Explorer or Blazer?
3coolchx
I have been driving an 86 3/4 ton Chevy van for 130,000 miles. I love the
height and know it will be a letdown to drive any other vehicle. I would
like to buy a SUV this summer. Any ideas about which is more stable, safe,
and rugged enough to last as long as my van? Thank you for any responses.
Zorak03
has a little better handling but the explorer is stronger and they will both
last a very long time my explorer sport has 159K miles on it and still runs
better then a few new cars people i know have.
Rodney
Alex Lloyd
JonnyCabŽ <gtpa...@buffnetnospam.net> wrote in message
news:3759f...@news3.buffnet.net...
> 3coolchx <3coo...@mbay.net> wrote in message
> <92860259...@news.remarQ.com>...
> squeak and rattle after a few months, and the chassis parts are assembled
> from older GM cars that you'd rather not hear about (rear axle from the
> Vega, for example).
>
> The Explorer's interior doesn't seem cheap, the 4.0 overhead-cam V6 is
more
> powerful than the Blazer's only engine, the 5-speed automatic always seems
> to find the right gear, and there's MUCH more room in the back seat. The
> puddle lamps are the finishing touch. :)
>
> The Explorer is the better ride.
> >
Let me add that the Chevy V6 has nearly as much power as the Ford V8! And it
gets much better gas mileage. The Blazer's 4.3 liter Vortec V6 has more
power than the Explorer's 4.0. It's so quiet you can hardly tell that it's
running, too.
The comment about the Vega rear axle is completely false- it's actually a
narrower version of the axle used in diesel Suburbans.
Explorers do look a little larger than Blazers, but they are not much larger
inside. Ford decided to bloat the Explorer's body, making it look a little
bigger, while Chevrolet chose to make the Blazer sleek and stylish.
The interior of '95 and up Blazers rivals many vehicles far beyond it's
price range. The front seats are more comfortable and roomier than an
Explorer's. I guess if you're going to buy a "truck" based on weather or not
it has puddle lamps you should go with the Explorer. But if you want a
tough, reliable, comfortable vehicle that is safe, easy to own, and fun to
drive, by all means get the Blazer! I love mine.
Ryan
"3coolchx" <3coo...@mbay.net> wrote:
> Hello,
> I have been driving an 86 3/4 ton Chevy van for 130,000 miles. I
love the
> height and know it will be a letdown to drive any other vehicle. I
would
> like to buy a SUV this summer. Any ideas about which is more stable,
safe,
> and rugged enough to last as long as my van? Thank you for any
responses.
>
>
Blazers are smaller than an explorer. Especially when it comes to
driver and passenger front seats. After sitting in the Explorer the
Blazer feels scrunchy. Newer Blazers tend to have poor turning radius.
Somewhere around the redesign in 93 or whenever it was the turning
radius got a lot worse. The Blazer is a little smaller hence feels a
little more car like when driving.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
JonnyCabŽ
>I have been driving an 86 3/4 ton Chevy van for 130,000 miles. I love the
>height and know it will be a letdown to drive any other vehicle. I would
>like to buy a SUV this summer. Any ideas about which is more stable, safe,
>and rugged enough to last as long as my van? Thank you for any responses.
You'll be happier after a few months with the Explorer. The Blazer will
Chomz78
>Date: 6/5/99 8:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Can't get a V-8 in the chevy!
Like hell...Full size Chevy Tahoe or Blazer.
Chomz
"You got a tux on, nothing's changed, you got a tux on
Lucky man with a tux on, you're still the same with a tux on"
--- Fish ---
Jacob Suter
IP addresses...
JS
Alex Lloyd <early_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:92865949...@ftp.mauigateway.com...
>
> JonnyCabŽ <gtpa...@buffnetnospam.net> wrote in message
> news:3759f...@news3.buffnet.net...
Ryan
How on earth do you figure the interior of a Blazer to be roomier than
that of a an explorer. Go get a 98 or 99 of both and sit in the driver
and front passenger side of each. You must be on crack to think the
blazer interior is larger. Try putting a pair of skis in the back of
each. I have 205's. They fit in the back of an explorer with the seats
down. The the blazer they have to g through the middle to the front
protruding into the front seat. Also your knees hit the dash in the
front passenger seat of the blazer. They don't in an explorer. There
is a huge space difference in the 2 and the Blazer is definetely
smaller inside.
Ryan
krulik
Explorer.
Rodney <rj...@pdq.net> wrote in message news:3759C5DC...@pdq.net...
> Can't get a V-8 in the chevy!
>
Jacob Suter
even a V6... Top speed blows too, what gives?
GM can't design a reliable high-performance drivetrain - thats what gives...
They've proven it quite well in their "Sports cars". Even 'vettes
accelerate like crap unless they're tweaked by someone with a clue (and an
owner with lots of $$ to blow on a crappy car then spend almost that over
again to make it decent).
Then of course there is the GM "100,000 miles to your first tune up"
scenario...
Lets take my girlfriend's 95 cavalier for example (automatic, 2.2L 4 banger,
mostly country highway miles)..
35k miles - water pump (what a BITCH JOB to do on that piece of crap)
35k miles - thermostat (I changed mine on my Explorer at 50k, but they're
saying 100k to the first tuneup)
50k miles - AC dies, pump destroyed - no $$ to do this job right now... (it
never did quite work right anyways)
60k miles - developes a nasty "clunk" when accelerating or going through
turns...
65k miles - take it into the shop (got $$)
#1 - AC system (new pump, new hoses, new orface, flushed, re-lubed, new
dryer, etc.)
#2 - Motor mounts (the clunk!)
#3 - heater core has a big-ass hole in it and is losing a lot of coolant..
#4 - new belt (ok, maintenance item, but this thing is supposed to go 100K
to the first tuneup!)
a week later the AC dies again, take it back, they do the job under warranty
again, do a complete flush, etc, AGAIN, now two weeks later it dies again.
I watched them do the job the second time and I know its not the work
they're doing - the pump design is SO DAMN BAD it self destructs. I thought
my RX15 was bad on my '92 Explorer (which cools to 38 exit temp on "normal"
(outside air) mode, on a 90 degree afternoon, with the fan on max... it
cools down the entire inside MIGHTY FAST... hmm.. Karen's car never seems
to make me comfortable on a 85 degree day, its friggin miserable on a 100
degree day...
Last weekend a radiator hose goes critical and loses all its coolant about
20 miles from anywhere, luckily I was with her and I was able to find three
plastic grocery bags, a floppy drive cable off a 486 compaq, and a full
bottle of windshield washer fluid (that happened to be in the car at the
time)... After some patching and a re-routing of the washer fluid lines, we
were off...
$15 for another "maintenance" item, 65,000 miles... hmm..
Now, the third time the AC has died, and the car has developed a grunting
noise when slowing down (lousy tranny - GM needs some engineers that
actually graduted high school physics, and even college would be nice), and
it eats engine oil like mad. Not to mention the fact that the clearcoat is
peeling.... Guess what? She's car shopping - quickly.
Ford looks like what she wants... Ranger, 4.0L - I guess the
damn-near-trouble-free 145k on my '92 Explorer has tought her something
about cars - AVOID GM.
JS
krulik <kru...@mciworld.com> wrote in message
news:doD63.383$FS2.43088@PM01NEWS...
Paul Michael Holland II
that this informationis misleading call up Edmunds and argue with them.
The specs for each vehicle:
Explorer SOHC:
0-60: 8.5
Braking: 129
Roadhandling: 0.67
HP: 210 @ 5250
Torque: 240 @ 3250
Max Cargo: 82 cu ft
Max Payload: 900 lbs
Max Towing: 3300 lbs
Length 190.7 in
Width 70.2 in
Height 67.7 in
Weight 3819 lbs
Wheelbase: 111.6
Turing: 37.3 ft.
Frt Headroom: 39.9 in
Rear Headroom: 39.3 in
Frt Legroom: 42.4 in
Rear Legroom: 36.8 in
Max Seating: 5
Fuel Capacity: 21 gal
City: 16 mpg
Highway: 20mpg
Pros:
A commanding view of the road, multiple engine choices, and one of the most
comfortable and commodious cabins in its class makes the Explorer the number
one choice for American's buying sport-utes.
Cons:
Gas mileage is not the strong suit for any vehicle in this segment. The
Explorer is no exception.
Blazer 4.3
0-60: 9.6
Braking: 154
Roadhandling: 0.72
HP: 190 @ 4400
Torque: 250 @ 2800
Max Cargo: 74 cu ft
Max Payload: 1196 lbs
Max Towing: 3500 lbs
Length 183.3 in
Width 67.8 in
Height 64.3 in
Weight 3692 lbs
Wheelbase: 107
Turing: 36.6 ft.
Frt Headroom: 39.5 in
Rear Headroom: 38.3in
Frt Legroom: 42.4 in
Rear Legroom: 36.3 in
Max Seating: 6
Fuel Capacity: 19 gal
City: 16 mpg
Highway: 21mpg
PROS AND CONS
Pros:
Still-handsome styling, wide range of features and options, competent
drivetrain.
Cons:
Spotty build quality, cheesy interior parts, uncomfortable rear seats, no V8
option.
Ryan <ryan_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7jeu4a$80j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Dan
However, I bought a Chev Cavalier Z-24 new in 1990. I drove it seven years,
and put 150K miles on it. Did every piece of maintainance GM rec. I had
only two problems with it.
First, the o-ring failed on the speedo cable at 90K which let oil migrate up
to the dash. No big deal, replaced cable and o-ring and cleaned dash.
Second, turnsignal would quit working intermittently when turning corners(of
course). Found and located a shorted wire in the steering column.
Car was and still IS beautiful. I sold it to a friend for $5300 and he is
still driving it! It's never even had the clutch replaced yet! That sold
me on GM cars.
My wife is now driving a 93 Grand Am. I get the Explorer :-)
The Grand Am has been a wonderful car. At 120K miles it's still getting
36mpg and that's with the 3300 V6 and 3spd auto! Yes, NO O-DRIVE. We have
been involved in two accidents in 3 years with the Pontiac.
First, there was the moron that hit us from the side with a new Dodge
fullsize pickup. 2K damage to the Dodge including, bumper, grill, pass.
fender, and headlamp. Damage to the Pontiac? One driver's side remote
mirror. That's it. $40.
Second collision? Rearended coming off freeway. We were only going about
20mph and the Honda that hit us was going about 65mph. Basically the
colllision was around 40mph which pushed our car across both lanes and into
the shoulder. Damage to Honda? Totalled. Damage to Pontiac? $157 to
repair and repaint rear bumper.
Say what you want about GM cars. But things always happen in 3's, right?
Maybe I shouldda bought that Jimmy?
Nah, I like the Explorer, but when it comes time to buy another CAR...a GM
it will be.
Dan
Jacob Suter <jsu...@intrastar.net> wrote in message
news:92871715...@uranus2.intrastar.net...
Erik Manning
It has earned the highest crash test ratings for any SUV.
Everyone I have known that has owned a Blazer has not been very happy, and
my bad experiences with Chevys goes WAY back.
--
Erik Manning
manning...@wt.net
A Better View
http://web.wt.net/~bettervw/
3coolchx <3coo...@mbay.net> wrote in message
news:92860259...@news.remarQ.com...
jason
the Explorer of the S-10 Blazer. Especially since the full-size version
has been called the Tahoe for the past 5 years since the redesigned '95
blazers were produced. Therefore, the previous post was correct that
you, in fact, can not get a Chevy blazer with a V8. It was and still is
only available with a 4.3L V6.
I'm not taking sides in the Chevy vs. Ford war. I've owned both and have
been pleased with both. I feel that Fords are more reliable, but I feel
that Chevy definitely holds a big lead in performace and handling.
Again, that's just my opinion, please no flames. I'm just hear to set
the record straight about the engines as mentioned above.
Chomz78 wrote:
>
> >From: Rodney <rj...@pdq.net>
> >Date: 6/5/99 8:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>
> >Can't get a V-8 in the chevy!
>
jason
agree, that's very powerful for a V6, but it's still doesn't match the
205 - 210 HP(depending on the year) of the 5.0 V8 offered in the
Explorer.
I certainly would like to see Chevy drop a 350 or 305 in the Blazer and
give it more power. I currently have 96 Explorer with the 5.0 V8, but
have also driven plenty of '95+ Blazer's and I enjoy both. They each
have their strong points.
krulik wrote:
>
> Even so the Chevy Vortex V6 has more horsepower than the Ford V8 in the
> Explorer.
>
> Rodney <rj...@pdq.net> wrote in message news:3759C5DC...@pdq.net...
> > Can't get a V-8 in the chevy!
> >
jason
more credit than do. The 4.3L V6 is only 190 HP, not 195 as I had
previously mentioned.
jason
to start posting the nasty flames now.
I appreciate your factual and unbiased information that you posted.
jason
going on. I thought I shut that up a while back. Anyway, yes, the
Blazer's V6 does beat the original 4.0L OHV engine from the Explorer,
but you do have two more engine choices. A 4.0L SOHC with 210HP or a
5.0V8 with 215HP. So exactly where does the Blazer have more power?
Also, I wouldn't call the Blazer "sleek and stylish", I'd call it narrow
and cramped. The Blazer is at least 3 inches narrower than the Explorer.
Ford didn't make it "look bigger" as you put it. Guess what? Your eyes
aren't fooling you. The Explorer IS bigger. You can call the Explorer
bloated if you want, but it's still the #1 selling SUV in the world.
Then again, I'm sure that you'll come up with something like "Those
people are just following the masses".
I don't have any information about whether the rear axle came from a
Vega or if it's a shortened Suburban axle...but really wouldn't be
surprised if it did come from the Vega. Also, don't you think that a
Suburban axle is a little too heavy-duty and extreme for such a delicate
vehicle like the Blazer?
Alex Lloyd wrote:
>
> JonnyCabŽ <gtpa...@buffnetnospam.net> wrote in message
> news:3759f...@news3.buffnet.net...
> > 3coolchx <3coo...@mbay.net> wrote in message
> > <92860259...@news.remarQ.com>...
> > >Hello,
> > >I have been driving an 86 3/4 ton Chevy van for 130,000 miles. I love
> the
> > >height and know it will be a letdown to drive any other vehicle. I would
> > >like to buy a SUV this summer. Any ideas about which is more stable,
> safe,
> > >and rugged enough to last as long as my van? Thank you for any
> responses.
> >
JonnyCabŽ
it
>gets much better gas mileage. The Blazer's 4.3 liter Vortec V6 has more
>power than the Explorer's 4.0. It's so quiet you can hardly tell that it's
>running, too.
The "Vortec" V6 <roll eyes> is an ancient design; it's what's left of a
2-cylinder lobotomy of an old Chevy V8. As for "quiet", Consumer Reports
says "it roars like an old school bus". <rofl> As for the horsepower, the
Explorer offers three engines, two of which dust the "Vortec" <smirk>. The
OHC 4.0 (with a balance shaft, more horsepower and torque, and overhead
cams, something GM just doesn't understand yet) has a 5-speed automatic
transmission that GM is still trying to disassemble and copy. Every time GM
needs to market something, the money is put into advertising and not
engineering: "Driver Control System"? "Active Response System"? WOW! I
got *suspension* parts (too bad they're all from other old cars)...
> The comment about the Vega rear axle is completely false- it's actually a
>narrower version of the axle used in diesel Suburbans.
No, it's completely true. That's where it *started*, and that's why it's so
narrow. And the front suspension is the mid-70s G-car suspension, which was
the old Malibu/Monte Carlo/ad nauseum...you know, the one that was famous
for rusting its upper arm support and dropping the front of the car like the
Titanic. So much for your later comment about "tough and reliable"...
>Explorers do look a little larger than Blazers, but they are not much
larger
>inside. Ford decided to bloat the Explorer's body, making it look a little
>bigger, while Chevrolet chose to make the Blazer sleek and stylish.
"Sleek and stylish"? <rofl> The Hee-Haw front end is hideous...and the
itsy-bitsy rear axle makes the thing look like someone hammered the rear
wheels a foot under the wheel openings. Ford didn't "decide to bloat"
anything. GM tried to make an already narrow rear track into a wider
vehicle, and it shows. From the back, looks tippy. And you don't read
stats very well...the Explorer is much roomier, especially in the back seat
and in the cargo area. *And*, it gets an independent rear suspension next
year, something the Blazer can't even *dream* about, especially constructed
of parts from old-car tooling.
>The interior of '95 and up Blazers rivals many vehicles far beyond it's
>price range.
You mean "its" price range, right? But anyway, Consumer Reports and all
other consumer magazines don't seem to agree with you. Neither does the
public...the Explorer outsells the Blazer and duh-Jimmy *combined* by almost
two to one. Also, read the other thread...Edmunds has a few things to say
as well.
>The front seats are more comfortable and roomier than an
>Explorer's.
Funny how, again, none of the magazines seem to agree with you.
>I guess if you're going to buy a "truck" based on weather or not
>it has puddle lamps you should go with the Explorer.
You must mean "whether"... <roll eyes> I guess GM has their market segment
pinned. <g>
>But if you want a
>tough, reliable, comfortable vehicle that is safe, easy to own, and fun to
>drive, by all means get the Blazer! I love mine.
I'm sure you think you do. Explorer envy is tough to get over.
Jacob Suter
girlfriend's) cavalier is driven a lot, and the roads in east texas
*suck*... Not like I notice it in my Explorer but when I'm in her car its
torture. My neighbor had a 93 or 94 (pre-new-body-design) cavalier... no
performance stuff (I believe 2.2L, 3 spd), same as Karen's, and they had a
terrible time with it, recently trading it for an S10 (which has been in the
shop 3 times in the 4 months they've had it).. GM has made good cars in the
past - I can't see any ford from the 50s, 60s, 70s and most of the 80s I'd
rather have over a GM, but in the last 5-6 years they've really fallen off
on quality from what I can tell.
Really a shame, Ford really does need the competition to keep them on their
toes.
JS
Dan <n7...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:7jfbtq$gv9$1...@news.xmission.com...
John
jason wrote in message <375B4337...@home.com>...
John
Jacob Suter wrote in message <92871715...@uranus2.intrastar.net>...
>GM can't design a reliable high-performance drivetrain - thats what
gives...
>They've proven it quite well in their "Sports cars". Even 'vettes
accelerate like crap.
The Camaro Z28 and the Corvette both out accelerate the top of the line go
fast mustangs
(Check out Road and Track)
>unless they're tweaked by someone with a clue (and an owner with lots of $$
to blow on a crappy car then spend almost that over again to make it
decent).
Saleen and Roush mean anthing to you???
>Then of course there is the GM "100,000 miles to your first tune up"
>#1 - AC system (new pump, new hoses, new orface, flushed, re-lubed, new
>dryer, etc.)
My Explorer @ 60K
>#2 - Motor mounts
My Explorer @30K Vibration at 65 MPH Ford wanted to charge me for their
design error to eliminate the vibration by changing the Motor mounts and
adding a shock to the rear end.. I learned to live with it.
>#3 - heater core has a big-ass hole in it and is losing a lot of coolant..
No but Brakes Pads @ 45K and Pads, Calipers and Rotors @60K maybe I forgot
to grease my caliper rails,
which I believe is an industry standard, Oh I am sorry its only a Ford
standard procedure unknown in the rest of the automotive world.
>#4 - new belt (ok, maintenance item, but this thing is supposed to go 100K
>to the first tuneup!)
My Explorer@ 60K when the AC Compressor locked up and destroyed the belt.
#5 - No to mention Radius Arm Bushings, Thermostat or blown rear sub woofer.
After looking over your list, I don't see where you changed anything related
to a tune up.
(GM true to its word)
>
Rodney
4-door sooo. like hell your wrong!
Chomz78 wrote:
> >From: Rodney <rj...@pdq.net>
> >Date: 6/5/99 8:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>
> >Can't get a V-8 in the chevy!
>
Rodney
I had a lot of goody parts on my 4.3! Maybe I should get a blower for the
explorer. However I sold the s-10 and still prefer the explorer. The s-10 had
125,000 and the only thing that went wrong other then normal wear items was the
water pump.
Erik Manning wrote:
> If safety is an issue, you simply can't beat the Explorer.
>
> It has earned the highest crash test ratings for any SUV.
> Everyone I have known that has owned a Blazer has not been very happy, and
> my bad experiences with Chevys goes WAY back.
>
> --
> Erik Manning
> manning...@wt.net
> A Better View
> http://web.wt.net/~bettervw/
> 3coolchx <3coo...@mbay.net> wrote in message
> news:92860259...@news.remarQ.com...
Ryan
almost every dimension. Where is the leg room measured. They need to
make a measurement from say the end of the seat to the front of the
glove compartment where your knees go. That and height are always the 2
dimensions that can cause the most discomfort when sitting in the car.
Steve Winters
>
> Hello,
> I have been driving an 86 3/4 ton Chevy van for 130,000 miles. I love the
> height and know it will be a letdown to drive any other vehicle. I would
> like to buy a SUV this summer. Any ideas about which is more stable, safe,
> and rugged enough to last as long as my van? Thank you for any responses.
If you like the ride of the van, you'll be disappointed in a "mid-size"
SUV. Try a "full size" SUV or pickup. The full size vehicle will be
heavier but stronger and use more gas. Get what will satisfy you; you
only live once.
--
Remove "*" from address to reply.
Cheers,
Steve
82 Z28
96 K1500
The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not represent those of
my employer or any one else.
"It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave..."
Moody Blues
Alex Lloyd
> >Let me add that the Chevy V6 has nearly as much power as the Ford V8! And
> it
> >gets much better gas mileage. The Blazer's 4.3 liter Vortec V6 has more
> >power than the Explorer's 4.0. It's so quiet you can hardly tell that
it's
> >running, too.
>
> The "Vortec" V6 <roll eyes> is an ancient design; it's what's left of a
> 2-cylinder lobotomy of an old Chevy V8.
True, its the trusty Chevy 350 V8 minus two cylinders. What's wrong with
that?
>As for "quiet", Consumer Reports
> says "it roars like an old school bus". <rofl>
Can you provide a reference? I subscribe to CR and I've never seen that
statement
made before. You made that up, didn't you? <lol>
>As for the horsepower, the
> Explorer offers three engines, two of which dust the "Vortec" <smirk>.
The
> OHC 4.0 (with a balance shaft, more horsepower and torque, and overhead
> cams, something GM just doesn't understand yet)
Yes, Ford has a need to put car engines in their "trucks". Tell me, what
exactly are the benefits of overhead cams versus a regular cam in a SUV?
>... has a 5-speed automatic
> transmission that GM is still trying to disassemble and copy. Every time
GM
> needs to market something, the money is put into advertising and not
> engineering: "Driver Control System"? "Active Response System"? WOW! I
> got *suspension* parts (too bad they're all from other old cars)..
> > The comment about the Vega rear axle is completely false- it's actually
a
> >narrower version of the axle used in diesel Suburbans.
>
> No, it's completely true. That's where it *started*, and that's why it's
so
> narrow.
No, it's not true. It's bullshit. The axle in the Blazer pre-dates the
Vega!
> And the front suspension is the mid-70s G-car suspension, which was
> the old Malibu/Monte Carlo/ad nauseum...you know, the one that was famous
> for rusting its upper arm support and dropping the front of the car like
the
> Titanic. So much for your later comment about "tough and reliable"...
More lies...
>
> >Explorers do look a little larger than Blazers, but they are not much
> larger
> >inside. Ford decided to bloat the Explorer's body, making it look a
little
> >bigger, while Chevrolet chose to make the Blazer sleek and stylish.
>
> "Sleek and stylish"? <rofl> The Hee-Haw front end is hideous...and the
> itsy-bitsy rear axle makes the thing look like someone hammered the rear
> wheels a foot under the wheel openings. Ford didn't "decide to bloat"
> anything. GM tried to make an already narrow rear track into a wider
> vehicle, and it shows. From the back, looks tippy.
Personal preference, I think the Explorer is ugly. Looks tippy, huh? The
Explorer doesn't handle as well as the Blazer. Check the specs.
And you don't read
> stats very well...the Explorer is much roomier, especially in the back
seat
> and in the cargo area.
Actually, I didn't look up any stats before I posted that. You're right, its
a little bigger, but not "much roomier".
*And*, it gets an independent rear suspension next
> year, something the Blazer can't even *dream* about, especially
constructed
> of parts from old-car tooling.
The benefit of this is...what? More complexity, so you get the joy of paying
more when it needs repairs.
>
> >The interior of '95 and up Blazers rivals many vehicles far beyond it's
> >price range.
>
> You mean "its" price range, right? But anyway, Consumer Reports and all
> other consumer magazines don't seem to agree with you. Neither does the
> public...the Explorer outsells the Blazer and duh-Jimmy *combined* by
almost
> two to one. Also, read the other thread...Edmunds has a few things to say
> as well.
>
> >The front seats are more comfortable and roomier than an
> >Explorer's.
>
> Funny how, again, none of the magazines seem to agree with you.
Again, provide a *real* reference.
> >I guess if you're going to buy a "truck" based on weather or not
> >it has puddle lamps you should go with the Explorer.
>
> You must mean "whether"... <roll eyes> I guess GM has their market
segment
> pinned. <g>
>
> >But if you want a
> >tough, reliable, comfortable vehicle that is safe, easy to own, and fun
to
> >drive, by all means get the Blazer! I love mine.
>
> I'm sure you think you do. Explorer envy is tough to get over.
Sorry, I don't envy anyone with an Explorer.
wpu...@my-deja.com
that gets the wheels going. (Physics 101)
In article <doD63.383$FS2.43088@PM01NEWS>,
"krulik" <kru...@mciworld.com> wrote:
> Even so the Chevy Vortex V6 has more horsepower than the Ford V8 in
the
> Explorer.
>
> Rodney <rj...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:3759C5DC...@pdq.net...
> > Can't get a V-8 in the chevy!
> >
> > Zorak03 wrote:
> >
> > > You just have to drive them both,there both great trucks, the
Blazer i
> think
> > > has a little better handling but the explorer is stronger and
they will
> both
> > > last a very long time my explorer sport has 159K miles on it and
still
> runs
> > > better then a few new cars people i know have.
> >
>
>
wpu...@my-deja.com
utes.
themselves. There must be something good about them as the statement
says there the #1 choice.
remember not everyone likes liver and people have their preferances for
vehicles, I like my Explorer, and don't care for the Blazer but thats
not to say the Blazer is a bad vehicle. Its America and everyone is
entitled to drive the vehicle of their preference. If all you yahoo's
out there want to start going head to head maybe the american goverment
should dictate the car/truck manufacturers and just have ONE vehicle
for the public to choose from!!!!
In article <FaG63.1459$LI5.1...@axe.netdoor.com>,
JonnyCabŽ
>True, its the trusty Chevy 350 V8 minus two cylinders. What's wrong with
>that?
Band-aid "engineering". No balance shaft. Pushrods. Timing chain. 'Nuff
said.
>Can you provide a reference? I subscribe to CR and I've never seen that
>statement
>made before. You made that up, didn't you? <lol>
No, and if you'd like me to look it up, I will. If you susbscribe to
Consumer Reports, then you'd also realize they rank the Blazer below the
Explorer, and the S-10 below the Ranger. Look up their reliability history
in the annual car issue and note more black circles anywhere near GM
products. Car and Driver also did a pickup comparison about a year
ago...the Ranger ranked higher than the S10 (although the Dakota won the
test).
>Yes, Ford has a need to put car engines in their "trucks". Tell me, what
>exactly are the benefits of overhead cams versus a regular cam in a SUV?
The 4.0 OHC is only available in the Explorer, and does not share parts with
any other Ford engine other than the base 4.0 that's in the Explorer and
optional on the Ranger. "More lies"?... <rofl> The "Vortec" has seen
"duty" in the old Monte Carlo (car), the Caprice (car), the S-10, and the
Blazer. Get your facts straight.
>No, it's not true. It's bullshit. The axle in the Blazer pre-dates the
>Vega!
I guess I'll have to find the 1981 Car And Driver that described the Blazer
when it first came out, and if you have it, or you'd like to order the back
issue, be my guest. Sorry, the rear axle *was* taken from the Vega/Monza,
and the front suspension was taken from the G-car (1978-1983 Malibu, Monte
Carlo, Grand Prix, Regal, ad infinitum). I have no reason to lie; that's
what they said. And the chassis hasn't changed since it was brought out in
1981 as an '82.
>> And the front suspension is the mid-70s G-car suspension, which was
>> the old Malibu/Monte Carlo/ad nauseum...you know, the one that was famous
>> for rusting its upper arm support and dropping the front of the car like
>the
>> Titanic. So much for your later comment about "tough and reliable"...
>
>More lies...
The NTSA recalled 1978-1983 G-cars for rear axle half-shafts that could
separate from the differential, and another recall was issued for upper
A-arm mounts that could rust and cause the front suspension to collapse.
Facts. If you want to say I'm making it up, fine. I don't have the time to
look it up, but I do remember it, and if you'd look for it, you'd see I'm
right. No car manufacturer is perfect.
>Personal preference, I think the Explorer is ugly. Looks tippy, huh? The
>Explorer doesn't handle as well as the Blazer. Check the specs.
That depends on the model, and .01g on *any* SUV is still not going to make
me flog it around an entrance ramp. That's for the car. :) And while it
*is* personal preference, and we're all entitled to that, I personally don't
like any vehicle that has rear wheels recessed *way* into the wheel
openings, which is how many GM cars look (usually because of solid rear
axles, which don't let the camber change).
>Actually, I didn't look up any stats before I posted that. You're right,
its
>a little bigger, but not "much roomier".
The rear seat is definitely roomier, as is the rear door opening. Whether
measurements bear that out (and they do), it's more obvious when you've
ridden in an Explorer and then tried to get into the back of a Blazer.
Sorry, it's cramped.
>*And*, it gets an independent rear suspension next
>> year, something the Blazer can't even *dream* about, especially
>constructed
>> of parts from old-car tooling.
>
>The benefit of this is...what? More complexity, so you get the joy of
paying
>more when it needs repairs.
I've never *needed* repairs, but advantages include better ride, better
handling, more consistent control whether loaded or unloaded, and better
tire control. It's not much more "complex" than a solid axle and all of its
components; it just works better. That's why just about every *other*
manufacturer is doing the same thing...to improve the state of the art. And
GM always seems two steps behind everyone else...same old engines, same old
suspensions, same old transmissions, same heavy advertising.
>Again, provide a *real* reference.
Your own Consumer Reports (whenever their last SUV comparison was done),
which was one reason (among others) that I bought an Explorer. If Dodge had
offered a V6, a 5-speed, and 4-wheel discs in the Durango, that's what I'd
be driving right now. I don't have any brand loyalty; I buy what I think is
going to work best. GM just never seems to be able to compete. Sorry...
>Sorry, I don't envy anyone with an Explorer.
Whatever...I know a lot of Blazer owners that complain about squeaks,
rattles, bad paint, misaligned body panels, doors that become difficult to
close, and loose interior parts. That's why the Explorer outsells the
Blazer and Jimmy (and Envoy <roll eyes>) *combined*. It simply *works*.
It's tight, solid, quiet, well built, and it feels like quality. The Blazer
doesn't. Just another example:
http://edmunds.com/edweb/manufact_t.html/1999/ford/explorer/xlt4wd.html
As far as the sales figures go, I could tell you to look it up in Ward's
Automotive Reports for the figures, if you'd like a "real reference"...
<lol>
John
wpu...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7jm14l$mft$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>You can bash the Explorer's all u want but the numbers speak for
>themselves. There must be something good about them as the statement
>says there the #1 choice.
I don't know how many of you are boaters, but the same can be said of
Bayliners.
They may be the number one choice, there are lots of them on the water but I
would
not by any means say they are the best boat out there either!!!!!
Rico Suave
Let alone that Coors, Bud, and Miller sell the most beer, but the
best beer ..... not!!!!
Alex Lloyd
I figured not many people in here were onto cycling.
Not to bash the Explorer.
Rico Suave <Rick_Sch...@heald.edu> wrote in message
news:376128...@heald.edu...
Alex Lloyd
> Alex Lloyd wrote in message <92890889...@ftp.mauigateway.com>...
> >True, its the trusty Chevy 350 V8 minus two cylinders. What's wrong with
> >that?
>
> Band-aid "engineering". No balance shaft. Pushrods. Timing chain.
'Nuff
> said.
But it works fine. It doesn't need a balance shaft. Not over-engeneering the
Blazer's engine saves money when it's built, as well as when it's
maintained. Some would say that it also helps reliability.
> >Can you provide a reference? I subscribe to CR and I've never seen that
> >statement
> >made before. You made that up, didn't you? <lol>
>
> No, and if you'd like me to look it up, I will. If you susbscribe to
> Consumer Reports, then you'd also realize they rank the Blazer below the
> Explorer, and the S-10 below the Ranger. Look up their reliability
history
> in the annual car issue and note more black circles anywhere near GM
> products. Car and Driver also did a pickup comparison about a year
> ago...the Ranger ranked higher than the S10 (although the Dakota won the
> test).
Yes, I know that CR really doesn't like the Blazer and S10. I knew this when
I bought the Blazer. Mostly they thought the Blazer and S10 were too "crude"
and trucklike. I do not feel that this is a problem. I don't like the
overuse of hard plastic in the interior, but it's still a comfortable
vehicle. I have had next to no problems with my Blazer. It has had all the
proper matenance (but no more) for the 2 years/30,000 miles that I have had
it. I know that the pervious owner never replaced the fuel filter, other
than that, I don't know how well it was maintained before I bought it.
> >Yes, Ford has a need to put car engines in their "trucks". Tell me, what
> >exactly are the benefits of overhead cams versus a regular cam in a SUV?
>
> The 4.0 OHC is only available in the Explorer, and does not share parts
with
> any other Ford engine other than the base 4.0 that's in the Explorer and
> optional on the Ranger. "More lies"?... <rofl> The "Vortec" has seen
> "duty" in the old Monte Carlo (car), the Caprice (car), the S-10, and the
> Blazer. Get your facts straight.
I didn't know that about the 4.0 OHC. Maybe it's time for the Blazer's
engine to evolve into (or be changed to) something more sophisticated, but
then again, 4.3 works fine. I didn't say that the 4.3 wasn't used in any
cars. Don't forget that it's used in the Astro and Safari minivans.
> >No, it's not true. It's bullshit. The axle in the Blazer pre-dates the
> >Vega!
>
> I guess I'll have to find the 1981 Car And Driver that described the
Blazer
> when it first came out, and if you have it, or you'd like to order the
back
> issue, be my guest. Sorry, the rear axle *was* taken from the Vega/Monza,
> and the front suspension was taken from the G-car (1978-1983 Malibu, Monte
> Carlo, Grand Prix, Regal, ad infinitum). I have no reason to lie; that's
> what they said. And the chassis hasn't changed since it was brought out
in
> 1981 as an '82.
You're right about the chassis. I don't know why Car & Driver said that the
axle was "taken" from the Vega. I believe you, but I don't think they meant
that literally. =) Pretty strong axle for a Vega (the Pinto is the same
way). As for the suspension, I didn't know that it's the same as a G car's.
I haven't heard about any common problems with it, and it rides and handles
pretty well (in the newer Blazers with certain suspension packages, it rides
and handles *very* well, or if you choose either ride *or* handling, it does
that *extremley* well).
>
> >> And the front suspension is the mid-70s G-car suspension, which was
> >> the old Malibu/Monte Carlo/ad nauseum...you know, the one that was
famous
> >> for rusting its upper arm support and dropping the front of the car
like
> >the
> >> Titanic. So much for your later comment about "tough and reliable"...
> >
> >More lies...
>
> The NTSA recalled 1978-1983 G-cars for rear axle half-shafts that could
> separate from the differential, and another recall was issued for upper
> A-arm mounts that could rust and cause the front suspension to collapse.
> Facts. If you want to say I'm making it up, fine. I don't have the time
to
> look it up, but I do remember it, and if you'd look for it, you'd see I'm
> right. No car manufacturer is perfect.
I believe you. But I think they muct have fixed these defects before
implementing this suspension design in the Blazer. Like I said, I haven't
heard of this happening in a Blazer, nor have I heard of a recall concerning
the Blazer's suspension.
> >Personal preference, I think the Explorer is ugly. Looks tippy, huh? The
> >Explorer doesn't handle as well as the Blazer. Check the specs.
>
>
> That depends on the model, and .01g on *any* SUV is still not going to
make
> me flog it around an entrance ramp. That's for the car. :) And while it
> *is* personal preference, and we're all entitled to that, I personally
don't
> like any vehicle that has rear wheels recessed *way* into the wheel
> openings, which is how many GM cars look (usually because of solid rear
> axles, which don't let the camber change).
I agree with you about the Blazer's wheels being recessed into the wheel
openings too much. This is one area where the Explorer looks better. I don't
think it has anything to do with the camber, as Exploers have solid rear
axles (but not for much longer I hear). Blazers should use wider wheels and
tires, and change the offset a little, then they would look much better.
> >Actually, I didn't look up any stats before I posted that. You're right,
> its
> >a little bigger, but not "much roomier".
>
> The rear seat is definitely roomier, as is the rear door opening. Whether
> measurements bear that out (and they do), it's more obvious when you've
> ridden in an Explorer and then tried to get into the back of a Blazer.
> Sorry, it's cramped.
I should have checked the specs first. I'm 6' even, and 190 lbs. I've sat in
the Blazer's back seat for a *very* long time. With the passenger's seat all
the way back, it was plenty roomy. BUT, the rear bench seat isn't supportive
enough for me to be comfortable on long trips back there. The front buckets
are great though.
> >*And*, it gets an independent rear suspension next
> >> year, something the Blazer can't even *dream* about, especially
> >constructed
> >> of parts from old-car tooling.
> >
> >The benefit of this is...what? More complexity, so you get the joy of
> paying
> >more when it needs repairs.
>
> I've never *needed* repairs, but advantages include better ride, better
> handling, more consistent control whether loaded or unloaded, and better
> tire control. It's not much more "complex" than a solid axle and all of
its
> components; it just works better. That's why just about every *other*
> manufacturer is doing the same thing...to improve the state of the art.
And
> GM always seems two steps behind everyone else...same old engines, same
old
> suspensions, same old transmissions, same heavy advertising.
Wait, you said the independent rear suspension comes out next year. Do you
have it in your Explorer? Who else is changing to it soon (I honestly want
to know, and I don't think you're lying)? The Blazer's transmission is
actually pretty new, I think, though the Explorer's five speed automatic is
*very* cool.
> >Again, provide a *real* reference.
>
> Your own Consumer Reports (whenever their last SUV comparison was done),
> which was one reason (among others) that I bought an Explorer. If Dodge
had
> offered a V6, a 5-speed, and 4-wheel discs in the Durango, that's what I'd
> be driving right now. I don't have any brand loyalty; I buy what I think
is
> going to work best. GM just never seems to be able to compete. Sorry...
Yeah, too bad about no 5 speed in the Durango. I thought they offered a V6,
but anyways, I would want the 360 V8. =) I think there are already rear disc
kits avalible for it. I would love to have a Durango myself. I am slightly
pro-GM, but I'm not anti-Ford. I just don't like most of their new vehicles,
mainly, the styling (other than the Super Duty trucks, now those *do* look
good)
> >Sorry, I don't envy anyone with an Explorer.
>
> Whatever...I know a lot of Blazer owners that complain about squeaks,
> rattles, bad paint, misaligned body panels, doors that become difficult to
> close, and loose interior parts. That's why the Explorer outsells the
> Blazer and Jimmy (and Envoy <roll eyes>) *combined*. It simply *works*.
> It's tight, solid, quiet, well built, and it feels like quality. The
Blazer
> doesn't. Just another example:
Hey, sounds just like mine! =) OK, there are a few squeaks, and the paint on
the hood doesn't look as pretty as the rest, but that's it. It's really not
that big of a deal, and it would probably be the same for an Explorer of the
same age with the same background.
> http://edmunds.com/edweb/manufact_t.html/1999/ford/explorer/xlt4wd.html
>
> As far as the sales figures go, I could tell you to look it up in Ward's
> Automotive Reports for the figures, if you'd like a "real reference"...
> <lol>
I was kind of joking, I believed you, but it was a good opportunity to say
that. =) People can buy whatever they want, and if they want Explorers, more
power to them. Sorry about my previous post, reading it now, I came off
pretty harsh. Hope that's the end of this little argument, and seriously,
best regards, jgfio3ipf
Alex
Andrew A. Greenberg, M.D.
Ryan
Blazer to an Explorer is a little false. Bayliner's sell a lot because
they are cheaper than several other brands of boats in large part due to
cheaper construction methods they use which make them less stiff and
durable when compared to higher end boats. However Explorers clearly are
not the cheapest of SUV's or even coming close. So there must be some
reason people are dishing out more money to buy an explorer as opposed
to a Cherokee or HONDA CRV or even a Blazer is a small amount cheaper.