Towing with an Explorer

The Explorers prior to 2003 had serious stabilty issues (these were the ones that rolled with a rear blow out) Undoubtably their legal department does not trust model at all even today and does not want to buy into potentail liablity with it and rent you a trailer to pull with it.

----------------- TheSnoMan.com

Think about it for a few, look at the last line of your first paragraph and then compare to how many fools have blown by you 80mph while they were towing..

Whitelightning

messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...> Once again, U-Haul has told me they will not rent anything to be towed

Well, you're right there -- I can't tell you how many times some clown towing a trailer of some kind with a pickup or a car has whipped past me at well over the speed limit.

And, thanks to SnoMan for his comments about pre-2003 Explorers.

I'm not a professional driver so I tend to read the owner's manual and read the warning labels and do what they say.

Except they are bullshit. It has been proven over and over again, these so called "serious stability issues" were all tire and driver related and not "serious stability issues" at all.

The Explorer collected several weeks worth of bad press about 8 years ago. U-Haul will not rent equipment to be drug around behind the Explorer because they don't want s*it to land on them should the Explorer roll over.

It's not you.

It does not matter. Explorers roll over -- so the story goes -- so U-Haul does not want any involvement with them. Period.

They also will not let you pull a trailer with a convertible. If they don't want the business, take your wallet elsewhere.

Oh now we hear from BS Troll. They were driver related only as much as it happened when driving and do not blame it on tires either because no vehicle should be so unstable that a blown rear tire at speed is basically a almost sure ticket to a roll over. It was a combo of GG, soft suspension and front TTB swing axle. In 03 the front and rear suspension and drive axles were quietly redesigned because of the massive lawsuit over that vehicle. And, BTW, some blame tires but Ford even recommand tire pressure below the needed amount for load on them for ride purposes which contributed to their failure and stabity issues.

----------------- TheSnoMan.com

...and according to the link here, the silliest thing is that while U-Haul banned the Explorer, it say the Mercury Mountaineer is OK because it has had no issues with them, even though they are the same vehicle. Must be that the trim package makes all the difference in aerodynamics or something. :)

Anyway, this just proves it's a beancounter/lawsuit issue dating back to the Firestone tire issue and not something like a design flaw in a particular model vehicle...

IYM

It likely came with a different tire package

I would say that a VERY high tendancy to roll over with a rear tire failure is indeed a "design flaw" No passanger vehicle should be so unstable by OEM design.

----------------- TheSnoMan.com

umm- o.k. - You must not have read carefully...Yes you may be correct about the earlier Explorers using Firestone tires, etc, etc.

However, U-Haul will still not rent trailers to newer re-designed Explorers. Therefore, my statement about U-haul being silly for continuing to ban the newer Explorers and not the Mountaineer is still valid, as well as my statement that it's a beancounter/lawsuit issue and not a design flaw...

A bulletin from U-Haul:

A bulletin issued to U-Haul dealers last month, which was obtained by The News, says the company's move was "based on the negative perceptions of Ford Explorers ... we are separating ourselves from the negative public perception and its potential consequences."

IYM

It is simple, they does not trust the brand/name plate. Yes the Mountaineer is same chassis but it was not involved in the lawsuit and Uhaul is wisely stayig away from that mess. Lawyers are funny about that. A name can make on the difference in the world in a lawsuit.

----------------- TheSnoMan.com

U-HAUL DOES NOT CARE.

They do not want to be part of anything related to the Explorer.

It's not silly. It is silly to you, but to the bean counters at U-Haul, this silliness makes loads of sense (or cents as the case may be).

They can come out tomorrow and refuse to rent a trailer to operators of white (color, not brand) trucks. Assuming white is the most common color for a truck, this would seem to preclude lots of future business, but if they wanted to take such a stand, my advice would be to sell your holdings in U-Haul.

It's a bean counter issue now, but it was a design flaw. Just ask the bean counters.

How would you defend, "well, maybe the Explorer is more stable today than before 2003 , but you knew it had problems in the past and you strapped one of your trailers to the back of one anyhow. Now that vehicle is resting on the side of the highway on its roof, with 4 dead people inside and three other cars run off the road with injuries to those occupants, and it was all caused by your trailer."

You could not defend such a wild argument, and once it was uttered in a courtroom, you (Uhaul) would have a huge burden to show how the crash would have happened anyway, even if a Penske trailer was being drug down the interstate. I agree with you (Snoman), U-Haul is doing the right thing by staying as far as possible from the Explorer. It might not be convenient for Explorer owners, but U-Haul should never attach its equipment to one of them ever again.

SnowBlower You are spewing misinformation!!! Shut your ignorant pie hole!

Larry Webster, a test-driver for Car & Driver magazine was able, in a test simulating dozens of tire blowouts, repeatedly able to bring a 1994 Explorer to a stop without a single rollover, even at speeds of 70 MPH. According to Forbes magazine, car experts and NHTSA claim that the vast majority of crash accidents and deaths are caused not by the vehicle, but by the driver, by road conditions or some combination of the two.

Rollover and Firestone Tire Controversy Main article: Firestone vs Ford Motor Company controversy In May 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) contacted Ford and Firestone about a higher than normal incidence of tire failures on Ford Explorers, Mercury Mountaineers, and Mazda Navajos fitted with Firestone tires (later including Ford Ranger and Mazda B-Series pickup trucks). The failures all involved tread separation- in which the outer tread carcass would delaminate and cause a rapid loss of tire pressure. Ford investigated and found that several models of 15 in (381 mm) Firestone tires (ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness AT) had higher failure rates, especially those made at Firestone's Decatur, Illinois plant.

Ford argued that Firestone was at fault. Ford's argument noted that its SUVs and pickups equipped with Firestone-competitor Goodyear tires experienced no rollover issues, even at low psi levels. Since most Explorer, Mountaineer, Ranger, B-Series, and Navajo tires have been replaced, the rollover reports have subsided, further lending credit to Ford's position that the design of its vehicles were not at fault.

Part of the rollover issue was poor driver reaction to the tire blowout.[1] When a tire blew, the driver experienced a large jerk and many drivers reacted by jerking the wheel in an attempt to regain control. This action causes a shift of the vehicle's weight, which results in the roll-over of the vehicle, especially when this occurs at higher speeds (many reports of roll-overs were of vehicles being driven at speeds of 70 MPH and above). Larry Webster, a test-driver for Car & Driver magazine was able, in a test simulating dozens of tire blowouts, repeatedly able to bring a 1994 Explorer to a stop without a single rollover, even at speeds of 70 MPH.According to Forbes magazine, car experts and NHTSA claim that the vast majority of crash accidents and deaths are caused not by the vehicle, but by the driver, by road conditions or some combination of the two.

U-Haul trailers

On December 22, 2003, U-Haul, the largest North American equipment rental company, announced that they would forbid their outlets from renting trailers to persons planning to tow behind Ford Explorers due to liability concerns.

Yup a professional driver with fore knowledge of what was going to happen.

Whitelightning

Yes the loser here is the consumer in the long run but the feeding frenzy that some lawyers have created today over this stuff leaves some bussinesses with little choice but to "cover their ASSets"

----------------- TheSnoMan.com

OK - I guess I understand the point about staying away from the nameplate "Explorer", but if you were a beancounter at U-Haul, to cover your ass wouldn't you think you should ban the Mountaineer as well? Suppose (God forbid) something similar happens to somebody one day towing with a Mountaineer. Couldn't a lawyer have a field day because the 2 vehicles are carbon copies? The reason that they haven't had an issue (yet) with a Mountaineer is more than likely the volume of the identical vehicles slapped with an Explorer plate vs. a Mountaineer plate. It's probably a 30:1 ratio. So would you just wait until something happens, or do some preventative maintenance and perhaps save a life or two as well as a ton of $ for U-haul? I guess that's what I find "silly"....

To the OP - I guess if you really want to tow a u-haul with your Explorer, you could always pick up a Mountaineer and Mercury plate and grill from the junkyard or ebay and turn your Explorer into a Mountaineer....Don't think it would be very cost effective though... :)

IYM

Not really because it was not part of tire/rollover suit problem so it has no "history" of its own.

----------------- TheSnoMan.com

ummm... yes it was. The Explorer, Mountaineer and Mazda version Navajo were all named:

"In May 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) contacted Ford and Firestone about the high incidence of tire failure on Mercury Mountaineers, Ford Explorers, and Mazda Navajos fitted with Firestone tires."

"In 2000, a huge punch came to the Mountaineer with the Firestone vs Ford Motor Company controversy, where a large amount of rollovers were happening involving Explorers and Mountaineers." "Ford and Firestone have both blamed the other for the failures, which has led to the severing of relations between the two companies. Firestone has claimed that they have found no faults in design nor manufacture, and that failures have been caused by Ford's recommended tire pressure being too low and the vehicle's design. Ford, meanwhile, pointed out that tires manufactured by the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company to the same specification had a spotless safety record when installed on the SUVs. Ford's conclusions were confirmed by NHTSA in their report into the tire failures, published in October 2001."

"a subsequent NHTSA investigation of real world accident data showed that the SUVs were no more likely to roll over than any other SUV. A product recall was announced, allowing Explorer, Mountaineer, and Navajo owners to change the affected tires for others."

Anyway, I'm not trying to stir up the whole Firestone issue again. Just still trying to understand why the U-Haul ban is limited to only the Explorer. (incidentally, I had forgotten about the Navajo since it was only out for a couple years in the early '90's, so I checked U-Haul's site and the Navajo isn't banned either - just the Explorer) So based on the available information, since it was determined by the NHTSA and accepted (despite personal onions) that it was the tires and drivers and not a design flaw, could not a lawyer have a field day because the 2 vehicles are carbon copies and U-Haul's beancounters should/could have banned their usage in rentals as well before something happened/happens?

IYM