab with aircon? various Citroens , a UK spec cherokee, an American spec cherokee...

You'd know by the sound. 4.6s sound weedy as f*ck, 5.0 sound more "V8" but don't tend to actually do anything.

4.6 is spectacularly bombproof an all.

Not if it had a 5.0 engine, it was a 2001 model. It might not have been registered until 2002, but the 2002 model had the 4.6 Triton V8.

I think you'll find then that it was an older model than you think. Last of the second generation Explorers. It woudl look like this:

Not like this which is the 2002 model

The differences are like chalk and cheese. The 2001 model has leaf spring rear suspension, the 2002 is coils all round with an electrically oeprated third row of seats which disappear into the boot floor like the ones in the back of the Zafira.

[snip]

Hmm, well comparing it to SAAB or Citroen is pointless. No 4x4 is going to have the feel of a relatively low-slung FWD car, and comparing (say) a 9-5 estate which has a smaller load capacity than the Exploder gives $45,000 for the most basic SAAB vs a maximum of $35,000 for the Explorer if you have the highest spec version with all the bells and whistles.

Compared to the Cherokee, I think you must have rose tinted specs on. The Cherokee was the worst assembled, smallest iternal volume biggest heap of crap that I ever tried. The boot has the spare wheel in it, the dashboard was actually black plastic like the stuff used to line chocolate boxes painted some awful beige colour and the paint was rubbing off on a two year old model.

And the Cherokee is slow, slow, very slow, slow. The only version I can't leave for dead in a 4.0 Explorer is the 5.7L Grand Cherokee.

I can agree with you, a seven year old Explorer is not comparable to most modern cars. OTOH a seven year old Explorer is still not even run in. And if the one you were driving really did creak and groan then someone had been mistreating it, which might account for why the engine was knackered.

I think the 'proper' method is holding it firmly on the brakes in D and revving till the torque convertor complains at which point you get maximum acceleration. (c: My guess is that's how they get 8.2 secs.

Nailing it from idle is never going to be as quick.

You may want to look at these (or possibly not) mid-mileage Jeep interior wear vs high mileage Exploder interior wear. FWIW, my Exploder's racked up nearly 170,000 miles and the only thing that's looking worn is the steering wheel.

86,000 mile Cherokee. 50,000 mile Grand Cherokee 110,000 mile Explorer 130,000 mile Explorer 112,000 mile Explorer