The max tow trailer weight depends upon the engine size (V-6 or V-8), the > axle ratio (3.55 or 3.73), and the size of the wheels (16" or 17") and 4X2 > vs. 4X4.

Well, we've almost pulled the trigger on a brand new 2005 Explorer. What> are peoples' opinions on their reliability? I'm forgoing a Honda Pilot,> going with an Explorer due to my towing needs, and I guess, future wants.> The Honda tows 3,500 lbs, or 4,500 if it's a boat. (? I guess it has to do> with aerodynamics of a boat trailer vs. a regular trailer) That will> probably tow our Coleman tent trailer fine (~2,100 lbs loaded), but leaves> no upgrade path (probably want a hard sided travel trailer in the next few> years). I called my buddy who sells Fords. I'll be meeting him on> Saturday.> I also e-mailed some friends about this. Man, are they pushing me toward> the Honda Pilot! We almost went with the Pilot, but the towing and lack of> features just kind of turned me off. Also, Honda's stability control is> only available on the EX with leather model, not the EX with cloth seating,> because they consider it a "luxury item". Hmmm, sounds like a safety item> to me!> Anyway, now I'm second guessing my decision a little. I know the Explorer> will pull it better, probably won't be too bad (our '94 was a HORRIBLE> experience the first 3 years, but not bad the last 5 - not sure if my> standards went down after the warranty expired, or it just had everything> replaced - e-mail me directly for the whole story), and should be a better> experience than our last Exploder.> But I guess I'd just like to hear from other late model owners how they> feel. I knew a lot of 1st generation Explorer owners who had their> transmissions die right around 70,000 miles. Mine is still factory, at> 120,000. (I've changed tranny fluid frequently since I tow) I plan to keep> this one at least 10 years, if not more. The newer models are built to last> longer, right?> Thanks in advance for everyone's input!>

Please elaborate on how wheel size influences max tow weight.

In Nov '01, I bought a 2002 Explorer 4-DR XLT with the (kinda small) V-8 > and factory towing package. The latter seems to include a 3.73 LS rear > end, 5-speed overdrive automatic trans, Class III hitch and 7-pin > connector. It is rated to tow somewhere around 7000 pounds - which it > will NOT COME CLOSE TO DOING if you venture out of the flatlands of the > midwest. For this reason I would not consider the 4.0 V-6 if you expect > to tow.>

At the moment, I have about 85K miles on it (we drive a lot). Perhaps > 20K of that involved towing low-profile camping trailer which I weighed > put on a scale and found about 3500 pounds. The vehicle has been > adequate, but no more than that, pulling this trailer into the high > Sierras and over Loveland Pass and Vail Pass in Colorado. The > combination of steep grades and high altitude just kill the engine's > output.

Bill Jeffrey wrote:>> Richard ->>

It's not surprising that your Explorer couldn't cope with the mountain >passes. Based on my readings, you have to derate the capacity of a >vehicle anywhere from 2% to 4% per 1000 feet of altitude above sea >level. So for Loveland Pass (~12000ft altitude), that means you lose >anywhere from 24% to 48% of towing capacity - which makes towing your >3500lb camper kinda iffy.>

Jean

I used to have an V8 AWD Explorer which we used to tow our 25' TT about >5000#. It towed it just fine as far as power goes. The only thing I >noticed was that on a long hill the air conditioning would start to blow > warmer air and then cool back down when we crested the hill. I also >towed with a hensley hitch since the wheelbase is so short on the >Explorer. Would not have tried it without one.

Please elaborate on how wheel size influences max tow weight.>

Thanks in advance.

--> Chris Cowles> Gainesville, FL>

"tobe" <ybotkaSPM@cinci.rr­.com> wrote in message> news:X4c5e.359$qS4.­320@fe2.columbus.rr.­com...> >

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:09:15 GMT, respk <respwall@hotmailre­move.com>> wrote:>

I think the loss of AC is because trhere's a vacuum switch that cuts> power to the compressor when the vacuum drops beyond a certain point -> as when pulling hard, for example.

I've heard you lose about 2% of your power for each 1000 ft of> altitude, but never heard about derating your towing capacity for> altitude.> The brakes, powertrain (except for power) and suspension don't change> with altitude.> The loss of power is self-limiting concerning towing.

What is a "hensley hitch"? I've not heard of that before...>

Wesley>

"respk" <respwall@hotmailre­move.com> wrote in message> news:v4j5e.62499$Ms­3.44220@twister.nyro­c.rr.com...>

1) Larger wheels and tires effectively lower the gear ratio.>

2) Larger wheels and tires weigh more. This is a double hit> to your braking an acceleration. When stopping you not only> have to burn off the extra forward inertia added as a result> of the extra weight of the larger wheels and tires, but you> also have to burn off the extra rotational inertia. Bigger> tires and wheels are both heavier and have a larger diameter> - this makes them a better flywheel - which is not a good> thing when you are trying to change speeds (either slowing> down or speeding up).>

It's not surprising that your Explorer couldn't cope with the mountain > passes. Based on my readings, you have to derate the capacity of a > vehicle anywhere from 2% to 4% per 1000 feet of altitude above sea > level. So for Loveland Pass (~12000ft altitude), that means you lose > anywhere from 24% to 48% of towing capacity - which makes towing your > 3500lb camper kinda iffy.>

Jean

Did you replace the OEM Michelins with the same thing? Just wondering what> to put on the Trooper when it finally wears out its original shoes (only up> to 16k so far). It's got 16" Bridgestone Dueler's on it now...

What is a "hensley hitch"? I've not heard of that before...

Thanks. Basically, the smaller the wheel/tire the easier to pull/stop.

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.co­m> wrote in message >news:4256751E.7C05­B6AF@nospam.com...>>­ Two ways ->>

Big Bill wrote:>

I believe the brakes will not be as effective at high>altitude becasue the less dense air will not cool them as>well.>

Ed

If you happen to notice, OTR trucks use turbochargers full time, with >varying degrees of boost. There are also passenger cars and trucks that use >them as well, as OEM items.> It's not so much that you want a boost of power for a few seconds, but >an overall increase in efficiency in engine performance. These not only >increase horsepower, but improve fuel efficiency by bringing the air:fuel >ratio closer to optimal levels.

Hmmmm ....maybe I need to ask Jim Warman about doing this. It sounds >intriguing.

Big Bill wrote:>>

I don't think they use a vacuum switch anymore. I think it>is just built into the PCM logic. When you go past a certain>power level, the PCM cuts off the compressor and at least in>some cases, the alternator as well.>

Ed

Big Bill wrote:>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:16:45 -0400, "C. E. White">> <cewhite3@nospam.co­m> wrote:>>

The figures I quoted were taken from Ford and Chevy towing manuals >(circa 1992) and relate to the vehicle's ability to pull a load. I'd >guess that the figures primarily relate to the engine, with maybe some >consideration for the tranny also.>

Jean

OK, "that" in my post referred to a loss in braking ability.> Are you saying that the figures you read include braking ability, or> "vehicle's ability to pull a load", which is a different thing from a> vehicle's GCWR?>

I now have a F150 Supercrew that tows the trailer with power and control > to spare. I still use the hensley. It also lets us move to a larger > trailer when ready.>

If it were me, I'd forget about the Explorer and move to the F150 > Supercrew. Basically you get a more powerful truck, with more room, with > a longer wheelbase, with better brakes, etc. for about the same price as > the explorer. The only down side to the supercrew vs. the explorer is the > enclosed and heated bed on the explorer. The f150 has a 5.5' truck bed. I > have it covered with a cap but it is separate from the cab. So if you have > a dog or something that you want out of the elements, the the supercrew > wouldn't provide that.>

IMHO having driven both. The f150 is a much better towing vehicle than the > explorer and would give you the extra towing capacity you want in the > future.>

Richard Minami wrote:>> Well, we've almost pulled the trigger on a brand new 2005 Explorer. What>> are peoples' opinions on their reliability? I'm forgoing a Honda Pilot,>> going with an Explorer due to my towing needs, and I guess, future wants.>> The Honda tows 3,500 lbs, or 4,500 if it's a boat. (? I guess it has to >> do>> with aerodynamics of a boat trailer vs. a regular trailer) That will>> probably tow our Coleman tent trailer fine (~2,100 lbs loaded), but >> leaves>> no upgrade path (probably want a hard sided travel trailer in the next >> few>> years). I called my buddy who sells Fords. I'll be meeting him on>> Saturday.>> I also e-mailed some friends about this. Man, are they pushing me toward>> the Honda Pilot! We almost went with the Pilot, but the towing and lack >> of>> features just kind of turned me off. Also, Honda's stability control is>> only available on the EX with leather model, not the EX with cloth >> seating,>> because they consider it a "luxury item". Hmmm, sounds like a safety >> item>> to me!>> Anyway, now I'm second guessing my decision a little. I know the >> Explorer>> will pull it better, probably won't be too bad (our '94 was a HORRIBLE>> experience the first 3 years, but not bad the last 5 - not sure if my>> standards went down after the warranty expired, or it just had everything>> replaced - e-mail me directly for the whole story), and should be a >> better>> experience than our last Exploder.>> But I guess I'd just like to hear from other late model owners how they>> feel. I knew a lot of 1st generation Explorer owners who had their>> transmissions die right around 70,000 miles. Mine is still factory, at>> 120,000. (I've changed tranny fluid frequently since I tow) I plan to >> keep>> this one at least 10 years, if not more. The newer models are built to >> last>> longer, right?>> Thanks in advance for everyone's input!>>

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:16:45 -0400, "C. E. White"> <cewhite3@nospam.co­m> wrote:>

I've never heard that before.

It is speculation, but I believe it must be true. All the> heat generated by the brakes must be disipated to the air.> Reduce the denisty of the air and the rate of heat transfer> is reduced. I know that for electronic devices you must> derate heat sinks at higher altitude. This must be true for> brakes as well.>

Ed

C. E. White wrote:>>>>I believe the brakes will not be as effective at high>>>>altitude becasue the less dense air will not cool them as>>>>well.>>>>

I got curious enough about this that I broke out the performance manual >for my "work vehicle". One of the charts there is entitled "Brake >Cooling Schedule". Using only the portion that deals with altitude, and >following a convenient line, at Sea Level the cooling time is less than >1/3 of the time than is published for 10,000 pressure altitude.>

Since the only difference I allowed for would be the air density, the OP > is correct in that when operating at higher pressure/density >altitudes, the braking efficiency would be compromised by the fact that >the brakes take longer to cool between applications.

Mapanari wrote:>> Have you ever heard of Consumer's Report magazine?>>

However, they are not unbiased. They've been know to change their> tests in order to get the desired results.>

Witness the Suzuki vs Consumers Union court case.>

http://www.cacd.usc­ourts.gov/CACD/Recen­tPubOp.nsf/0/dd8b92f­5afca89ff88256> b48007a0465?OpenDoc­ument >

1. After more than three dozen runs in the Samurai on CU's established> avoidance maneuver, CU's professional drivers rated it highest of all> the vehicles, and expressly stated "no tendency to tip up" and "no real> problem" in the written evaluations. See Plaintiff's Statement of> Genuine Issues ("GI"), ¶¶ 440-41;>

2. After the Samurai completed the standard testing without incident,> CU's editor-in-chief, Irwin Landau, remarked that "If you can't find> someone to roll this car, I will." Motion at 23-25; GI ¶ 445;>

3. CU's technical director, R. David Pittle, then asked to drive the> Samurai. After nine more runs and after departing from the established> track, the Samurai tipped up. Motion at 24-25; GI ¶¶ 452-54;>

4. After the tip-up, Pittle directed the chief of CU's auto test> division, Robert Knoll, to prepare a new "modified emergency avoidance> maneuver" and replicate Pittle's path. GI ¶¶465-67;>

You're correct on the second part. Sharper Image did lose.>

Suzuki did not lose. Suzuki & CU settled out of court, with CU issuing> a partial retraction. Here's the bit from the "joint statement" issued> by CU & Suzuki that I refer to:>

''CU's 1996 statement that the 1988 Samurai "easily rolls over in> turns" was limited to the severe turns in CU's short course avoidance> maneuver. CU's use of the adverb "easily" may have been misconstrued> and misunderstood. CU never intended to state or imply that the Samurai> easily rolls over in routine driving conditions.''>

CU says this isn't a retracation, it's a "clarification."

Don't forget about the Isuzu Trooper... While they jury didn't award> damages to Isuzu, they did find a good number of CU's claims to be > invalid,> one of which damagingly so. Ya gotta have something big on the front > cover> to help sell the magazine, no? I think some of their factual data is > good -> such as the report that listed used cars to avoid...such as specifically > the> 1994 Plymouth Acclaim/Dodge Sprit. We had one...piece of junk.> Unfortunately, I saw that article long after we had the car. ­ Now, > when> it comes to something more subjective, such as a driver's ability to make > a> vehicle tip when making a swerve...well...I don't see any way you can> scientifically test that. Seems the government has agreed. So why do > they> keep doing it? Makes a nice front page story? Seems their latest target > is> the 2001 Mitsubish Montero...>

Wesley

I don't think they'd do it if it didn't have at least some likelihood of > performing as described.

"Tony Wesley" <tonywesley@gmail.c­om> wrote in message> news:1113873388.078­088.110540@g14g2000c­wa.googlegroups.com.­..>

Don't forget about the Isuzu Trooper... While they jury didn't award> damages to Isuzu, they did find a good number of CU's claims to be> invalid, one of which damagingly so. Ya gotta have something big on the> front cover to help sell the magazine, no? I think some of their> factual data is good - such as the report that listed used cars to> avoid...such as specifically the 1994 Plymouth Acclaim/Dodge Sprit. We> had one...piece of junk. Unfortunately, I saw that article long after we> had the car. ­ Now, when it comes to something more subjective, such> as a driver's ability to make a vehicle tip when making a> swerve...well...I don't see any way you can scientifically test that. > Seems the government has agreed. So why do they keep doing it? Makes a> nice front page story? Seems their latest target is the 2001 Mitsubish> Montero... >

Wesley>

I find it interesting that SUV manufacturers are now developing> anti-roll systems (e.g.. Nissan's "Vehicle Dynamic Control"), just like> anti-lock braking systems. I wonder what stimulated them to spend the> R&D money to do that? Bad press, maybe?>

I don't think they'd do it if it didn't have at least some likelihood of> performing as described.

That SUV is a death trap.>

I used to sell those POS and none of the salesmen would demo them when it> was raining becuase they would constantly spin out; the back end would> break lose under the slightest pressure and spin the whole vehicle in a> cirle or two!>

I finally had to leave that place because we couldn't sell anything,> especially when there was a Toyota and Honda dealer right next door. I

starving.>

The Mitsibshi van is now the worst made van in the world according to some> consumer magazines.

That SUV is a death trap.>

I used to sell those POS and none of the salesmen would demo them when it> was raining becuase they would constantly spin out; the back end would> break lose under the slightest pressure and spin the whole vehicle in a> cirle or two!>

I finally had to leave that place because we couldn't sell anything,> especially when there was a Toyota and Honda dealer right next door. I > was> starving.>

The Mitsibshi van is now the worst made van in the world according to some> consumer magazines.>

-- > ---Mapanari---