U-Haul Trailers and Ford Explorers Don't Mix

Be advised that U-Haul will no longer rent a trailer to be towed behind a Ford Explorer.

formatting link

Reply to
Jim Stewart
Loading thread data ...

This may have more to do with the average exploder driver, than the vehicle itself....

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

I doubt most fashionable SUV owners every expect to do anything anymore strenuous than drive the kids to school or the country club. Apparently tow truck drivers and insurance adjusters will attest to the fact that the first ones to end up in the ditch after a snow storm are the high end SUV's.

Jimbo

Reply to
Jimbo

i saw that story on their news last night, and they had a follow-up tonight. i can't believe WNEP scooped the entire country on this story. i'm guessing you live in their broadcast area? i'm originally from up that way, but i'm closer to Allentown, PA now.

andy b.

Reply to
hamrdog

Driving a 4WD Suburban is a piece of cake compared to a CJ-5. I put

150,000 miles on a CJ. It had a 304 V8, Rough Country suspension, and Armstrong TruTraks. I loved that thing, but they rust like crazy and handle a little squirrely (quick steering with a slight delay while the suspension winds up). 4WD's do great in snow if you keep the speed down. Of course, they don't stop any better than anything else.

On the other hand, I find the wife's Expedition twitchy. Not much directional stability for such a large vehicle. I think it's a Ford thing. My brother-in-law bought one of the F150's a few years ago, drove it from Austin to Danbury, Texas, and took it back the next day. He said it wore him out. He likes the old ones you have to herd. His other vehicles include a 60's Daimler-Benz sedan, restored Austin-Healy 2000, various restored BSA's, including an old single cylinder racer he had restored somewhere in Wales, and some kind of Japanese crotch rocket (they live in London).

Pete Keillor

Reply to
Peter T. Keillor III

When I tried to buy a tire size that was larger than stock for our '91 Explorer from Tire Rack and couple of months ago, I was told they wouldn't sell it too me.

People are still freaked about the Explorer roll over scare from years ago and apparently Tire Rack's legal folks warned them not to court liability disaster.

Reply to
Peter Grey

We've got two 'burbans at work- both 4X4s. One has 180,000 miles on it and the other 250,000 miles. The high-mileage one has a snowplow and pushes snow like crazy, but is lousy for backing into traffic.

Hmmm- My 1996 F-150 goes down the road like an arrow. Maybe the dealer forgot to lower the tire pressure- when I had bought new rubber for mine, the tire guy forgot to lower the pressure after mounting the tires (had them at 50 psi to seat the beads). At those pressures, the truck was a little squirrely.

-Carl

Reply to
Carl Byrns

On 8 Jan 2004 05:22:18 -0800, jim rozen brought forth from the murky depths:

"Beware the Soccer Mom towing a trailer?" Ayup, prolly so.

-------------------------------------------- Proud (occasional) maker of Hungarian Paper Towels.

formatting link
Comprehensive Website Design ======================================================

Reply to
Larry Jaques

The dealer tendency is in the other direction, when I first got my GMC 2500HD (2001) the tires had 40 PSI in'em and the truck felt like a Caddy roadwise. The door label called for 50PSI in front and 80PSI in the rear. It feels a bit trucky with those pressures so when I'm not towing or hauling I reduce rear tires to 55-60PSI and it's quite comfortable. With the recommended pressures the truck can carry 4006 lbs including fuel and passengers. Allowing for a full tank and me and the Missus in the cab will still allow a 3400 pound load. Not bad for a 3/4 ton struck.

Harold

Reply to
Harold Burton

Harold Burton wrote: Allowing for a full tank and me and the Missus in the cab will

So maybe you can tell me something. Why is it called a 3/4 truck in the first place. I had always assumed it was the load rating.

Reply to
Jim Stewart

Once upon a time it was (1920s). But in the fine tradition of the American auto industry, vehicles have a way of becoming bigger, more powerful, and more expensive model year by model year.

In the 1920s, a half ton pickup really was loaded by half a ton, a 3/4 ton by 3/4 ton, a 2 ton by 2 tons, etc, but today's "half ton" pickup can easily carry more than a ton, a 3/4 ton can carry a ton and a half, and a 2 ton can carry about 10 tons. The old labels really just hung on because the *size* of the trucks remained about the same.

The physical size of a domestic "half ton" pickup hasn't changed all that much since the 1920s (it has grown some), but *much* better tires, suspensions, and engines have allowed it to carry much more weight.

This confused the Japanese when they first tried to enter our market. They built "half ton" pickups for our market that could really only carry half a ton, and the mini-pickup was born. They lucked out, and that became a popular category, but it isn't at all what we mean domestically when we refer to a half ton truck.

Gary

Reply to
Gary Coffman

One story I recall is that the auto execs did not understand about plywood. That is, they did not grasp the notion that a US homeowner would want to go to a store, and purchase a

4 X 8 sheet of plywood, or sheet rock, and carry it home in the truck.

So they actually purchased some plywood, and shipped it to japan. And said "*this* is what has to fit inside the bed of the truck."

JIm

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

PolyTech Forum 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.