94 vs 95: Which one? Why?

[blue88mustang]

I am looking for a nice explorer for my daily driver. I know the 95's have different front susp., gauge clusters, and a different grille.

I have driven the following: 91-94(V6's) and one 98(V8).

I really like the power of the 5.0 and how it didn't feel like the others(91-94's feel like "trucks" to me for obvious reasons). But I think the 96+ explorers are out of my price range of $5,000 or so.

So which is it, 94 or 95??

 

[TravisC]

I would go with the 95. I think you would get better ride quality out of the 95 because of the different suspension. The TTB in the 94 doesn't quite seem like independant suspension to me (if it's the same as a 92).

Welcome to the site!

 

[canada74]

the '95 does have a nicer ride, but the '94 is cheaper to lift

 

[JOHN V.]

I say go with the 1995. They do ride better and they have better brakes. They also ride better when you lower them! I know that lowering is not for everyone. I do not know if lifting is what you want to do. There is no good way to do a serious lift. I know that many members stiff have success wheelin in their 05-01 Explorers.

 

[blue88mustang]

No lifting, lowering, towing or off-roading for me. I have 2 mustangs and a new house on the way. Between the 3 of those things, I won't have time or money to mod the Explorer even if I wanted to.

I just want something that will be more "comfy" than my 88 ranger 4x4. To be more to the point, I want all the creature comforts like P/W, P/L, AutoTranny, Push button 4x4, etc.

I don't see many 95's for sale, so does this correlate to people being happier with the 95+ ride quality?

What year did the explorers get 4 wheel disc brakes? Is this easy/cheap to retro-fit to a 95?

You guys are a big help! Thanks.

 

[section525]

4 wheel discs are standard (and started) in 1995. I say go 95+. Specially since you want a DD that you say you won't mod (yeah right ). You might as well get a 5.0 one as well since you're already a mustang guy. They're much more reliable anyway and you could probably find a 96 (first year) for around 5k if you look hard enough.

 

[Rhett]

94's have better looks...but 95 or later sounds like the truck you want, as they have a much better ride and are superior in terms of creature comforts in general...I agree with section, try to find a 1996 model V8 Explorer.

 

[canada74]

if its just more of a comfort thing then go with the 95, i have a 96 and wouldnt trade it for anything ( well except maybe a 78 bronco )

 

[X~FACTOR]

Originally posted by section525
Specially since you want a DD that you say you won't mod (yeah right ).

blue88mustang, if you seriously do not want to mod your Explorer, you must stay away from this site. This site is very addictive and reading up on everyone's good experiences and result from a mod will surely convince you to do the same. You have been warned!

 

[blue88mustang]

What about gas mileage of the V6 compared to the V8?? This will be my DD, so gas mileage is a concern.

I hang out at www.corral.net/forums so I am very familiar with this phenomenon. However, I have left my 4x4 ranger totally stock, so I am sure I will not have any problems leaving an explorer stock.

Besides that, my 2nd gear shift fork in the Cobra just snapped last night, so any spare money is going to be spoken for.

 

[Rhett]

To be honest, if you're looking for a daily driver with fuel economy, an Explorer ain't it.--unless you get a 97+ SOHC V6 and mod it a little. Explorers can do ok, mileage-wise, better than a big suburban, for example, but not as well as a Taurus or Focus or something like that.

Gas mileage isn't all that different between a V6 OHV and the 302 V8. The V8 often gets a tad less but it's close. In terms of power vs fuel econ, you can't do much better than a 302, but you know that owning stangs. FYI my modded 94 gets 13-18 mpg and before mods it got 12-17. Now if you get a 97 or later with the SOHC V6, you will be capable of getting better mileage. I'd look for a 1996 model year with the V8 and 3.73 gear ratio, it will be fine for you.

 

[blue88mustang]

I didn't think there would be much difference between the 6 and the 8. I guess for now, my search continues.

 

[rydinhigh]

I'll sell you a very modded 95X for cheap. Check out my homepage for pics.

As far as daily driver and not wanting to do mods go with the 95.

 

[lonestar]

Well you can always mod your ranger

 

[Gimp]

(Real men don't ride on torsion bars.)

 

[blue88mustang]

NO MODDING... please. I have 2 mustangs and they keep me plenty broke as it is. I just need a comfy DD to haul me, the G/F, the dog, groceries and any friends/family that will go on long trips with us.

 

[Gimp]

If you want a ride like a buckboard, get a first gen. (Some of us like that school bus/buckboard ride.)

If you want a soccer mommy ride, get a second gen.

As far as mileage, there are so many variables to consider. Money Pit, for example, is kept in excellent tune and gets 20.1 mpg city with the tires at 30 psi and gets 20.5 mpg city with the tires at 34 psi. Since it's a towing package first gen Exploder, it's gonna ride harsh no matter what the tire pressure is therefore, I leave it at 34 psi for the mileage benefit.

Good luck with whatever your decision.

 

[Rhett]

Originally posted by Gimp
Money Pit, for example, is kept in excellent tune and gets 20.1 mpg city with the tires at 30 psi and gets 20.5 mpg city with the tires at 34 psi.

Best I _ever_ get is 18 highway, 13 in town. I got 4x4 3.27 gears, 34 psi. 20 city?!?!!? amazing. Gimp what's the secret? Wait let me guess, no hills in Florida. Here, the whole town is hilly.

 

[F14CRAZY]

Ooooooook. I know that some people are gonna wanna b!tch slap me for saying this, but I think that 2nd gens look too girly. If it was my little brother talking, he'd say they look futile. But I know that overall they are better machines, and no A4LD problems. I think that my '93 Limited rides pretty darn nice and has enough comforts.

 

[Gimp]

Originally posted by Rhett Browning
Gimp what's the secret? .

The only real hills we have on the coast are bridges over rivers, creeks, railroad tracks, and freeway overpasses. (And we have lots of bridges.) Other than that, I think the primary reasons are:
Full synthetic fluids in engine, tranny, rear - including wheel bearing grease.

City driving around here is stop-and-go only in certain areas. For the most part, city driving is never getting under 45 or 50. I will often take the long way (such as a perimeter road rather than through town) to keep a steady speed. I avoid rush hour travel.

Speaking of 45, I seldom go under it. 45 mph is the point when 'Money Pit' is in overdrive with the converter locked up and, with 3.73s, I'm barely turning 1500 rpm. When I roll off from a stop sign or a light, I get to that 45 minimum speed or faster as rapidly as possible so I'm not turning a lot of rpms putting around in a lower gear for extended periods.

I seldom go over 65 - 70 on occasion. (It is an Explorer, after all). When I take her on the highway, I'm the guy in the far right-hand lane that's doing the speed limit with the cruise on and being passed by everybody. (Now, in my 300M, speed limits are ignored.)

I never get below a half tank before filling up. I don't understand why but, according to my petroleum engineer brother-in-law, the less gas there is in the tank, the greater the rate of evaporation. (Something to do with exposed surface area as it relates to total volume.) Also, I fill up late in the evening when it's cooler. Again, according to my petroleum engineer brother-in-law, it has something to do with filling up when the molecules are cooler and more tightly packed together and then running the the vehicle when the molecules have heated up and expanded (increased the volume). It sounds like b-s to me but he's supposed to know what he's talking about.

<Edit> - I forgot to mention alignment. I get the alignment checked/adjusted every 5K miles when I have the tires rotated/balanced. None of that funky, excessive negative camber a lot of Exploders have that eats tires and gas.