Bad designs all around....

[colintrax]

I wouldn't say ford always uses a larger engine. Explorer got a 4.0 v6. Blazer got a 4.3 v6

Wouldn't you say Ford design the exhaust manifolds and other parts for "high power" "low fuel sipping engines" and "light frames"

 

[toyotaspeed90]

I wouldn't say ford always uses a larger engine. Explorer got a 4.0 v6. Blazer got a 4.3 v6

that's my point... the 4.0 isn't typical ford fashion to barely beat out Chevy... a 4.4 based on a 351 with the back 2 lopped off would have been....

Wouldn't you say Ford design the exhaust manifolds and other parts for "high power" "low fuel sipping engines" and "light frames"

no.... the Explorer has a 4.0 that gets what, 20mpg and makes less than 200hp and barely 200ft/lb torque? in a heavier 4,000+lb chasis... further since Ford was able to cram a v8 in the same engine bay - there's clearly a bit of room to spare for smarter service-ability of the more common engine.

my IS300 makes more power out of a 3.0 I6 and gets better gas mileage.

 

[toyotaspeed90]

Wait, what? I was under the impression that Toyotas never needed any work performed on them- EVER! They are all perfect when they leave the factory. Engines filled with unicorn blood, brakes that never squeak, tires that never wear out, shocks that never go bad.......

At least that's the impression I've been given by Toyota fan boys.

Go buy a 4Runner. Those commonly sell for thousands more than they are worth.

I'm not annoyed that I have to perform work to the vehicle... I'm annoyed that the work is compounded by bad design and the price Ford has decided to put forth on the hardware that was incorrectly designed to be used for in the first place is WAY overpriced.


One of the bigger faults of import cars is, although less exaggerated, that exact belief that the owners have... "Well it's a Toyota, it will last forever so I will never do routine maintenance, oil changes, and ignore service lights"... then they complain when the engine fails at 200,000 miles and they haven't done so much as a tune up and oil changes were done every 10,000 miles....

I've done more than my share of fixing other people's bad habits in Toyota's.... I'm not saying they don't break... but I'm saying they're much easier to service because dependability and longevity are considered and designed - so you end up with a transmission capable of 3x the power it has, or an engine block that can take 1,000hp yet is only producing 220.....

 

[colintrax]

that's my point... the 4.0 isn't typical ford fashion to barely beat out Chevy... a 4.4 based on a 351 with the back 2 lopped off would have been....




no.... the Explorer has a 4.0 that gets what, 20mpg and makes less than 200hp and barely 200ft/lb torque? in a heavier 4,000+lb chasis... further since Ford was able to cram a v8 in the same engine bay - there's clearly a bit of room to spare for smarter service-ability of the more common engine.

my IS300 makes more power out of a 3.0 I6 and gets better gas mileage.

(edited by Admin) The 4.0 is the basic engine, IE CHEAP was the design constraint on it. The IS300 is a car right?? So it should get better gas mileage. And don't underestimate the 4.0, Ford is famous for underrating engine outputs to lower insurance costs. BTW the 4.0 puts out close to 300 ft lb of torque, what does that 3.0 make? Just googled it, 230 hp and 220 ftlb tq. I'm so impressed, that might be able to chirp the tires on a wet road.

 

[waskly]

that's my point... the 4.0 isn't typical ford fashion to barely beat out Chevy... a 4.4 based on a 351 with the back 2 lopped off would have been....




no.... the Explorer has a 4.0 that gets what, 20mpg and makes less than 200hp and barely 200ft/lb torque? in a heavier 4,000+lb chasis... further since Ford was able to cram a v8 in the same engine bay - there's clearly a bit of room to spare for smarter service-ability of the more common engine.

my IS300 makes more power out of a 3.0 I6 and gets better gas mileage.

ford 4.0l v6 is 210 bhp 290 ft-lbs torque.

your IS about 1000-1500 lbs lighter.

i can take a civic and do 7 seconds with it, but the car will weigh a little more then 1300 lbs. less driver.

 

[desertsky]

If you have to change the spark plugs on a Toyota front wheel drive V6 you will make similar comments regarding poor serviceability. In order to replace the three rear plugs the intake manifold (among other items) must be removed.

That ain't nothin! Having to unbolt the engine mounts on a Chevy Monza V8 Spyder to replace the plugs. Or drilling holes in the fender wells of a Boss 302 Mustang!

Don't get me started on Fiat electrics!

 

[waskly]

2009 truck of the year.... right... money, advertising will make people say anything.

 

[AlexSport'00]

Engines filled with unicorn blood.

Made my day.

 

[Blee1099]

Every vehicle/manufacturers have their own issues when it comes to routine maintenance or designs. Case in point, the old Chevrolet Astro vans. Those things ate thru tires like crazy in the front. Another case in point that I experienced personally. mid 2000s Toyota camry 4 cylinder. The way Toyota designed the subframe unibody, in order to change the transmission filter, you had to jack the transmission/engine high enough to remove the majority of the transmission pan bolts on the drivers side. There are so many make & models that have their own quirks when it comes to routine maintenance.

 

[anyexcuse]

well, i am going to throw a different curve in here. if your want to bash explorers, or ford and praise toyota's, here's one for you. throw a little salt at them, and watch them disintegrate in front of your eyes. sure, explorers and fords, or everything else for that matter rusts, but wow. that is one major reason i do not like imports is because the rot away fast. then try and repair that. they use high tensile strength steel, which is as thick as tinfoil. try welding on that, then try welding on a explorer. it will make you forget all about a bolt fast.

I had a '95 Toyota pickup before the '96 Explorer I have now, and both have been pretty reliable, but admittedly the Toy was more so.

The main difference in the two was the fenders and other parts on the Toy were so rusted they were flapping in the wind, while just mainly the wheel openings have rust on my Ex.

 

[FIND]

I have a weak lifter that will remain as such exactly because this design.

BTW: is Toyota OHV V8 different designed in this aspect?

Nah, they are all pretty much just as bad as american engines. Do a 3.0 SOHC from a 4runner and the 4.0 SOHC in an explorer feels GREAT to work on. The REAL difference between Toyotas and Fords are the fact that the frames are made with metal that is about HALF as thick on the Toyotas.

True- if you want to swear, buy a Saab. I can verify that... My neighbor used to have one, I learned to hide from him when he was in the driveway when he was trying to work on it.

Audi. When I still was in the shop, my one customer who had an audi I charged the same rate for labor that I did for semis.

and to add....

the chevy-based 4.3 in my boat I was able to pull all lifters out completely (and check them) without touching the heads. Since the 4.3 is basically a 350 with the back 2 lopped off.. this is also the case on the 350/5.7...

I also believe that a friend of mine who has had a couple 5.0 mustangs has said the lifters come out with the head intact (he gave me a funny look when I told him lifters had to come out of the explorer)... which then begs the question --- why didn't ford just save money and follow Chevy's suit? Just take the 5.8 and lop the back 2 off making a 4.4? This would have been very Ford-fashion as well making their engines just slightly bigger than Chevy (302 vs 305, 350 vs 351.... 454 vs 460....)

Try working that 4.3 with it inside an S-10. An Explorer is a picnic in comparison. I mean honestly... I can't think of an single mid sized or compact SUV that are easy to work on. I mean, maybe a 4runner with a 22re, assuming you can ever get the bolts out. But that tiny engine that gives you room to work comes at a cost.... Namely trying to keep up on the highway.

 

[FIND]

Every vehicle/manufacturers have their own issues when it comes to routine maintenance or designs. Case in point, the old Chevrolet Astro vans. Those things ate thru tires like crazy in the front. Another case in point that I experienced personally. mid 2000s Toyota camry 4 cylinder. The way Toyota designed the subframe unibody, in order to change the transmission filter, you had to jack the transmission/engine high enough to remove the majority of the transmission pan bolts on the drivers side. There are so many make & models that have their own quirks when it comes to routine maintenance.

Alternator on an Astro.

Unhook battery that is half hidden behind fender and core support. Remove intake and MAF. Remove upper fan shroud. Remove fan. Relieve tension. Remove belt. Remove alternator.

Installation is the reverse.

About an hour to R&R.

 

[briwayjones]

If I was the head of the engineering department at Ford it would be mandatory for all engineers to go out and change the battery, air filter, oil, spark plugs, brakes and tires on all models.

 

[shadowless127]

I'm on my third 2nd Gen, and I will say, every other vehicle in it's class has it's quirks. Blazer - Slow as ****, terrible on fuel, weak transmission. GC - POS (ask me, I know...). 4runner and Pathfinder also had their issues.

...and Ford isn't all bad, I mean the guys MegaSquirting the 1st gen MR2's used the Ford EDIS system to control spark.

Jeep guys use Ford 8.8 rear ends when the crappy stock Dana blows up. The 318 mopar guys also use 98-01 Explorer 5.0 fuel injectors when their OE units fail, which they ALWAYS DO.

BTW, wanna talk about a bad design. Making a stick shift without a tach. Asian cars seem to love to this, go ahead and try to find a american car like that.

The Ranger used to have tachless stick shifts. We had one in my fleet at my old job. 98 5spd, no tach. Also, early 1st gen focus.

 

[wa3ra]

I've only noticed a few oddities so far; this (vehicle #107 for me) is only the third FoMoCo that I have ever owned. They do seem to freely mix SAE and metric sizes pretty freely, but I haven't run into anything terrifying yet.

I have two word to strike fear in the heart of any shade-tree mechanic: Land Rover.

 

[colintrax]

I'm on my third 2nd Gen, and I will say, every other vehicle in it's class has it's quirks. Blazer - Slow as ****, terrible on fuel, weak transmission. GC - POS (ask me, I know...). 4runner and Pathfinder also had their issues.



Jeep guys use Ford 8.8 rear ends when the crappy stock Dana blows up. The 318 mopar guys also use 98-01 Explorer 5.0 fuel injectors when their OE units fail, which they ALWAYS DO.



The Ranger used to have tachless stick shifts. We had one in my fleet at my old job. 98 5spd, no tach. Also, early 1st gen focus.

Really? Never seen it

 

[shadowless127]

I have two word to strike fear in the heart of any shade-tree mechanic: Land Rover.

I used to work with a mechanic and he HATED land rovers. We got a 2000 Range Rover in with some issues and I went in the back for some reason, asked him how it was going and he said "It's a piece of ****, they all are. "

 

[wa3ra]

Range Rovers, yeah. The Discovery is actually a very well-built car, as long as you can do your own work, with the notable exception of the head gaskets.

Funny thing, to get tons more power and better gas mileage, lots of us found the Mustang guys, who almost invariably pulled the factory 19# injectors in favor of the 23# or 25# that the 5.0 was designed for, and bought their fresh 19-pounders for the Rovers!

 

[briwayjones]

They do seem to freely mix SAE and metric sizes pretty freely, but I haven't run into anything terrifying yet.

I've never run into that on any of our Ford vehicles. I wonder if somebody replaced some of the hardware on yours with SAE? Are you the original owner?

 

[colintrax]

I think I have some mix of SAE and metric, but I'm not the original owner. 98% of it is metric though