UHaul and Explorers

[Fire488]

Im glad to see another guy giving them a hard time. I think of it as they are stupid enough to lose that much money every year over a tire issue from years ago. I just dont rent U-haul, even if I have the option to use my father in-laws 4 cyl Nissan Frontier that pulled a sedan from LA to FL with a bed full of tools. (with U-hauls car dolly)

I don't have the numbers to prove it, but you would think that they are losing far more potential income than lawsuits that they would have to pay out. I could be wrong on that, but you get my point.

 

[OffTrac]

I will not use Uhaul anymore at all for any reason.

That's the conclusion we all eventually reach.

 

[koda2000]

Well, just so you know i always fill my own vehicle. i just grab the nozzle before the attendant does. I don't feel as strongly about this argument though, especially in the winter months.

This must be a New Jersey thing... attendant? I haven't seen a gas station with an attendant to pump gas in years.

as far as uhaul, their equipment is crap. i wouldn't rent from them anyway.

 

[Burns]

This has got to be one of the strangest threads I have looked at in a while.

Almost feel as if they just made the ruling.

 

[OffTrac]

This has got to be one of the strangest threads I have looked at in a while.

Almost feel as if they just made the ruling.

If by "they" you mean UHaul, they did, they can and they should be able to.

 

[waskly]

This must be a New Jersey thing... attendant? I haven't seen a gas station with an attendant to pump gas in years.

as far as uhaul, their equipment is crap. i wouldn't rent from them anyway.

you cant pump your own gas in NJ...... also cant make a left turn 99% of places you go to.

 

[FIND]

Discrimination has many faces and can be defined in many ways. Lately it's definition has broadened and gone viral in the courts throughout the United States. The courts will decide what is discrimination and what is not.
Your analogy using cell phones is invalid because some software is just not compatible with either phone so there in lies the justification for a vendor not selling to one or the other.
The vendor absolutely does have legal obligations to tell many why they will not rent a trailer to me. I showed the spec sheet and capability of my vehicle proving it can do exactly what every other manufacturer can do. They have the right to refuse services to a specific vehicle if they produce cause or reason. I know my rights and I am very knowledgeable in this field considering the line of work I am in.

I can argue that I absolutely was too a born Ford owner as my Father purchased a 1964 (1/2) Mustang the year I was born and it was given to me at the age of 17. I have always owned a Ford. By the way you brought up the bus thing not me. I just said that both are forms of discrimination. Are some worse than others? Sure, but, both are very wrong.
I am not sure what your last statement is implying. I take all forms of discrimination very seriously.

Argue when you have a law degree or even a basic understanding of the law. They do NOT have any legal obligation to explain the reasoning. All they have to tell you is their corporate policy, you can contact U-Haul directly for more information. If you can cite a law that says otherwise, then feel free to do so. Cherry-picking definitions for discrimination and pretending they apply to you does not make it discrimination. No one cares if you were given a car at 17, that doesn't make you born a Ford Explorer owner. Even if you were promised a car at the day you were born, that doesn't make you a born Ford owner, as you always have a choice to purchase other vehicles, and have probably purchased many vehicles since being given the explorer. The cell-phone analogy makes as much sense as your argument about trailers. U-Haul has stated that as a company policy, their equipment is not compatible with Ford Explorers due to past and predicted future litigation costs. Quit acting like you are a pioneer of the civil rights movement just because you are butthurt over not being able to rent a trailer. There are many people who fought their whole life to end or at least limit discrimination. You are making a mockery of their struggles by trying to compare their plight to you not being able to rent a trailer to tow behind your damn Explorer. When the Zombie Apocalypse comes, I hope you are bitten by the zombie Martin Luther King Jr.

I respect everything that you have said so far except to insult my intelligence with a WIKI and then ask my to get a valid and accurate description from it. WIKI's can be edited by anyone and are NEVER to be taken at face value. they are a reference only.

Wikipedia articles also cite sources, as this one did. Just saying that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone does not make wikipedia worthless, it just means that if you find something, you should check its sources.

 

[FordService]

...The sales person advised me that I could not rent a trailer from UHaul because they are not allowed to rent to people owning Ford Explorers of any year...

Hey everyone,

U-Haul International's policy to exclude the Ford Explorer from being an authorized tow vehicle is a not a result of any functional issues about the vehicles' ability. In fact, U-Haul has issued a field bulletin to its dealers that stated: "this policy change was not related to any safety issues". We suggest contacting other trailer rental companies for your moving needs.

Happy hauling!

Cory

 

[kam327]

"U-Haul has chosen not to rent behind this tow vehicle based on our history of excessive costs in defending lawsuits involving Ford Explorer towing combinations. This policy does not involve safety issues."

Ha ha, can someone explain how these statements are compatible? What issues besides safety issues would lead to multiple lawsuits?

I'm not at all said about the U-Haul ban. U-haul has crap equipment. Their trucks are universally old and disgusting. I moved from New Jersey to Florida myself with a Penske truck and car trailer and couldn't have been happier.

 

[OffTrac]

They're compatible because settling and simply changing policy to avoid future stupid litigation is often cheaper and better pr than dragging out a lawsuit.

 

[Beargap]

"U-Haul has chosen not to rent behind this tow vehicle based on our history of excessive costs in defending lawsuits involving Ford Explorer towing combinations. This policy does not involve safety issues."

Ha ha, can someone explain how these statements are compatible? What issues besides safety issues would lead to multiple lawsuits?

I'm not at all said about the U-Haul ban. U-haul has crap equipment. Their trucks are universally old and disgusting. I moved from New Jersey to Florida myself with a Penske truck and car trailer and couldn't have been happier.

Back when the Firestone issue was going on, both U-haul, Ford, and Firestone were parties to a lawsuit involving college kids who wrecked while DUI. Although Ford was blameless (except for putting Firestone tires on half of the Explorers), they chose to settle quickly. U-Haul was only incidentally involved and, I gather, upset that Ford bailed out so fast, so I have always seen the prohibition against Explorers as some sort of payback and certainly not based on any real issue. In their defense I heard U-Haul claimed that drivers of Explorers were more likely to sue than other makes.

I remember this well as I was driving an Explorer with the Firestones and did a lot of research. None of the Explorers with Goodyear Tires (the other 50%) had blowouts running the same pressures, and defects were found in the Firestone assembly plant, so the cause was obvious. Still, even with the bad Firestones, the Explorer had the second best safety record for rollovers of all SUV's, but since they sold so many, the numbers seemed large. The worse by far was for Toyota Land Cruisers, as I recall.

=Vic=

 

[Fire488]

Argue when you have a law degree or even a basic understanding of the law. They do NOT have any legal obligation to explain the reasoning. All they have to tell you is their corporate policy, you can contact U-Haul directly for more information. If you can cite a law that says otherwise, then feel free to do so. Cherry-picking definitions for discrimination and pretending they apply to you does not make it discrimination. No one cares if you were given a car at 17, that doesn't make you born a Ford Explorer owner. Even if you were promised a car at the day you were born, that doesn't make you a born Ford owner, as you always have a choice to purchase other vehicles, and have probably purchased many vehicles since being given the explorer. The cell-phone analogy makes as much sense as your argument about trailers. U-Haul has stated that as a company policy, their equipment is not compatible with Ford Explorers due to past and predicted future litigation costs. Quit acting like you are a pioneer of the civil rights movement just because you are butthurt over not being able to rent a trailer. There are many people who fought their whole life to end or at least limit discrimination. You are making a mockery of their struggles by trying to compare their plight to you not being able to rent a trailer to tow behind your damn Explorer. When the Zombie Apocalypse comes, I hope you are bitten by the zombie Martin Luther King Jr.



Wikipedia articles also cite sources, as this one did. Just saying that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone does not make wikipedia worthless, it just means that if you find something, you should check its sources.

Wow Find! I think I at this point i will just respectfully disagree with you on almost every point that you have made.
As for making a mockery of their struggles? How dare you accuse me of that! I did nothing of the sort and surely did not intend that at all. YOU brought it up not me. You know nothing of me and what i have been through in my life and what discrimination my family and I have faced in my life.
You have no problem with UHaul's policy? Fine! We all get it. Now you can move on and go troll other posts.

The comment about Martin Luther King Jr is just plain wrong and i find it extremely insulting. You have desecrated the man's great name. please don't do that anymore.

 

[Fire488]

Hey everyone,

U-Haul International's policy to exclude the Ford Explorer from being an authorized tow vehicle is a not a result of any functional issues about the vehicles' ability. In fact, U-Haul has issued a field bulletin to its dealers that stated: "this policy change was not related to any safety issues". We suggest contacting other trailer rental companies for your moving needs.

Happy hauling!

Cory

Thank you sir! I have done so already.
Sad to see all the same...

 

[Fire488]

"U-Haul has chosen not to rent behind this tow vehicle based on our history of excessive costs in defending lawsuits involving Ford Explorer towing combinations. This policy does not involve safety issues."

Ha ha, can someone explain how these statements are compatible? What issues besides safety issues would lead to multiple lawsuits?

I'm not at all said about the U-Haul ban. U-haul has crap equipment. Their trucks are universally old and disgusting. I moved from New Jersey to Florida myself with a Penske truck and car trailer and couldn't have been happier.

Their official document to me says, and I am summarizing: when a lawsuit involving a Ford Explorer is started the legal defense costs double.
The problem does have to do with the Tire issues of the 90's. I guess the Explorer's image is forever tarnished thanks to Firestone.

 

[Fire488]

Back when the Firestone issue was going on, both U-haul, Ford, and Firestone were parties to a lawsuit involving college kids who wrecked while DUI. Although Ford was blameless (except for putting Firestone tires on half of the Explorers), they chose to settle quickly. U-Haul was only incidentally involved and, I gather, upset that Ford bailed out so fast, so I have always seen the prohibition against Explorers as some sort of payback and certainly not based on any real issue. In their defense I heard U-Haul claimed that drivers of Explorers were more likely to sue than other makes.

I remember this well as I was driving an Explorer with the Firestones and did a lot of research. None of the Explorers with Goodyear Tires (the other 50%) had blowouts running the same pressures, and defects were found in the Firestone assembly plant, so the cause was obvious. Still, even with the bad Firestones, the Explorer had the second best safety record for rollovers of all SUV's, but since they sold so many, the numbers seemed large. The worse by far was for Toyota Land Cruisers, as I recall.

=Vic=

I remember that.
Since the ford Explorer was and may still be the number 1 SUV I wonder how much money they lose each year not renting to Explorer owners? It would have to be significant i would think.

 

[waskly]

I remember that.
Since the ford Explorer was and may still be the number 1 SUV I wonder how much money they lose each year not renting to Explorer owners? It would have to be significant i would think.

not really since they will put a trailer on anything including a smart / pirus.

 

[AlexSport'00]

not really since they will put a trailer on anything including a smart / pirus.

Dude. I would freaking love to see that. I'm not sure the smart could get past twenty mph.

 

[waskly]

Dude. I would freaking love to see that. I'm not sure the smart could get past twenty mph.

I have see a smart in traffic with a trailer hitch that said U-Haul.

If you want comedy visit there site, and pic a car, they will list it as compatible for a hitch... hehe

 

[FordService]

Thank you sir! I have done so already...

You got it, Scott; I hope it was a smooth haul.

Cory

 

[Fire488]

not really since they will put a trailer on anything including a smart / pirus.

LOLz Good point! HaHa.