Cheapest way to reliably seat 4 and have sleeping room: truck or suv

cyclist

Observer
Explorers are too small and I something about the expeditions just screams mommy mobile to more far more than a 90s suburban does. That might be a bad reason to not consider something, but thats what I think.

For a suburban if i get the 5.7/350 either way what does the 2500 get me if anything?
 

4x4junkie

Explorer
For a suburban if i get the 5.7/350 either way what does the 2500 get me if anything?

Better axles for one thing (9.25" IFS front and 14 bolt rear, can't remember if it's the SF or FF 14, but either one is better than the little 10-bolt in a 1500). I think diesel was an option too, though I'm not as familiar with GM's offerings as Ford's.

A little dressing up with bumpers, cargo rack, tires and maybe a little lift should get rid of most of an Expedition's "mommy mobileish" looks.




icon13.png

Don't know about an Expedition, the rear IRS is great in my book.

BUT, I owned a 1st generation Xploder that I used as a beach truck. Absolutely, positively, the WORST handling vehicle I have ever owned. They are really suitable for just the junkyard. Reliable though, but won't even sleep one adult in back.


I have both a Ranger 4x4 and a Bronco II (same basic trucks underneath). No complaints with their handling. I have driven 1st-gen sploders too and found nothing to really differentiate them from what I have other than them being roomier in the rear.

Perhaps you should've checked your suspension, steering and/or shocks if it was so bad you feel you have to bash on the vehicle like that.
 
Last edited:

Martinjmpr

Wiffleball Batter
The 1st gen Explorers had terribly soft suspension but there are numerous aftermarket fixes for that. Ford guys can jump in here but IIRC the TTB on the 1st gen Explorer is easier/cheaper to lift. For my money, I'd go for a 2nd gen I think, with a 5 speed (lots of them out there) for around $2500 and spend the rest of the $$ fixing it up.
 

Erik N

Adventurer
I have both a Ranger 4x4 and a Bronco II (same basic trucks underneath). No complaints with their handling. I have driven 1st-gen sploders too and found nothing to really differentiate them from what I have other than them being roomier in the rear.

Perhaps you should've checked your suspension, steering and/or shocks if it was so bad you feel you have to bash on the vehicle like that.

The first Xploders were the car that started the SUV craze. Fine. But, they were also the car that started the SUV rollover fiasco as well. I think that the 4x4 split front axle front suspension was a huge design flaw. Even the VIN placard said that the recommended tire pressures were 26psi all around... think about it, why would a manufacturer post such a low recommended pressure? They were trying to compensate for a fundamentally bad design by airing down the tires, IMO. The 2WD trucks could be fine, never driven one.
 
Last edited:

jeep-N-montero

Expedition Leader
The first Xploders were the car that started the SUV craze. Fine. But, they were also the car that started the SUV rollover fiasco as well. I think that the 4x4 split front axle front suspension was a huge design flaw. Even the VIN placard said that the recommended tire pressures were 26psi all around... think about it, why would a manufacturer post such a low recommended pressure? They were trying to compensate for a fundamentally bad design by airing down the tires, IMO. The 2WD trucks could be fine, never driven one.

The Bronco, Cherokee, Blazer, Wagoneer and several others were around long before the Exploders.
 

88Xj

Banned
The Bronco, Cherokee, Blazer, Wagoneer and several others were around long before the Exploders.

Hey nothing wrong with a 5 speed 4x4 exploda :p at least out here in he desert they seem more beneficial being ttb and all. A bronco would be much more fun though :) I could never seem to let the jeep to though.

My vote goes to a suburban. To me they are the ultimate. If you only need 5 seats, yank the 3rd and you can sleep in the back..enough roof area to haul anything...a nice low profile, light weight roof rack is perfect because you can spread a bigger load across without stressing 1 area.
Enough area under neath for air tanks, aux gas tanks or even fresh water. The 2500 ifs version wasnt my top of the list candidate. But honestly I'm digging the 93 we picked up. The 7.3l scoots along great with very minor mods. I used a freaking metal mixing bowl from Walmart and picked up alot of scoot and 2mpg steady if I stay out of it. People spent hundreds for the same thing..called a "power chamber".
The whole area up front is huge for space compared to the xj. We use our burb for longer type stuff, the xj for more tight, dedicated type trails where the burb just won't fit. When I out grow crawling these tight trails I'm sure the xj will go and the burb will get 100% expo status. It's just perfect. I imagine a hot water shower, enough for 800 miles, a decent sized fridge, lights 360* like my xj. 12k winch like my xj..maybe a 15k. The basics but the luxurys won't be forgotten :) and still enough roof for my family of 3 and dog to sleep in the back hopefully.
 
Last edited:

86cj

Explorer
Seat 4 and sleep 2, not necessarily at the same time. Suburbans are 2' shorter than a crew cab short bed and 4 ft shorter than a long bed, not sure that matters much here in montana.
Is the 6.5 much more reliable and or efficient than the 350 gas motor? Diesel burbans are hard to find 1/2 ton gassers are everywhere, 3/4 ton 454s also pop up.

I used the same math recently and was suprised to find that a Van with a 135" WB is a real sweet spot for length and ability to comfortably sleep inside on top of all my gear. The AWD 1500 van is a little light duty for some people but I have been on many Forest service roads in our nation and if it's open it is pretty tame. They came out in 2003 so the price is dropping but I have not seen one for $5000 yet. Of course the Quigley 4x4 van is a real find used.

I am a fan of the 88-98 3/4 ton Suburban, the 95' had the new and better dash with the old very reliable TBI injection 350 or 454, a good find. The 96 and newer had the better intake with more power and a few issues, the 3/4 ton has Hydroboost brakes which are better. I have had a 98' 454 dually 4x4 since new, it is a reliable thirsty brute.
 

4x4junkie

Explorer
The first Xploders were the car that started the SUV craze. Fine. But, they were also the car that started the SUV rollover fiasco as well. I think that the 4x4 split front axle front suspension was a huge design flaw. Even the VIN placard said that the recommended tire pressures were 26psi all around... think about it, why would a manufacturer post such a low recommended pressure? They were trying to compensate for a fundamentally bad design by airing down the tires, IMO. The 2WD trucks could be fine, never driven one.

Well if you had paid some attention during the Ford/Firestone tire fiasco (which was long after the TTB Ex was out of production), you likely would've noticed there were just as many (if not many more) flipped 2nd-gen sploders in the news media as 1st-gens. I also recall NHTSA investigations had ruled both of them out as more rollover-prone than similar vehicles and that it was primarily a driver reaction issue with the recalled tires failing. So again I say you had something wrong under yours and that it was in need of maintenance.

I can't comment on the tire pressure thing other than I do agree it would be a contributor to bad handling (not to mention docking your MPG). I would run the same 35 PSI in an Explorer's tires as I do on my own trucks regardless of what the placard says.
 

HotrodSmurf

Observer
The ttb front suspension on a first gen explorer is the same that rangers used and is just a scaled down version of what the full size trucks ran. also the 2wd use basically the same design minus a differential. All of my ford trucks with twin I beam / twin traction beam have run normal tire pressure and been perfectly safe. the only thing against them is the tire wear, just keep em rotated.
 

Martinjmpr

Wiffleball Batter
The ttb front suspension on a first gen explorer is the same that rangers used and is just a scaled down version of what the full size trucks ran. also the 2wd use basically the same design minus a differential. All of my ford trucks with twin I beam / twin traction beam have run normal tire pressure and been perfectly safe. the only thing against them is the tire wear, just keep em rotated.

Yes, it's a bit OT but if there was a problem with the TTB it would have shown up in the Rangers long before the Explorer ever was created. In truth the issue was not the vehicle, it was the fact that Ford sold buyers a truck and the buyers then drove it like it was a car.

Ranger drivers didn't have that problem because they knew they were getting into a truck from the get-go, and they drove it like a truck, not like a porsche.
 

4x4junkie

Explorer
the only thing against them is the tire wear, just keep em rotated.

There are ways to minimize or even eliminate that too (more often than not it's a simple matter of swapping the pitman arm for one that better matches the steering linkage angle with that of the axle beams to minimize changes in the wheel's toe alignment when the load on the suspension changes... This is usually an issue on lifted rigs).


I agree though, this is all pretty much OT at this point since the OP did say earlier the Explorer was too small for his needs.
I would have to go along with the recommendations for the Expedition or Suburban. The Exp will be much sturdier underneath than a ½-ton 'Burb, but the 'Burb as you know is also available as a ¾-ton too. Any of these has good support when it comes to replacement as well as upgrade parts. There's also the Ford Excursion which IMO is even better still, though I suspect any w/4WD in decent condition will be well above the price point you were looking at.
 

Martinjmpr

Wiffleball Batter
I agree though, this is all pretty much OT at this point since the OP did say earlier the Explorer was too small for his needs.
I would have to go along with the recommendations for the Expedition or Suburban.

Don't forget the Tahoe which has a shorter wheelbase than the Suburban but is still a 'full sized' rig and will still seat 5 adults + gear, or sleep 2 pretty comfortably.

In terms of American Iron, I'm something of a Ford bigot so I'd prefer an Expedition on that factor alone, but I think if the OP shops around and finds a decent one that was owned by a soccer mom and only driven on paved roads, he could do well.

I've only seen a few lifted/built up 1st gen Expeditions but they looked awesome. Too bad they were never available with a manual tranny (I don't think - were they?) but in every other respect they should work fine.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,554
Messages
2,875,806
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top