Hah ok.
Number one , is the transmission which was absolute junk. Two , the engine was awful. 4 liters and only 150 hp. That's sad. Jeremy Clarkson said it best when he said "How do they get such a small amount of power from such a huge engine?"
And before you say "it's not about power , it's about torque" , save it. This isn't a tractor. It's suppose to be a car.
Three , Unreliability. Your personal stories mean nothing. They don't refect what the majority of explorers are. Go on ebay , go on yahoo cars , go on criags list. Try to find a first gen with over 250k on it. You might find one or two?
Now try to find a toyota or honda from the same year with 250k. There's tons of them. Hundreds infact. That's because given the same age , and lack of matinence , they lasted longer then the explorer. Because they were designed and built better.
And by the way , I've owned 3 first gens. Count em, 1 , 2 , 3. I have an emotional attachment to the make and model. But all three were terrible and cost far more in repairs then any of the 14 cars I've owned.
If I'm going to buy a vehicle based on it's looks alone and ignoring it's awful track record , then I'm going to get the one that sucks the least and could potentially look the same. And thats a second generation explorer , not a first.
Depends on the transmission. The M5OD is solid. It's not perfect, and has a plastic slave cylinder, but so does the second gen. As mentioned, both slushboxes have problems.
The 91-92 Had "150" HP. Power got bumped to 160 HP for 93-94. And it IS all about torque. The 4.0L OHV makes that 160 HP @ 4500 RPM. The 220 lb-ft of torque is at 2200-2500 RPM, which is when you shift because there's nothing more after that except wasted gas and engine wear. Horsepower is a number that is used to sell vehicles. You will wear out an engine in short order if you are constantly holding gears and revving it to the RPM for max HP just because. For performance and racing motors, sure, but for street-driven vehicles, staying within the RPM they were designed to be used lets them work their best and last the longest.
I've only got ~230,000 on mine and it's been driven across the country several times. Not everyone drives that much, so plenty of first gens still have just 100,000+. That doesn't mean they can't go past 250,000, just means they haven't. This argument doesn't make much sense either, since when gas prices hit $4/gallon, people stopped driving their SUV and drove the 30-40MPG car instead. Miles driven doesn't always correlate into the amount of wear and tear on a vehicle, especially one designed to be used off-road, so a 4WD Explorer might only have 100,000 miles on it, but it has seen use and abuse a Honda at 200,000, 300,000, and beyond never will.
It's unfortunate you aren't pleased with the experiences you've had, but maybe your expectations were too high for such a vehicle. I've owned other vehicles, and they are less expensive to own and maintain, but they also just see on-road use. The Explorer costs more to maintain and has stuff you need to keep up with, unlike a car.
I wholeheartedly disagree on the whole lack of reliability claim, because the past few years I've neglected just about all maintenance on mine except for changing the oil, and it never gave any issue. The valves clattered, the rust progressed, the paint peeled, and the ball joints were loose, but it drove great and ran like a top. Now I'm finally getting around to fixing the stuff so it will last another 230,000.
Nothing wrong with preferring a second gen, but they aren't any more reliable or better than the first gen, unless you just prefer the more aerodynamic body style, or the IFS over the TTB.
