Reading this string, I think Ford dropped the manual transmission in the
Explorer because it was just too good a vehicle and they just couldn't get
owners to come back! My '97 has almost 250K miles and still runs well,
burns
no oil, and is a daily driver. I had to have the clutch repaired twice (at
160K and at 240K), both times because of problems with the slave cylinder,
but each repair (dealer or private shop) was under $800. That really has
been "it" for this truck, except it has developed rust coming through from
inside the fender above the gas filler opening. Sad, that, but a result of
lots of winter driving on snowy roads in the northeast where salt is
applied
liberally.
Just this past month I rotated this truck to my son, who is using it to
get
to work since his SHO was sold, and I picked up a new Mustang GT for my
travels. I still have the title for the Explorer and will continue to use
it
for all the practical stuff needed here on the farm, even after he gets a
new car.
=Vic=
Bear Gap, PA
"Anthony Giorgianni" <pleasereply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4814e1f0$0$11595$607ed4bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hey Jim!!!! Great hearing from you. Hope all is well up in the muskeg!!
>
> Incidentally, this year, I did a piece for the Canadian version of April
> auto issue about whether (and how) Canadians should come down to the
> states to take advantage of the lower new car prices and the loonies'
> being on par with the greenback. Very interesting issues, and I can see
> why Canadian are angry about some manufacturers' non-ex****t policies
> (though not Ford. Perhaps you have a dealer's perspective?)
>
> As far as the brakes, thanks for the explanation. I'm betting you're
> right, especially since I use the emergency brake so much, sometimes
even
> when the truck starts to roll. So would you change the rears at this
point
> at a 6/64ths (2 mm) over the rivet head? The rear shoes only dropped
> 2/64ths over the last two years, so if it remains the same, I'd hit
1/16th
> two years from now. But I don't want to take chances or have to keep
> pulling the drum out of nervousness. Does $189 seems fair? They're
> figuring at least an hour's work. ($189 is US of course, but it's so
close
> now anyway.) And is it right to tell them not to turn 'em but sand them
> instead? Aluminum oxide or garnet paper medium grit?
>
> As far as the story, I am embarrassed to say I don't think they ever
used
> it, and I have no idea why, since the auto editor assigned. But I was a
> freelancer at the time, and now I'm on staff (though as finance, not an
> auto writer). So I'm going to push it. I also did a piece about using
> forums to get computer tech advice, and that ran. So I should be able to
> update and at least blog the auto one. The more I use forums, Usenet or
> otherwise, the more convinced I am that it is the BEST way to get help,
> pretty much no matter what you're into. And when you get experts like
you
> or the Microsoft MVPs, it makes it even better! I will let you know as
> soon as I can resurrect it!
>
> My 92 still remains near showroom. While I had my tires off, I just
> Rustoleum-ed the wheels wells and leaf springs, as a do every few years.
> Looks like a brand new truck under there. I so wish Ford would bring
back
> the manual for the Explorer. Xterra seems like the only choice these
days
> that is close to the Explorer though with a "manny" "Manny!" Hey I just
> made that up!! :O)
>
> Anyway, thanks again. I'll be in touch!!!!
>
>
> Anthony Giorgianni
> For everyone's benefit, please post back to the group
>
>
>
>
> "Jim Warman" <mechanic@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:Eq4Rj.2674$XI1.1627@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Long time, no see, Anthony... How's things going?
>>
>> First, I'm going to suspect that it is your driving style that has the
>> brakes wearing more evenly. Braking effort is *usually* about a 60/40
>> split front to back... Under what would be considered "normal" driving
>> style, people use the brake pedal often... Since the front brakes "come
>> on" before the rears, we will experience more front pad wear than you
>> might... You use your brakes only when you have to... and this may have
>> you applying the brake with just enough force to keep the brake wear
>> roughly even front to rear.
>>
>> Let's spend a minute discussing your rear brakes... In the industry,
>> these are known as a "duo-servo, self energizing drum brake"... The
>> "front" (or primary) brake shoes serve two purposes... First, they do
>> help to slow the car down, but their second purpose is to force the
>> secondary brake shoe in to the drum. We will sometimes see the primarry
>> brake shoe made of a different grade of friction material. The primary
>> brake shoe lining is often a different length than the secondary and
can
>> even be a different thickness than the secondary.
>>
>> One would think that the engineers would have it figured out by now,
but
>> the primary shoe always seems to wear much quicker than the secondary.
>>
>> Where we live and where we drive will have a great influence on brake
>> lining life. In our area, we are entering into the first of our two
>> annual "mud bowls"... Most of our customers spend a good deal of time
>> "off road" (Alberta oil patch, remember?) and it isn't uncommon to do
>> rear brakes several times before these guys are ready for fronts....
>> Hell, in a rainy year, it isn't uncommon to do rear brakes a couple or
>> four times in a year... Mud can be a techs blessing.
>>
>> Since you say that your brakes are more than up to the task, I can only
>> suggest that you are looking for a problem where there isn't going to
be
>> a problem to be found (flip over enough rocks and you're bound to find
a
>> few bugs)...
>>
>> What ever became of that magazine article you were writing? I was
waiting
>> with baited breath to see the final product....
>>
>> Take care...
>>
>>
>> "Anthony Giorgianni" <pleasereply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:4814ccde$0$11596$607ed4bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Hello All. Sorry for the length of this.
>>>
>>> I'm hoping folks here might be able to come up with a theory - or
>>> confirm
>>> one of my theories - about what is happening with my 92 Explorer
brakes.
>>> Keep in mind that I'm an unusual in how I use the brakes; more on that
>>> later.
>>>
>>> ISSUE: I have about 97,000 miles and have never changed the pads. The
>>> thing
>>> is the rear brake shoes are wearing out FASTER than the front disc
>>> brakes
>>> pads, although both are wearing very slowly. My Ford dealer says the
>>> front
>>> pads should wear about about three times for every one time the rear
>>> shoes
>>> wear out, which I've heard elsewhere as well. He says something is
>>> wrong/
>>> The question is: Why are the rear brakes wearing first? The dealer,
who
>>> will
>>> do my state inspection Monday 4/28/08, is hypothesizing that maybe
there
>>> is
>>> a problem with the brake system pro****tioning valve? (All stops, even
>>> emergency ones, are secure, fast and straight!)
>>>
>>> This is where wear things stand:
>>>
>>> FRONT PADS: 11/64ths (slightly more than 5/32) Ford recommends
changing
>>> at
>>> 1/16. One side is very slightly more worn than the other. The outer
and
>>> inner pads are worn about the same. They have worn very slightly since
I
>>> checked at this time last year. I don't see a need to change these
now.
>>>
>>> REAR PADS: The front shoe on both sides is worn more than the rear
>>> shoes,
>>> down to about 6/64ths to 7/64ths over the rivet head (3/32nds) in the
>>> most
>>> worn spots. (They were 8/64 to 9/64ths in 7/06) Ford I think
recommends
>>> changing at 1/16 above rivet head, though NY State requires
replacement
>>> at
>>> 1/32 over the rivet. I'm thinking I should change them soon just to
sure
>>> I
>>> don't get the rivets too close to the drum, ad it's getting close to
the
>>> inspection limits. The dealer wants $189 to do both sides of the rear
>>> alone.
>>> I told him I want the drums sanded and not cut, per Ford's
instructions.
>>> The
>>> drums are in very good shape.
>>>
>>> MY DRIVING HABITS: I think you can tell that I am EXTREMELY light on
the
>>> brakes. I coast to stop signs and red lights and stay far behind the
car
>>> in
>>> front so that I rarely use the brakes or only very lightly and
briefly,
>>> except for occasional fast braking in emergencies. I also have a
manual
>>> transmission, though I don't down****ft excessively. However, I DO use
>>> the
>>> parking brake a lot, often at red lights, since I don't like keeping
my
>>> foot
>>> on the brake if I'm on even the slightest hill. (I tap the brake pedal
a
>>> lot
>>> of let cars behind me know I'm stopped or slowing, but not enough the
>>> engage
>>> the brakes)
>>>
>>> THEORIES ABOUT WHAT COULD BE HAPPENING:
>>>
>>> A) Pro****tioning valve problem as the dealer thinks? Is there one?
>>> B) My light use of the brakes but frequent use of the parking brake,
>>> though
>>> applying at a stop, is causing the rear brakes to wear as fast as the
>>> front
>>> ones
>>> C) I disassemble and grease the calipers with dielectric compound
>>> annually .
>>> I have never disassembled or greased the rear pads. I'm wondering
>>> whether
>>> they are dragging a bit. Maybe the return springs are old? The drums
>>> come
>>> off fairly easily, though it seems like the pads may be in slight
>>> contact
>>> with the drum when I remove it on both sides.
>>>
>>> So... has anyone seen this before, with rear brakes wearing out as
fast
>>> or
>>> more quickly than the fronts? Any ideas what's going on? Does
replacing
>>> the
>>> brakes make sense now, and is $189 for the rear brakes alone too high?
>>> I'm
>>> reluctant to use these cheap quickie places. (One Jiffy Lube manger
told
>>> me
>>> that he didn't even know what torquing the lug nuts even means!!!!)
>>> Also,
>>> I've never done rear brakes before, and the procedure in the manuals I
>>> have
>>> (Haynes and Ford shop manual) seem like it's a lot of work, especially
>>> when
>>> I comes to adjusting.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reading and for any advise or feedback.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anthony Giorgianni
>>> For everyone's benefit, please post back to the group
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
