> The new Fords are not off road capable to the extent the Jeeps are hell
none
> of the SUVs are. Sure you can drive the so called off road SUVs through a
> field or a dirt road but they can't take the heat so to speak.

Irrelevant, since most of the new Jeeps aren't off-road capable to the
extent the Wrangler or XJ is. At least Ford had the common sense to keep
solid front axles on its 3/4 and 1 ton trucks, unlike GM.

 

I haven't seen any advertising nor claims that the Explorer to be
an off road vehicle. I use my Bronco:
http://www.----------.com/bronco4.jpg to pull my Jeep back into the
camping area of the dunes, though.
The Real Ford that won the W.W.II:
http://www.off-road.com/jeep/early/fordgp.jpg
http://www.film.queensu.ca/CJ3B/Poster/GP.html And no, the Greatest
Generation, didn't need no stinkin armor plating.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

HarryS wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The troll for got one thing, if Ford had purchased the Jeep company they all
> would require the optional heated tail gate. The heated tail gate would be
> required to keep your hands warm as you are pushing them off the road in the
> winter.
>
> The new Fords are not off road capable to the extent the Jeeps are hell none
> of the SUVs are. Sure you can drive the so called off road SUVs through a
> field or a dirt road but they can't take the heat so to speak.
>
> We were out on the trails several weeks ago when an Explorer broke one of
> its lower rear supports on the rear axle. If you look at not just Ford but
> all the major SUVs which tout off road capability the rear and front ends
> have much stuff hanging down below the axles which are just asking to be
> broke. It is just fact, can't help if Jeep has their stuff together for
> being at the top of the food chain for it's off road capability it always
> has.
>
> HarryS

 

I haven't seen any advertising nor claims that the Explorer to be
an off road vehicle. I use my Bronco:
http://www.----------.com/bronco4.jpg to pull my Jeep back into the
camping area of the dunes, though.
The Real Ford that won the W.W.II:
http://www.off-road.com/jeep/early/fordgp.jpg
http://www.film.queensu.ca/CJ3B/Poster/GP.html And no, the Greatest
Generation, didn't need no stinkin armor plating.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

HarryS wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The troll for got one thing, if Ford had purchased the Jeep company they all
> would require the optional heated tail gate. The heated tail gate would be
> required to keep your hands warm as you are pushing them off the road in the
> winter.
>
> The new Fords are not off road capable to the extent the Jeeps are hell none
> of the SUVs are. Sure you can drive the so called off road SUVs through a
> field or a dirt road but they can't take the heat so to speak.
>
> We were out on the trails several weeks ago when an Explorer broke one of
> its lower rear supports on the rear axle. If you look at not just Ford but
> all the major SUVs which tout off road capability the rear and front ends
> have much stuff hanging down below the axles which are just asking to be
> broke. It is just fact, can't help if Jeep has their stuff together for
> being at the top of the food chain for it's off road capability it always
> has.
>
> HarryS

 

I haven't seen any advertising nor claims that the Explorer to be
an off road vehicle. I use my Bronco:
http://www.----------.com/bronco4.jpg to pull my Jeep back into the
camping area of the dunes, though.
The Real Ford that won the W.W.II:
http://www.off-road.com/jeep/early/fordgp.jpg
http://www.film.queensu.ca/CJ3B/Poster/GP.html And no, the Greatest
Generation, didn't need no stinkin armor plating.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

HarryS wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The troll for got one thing, if Ford had purchased the Jeep company they all
> would require the optional heated tail gate. The heated tail gate would be
> required to keep your hands warm as you are pushing them off the road in the
> winter.
>
> The new Fords are not off road capable to the extent the Jeeps are hell none
> of the SUVs are. Sure you can drive the so called off road SUVs through a
> field or a dirt road but they can't take the heat so to speak.
>
> We were out on the trails several weeks ago when an Explorer broke one of
> its lower rear supports on the rear axle. If you look at not just Ford but
> all the major SUVs which tout off road capability the rear and front ends
> have much stuff hanging down below the axles which are just asking to be
> broke. It is just fact, can't help if Jeep has their stuff together for
> being at the top of the food chain for it's off road capability it always
> has.
>
> HarryS

 

Bill why do you rise to that -------'s bait every time?

He picks something that is always borderline off topic bull ---- and
suckers you every time.

'You' deserve more off topic complaints than the trolls that sucker you
do Bill.

Face it, there are a couple ******** on this group that only live to
bait people. They must live lonely sorry lives, but that is their
problem. Too bad someone taught them to type.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

 

Bill why do you rise to that -------'s bait every time?

He picks something that is always borderline off topic bull ---- and
suckers you every time.

'You' deserve more off topic complaints than the trolls that sucker you
do Bill.

Face it, there are a couple ******** on this group that only live to
bait people. They must live lonely sorry lives, but that is their
problem. Too bad someone taught them to type.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

 

Bill why do you rise to that -------'s bait every time?

He picks something that is always borderline off topic bull ---- and
suckers you every time.

'You' deserve more off topic complaints than the trolls that sucker you
do Bill.

Face it, there are a couple ******** on this group that only live to
bait people. They must live lonely sorry lives, but that is their
problem. Too bad someone taught them to type.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

 

For Fahks suck....keep the bitch slappin to the "Home decor" news groups!



"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41C3C82A.4037FAA9@***.net...
> Troll,
> How many V8s did Chrysler and Chevy have during Ford's flathead
> era?
> You really are stupid when it comes to engines and transmissions!
> Both Ford and Chevy factory experimentals, during the early sixties used
> three 550 CFM Holleys like my friend's stock 406" pictured at:
> http://members.aol.com/franangrenteria/frank_32.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Ted wrote:
>>
>> You are a bigger troll.
>>
>> The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
>> heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
>> just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
>> kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
>> would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
>> the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
>> DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
>> tangent.
>>
>> The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
>> bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
>> didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
>> were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
>> mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
>> price" cars.
>>
>> While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
>> Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
>> don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
>> a turbocharger.
>>
>> But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
>> ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
>> was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
>> uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
>> and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
>> well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
>> was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
>> absolutely first rate as an engineering firm.

 

For Fahks suck....keep the bitch slappin to the "Home decor" news groups!



"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41C3C82A.4037FAA9@***.net...
> Troll,
> How many V8s did Chrysler and Chevy have during Ford's flathead
> era?
> You really are stupid when it comes to engines and transmissions!
> Both Ford and Chevy factory experimentals, during the early sixties used
> three 550 CFM Holleys like my friend's stock 406" pictured at:
> http://members.aol.com/franangrenteria/frank_32.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Ted wrote:
>>
>> You are a bigger troll.
>>
>> The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
>> heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
>> just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
>> kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
>> would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
>> the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
>> DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
>> tangent.
>>
>> The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
>> bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
>> didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
>> were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
>> mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
>> price" cars.
>>
>> While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
>> Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
>> don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
>> a turbocharger.
>>
>> But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
>> ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
>> was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
>> uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
>> and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
>> well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
>> was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
>> absolutely first rate as an engineering firm.

 

For Fahks suck....keep the bitch slappin to the "Home decor" news groups!



"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41C3C82A.4037FAA9@***.net...
> Troll,
> How many V8s did Chrysler and Chevy have during Ford's flathead
> era?
> You really are stupid when it comes to engines and transmissions!
> Both Ford and Chevy factory experimentals, during the early sixties used
> three 550 CFM Holleys like my friend's stock 406" pictured at:
> http://members.aol.com/franangrenteria/frank_32.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Ted wrote:
>>
>> You are a bigger troll.
>>
>> The trans in the 6 was the same weight as the V8, in fact the 6 was
>> heavier than the 318. No one gave a ---- about weight then! They were
>> just making things tough. If they cared about Weight they would have
>> kept the aluminum block and made an aluminum head too. Actually they
>> would have made the 6 with a 4 speed and a three deuces carb setup as
>> the Aussies did. Chrysler made things awkward almost on purpose. When
>> DB made things awkward they had an excuse, engineering went off on a
>> tangent.
>>
>> The Ford flathead V8 was a piece of horse poop with three main
>> bearings and it stunk on ice. The four was a better engine although it
>> didn't have full pressure lube until the end. The American engines that
>> were well built were mostly the Packards and such, it wasn't until the
>> mid to late fifties US tech caught up with Europe in the "popular
>> price" cars.
>>
>> While I'm on the subject, who's the dumbass that came up with Three
>> Deuces....for V-8s? What a DUMB DUMB DUMB peckerwood-*** idea. Six
>> don't go into eight evenly. Not without a three or four foot plenum or
>> a turbocharger.
>>
>> But don't think I'm anti Mopar completely. The Chrysler electronic
>> ignition was the best and the 727 TorqueFlite the best auto trans there
>> was in its day. Rolls Royce wanted to use them but Mopar was
>> uncooperative. RR used THM's-but with THEIR electric shift controller
>> and their superb brake servo arrangement that worked, still does, very
>> well. On the whole, though, there's no question Chrysler engineering
>> was a dim shadow of its once proud past whereas DB has always been
>> absolutely first rate as an engineering firm.