Beginning around fall of 2000 I told people interested in buying a mid-sized SUV that they should wait until a totally redesigned Explorer was introduced in January 2001. It ended up being delayed a couple of months, but in March it finally arrived. I promptly took one for a test drive and posted the following review on March 15. At the time there was no 2002 listing. When a 2002 listing appeared I reposted my review to its current location.

I’ve never cared for the Explorer in the past. It was based on a very dated Ranger chassis designed in the early 㣴s. This showed in how it rode and handled. Like most SUVs (and nearly every American car thirty years ago), the Explorer used a body-on-frame construction. The Ranger-based frame was far too flexible for such a heavy vehicle. Combined with soft body mounts (between the body and frame) used to help the ride, this resulted in a vehicle that shimmied and shuddered over even minor road imperfections.

So why did I have high expectations for the new Explorer? The first one was thrown together in a hurry on a tight budget. No one at the time knew SUVs would turn out to be so hot. Now Ford knows. Even more than that, it knows that the Explorer is the best selling of the all, that this makes a huge amount of money for the corporation, and that the Japanese are finally waking up and fielding some top notch SUVs. Put all of this together, and Ford knew that its continued financial success depended on redesigning the Explorer so that it was the best.

I’d like to maintain the suspense as to whether or not the new Explorer met my expectations. But you’ve most likely already seen that I gave it three stars and a “not recommended,” so you’ve probably already guessed that I was quite disappointed once I had the opportunity to drive one. But if you want to know why I was so disappointed, you’ll have to read on…

Ford Explorer Reliability

Want better reliability information? Want to more clearly know what difference it will make if you buy a Ford Explorer rather than something else? My website, truedelta.com, will be providing this information in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats.

From these stats you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.3 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision than you can today.

I aim to provide the highest quality information to as many people as possible. Unfortunately, these goals conflict. If I simply give the information away, few will help provide it. So I'm doing the next best thing: those who have been active participants for at least six months will receive free access to this site's reliability information; otherwise this access will cost $24.95. The average time commitment for someone reporting on two cars will be (at most) 15 minutes a year, so you'll essentially receive $100 an hour for doing your share to help everyone make better decisions.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

What’s New for 2002

Why were my expectations so high for the new Explorer? In an acronym, “IRS.” No, certainly not the Internal Revenue Service. The other IRS: independent rear suspension. Truck-based SUVs like the Explorer generally have a solid, or “live,” rear axle. This means that the wheels are rigidly attached to the end of a solid metal tube that contains the heavy differential in the center. When you hit a bump with such a suspension, this entire heavy axle and wheel assembly absorbs the shock without the mediation of any springs or shock absorbers. Because so much mass is set in motion, it has a tendency to jostle the entire vehicle (it’s a matter of simple physics, force equals mass times acceleration). To help absorb so much force, the springs and shocks have to be made softer. What’s more, the solid beam transmits anything that happens to one wheel to the other wheel.

So, all else being equal, a vehicle with a live rear axle usually handles and rides significantly worse than one with an independent suspension on all but perfectly smooth roads. (With an independent suspension only the mass of a single wheel/tire/brake assembly is upset when one wheel hits a bump.) So why don’t SUVs simply have independent rear suspensions? Well, live axles are better for the sort of serious off-road driving few SUV drivers actually do. This is why Jeep uses a live axle in front as well as in back in all of its vehicles (until the new Liberty comes out). Live axles also tend to be more durable when driven over rough terrain. Finally, and this is the most important thing for a company like Ford, they are very cheap and easy to manufacture.

Take all of this together, and you might understand why I suddenly had such high expectations for the new Explorer when I learned that Ford was going with an independent rear suspension. Because an IRS is so much more expensive, I took this as a sign that Ford was doing whatever it takes to make the new Explorer have excellent on-road ride and handling. This is after all the same company that only recently has made an IRS available on the Mustang, and even then only with the top-of-the-line Cobra. Information that the all-new frame would be far stiffer than the old one provided further evidence that this might be Ford’s goal.

I have now learned that Ford also had other benefits in mind. Namely, they wanted to open up space in the rear for a new feature: an optional third row seat. Going with an IRS made this seat possible, even though the new vehicle is just a tad larger on the outside than the old one. Sure, it is a cramped seat (much like those in the Acura MDX and Dodge Durango), but many people want a third seat for kids, and for them it should do just fine. Going with an IRS also allowed for the amount of cargo room to be substantially increased and for the cargo floor to be significantly lower. Anyone who has had to put a lot of stuff into an SUV will probably realize the significance of that last improvement.

Some other improvements are worth mentioning. In the powertrain department, the 210 horse OHC six is largely carried over, while a 240 horse eight is new. The latter replaces the venerable 302, which saw its final duty in the Explorer. The new eight is based on the base engine in the Expedition, but has an aluminum block to save weight. While the old eight was paired with a four-speed automatic, the new one is paired with the five speed that only the OHC six came with before. The extra gear is between first and the former second. This should improve acceleration beyond first gear, since RPM will not drop as much after the shift, keeping the engine in its powerband. The eight is a $695 option. Are the extra thirty horsepower necessary enough to be worth this much money? Read on.

Styling is not among the major changes. Most people probably won’t even notice that the styling has changed. That said, the new design has sharper creases than the old, lending it a more upscale appearance. The Mercury Mountaineer, the Explorer’s twin, has more unique styling than in the past, with a front end that people are likely to either love or hate. Personally, I prefer the classic styling of the Ford. I admire what they have tried to do with the Mercury, the trendy brushed metal thing, but don’t feel they have quite pulled it off.

Accommodations

With the above knowledge, I took a trip to the Ford dealer. Things started to go wrong as soon as I hopped into the driver’s seat. You sit high. Too high. I got in, and the sunvisor was just barely above my line of sight—and it was up. And I’m not a tall person, only 5ֽ”. Hmmm…is the seat all the way up? I hunted for a power seat button, and found a rotary knob that adjusts the lumbar in and out instead. Was there no power seat in this vehicle? I figured there had to be, I was sitting so high. Somehow my hand found it’s way between the adjusters for the lumbar support and the recliner and found the control for the power seat way down there somewhere. The seat was up, but only about an inch. Even in the lowest position I was sitting too high relative to the windshield header for my personal taste. The dash is quite low, providing excellent visibility forward. The seat could be lower and still leave the driver well above the top of the dash. Why isn’t it? Beats me. Or why didn’t they simply extend the windshield higher (the top of the roof is well above the top of the windshield)? Again, I haven’t a clue.

Maybe I’m unique in liking the windshield header well outside my line of sight? I don’t know. I certainly don’t like having it so low. It’s like having a baseball cap on all the time. I don’t like that either…but maybe the market for these trucks does? Somehow I doubt that was the logic involved.

Aside from the header issue, front seat comfort is OK. They provide an average level of back support. Nothing to write home about, good or bad, in terms of comfort. They could look nicer, though. The fairly small cushion with a rounded front edge just looks econocar-ish.

The rear seat raises even more questions than that low header/high seat in front. In the new vehicle there’s more room back there, enough to fit a very comfortable seat at a very comfortable height. As it is, the height of the cushion is about average, which is to say just a bit too low to adequately support the thighs of someone my height. Few vehicles do have a sufficiently high rear seat cushion, so I can’t complain too much about this in the Explorer.

I can and will complain a lot about the height of the rear seatback. It’s really low, as if it was designed for small children. So low that when the headrests are down all the way they press into the upper part of my back. This is actually more comfortable than you would expect. Felt kinda nice having them there. The problem is that in this position the headrest provides zero whiplash protection. I couldn’t raise the headrest because the seat had the plastic on it still and I didn’t want to be the one to remove it. I assume you can raise it about a foot, as crazy as that sounds, because otherwise the rear seat would be unsafe for tall people. At the same time, I doubt many people will raise the rear headrests so much (most people leave them all the way down for aesthetics and driver visibility). So this seat seems unsafe to me given how most people will configure it. And hard for adults to nap in on trips. A final safety detail: the center belt is lap only. The spec sheet touts all of the stuff Ford has done for safety in the new design, including all sorts of airbags. This makes it all the more surprising that they blew the most basic safety stuff.

Why did Ford make the rear seatback so low? I suspect it has something to do with the low cargo floor I mentioned earlier. This is great for loading cargo. But it means the second row seat has to fold that much lower to form a flat floor, which forces the seatback to be smaller. This is my hypothesis at least. I didn’t fold the seat down, so I haven’t tested it.

Ford does provide two levels of vents for rear passengers, with a switch to select between them. This is nice, but some of the competition (namely GM) is now doing far more for rear passengers.

Ford did do an excellent job with the cargo area. It’s large, usefully shaped, well-finished, and very easy to access. First, there’s that low floor, so you don’t have to lift stuff as high as you do with other truck-based SUVs to load it. Then, there is the matter of the liftglass. It is nice to be able to open the rear glass without opening the entire tailgate if all you have to do is throw in a shopping bag or two. The problem is that SUVs tend to be so high off the ground that it’s not always easy to throw something in through the glass. With the new Explorer, Ford has addressed this problem by having some of the door open with the glass, so that it is like a door within a door. This reduces the liftover to a very manageable height.

The XLT I drove was about halfway between the base vehicle and the top-of-the-line Limited. It had your basic amenities such as power driver’s seat height adjuster, power windows, cruise, etc., but no more. Nothing you won’t find in your typical Taurus from Hertz. At a price of $31,265, perhaps this is all I should expect. After all, if I want more stuff there is always the Eddie Bauer or Limited, and whatever options are available on them.

Except…no matter how much you load onto the new Explorer, it’s going to still feel cheap. It’s a matter of the interior materials. They look durable enough, so I guess “cheap” really the right word. But they look durable like materials designed for heavy duty commercial use do. This interior looks like it was designed for a work truck, not one often used as a family vehicle, not to mention one bought more and more as a luxury vehicle. The styling of the interior reinforces this impression. It’s a very plain, very functional design. Like with so many aspects of this vehicle, nothing to write home about, good or bad. Except that it’s not good, which if you want good is bad.

On the Road

As many faults as I found with the new Explorer before even driving it, they might have been forgotten if the vehicle delivered in the ride and handling department. After all, that’s what I was really looking forward to trying out in the first place. So how well did the impressive spec sheet translate to the real world?

Not well at all. I was sorely disappointed. Even in moderate turns (I didn’t attempt any aggressive maneuvers) the new Explorer leans heavily and plows. Heavy understeer. The steering is fairly decent for an SUV—it’s only a bit on the light side for my tastes—but there’s just no joy to be had here. IRS or no, this truck remains a sloppy handler. The sole bright spot in the handling is a very tight turning circle for such a large vehicle. I wish my compact car turned this sharply.

And it’s not just that the springs and shock valving are too soft. Handling has not simply been sacrificed for ride quality. Fairly minor imperfections in the road surface made the entire vehicle quiver. I suspect the body-on-frame construction has something to do with this. The old Explorer seemed to have soft body mounts to help the ride, with the result that the body would shimmy on the frame over bumps. Though the new truck is definitely an improvement, it seems this trait has been carried over. Very sad. Worse, every bump sends a shudder up through the steering column. I like to be able to feel the road through the wheel, but at some point road feel becomes “kick back.” Don’t get me wrong, the ride is generally comfortable. These problems may even be most noticeable at low speeds over minor to moderate road imperfections. But all of this shimmying and shuddering makes the new Explorer feel far less solid than the stats on the new body and frame suggest it should be. These sensations say “work truck,” not “family vehicle,” and definitely not “luxury.”

The main quality lapse I noticed in the vehicle I drove was a minor squeak in the dash around the instruments. There may be other problems lurking. The launch of the new vehicle was delayed about six weeks to fix lingering quality issues. Overall I suspect quality will be about the same as with the old Explorer, which is to say about average, maybe a touch below average.

On the sparsely populated positive side of the ledger, the new Explorer is fairly quiet. In contrast to the smaller Escape, road noise is especially low. I had to strain to hear the tires (which for the record were Michelins). Wind noise is moderate even at highway speeds.

Unfortunately, more bad news is not far away. The six is just barely up to moving this much vehicle. Thankfully Ford added a gear between first and what used to be second a few years ago, so that once the transmission does shift you remain in the engines powerband. I never felt like the engine was letting me down—I could accelerate as quickly as I’d want to in regular driving—but the engine makes a lot of noise while going about its work. It’s not an entirely unpleasant sound—I’ve certainly heard nastier sounds coming from engines. But it always seems like the engine is working quite hard, if not quite straining. In regular driving, using about 1/3 throttle to accelerate, the transmission shifted at about 4000 RPM. This is a fairly high shift point for regular driving. A bit more throttle, and the tranny shifts at 5000…you get the idea. So while this engine moves the vehicle well enough, I suspect fuel economy will be very poor. High shift points will do that.

All in all, between the suspension and the just adequate engine the new Explorer was not at all fun to drive. Maybe SUV buyers don’t expect their vehicles to be fun to drive. I personally do, so this alone would be a deal killer for me.

The eight will not be available for another month or two. I might test drive a V8 Limited once one is available. I don’t expect the difference to be large enough to sway my basic opinion of the vehicle, but there is always that chance.

Update (9-19-2001): I recently drove a Mercury Mountaineer with the 240 horsepower V8 and leather. The eight performed only marginally better than the six. It lacked the torquey feel engines of this size usually have. As with the six, even half throttle resulted in 4,000-5,000 RPM shifts. This engine should not have to work this hard. I have no idea why it does. At any rate, the six in the GM SUVs performs much better than Ford's eight. The Mercury's two-tone leather made for a more luxurious interior, but parts such as the console detracted from the ambiance.

I did not do any off-road driving. Given the on-road experience, I do not expect this is a good vehicle for serious off-road driving. The suspension is too soft, the handling too clumsy, and the vehicle is just too big for that sort of thing. Of course few people use Explorers this way. For light duty SUV stuff, like driving on snow or unpaved roads, it should be adequate.

Last Words

Ford has a lot at stake with the new Explorer. From the spec sheet it appears they went all out to guarantee that the Explorer will continue to be the best selling SUV. The inclusion of an independent rear suspension is especially impressive. Unfortunately, while the size and utility of the cargo area is exceptional, the new Explorer surprisingly falls short in many other areas.

This fact was highlighted by my second test drive of the day. GM has also just introduced totally redesigned versions of its mid-sized SUVs. There’s no IRS, there’s no available third row seat (at least not yet), and GM has fallen short so often in the past that I didn’t expect nearly as much from these new vehicles. Once again a test drive surprised me, this time in a good way. For details, check out my review of the GMC Envoy. Though the GMC stickered for quite a bit more than the Ford, I suspect that they cost about the same comparably equipped. (Once comprehensive pricing information is available I will update this part of the review.)

As for Ford, I’d advise a bunch of quick revisions to the new Explorer. Otherwise, they can kiss their market leadership goodbye. A mediocre SUV was good enough in the past. But the competition is not staying still, so mediocre just isn’t going to cut it much longer.

To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough, up-to-date new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com. A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.
Amount Paid (US$): 30,465
Model Year: 2002
Model and Options: XLT 4WD