2003 Envoy XL

Question:

I’m pondering the options list for a new Envoy XL.  Any advice anyone can offer on the following topics would be appreciated: We’d select the optional V8 engine, and will be using the rig for trailer towing (~3,500 lb) less than 5% of the time.  Most of the operation will be at altitudes of 3,000 – 4,500 ft.  If we go for the 3.73 rear end instead of the 3.42, will fuel consumption suffer? Is the load-levelling suspension option likely to be worth the cost?  Our old Explorer would pack a pretty good load before sagging badly in the back end, or suffering a degradation of handling characteristics.  If the GM can do as well, I’m tempted to save a few bucks. The six CD player seems to be a nice option.  Would it be money poorly spent if we don’t also go with the full Bose upgrade? T.I.A. Wayne

Response:

For this info, try edmunds.com town hall for opinions on this, there is a group for this truck.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m pondering the options list for a new Envoy XL.  Any advice anyone can > offer on the following topics would be appreciated: > We’d select the optional V8 engine, and will be using the rig for trailer > towing (~3,500 lb) less than 5% of the time.  Most of the operation will be > at altitudes of 3,000 – 4,500 ft.  If we go for the 3.73 rear end instead of > the 3.42, will fuel consumption suffer? > Is the load-levelling suspension option likely to be worth the cost?  Our > old Explorer would pack a pretty good load before sagging badly in the back > end, or suffering a degradation of handling characteristics.  If the GM can > do as well, I’m tempted to save a few bucks. > The six CD player seems to be a nice option.  Would it be money poorly spent > if we don’t also go with the full Bose upgrade? > T.I.A. > Wayne

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

Wayne be very careful if you are going to order your Envoy when picking your options.  As a recently retired Sales Manager of a GM store, I ran into this when I ordered the first 03 Envoy XLs.  The options are grouped into packages, and they changed significantly this year.  Some of the options you mentioned come in a package, and if you break them out and order them seperatley in a lesser package, you may pay more and get less!  I had this happen on the first couple that I ordered for stock.  I’m sorry that I can’t remember the option packages, but it seems that the load leveling and the Bose comes together in a package.  Just double check on this, even if you are considering one from stock. Jerry H.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m pondering the options list for a new Envoy XL.  Any advice anyone can > offer on the following topics would be appreciated: > We’d select the optional V8 engine, and will be using the rig for trailer > towing (~3,500 lb) less than 5% of the time.  Most of the operation will be > at altitudes of 3,000 – 4,500 ft.  If we go for the 3.73 rear end instead of > the 3.42, will fuel consumption suffer? > Is the load-levelling suspension option likely to be worth the cost?  Our > old Explorer would pack a pretty good load before sagging badly in the back > end, or suffering a degradation of handling characteristics.  If the GM can > do as well, I’m tempted to save a few bucks. > The six CD player seems to be a nice option.  Would it be money poorly spent > if we don’t also go with the full Bose upgrade? > T.I.A. > Wayne

Response:

2003 Envoy purchase

Question:

I am thinking of buying the Envoy any thoughts or comments positive or neg would be appreciated Thanks — Fly Fisherman With a Furless Naked Cat named Dub. Will Hanoi Jane aka Jane Fonda ride on a Iraqi tank?

Response:

Really like our 2002 envoy, a great suv, good riding, plenty of power, and get good fuel mileage dale – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I am thinking of buying the Envoy any thoughts or comments positive or > neg would be appreciated Thanks > — > Fly Fisherman With a Furless Naked Cat named Dub. > Will Hanoi Jane aka Jane Fonda ride on a Iraqi tank?

Response:

I have read about the engines in these trucks grenading, do your homework. It appears that there has been some with a manufacturing defect in the engine.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Really like our 2002 envoy, a great suv, good riding, plenty of power, and > get good fuel mileage > dale > I am thinking of buying the Envoy any thoughts or comments positive or > neg would be appreciated Thanks > — > Fly Fisherman With a Furless Naked Cat named Dub. > Will Hanoi Jane aka Jane Fonda ride on a Iraqi tank?

Response:

Go here and do a check first, seems like a lot of electrical problems in 2002, hopefully they were addressed in 03 http://classaction.findlaw.com/recall/mv/index.html

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Really like our 2002 envoy, a great suv, good riding, plenty of power, and > get good fuel mileage > dale > I am thinking of buying the Envoy any thoughts or comments positive or > neg would be appreciated Thanks > — > Fly Fisherman With a Furless Naked Cat named Dub. > Will Hanoi Jane aka Jane Fonda ride on a Iraqi tank?

Response:

thank you — Fly Fisherman With a Furless Naked Cat named Dub. Will Hanoi Jane aka Jane Fonda ride on a Iraqi tank?

Response:

Advice on 2002 or 2003 Explorer purchase

Question:

Thanks for the response. Yes, you don’t normally factor in any discounts or rebates when going for the price. It should be as close to invoice as you can get, then subtract any other discounts. But it sounds as if you did fine. We’ll look forward to your report. You might also want to check out the federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Web site and look at the technical service bulletins for your truck. Though there are only summaries there (you can subscribe to the actual TSBs from Ford), they can give you a clue about what kinds of non-safety stuff might go wrong with your vehicle. You’ll of course be notified by Ford about any safety-related items. Again, good luck. Regards, Anthony Giorgianni

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m still not sure what you paid. Is it  $300 over invoice? I would have > held out for invoice or found another dealer would provide one at invoice. > But $300 is not bad – though you have to factor in some of the $250 doc > fee, > which seems about $100 too high. (Unless things have changed again in the > past year or so). > The sales rep said it was $300 over invoice, which matched the numbers I got > from the Edmunds web site. The $250 doc fee did seem high, but every dealer > in the area charges that amount. I was just glad they didn’t try to add in a > bunch of junk fees like most dealers do. The price of the car was actually > below invoice when they factor in Ford $2000 discount, but that didn’t apply > since I opted for the zero-percent/zero-down financing. >  Did you calculate whether the manufacturer financing or the discount and > outside financing was the better deal? > My credit union was offering 7% on 4 year new car loans, and Ford was > offering 4.9% on a 4-year loan. With the 4.9%, my interest would have been > higher than the $2000 Ford discount. Taking the zero percent financing was > the best deal. > After a while, report back on how satisfied you are with the vehicle’s > reliability compared to Toyota. Hopefully we’ll get some good news. (Make > sure you do the maintenance that’s in the manual, not the maintenance a > Ford > dealer recommends. And keep those wheel lug nut torqued to the proper > spec!) > I certainly will report back my good or bad experiences. I do have to say > that I’m very impressed with the fit and finish of the vehicle’s interior > and exterior. It really does remind me of a Toyota product. Time will tell > if it will hold up like my old Toyota truck! > ppcinfo > > Well, I was very surprised at what I found at Lou Grubb Ford. First, > > the Internet Sales person I spoke with was very nice and showed me the > > SUVs that I had asked about. He mentioned that Lou Grubb has a "no > > haggle" price, which is $300 above invoice. I was shocked at the > > prices on their Explorer 4×4s (they were either at or below the TMV > > prices listed on Edmund’s web site). These value were actually AT > > invoice price if you include the $2000 discount they were offering. I > > test drove a vehicle that was close to what I wanted, and decide to > > discuss pricing with the sales rep. This vehicle was selling at the > > TMV price from Edmund’s site. > <snip>

Response:

> I’m still not sure what you paid. Is it  $300 over invoice? I would have > held out for invoice or found another dealer would provide one at invoice. > But $300 is not bad – though you have to factor in some of the $250 doc fee, > which seems about $100 too high. (Unless things have changed again in the > past year or so).

The sales rep said it was $300 over invoice, which matched the numbers I got from the Edmunds web site. The $250 doc fee did seem high, but every dealer in the area charges that amount. I was just glad they didn’t try to add in a bunch of junk fees like most dealers do. The price of the car was actually below invoice when they factor in Ford $2000 discount, but that didn’t apply since I opted for the zero-percent/zero-down financing. >  Did you calculate whether the manufacturer financing or the discount and > outside financing was the better deal?

My credit union was offering 7% on 4 year new car loans, and Ford was offering 4.9% on a 4-year loan. With the 4.9%, my interest would have been higher than the $2000 Ford discount. Taking the zero percent financing was the best deal. > After a while, report back on how satisfied you are with the vehicle’s > reliability compared to Toyota. Hopefully we’ll get some good news. (Make > sure you do the maintenance that’s in the manual, not the maintenance a Ford > dealer recommends. And keep those wheel lug nut torqued to the proper

spec!) I certainly will report back my good or bad experiences. I do have to say that I’m very impressed with the fit and finish of the vehicle’s interior and exterior. It really does remind me of a Toyota product. Time will tell if it will hold up like my old Toyota truck! ppcinfo – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Well, I was very surprised at what I found at Lou Grubb Ford. First, > the Internet Sales person I spoke with was very nice and showed me the > SUVs that I had asked about. He mentioned that Lou Grubb has a "no > haggle" price, which is $300 above invoice. I was shocked at the > prices on their Explorer 4×4s (they were either at or below the TMV > prices listed on Edmund’s web site). These value were actually AT > invoice price if you include the $2000 discount they were offering. I > test drove a vehicle that was close to what I wanted, and decide to > discuss pricing with the sales rep. This vehicle was selling at the > TMV price from Edmund’s site. > <snip>

Response:

Congrats on your new truck. I’m still not sure what you paid. Is it  $300 over invoice? I would have held out for invoice or found another dealer would provide one at invoice. But $300 is not bad – though you have to factor in some of the $250 doc fee, which seems about $100 too high. (Unless things have changed again in the past year or so).  Did you calculate whether the manufacturer financing or the discount and outside financing was the better deal? After a while, report back on how satisfied you are with the vehicle’s reliability compared to Toyota. Hopefully we’ll get some good news. (Make sure you do the maintenance that’s in the manual, not the maintenance a Ford dealer recommends. And keep those wheel lug nut torqued to the proper spec!) Enjoy. Regards, Anthony Giorgianni > Well, I was very surprised at what I found at Lou Grubb Ford. First, > the Internet Sales person I spoke with was very nice and showed me the > SUVs that I had asked about. He mentioned that Lou Grubb has a "no > haggle" price, which is $300 above invoice. I was shocked at the > prices on their Explorer 4×4s (they were either at or below the TMV > prices listed on Edmund’s web site). These value were actually AT > invoice price if you include the $2000 discount they were offering. I > test drove a vehicle that was close to what I wanted, and decide to > discuss pricing with the sales rep. This vehicle was selling at the > TMV price from Edmund’s site.

<snip>

Response:

Jim Bragg is still around? Neat. He and I used to talk a lot during my days as consumer writer at a major newspaper. Knows his stuff, and he’s a nice guy. Regards, Anthony Giorgianni – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Don’t forget that in addition to the 3% of MSRP holdback that dealers > get, "Blue Oval" certified dealers get an additional 1.25% of the base > MSRP when they make the sale. This Blue Oval program will be reduced > over the next two years to 0.5%. > Having read James Bragg’s (of FightingChance.com) recent report it seems >   quite a few buyers are getting "into" the dealers holdback, some, in > excess of $1000. I am not just referring to the sale of 2002’s here. > People are seeing these discounts on 2003 Explorers. > I would imagine it is because Ford is expecting an excess of inventory > by about 14,000 units (not just Explorers) by years end. > You can check to see if your dealer is Blue Oval certified by going to > www.fordvehicles.com and on the bottom left there is a link to locate > dealers using different criteria. You can chose to locate by zip code > and select Blue Oval. > Have fun shopping. > Mary Mulderrig.

Response:

> I’m in the process of replacing my trusty 92 Toyota truck with a new SUV. > From past experience, I’ve been avoiding domestic vehicles (specifically, > Dodge and Chevy), however, I really like the styling of the new Ford > Explorer. Consumer Review rates the 2002 Explorer as a "best buy", so I’m > thinking of taking a chance and going domestic again. > Ford seems to have zero-percent financing on the 2002 models which is very > attractive. Any advice on buying from Ford, the zero-percent financing, > differences between the 2002 and 2003 Explorer, extended warranties, etc? > Thanks, > ppcinfo

This is a follow up to my original message. First, I want to thank everyone who posted useful information regarding purchasing a 2002/2003 Ford Explorer. I was in the market for a new SUV, and I did all my research on the Internet. I read brochures and reviews on several different SUVs and decided that the Ford Explorer 4×4 Eddie Bauer/Limited model had the best value for the money. Other people may have different opinions regarding this, but for the options I wanted I found the Explorer gave me what I desired at a reasonable price. Armed with my research info, I was dreading going into "battle" with the different car dealers in my area to get the best price, when I stumbled upon review on the www.epinions.com web site about Lou Grubb Ford in Scottsdale, AZ. The review was from a person who made a recent purchase at the Lou Grubb Ford dealership and he cited being treated with respect and got an excellent deal. So, I decided that I would visit Lou Grubb first, and see how they would treat me. First, I went to Lou Grubb’s web site (which is tied into AutoNation) and asked for a quote on a Ford Explorer 4×4. After supplying my email address, I was taken to a web page with a quote containing the MSRP and Lou Grubb price for the Ford Explorer I was seeking. The sale price was actually very close to the True Market Value (TMV) amount that was presented on the www.edmunds.com site for a good target purchasing price. I was a bit skeptical that Lou Grubb would play the usual games of switching numbers, etc., but I decided to pay them a visit to see if they would truely honor the quote. Well, I was very surprised at what I found at Lou Grubb Ford. First, the Internet Sales person I spoke with was very nice and showed me the SUVs that I had asked about. He mentioned that Lou Grubb has a "no haggle" price, which is $300 above invoice. I was shocked at the prices on their Explorer 4×4s (they were either at or below the TMV prices listed on Edmund’s web site). These value were actually AT invoice price if you include the $2000 discount they were offering. I test drove a vehicle that was close to what I wanted, and decide to discuss pricing with the sales rep. This vehicle was selling at the TMV price from Edmund’s site. I was expecting some "hidden" or misc charges to appear on the final quote to make up for the heavily discounted sale price, but there were none! Just sales tax, license fees, and doc prep charges (which were $250, a bit high). That was it! I said, where’s the rustproofing charges, advertising charges, and other bogus stuff? The sales rep said Lou Grubb doesn’t add any fluff charges, and the price he totaled up was the final price. I was really shocked, since my previous car buying experiences were your typical sales rep running back and forth between myself and the sales manager with multiple offers. Then, bizzare misc charges on the finance sheets. None of that here! I then was handed off to the Finance person who I thought was going to work me over on the usual stuff (Extended warranties, etched security glass, paint protection, etc.). She asked if I wanted to hear about these options, and if not, she wouldn’t discuss them. I said I would like to hear about the extended warranty, and she did her talk, with no high pressure sale. Again, I was shocked at the low pressure attitude. I ended up purchasing a 5 year extended warranty with zero deductible (which is what I had intended to purchase if the price was reasonable). Since my credit was very good, I bought the car and extended warranty using Ford’s zero percent financing for 3 years (since I went with Ford’s special financing, I couldn’t use the $2000 Ford discount, but I was still at the TMV pricing for the vehicle). In the end, I was throughly pleased with my purchase and the treatment by Lou Grubb Ford. I finally asked the Sales rep, "why doesn’t everyone come to Lou Grubb to buy a car if it’s this easy?", and he said some people think they can haggle a better deal with other dealers, and are willing to spend all day trying. Maybe this is true, but I don’t want to spend all day doing that. Note, this is my first Ford purchase (I usually buy Toyota or Nissan), so I’m hoping my new Explorer will hold up with no major problems over the next several years. In any case, I HIGHLY recommend anyone who is looking for a car in the Phoenix area to check out Lou Grubb Ford in Scottsdale (on Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd). It was a long trek for me, but well worth it. The Internet sales rep is Jeff Heller, and he’s a great guy to work with if you want low pressure sales, and a good honest deal. Thanks again, everyone, for your comments and suggestions. ppcinfo

Response:

>> please jonboy, your ludicrous comparison is bringing me to > tears….the > 2002 > explorer still drives like a truck..there is no comparison to a > luxury car or even an import suv… > Then you haven’t driven either car, but that’s nothing new.  You don’t > even own an MDX. > If you do, post the VIN.  *Prove* it.

I could care less what car you think I own/drive…. > I have posted enough links detailing the superior quality of imports. > Yes, we’re all to well aware of your ceaseless, useless posts, as if > there are no other links to articles that would shoot yours right out > of the water.  <yawn>

so post the links….show us mainstream articles detailing the superiority of american vehicles vs. imports…be sure that these articles clearly outline the superior reliability, resale value and quality of these american vehicles….of course, you will come up with some excuse as to why you will not post any links…. > Any idiot can put up a site, and any idiot can spend his life > searching for links to try to support an agenda for anything.  You’ve > made a *career* of it.  Most people have better things to do.

your point being? the articles and the opinions of a vast majority of consumers are not valid? >There > is a reason people pay more for imports, likewise there is a reason > explorers are cheap…think the manufacturers want to give 0 % > financing? > I dunno; they’re giving 0% on Hondas here.  But that’s different, > right?

where?  got a link? > There’s a reason the Explorer is the best-selling SUV.  And it’s not > cheap. Maybe you should look up a few links on Explorer pricing. > You’re already taxing every search engine on the planet.

and the reason?  it ain’t because of the quality…. > It seems to me that people are voting with the sales.  If not, why > isn’t the 4Runner, Pathfinder, Pilot, or MDX the best-selling SUV? > They’re not more expensive (for the most part)…

remember the big mac analogy? > Even the Ranger is a better truck than the Tacoma. > Stop and ask yourself, why do explorers depreciate so much in three > years. > 1)  I don’t care.  All mainstream cars depreciate, in case you didn’t > know that.  Over the life of ownership, I want the best car.  End of > discussion. 2)  I don’t have the time.  I bought what drove the best. > I’m not brand-loyal, and I have no agenda. > 3)  I don’t need to have someone like you tell me to "stop and ask > myself" *anything*.  I’ve done a fairly good job of that all by > myself.

you enjoy throwing away money do you?  the explorer is certainly not the best…a man with your deep pockets could certainly do better… > ..take your head out of the sand and think for a moment or get your > wife/child to explain it to you… > Take your head out of your trailer and look around.  There’s a whole > big world outside of search engines and trailer-bound self-abuse. > <snicker>

people in  glass houses should not be throwing stones… I see you backed off your lexus comparison, did you finally sober up?

Response:

Having trouble finding those links jonboy?  big surprise…… H.

Response:

Don’t forget that in addition to the 3% of MSRP holdback that dealers get, "Blue Oval" certified dealers get an additional 1.25% of the base MSRP when they make the sale. This Blue Oval program will be reduced over the next two years to 0.5%. Having read James Bragg’s (of FightingChance.com) recent report it seems   quite a few buyers are getting "into" the dealers holdback, some, in excess of $1000. I am not just referring to the sale of 2002’s here. People are seeing these discounts on 2003 Explorers. I would imagine it is because Ford is expecting an excess of inventory by about 14,000 units (not just Explorers) by years end. You can check to see if your dealer is Blue Oval certified by going to www.fordvehicles.com and on the bottom left there is a link to locate dealers using different criteria. You can chose to locate by zip code and select Blue Oval. Have fun shopping. Mary Mulderrig.

Response:

I bought a 2002 Explorer, my third, and I have to say it is the worse vehicle I have ever owned. The transmission went after a couple months. I have had it in the shop so many times I can’t count. To make matter worse the dealer is not very interested in getting the vehicle replaced or finally fixed. My previous Explorers were great. I have been a Ford owner for many years and have seen the quality decline over the last few years. I would like to stay a Ford person but at this point I would not buy another one. Jim

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m in the process of replacing my trusty 92 Toyota truck with a new SUV. > From past experience, I’ve been avoiding domestic vehicles (specifically, > Dodge and Chevy), however, I really like the styling of the new Ford > Explorer. Consumer Review rates the 2002 Explorer as a "best buy", so I’m > thinking of taking a chance and going domestic again. > Ford seems to have zero-percent financing on the 2002 models which is very > attractive. Any advice on buying from Ford, the zero-percent financing, > differences between the 2002 and 2003 Explorer, extended warranties, etc? > Thanks, > ppcinfo

Response:

> please jonboy, your ludicrous comparison is bringing me to tears….the 2002 > explorer still drives like a truck..there is no comparison to a luxury car > or even an import suv…

Then you haven’t driven either car, but that’s nothing new.  You don’t even own an MDX. If you do, post the VIN.  *Prove* it. > I have posted enough links detailing the superior quality of imports.

Yes, we’re all to well aware of your ceaseless, useless posts, as if there are no other links to articles that would shoot yours right out of the water.  <yawn> Any idiot can put up a site, and any idiot can spend his life searching for links to try to support an agenda for anything.  You’ve made a *career* of it.  Most people have better things to do. >There > is a reason people pay more for imports, likewise there is a reason > explorers are cheap…think the manufacturers want to give 0 % financing?

I dunno; they’re giving 0% on Hondas here.  But that’s different, right? There’s a reason the Explorer is the best-selling SUV.  And it’s not cheap. Maybe you should look up a few links on Explorer pricing.  You’re already taxing every search engine on the planet. It seems to me that people are voting with the sales.  If not, why isn’t the 4Runner, Pathfinder, Pilot, or MDX the best-selling SUV?  They’re not more expensive (for the most part)… Even the Ranger is a better truck than the Tacoma. > Stop and ask yourself, why do explorers depreciate so much in three > years.

1)  I don’t care.  All mainstream cars depreciate, in case you didn’t know that.  Over the life of ownership, I want the best car.  End of discussion. 2)  I don’t have the time.  I bought what drove the best.  I’m not brand-loyal, and I have no agenda. 3)  I don’t need to have someone like you tell me to "stop and ask myself" *anything*.  I’ve done a fairly good job of that all by myself. > ..take your head out of the sand and think for a moment or get your > wife/child to explain it to you…

Take your head out of your trailer and look around.  There’s a whole big world outside of search engines and trailer-bound self-abuse.  <snicker>

Response:

I hope you are right, Jonny. It would be great if Ford could match Toyota on quality. Don’t go by CR’s best buy necesarily. You have to check out the repair section and compare with Toyota. I think it is too early for the redesign to show up though. Good luck. Regards, Anthony Giorgianni

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have to disagree with your assessment of quality.  There’s a *huge* > difference between the quality of Ford’s products of 1992 versus now. > My 2002 Explorer Eddie Bauer was built in October of 2001.  After more than > a year, I haven’t had a single problem with it, and it’s still as solid as > the day I picked it up.  It drives a lot like my business partner’s Lexus > GS300, and that’s not a stretch. > Car And Driver took a 2002 Mountaineer for a 40,000 mile spin in its most > recent long-term test.  One of the comments:  "Is the odometer broken on > this thing? 40,000 miles, and no squeaks, rattles, or vibrations." > My last "import" was an ‘88 Accord, so I guess I could use the same argument > you’re using, but that car was a *nightmare*.  I’ve never had more things go > wrong on one car, but every Ford or Chrysler I’ve had since (‘93 Daytona ES, > ‘97 Stratus ES, ‘97 Ranger XLT SuperCab, ‘99 Explorer XLT) has been > flawless. > There’s a reason Consumer Reports gives the 2002 Explorer a Best Buy rating, > over the Pathfinder, 4Runner, TrailBlazer/Envoy, and Durango.  It has > *earned* it.

Response:

You can even finance the payoff of your tradein! With good credit, FMC will go 120% of window sticker. wth

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ford seems to have zero-percent financing on the 2002 models which is very > attractive. Any advice on buying from Ford, the zero-percent financing, > differences between the 2002 and 2003 Explorer, extended warranties, etc? > 02 vs 03 > 02 positives: > Looks just like the 03 > Dealers are getting anxious to get rid of them > 0% for 60 months! (you can even finance the extended warranty) > If you buy one now your average annual miles will be less than those who > bought one when they came out! > 02 negatives: > It’s a year old! Will your neighbors still respect you? > Selection is pretty poor right now, you may not find one optioned out > the way you want. > Extended warranties are going to be about the same on both. Find a > dealer that will show you actual warranty price guide. The closest I’ve > come to invoice on any car has been $20 over. I’m sure other may have > done better, but don’t expect to dip into the holdback unless the dealer > has a bunch of vehicles to get rid of. > I bought my 02 the last day they offered the no money down, no payments > for 90 days. $50 over invoice 0% for 60 months (actually 57 months with > the no payments for 90 days). They may offer it again before the year is > out if any are left. If not look for the same offers late next year on > the 03’s. > — > Timothy Dike > Webmaster and Editor > ModelWarships.com > http://www.modelwarships.com/index1.html

Response:

> I have to disagree with your assessment of quality.  There’s a *huge* > difference between the quality of Ford’s products of 1992 versus now. > My 2002 Explorer Eddie Bauer was built in October of 2001.  After more > than a year, I haven’t had a single problem with it, and it’s still as > solid as the day I picked it up.  It drives a lot like my business > partner’s Lexus GS300, and that’s not a stretch.

please jonboy, your ludicrous comparison is bringing me to tears….the 2002 explorer still drives like a truck..there is no comparison to a luxury car or even an import suv… I have posted enough links detailing the superior quality of imports..There is a reason people pay more for imports, likewise there is a reason explorers are cheap…think the manufacturers want to give 0 % financing? Stop and ask yourself, why do explorers depreciate so much in three years…take your head out of the sand and think for a moment or get your wife/child to explain it to you… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Car And Driver took a 2002 Mountaineer for a 40,000 mile spin in its most > recent long-term test.  One of the comments:  "Is the odometer broken on > this thing? 40,000 miles, and no squeaks, rattles, or vibrations." > My last "import" was an ‘88 Accord, so I guess I could use the same > argument you’re using, but that car was a *nightmare*.  I’ve never had > more things go wrong on one car, but every Ford or Chrysler I’ve had > since (‘93 Daytona ES, ‘97 Stratus ES, ‘97 Ranger XLT SuperCab, ‘99 > Explorer XLT) has been flawless. > There’s a reason Consumer Reports gives the 2002 Explorer a Best Buy > rating, over the Pathfinder, 4Runner, TrailBlazer/Envoy, and Durango.  It > has *earned* it.

Response:

I have to disagree with your assessment of quality.  There’s a *huge* difference between the quality of Ford’s products of 1992 versus now. My 2002 Explorer Eddie Bauer was built in October of 2001.  After more than a year, I haven’t had a single problem with it, and it’s still as solid as the day I picked it up.  It drives a lot like my business partner’s Lexus GS300, and that’s not a stretch. Car And Driver took a 2002 Mountaineer for a 40,000 mile spin in its most recent long-term test.  One of the comments:  "Is the odometer broken on this thing? 40,000 miles, and no squeaks, rattles, or vibrations." My last "import" was an ‘88 Accord, so I guess I could use the same argument you’re using, but that car was a *nightmare*.  I’ve never had more things go wrong on one car, but every Ford or Chrysler I’ve had since (‘93 Daytona ES, ‘97 Stratus ES, ‘97 Ranger XLT SuperCab, ‘99 Explorer XLT) has been flawless. There’s a reason Consumer Reports gives the 2002 Explorer a Best Buy rating, over the Pathfinder, 4Runner, TrailBlazer/Envoy, and Durango.  It has *earned* it.

Response:

Go for the ‘03. Ford is giving $2000 or 3.9% for 60 months on these. My guess is this would be better than an ‘02 with $3000 back or 0% for 60 months when you consider the 1 year difference. You should be able to buy an ‘02 for invoice MINUS $800-$1000 (the dealers 3% holdback).

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m in the process of replacing my trusty 92 Toyota truck with a new SUV. > From past experience, I’ve been avoiding domestic vehicles (specifically, > Dodge and Chevy), however, I really like the styling of the new Ford > Explorer. Consumer Review rates the 2002 Explorer as a "best buy", so I’m > thinking of taking a chance and going domestic again. > Ford seems to have zero-percent financing on the 2002 models which is very > attractive. Any advice on buying from Ford, the zero-percent financing, > differences between the 2002 and 2003 Explorer, extended warranties, etc? > Thanks, > ppcinfo

Response:

Minus the holdback? Have you actually done this? I got $38 into the holdback on my 92, but I’d be very surprised to see you take all of the holdback. It also would seem unwise for a dealer to sell for anything near that. Invoice minus rebate sounds more realistic. Regards, Anthony Giorgianni

> Go for the ‘03. Ford is giving $2000 or 3.9% for 60 months on these. My > guess is this would be better than an ‘02 with $3000 back or 0% for 60 > months when you consider the 1 year difference. You should be able to buy an > ‘02 for invoice MINUS $800-$1000 (the dealers 3% holdback).

<snip>

Response:

Thanks for the info. How do you know what the holdback percentage is? ppcinfo

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Go for the ‘03. Ford is giving $2000 or 3.9% for 60 months on these. My > guess is this would be better than an ‘02 with $3000 back or 0% for 60 > months when you consider the 1 year difference. You should be able to buy an > ‘02 for invoice MINUS $800-$1000 (the dealers 3% holdback). > I’m in the process of replacing my trusty 92 Toyota truck with a new SUV. > From past experience, I’ve been avoiding domestic vehicles (specifically, > Dodge and Chevy), however, I really like the styling of the new Ford > Explorer. Consumer Review rates the 2002 Explorer as a "best buy", so I’m > thinking of taking a chance and going domestic again. > Ford seems to have zero-percent financing on the 2002 models which is very > attractive. Any advice on buying from Ford, the zero-percent financing, > differences between the 2002 and 2003 Explorer, extended warranties, etc? > Thanks, > ppcinfo

Response:

Better call. Click on the "internet specials" Looks like they still have 16 ‘02 Explorers left. Most dealers should be very willing to move there "02’s out now. http://www.lindquistford.com/ wth

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Here is all the info you need, including holdback. But if you can get a new > Explorer for invoice minus holdback, carryover allowance and rebate, I will > get on my knees and bow down to you as a God! > www.edmunds.com > www.kbb.com > http://www.carbuyingtips.com > Regards, > Anthony Giorgianni > Thanks for the info. How do you know what the holdback percentage is? > ppcinfo > <snip>

Response:

Here is all the info you need, including holdback. But if you can get a new Explorer for invoice minus holdback, carryover allowance and rebate, I will get on my knees and bow down to you as a God! www.edmunds.com www.kbb.com http://www.carbuyingtips.com Regards, Anthony Giorgianni

> Thanks for the info. How do you know what the holdback percentage is? > ppcinfo

<snip>

Response:

> Ford seems to have zero-percent financing on the 2002 models which is very > attractive. Any advice on buying from Ford, the zero-percent financing, > differences between the 2002 and 2003 Explorer, extended warranties, etc?

02 vs 03 02 positives: Looks just like the 03 Dealers are getting anxious to get rid of them 0% for 60 months! (you can even finance the extended warranty) If you buy one now your average annual miles will be less than those who bought one when they came out! 02 negatives: It’s a year old! Will your neighbors still respect you? Selection is pretty poor right now, you may not find one optioned out the way you want. Extended warranties are going to be about the same on both. Find a dealer that will show you actual warranty price guide. The closest I’ve come to invoice on any car has been $20 over. I’m sure other may have done better, but don’t expect to dip into the holdback unless the dealer has a bunch of vehicles to get rid of. I bought my 02 the last day they offered the no money down, no payments for 90 days. $50 over invoice 0% for 60 months (actually 57 months with the no payments for 90 days). They may offer it again before the year is out if any are left. If not look for the same offers late next year on the 03’s. — Timothy Dike Webmaster and Editor ModelWarships.com http://www.modelwarships.com/index1.html

Response:

My advice is to try to negotiate invoice price. So should be able to. Also, do not expect the same reliability as your Toyota. As much as I like my 1992 Explorer, there is simply is no comparison unfortunately between Toyota and Ford products. I don’t know the differences between the latest models, so I can’t help you there. Good luck. And welcome to the newsgroup. If you get an Explorer, you will find this group and Explorer sites very useful. Regards, Anthony Giorgianni

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m in the process of replacing my trusty 92 Toyota truck with a new SUV. > From past experience, I’ve been avoiding domestic vehicles (specifically, > Dodge and Chevy), however, I really like the styling of the new Ford > Explorer. Consumer Review rates the 2002 Explorer as a "best buy", so I’m > thinking of taking a chance and going domestic again. > Ford seems to have zero-percent financing on the 2002 models which is very > attractive. Any advice on buying from Ford, the zero-percent financing, > differences between the 2002 and 2003 Explorer, extended warranties, etc? > Thanks, > ppcinfo

Response:

Thanks for your advice. My Toyota truck still runs great, but it’s 10 years old, doesn’t have airbags, and I need something bigger for kids in the future. The Toyota Sequoia is really too large for me, and the new Toyota 4Runner seems really over priced. The domestic cars and trucks seem loaded with features at a resonable price. I hope the 02 or 03 Ford Explorer will be reasonably reliable and troublefree. I’m actually considering using the CostCo auto buying program. Has anyone used this method? Your experiences? ppcinfo

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My advice is to try to negotiate invoice price. So should be able to. Also, > do not expect the same reliability as your Toyota. As much as I like my 1992 > Explorer, there is simply is no comparison unfortunately between Toyota and > Ford products. > I don’t know the differences between the latest models, so I can’t help you > there. Good luck. And welcome to the newsgroup. If you get an Explorer, you > will find this group and Explorer sites very useful. > Regards, > Anthony Giorgianni > I’m in the process of replacing my trusty 92 Toyota truck with a new SUV. > From past experience, I’ve been avoiding domestic vehicles (specifically, > Dodge and Chevy), however, I really like the styling of the new Ford > Explorer. Consumer Review rates the 2002 Explorer as a "best buy", so I’m > thinking of taking a chance and going domestic again. > Ford seems to have zero-percent financing on the 2002 models which is very > attractive. Any advice on buying from Ford, the zero-percent financing, > differences between the 2002 and 2003 Explorer, extended warranties, etc? > Thanks, > ppcinfo

Response:

I’m in the process of replacing my trusty 92 Toyota truck with a new SUV. From past experience, I’ve been avoiding domestic vehicles (specifically, Dodge and Chevy), however, I really like the styling of the new Ford Explorer. Consumer Review rates the 2002 Explorer as a "best buy", so I’m thinking of taking a chance and going domestic again. Ford seems to have zero-percent financing on the 2002 models which is very attractive. Any advice on buying from Ford, the zero-percent financing, differences between the 2002 and 2003 Explorer, extended warranties, etc? Thanks, ppcinfo

Response:

envoy seats comftorable (2002)

Question:

are the good and do they off good back support?

Response:

The Best way to find out is to sit in one. What one person tells you may be fine for them but your back may feel different.. My guess is that, that particular vehicle has 4 way lumbar control. Good luck Harryface   Presently cruising in ~_~_~_>> 4. 1991 Pontiac Bonneville, 244,000 miles &     fast approaching the 1/4 million mile mark. 1. 1973 Chevy Impala 4 door,  1980 – 83 2. 1968 Buick  LeSabre Convertible, 1983-86 3. 1978 Olds Holiday 88,  1986 -91 5. 1989 Chevy Cavalier Z- 24 Convertible, 1996 to 2000

Response:

Ride and Handling of 2002/03 Explorer

Question:

true, though the ABS certainly helps in tha regard. I was hoping to have also bought the traction control system, but it wasnt available. My main strategy is to simply keep a long distance between me and the cars in front, I usually use a 3 second distance, and increase it to 6 seconds in inclement weather. I never use cruise control in rain, either.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Keep in mind that 4WD won’t help you stop.  A college classmate of mine > moved to Alaska and bought a decked-out Durango without realizing this > simple fact.  I’m not sure what she drives now. > I’m more concerned about heavy traffic at highway speeds during inclement > weather. 4WD gives me more of a safety margin in those situations.

Response:

> > I am not convinced it as as good as a true AWD system when you are driving > on > a paved road. Personally I’d like an AWD system that included the ability > to > lock the center differential. > I think you may be right. I seem to recall reading that the Mountaineer had > a true AWD system, however. Regardless, in heavy rain (like tropical storms, > which we get a lot here in Houston) I probably will switch to 4WD high to be > extra safe. What do you think, is that advisable, or shoudl i stick to

A4WD? You should never switch from Auto4WD into 4WD High unless driving on a substrate that will allow some tire slippage (e.g., sand, snow, gravel, etc.).   On wet pavement, driving in 4WD High is not recommended, and will make it difficult to steer safely.

Response:

I’m more concerned about heavy traffic at highway speeds during inclement weather. 4WD gives me more of a safety margin in those situations.

Response:

Do you mean 4WD or A4WD? Driving in 4WD on a paved road is not a good idea. Ed – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I’m more concerned about heavy traffic at highway speeds during inclement > weather. 4WD gives me more of a safety margin in those situations.

Response:

it has an "auto" mode that functions as AWD, bt if need be i can put it in 4WD high or even 4WD low. I’m unlikely to use the high or low unless i happen to get stuck somewhere while crossing a median – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Do you mean 4WD or A4WD? Driving in 4WD on a paved road is not a good idea. > Ed > I’m more concerned about heavy traffic at highway speeds during inclement > weather. 4WD gives me more of a safety margin in those situations.

Response:

OK. I understand how the Command Trac functions. I was concerned that you were riding around on paved roads in "4WD" and not "A4WD." "A4WD" is not exactly like AWD. AWD setups include a third differential to allow the front and rear driveshafts to turn at different rates of spped. The "A4WD" setting works by cycling on and off the front drive shaft clutch in the transfer case. The duty cycle of the clutch is adjusted when the system detects that the rear wheels are slipping relative to the front. In low traction situation this work fine. I am not convinced it as as good as a true AWD system when you are driving on a paved road. Personally I’d like an AWD system that included the ability to lock the center differential. Regards, Ed White – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > it has an "auto" mode that functions as AWD, bt if need be i can put it in > 4WD high or even 4WD low. I’m unlikely to use the high or low unless i > happen to get stuck somewhere while crossing a median > Do you mean 4WD or A4WD? Driving in 4WD on a paved road is not a good > idea. > Ed > > I’m more concerned about heavy traffic at highway speeds during > inclement > > weather. 4WD gives me more of a safety margin in those situations.

Response:

Keep in mind that 4WD won’t help you stop.  A college classmate of mine moved to Alaska and bought a decked-out Durango without realizing this simple fact.  I’m not sure what she drives now. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I’m more concerned about heavy traffic at highway speeds during inclement > weather. 4WD gives me more of a safety margin in those situations.

Response:

> I am not convinced it as as good as a true AWD system when you are driving on > a paved road. Personally I’d like an AWD system that included the ability to > lock the center differential.

I think you may be right. I seem to recall reading that the Mountaineer had a true AWD system, however. Regardless, in heavy rain (like tropical storms, which we get a lot here in Houston) I probably will switch to 4WD high to be extra safe. What do you think, is that advisable, or shoudl i stick to A4WD? my main purpose in getting a 4×4 was to increase safety and control. I appreciate any advice on maximizing safety in my explorer – especially since its primary use is to haul my 6 month daughter (and associated logistical supplies) across town.

Response:

So, you’re the average Houston driver that thinks the only way to take off from a light or stop sign requires bouncing the accelerator pedal off the floorboard? Yes, if you can’t drive, AWD might be halfway helpful in wet conditions.  If you can drive, AWD isn’t going to be doing much for you since you won’t be driving your SUV like a race car, much less while its raining. AWD/4WD hardware without a true *NEED* for it is nothing but hauling around a few hundred pounds of extra hardware that does nothing.  Learning to drive is also much cheaper than pretending that your AWD system makes up for a lack of skills. JS – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’ve got a 4×4 ‘02 V8 (XLT) and its smoother than my in-laws’ Avalon > Without 4×4, you also have wasted the sfety advantages of the suv. The 4×4 > handling is immensely superior for control in rain. I live in Houston and i > can tell you that 4×4 is essential here, though 99% of the other drivers on > teh road seem to disagree. we actually had to buy ours in Chicago and drive > it down, because we just couldnt find a 4wd model down here without having > to pay extra for all the eddie bauer crap. > Regards > Aziz H. Poonawalla > unmedia.blogspot.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m considering a 2002/03 model Explorer with 4WD. Does anyone know how > the highway ride, handling, noise and vibration of the 4×4 compares with > the 4×2? Are there any known problems with the new 4×4 Explorers? Are > there suspension system,  springs & shocks, differences between the 4×4 > and 4×2? > Thank you, > Mike

Response:

I’ve got a 4×4 ‘02 V8 (XLT) and its smoother than my in-laws’ Avalon Without 4×4, you also have wasted the sfety advantages of the suv. The 4×4 handling is immensely superior for control in rain. I live in Houston and i can tell you that 4×4 is essential here, though 99% of the other drivers on teh road seem to disagree. we actually had to buy ours in Chicago and drive it down, because we just couldnt find a 4wd model down here without having to pay extra for all the eddie bauer crap. Regards Aziz H. Poonawalla unmedia.blogspot.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I’m considering a 2002/03 model Explorer with 4WD. Does anyone know how > the highway ride, handling, noise and vibration of the 4×4 compares with > the 4×2? Are there any known problems with the new 4×4 Explorers? Are > there suspension system,  springs & shocks, differences between the 4×4 > and 4×2? > Thank you, > Mike

Response:

> I’ve always wondered why ANYONE would EVER buy an SUV without 4×4? Heck, if > I lived in the sunbelt, I’d have a SMOOOTH rear wheel drive Bimmer or Lexus > or Benz. I drive an Explorer because of the snowy hills of Pittsburgh.

Allow me to answer your question: it doesn’t snow where I live and 2wd drive works just fine. DS ‘02 Explorer XLT, 2wd, tow package (17k miles over 1.4 years) ‘91 Explorer XLT, 2wd, tow package (125k miles over 10.5 years) (sold)

Response:

One word.  Versatility You can’t tow my boat with a Lexus or BMW.  You can’t put seven people in a BMW.  You can’t go to the camp site we went to last Labor Day with a Benz. I don’t think my 17ft canoe would mount very well on a Benz.  Would a Benz hold all of the little league equipment I haul around?  I think not.  I could go on. I’m planning on buying a 2wd Explorer soon.  I never go off road or drive in the snow so it would be a waste for me.  More cost, less MPG, more repairs, no not for me. Dave

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’ve always wondered why ANYONE would EVER buy an SUV without 4×4? Heck, if > I lived in the sunbelt, I’d have a SMOOOTH rear wheel drive Bimmer or Lexus > or Benz. I drive an Explorer because of the snowy hills of Pittsburgh.

Response:

I just bought an 02 Explorer XLS 4×4 and is incredibly better than my previous 91 explorer.  The noise, and vibration you can barely feel.. like your riding on a cloud – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I’m considering a 2002/03 model Explorer with 4WD. Does anyone know how > the highway ride, handling, noise and vibration of the 4×4 compares with > the 4×2? Are there any known problems with the new 4×4 Explorers? Are > there suspension system,  springs & shocks, differences between the 4×4 > and 4×2? > Thank you, > Mike

Response:

I agree with the opinions expressed but what I’m looking for is a technical answer. It looks like from the literature that when you’re in 4WD automode that ControlTrac will direct all or most of the driving force to the rear wheels if you are on the highway. How does the NVH on the highway compare to the 4×2 when both vehicles  have the Type III towing package with 3.73 LSD rear end? Do they have the same spring rates and shocks? The dealerships can’t give a good answer to these questions and I have not been able to find a dealership in Dallas that has a 4×4 for test driving. Mike – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >By the way, the ride and handling of the ‘03 (and I assume ‘02) is MUCH more >"carlike" than the earlier Explorer/Mountaineers. >I’m considering a 2002/03 model Explorer with 4WD. Does anyone know how >the highway ride, handling, noise and vibration of the 4×4 compares with >the 4×2? Are there any known problems with the new 4×4 Explorers? Are >there suspension system,  springs & shocks, differences between the 4×4 >and 4×2? >Thank you, >Mike

Response:

By the way, the ride and handling of the ‘03 (and I assume ‘02) is MUCH more "carlike" than the earlier Explorer/Mountaineers. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I’m considering a 2002/03 model Explorer with 4WD. Does anyone know how > the highway ride, handling, noise and vibration of the 4×4 compares with > the 4×2? Are there any known problems with the new 4×4 Explorers? Are > there suspension system,  springs & shocks, differences between the 4×4 > and 4×2? > Thank you, > Mike

Response:

I drive a 4X2 because of all the cargo room (and my dog likes it too.) And I live "in the sunbelt.") Lexus here; 40k + Explorer Sport; 23k fully loaded. Easy math for me. Plus my dog would trash the Lexus. There isn’t any snow here either, let alone a mountain haha. Cheaper insurance too. Hope this helps your wondering As for the ride, it’s smoother than our 02 GMC Envoy. Very nice ride… — No. Try not. Do or do not, there is no try. Max

> I’ve always wondered why ANYONE would EVER buy an SUV without 4×4? Heck, if > I lived in the sunbelt, I’d have a SMOOOTH rear wheel drive Bimmer or Lexus > or Benz. I drive an Explorer because of the snowy hills of Pittsburgh.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’m considering a 2002/03 model Explorer with 4WD. Does anyone know how > the highway ride, handling, noise and vibration of the 4×4 compares with > the 4×2? Are there any known problems with the new 4×4 Explorers? Are > there suspension system,  springs & shocks, differences between the 4×4 > and 4×2? > Thank you, > Mike

Response:

I’ve always wondered why ANYONE would EVER buy an SUV without 4×4? Heck, if I lived in the sunbelt, I’d have a SMOOOTH rear wheel drive Bimmer or Lexus or Benz. I drive an Explorer because of the snowy hills of Pittsburgh. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > I’m considering a 2002/03 model Explorer with 4WD. Does anyone know how > the highway ride, handling, noise and vibration of the 4×4 compares with > the 4×2? Are there any known problems with the new 4×4 Explorers? Are > there suspension system,  springs & shocks, differences between the 4×4 > and 4×2? > Thank you, > Mike

Response:

I’m considering a 2002/03 model Explorer with 4WD. Does anyone know how the highway ride, handling, noise and vibration of the 4×4 compares with the 4×2? Are there any known problems with the new 4×4 Explorers? Are there suspension system,  springs & shocks, differences between the 4×4 and 4×2? Thank you, Mike

Response:

Violent "knocking" possibly coming from trans?

Question:

Ok, here is my situation…  I have a devil car..  A ‘99 GMC Envoy… I purchased this car with only 7k miles on it, so I figured I would be in good shape, I would skip the "new car depreciation" but still have a fairly new car. Boy was I wrong…  I started getting an amazingly loud knock that was timed with the engine cycles (higher the RPMs, the more knocking) so we took the car in to the shop, they originally thought it was the timing chain, but in the end they found out we needed an engine rebuild…  It appears as though the car was ran with little to no oil at one point…  Well we get our oil changed more frequently then the recommended amount, and this car does not burn oil, so that can only mean it happened in the first 7k miles that we did not have the car! So nearly $3,500 and a week later we get the truck back and it runs fine for about week…  Now we are getting a "clunking" sound that you can feel in the floorboards, but we can not find anything to directly reproduce the problem, sometimes it happens, sometimes it does not. One time when it was happening quite severely we did some testing… We found out it has more to do with wheel movement then the engine from what we can tell…  At a dead stop in park it would not do it, while in reverse it would do it slightly, then when we started driving it would do it quite loudly, then we shifted the car into neutral and it was still doing it just as loud as when it was in drive. From the feel of it we think it is coming from just behind the engine. I know this is quite vague, I can try to answer any clarifying questions, but our main problem is we can not reproduce the problem on cue, so if we bring it back to the shop there is a good chance it is not going to happen. Slim chance, but does anyone have any clue what this could be?  We have checked the trans fluid and all other fluids and everything is right where it should be. Thanks in advance, Eric Phillips

Response:

> So nearly $3,500 and a week later we get the truck back and it runs > fine for about week…  Now we are getting a "clunking" sound that you > can feel in the floorboards, but we can not find anything to directly > reproduce the problem, sometimes it happens, sometimes it does not. > One time when it was happening quite severely we did some testing… > We found out it has more to do with wheel movement then the engine > from what we can tell…  At a dead stop in park it would not do it, > while in reverse it would do it slightly, then when we started driving > it would do it quite loudly, then we shifted the car into neutral and > it was still doing it just as loud as when it was in drive. > From the feel of it we think it is coming from just behind the engine.

Motor mounts not bolted down or broken? Or exhaust pipe flopping around?

Response:

 Bad U-joint??? Or maybe the tranny tailshaft mount has worked loose? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Ok, here is my situation…  I have a devil car..  A ‘99 GMC Envoy… > I purchased this car with only 7k miles on it, so I figured I would be > in good shape, I would skip the "new car depreciation" but still have > a fairly new car. > Boy was I wrong…  I started getting an amazingly loud knock that was > timed with the engine cycles (higher the RPMs, the more knocking) so > we took the car in to the shop, they originally thought it was the > timing chain, but in the end they found out we needed an engine > rebuild…  It appears as though the car was ran with little to no oil > at one point…  Well we get our oil changed more frequently then the > recommended amount, and this car does not burn oil, so that can only > mean it happened in the first 7k miles that we did not have the car! > So nearly $3,500 and a week later we get the truck back and it runs > fine for about week…  Now we are getting a "clunking" sound that you > can feel in the floorboards, but we can not find anything to directly > reproduce the problem, sometimes it happens, sometimes it does not. > One time when it was happening quite severely we did some testing… > We found out it has more to do with wheel movement then the engine > from what we can tell…  At a dead stop in park it would not do it, > while in reverse it would do it slightly, then when we started driving > it would do it quite loudly, then we shifted the car into neutral and > it was still doing it just as loud as when it was in drive. > From the feel of it we think it is coming from just behind the engine. > I know this is quite vague, I can try to answer any clarifying > questions, but our main problem is we can not reproduce the problem on > cue, so if we bring it back to the shop there is a good chance it is > not going to happen. > Slim chance, but does anyone have any clue what this could be?  We > have checked the trans fluid and all other fluids and everything is > right where it should be. > Thanks in advance, > Eric Phillips

Response:

Sounds like crossmember mounts,  they are a real pain. The crossmember is cushioned with rubber cushions,the factory bolts are a bummer, use longer bolts and oversized nuts as spacers, put passenger side in first [ easy ]  than jack up crossmember with floor jack until drivers side [ tough ]  goes in place, than tighten all four bolts

Response:

Question regarding 4×4 Vehicles…

Question:

Don, Chevy just ran a print media campaign in the 4×4 mags a while back… the 1936 model looks amazingly like the current production models, especially if the current one is black. Goes to show… a great idea is timeless. Dean – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Dean Dardwin might have said: >[reformatted] >>Dean Dardwin might have said: >>>BTW, before you write that check for a Tahoe, test drive a Suburban. It >>>was the first, and for my money still is, the only real SUV ever made. >>Out of curiosity, did it pre-date the IH umm, Travel-All or whatever >>they used to sell?  True 40’s Jeeps were U only, not much S to them, >>I’d say.  Not that some folks didn’t make them into something else, >>mind you. <g> >>Don ‘Remembers the "Anything else is just a car" campaign’ Q. >Don, >The first Chevy Suburban was a 1936 model year made in 1935. >Dean >Wow.  I didn’t know that they were in production so long!  I’m gonna >have to go Google on them and look for pics.  I think I’m seeing a >wasted Sunday afternoon already! <g> >BTW, what’s all this caca? >Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> ><html> ><head> > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> > <title></title> ></head> ><body> >Don,<br> ><br> >The first Chevy Suburban was a 1936 model year made in 1935.<br> ><br> >Dean<br> ><br> ><blockquote type="cite" > <pre wrap="">Dean Dardwin might have said: > </pre> > <blockquote type="cite"> >   <pre wrap="">BTW, before you write that check for a Tahoe, test drive a Suburban. It >was the first, and for my money still is, the only real SUV ever made. >   </pre> > </blockquote> > <pre wrap=""><!—-> >Out of curiosity, did it pre-date the IH umm, Travel-All or whatever >they used to sell?  True 40’s Jeeps were U only, not much S to them, >I’d say.  Not that some folks didn’t make them into something else, >mind you. &lt;g&gt; >Don ‘Remembers the "Anything else is just a car" campaign’ Q. > </pre> ></blockquote> ><br> ></body> ></html>

Response:

Dean Dardwin might have said: [reformatted] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Dean Dardwin might have said: >>BTW, before you write that check for a Tahoe, test drive a Suburban. It >>was the first, and for my money still is, the only real SUV ever made. >Out of curiosity, did it pre-date the IH umm, Travel-All or whatever >they used to sell?  True 40’s Jeeps were U only, not much S to them, >I’d say.  Not that some folks didn’t make them into something else, >mind you. <g> >Don ‘Remembers the "Anything else is just a car" campaign’ Q. >Don, >The first Chevy Suburban was a 1936 model year made in 1935. >Dean

Wow.  I didn’t know that they were in production so long!  I’m gonna have to go Google on them and look for pics.  I think I’m seeing a wasted Sunday afternoon already! <g> BTW, what’s all this caca? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> ><html> ><head> >  <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> >  <title></title> ></head> ><body> >Don,<br> ><br> >The first Chevy Suburban was a 1936 model year made in 1935.<br> ><br> >Dean<br> ><br> ><blockquote type="cite" >  <pre wrap="">Dean Dardwin might have said: >  </pre> >  <blockquote type="cite"> >    <pre wrap="">BTW, before you write that check for a Tahoe, test drive a Suburban. It >was the first, and for my money still is, the only real SUV ever made. >    </pre> >  </blockquote> >  <pre wrap=""><!—-> >Out of curiosity, did it pre-date the IH umm, Travel-All or whatever >they used to sell?  True 40’s Jeeps were U only, not much S to them, >I’d say.  Not that some folks didn’t make them into something else, >mind you. &lt;g&gt; >Don ‘Remembers the "Anything else is just a car" campaign’ Q. >  </pre> ></blockquote> ><br> ></body> ></html>

Response:

I have all wheel drive Bravada, eats up front prop shafts. but however great in extreme weather, muddy roads, and off road.SARGE

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Maybe before you write that big check for a new 4×4 Tahoo or Suburban you > may want to look into an AWD (all wheel drive) vehicle. They are made to > always drive all 4 wheels regardless of the road conditions. > The dissavantage is the are not really made for offroad use, they do not > have a high or low range, advantage is they are rather fool proof  if you > don’t want to have to think about the option of 2W or 4W drive or the road > traction conditions. If you like the size of your Explorer the GMC Envoy, > Olds Bravada, and I thing the Mercury Mountineer are a couple of options to > look at that offer the AWD option. I am not sure if the Tahoo, Yukon or > Escalade has this option or not, The Denali might, I haven’t checked lately. > I have a Bravada for my wife and it is the best option for her I could have > come up with. Always has the traction she needs if the roads are wet, icy or > dry. Don’t forget the tow package if you are going to use it to tow > anything.

Response:

The Envoy is NOT AWD, the Denali and Denali XL are both AWD and the Cadillac Escalade can be purchased both in 2wd and AWD models. Jerry H. — A GMC dealer

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Maybe before you write that big check for a new 4×4 Tahoo or Suburban you > may want to look into an AWD (all wheel drive) vehicle. They are made to > always drive all 4 wheels regardless of the road conditions. > The dissavantage is the are not really made for offroad use, they do not > have a high or low range, advantage is they are rather fool proof  if you > don’t want to have to think about the option of 2W or 4W drive or the road > traction conditions. If you like the size of your Explorer the GMC Envoy, > Olds Bravada, and I thing the Mercury Mountineer are a couple of options to > look at that offer the AWD option. I am not sure if the Tahoo, Yukon or > Escalade has this option or not, The Denali might, I haven’t checked lately. > I have a Bravada for my wife and it is the best option for her I could have > come up with. Always has the traction she needs if the roads are wet, icy or > dry. Don’t forget the tow package if you are going to use it to tow > anything.

Response:

Or possibly a Yukon XL Jerry H. — A GMC Dealer – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Tim, > The distinction you make is not quite right. Any transfer case based 4WD > drive system can be used in 4WD in low-traction situations. If you > engage 4WD in high-traction situations, you can damage the transfer > case. Common sense is the key here. If you are in a high-traction > situation, you don’t need to be using 4WD drive anyway, right? > So to answer your question, you have to decide if your definition of > "off-road"  implies a low-traction situation (loose gravel, sand, snow, > ice, wet rock, etc.) or a high-traction situation (dry rock, hard packed > dry clay, etc.). > BTW, before you write that check for a Tahoe, test drive a Suburban. It > was the first, and for my money still is, the only real SUV ever made. > Dean >It’s awfully sad, but I bought a ‘02 Ford Explorer 4×4 last October, brand new, so >it’s BARELY getting to be a year old, and here I am already considering my next >vehicle (which WILL be a GM product as I am tired of dealing with Ford dealerships). >Anyway, I specifically wanted a 4×4 vehicle to help with traction in slick situations >(ice, snow, mud, etc)   However, I later found out that this 4×4 is NOT to be used on >anything else other than where it has slippage on the ground (i.e. can’t use it on >just "wet pavement").  That rather confused me, I was under the impression that 4×4 >vehicles were specifically designed for "off road" use.  (Also keep in mind I am only >22 years old and I hardly understand anything about these new vehicles. My last >vehicle was a 1984 Chevrolet Scottsdale pickup with a 350 V8 engine). >So, I guess what I am needing and wanting to find out…. >I can’t decide between the Chevrolet Avalanche Z71 or the Chevrolet Tahoe Z71. >I’d prefer the Tahoe as I prefer the real "SUV" look (although I think the Avalanche >is cool as heck! lol) >Are either one of those vehicles able to use the 4×4 in off-road situations? >Thanks for any assistance you can provide >Tim

Response:

Maybe before you write that big check for a new 4×4 Tahoo or Suburban you may want to look into an AWD (all wheel drive) vehicle. They are made to always drive all 4 wheels regardless of the road conditions. The dissavantage is the are not really made for offroad use, they do not have a high or low range, advantage is they are rather fool proof  if you don’t want to have to think about the option of 2W or 4W drive or the road traction conditions. If you like the size of your Explorer the GMC Envoy, Olds Bravada, and I thing the Mercury Mountineer are a couple of options to look at that offer the AWD option. I am not sure if the Tahoo, Yukon or Escalade has this option or not, The Denali might, I haven’t checked lately. I have a Bravada for my wife and it is the best option for her I could have come up with. Always has the traction she needs if the roads are wet, icy or dry. Don’t forget the tow package if you are going to use it to tow anything.

Response:

Don, The first Chevy Suburban was a 1936 model year made in 1935. Dean – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Dean Dardwin might have said: >BTW, before you write that check for a Tahoe, test drive a Suburban. It >was the first, and for my money still is, the only real SUV ever made. >Out of curiosity, did it pre-date the IH umm, Travel-All or whatever >they used to sell?  True 40’s Jeeps were U only, not much S to them, >I’d say.  Not that some folks didn’t make them into something else, >mind you. <g> >Don ‘Remembers the "Anything else is just a car" campaign’ Q.

Response:

Thanks for the response. It’s making better sense now. Tim

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Tim, > The 4 wheel drive system does not provide any more towing power for making > it up hills.  It just makes all 4 wheels have power of their own, instead of > 2 doing the powering and 2 doing the rolling.  Yes, in low range, you will > have more power, but that is not feasable for on-highway driving (depending > on your transfer case, it can knock your *max* speed down to 45 or lower). > 4×4 vehicles are to be used in 4wd mode only in low traction conditions > because it essentially locks the front wheels and the rear wheels together > with the power from the engine, and in doing this, when used in > high-traction situations, creates unthinkable stress on your drivetrain, > because like it or not, your front axle will turn at a slightly different > rate than the back one (either through gear differences, tire height > differences or just plain old turning), and that leads to catastrophic loss. > Some of the older 4×4’s used a ‘full-time’ 4wd system, but the transfer case > had a differential in it, and in non-loc position, allowed that difference > of speed in the front and rear driveshafts, but could be ‘loc’ed together on > low traction (the ‘79 GMC K-1500 I drive has that system in it), but they > don’t do that to too many vehicles (if any) anymore because it sucks down > gas, and wears out things more quickly. > HTH > — > Lonestar Computer Services > http://home.austin.rr.com/jchavers/lcs > 512.928.9935 > > The distinction you make is not quite right. Any transfer case based 4WD > > drive system can be used in 4WD in low-traction situations. If you > > engage 4WD in high-traction situations, you can damage the transfer > > case. Common sense is the key here. If you are in a high-traction > > situation, you don’t need to be using 4WD drive anyway, right? > Well…. please forgive me, but again, I know nothing of 4×4 vehicles.  I > BARELY know > of a transfer case. > But what you speak of was not (before now) common sense to me. > My thoughts about using the 4WD on high-traction was this…  mainly for > off road > situations, but what about towing a trailer thru hilly/mountainous areas? > I often > haul our family’s boat (not on my Explorer yet, however) back and forth > between our > home near Oklahoma City and Lake Texoma (on the Oklahoma/Texas border). > Going down > I-35, you run into the Arbuckle’s, lots of up and down hills, many > somewhat steep > (when hauling anything).  I remember having to turn off the A/C in my 84 > Chevy Truck > just to get up some of those hills.  PLEASE correct me if I am thinking in > the wrong > lines, but wouldn’t the added 4WD in that situation tremendously help the > power you > have? > > So to answer your question, you have to decide if your definition of > > "off-road"  implies a low-traction situation (loose gravel, sand, snow, > > ice, wet rock, etc.) or a high-traction situation (dry rock, hard packed > > dry clay, etc.). > My definition of off-road does indeed apply to high-traction situations as > you stated > in your examples.  In that situation, could a 4×4 vehicle designed for > that, also be > used on low-traction?  Or can you not "have your cake and eat it too" ?? > > BTW, before you write that check for a Tahoe, test drive a Suburban. It > > was the first, and for my money still is, the only real SUV ever made. > > Dean > My uncle owns a 1996 Suburban… it is a very nice vehicle, although, my > 84 Chevy > truck was a huge thing to drive and maneuver.  I liked the Explorer in > that I could > almost go anywhere, but now I’m tired of the compact space to carry people > in. > Tim

Response:

Tim, The 4 wheel drive system does not provide any more towing power for making it up hills.  It just makes all 4 wheels have power of their own, instead of 2 doing the powering and 2 doing the rolling.  Yes, in low range, you will have more power, but that is not feasable for on-highway driving (depending on your transfer case, it can knock your *max* speed down to 45 or lower). 4×4 vehicles are to be used in 4wd mode only in low traction conditions because it essentially locks the front wheels and the rear wheels together with the power from the engine, and in doing this, when used in high-traction situations, creates unthinkable stress on your drivetrain, because like it or not, your front axle will turn at a slightly different rate than the back one (either through gear differences, tire height differences or just plain old turning), and that leads to catastrophic loss. Some of the older 4×4’s used a ‘full-time’ 4wd system, but the transfer case had a differential in it, and in non-loc position, allowed that difference of speed in the front and rear driveshafts, but could be ‘loc’ed together on low traction (the ‘79 GMC K-1500 I drive has that system in it), but they don’t do that to too many vehicles (if any) anymore because it sucks down gas, and wears out things more quickly. HTH — Lonestar Computer Services http://home.austin.rr.com/jchavers/lcs 512.928.9935

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The distinction you make is not quite right. Any transfer case based 4WD > drive system can be used in 4WD in low-traction situations. If you > engage 4WD in high-traction situations, you can damage the transfer > case. Common sense is the key here. If you are in a high-traction > situation, you don’t need to be using 4WD drive anyway, right? > Well…. please forgive me, but again, I know nothing of 4×4 vehicles.  I BARELY know > of a transfer case. > But what you speak of was not (before now) common sense to me. > My thoughts about using the 4WD on high-traction was this…  mainly for off road > situations, but what about towing a trailer thru hilly/mountainous areas? I often > haul our family’s boat (not on my Explorer yet, however) back and forth between our > home near Oklahoma City and Lake Texoma (on the Oklahoma/Texas border). Going down > I-35, you run into the Arbuckle’s, lots of up and down hills, many somewhat steep > (when hauling anything).  I remember having to turn off the A/C in my 84 Chevy Truck > just to get up some of those hills.  PLEASE correct me if I am thinking in the wrong > lines, but wouldn’t the added 4WD in that situation tremendously help the power you > have? > So to answer your question, you have to decide if your definition of > "off-road"  implies a low-traction situation (loose gravel, sand, snow, > ice, wet rock, etc.) or a high-traction situation (dry rock, hard packed > dry clay, etc.). > My definition of off-road does indeed apply to high-traction situations as you stated > in your examples.  In that situation, could a 4×4 vehicle designed for that, also be > used on low-traction?  Or can you not "have your cake and eat it too" ?? > BTW, before you write that check for a Tahoe, test drive a Suburban. It > was the first, and for my money still is, the only real SUV ever made. > Dean > My uncle owns a 1996 Suburban… it is a very nice vehicle, although, my 84 Chevy > truck was a huge thing to drive and maneuver.  I liked the Explorer in that I could > almost go anywhere, but now I’m tired of the compact space to carry people in. > Tim

Response:

NEVER use 4WD when on dry pavement. I doesn’t matter how steep the hill. Dont do it. Scott

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The distinction you make is not quite right. Any transfer case based 4WD > drive system can be used in 4WD in low-traction situations. If you > engage 4WD in high-traction situations, you can damage the transfer > case. Common sense is the key here. If you are in a high-traction > situation, you don’t need to be using 4WD drive anyway, right? > Well…. please forgive me, but again, I know nothing of 4×4 vehicles.  I BARELY know > of a transfer case. > But what you speak of was not (before now) common sense to me. > My thoughts about using the 4WD on high-traction was this…  mainly for off road > situations, but what about towing a trailer thru hilly/mountainous areas? I often > haul our family’s boat (not on my Explorer yet, however) back and forth between our > home near Oklahoma City and Lake Texoma (on the Oklahoma/Texas border). Going down > I-35, you run into the Arbuckle’s, lots of up and down hills, many somewhat steep > (when hauling anything).  I remember having to turn off the A/C in my 84 Chevy Truck > just to get up some of those hills.  PLEASE correct me if I am thinking in the wrong > lines, but wouldn’t the added 4WD in that situation tremendously help the power you > have? > So to answer your question, you have to decide if your definition of > "off-road"  implies a low-traction situation (loose gravel, sand, snow, > ice, wet rock, etc.) or a high-traction situation (dry rock, hard packed > dry clay, etc.). > My definition of off-road does indeed apply to high-traction situations as you stated > in your examples.  In that situation, could a 4×4 vehicle designed for that, also be > used on low-traction?  Or can you not "have your cake and eat it too" ?? > BTW, before you write that check for a Tahoe, test drive a Suburban. It > was the first, and for my money still is, the only real SUV ever made. > Dean > My uncle owns a 1996 Suburban… it is a very nice vehicle, although, my 84 Chevy > truck was a huge thing to drive and maneuver.  I liked the Explorer in that I could > almost go anywhere, but now I’m tired of the compact space to carry people in. > Tim

Response:

Dean Dardwin might have said: >BTW, before you write that check for a Tahoe, test drive a Suburban. It >was the first, and for my money still is, the only real SUV ever made.

Out of curiosity, did it pre-date the IH umm, Travel-All or whatever they used to sell?  True 40’s Jeeps were U only, not much S to them, I’d say.  Not that some folks didn’t make them into something else, mind you. <g> Don ‘Remembers the "Anything else is just a car" campaign’ Q.

Response:

> The distinction you make is not quite right. Any transfer case based 4WD > drive system can be used in 4WD in low-traction situations. If you > engage 4WD in high-traction situations, you can damage the transfer > case. Common sense is the key here. If you are in a high-traction > situation, you don’t need to be using 4WD drive anyway, right?

Well…. please forgive me, but again, I know nothing of 4×4 vehicles.  I BARELY know of a transfer case. But what you speak of was not (before now) common sense to me. My thoughts about using the 4WD on high-traction was this…  mainly for off road situations, but what about towing a trailer thru hilly/mountainous areas?  I often haul our family’s boat (not on my Explorer yet, however) back and forth between our home near Oklahoma City and Lake Texoma (on the Oklahoma/Texas border). Going down I-35, you run into the Arbuckle’s, lots of up and down hills, many somewhat steep (when hauling anything).  I remember having to turn off the A/C in my 84 Chevy Truck just to get up some of those hills.  PLEASE correct me if I am thinking in the wrong lines, but wouldn’t the added 4WD in that situation tremendously help the power you have? > So to answer your question, you have to decide if your definition of > "off-road"  implies a low-traction situation (loose gravel, sand, snow, > ice, wet rock, etc.) or a high-traction situation (dry rock, hard packed > dry clay, etc.).

My definition of off-road does indeed apply to high-traction situations as you stated in your examples.  In that situation, could a 4×4 vehicle designed for that, also be used on low-traction?  Or can you not "have your cake and eat it too" ?? > BTW, before you write that check for a Tahoe, test drive a Suburban. It > was the first, and for my money still is, the only real SUV ever made. > Dean

My uncle owns a 1996 Suburban… it is a very nice vehicle, although, my 84 Chevy truck was a huge thing to drive and maneuver.  I liked the Explorer in that I could almost go anywhere, but now I’m tired of the compact space to carry people in. Tim

Response:

Tim, The distinction you make is not quite right. Any transfer case based 4WD drive system can be used in 4WD in low-traction situations. If you engage 4WD in high-traction situations, you can damage the transfer case. Common sense is the key here. If you are in a high-traction situation, you don’t need to be using 4WD drive anyway, right? So to answer your question, you have to decide if your definition of "off-road"  implies a low-traction situation (loose gravel, sand, snow, ice, wet rock, etc.) or a high-traction situation (dry rock, hard packed dry clay, etc.). BTW, before you write that check for a Tahoe, test drive a Suburban. It was the first, and for my money still is, the only real SUV ever made. Dean – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >It’s awfully sad, but I bought a ‘02 Ford Explorer 4×4 last October, brand new, so >it’s BARELY getting to be a year old, and here I am already considering my next >vehicle (which WILL be a GM product as I am tired of dealing with Ford dealerships). >Anyway, I specifically wanted a 4×4 vehicle to help with traction in slick situations >(ice, snow, mud, etc)   However, I later found out that this 4×4 is NOT to be used on >anything else other than where it has slippage on the ground (i.e. can’t use it on >just "wet pavement").  That rather confused me, I was under the impression that 4×4 >vehicles were specifically designed for "off road" use.  (Also keep in mind I am only >22 years old and I hardly understand anything about these new vehicles. My last >vehicle was a 1984 Chevrolet Scottsdale pickup with a 350 V8 engine). >So, I guess what I am needing and wanting to find out…. >I can’t decide between the Chevrolet Avalanche Z71 or the Chevrolet Tahoe Z71. >I’d prefer the Tahoe as I prefer the real "SUV" look (although I think the Avalanche >is cool as heck! lol) >Are either one of those vehicles able to use the 4×4 in off-road situations? >Thanks for any assistance you can provide >Tim

Response:

It’s awfully sad, but I bought a ‘02 Ford Explorer 4×4 last October, brand new, so it’s BARELY getting to be a year old, and here I am already considering my next vehicle (which WILL be a GM product as I am tired of dealing with Ford dealerships). Anyway, I specifically wanted a 4×4 vehicle to help with traction in slick situations (ice, snow, mud, etc)   However, I later found out that this 4×4 is NOT to be used on anything else other than where it has slippage on the ground (i.e. can’t use it on just "wet pavement").  That rather confused me, I was under the impression that 4×4 vehicles were specifically designed for "off road" use.  (Also keep in mind I am only 22 years old and I hardly understand anything about these new vehicles. My last vehicle was a 1984 Chevrolet Scottsdale pickup with a 350 V8 engine). So, I guess what I am needing and wanting to find out…. I can’t decide between the Chevrolet Avalanche Z71 or the Chevrolet Tahoe Z71. I’d prefer the Tahoe as I prefer the real "SUV" look (although I think the Avalanche is cool as heck! lol) Are either one of those vehicles able to use the 4×4 in off-road situations? Thanks for any assistance you can provide Tim

Response:

any concerns re 2002 Trailblazers?

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > LOL…my daughter (14) gets sick in any vehicle if she reads. > I am looking to steal an "EXT" from may a chevy astro and stick it on the > back.  The 2003 upgrading includes an optional 5.3 L V8 275 HP 375 ft/lb > torque, if you need I don’t. > have fun. > Bill > Thanks Bill. So far the only concern I am having is that monthly payment > that goes on and on and on. I haven’t seen any badging on either.  Maybe > that will be the 2003 upgrading.  I do like the ride, both my kids got car > sick in hte Durango test drive after about a mile of rough pavement. They > didn’t even notice with the Trailblazer. > > Personally, I have none so far. I have had Trailblazer EXT 4X4 for 3 > weeks > > and haven’t come across any problems. Great riding vehicle, quiet, > smooth. > > Better than alot of cars. > > The only thing I wonder about is why is there not any EXT badging on it? > Is > > there XL badging on  the Envoy? I have seen any there either. > > Bill > > > Hi, new to the group.  Just made a downpayment on a Trailblazer (ext) > 4X4. > > > Anything that would make a guy want to cut and run.  Not going to be > used > > > for real off roading, just steep icy and snowy roads on the way to the > > > grocery store. Most online comments seem to be positive. > > > Thanks in advance.

Make sure to have the fuel lines checked on the trail blazers. I recent TSB I got says something about the fuel lines disconnecting.. Please check it out .. I am sorry I cant remember the year in the TSB but have it checked.. Brandon Xpress Lube East Colfax

Response:

Thanks Brandon. When I did a "problems" search there was a press release about a recall on the fuel lines.  Mine should be new enough to be after that.  I am going to ask the question though.  Although we get basically the same vehicles as the U.S mostly, and made in the same plants, usually, we don’t get the same recalls in Canada.  I think the manufactures have threatened the Government that they will pull the manufacturing out of Canada if they get too much grief.  My Dakota had had a couple of minor problems mentioned on the NHTSA web site that my dealer claimed "we never ever heard of that".  Really inspires confidence.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – run. > LOL…my daughter (14) gets sick in any vehicle if she reads. > I am looking to steal an "EXT" from may a chevy astro and stick it on the > back.  The 2003 upgrading includes an optional 5.3 L V8 275 HP 375 ft/lb > torque, if you need I don’t. > have fun. > Bill > > Make sure to have the fuel lines checked on the trail blazers. I recent TSB > I got says something about the fuel lines disconnecting.. Please check it > out .. I am sorry I cant remember the year in the TSB but have it checked.. > Brandon > Xpress Lube East Colfax

Response:

LOL…my daughter (14) gets sick in any vehicle if she reads. I am looking to steal an "EXT" from may a chevy astro and stick it on the back.  The 2003 upgrading includes an optional 5.3 L V8 275 HP 375 ft/lb torque, if you need I don’t. have fun. Bill

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Thanks Bill. So far the only concern I am having is that monthly payment > that goes on and on and on. I haven’t seen any badging on either.  Maybe > that will be the 2003 upgrading.  I do like the ride, both my kids got car > sick in hte Durango test drive after about a mile of rough pavement.  They > didn’t even notice with the Trailblazer. > Personally, I have none so far. I have had Trailblazer EXT 4X4 for 3 weeks > and haven’t come across any problems. Great riding vehicle, quiet, smooth. > Better than alot of cars. > The only thing I wonder about is why is there not any EXT badging on it? > Is > there XL badging on  the Envoy? I have seen any there either. > Bill > > Hi, new to the group.  Just made a downpayment on a Trailblazer (ext) > 4X4. > > Anything that would make a guy want to cut and run.  Not going to be > used > > for real off roading, just steep icy and snowy roads on the way to the > > grocery store. Most online comments seem to be positive. > > Thanks in advance.

Response:

Hi, new to the group.  Just made a downpayment on a Trailblazer (ext) 4X4. Anything that would make a guy want to cut and run.  Not going to be used for real off roading, just steep icy and snowy roads on the way to the grocery store. Most online comments seem to be positive. Thanks in advance.

Response:

Personally, I have none so far. I have had Trailblazer EXT 4X4 for 3 weeks and haven’t come across any problems. Great riding vehicle, quiet, smooth. Better than alot of cars. The only thing I wonder about is why is there not any EXT badging on it?  Is there XL badging on  the Envoy? I have seen any there either. Bill

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi, new to the group.  Just made a downpayment on a Trailblazer (ext) 4X4. > Anything that would make a guy want to cut and run.  Not going to be used > for real off roading, just steep icy and snowy roads on the way to the > grocery store. Most online comments seem to be positive. > Thanks in advance.

Response:

Thanks Bill. So far the only concern I am having is that monthly payment that goes on and on and on. I haven’t seen any badging on either.  Maybe that will be the 2003 upgrading.  I do like the ride, both my kids got car sick in hte Durango test drive after about a mile of rough pavement.  They didn’t even notice with the Trailblazer.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Personally, I have none so far. I have had Trailblazer EXT 4X4 for 3 weeks > and haven’t come across any problems. Great riding vehicle, quiet, smooth. > Better than alot of cars. > The only thing I wonder about is why is there not any EXT badging on it? Is > there XL badging on  the Envoy? I have seen any there either. > Bill > Hi, new to the group.  Just made a downpayment on a Trailblazer (ext) 4X4. > Anything that would make a guy want to cut and run.  Not going to be used > for real off roading, just steep icy and snowy roads on the way to the > grocery store. Most online comments seem to be positive. > Thanks in advance.

Response:

Avalanche – hints on next years model?

Question:

So close, and yet so far… Hopefully GM will make a XUV version of the Suburban/Yukon XL with the sliding roof.  The Envoy is an interesting idea, but would have been so much cooler to have the option of a 3rd row of seats… DK – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Check out the info on the GMC Envoy XUV (I think)… > Yup, it’s the XUV, here’s a link: > http://www.gmc.com/gmcjsp/xuv/main.jsp >> >I think the Avalance beats the heck out of the Ford F150 Quad Cab and >> >it’s Explorere mini-me version.  BUT what it really needs is a 3rd seat >> >and optional shell.  I mean if you are going to make an SUV be a truck >> >why not let it seat it’s original maximum (one reason to have an SUF) >> >carry it’s original cargo capacity and on occasion take the top off and >> >haul the refrigerators. >Personally, this isn’t a bad idea.  Anyone know the likelihood of Chevy >making this an option for the Avalanche???

Response:

Check out the info on the GMC Envoy XUV (I think)… Yup, it’s the XUV, here’s a link: http://www.gmc.com/gmcjsp/xuv/main.jsp – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >I think the Avalance beats the heck out of the Ford F150 Quad Cab and > >it’s Explorere mini-me version.  BUT what it really needs is a 3rd seat > >and optional shell.  I mean if you are going to make an SUV be a truck > >why not let it seat it’s original maximum (one reason to have an SUF) > >carry it’s original cargo capacity and on occasion take the top off and > >haul the refrigerators. >Personally, this isn’t a bad idea.  Anyone know the likelihood of Chevy >making this an option for the Avalanche???

Response:

> >I think the Avalance beats the heck out of the Ford F150 Quad Cab and >it’s Explorere mini-me version.  BUT what it really needs is a 3rd seat >and optional shell.  I mean if you are going to make an SUV be a truck >why not let it seat it’s original maximum (one reason to have an SUF) >carry it’s original cargo capacity and on occasion take the top off and >haul the refrigerators.

Personally, this isn’t a bad idea.  Anyone know the likelihood of Chevy making this an option for the Avalanche???

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->You either want a REAL Pickup or a Tahoe/Yukon. This combo stuff just >doesn’t cut the mustard. Why not just get a crew cab Pickup? If you are >going to be doing more hauling of 8′ long "stuff", just get the long box! > Proving again that usenet has no shortage of people who know > unequivocally what other people should want. > Avalanche (cladding or not) will never be the answer for any specific > application.  It answers various applications that would be met by a > regular cab long bed or crew cab subshort bed.  And it does this with a > footprint 3 feet shorter than the equivalent "REAL Pickup" (CC+LB). > But, of course, everyone has the money and real estate to keep a > separate truck and SUV.  And carports are always large enough that the > "REAL Pickup" doesn’t stick halfway out.  And there’s always plenty of > on-street parking for a truck 1.5 times as long as the typical vacant > space.  And most importantly, everyone knows exactly what their needs > will be for the next 3-10 years. > m

Nicely put M.  As someone intending to purchase an Avalanche, I’ll freely admit that although it does most things reasonably well, it doesn’t do every individual thing as well as vehicle designed for that purpose.  (If I had my way, there’d be a Chevy 1500 4×4 Yukon and a 2500HD 4×4 Diesel parked in the garage, but that isn’t likely to happen…)

Response:

>>I think the Avalance beats the heck out of the Ford F150 Quad Cab and >it’s Explorere mini-me version.  BUT what it really needs is a 3rd seat >and optional shell.  I mean if you are going to make an SUV be a truck >why not let it seat it’s original maximum (one reason to have an SUF) >carry it’s original cargo capacity and on occasion take the top off and >haul the refrigerators. >You just described the GMC Envoy XUV. >m

I can’t wait for that Envoy XUV to come out.  I love having electronic gadgets, have 3 for my current truck (EZ-Pass, Mobil speedpass, mounted in the truck and a radar detector).  This truck would be at least 4 new ones that came WITH it…

Response:

> I was told by a local dealer that the plastic moulding was to be changed to > painted metal… Same look and style  but just would be painted..  I think > they are a great  looking truck..

Thanks, here is a link to it with a picture that someone sent me http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/news/avalanche_no_cladding.html

Response:

Well, I have to say, it does look a LITTLE better than the current model, BUT it is still not for me! You either want a REAL Pickup or a Tahoe/Yukon. This combo stuff just doesn’t cut the mustard. Why not just get a crew cab Pickup? If you are going to be doing more hauling of 8′ long "stuff", just get the long box!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I was told by a local dealer that the plastic moulding was to be changed > to > painted metal… Same look and style  but just would be painted..  I > think > they are a great  looking truck.. > Thanks, here is a link to it with a picture that someone sent me > http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/news/avalanche_no_cladding.html

Response:

>I think the Avalance beats the heck out of the Ford F150 Quad Cab and >it’s Explorere mini-me version.  BUT what it really needs is a 3rd seat >and optional shell.  I mean if you are going to make an SUV be a truck >why not let it seat it’s original maximum (one reason to have an SUF) >carry it’s original cargo capacity and on occasion take the top off and >haul the refrigerators.

You just described the GMC Envoy XUV. m

Response:

>You either want a REAL Pickup or a Tahoe/Yukon. This combo stuff just >doesn’t cut the mustard. Why not just get a crew cab Pickup? If you are >going to be doing more hauling of 8′ long "stuff", just get the long box!

Proving again that usenet has no shortage of people who know unequivocally what other people should want. Avalanche (cladding or not) will never be the answer for any specific application.  It answers various applications that would be met by a regular cab long bed or crew cab subshort bed.  And it does this with a footprint 3 feet shorter than the equivalent "REAL Pickup" (CC+LB). But, of course, everyone has the money and real estate to keep a separate truck and SUV.  And carports are always large enough that the "REAL Pickup" doesn’t stick halfway out.  And there’s always plenty of on-street parking for a truck 1.5 times as long as the typical vacant space.  And most importantly, everyone knows exactly what their needs will be for the next 3-10 years. m

Response:

I was told by a local dealer that the plastic moulding was to be changed to painted metal… Same look and style  but just would be painted..  I  think they are a great  looking truck.. This isn’t  written in stone,  just what he got wind of..

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> First off, please dont start by replying with ‘why bother – its ugly’ > threads – thanks > I like everything about the Avalanche but still really dont like the looks > of the plastic molding on the bottom. Anyone heard hints if next years model > is going to look the same or how different it will be? I really want to buy > one for the functionality but have reserves on buying a first years model. > But if the next years model is pretty much the same, I could probably find a > pretty good deal on the 2002’s. > TIA > They are going to de-ugly it a bit.  Otherwise it will be the same, > which is about the same as a Silverado except for the mid gate.

Response:

The 2003 Model will loose the cladding and get a different front bumper. Here’s a link witch a pic and info of the 03 Avalanche. http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/news/avalanche_no_cladding.html

Response:

Well I don’t think this version will be running for mayor of Uglyville. The 2002 will hold that office for a while.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The 2003 Model will loose the cladding and get a different front bumper. > Here’s a link witch a pic and info of the 03 Avalanche. > http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/news/avalanche_no_cladding.html

Response:

> They are getting rid of the plastic crap. Still looks the same otherwise.

Cool! I am glad I waited then!

Response:

Great, they lost the cladding and made it look like a ford with a bowtie., I’ll pass. — Tips, Tweaks, Help Forum Computers & Kits http://www.acon-pchelp.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The 2003 Model will loose the cladding and get a different front bumper. > Here’s a link witch a pic and info of the 03 Avalanche. > http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/news/avalanche_no_cladding.html

Response:

> First off, please dont start by replying with ‘why bother – its ugly’ > threads – thanks > I like everything about the Avalanche but still really dont like the looks > of the plastic molding on the bottom. Anyone heard hints if next years model > is going to look the same or how different it will be? I really want to buy > one for the functionality but have reserves on buying a first years model. > But if the next years model is pretty much the same, I could probably find a > pretty good deal on the 2002’s. > TIA

They are going to de-ugly it a bit.  Otherwise it will be the same, which is about the same as a Silverado except for the mid gate.

Response:

First off, please dont start by replying with ‘why bother – its ugly’ threads – thanks I like everything about the Avalanche but still really dont like the looks of the plastic molding on the bottom. Anyone heard hints if next years model is going to look the same or how different it will be? I really want to buy one for the functionality but have reserves on buying a first years model. But if the next years model is pretty much the same, I could probably find a pretty good deal on the 2002’s. TIA

Response:

They are getting rid of the plastic crap. Still looks the same otherwise.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> First off, please dont start by replying with ‘why bother – its ugly’ > threads – thanks > I like everything about the Avalanche but still really dont like the looks > of the plastic molding on the bottom. Anyone heard hints if next years model > is going to look the same or how different it will be? I really want to buy > one for the functionality but have reserves on buying a first years model. > But if the next years model is pretty much the same, I could probably find a > pretty good deal on the 2002’s. > TIA

Response:

Use OnStar GPS with DeLorme Street Atlas

Question:

I just bought a new 2002 GMC Envoy equipped with OnStar.  Does anyone know if you can tap into the OnStar (GPS) and use this data stream as GPS input to a PC (used in a program like the DeLorme Street Atlas).  The GPS data stream needed for must be in NMEA format – it’s usually just two wires ( the GPS stream and a ground).  I’ve only had the car for 2 days, and have not located the OnStar unit yet and don’t know if the OnStar (GPS) can do this. I do have another GPS receiver that I could use in the car, but it seems a shame to have one already "built-in" and not take advantage of it.   Also, this same GPS tap would be great for use for my ham radio hobby (APRS).  By the way, I contacted OnStar about this, but just got the standard answer that it’s a "sealed system" and should not be used with anything else. Thanks… Walt WA2NXK    

Response:

I just found the onStar unit today. I have 2002 TrailBlazer EXT (had for 4 days). Mine is under the middle right seat (like the left has the fuses). It is a motorola unit. Not sure if it the same for Non-extended Envoy or Trailblazer. Man what a truck… yeee haaa Bill

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I just bought a new 2002 GMC Envoy equipped with OnStar.  Does anyone know > if you can tap into the OnStar (GPS) and use this data stream as GPS input > to a PC (used in a program like the DeLorme Street Atlas).  The GPS data > stream needed for must be in NMEA format – it’s usually just two wires ( the > GPS stream and a ground).  I’ve only had the car for 2 days, and have not > located the OnStar unit yet and don’t know if the OnStar (GPS) can do this. > I do have another GPS receiver that I could use in the car, but it seems a > shame to have one already "built-in" and not take advantage of it.   Also, > this same GPS tap would be great for use for my ham radio hobby (APRS). By > the way, I contacted OnStar about this, but just got the standard answer > that it’s a "sealed system" and should not be used with anything else. > Thanks… > Walt > WA2NXK

Response:

What OnStar told you was right, It is a sealed unit, not compatible with anything else.  Don’t mess with it. Jerry H. — A GMC Dealer

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I just bought a new 2002 GMC Envoy equipped with OnStar.  Does anyone know > if you can tap into the OnStar (GPS) and use this data stream as GPS input > to a PC (used in a program like the DeLorme Street Atlas).  The GPS data > stream needed for must be in NMEA format – it’s usually just two wires  the > GPS stream and a ground).  I’ve only had the car for 2 days, and have not > located the OnStar unit yet and don’t know if the OnStar (GPS) can do this. > I do have another GPS receiver that I could use in the car, but it seems a > shame to have one already "built-in" and not take advantage of it.   Also, > this same GPS tap would be great for use for my ham radio hobby (APRS). By > the way, I contacted OnStar about this, but just got the standard answer > that it’s a "sealed system" and should not be used with anything else. > Thanks… > Walt > WA2NXK

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> What OnStar told you was right, It is a sealed unit, not compatible with > anything else.  Don’t mess with it. > Jerry H. — A GMC Dealer > I just bought a new 2002 GMC Envoy equipped with OnStar.  Does anyone know > if you can tap into the OnStar (GPS) and use this data stream as GPS input > to a PC (used in a program like the DeLorme Street Atlas).  The GPS data > stream needed for must be in NMEA format – it’s usually just two wires >  the > GPS stream and a ground).  I’ve only had the car for 2 days, and have not > located the OnStar unit yet and don’t know if the OnStar (GPS) can do > this. > I do have another GPS receiver that I could use in the car, but it seems a > shame to have one already "built-in" and not take advantage of it.   Also, > this same GPS tap would be great for use for my ham radio hobby (APRS). > By > the way, I contacted OnStar about this, but just got the standard answer > that it’s a "sealed system" and should not be used with anything else. > Thanks… > Walt > WA2NXK

So is it a bug or a feature if its sealed so that it’s only usefull to GM and only to make money via a subscription? I’d wait for the add in units to come out.  They are bound to come out where all you do is junk the Onstar sealed POS and replace it with a Onstar compatible unit with an output for your laptop that can use your onstar antanii

Response:

They’ve been out for years. It’s called a handheld GPS. Plug the laptop into an inverter, put the $60 basic handheld unit on the seat beside it, and go. Works fine for me.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> What OnStar told you was right, It is a sealed unit, not compatible with > anything else.  Don’t mess with it. > Jerry H. — A GMC Dealer > > I just bought a new 2002 GMC Envoy equipped with OnStar.  Does anyone know > > if you can tap into the OnStar (GPS) and use this data stream as GPS input > > to a PC (used in a program like the DeLorme Street Atlas).  The GPS data > > stream needed for must be in NMEA format – it’s usually just two wires >  the > > GPS stream and a ground).  I’ve only had the car for 2 days, and have not > > located the OnStar unit yet and don’t know if the OnStar (GPS) can do > this. > > I do have another GPS receiver that I could use in the car, but it seems a > > shame to have one already "built-in" and not take advantage of it. Also, > > this same GPS tap would be great for use for my ham radio hobby (APRS). > By > > the way, I contacted OnStar about this, but just got the standard answer > > that it’s a "sealed system" and should not be used with anything else. > > Thanks… > > Walt > > WA2NXK > So is it a bug or a feature if its sealed so that it’s only usefull to GM > and only to make money via a subscription? > I’d wait for the add in units to come out.  They are bound to come out > where all you do is junk the Onstar sealed POS and replace it with a > Onstar compatible unit with an output for your laptop that can use your > onstar antanii

Response: