You know, with Firestone pointing the finger at Ford and vice-versa about the tires, I have stopped to think and wonder a bit. If the tires are to blame, why don't the other vehicles with the same tires have the problems? I think the Explorer has a serious design flaw that causes excessive stress on these tires. My penny's worth.

Mike

 

I owned an Explorer for 4-1/2 years. We loved it. It was a 94'. We traded it before the press really got bad.
My personal theory is that the suspension becomes weak after time. The vehicle handled differently when we traded it. It was right on time when it was new. I have been known to "push" or "work" my vehicles. This was a very good truck when I purchased it but as time passed, it seemed to loosen up. I was not the primary driver, my wife was. We had an 87' Bronco II do the same thing. We would doctor up the suspension stabilizer system to make it ride better. After time, it would still loosen up.

Jakegypsum // Ford fleet, soup to nuts.

 

>If the tires
>are to blame, why don't
>the other vehicles with the
>same tires have the problems?


I'm not saying you're wrong, but here's another way to look at it: If the Explorer's suspension is to blame, why aren't we hearing about the Ranger having the same problems? Up to '94, the Explorer shared the same front suspension and similar rear setup with the Ranger. Who knows? I don't claim to be an expert.

 

ahhh, but they weren't exactly the same. At least I don't think so. While the components were the same, I'm pretty sure the spring rate were much softer on the Explorer, and the Exploror has a higher center of gravity than the Ranger (although, probably not much higher). Also, I think that people tended to drive them differently. Most people that bought Rangers bought a truck, drove it like a truck, and expected it to handle like a truck. Some people who bought Explorers expected a four-wheel drive station wagon, and treated it as such.

I don't think the Explorer is a faulty vehicle. It does what it was designed to do very well. However, it is not a station-wagon, or even a mini-van, as much as some soccer-moms would like to think it is.

Oh Well...
Mike C.

 

I am inclined to think Mike hit the nail on the head. Too many folks are riding in Explorers and Blazers and Durangos, thinking they have a stationwagon. These vehicles are trucks and need to be thought of as such. Of course they roll over easier than a car. I think it is mostly a tire problem, and firestones fault. Explorers with other brands of tire don't seem to have this problem. Ford is somewhat responsible as well because the explorers are heavier than they need to be, and Ford should have recommended higher tire pressures. My tires on my truck are always at 50lbs or more, unless I am offroading. Why did Ford recommend such soft tires ? Probably to appease drivers that want a soft squishy ride. If auto manufactures could afford to build and sell fullsize wagons with substantial powerplants, some of these drivers would not be buying trucks. So the gov't is to blame as well, C.A.F.E. requirements killed off bigblock powered wagons, so we have some folks in a truck who just don't belong there, an unintended consequence. A 65 galaxie wagon with a 390 would pull trailers and haul 8 people and not roll over if it lost a tire, but the gov't does not want us to buy that sort of car anymore, so now we have the explorer mess. DF

 

The center of gravity and where it's at is a big player. What I mean is that the Ranger does not have a high center of gravity right on the tail of the vehicle where as the Explorer and Bronco II do. This with a possible softer suspension can be a big player to the problem. My Expedition will not allow the roof racks to be moved to the tail of the vehicle. I can't install a storage pod on the rear of the truck roof. It must be mounted in the middle thus allowing the weight to be more centered on the truck. If it was more toward the rear, then the possibility of "fishtail" or "sway to roll" would come into play. My theory, at least. Jake.

Jakegypsum // Ford fleet, soup to nuts.

 

Excellent point on the COG. Hadn't thought about that. The front suspension is the same as far as I know. No idea about spring rates though. The rear suspension uses a similar axle to the Ranger 4.0 (Ford 8.8") but the Ranger is spring-over. The Explorer axle is 31 spline compared to the Ranger's 28 spline version. I have also heard (not completely positive) that the Explorer axle is 3" wider than the Ranger's. Not sure if anybody cared about all that. I tend to agree with the theory about driver error. Or the tires may have been faulty. I just find it hard to blame all that on the Explorer. Maybe I should just jump out of this topic before I make myself look like a complete idiot. (not hard, believe me)

 

2 things. Dad's 94 ranger had a rear wheel blowout on the OEM Firestone tires when the truck was about 1 year old. Don't Jeeps have a high center of gravity as well. Just some thoughts.....

 

Dont forget i read somewhere that the explorers suspension is also like the 150's. i think that the tire is mostly to blame, but i also read that the new ford trucks are coming with BF Goodrich's instead.

-Jacksland

 

I agree that the tire problem is more of the Explorer's downfall than the suspension. I also believe that Jeep and other midsized SUV's are all in the same boat. My thoughts. Jake.

Jakegypsum // Ford fleet, soup to nuts.

 

OK now ask the other question, why don't Explorers have the same problems with other brands of tires?

 

What the heck, why not. Why don't Explorers have these problems with other brands of tires? Tire make-up? Tire pressure? Application?

I owned my 94' Explorer for 4-1/2 years. I will admit that I can be a little aggressive when it comes to driving. Even more on job sites and off road. Nothing accessive or possibly endangering others. My Explorer came through with Goodyear Wranglers. Yes, the vehicle did seem top-heavy at certain points but I never really had it feel like it was going to go over. I was always pro Firestone in the past. I liked them because they seem to grip better on and off of the road. I also felt that they were made with a more plyable type rubber thus allowing the tires to grip. This theory would also allow for the vehicle to sway a little more. This is just my theory, by no means am I a professional to judge one tire against another. I do know that I have had years and years of good service from Firestone tires on vehicles from cars to Ten-wheeled, 60,000 GVW, LTS-8000 trucks.
Sorry about the rant. Jake.
Jakegypsum // Ford fleet, soup to nuts.

 

I think Ford and Firestone are to blame. First of all the explorers sit up higher than S10 blazers-ithink they look better that way but their center of gravity is higher. Also Ford recommended 26psi for the tires for a better ride. I though suspensions were for a smooth ride. I dont like the idea of tires being a part of the suspension. Firestone recommended 35psi for the tires. Yes indeed the ride is not as smooth but the tires will not heat up as much when properly inflated. Ok so maybe the tires weren't top quality? My parents 2001 Explorer sport has a set of wilderness A/T's. I wouldn't be afraid to put the recall takeoffs on my truck. My dad got 62,000 miles out of the set of Firestone Steeltex R4S tires that came on his '95 F-250 when it was new. These tires were used on the farm and seen lots of gravel so they were definately a good set of tires.

 

I've got a "theory." The soccer crowd take Explorers, load em down as much as they can, and then try to drive it on crowded freeways like it's a Miata.

Same like they did with the CJ-5 JEEP

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 24-Jun-01 AT 05:37 PM (EST)[/font][p]I will just throw in my two cents here. I own a 1990 bronco II and have no problems. I know the capabilities of this vehicle and do not try to push them any further. I will never run a Firestone tire. Way before this tire dilema erupted I used to bust tires and filestone ATX's and wilderness tires were crap. We used to sell a lot of them just becuase they were replacements for the explorers and rangers. We had a few people who were smart and would throw Michelen LTX's or BFG's on them right when they bought the truck. They obviously did not like them tires either. My dad will not use Firestone tires either. I have seen a lot of these tires come and go and they do fall apart prematurely. But they cannot be entirely to blame. People need to take care of there vehicle. I remember people coming in and asking for air because they thought there tire was low. I would put the gauge on it and they would be at 65 p.s.i on a passanger car tire. These people need to know that tires are not supposed to be perfectly round. With all of the drivers ed stuff and tests you think they would at least test you on how to maintain and check your vehicle regularly.

People who say it can't be done should not interrupt the person doing it.