Highest Mileage 5th Generation Explorer

[Turdle]

A good answer to this question might be found by looking on the various websites selling used cars. when we were car shopping a year ago I found a 5th gen with 275k miles being offered.

 

[Red92lx]

My 2011 Explorer is in the shop too.for a preemptive water pump replacement. I had no leak on the floor of the garage, no obvious water in the oil and no trouble lights and the Temp gauge held rock steady just below the midpoint

but I had read one to many horror stories and looked at one too many YouTube videos and then there are all those miles

So.... I bit the bullet. By Saturday I should have a new water pump, new timing chain and guides,and because it’s there a new oil pump

and I should be good for another 200000 miles

Hey Ron,
Did you do any coolant flushes? Just wondering if you got lucky and got a great pump, since that is alot of miles on a factory pump!

 

[RonParise]

Hey Ron,
Did you do any coolant flushes? Just wondering if you got lucky and got a great pump, since that is alot of miles on a factory pump!

I did a flush at 150000 miles but that’s all. Going forward I’ll probably do it more often

 

[skipdigs]

My 2011 Explorer is in the shop too.for a preemptive water pump replacement. I had no leak on the floor of the garage, no obvious water in the oil and no trouble lights and the Temp gauge held rock steady just below the midpoint

but I had read one to many horror stories and looked at one too many YouTube videos and then there are all those miles

So.... I bit the bullet. By Saturday I should have a new water pump, new timing chain and guides,and because it’s there a new oil pump

and I should be good for another 200000 miles

Just curious what your cost was for the water pump and chain, etc.. Dealer just quoted me $2,600 if I wanted to do this. I'm at 103,000 not issues yet.

 

[94Eddie]

Wow, that water pump failure is terrifying! Huge cost, especially on an EB and no warning... But how common is it? I haven't seen any mention on multiple car forums that I surf and it should be a common design across AT LEAST 3.5/3.7L platforms if not the smaller ones also?

It is common enough for Ford to be fighting a class action lawsuit over it for several years.

 

[94Eddie]

A good answer to this question might be found by looking on the various websites selling used cars. when we were car shopping a year ago I found a 5th gen with 275k miles being offered.

I was shopping recently for a new SUV and found many, many Explorers around the 100k mile mark for sale. This mileage point is where any extended warranties fall off. I don't think this is a coincidence. My wife has a 2015 edge that rolled over 80k miles last week. The warranty expires at 100k miles and we will likely sell it or do a proactive replacement of the water pump (and do guides, oil pump etc.) to keep from having a $6k engine replacement tab. Many of the stories I have read about had no warning of a bad pump. The pump went so fast that the engine was trashed before anything could be done to prevent it. The water pump issue is the reason I steered away from 5th gen explorers and anything with the 3.5L V6s. I also am not a fan of Ford's turbo motors as there has been a lot of issues with carbon buildup that is hard to correct properly without a tear down of the engine. I ended up with a 2010 Mountaineer with a V8 although I wanted something newer. In the end, my options narrowed to the 4th gen Explorer/Mountaineer V8s or a pickup. I am a Ford guy so other brands were off the table.

Also, I was at the Ford dealer getting fluids to replace the ones in the Mountaineer and asked the parts guy about the water pump issue with the 3.5L engines. He smiled and said we see them in all the time and most need a new engine when it the pump fails. He said it is a shame too because other than the water pump issue the 3.5L is darn near bullet proof.

 

[94Eddie]

Hey Ron,
Did you do any coolant flushes? Just wondering if you got lucky and got a great pump, since that is alot of miles on a factory pump!

I don't think coolant changes help this problem much. The failures result from the stress the timing chains put on the water pump's drive shaft. This is why Ford switched to a dual sprocket setup in 2013 (I believe) in an effort to mitigate this issue. I don't know if this made much of a difference though.

 

[J_C]

You are now at the point of how picky do you want to be versus cost to replace it.

Rust won't get better. It will spread unless you do something about it, but how much to do and spend vs how much it bothers you or how much it affects resale value whenever you might resell, we can't factor for.

Water pump, there are many variables. There are millions of these vehicles with the internal water pump, so there are enough owners out there to make a significant # of failures a reality, even if it is a small % of total owners, and that significant # of owners affected, makes a class action suit seem lucrative enough to pursue, but remember this is a litigious age and a class action suit can mean nothing more than that a lawyer was misguided enough to pursue it because they desperately need to bill someone for services to pay their own bills.

It is a bad design for certain, and you are sitting on a ticking time bomb, but the same could have been said the day you bought it and it lasted this long. We cannot predict the mile or year it will fail, just that it will cost a lot when it eventually does.

The prudent thing to do is "probably" to keep it until the cost to do the repair exceeds the value of the vehicle, or you find some other reason to sell it like the cumulative aging/rust is beyond what your income level and/or vanity allows. Some people consider rust more unsightly than others but it will spread if you do nothing about it, and I would do something to retain some resale value or personal use years considering it is only "probably" half way through it's anticipated lifespan if that.

Ultimately the question is, what is it worth to you to keep it? It is not so different a question than any other vehicle owner faces, every vehicle has its weak links and upcoming repairs, especially for SUVs.

I didn't directly answer your question because there is no direct answer, except that with GDI, including TDI, you are probably looking at having a benefit from an intake valve cleaning sooner than later, but you can look at overall performance and fuel economy to decide if either has dropped off much before committing to that expenditure.

Right now, I would get the rust in check and go from there. If you notice it, anyone else (who is sane) that you try to sell it to, would notice that too. If it's worth less to someone else because of that, ultimately it's worth less to you, too, until it gets much older than it is.

 

[Sixonemale]

It is a bad design for certain, and you are sitting on a ticking time bomb

True statement. I don't think most owners would have a problem replacing a worn out water pump, about a $40 part, but the labor involved in this repair vs Explorers of past generations is about 4:1 ratio, meaning that on this generation it cost roughly $1,600 to replace vs around $400 for past generations with very little chance of catastrophic damage to the engine unless the driver is not paying attention to the temperature gauge. More importantly, there is very little maintenance suggested by Ford to prevent this problem, inspections and a coolant change at 100,000 miles, therefore, an owner should rightfully expect the water pump to last 150,000 miles. What makes a tremendous amount of sense would have been for Ford to put at least sensor on the coolant reservoir so that if the level begins to decrease the owner has a chance of figuring it out the problem of this closed system before potential catastrophic damage. IMO there should be recall and yes I do think this is a potential safety issue due to being stranded, etc.

Many people will buy these vehicles at around the 100,000 mark because that is what they can afford, plus they may have knowledge of reliability associated with the previous Explorer generations and think this is a similar vehicle. Unfortunately they could be saddled with about a $7,000 decision should water pump leak coolant into the engine oil, a horrible scenario for someone who bought a car that they could just afford, especially the single soccer mom with kids.

 

[Red92lx]

True statement. I don't think most owners would have a problem replacing a worn out water pump, about a $40 part, but the labor involved in this repair vs Explorers of past generations is about 4:1 ratio, meaning that on this generation it cost roughly $1,600 to replace vs around $400 for past generations with very little chance of catastrophic damage to the engine unless the driver is not paying attention to the temperature gauge. More importantly, there is very little maintenance suggested by Ford to prevent this problem, inspections and a coolant change at 100,000 miles, therefore, an owner should rightfully expect the water pump to last 150,000 miles. What makes a tremendous amount of sense would have been for Ford to put at least sensor on the coolant reservoir so that if the level begins to decrease the owner has a chance of figuring it out the problem of this closed system before potential catastrophic damage. IMO there should be recall and yes I do think this is a potential safety issue due to being stranded, etc.

Many people will buy these vehicles at around the 100,000 mark because that is what they can afford, plus they may have knowledge of reliability associated with the previous Explorer generations and think this is a similar vehicle. Unfortunately they could be saddled with about a $7,000 decision should water pump leak into the coolant, a horrible scenario for someone who bought a car that they could just afford, especially the single soccer mom with kids.

It's sad and I feel for non-car people who buy a 3.5 and a expect normal maintenance/breakdown experience. The only people with a fighting chance are automotive minded people (like us) that are interested in their vehicle and pay more attention then the normal person. I've always been much more interested in my cars then most and over the years it's really paid off financially. Even as vehicle evolve and improve, I still find myself saving a lot compared to my peers simply due to my interest and proactive maintenance. The more cars change, the more they stay the same.

 

[94Eddie]

Ford did change the water pump to an external design for 3.5L engines used in the F150s. This tells us they know the internal design is flawed. They couldn't afford to have this level of unreliability in their most lucrative model line where many are owned by businesses.

 

[Red92lx]

Ford did change the water pump to an external design for 3.5L engines used in the F150s. This tells us they know the original design is flawed. They couldn't afford to have this level of unreliability in their most lucrative model line where many are owned by businesses.

If i'm not mistaken, the trucks water pumps were never internal. The internal design was done to fit the engine into front wheel drive platforms.

 

[94Eddie]

If i'm not mistaken, the trucks water pumps were never internal. The internal design was done to fit the engine into front wheel drive platforms.

If the internal design was reliable then I don't see why they would change it for the truck engines. They did this for a reason and the only one that makes any sense is it was due to reliability and/or ease of replacement of the pump. Also, I don't buy that this was done to fit it into a front wheel drive vehicle. Nearly all front wheel drive vehicles using other engine designs have external water pumps and are fitted into very small spaces. The issue of catastrophic pump failure taking out engines had to have been brought up by people during the design process. This is likely why the F150 got an external pump. This is just an example of extremely poor engineering that was probably done for cost reasons pushed on the engineers by bean counters. It wouldn't be the first time planned obsolescence was designed into a vehicle.

 

[Red92lx]

If the internal design was reliable then I don't see why they would change it for the truck engines. They did this for a reason and the only one that makes any sense is it was due to reliability and/or ease of replacement of the pump. Also, I don't buy that this was done to fit it into a front wheel drive vehicle. Nearly all front wheel drive vehicles using other engine designs have external water pumps and are fitted into very small spaces. The issue of catastrophic pump failure taking out engines had to have been brought up by people during the design process. This is likely why the F150 got an external pump. This is just an example of extremely poor engineering that was probably done for cost reasons pushed on the engineers by bean counters. It wouldn't be the first time planned obsolescence was designed into a vehicle.

I don't deny the stupidity of the design, but if the engines water pump could fit in the vehicle application externally, I can imagine any reason for them to put it internally. If the space actually existed to relocate the pump externally, why redesign the water pump to a dual sprocket set-up when you could just relocate it outside the block? Perhaps it's planned obsolescence, but they sure are risking losing major sales to the competition by allowing engines to self destruct before 100K. I'll be hesitant to buy another ford even with my water pump replacement being covered by CPO warranty.

 

[Red92lx]

If the internal design was reliable then I don't see why they would change it for the truck engines. They did this for a reason and the only one that makes any sense is it was due to reliability and/or ease of replacement of the pump. Also, I don't buy that this was done to fit it into a front wheel drive vehicle. Nearly all front wheel drive vehicles using other engine designs have external water pumps and are fitted into very small spaces. The issue of catastrophic pump failure taking out engines had to have been brought up by people during the design process. This is likely why the F150 got an external pump. This is just an example of extremely poor engineering that was probably done for cost reasons pushed on the engineers by bean counters. It wouldn't be the first time planned obsolescence was designed into a vehicle.

I don't deny the stupidity of the design, but if the engines water pump could fit in the vehicle application externally, I can imagine any reason for them to put it internally. If the space actually existed to relocate the pump externally, why redesign the water pump to a dual sprocket set-up when you could just relocate it outside the block? Perhaps it's planned obsolescence, but they sure are risking losing major sales to the competition by allowing engines to self destruct before 100K. I'll be hesitant to buy another ford even with my water pump replacement being covered by CPO warranty.

 

[94Eddie]

I don't deny the stupidity of the design, but if the engines water pump could fit in the vehicle application externally, I can imagine any reason for them to put it internally. If the space actually existed to relocate the pump externally, why redesign the water pump to a dual sprocket set-up when you could just relocate it outside the block? Perhaps it's planned obsolescence, but they sure are risking losing major sales to the competition by allowing engines to self destruct before 100K. I'll be hesitant to buy another ford even with my water pump replacement being covered by CPO warranty.

I think that once the commitment was made to the internal design, changing it was too much of a financial hit. They might have designed multiple chassis' to work with an internal pump. The 3.5L is in so many Ford vehicles that a mid course correction was not possible. Ford could have decided to design chassis' to accommodate an external design but chose not to assuming this is the reason they did not use the F150 design in front wheel drive models. They had used external pump designs previously on all their front wheel drive vehicles (as far as I know) and many used a DOHC V6 engine. My main point is that Ford knew from the beginning of the 3.5L's launch that the internal design was flawed. This is why I think the class action suit has a lot of merit and the plaintiffs should prevail.

Had I known about the water pump issue on my wife's Edge I would have told her to keep the RAV she was driving or we would have found a better option. The sad thing is her Edge is a wonderful SUV that performs extremely well for us. We will have a big decision to make in the next 20k miles as to whether we sell it, keep it and take a chance on the pump lasting or keep it and proactively change the pump (along with guides, chains and oil pump) to make it as reliable as possible going forward. Between this issue, the carbon buildup on the GDI turbo engines and the inherent issues with the 4.0L V6, I have lost a lot of confidence in Ford products. My 2010 V8 Mountaineer might be the last Ford I own other than a Mustang.

Another thing that shakes my confidence in Ford is how they recommend no fluid changes in several transmissions and APUs. This is a horrible recommendation to push and has zero justification. I say this as a lifetime Ford buyer. I think this 3.5L issue will cost them dearly as these engines suffer more and more catastrophic engine failures as time passes. When people realize that a simple water pump failure turns into the destruction of their engine, IMO, it will have long term effects on whether current Ford owners will buy another Ford model to replace the one that just screwed them over.

 

[Explorer.xlt.12]

My 2012 explorer mileage is 214k
And this what i replaced :

Epas when mileage 180k (cost me 420$)

Water pump it 213k (cost me 276$)

The water pump price 90$ and repair price 186$
This prices in my country (saudi arabia) mybe it will less or more in your country


*Periodic maintenance that I do :

- i use full synthetic oils only and change it every 4000miles
- replace air filter every 12k
- change trans fluid every 40k
- Replace plugs every 45k
- change coolant every 50k
- Clean fuel injectors every 60k

 

[willied]

My mom's 2011 XLT is at ~243,000 currently. Unfortunately, no where nearly as reliable as the 2000 Expedition 4.6L that she put 316,000 miles on. The powertrain has been reliable, though.

 

[Nickymane]

Guys, OP is looking for 6 digits on the odometer, please keep this thread tied to that.

I have 360,000 on my 2011 limited 3.5 NA

 

[Nickymane]

Because I’ve owned a ’91 and ’02 Explorer in the past and am familiar with how long their engines ran as well as maintenance. I’m curious about high mileage fifth generation Explorer's and what major repairs were encountered, like a water pump, PTU, etc. The older generation Explorers could be driven to about 150,000 to 200,000 miles with a fairly low maintenance cost with the possible exception of a transmission rebuild.

I know this generation of Explorers is fairly young, but would really like to hear from those, if any, that have 125,000 miles plus on the 3.5 L engines with or without turbos. Obviously, high miles at this point and time would mean quite a bit freeway driving, but still it's worth hearing from those owners.

I’ll start, I have 2015, 3.5 NA with about ~50,000 miles and have had no major repairs, but have had have to replace parts on the front suspension to get rid of clanks/creaks, etc.

2011 xlt limited 3.5 NA
360,078 miles