Explorer or Expedition, What year(s) to avoid

[wildbill23c]

Ok, so I only have my 88 B2 as my only vehicle kind of looking at something a bit larger with 4 doors that my mom can get in and out of without having to step up so far. Needs to be 4WD for sure. I do need to be able to do some towing of course. Figure 5k towing, so that would put me into looking at an Expedition over an Explorer I would think. Not too knowledgeable on the Expeditions so what do I need to avoid in them, what years to avoid, etc.

I don't want leather or sunroof, just a regular model is perfectly fine. If I recall the Expeditions were V8 powered, any major engine issues and transmission issues in them?

Thanks.

 

[scotts90ranger]

If towing 5k somewhat regularly that would probably mean an expedition, or at least a V8 explorer... All the V8 explorers ('97-01 I think... that was the year range I went for to get a 5.0L and a solid rear axle) are all wheel drive and have a 4R70W transmission, not too hard to switch to a manual shift transfer case with all junkyard parts (short of a conversion U joint). The Expedition of the era is very similar, those powered by a 4.6L V8 had a 4R70W transmission as well and those with a 5.4L had a 4R100 transmission, most are the same from '97-03. the next generation of both vehicles lost a solid rear axle and went to independent rear suspension...

From the research I've done after owning a '00 explorer for a bit over a year (only 2 months of driving though, I'll get there...) apparently the 4R70 transmission is the best small block transmission offered and after driving mine I like it. I got my explorer for cheap because at 205K the limited slip in the rear axle had worn out to the pint the spider gears were slipping, I had the parts to fix that for free in the garage already. After a 5 mile test drive after I fixed that the trans lost reverse, took it to a friend that knows what he's doing with auto transmissions and he fixed it for me, $900 in parts alone! Drives like a champ now though, converted to manual transfer case and it gets ~18mpg.

On another note, in another life I had a '91 Explorer 4 door with a manual transmission, I miss it really... it got almost 20mpg and was pretty nice in some ways, my current V8 explorer of course has more power and is loaded to the hilt with options but I did like that ol sploder...

 

[fangotango306]

For sure The 01-05 explorers with the v6 (v6 mustangs and lincoln ls too) and the 5r55 trans will have trans issues at some point. The servo bores in the cases wear out and they also have oiling issues from a badly designed check valve in the pump that primarily feeds the od planetary. Most let go between 120-170k. Most trans shops in our area turn people away with these or charge 3k to rebuild. So its become a hobby of mine to rebuild them. Ive done 8 in 2yrs. All the same issues. I also daily a 2005 explorer xlt 4.0l sohc 2wd.

 

[wildbill23c]

Thanks for the reply. I think I'll look more at the Expedition for the higher towing capacity and the V8 option. I know some of the 5.4L V8's had some head and spark plug trouble, haven't heard of any issues with the 4.6L V8's though. Its going to be a while before I'm ready to buy but just starting to look around. I don't want to rush purchasing and end up getting a vehicle full of problems. Sure new would be the best with a warranty but can't afford that.

I like the Expedition 4WD options of having 2WD, 4auto and high and low. I live in Idaho and the roads are sometimes unpredictable in the winter with ice/snow patches then dry and repeat. So the 4auto would be a very nice feature here.

What I've found so far are prices in the $5k to 12k range Kind of looking to get something probably 2006-2012 model years. Solid rear axle would be nice but at this point anything is better than the B2 for hauling passengers and towing LOL. I love the B2 but its just not a tow vehicle and only being 2 doors its impossible for my mom to get in and out of the back seat if anyone else is along.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

SOHC 4.0's had timing chain problems in the early 00's. Was the death knell for my parents '02. 3v 5.4's have cam phaser problems if not maintained religiously. 2v engines can spit out spark plugs 3v spark lugs break off in the head when servicing. Exhaust manifolds and bolts like to crack and/or break.

 

[wildbill23c]

I was just doing some reading on the transmissions, sounds like finding one with the 4R70W and 4.6L would be fine, or the 4R100 with the 5.4L triton in a later model would be fine as well. Sounds like the Expedition would be a much better solution than dealing with the continued A4LD variant transmission troubles...$2400 to have the A4LD in my 88 B2 rebuilt I have no faith in those trannies.

 

[fangotango306]

Sounds like your on the right track. As much as oberdrive would be nice ill keep the c4 in my b2!

 

[wildbill23c]

C4? I thought they were C5's in the 84 and 85 Rangers and B2s? Either way I agree, my 84 Ranger towed a 14' travel trailer all over the country from 84 until 89 when my grandparents bought a larger trailer and as a result a larger truck. Never had a problem with that 3 speed automatic transmission in that ranger. 93 Ranger went through 2 A4LD's and after that 2nd one failed 13 months after being rebuilt the truck was scrapped. 1 rebuild with the A4LD in my 88 B2 and I hope it lasts. Wonder if I could swap in a C4 hmm!!!

I want an Expedition, larger vehicle, larger engine and transmission capacities. Don't really need a 3rd row seat but it can be removed I think.

 

[adsm08]

All of the 2 valve Triton engines, 4.6, 5.4 and 6.8 were prone to spitting spark plugs. I have done blow out repairs on all three engines.

If you want more two capacity look for a 5.4 Expedition.

 

[wildbill23c]

All of the 2 valve Triton engines, 4.6, 5.4 and 6.8 were prone to spitting spark plugs. I have done blow out repairs on all three engines.

If you want more two capacity look for a 5.4 Expedition.

Thanks, was kind of thinking of going with the 5.4 Triton. I'd rather have more power than not enough. Although I don't plan on doing a lot of heavy towing, I do have a 23' car trailer I use on occasion to haul stuff to the recycler. Most towing will be of a flat bed utility trailer to haul an atv or utv on, or the lawn tractor, that type of stuff, but I'd rather have the larger engine in hopes of getting a bit beefier transmission too LOL.

I also like the auto 4WD feature as well as having 2WD and both high and low range. This is something I miss from when I had my Jeep GC, that auto 4WD is really nice in the winter. The JGC though was full time 4WD or part time 4WD with low range and 2WD mode, but still a great feature is to not have to shift in and out of 4WD when trying to park, or when road conditions continually change.

 

[adsm08]

Right. We picked up a 97 a few months back with the 5.4 and auto 4x4. Haven't used the 4x4 yet because, you know, summer, but I am going to start testing it out here soon.

Ours has almost 250K on the clock, and the 4R100 with 3.73 gears. I am told the power train is all original, trans fluid looked new, and it shifts great. We took it from Harrisburg to Erie, to Cleveland and back shortly after we got it, about 800 miles round trip, and it pulled out 16 and change. That's not bad considering the Explorer would only have gotten 17-18 on that same trip.

But all that and the interior space. The first weekend we had it we were driving and my wife commented on how far away she felt from me. The only real down side is the rear seat. It is a pain to pull out, because it isn't a fold-flat, it has to be removed, and it is heavy and awkward, and sitting in the very back I will hit my head on the ceiling if the driver accelerates hard enough. And I'm only about 5'8".

 

[wildbill23c]

I don't really need the 3rd row seat anyhow, so I'll probably just remove it if I get one that has one still in it.

I'd rather have the extra room, my mom & step dad had a 95 Ford Explorer and it had a few problems mostly I think caused by my step dad, but I think I'd rather have the Expedition for the room and larger engine and towing capacity.

Not sure how soon I'll be getting one but I want to take my time and look and drive a few before I just jump into one and throw money away.

16mpg on a long trip doesn't really sound that great though, but I guess that depends on how fast you drive LOL.

 

[fangotango306]

C4? I thought they were C5's in the 84 and 85 Rangers and B2s.

Yes they were c5. Basically same trans. I have c5 case and mostly c4 internals and valve body in one of my b2s with 5.0l swap.

 

[adsm08]

16mpg on a long trip doesn't really sound that great though, but I guess that depends on how fast you drive LOL.

Just remember that physics requires a certain give and take on stuff like this. You can't really buy something as large as an Expedition, especially for towing, and have fuel economy be on your list of things you are worried about.

Also, most people just look at MPG, they don't look at DPM (Dollars per mile). 16 MPG does not cost significantly more money to drive than 20 MPG. 20 MPG is even closer in cost to 25 than it is to 16 because the more you increase your fuel conservation the less money you save.

If you break down your week to week costs of vehicle ownership for insurance, registration, payments, etc, even in the 15 MPG range you will find fuel is usually one of the lower costs of ownership.

 

[wildbill23c]

My 2008 Toyota Tundra was averaging around 14mpg city and if I were careful could get around 18 on the highway. Now, throw it in 4WD and it was down to around 9-10mpg in town, it was in 4WD for a month straight this past winter.

The B2 does in the mid to high teens for fuel economy in town and low 20's on the highway.

Not really all that concerned about fuel economy, I've never really bought a vehicle for fuel economy, if that were the case I'd buy a Prius LOL. I'd rather have a larger vehicle and not be cramped and uncomfortable on trips and be able to comfortably tow what I need.