Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Yep, the Bronco was a good tough off roader, to bad Ford was short sided in
dropping the line. There has been some comercials out here on the right
coast insinuating the explorer is an off road vehicle. A couple of locals
have taken them out hunting and found that 4WD=Stuck further in the woods
and one of the guys high centered his on a log. I told him just keep to the
hard pavement it is safer for the vehicle and the occupants, I got the
finger for that one.

HarryS

"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:41C448A0.9564988B@cox.net...
> 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

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

True, but the automatic vacuum actuated hubs on a SuperDuty are problem
prone as well. Next truck will have a lever on the floor instead of a switch
on the dash.

Incidentally, even though the twin I-beam front suspension is no longer
found on Ford 4x4's (known as TTB for Twin Traction Beam), 2005
re-introduced coil-sprung front axles on 4x4 Superduties, a'la the original
Bronco.

Sweet. I have found my next truck.

<montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1103391360.838780.20550@c13g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> > At least Ford had the common sense to keep
> > solid front axles on its 3/4 and 1 ton trucks, unlike GM.
>
> not to mention a real front engagement system with real hubs and not
> the vacuum actuated crap that dcx stuck in my dodge (gm uses it too).
> in fact the only long arm IFS system i know of (or at least one with
> enough potential to be truly effective off road) is the twin i-beam by
> ford
>

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

True, but the automatic vacuum actuated hubs on a SuperDuty are problem
prone as well. Next truck will have a lever on the floor instead of a switch
on the dash.

Incidentally, even though the twin I-beam front suspension is no longer
found on Ford 4x4's (known as TTB for Twin Traction Beam), 2005
re-introduced coil-sprung front axles on 4x4 Superduties, a'la the original
Bronco.

Sweet. I have found my next truck.

<montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1103391360.838780.20550@c13g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> > At least Ford had the common sense to keep
> > solid front axles on its 3/4 and 1 ton trucks, unlike GM.
>
> not to mention a real front engagement system with real hubs and not
> the vacuum actuated crap that dcx stuck in my dodge (gm uses it too).
> in fact the only long arm IFS system i know of (or at least one with
> enough potential to be truly effective off road) is the twin i-beam by
> ford
>

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

True, but the automatic vacuum actuated hubs on a SuperDuty are problem
prone as well. Next truck will have a lever on the floor instead of a switch
on the dash.

Incidentally, even though the twin I-beam front suspension is no longer
found on Ford 4x4's (known as TTB for Twin Traction Beam), 2005
re-introduced coil-sprung front axles on 4x4 Superduties, a'la the original
Bronco.

Sweet. I have found my next truck.

<montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1103391360.838780.20550@c13g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> > At least Ford had the common sense to keep
> > solid front axles on its 3/4 and 1 ton trucks, unlike GM.
>
> not to mention a real front engagement system with real hubs and not
> the vacuum actuated crap that dcx stuck in my dodge (gm uses it too).
> in fact the only long arm IFS system i know of (or at least one with
> enough potential to be truly effective off road) is the twin i-beam by
> ford
>

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Bill,
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Ford build quite a few Willy's
during WWII? I thought I saw something on the History Channel about Willy's
Overland couldn't keep up with WWII production needs and subcontracted some
of the production to Ford.

Ben
95 YJ 2.5L

"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:41C448A0.9564988B@cox.net...
> 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

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Bill,
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Ford build quite a few Willy's
during WWII? I thought I saw something on the History Channel about Willy's
Overland couldn't keep up with WWII production needs and subcontracted some
of the production to Ford.

Ben
95 YJ 2.5L

"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:41C448A0.9564988B@cox.net...
> 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

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Bill,
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Ford build quite a few Willy's
during WWII? I thought I saw something on the History Channel about Willy's
Overland couldn't keep up with WWII production needs and subcontracted some
of the production to Ford.

Ben
95 YJ 2.5L

"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:41C448A0.9564988B@cox.net...
> 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

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Wait to see what Ford does with LandRover. Given what they did with Jaguar,
it isn't looking promising.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"HarryS" <NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:hvSdnfv5Sumt7VncRVn-2w@comcast.com...
> Maybe but we will never know since Ford did not buy Jeep and had a distant
> historical stake in Jeep which is water under the bridge. However, Ford
> dropped the Bronco line and could have been the only vehicle that could
> compete with Jeep, all the rest are just grocery getters.
>
> HarryS
> <montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1103390845.402381.129240@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> > HarryS wrote:
> >> The new Fords are not off road capable to the extent the Jeeps are
> > hell
> >
> > i find that rather irrelevant. fact is, ford has more history in the
> > original jeep than anybody else because ford is still ford, and willis
> > doesnt even exist anymore. ford is the only existing company with a
> > stake in the original jeep. i feel sure ford would have maintained
> > jeeps heritage even moreso than dcx.
> >
>
>

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Wait to see what Ford does with LandRover. Given what they did with Jaguar,
it isn't looking promising.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"HarryS" <NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:hvSdnfv5Sumt7VncRVn-2w@comcast.com...
> Maybe but we will never know since Ford did not buy Jeep and had a distant
> historical stake in Jeep which is water under the bridge. However, Ford
> dropped the Bronco line and could have been the only vehicle that could
> compete with Jeep, all the rest are just grocery getters.
>
> HarryS
> <montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1103390845.402381.129240@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> > HarryS wrote:
> >> The new Fords are not off road capable to the extent the Jeeps are
> > hell
> >
> > i find that rather irrelevant. fact is, ford has more history in the
> > original jeep than anybody else because ford is still ford, and willis
> > doesnt even exist anymore. ford is the only existing company with a
> > stake in the original jeep. i feel sure ford would have maintained
> > jeeps heritage even moreso than dcx.
> >
>
>

Re: Be Grateful for DCX. At Least They Aren't FORD!
 

Wait to see what Ford does with LandRover. Given what they did with Jaguar,
it isn't looking promising.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"HarryS" <NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:hvSdnfv5Sumt7VncRVn-2w@comcast.com...
> Maybe but we will never know since Ford did not buy Jeep and had a distant
> historical stake in Jeep which is water under the bridge. However, Ford
> dropped the Bronco line and could have been the only vehicle that could
> compete with Jeep, all the rest are just grocery getters.
>
> HarryS
> <montanajeeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1103390845.402381.129240@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> > HarryS wrote:
> >> The new Fords are not off road capable to the extent the Jeeps are
> > hell
> >
> > i find that rather irrelevant. fact is, ford has more history in the
> > original jeep than anybody else because ford is still ford, and willis
> > doesnt even exist anymore. ford is the only existing company with a
> > stake in the original jeep. i feel sure ford would have maintained
> > jeeps heritage even moreso than dcx.
> >
>
>