My 93 Explorer is A Good Medium Weight “Competitive” Work Horse vs a Clunker.

1. The new Explorers or competition have not improved enough to call it a clunker.

2. It averages 16-20 MPG when I drive for mileage vs my light towing or cargo needs.

3. The plastics/mechanics that’s not designed for tuff use/servicing is a major concern.

4. With no needed major repairs, 113,000 mi., 3,000+ added per year, I’ll pass on options.

5. I have not been able to justify any advantages that justify paying for a New Clunker!

6. Wanting, needing and trying to reduce expenses are being twisted and turned Today!

Joe

 

couldnt agree with you more. My truck runs great. My dads truck runs great which is a 1978 F 250 with a 4 barrel 460. lol we dont see a need

 

plus we also think this cash for clunkers is full of bs

 

If it wasn't "1 per customer" I'd do my '98 too....

Actually, since I'm stuck with it, I'm thinking of giving it some love, so I gotta look for that "best shocks" thread.....

 

I agree, I wouldn't trade my 96 for one of the new explorers with that stupid IRS and the plastic stuff, for the gas mileage they get compared to my 96 my 96 gets the same gas mileage with 31's and at least I don't owe years and years worth of high monthly payments on it

 

While I wouldn't mind replacing my '98, I wouldn't buy new and I hate the thought that the engine would be destroyed and possibly the whole vehicle given the glut of clunkers.
Old parts can be expensive or hard to come by.
And besides it still hauls my boat just fine.

 

And besides: FoMoCo Design/Engineering allowed their lysdexia to show on the current generation by putting the fuel fill on the WRONG SIDE for a left hand drive market. Maybe they wanted them to match the Taurus and Focus; both good vehicles but sharing this same inane - and gas station confusion & congestion inducing - attribute.

dn.