Anyone tried using an Explorer?

[SGNellett]

As I was driving to work this morning, I was passed by a second gen Explorer, it occurred to me that they are almost as big as a yukon/tahoe but they most likely get a little better mileage on the highway.

It seems like without the 3rd row of seats, you could arrange a decent sleeping platform, is there a reason no one uses these fairly common vehicles as an expedition type platform?

Do they still suffer the stigma of the first gen explorer tire problems? :Wow1:

Discuss... :coffeedrink:

 

[SGNellett]

I was thinking more along the lines of the 02 and newer, those seem to be a big jump forward when they quit making it alongside the ranger..

 

[DaJudge]

They are no where near as big as a Tahoe. Up to '02 from the front door forward they are a Ranger. This is not a bad thing, just means they are not big. The good thing about that is that there are lifts for them. They came with V8s which is another plus! The biggest reason that you probably don't see many being used for overloading is the size and the fact that there is not a lot of aftermarket for them as well as the fact that is very hard to find one that is in good shape with reasonable miles.

 

[DaJudge]

I was thinking more along the lines of the 02 and newer, those seem to be a big jump forward when they quit making it alongside the ranger..

Those are bloated floaty 4 wheel independent suspension cars. There is ZERO aftermarket for them (unless you want 20" rims and a chrome grill).

 

[Martinjmpr]

As I was driving to work this morning, I was passed by a second gen Explorer, it occurred to me that they are almost as big as a yukon/tahoe but they most likely get a little better mileage on the highway.
.
It seems like without the 3rd row of seats, you could arrange a decent sleeping platform, is there a reason no one uses these fairly common vehicles as an expedition type platform?
.
Do they still suffer the stigma of the first gen explorer tire problems? :Wow1:

Discuss... :coffeedrink:

.
I think you may have your Explorer generations wrong. 1st gen was 1990 - 94. That generation was characterized by a very squared off, "boxy" body and TTB front suspension. 2nd gen started in 1995, all new front suspension (I think it was coilover but it may have been torsion bar?) More rounded body and more engine options including a V8. For some reason I thought the V8 models only had a single-speed AWD transfer case though. 2nd gens did have a solid rear axle with a leaf spring rear suspension I believe.
.
As far as similarities to the Ranger go, my understanding is that while the 1st gen of Explorer was similar in many respects to the Ranger and shared a lot of parts, by the time they got to the 2nd gen the lines diverged quite a bit to the point where the Ranger and Explorer had different engines, transmissions, etc.
.
In terms of MPG, most of the V6 and V8 powered vehicles of that era got pretty poor MPG. Remember that in the 1990's gas was cheap and had been for a long time, people didn't really think much about MPG. The 4.0 V6 was on the lower end of the power range available in similar V6's at that time (around 190 hp IIRC.) By contrast, the 4.0 V6 in the 4th gen 4runner put out 236 hp and the 4.0 in the 2005 Xterra put out about 260hp.
.
In 2002, the Explorer changed again for the 3rd gen. This one had independent rear suspension and that right there made it fairly marginal as a candidate for an off-road build. 2002 was pretty much when Ford gave up the illusion that the Explorer was anything but a suburban station wagon and the nearly non-existent aftermarket for 2002+ Explorers pretty much demonstrates that.
.
I think a 2nd gen (1995 - 2001) Explorer would make a decent low budget platform as long as you beefed up the suspension. The good thing about them is that they're dirt cheap on the aftermarket and as a bonus, they're actually not that hard to find with a manual transmission (contrast that with the 4runner, for example, which was ONLY available with an automatic starting in 2001.)

 

[SGNellett]

I guess I was thinking 3rd gen, I thought all the prior were variations on a theme.

I was just thinking the body on the third gen would be closer to a lite Suburban and it might have used some F-150 parts. Guess now I know better!

 

[p nut]

They are no where near as big as a Tahoe...

And to boot, Tahoe's get close to 20MPG highway (at least the newer gens). I doubt the Explorer gets any better.

Those are bloated floaty 4 wheel independent suspension cars. There is ZERO aftermarket for them (unless you want 20" rims and a chrome grill).

.
They've got good GC, though. They'll be good enough for a LOT of backcountry travels.

 

[SGNellett]

I was considering one for a DD when I was in the market last, but couldn't find one that fit what I was looking for as far as price, miles and equipment...

 

[ExplorerTom]

I believe (but I'm no 3rd gen expert) that the IRS axles pass through a hole in the frame which limits articulation and its liftability. But some people have fit 33s (35s?!?!?).

I have a 2nd gen. It does great.

But everyone's need for a vehicle is different. There is no "perfect" vehicle.

 

[IdaSHO]

I had a first gen years and years ago.
Always thought it would make a decent trail/exploration rig.

Good cab on chassis, solid rear axle, great 4.0 V6, etc

I 4-wheeled it quite a bit, and beat on it pretty good.
It always fared very well.

 

[Martinjmpr]

I know there are a few 1st and 2nd gen Explorer builds here and there, at this point the issue is going to be the age of the platform and how it's been used.
.
Older Explorers sell very cheap. This is both a blessing and a curse: Cheap vehicle means you can get into it for less $$ and have more to fix it up.
.
The down side of a cheap vehicle, though, is that cheap vehicles are often owned by people who treat them like cheap vehicles, neglect maintenance issues, and even let minor problems become more serious through lack of attention.
.
I think a 3rd gen Explorer could be a decent vehicle for mild off road travel, but the question would be, by the time you get one, fix all the little issues and then get it to where it has some off road capability, how much money have you spent, and what ELSE could you buy with that money?
.
One of the reasons I think that mid-sized body-on-frame SUVs have all but vanished from the marketplace (last ones standing are the 4runner and the JK Wrangler, at least in the US market) is because the unibody crossover can do just about everything that the typical suburban family would do with their SUV anyway, and for those who need a genuine BOF, truck based SUV, the full sized models like the Expedition, Tahoe, Armada and Sequoia, do just about everything that the mid-sized vehicles could do and really only have a very small MPG "penalty."
.
As P Nut said above, 20mpg on the highway is absolutely do-able in a Tahoe, and I can verify from experience that my 2004 Suburban has gotten 19mpg on a long highway trip at least twice. The place where a full size vehicle will kill you on MPG is if you are driving in city, stop-and-go or suburban driving. (My 'Burb has a hard time hitting 12mpg when used as a daily driver, and that's pretty easy to understand - every time I come to a stop, I then have to get nearly 3 tons of steel moving again!)

 

[Paul B.]

My $0.02.

I had a 2008 Ford Sport Trac 4x4. 4.6 liter V6, automatic. Bought brand new. It was a 4 door pickup truck, but definitely shared the "4th Gen" platform with the Explorer.

Plus items. I always got flamed by the 4wd drive guys for the 4 wheel independent suspension, but I took that thing to Saline Valley more than a dozen times, never an issue. We rode it fairly hard down there. Took the heavy washboard road better then anything imaginable. I've never been in anything like that before, and not likely ever again. (Our new Saline rig is an F-350, 4 door, 4x4, no chance it will ride the washboard like that.) Super comfortable for me, my wife and 2 kids. Pulled an old Compact Junior fiberglass trailer behind it. Great memories.

Downside items. MPG was horrible. Loaded or unloaded, never more than 12-14 max. And the thing was virtually impossible to modify. No aftermarket suspension upgrades available at all. I put better struts (shocks) and 275/70 off road tires/black steel spoker wheels. Looked great. Complemented constantly. But there was a minor tire rub issue up front that I just lived with.

We drove it for 91,000 miles and sold it. It was one of the most enjoyable vehicles I ever owned. But I do not believe you would want to take anything on that platform into the 100,000 + odometer range. Ford killed that platform shortly thereafter. Later model Explorers are on what seems to be a minivan style platform, not something to build an expedition vehicle on. I've seen the new Ranger. It's almost as big as an F-150.

 

[kojackJKU]

Anything CAN be a exploration vehicle. There is an eddie bauer 3rd gen explorer here...looks like a great platform. pop a small lift, with good tires and some armor and it will go ALOT of places. You don't need 6" of lift and 37s. that's just ******** measuring .....

 

[Paul B.]

All I was saying was that IMHO, the 4th gen won't even take a minor suspension lift. Could do a body lift but.. It's nothing I would try to build an expedition vehicle with. But I had one hell of a bunch of fun with mine.

Most of the posts are referring to 3rd and 2nd and 1st Gen anyway. Maybe my old $0.02 was put in the wrong place to begin with.

 

[kojackJKU]

NO. I was not commenting on your comment...Just the OP. I do believe that you can do a 2" with little trouble. I remember looking at one a couple of years ago.