(first posted 10/28/2014) If the ’80s was the decade of the minivan, and the ’00s the decade of the crossover, then the ’90s was certainly the decade of the SUV. After several years without a four-door competitor to the hot-selling XJ Jeep Cherokee, Ford was finally ready to go toe-to-toe with Jeep with its 1990 Explorer. The Explorer was an instant hit, but Jeep would counterattack with the larger and more luxurious Grand Cherokee in 1993. Ford would fire back with an updated Explorer for ’95. Offering more room and a less utilitarian interior than its predecessor, the 1995 Explorer was appealing to more buyers than ever (as evidenced by its massive sales increase to nearly 400,000 vehicles that year). At that time, the Explorer’s success was seemingly unstoppable. The only way to go from there was up.
With the Explorer making fat profits for Ford, it only seemed logical to start selling a higher-priced companion model through Lincoln-Mercury dealers, thereby increasing sales even more. Of course, a little Vivian Ward makeover and a more upscale-sounding name would be needed to make the rugged Explorer presentable in showrooms, next to more finely cultured vehicles such as the Lincoln Town Car and Mercury Cougar.
Ford could have sold this rebadged Explorer as a Lincoln, but it’s probably best that they went with Mercury. Given the minuscule amount of changes made inside and out, the Mountaineer wouldn’t have looked or felt enough like a Lincoln. Even considering that all Lincolns’ roots could easily be traced to humbler Fords, the Mountaineer wasn’t distinctive or premium enough to wear the Lincoln badge. Moreover, these SUVs were selling like hotcakes, often for well above sticker prices, so the Mountaineer still made Ford plenty of profit as a Mercury. Lincoln would eventually receive an Explorer clone, the 2002 Aviator, but by that point the Explorer’s novelty had largely worn off, and the Aviator looked like a Navigator that went through the dryer.
It should be worth noting that the first Mercury Mountaineer was not a “luxury SUV” in the sense that it came fully loaded or offered unique equipment or amenities that the Explorer did not. Much like other Mercury vehicles, its cheapest model was about equal to a mid-level Explorer XLT. A more luxurious Mountaineer could be outfitted to the equivalent of an Explorer Eddie Bauer. Oddly enough, the range topping Explorer Limited was somewhat more generously appointed, even more so than a top drawer Mountaineer.
Regardless, with its waterfall grille and flossier-sounding name, the Mountaineer exuded a more upscale aura than the finest Explorer. In addition to its unique grille, a number of minor enhancements were made in attempt to differentiate Mercury’s first SUV from its Ford donor. For starters, all Mountaineers received gray lower body paint, giving it the cladded appearance that was popular among upscale SUVs at the time.
Mountaineers also gained the export-market Explorer’s rear bumper with Euro-spec reflectors. An additional reflector panel was added between the reverse signals, giving a full-width effect. A more integrated-looking roof rack was also added, borrowed from the Ford Windstar. Additionally, the Mountaineer was given a unique wheel design.
Like jewels and a fancy hairdo, these alterations helped the Mountaineer look the part of a more posh SUV. What these modifications could not do, was make the Mountaineer look any less like an Explorer.
On the inside, things were even more familiar. Save for embroidered “Mountaineer” logos on the front upper seat backs, the Mountaineer’s interior was identical to the Explorer’s. Cloth seats were standard, while perforated heated leather seats were a $955 option. Overall, the interior was still very truck-like, much more so than the Grand Cherokee.
Standard was the legendary 5.0 liter Windsor V8. Making 210 horsepower and 275 lb.-ft. of torque, it was a capable power plant for the nearly 4,000 lb. SUV. A four-speed automatic was the sole transmission. EPA rated fuel economy was in the mid-teens – less than stellar, but hey it was the ’90s. A gallon of gas was cheaper than a cup of coffee!
Rear-wheel drive and a limited-slip differential were standard, but for $2,000, one could equip their Mountaineer with a Borg-Warner developed active all-wheel drive system. Under everyday driving conditions, torque was split 65% to the rear axle and 35% to the front. Under slicker conditions, this ratio could be reversed, diverting more power to whichever axle had more traction.
While the 1997 Mountaineer wasn’t all that different from its Ford Explorer twin, its small tweaks made it a more attractive Explorer in your author’s opinion. Badge engineering in general, was more common in the 1990s, and even more accepted and expected in the burgeoning SUV market. The good news was that 1997 would be the only year that Explorers and Mountaineers would share so much in common. The Mountaineer would receive a few more unique styling touches for 1998 – nothing significant, but a step in the right direction. The 4.0 liter Cologne V6 was also added as the standard engine to lower the Mountaineer’s entry-price a bit. Exclusive to this engine was a new five-speed automatic. This particular transmission was the first of its kind offered by an American automaker, and the Mountaineer was one of the first vehicles to receive it.
A full redesign in 2002 would yield a much more distinctive, higher-end looking Mercury Mountaineer. With its bolder chrome waterfall grille and upswept headlights, this Mountaineer set the design language for future Mercuries such as the Milan and Mariner. The interior was also upgraded and a new 4.6 liter Modular V8 took the place of the 5.0 as the top engine.
The Mountaineer’s final update would occur in 2006, when it received an all new chassis. Although the exterior design was essentially unchanged, its new platform provided more strength and rigidity. The interior was redesigned, moving further upmarket and offering a host of new convenience features. A more liberal use of satin aluminum trim, new fog and taillights, and monochromatic paint schemes kept the Mountaineer going until its discontinuation as part of Mercury’s phase-out.
Related Reading:
Actually, i believe the 4.0 V6/5-speed auto debuted in the Aerostar`s last model year of 1996/7, before being added to anything else. Always thought it was a pretty random distinction for an unremarkable minivan.
I’ve made that a bit more clear now. Thanks.
I’m amazed Ford made so many Explorers and Mountaineers of this generation. They disappeared around 2005. Expeditions and F-series trucks of that era are still common, some working for a living, others doing domestic duties still sharp. What happened? Firestone, Consumer Reports, fires, roll overs, bad transmissions, or simply the fad turned passé?
I think those are all contributing factors. The Firestone incident was a major hit against the seemingly invincible Explorer, but I think the rising fuel costs of the early-’00s, combined with more car-like SUVs and CUVs ate away at the Explorer’s sales.
Didn’t Firestone with Ford’s approval recommend an absurdly low tire pressure for the rear tires- something like 26lbs. for a smoother ride, not accounting for the full loads SUVs are subjected- five obese passengers plus luggage, at 80 mph.
If I recall correctly, the issue wasn’t with the recommended pressure itself, as Ford claimed Goodyear tires did not experience issues. But Firestone Wilderness tires running at those pressures had problems with tread seperation.
In reality both parties were at fault. Firestone tires had quality issues running at the pressures specified, and the Explorers (and SUVs in general) were prone to loss of control and rollovers when experiencing catastrophic tire failures at speed. I imagine the problem was made worse by tires that dropped below the recommended pressure, which happens to us all from time to time. When you start out at 26PSI, there’s not much safety margin there.
Transmissions all the way. These things just ate them, almost as much as they ate gas. My father in law bought a used ’01 back in ’07 shortly before my wife and I got married, in the name of frugality. In the 2 years he had it, maybe three, I think he went through at least four transmissions. He finally gave up and bought a new Escape.
That’s pretty much what I’ve heard from everyone. The pre-’02 Explorer/Mountaineers suffered from paper transmissions when they had the 4.0 or lower. I can’t confirm, but heresay says Ford used a different tranny in the 5.0 and it was a little beefier. While I’m well versed on F-series trans of that era, I’ve got nothing on Explorers.
It’s funny because the same is true of the post-’03 Expeditions, but because of the engine. They’re starting to get scarce around here while the pre-’03s just run forever. Cam phaser and shooting spark plugs that destroy the head kill off the second gen Expeditions.
What engine is the plug issue with, the 4.6? I’ve heard only 5.4s did that.
The older 2V 5.4 has the shooting spark plugs that often strip out their 3 threads on the way out. The 3V in the 04-08 F-150 has the plugs that break off in the head when you try removing them. (resulted in a $1000 plug change for me). Both terrible designs that there is no excuse for.
Cam phaser is an issue for sure in the 3V 5.4, not sure about the 2V version. 3V also has fragile COPs that like to fail when exposed to water. Not good in a 4×4 pickup.
Oddly enough, even given a LOT of engineering failures in design I could write a book about, my ’06 F-150 has been the most reliable vehicle I’ve ever owned. So I don’t know if I’d tell people to avoid them, just know what to watch out for I guess. I suppose some things get blown out of porportion and don’t take into account the sheer number of these on the road.
Bingo! I’ve known two 5.4’s – an Expedition and a Navigator – that fell to the cam phasers and shooting plugs. Navigator somehow had both and it was a ’06 so it should have had the latter cured but nope – no luck. It was too bad too, I almost bought it for super cheap until I learned even with a different motor I’m basically buying time. Oh well.
FWIW the 4.6 seems to universally be loved, and I’ll add myself to that list. Mine has a ton of miles and doesn’t drip a drop of oil, smell, and has plenty of power. Seems to use about a quart of oil every 3,000 miles, but I’ll excuse that.
The trannys used on this generation’s 4.0’s; the 4R55E, and the later 5R5EE, were simply updated, electronically controlled versions of the older A4LD. That would be the same transmission that required the boosted 2.3 in the 87-88 Turbo Coupe be detuned to a piddling 150 hp. As you can imagine these transmissions were marginal at best, and teamed up with the torquey Cologne V-6 were nothing better than ticking time bombs just waiting to self destruct.
The V-8 Explorers used 4R70W’s, which were updated AOD-E’s. A much better transmission in most regards.
I always feel until late AOD family is still pretty sore when mated with higher output engine, the transmission has the tendency to slip and jerk at a 10k range. but I feel better about not using the 4R55E though
Aha – that explains it! While I’m up on the transmissions of the F-series, having owned a few now, I’ve got nothing on the Explorer/Ranger. All I know about them is that if you have an auto and a V6 you’re going to go through a transmission. A good buddy of mine had a ’04 or ’05 Ranger with a four banger and a manual. I think he finally may have changed out the clutch after a quarter million miles.
I’ve had a lot of experience with the AOD-E and 4R70W. I’ve got nothing for praise for them, knowing three that have gone over 200k without issue or drama.
I had a ’92 whose transmission went out just after the 36,000 mile warranty expired. As I recall, I got Ford to pay a good portion of it, as it was maybe only hundreds of miles outside the margin. The vehicle was enjoyable overall, but by 80K was having various issues pop up on a frequent basis.
I was car shopping in 2005 and the SUV craze was cooling fast, the problems you mentioned are valid, but I would second Brendan’s comment about fuel prices and the availability of CUVs. Fuel was a buck a gallon at the turn of the century, and doubled by 2005, and the bad vibes were already shaking the economy. I really admired the looks of the final gen Mountaineer, but we decided on a 2005 Ford Freestyle as a companion for our 2002 Durango. We didn’t need two expensive to operate vehicles heading into an economic and energy disaster. I recall telling the Ford – Mercury dealer (yes, they did exist, mostly in small towns) that I wanted to be able to afford to take my family on vacation.
We had two Ford/Lincoln-Mercury dealers in my area as well, and this wasn’t even in an specially small town (Worcester, Mass. area).
I believe that one dealer still sells Ford and Lincolns. The other dealer had Dodge, Ford and Toyota dealerships side-by-side, in a cramped location where there was no room to expand. They dropped the Lincoln-Mercury franchise several years before Mercury was eliminated. They later dropped Ford completely, using the space to expand the other two dealerships, which are now “all Chrysler” (Dodge-Chrysler-Jeep) and Toyota-Scion.
This was literally Ford-Mercury, no Lincoln. Lee Sapp Ford-Mercury, Ashland, NE. It is still there as Ford only. The tiny main street showroom only holds one car, it used to hold about 3 before they added several cubicles to the floor area. I like to trade there as the atmosphere is totally different from the big city places, and the staff is incredibly stable.
5 of the top 7 spots during the “Cash for Clunkers” program were held by this generation of Explorer.
Also, they weren’t very reliable. My ’98 Sport was a miserable POS. From electronics to suspension to drivetrain to door locks nothing was reliable on it. Which is strange, considering the Ranger is so solid. Some people seem to have OK luck with them, but I think far more people had my experience.
Mine’s gone 335,000 miles, one transmission. It ate head gaskets for a bit before I had the heads milled, and it was fine. Really the only issues it had was head gaskets, heater cores, and radiators which turned out to be caused by warped heads. I rebuilt the front end at 260,000 miles.
Its been so dependable that I’m holding onto it far longer than I should have, as the miles makes it near worthless here.
They disappeared around 2008 actually, the clunker bill killed most of them.
Yeah a lot of enthusiasts think cash for clunkers wiped out all these hot cars from the 80s/90s but the reality is it was these Explorers/Mountaineers that literally got wiped out like dinosaurs. I was doing a lot of junkyard picking in 08(pretty much hit every self service yard every weekend in a 40 mile radius that had cash for clunker vehicles) looking for unicorn Supercoupe and Mark VIII parts to get for my Cougar and I found nearly zilch, I’ve found better before and after the program. What I did find was city block sized rows of these things, every one with the “C4C” written on the windshields with yellow marker and unfortunately the only thing I found useful from them were the intake manifolds and cylinder heads since they’re the equivalent to the ones used in 1993-1995 Mustang Cobras and could be pulled and sold for a decent profit at the time, but the heads were rendered totally useless thanks to the liquid glass solution they poured into them, so thanks for that “stimulus”!
Really there may as well have been cash for clunkers fliers with a target of these painted on them. Not that I’m much of a fan of Explorers or SUVs in general but damn it was an ominous sight.
I want to say the top three vehicles taken in by C4C (overall, combining model years) were the Explorer, the Windstar, and either the Caravan or Voyager. Not sure on that third one but I know the Explorer and Windstar were there.
Still a bad program–money the goverment didn’t need to spend to stimulate the auto industry and sold on “environmental benefit” that was wiped out by scrapping millions of perfectly good vehicles and using tons of energy to build new ones–but the number of “interesting” vehicles taken in was relatively low.
One of my good friend’s parents traded their ’95 Windstar in on the Cash for Clunkers deal and bought a new Sonata.
The great ironies of C4C:
*The program kicked in after the fate of the auto companies was known, and sales and profits had already turned around. A terrific and entirely unnecessary boondogle to the taxpayer.
*Buyers with scrap worthy vehicles usually weren’t the sorts of folks with barrels of cash. Among the many causes of the Great Recession was excessive consumer debt. Those least able to afford it were enticed to take on MORE DEBT.
*The program required a personal improvement in the gas mileage of the vehicle you traded. So, if you turned in a Suburban, the sky was essentially the limit on what you could buy to replace it. The gain in environmental protection was nominal, and likely more than fully offset by the resources to make all the new replacement vehicles.
*No buyer got a deal. Most got inflated prices (caused by artificial demand), interest payments, and higher insurance costs that easily offset the tax benefit.
*The poor that need cheap used cars found the supply relatively dried up.
I’m not naive enough to think capitalism isn’t just plain abusive at times, but this government program was the antithesis of free markets. Ironically, it literally hurt every cause that some folks thought it was helping. And, did not anybody realize that the cash went to people running companies that demonstrated many of their own free market incompetencies? People who were already in the clear as the worst of the recession was over for them?
The list I find shows the Explorer 4wd 1st, F150 2wd 2nd, Grand Cherokee 4wd, Cherokee 4wd, Caravan, Blazer 4wd, Explorer 2wd, F150 4wd, Chevy 1500 2wd and Windstar in 10th. Combine the drive types and it is still at #8.
Okay, clearly my sources or my memory are faulty. Probably both.
And for some strange reason I had forgotten that pickups qualified…
I feel the cash for clunkers only takes a bit of Caprice, plus few LTDs which is a bit interesting ( but in 09 maybe not so )
There were so many of them that C4C culled the beat-up, rusty, swaybacked work/towing/hunting rigs and mostly left the ones that were in good shape from never having been put to a task that would make a Civic hatchback break a sweat.
Of course, the ones that were good in ’09 are now beat-up, rusty, swaybacked work/towing/hunting rigs an owner or three later.
“Cash for Clunkers” did many of this generation in, traded in for CR-V’s or Escapes.
I see very few of these up here in Canukistan, but they’re all over the place in Minnesota.
The Mountaineer wasn’t sold in Canada.
I rented the first year of the new design (2002?) in Vancouver in June of 02. Travel agent friend I was with finagled a free upgrade so could avoid a Grand Am. It wasn’t all that. I recall it had very poor directional stability, had to constantly pay attention to where you were going every second. Not good in the mountains. It was the one and only SUV I have ever driven, except for an associate’s Suburban once in 1986. I am to SUVs what Syke is to Broughams, the go-to guy whenever there’s scorn to be dished out.
Ben Dinger:
It’s NOT heresay about the transmissions in V8 Explorers/Mountaineers, the transmission used with the 5 liter engine were different and not the old Explorer 4 speed.
I found a fairly nice 97 Mountaineer on Craigslist a few months ago and finally went to see it, see if it looked as good as the pictures in the ad. It was a white 2 wheel drive model with over 150,000 miles on it but thanks to a previous owner (also middle-aged) it looked to be in pretty good condition. I keep going past the auto repair shop that has it for sale but as I told the seller, coming from a Civic I’m not sure I can live with the gas thirst. Yet…my own research shows that the E.P.A. rating for the V8 is only 1 or 2 gallons worse than the V6 with the 5 speed auto.
I never got the EPA rating with my ’98 SOHC V6. My ’06 5.4 F-150 gets the same real-world mileage. The SOHC had great power for its time, nothing special by today’s standards though.
My 95 OHV gets better than EPA. The SOHC should get better than the pushrod six. in another forum one member managed to squeak a consistent 30mpg out of his. Best I could do was 28, once. It usually gets 2-3 numbers higher than EPA.
It’s still kinda pathetic mileage though, my 1977 Chevelle can meet or beat it on mileage at times – with 1950s technology saddled with 1970s emissions.
Nope, 16-17 was it. Occassionally could hit 19 at 60 MPH with a stiff tailwind. Combined with the 15 gallon or so tank I usually couldn’t make much more than 200 miles. And that’s the 3-door Sport. I know many others who had that generation, that was typical mileage. The 4Runner that replaced it did a couple MPGs better but still not great and had a lot less power.
Edit…mine was a 4×4. The 4x2s seemed to have less problems.
The ’95 Explorer was not any “roomier” than the ’94. It did have a new interior, exterior updates, ControlTrac automatic four wheel drive system, and new independant front suspension. All major updates that changed its personality greatly and increased its popularity.
1997 was the first year for the SOHC 4.0 liter V6 and 5 speed automatic in the Explorers. That engine was rated at 205 horsepower, which was quite a step up from the 160 hp of the standard 4.0 My father bought a 2-door Sport that year and put about 30,000 miles on it before he found out that the cam chain tensioners were a common failure item. He sold it soon after that and went back to driving Ranger pickups.
My cam chain tensioners were fixed under a “quiet” recall or some sort of TSB. Same with an issue with an IFS control arm. I can’t quite remember the specifics of either other than Ford covered the repairs even though it was out of warranty. Manufacturers don’t seem to do that kind of thing today…if it’s not a safety issue, they won’t cover it.
That SOHC was a great motor for a truck in 1997. I recall a C&D review of a Sport where they came away highly impressed with the performance, which influenced my decision to buy a ’98. 0-60 in 8.1 seconds seems pedestrian today, but it wasn’t back then.
Was yours 2wd or 4wd? My dad’s was 2-wheel, which he special ordered. A non-4wd SUV is basically non-existent here in Montana. Fortunately, his business partner was a hell of a salesman and was able to convince someone to buy it when my dad decided to sell.
Mine was a ControlTrac 4×4. 4x2s are also rare here in Minnesota. I wouldn’t think a 4×2 would be too bad, given how little ControlTrac kicked in on mine in regular driving. The weight over the back compared to a pickup makes a big difference.
Minivans are the outlier among family vehicles developed over the past thirty years. If we take them out the equation, we see that wagon-type vehicles dominate family vehicles for generations.
Yet, there have been three types of wagon-type family vehicles, so far. Sedan-based vehicles, truck-based vehicles and today’s hybrid CUV which is a natural evolution combining auto attributes and truck height and size.
The Mountaineer is a vehicle from the second generation of wagon-type family vehicles, and was developed during the build up within the family vehicle market for a wagon that was truck based, but evolving into the CUV style dominant now.
What is interesting to me is the shift from the sedan-based family wagon popular between 1946-1980, to the truck-based family wagon popular between 1990-2005. What I witnessed during this era of family hauling was the acceptance within the US of light trucks, which today dominate vehicle sales, especially the Ford F-150. It was not uncommon in many American upscale communities, zoning which considered these light trucks as work, farm and service vehicles, unsuitable for daily family use, so they were zoned out. In these communities, light trucks and windowless vans were required to be garaged after dark and were not allowed to be parked curbside. So when we consider that within a generation, that these vehicles went from being banned in suburban communities, into vehicles like the Ford Explorer, Jeep Cherokee and Mercury Mountaineer – we should recognize that something changed within the market.
What killed sedan-based family vehicles was their natural obsolescence, the Gas Crisis, shifting demographics and the invention of the front-wheel drive minivan. As the traditional American full size BOF, V8, rear drive sedan lost its mass appeal and market dominance during the 1980s, we discover a few reasons for its demise.
What killed truck-based family vehicles was similar to what ended the Sedan-Wagon era. We see a demographic shift within families from Baby Boomer to Jones, (born between 1955-1970). While the Jones generation was beginning families during this time and satisfied with the still-popular minivan, Boomers had adult children. There are differing vehicle needs between these two type of families. Boomers had no interest returning to sedan-based family vehicles, from where they grew up, that is, if there were still sedan-based wagons being manufactured after 1990. So, what we see occurring is the growth of truck-based family vehicles for these more mature families.
By 1990, not only were the Boomers becoming empty nesters, they were also older adults, who, along with the previous Greatest Generation, were looking for large family vehicles in a sedan-based family vehicle-less market. What did they do? The bought trucks and SUVs. Boomers created the SUV market boom.
As Boomers aged, they wanted more creature comforts within these SUVs. This is where we are today, discussing these upscale SUVs, such as this Mercury. These luxury SUV were basically trucks, with electronic goodies and Eddie Bauer interiors profitably packed into them. Not only had SUVs become annual million sellers, so did the light truck market. What was once a bane on the streets of upscale American communities, had become acceptable. Trucks arrived in America. Luxury brands offered them.
Minivans waned in popularity. Upscale minivans grabbed half the minivan market as senior Boomers still wanting a minivan, chose upscale models. However, the Jones generation shifted right into the SUV market, letting it boom and dominate other market segments until 2005.
After that time, we see the rise of the CUV. It is a hybrid of the sedan and the truck. They are the size of a truck, with all the riding and luxury of a sedan. The CUV-wagon family vehicle is, along with the light truck market, the dominant family vehicles being sold today.
So – what causes these changes? Not the marketers. Demographics mostly. These vehicle changes occurred due to generations making babies, watching those babies become adults needing more room, generations of adults aging and the size of the next generation of families. Marketer can believe they can make a brand or model popular – but they really have little sway in light of the natural order of life, and how that natural order effects vehicles needs.
I agree with most of this, although I would add that I’m increasingly convinced that the growth of SUVs also had a lot to do with changing parenting standards around the same time. For the generation after mine, the amount of unattended roaming kids of my generation routinely did became unthinkable except maybe for older high school students. (People would and still do call child protective services for things like middle school kids playing in a gated apartment courtyard without an adult standing directly over them.)
So, for middle class families, any kind of school-age child stuff means constant shlepping by car. Factor into that the increasing stringency of child seat laws around the same time and compact sedans start becoming inconvenient — especially for ‘burbsy families that get suckered into having to carry children and a couple of their friends. You also get tired of stooping to fuss with child seats and their occupants, so having something more upright becomes appealing.
That’s the point where the Boomer ego comes into play. Well into the ’90s, Boomers didn’t want to be associated with anything that smacked too much of their own parents (until the latter were dying off, at which point there was a wave of “Greatest Generation” sentimentality), so it couldn’t be anything so prosaic as a station wagon. And of course even now the Boomers remain desperate to assert their hip, youthful spirit (best encapsulated by a hilariously embarrassing TV commercial I saw a few months ago hocking Medicare supplemental plans, which had an obnoxious retro jingle and footage of graying — but still youthful! — Boomers being fun and active), so once livable family SUVs were available at a reasonable price*, the SUV displaced the minivan. After all, few people drive minivans if they’re not hauling children around, other than maybe the occasional struggling band, small business owner, or homeless people who can’t get a used RV, but if you’re driving an SUV, you can pretend that maybe you’re actually a rugged outdoorsman rather than just hauling the kids to their Supervised Play Date.
* Obviously, there were earlier examples like the Cherokee and Bronco or Grand Wagoneer and Range Rover, but the former were really too small inside and the latter out of most families’ price range.
Love the tail end of paragraph #3 regarding who still drive a minivan. The middle seats in my ’08 Sedona are permanently stored in the attic, as its my RV, tailgater, camper van. Seen normally at various race tracks and historical re-enactments. Much to the confusion of some people who expect to see a family come pouring out.
Who needs children when you have cannon and muskets?
You are so correct in noting “a hilariously embarrassing TV commercial I saw a few months ago hocking Medicare supplemental plans, which had an obnoxious retro jingle and footage of graying — but still youthful! — Boomers being fun and active”. These run almost every 15 minutes here in retiree heavy central Florida, and what kills me is that there is invariably a small child of about 5-8 years old, doing something with said youthful senior, and they imply more child of the senior than grandchild. The commercials go out of their way to imply youthfulness, as if the senior is still parents of a young child, and that by purchasing the Medicare supplement – which limits them to being over 65 – they can continue being 35 forever. Which is exactly the mindset that makes people tend to dislike Boomers, among other issues. I don’t recall the greatest generation minding growing old, and it is to be determined how Gen-X, Millenials, or Gen-Y will accept aging, but so far, it seems that Boomers are the ones most concerned with maintaining a failing youthfulness.
And with that in mind, it makes me think that once the Boomers age out, we may not see such a desire for older folks to want something different than what their parents drove. Time will tell, but I suspect that other than CUVs supplanting sedans, that style will stay in favor for the next half century, just as the sedan was the norm for about that long.
I always saw the death of the large sedan as a family vehicle as being a product of CAFE. GM in particular was struggling with CAFE by 1980, and was slashing engine sizes and implementing technology such as variable displacement, computerized engine controls, adding fuel injection and offering overdrive transmissions to meet targets. As is well known, some of this technology was not ready for prime time, and GM reliablity went down the tubes.
OPEC II in 1980 was a distraction, it moved buyers away from large cars temporarily, but when buyers for large cars started making a strong comeback in 1983, Chrysler, Ford, and GM were all loath to spend real money on large cars, or even promote them very strongly as success equaled failure as far as CAFE. The little promotion remaining focused on loaded luxury cars, and simple family cars like the 1980 Impala were simply cancelled. So, large BOF cars began to see their great, and very long, phase out. Yes, there were a few contained sparks of investment that resulted in a few successes in the BOF field, such as the 1990 Town Car. But, even GM’s stylistically botched 1990 BOF revisions sold well enough that it was causing conflict with decisions on what to build. After these designs aged several years, the decision was easy: Don’t invest in them, kill them instead and switch their Arlington, TX production line to Tahoes, and poof! The CAFE problem was gone by virtue of building BOF family vehicles that qualified as trucks with the EPA.
There’s something to that as well (I still think the separation of car and truck mileage for CAFE created one of the biggest unintended loopholes of the last generation), although I think for the aforementioned reasons, tall, upright vehicles would still have displaced big traditional sedans and wagons anyway. The CAFE rules did provide additional incentive for manufacturers, though.
I don’t doubt the architecture would have moved away from longer, lower and wider. That had pretty much played itself out with the 1971 GM full size cars. As has been documented extensively on CC, the 1977 GM full size architecture that moved closer to the general dimensions of the General’s 1956 cars began implimentation before OPEC I and CAFE. But, progressive tightening of CAFE on vehicles traditionally catagorized as cars basically killed the catagory. Suddenly, minivans, trucks and SUVs were the only way to build a spacious multitasking machine that could could realistically haul several people, tow anything of consequence, and offer enough space and isolation to be catagorized as a luxury vehicle.
As a boomer family that bought a new1985 Cherokee at the beginning of the SUV/minivan boom, I can tell you that the image of traditional station wagons at the time were “old fart-mobiles”. Think “Family Truckster”, which had just come out in 1983. Who would want to buy a woodie wagon in 1985, especially in California? No way!! Even if the wagon had much more room than the Cherokee, and got better mileage, etc.
Frankly, both the SUV and minivan booms really exploded at about the same time (1985 up). Yes, there were big SUVs that were fairly popular before 1985, but their appeal was limited, due to their size and being genuine trucks.
Both the more civilized SUVs and minivans were different enough from the traditional wagons to be acceptable to young boomer families (we bought a GCV in ’92 to replace the Cherokee). It was really in more recent times that the minivan became to develop a milk-toast image. Ultimately, the tougher/rugged individualist image cultivated by the SUV won out over the mommy-mobile image of the minivans, and hence the more recent boom of CUVs, which encompass qualities of both, and are of course the new “Mommy-mobile”.
The CAFE regs did feed this somewhat too, especially the boom of the really big BOF SUVs, like the huge Suburban/Tahoe/Expedition boom of the late 90s and such.
The traditional wagon just died away for lack of interest and serious image problems. It took a whole new genre of European sport-wagons to rehabilitate it, and now Jetta/Subaru wagons are madly cool with young families here. But those families are typically smaller now, and/or are consciously trying to live in a smaller way.
Big BOF cars were old fart mobiles in Nebraska by 1985, let alone California. The main reason was CAFE stopped development of such cars in their tracks after the laws hit the books. It has been documented on CC that GM’s great and successful large car development program for 1977 was started before OPEC I and CAFE happened. When the real development dollars die off, and the product is allowed to languish, in Ford’s case for over three decades, the result is predictable.
The development dollars roamed to where the law would allow them to be spent.
I agree that the movie “Vacation” helped push woody station wagons to death in the market. To this day, average non-car people will laugh at a woody wagon, bringing up the movie.
The minivan market has waned, but they still make for the best family vehicles. They are great values right now and great vehicles, if you can get over the stigma. That wasn’t the case with full size wagons, they became outdated when minivans filled almost all their roles, except towing, better. The packaging efficiency of minivans will never outlive its usefulness, they may not reach the heights they did 20 years ago but they aren’t going the way of the wagon either. IMO, of course.
Having owned a ’99 Town and Country, I can attest that there are family friendly virtues to vans, but I think there are more stigmas than mommy mobile.
*Most vans with real space have large displacement 6 cyl. engines, and gas consumption can rival many mid size SUV’s.
*They are generally FWD. In snow country that house on wheels architecture can render them immobile.
*They are quite expensive compared to cars. All the finished interior space comes at a premium, just like three row wagons of the past.
*Making them tolerable tends to come at a premium for weight and fuel consumption. Even my Town and Country, the most coveted van of the mid / late ’90s was noisy inside. The next gen slathered on even more sound deadening. Gas was a buck a gallon when they rolled out in the summer of 2000, nobody cared for a few more years. Squeaks and rattles are also hard to contain. A friend has a Kia Sedona, and it is ungodly in this respect. Even my sister’s Sienna is not aging well as far as geriatric noises.
*They are tall. Some early designs, especially those for non U.S. domestic designs were basically unstable. Wagon designs in the past were superior in this respect. Sport wagons are still built. Sport minivans just aren’t going to happen.
*While seat removal can make them jack-of-all-trades, the process to get that utility was a pain for most vans until Chrysler designed Stow-and-Go, available at a price. Old wagons just needed a few seat flips to slide in the cargo.
At least that was my experience. Been there and done that as far as mini’s go. I may not be the only one that is satisfied with one set of souvenir pictures.
I never liked minivans, and it wasn’t just because of their image. I just don’t think they are that useful, or at least more useful that other vehicles EXCEPT solely for hauling as many people as possible.
Maybe its because I grew up with the tail end of them, but I rather like the oldschool GM station wagons (i.e. Buick Electra/Roadmasters, Caprices, etc.) with the third rear facing seat but I loathe “sport wagons”.
Responses, in order:
* The only CUV/SUVs that rival the space of a minivan are the full size GMs, and even they don’t quite measure up. They get much worse mileage and cost upwards of twice as much. Some minivans are comparable in MPG to today’s “full size” cars like the Taurus and Impala, neither of which really feel full size to me with their claustrophobic cockpits.
*I have driven in Minnesota for over 20 years. Never have I needed anything more than front wheel drive for winter family duties. Only time I have needed it is when pulling stuff that requires a real truck. Or being stupid, something I’ve grown out of. Mostly. But always when the family is with.
*Actually, they are not. For about $27K (street price) you can have a Grand Caravan with leather, heated seats, DVD entertainment system with hard drive, wireless headphones, voice control, etc, etc, etc. I know this because I almost bought a new one 2 months ago. Granted it was an end-of-year deal, but you can’t get that much in an Accord for that price. And a mid-sized CUV with half the space? You’re talking at least $10K more for similar options. The starting price for a Tahoe today is $47K and it has quite a bit less room.
*That was an issue, but today’s vans are much quieter. Nissan’s rivals luxury cars for serenity. They have gained weight, yet they are more efficient than they were 10 years ago. Squeaks and rattles? I can tell you a story about the last Civic I owned…
*Sport minivans are built. Dodge RT and Sienna SE come to mind. Now, they are not truly sport cars and are essentially suspension and appearance packages, but they will blow the doors off the last two SUVs I owned. How much sport do you need for hauling around kids? The school drop off is not a race track. Besides, they are certainly sportier than the BOF wagons they replaced in the 80’s. Mainstream CUVs that are replacing minivans in the market are not really sportier than minivans. They are only marketed that way. Don’t get me started on today’s “sport wagons” with their swoopy and droopy rear ends that result in almost negligible utility benefits over their sedan counterparts. No wonder that market is almost dead.
*Irrelevant today. All the major players have easy seat reconfiguration.
No, I don’t take pictures and reminisce about vans either. But they have gotten to be pretty dang good and their superior space utilization will not get outdated as the BOF wagons did in the 80’s. Unlike the wagons of old, the unmatched utility and value of minivans will always have a place in the market.
Anyway, that’s just my opinion on them. Don’t get me started on the ridiculously vain reasons CUVs have exploded in popularity, utterly destroying the midsize SUV market. Of course, the SUV market originally exploded because people were too vain to drive vans and wagons to begin with, so maybe I shouldn’t complain too loudly!
Oh, I know that vans have their place and are quite useful. As a three year veteran owner of a brand new version of the van everyone wanted at the time, I didn’t find the trade offs worthwhile for the copious space that I used maybe once a year or so moving furniture or something. With the paper signed and backing out of the stall in front of the showroom, I looked over my shoulder and told my wife “we bought a bus.” It just wasn’t my thing. We weren’t even done having kids when we traded it off.
I am worn out with the whole psychology of the Truck, SUV, CUV thing. Many owners of the large trucks and SUVs tow. I have done thousands of long distance towing miles with in excess of 5,000 lbs, and the confidence that an F-150 or Suburban provides is amazing compared to lighter vehicles. If you want a luxury car, the Suburban is today’s 1968 Cadillac DeVille, but superior in every way for ride, handling, mileage, utility and isolation. I suppose that people used to beat up on ’68 Caddy drivers the same way.
The guy that buys a Chevy Equinox isn’t just another ego driven nut. He appreciates the spacious upright seating he can’t get in a Malibu, and simply doesn’t want to pay minivan prices for space he doesn’t need along with the experience of driving a vehicle that feels almost commercial in nature. The ready availability of all wheel drive is icing on the cake if you live in snow country.
CUVs are tall cars like cars were before longer, lower, and wider became the mantra. Unlike the 1930s, ’40s and early 50s, these “cars” just happen to be dominated by wagon style bodies.
Now, what’s so bad about that?
In my experience, if you are looking at 3 rows of seats, its tough to beat a minivan for price. There are lots of small-ish SUVs/CUVs, but when you get to something with a usable 3rd row, they start to get expensive. A minivan will have more room than any CUV or SUV (certainly one under $50K) and can be had for much less money. We started out looking at a Kia Sorento, but the Sedona’s lower price and higher space/equipment specs made it a no-brainer for us.
To be honest, I’m mostly just bitter about CUVs killing off the midsize SUV market. Please don’t take my ranting too seriously, it is intended to be good natured, for the most part. And my money is on most CUVs being sold because of image. After all they are essentially tall wagons with the efficiency and space utilization of a truck. In many ways, the worst of both worlds, although in the past few years they have really gotten to be more like small minivans with a long snout and the look of a truck…that truck look is key to why I feel they are pretentious. The new crop of minivans are not lookers, but at least they are honest. I know people can’t buy what’s not available. But the Mazda 5 isn’t a big seller either.
I understand there is a need for real trucks as well, I do have an F-150 Crew for towing duty while the van handles more day-to-day and most road trips. Thing is, while something like a Suburban would work great for me, their astronomical prices today make them terrible values and difficult to justify over a crew cab pickup, which reasonably equipped will cost $10-15K less and tow and haul more. Suburbans and Tahoes are truly the replacements for the big Caddies of old. But not the full size Ford and Chevy sedans and wagons of old, they are priced well beyond that.
On the bike ride back from the bank, I just stopped at the Kia dealership because they had the new ’15 Sedona in the lot. Definitely a step up from my ’08. And about as much of a looker as a four wheeled box will ever become.
“CUVs are tall cars like cars were before longer, lower, and wider became the mantra. Unlike the 1930s, ’40s and early 50s, these “cars” just happen to be dominated by wagon style bodies.”
Agree with you 100% Dave B.
LIfe is way too short to buy cars based on “value”. Get whatever you like that you can afford.
I do agree with what you’re saying, although you shouldn’t discredit marketing. Marketing is a major reason that these boomers migrated to SUVs.
The marketing of these SUVs, like the Explorer and Grand Cherokee emphasized their “go anywhere” capability, versatility, safety, and comfort. More importantly though, marketing it created a desirable, prestigious image of these vehicles. These were not your utilitarian Broncos and K-Blazers of a decade earlier, meant for those living in rural mountainous areas – but the new status symbol on the block. Many people were swayed by the forceful power they conveyed, even if they didn’t need it.
On a more personal note, my mom purchased her first SUV, a Grand Cherokee, in 1994. According to her, what motivated her purchase was its tough looks.
I’m kind of fascinated by the OHC Cologne V-6. (When did that start? Was 1998 its first year? I could go digging through old magazines, but I’d rather not.) Ford certainly got its money’s worth from that engine family. The pushrod version of the V-6 went into damn near everything Ford made that was bigger than an Escort (and I imagine some people did that themselves at least with RWD Escorts; they did with the Essex engine) and Ford kept coming up with new variations even before they did the OHC version.
Is the overhead cam version still four mains?
Agreed. I would never have guessed back in the 60s that this engine would end up powering millions of the best selling American vehicle, a truck at that.
The drive to the camshafts was a contorted affair, including a jackshaft and three chains.
I didn’t realize it dated so far back. Amazing it performed so well, it really was the best performer of any of its contemporaries for a few years. I suppose that’s probably also why it ended up being such a POS.
I think the Cologne V-6 goes back to about 1965–66 in the Taunus 20M, but the architecture is even older than that, since the V-4 version was designed for the Cardinal/Taunus 12M. It was almost as old as the small Ford V-8.
Contorted is an understatement, that cam drive downright rube goldbergian!
You got me curious so I looked it up. Four chains in there including the balance shaft. I would call that “clever” engineering. I wouldn’t call it “good”.
Admittedly, using the former camshaft as a jackshaft in the conversion to OHC is rather clever, especially as a way to drive the one head from the rear.
Elegantly engineered it is not. It would be less convoluted if it were an inline six rather than a V-6 derived from a V-4 designed for a FWD application abandoned before some of us were born, but hey.
This V6 is not the only one with separate chain drives at the front and rear for different banks, the Porsche M96 engine does it too. In that case it is so the cylinder heads are common, I imagine the same applies here? It is strange that the balance shaft is 4×4 only, also that they didn’t use the jack shaft for that function also.
I looked at buying a mid-90s Explorer, I wanted a manual but did not want the outdated engine that came with it. Probably not a decision I have regretted. No Mountaineers or Mercurys of any type out here (other than a few private imports), I’m not sure when Ford stopped selling them but I would guess the early-mid 1950s.
Why only the 4×4 applications had the balance shaft is a mystery. Typically, 60 degree V6s don’t have a balance shaft. Hmm….Anybody know?
The Cologne V-4/V-6 engine story would actually be a pretty good article idea. A lot of people have probably driven or even owned cars and trucks powered by those engines, but the history of it is convoluted.
I’ve had three Explorer in my day. The first was a ’94 Eddie Bauer. That thing was a beast and lasted to damn near 300K. The tranny started to go (didn’t like to go into reverse or overdrive) and was starting to rust. Replaced it with a 98, it died after 150K or so, again a tranny issue. Replaced that one with an 02 Eddie Bauer. I really liked this one as it was the most luxed out of all of them, with pretty much every option that was available. I traded that one in on a ’12 Escape, but it had 140K on the clock at the time with no clues that anything real serious was going wrong. I liked that one so much in fact that the Escape was basically a color/interior clone of the 02. I rather like the Escape, but it just doesn’t have the little features that I liked with the Explorer like the memory seats, the lock button in the back, the automatic seat move back feature when you shut it off etc. Even though the Escape I got is the top of the line trim package, I just don’t think Ford options them up as much.
Contrary to what some others have said, the Explorers always treated me pretty well. None of them had anything serious go down until they died. Just wear and tear expenses.
You have to wonder when Ford was selling millions of these things and making billions, do they even set around and think of actually improving the thing?
or they just sat around and chanted “in the name of corp profit, shareholders and wall street, we don’t fix nothin’ that ain’t broke”.
Yeah they did some serious thinking and some serious spending for its replacement. Ford followed their then preferred 10 year model cycle with a 5 year refresh with the original Explorer. In addition to the expected cosmetic tweaks they slipped in a new torsion bar IFS instead of the old Twin Traction beam design. However they saved the big guns and big money to spend on the replacement. Instead of a Ranger Station Wagon the 2002 was truly an all new vehicle that only shared the base engine and trans with the Ranger’s top power team.
CUV’s are hits since they get better MPG then the BOF mid size SUV’s. Average buyers want over 20 mpg average, with the “high seating position”
Example, my good friend had two Grand Ams, in a row, from 2000-2009, and then went to a CR-V. Says he’s “never getting a car again”, for these reasons. CR-V gets better mileage then the V6 Pontiacs he had. But also has AWD for snow.
When someone says “Mercury Mountaineer” this is what my mind pictures. Just as with the 1998 Explorer. Like the contemporary Explorer, I immediately think of high school, late 90s movies like ‘Fight Club’, Harvey Danger doing ‘Flagpole Sitta’ and $0.93/gallon gas when I see these. And sitting in the Burger King drive in listening to the business report of the market going up another 200 pts.
This was the time in which, and for which, I was raised and trained to live. I remember the 2002 redesign but it doesn’t seem that long ago, feels much more recent. Sometime during law school in the mid 2000s I just stopped paying attention to redesigns (in retrospect it was probably due to the fact/huge distraction that the economy and my job prospects upon graduating were beginning to collapse around me and my peers, and then did so in spectacular fashion) and am often shocked to see generations of vehicles (like 2-3 Camrys after 2004) that I don’t even remember coming out.
Anyway, my AP History teacher had one of these in red.
Just another token of a happy late 90s existence I guess we will never get back; sure didn’t sign up for what we have today.
Fuel economy standards were different for trucks than for cars, and if anyone claims another reason for the rise of the SUV, I’ll fight them to the death.
I compared FE for the ’93 Caprice wagon 5.0 vs the 2WD Explorer 4.0. Caprice is better, but bad for Chevrolet’s combined passenger car FE. Bye Caprice.
My mother bought one of the last Caprice wagons in late ’94, and drove it under cash for clunkers tempted her into a new Avalon in 2010. The Caprice did extremely decent mileage 24? 26? At least compared to the carbureted Pontiac Safari that preceded it. And it was pretty pleasant to drive. Sometimes I wish she had kept it? But New York is not friendly to old cars. They are on their third Avalon, by the way, despite my efforts to get them back into the Opel Insignia wagon.
The American car market is quite unusual, being a spacious country with dirt cheap fuel. The rest of the world drives 4 cylinder hatchbacks, increasingly turbo-ed, and is considering an EV as their next vehicle. We watch you with fascination, as your forests burn and coasts are battered by hurricanes, and you debate whether to downsize to a 2 ton V6.