U HAUL AGAINST EXPLORERS!!!!

[Kadarom Douhrek]

Originally posted by RileyNugent
By the way Lonestar your comment “And then you want to rehash the Ford Pinto, yes every automotive company has a lemon.” Oh please!!! Did you forget about the Edsel? What about the transmission problems with the Tarus or the head gasket problems of the Windstar? I could go on; but, I am tired. I am going to bed. I’ll be back tomorrow.

And you could go on about Chevrolet, GM, Dodge, Cadillac, Lincoln, Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Ferrari, Volvo, Voltswagen, Rolls Royce, Opel, Suzuki, Kawasaki, Harley Davidson, Yamaha, Hondai, Daewoo......

 

[dogfriend]

Originally posted by Kadarom Douhrek
Hah!!
Could you imagine if that was true?
Big rigs would have to weight over 40 tons.

Yep, I used to work for a Class 8 (33,000 GCVW) truck manufacturer. A typical tractor (what most think of as a big truck) weighs between 18,000 and 20,000 lbs and can legally weigh up to 80,000 lbs GCVW (weight of tractor and trailer and load) without a special permit. I once rode with a driver in BC who was over 130000 lbs with a 18000 lb tractor.

I would use the stated tow capacity from the manufacturer of the tow vehicle before I would believe some retard from Uhaul (no offense to any retards out there). This is why I started my boycott of Uhaul years ago.

 

[Kadarom Douhrek]

Originally posted by dogfriend
Yep, I used to work for a Class 8 (33,000 GCVW) truck manufacturer. A typical tractor (what most think of as a big truck) weighs between 18,000 and 20,000 lbs and can legally weigh up to 80,000 lbs GCVW (weight of tractor and trailer and load) without a special permit. I once rode with a driver in BC who was over 130000 lbs with a 18000 lb tractor.

I would use the stated tow capacity from the manufacturer of the tow vehicle before I would believe some retard from Uhaul (no offense to any retards out there). This is why I started my boycott of Uhaul years ago.

I meant the tractor itself would have to weigh more than the load.

According to that logic, to "safely" pull that 56 ton load the tractor would have to have been over 56 ton's itself.


And can you imagine the weight of a train engine in that world.

 

[rfuree11]

Originally posted by RileyNugent

Originally posted by lonestar
[Riley, are you on here just to try to piss people off. ]

Lonestar:

No I am not here to piss everyone off. I am here like everyone else. I own an Explorer and am fed up with Ford. I have owned Mercedes, Volvos, Saabs and BMW’s. I have never experienced; so, many problems with a car and such a terrible dealer network. With all the stupid problems that I am having I am sorry I can’t help believe that there is not a major design defect with this vehicle. I am sorry that I am hurt your feelings by not towing the company line. I disagree with people who say that is not a Ford problem. Whether it is a defect or driver error it is an image problem for Ford. I just feel that pushing Ford is what we need to do.

As for my questions about the Mountaineer and Aviator I know they are basically the same. However, it was my mistake I was hoping to get more factual information and less emotion. Is there some rational reason how they could differentiate the vehicles? As anyone involved in racing knows the displacement of weight can make significant differences in the handling characteristics of a vehicle. I just wanted to know if anybody knows weather the AWDs were any less likely to roll to justify distinction. Those were my questions? If they are obscure, I am sorry? (Note: dogfriend nothing in this post is about you I appreciated the information you provided)

I agree with you I don’t think the distinction was based on the model. Most likely I think it was based on the demographics of the purchaser. I suspect that the Mountaineer and Aviator owners were singled out because they are typically older and presumably more careful. Whether that is true who knows?

Dolphan: As far as the tire stores refusal to honor the rotation agreement I wouldn’t sit still for that. If they contracted with you to rotate your tires, they should either stand by their contract or refund you what you paid. I would start by calling the area zone manager zone office for the tire store and demand a refund. That really makes me mad!!! I would probably take it to small claims if I had to. Oopps!!!, I said that naughty word. “Litigation” Unlike other people on this site, I don’t think there is anything wrong with doing everything you legally can to force people to honor their agreement.
If I am killed in this piece of junk Explorer before I sell it, I hope that my family sues Ford.

By the way Lonestar your comment “And then you want to rehash the Ford Pinto, yes every automotive company has a lemon.” Oh please!!! Did you forget about the Edsel? What about the transmission problems with the Tarus or the head gasket problems of the Windstar? I could go on; but, I am tired. I am going to bed. I’ll be back tomorrow.

First off, i could name major defects with all of the car makers you have named. Also, most people have had their cars many miles with no problems, im sure there are people out there saying the same exact thing as you about your other "better" car makers.


Second, i havent read anything saying that the AWD versions have a higher rate of rollover, if anything, i would say it is lower considering the engine and drivetrain are lower and heavier lowering the center of gravity.

Third, there havent been many mounty lawsuits out there and i just think that U-haul is concerned about their profits and since they havent been sued over the mounty, theyre not going to lose potential customers over a few cars they havent been sued over. Also, look at the mountys out there, the odds are not very high that ones going to get into an accident just due to the fact that there are so few of them.


Fourth, if you get killed in the explorer, you hope they sue Ford? What if the accident isnt due to defects (which most arent, people are just sue-happy)? what if someone t-bones you? is it still fords fault? i do agree that the tire shop should be taken to small claims court. There are cartain things worth suing over and are justified.

fifth, i could name drfects in all those cars you named earlier and also with pretty much any car company.

also, you are pissing people off

 

[dogfriend]

Kadarom Douhrek-

I understood what you meant; I was just backing you up by providing an example to illustrate how the Uhaul rule was wrong.

Here is an another example to show that the advice that Riley got from Uhaul was wrong:

I looked up a 2002 Chevy Pickup (cause Riley seems to have a problem with Fords). Chevy Silverado The truck weighs approx 5200 lbs (reg bed, 2wd) but has a tow rating of 15,600 lbs when equipped with a diesel engine. i.e. , about 3 times the weight of the truck.

 

[mx_racer_14]

Riley,

Sorry if you got a lemon vehicle, but that doesn't mean that every single explorer out there is a lemon like yours. We once owned a dodge pickup, got it with 5 miles on the odometer and sold it after owning if for less than 9 months to buy a gmc since the dodge spent more time in the shop in that 9 months than we got to drive it it seemed. the dealership even refused the roadside service to pick the truck up when the knuckles on the D44 were coming apart because they said it was voided due to the lift and tires, so my dad wrapped them in duct tape and drove it straigt to the dealership, and took it to sac as soon as it was fixed to buy a new truck. If your ex has problems I encourage you to sell it before it costs you more than it is worth, and yes companies should be held acountable for lemon vehicles, however you have not proved on this site that every explorer really has any serious defects that would kill people. yours hasn't rolled yet has it? as for the nhsta they passed the ex for safety, lobbying them isn't gonna due much at this point unless another safety issue comes up that they have to test.

 

[rayko]

As far as Ford having more problems than other manufacturers that's just plain bull. All manufacturer's have problems.
A family friend just got rid of her 2003 GMC Envoy. From the day she drove it off the dealers lot it was a piece of crap. After 9 months of fighting the dealer, she returned it under the lemon law. I advisedher to try an Explorer and she is now the happy owner of a quality SUV and the X was cheaper than the Envoy.
Another friend traded in a 03 Trailblazer,same reason, it was a piece of crap.

 

[StrongerThanDef]

U-Haul with explorers

Calm down guys, I'm the Repair Dispatch Manager at marketing co. 794 u-haul and I drive an Explorer, I didn't like the rule myself but I have to deal. The same deal with the tires at Costco, the Explorers do have a high roll over risk, but that also depends on the driver. I'm not too worried, because the Explorer is the top selling SUV in America, they're everywhere thats a huge loss in buisness for them....erm, us?

 

[ExplorerEB96]

Originally posted by RileyNugent
I checked alldata and could not find the pinto recall. I finally found it at http://www.recalldata.org/1971/12520.shtml

As for Brian97V8 Comments.

“ I am going to take one of the little match books with their logo on it. Then take those matches home and BURN DOWN MY HOUSE. Since the business did not SPECIFICALLY tell me NOT to do that then they should be liable for any and all cost associated with rebuilding my house. INCLUDING replacing all the "priceless" artwork I have on the wall.”

He is basically alleging that the failure to properly warn him caused his injuries. A warning defect, which is just one theory of “products liability.” Well the match worked as it was designed. And if you set out to burn your house with it that is an intentional act, and no the match maker should not be liable for your intentional act. I agree that there are frivolous lawsuits out there. I am just not convinced the issues with the Explorer are frivolous. With a products liability case there is more than one theory that one may base the lawsuit. (design defect, manufacturing defect, inherently dangerous, etc etc) For example, I don’t think the majority of people are wining lawsuits on Explorers for warning defects. (Which would be something like Ford didn’t tell me it would roll.) Instead people are suing and (winning I might add) for design defects.

Ok I assume you are a male... I see a basic design defect in every male.... does this mean I have a right to discriminate? I do have a right to market to females only....but to refuse to sell to them solely because they are male... don't think so... I don't really care that UHaul won't rent a trailer to me...but like I said...I think they should offer to uninstall and refund all the $$$ to Ford Explorer owners all of the hitches that they installed.......just because you MAY be able to use it once in your lifetime again (because they pretty much have cornered the market on one way trailer rentals) we are stuck with a useless piece of metal sticking out of our tails....

Karol

 

[dogfriend]

Originally posted by ExplorerEB96
I see a basic design defect in every male....Karol

Uh oh. What is it? Am I affected? My momma says I am perfect in every way.

 

[lonestar]

OK, I think this thread is going way off topic. This is about UHAUL's policy against Ford Explorer's based on "business decisions". If anything about Ford should be mentioned it should be why are not they defending the Explorer and explaining that the perceived reason from the general public is safety, although UHAUL plainly stated in the their canned responses it was not a safety issue.

This is NOT about which manufacter has more lemons, or my XXXXXX was crap. Lets stick with the EXPLORER and UHAUL.

by Riley Nugent
I have challenged people to post facts rather than make bald assertions that all of these accidents occurred from driver error. If they were driving 120 and driving intoxicated them I want to know.

http://www.newstribune.com/stories/082003/bus_0820030022.asp

The suit contended that Firestone and U-Haul acted with gross negligence, fraud and malice in placing defective products on the market.
The companies alleged the students were impaired by marijuana and fatigued from final exams, and that they ignored instructions for towing the trailer.

 

[03_LTD]

I wish I had some facts! I went searching the internet and didn't find what I was looking for...

I was hoping some where, someone had compiled demographic data related to sales of Explorers and Mountineers, i.e. number of each sold by year, average age/gender of purchaser, etc.

I think this would lend a tremendous insight into how insignificant the total number of reported accidents really is.

In Aug 2002, Ford produced it's 5 millionth Ford Explorer! That makes for a huge number of Explorers that are probably still on the road. Factor in the number of those that are probably on their second, third, or even fourth owner, and you'll probably get a better idea of where the problem lies.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is: Because of the huge glut of used Explorers that are available in the used car market, they are one of the most affordable SUV's around. This probably means they are being purchased by more young families who are looking for reliable, roomy transportation for their 1.5 children! I'm not meaning this particular demographic is more likely to be involved in an accident, but they probably are more apt to rent a U-Haul tralier to move to a new house/apartment instead of using a more expensive moving company for the task! Couple this with the age/experience level of the diver, condition of the vehicle/trailer, and then you would probably find that a very small percentage of the over all demographic of Explorer owners is actually represented. And if this demographic was compared with all accidents involving U-Haul trailers, I'm betting the statistics would probably track fairly close in all categories of vehicles involved in these mishaps.

I.E. Younger Inexperienced Driver + Older Poorly Maintained Vehicle = Higher likelyhood of being involved in a vehicle mishap.

It's obvious U-Haul has classified all Explorer's as being equally likely to roll over, without any regard to the model year, 2X4, 4X4, AWD, Trailer Towing Package, etc. Consumer Reports stated the 4X4 is far less prone to roll over than the 2X4, and I'm going to assume the same for the AWD Model. The 2002 and 2003 models are drastically changed from previous models being they have a wider stance, lower center of gravity, and independent four wheel suspension, yet they are banned as well! Car and Drive did several tests on a 1994 Explorer where they delibertly blew out the left rear tire (the tire cited in most of the lawsuits), and never had a roll over occur!

Bottom line, U-Haul is reacting to emotion not facts. According to several recent news articles, Ford is currently working with U-Haul to lift the ban. At the very least, they should modify the ban and at least allow properly equiped vehicles to be allowed to tow their trailers and Ford Motor Company should be the one to dictate what qualifies as a properly equipped vehicle.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[mx_racer_14]

So ford is working on the problem now!!! where did you find that?

 

[03_LTD]

Do a search in Google using Ford Explorer and U-Haul, you'll get a ton of hits! This thing has really gone wild over the past two days. Here's one example:

Ford wants U-Haul to drop towing ban

 

[modette]

Still does not explain why U-haul is lumping all Explorers together. Seeing as the new ones are nothing like that of the early 90's models.

Oh, well who really cares...just do not rent from U-haul and those that rent all the time then just buy a trailer.

 

[03_LTD]

This one is even better:

Car and Driver Tests Ford Explorer in Blowout; No Abnormal Problems at Low or High Speeds

 

[treywylie]

I've sent letters to UHaul and Ford expressing my concern over this decision and letting them know that my business will go to other companies in the future. I know it's not Ford's fault here, but an SUV that can't rent a tow dolly or trailer from the most popular rental company diminishes the usefulness to me.

How unlucky am I? My other utility vehicle is a soft top Wrangler (also banned from UHaul). Guess it's time to get a receiver hitch for the SC400...

 

[mx_racer_14]

funny how in that first site that 03_LTD posted all the actual testing has shown the ex to be among the safest vehicles Including that by the NHSTA, but all the lawyers just say it is unstable and anything abnormal makes you lose control,

also this was interesting...

"Amerco said its decision was the result of lawsuits related to Explorers used in towing."

So there is the business decision, it had nothing to do with safety, just the money the lawsuits were costing.

 

[lonestar]

Originally posted by mx_racer_14
So there is the business decision, it had nothing to do with safety, just the money the lawsuits were costing.

That's the jist of it. From what I understand their insurance persuaded them to drop the Explorer as a tow vehicle due to the number of lawsuits.

Of coarse more accidents are going to involve Explorers, they are the #1 selling SUV, not to mention most SUV owners are "soccer moms". .

 

[NICE59FORDF100]

kinda makes you wonder if U-haul's desicion on the ban WAS based on safety issues. i mean, think about it:

"Business Reasons"=cost for insurence on explorers=lawsuits brought on by people=a few tire blowouts that were thought to be an explorer defect=safety issues on rollovers

in my opinion, this has to be based on safety issues. i mean, what else could it be? what other reason would u-hual do this? The tire blowouts is the only bad image (that i know of) that explorer has. And also, werent most of those firestone tires inproperly inflated? Thats not ford's fualt. Thats basic car maintenance. Most people think that their cars are ovens, and nothing has to be done to them except cleaned every once in a while. And they teach you this before you get a license, so people know. They're just ignorent.

another thing. All car manufactures are required to put warning labels on all suv's. Heres one:
"Avoid Abrupt Maneuvers and Excessive Speed. Always Buckle Seat Belt. See owners manual for further information."
so, people know that these things can roll. but if they happen to roll it, they dont want themselves to blame. (i know this is already been stated about 10 times, but i have a point) Explorers are not porsches!

and another point: out of all these rollover accidents with the explorer, how many of them have had any knowledge of the handling characterists of a SUV? how many Off roaders here on the board have rolled their explorer going 75 miles per hour on the freeway with a tire blowout? now, how many of the rollover drivers that sued Ford for defects knew how to handle a tire blowout on a suv? obviously, driver input/error had something to do with the rollovers. i wonder if the courts looked at this.

what im basically saying is about 99% of all car accidents are human error. Me, personally, i feel absolutly safe in my explorer. And my future family as well. But, what Riley is saying is 'SUV rollover risk is ford's fault!' Umm, might want to check that. EVERY SUV has a rollover risk, not just ford. And everyone (hopefully) that buys a suv knows this. its sad they cant realize it though. But this ends my rant on explorer safety. this thread is about uhual and explorers. Anyway, all, have a good day.