1992 Ford Explorer Consumer Reviews

1992 Ford Explorer

Change

1992 Ford Explorer

Average Rating

3.8 out of 5
Review This Car
Comfort:3.5 out of 5
Performance:4.0 out of 5
Exterior Styling:4.2 out of 5
Interior Design:4.0 out of 5
Value for the Money:4.2 out of 5
Reliability:3.2 out of 5

3 out of 4 people would recommended this car to a friend

Consumer Reviews

Page 1 of 1

Most reliable of its class

by Ford guy
from NY | April 1, 2013

Rating from

(5)
Comfort: 5 out of 5
Performance: 5 out of 5
Exterior Styling: 5 out of 5
Interior Design: 5 out of 5
Value for the Money: 5 out of 5
Reliability: 5 out of 5

"I can't say anything bad bout this vehicle, this is a comfortable work horse...my daughter bought it for me as a gift in 2000 and I never had any major issues with it other than regular wear and tear, mileage is now 276,000 miles and no signs of giving up...."

I would recommend this car to a friend: Yes

This vehicle was purchased: Used

Primary use for this car: Transporting family


Did you find this review helpful?

Yes No

0 out of 0 found this review helpful

Love this car!

by Utopian
from Billings, MT | February 16, 2011

Rating from

(5)
Comfort: 4 out of 5
Performance: 5 out of 5
Exterior Styling: 4 out of 5
Interior Design: 4 out of 5
Value for the Money: 5 out of 5
Reliability: 5 out of 5

"I recently purchased my 92 Explorer at an auction. I had a 2000 Cavalier that was falling apart beneath me and I felt intimidated around the rest of the larger SUV's, pickups, and cars. I sent my dad, my brother, and my son to the auction to get me a temporary car to last 10 months till I finished grad school and could afford more. I love this car and it is now my permenant vehicle rather than a temporary one. It is comfortable, runs great, started all winter in subzero weather, feels heavy and stable. The only complaint I have is the stereo, factory 92 that still works. I will definitely be replacing that upon my graduation!"

I would recommend this car to a friend: Yes

This vehicle was purchased: Used

Primary use for this car: Commuting


Did you find this review helpful?

Yes No

2 out of 3 found this review helpful

Terrible.

by Dodge Man
from Las Vegas, NV | April 11, 2010

Rating from

(2)
Comfort: 1 out of 5
Performance: 2 out of 5
Handling: 3 out of 5
Exterior Styling: 4 out of 5
Interior Design: 3 out of 5
Features: 3 out of 5
Value for the Money: 3 out of 5
Reliability: 1 out of 5

"I recently aquired a 92 explorer with only 66k miles on it. i thought it would be great. in reality the car was awful. The brakes are horrible, the engine makes sputtering noises and the car creeks and groans upon turning. The car stalls on hills, has trouble changing gears (automatic) and can barely go above 50 mph. There is absolutely no reason that a car with only 66k miles on it should be in such shape. I have a '00 durango with 242k miles on it and strangely enough it preforms better than this horrible ford."

I would recommend this car to a friend: No

This vehicle was purchased: Used

Primary use for this car: Just getting around


Did you find this review helpful?

Yes No

1 out of 2 found this review helpful

not the best but good

by ridic
from Irvington, Al. | July 13, 2009

Rating from

(3)
Comfort: 4 out of 5
Performance: 4 out of 5
Handling: 4 out of 5
Exterior Styling: 4 out of 5
Interior Design: 4 out of 5
Features: 4 out of 5
Value for the Money: 4 out of 5
Reliability: 2 out of 5

"bought the car used, drives great when runs. rebuilt engine tranny, brakes as usual. car, like I said runs good but has nit pick problems all the time but is older and lots o miles.Do wish I would have bought her new tho. Would reccomend to a friend."

I would recommend this car to a friend: Yes

This vehicle was purchased: Used

Primary use for this car: Just getting around


Did you find this review helpful?

Yes No

3 out of 3 found this review helpful

Page 1 of 1
*Invoice prices are made available by Cars.com and are not dealer advertising. All prices are subject to regional variations. Prices last updated 9/23/10. Click here for more information.