Towing U-Haul with Explorer

Perhaps because the explorer flips worse than any other SUV out there, and U-Haul doesn't want to open themselves to the liability? And there is a big difference between 5X8 flat bed, and an enclosed

5x8 trailer, especially in a cross wind.

Whitelightning

the '04 is one of the most stable sport utes out there. You're confusing it with the old '95 to 99 model. It would have been much safer to pull it with the Explorer.

That maybe, but if the 99 model owner sees the 2004 model owner leave pulling one then its "why him and not me" And sadly to say a jury, isn't going to make the distinction ether. So U-Haul says no go. Is it fair, what has fair got to do with anything. In the 80's 60 minutes did there slanted exposé on Jeeps, specifically the CJ5 flipping easy. Over night my insurance rates went through the ceiling, IF I could find someone to insure my jeep, which was J-20 pickup, one of the most stable pick ups I have ever driven in standard cab because it had a longer wheel base and a wider track then the rest. Down side to that was it got center hung easier off road..

Whitelightning

The trouble isn't the Explorer, per se. It's that the Explorer is coming off of a several-year history of rolling over if it got a flat tire using the factory supplied tires. UHaul doesn't want the liability associated with what might happen if their trailer is involved in a mishap that is common among Explorers.

It's the legacy that is the problem.

This was strictly because of perception, not reality. U-Haul will rent to people who want to tow trailers with Mercury Mountaineers (which are really the same vehicle as an Explorer in any meaningful way related to towing).

As for your statement "explorer flips worse than any other SUV." This was never true, and since the Firestone tries were replaced, the rollover accident rate for Explorers has dropped to almost nil. Even at the height of the mania, Explorer never rolled over at a rate even close to Toyota

4Runners. 4Runenrs (before the latest refresh) had a much higher rollover rate than Explorers, but the press never mentioned this fact. I wonder why? And finally, the Explorers built since 2001 have almost no relationship to the Explorers that were supposed to be so dangerous (but weren't). The 2001 - up 4 Door Explorers are completely different vehicles than the older models. The U-Haul folks just got tired of fighting off the shark lawyers that seem to circle around any hint of a problem (real or imagined).

Ed

I get the same stuff from our local U-haul place. No matter what I am driving, it's never right for pulling their trailers. They just want to rent you one of their tow vehicles.

Mark

For the same reason you never hear about all the rice rocket recalls ether. I've got some ford models near and dear to my heart. Loved the 68-69 mustang, my 67 ford falcon van that I drove all over europe while stationed in Germany. The original Bronco, and fast back Torinos . But I'm sorry I see more Explorers sitting on their roofs in accidents than any other brand down here in Florida. As to the tires , a blow out or flat shouldn't cause a vehicle to end up on its roof In the past the only one I saw that way more often was the origninal Suzuki Samuri. I dont trust the independent rear suspension design on newer models, too many bad memories of M151 series jeeps., and on the older models, I always figured the problem was the lousy twin I-beam front axles, a giant lever darn near the width of the vehicle.

Whitelightning

They did away with the twin I-beams for the 1995 models. Most of the ones that were alleged to be rollover prone were built after that date. The reason you might see more Explorer rolled over than other models is because there were more of them than any other models. Combine this with hot temperatures and substandard Firestone tires, and I can see why Florida might be a "hot spot" for Explorer rollovers. The IIHS gave the 1995-2001 Explorers an acceptable rating (current models are good). Current Explorers have a much better than average injury loss rating. This was also the case for the prior version (1995 to 2001). Claims that Explorers are dangerous vehicles are simply false and mostly encouraged by liability lawyers.

Ed

Whitelightning wrote: I dont trust the independent rear suspension design on newer

I must note that, since the whole mania of Ford Explorer Rollovers, this is the absolute FIRST time I've seen anyone mention WHY this is (or could be). Since 1999 or so, I've seen no data on track widths, wheelbase comparisons or center of gravity differences between it and other SUVs. Just a lot of parroting about "Teh Exploder Is A Rollover Hazard OMGWTFBBQ!!!"...

I was beginning to think that the unwashed masses had simply drank the mass media kool-aid and were ignoring everything they learned in their Junior High Physics class. Anything that sits that high off the ground will *NOT* corner like a sedan in any capacity. On the road I see too many people apparently ignoring this, and when driving their SUV as if it were a GT-40 lands it upside down in some farmer's field, will they blame themselves, or will they look for someone else to pay?

my $0.50

;-)

-phaeton

Explorers never had a particularly high rollover rate (rollover per 1000 vehicles or rollover per 100,000 miles traveled) even before the Firestone tire recall. In absolute terms there were a lot more Explorer rollovers than

4Runner Rollovers, but then were (and are) many many more Explorers on the road than 4Runners. The media never compared the rate of 4 door Explorer rollovers to the rate of rollovers for competitive vehicles. The truth is, that within its class, the 4 door Explorer had one of the lowest rollover rates, even before the Firestone tire recall. 2 Door Explorers were considerably worse than 4 door Explorers (shorter wheelbase being a risk factor, plus the sort of drivers who wanted a 2 door SUV being another). Insurance industry statistics show the 4 door Explorer to have a much better than average injury loss rating (even for the original pre-1995 twin I-beam design 4 door). The whole "Explorers are death traps" frenzy was a media driven smear campaign. It was never true. I am still waiting for someone to go back and state the actual facts.

Ed

"C. E. White" wrote in message news:453cd7d4@kcnews01...

As a layman, the problem is not knowing what happened in the accident, what were the chain of events. I do know that about 3/4 of the ones I pass after an accident do not appear to have any blown out tires, it looks more like some sort of collision happened first. A few I have witnessed around the country (I drove truck for a living for a number of years) still follow those numbers, 3/4 did not involve blow outs. Of those that did not, about half looked like the driver over reacted, and then it got away from them. If they got smacked on a corner, it seemed like they went over too easy. If a trailer started "wagging the dog" and the driver didn't get the speed of quick, they didn't do well at all. What's always struck me as strange is the Ranger didn't seem to have these issues. And while yes I know they are different platforms, they where very similar in design. Sadly down here the Toyotas and Lexus far out number the Explorers, and Pathfinders about equal, since the demise of the S-10 Blazer. And I never ever believe anything a lawyer says, they are like their brothers the politicians and their sisters the journalists, if their lips are moving its a 90% sure bet its a lie. I look at the rear suspension design on the new ones, and it just looks weak to me, like I could put a lower control arm in a vice and bend them by hand, they just look wimpy, so what happens if you slide a wheel into a curb, or into a rut on a dirt track at speed? (another reason I don't like rack and pinion steering on a 4X4)

Whitelightning

Ford has a history of cover-ups. They covered up so many times, right back to the pinto.The pinto had the same problem as the Gremlin.. They liked to blow up on rear impact. Reason being, a solid tube from the gas tank to the exterior of the vehicle, on impact, would be forced into the tank causing rupture, and spark. Ford knew about it and did not recall its vehicles. Each "fix" would cost under 6 dollars per car at the time. amc did recall their problem model, and fixed them. You never did hear of a exploding amc gremlin. A few did, the problem was noticed, and was addressed. FoMoCo does bury problems. It is in their history. Sorry to ruffle feathers. The tire recall was forced by lawsuits.

My 2 cents.

Bingo- There are several interesting gee wiz facts from the explorer/firestone fiasco; but the most interesting one to me was the exact same tire was put on another suv from the factory (Toyota or Nissan I believe) and had a "0%" blowout and "0%" rollover rate due to tires. Hmmmmm

This is total BS. Pinto's never had a solid tube from the gas tank to the exterior of the vehicle. The tube was solidly attached to the vehicle, but fit into the gas tank through a rubber gasket. You could unbolt the filler tube from the side of the car and extract it from the vehicle. I owned two Pintos, and personally removed the tube and gas tank from one in order to empty water out of the tank.

The whole idea that Pinto's were uniquely fire prone is also misleading. It is not just a misunderstanding of the facts, it is a deliberate lie spread by trial lawyers looking for a free lunch. Early Chevrolet Chevettes actually had much higher incident of post collision fires than Pintos, but you never hear this, do you?

The most celebrated (by trial lawyers) Pinto fire case involve a collision between a Pinto and a dump truck. The Pinto was backing down the highway when struck by a truck at highway speed. There was no gas cap on the Pinto. The assumption was that the driver had forgot to reattach it, and was backing up to find it. The jury awarded the plaintiffs many millions, but this later greatly reduced. I always thought this was a huge miscarriage of justice.

From

"Remarkably, even the affair of the "exploding" Ford Pinto--universally hailed as the acme of product liability success--is starting to look like hype. In a summer 1991 Rutgers Law Review article Gary Schwartz demolishes "the myth of the Pinto case." Actual deaths in Pinto fires have come in at a known 27, not the expected thousand or more. More startling, Schwartz shows that everyone's received ideas about the fabled "smoking gun" memo are false. The actual memo did not pertain to Pintos, or even Ford products, but to American cars in general; it dealt with rollovers, not rear-end collisions; it did not contemplate the matter of tort liability at all, let alone accept it as cheaper than a design change; it assigned a value to human life because federal regulators, for whose eyes it was meant, themselves employed that concept in their deliberations; and the value it used was one that they, the regulators, had set forth in documents. "In retrospect, Schwartz writes, the Pinto's safety record appears to have been very typical of its time and class. "

I suggest you read -

I had the Ford recall applied to both of the Pinto's I owned. Three things were done -

1) The length of the filler tube was increased to reduce the possibility that it would be pulled out of the tank in a collision. 2) The attachment of the filler tube to the rear quarter panel was re-enforced and tamper resistant fasteners were added. 3) A plastic shield was added under the tank at the front to reduce the possibility that the tanks would be punctured by suspension components in the event of a severe rear end collision.

I never once worried about the possibility of a fire when I was driving my Pintos either before or after the recall. I still consider my 1972 Pinto one of the best value cars I ever purchased. It always upsets me when someone repeats the BS that Pintos were the particularly dangerous. They weren't. I eventually replaced by first Pinto with a Datsun 280Z. It's gas tank was every bit as exposed as a Pinto's. The filler neck was in a worse position. The car was even smaller. Etc. I suspect that it was at least as much at risk from a fire in a severe rear end collision as was the Pinto. I didn't worry about it either. How about the thousands of Jeep products with rear gas tanks? In many cases these are high enough so that they will be struck directly in a rear end collision. I've always thought these were much more vulnerable than the Pinto's gas tank.

Ed

You are making this up. That exact Firestone tire was never installed on a Toyota or Nissan SUVs. And further more, Firestone built a special OE versions for Ford. The equivalent aftermarket tire wouldn't be the exact same tire either. It is true that both Nissan and Toyota sold SUVs with the same size tire with the same pressure recommendations on SUVs. Furthermore Toyota 4Runners had a much higher rollover death rate than 4 door Explorers (even though this has never been blamed on blown tires).

Ed White

Sorry, worded that wrong. i never owned a pinto, but did know the fill tube was 1 pc. and was a problem.

I looked at your urls, now you can see mine :-) pinto

OWNS Volvo, yet Volvo argued fiercely with Ford over this issue,to Ford's embarrassment. Did they fix the issue? Nope...they just sealed the documents of the argument. have a nice day :-)

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:55:07 +0000, djdave rearranged some electrons to form:

From your links:

"Consumers Union and Ralph Nader founded the Center for Auto Safety (CAS)..."

That's all I need to read to know that everything they say is biased and questionable.

This is mostly a rehash of the infamous Mother Jones "Pinto" article. That particular piece got a Pulitzer Prize. However, it was full of inaccurate information, creative use of facts (i.e., LIES), and, until 60 Minutes and Dateline got into the auto danger expose buisness, one of the worst pieces of automotive reporting ever seen.

You realize that the "Center for Auto Safety" is run by trail lawyers for the benefit of trail lawyers. Right? Ford met the goverment roof standards. So shouldn't you be complaining to the governement and not Ford? Why have the government set safety standards if they aren't meaningful? Engineers argue over things all the time. Crooked lawyers love to pick and choose internal documents in an effort to "prove" that companies have evil intent. That is rarely the case. Could an Explorer have had a stronger roof? Sure it could have. But that might have made it heavier, and moved the COG up - which might make it more likely to roll over, and actually reduce the overall safety of the vehicle, while increasing it's cost and reducing it's fuel economy. Engineering is full of trade offs. Lawyers love to play Monday morning quarterback for fun and profit. I can't see how you can meet government standards and then be dragged into court becasue some lawyer decided you should have met some other standard.

Ed