Trailblazer vs Explorer vs Durango

My 2002 Escape is getting a little long in tooth and I've decided that after I return from my latest government funded camping trip, I'll look for a replacement.  It's used primarily as my daily (24 mile round trip commute), but gets used a couple of times a month to tow to the track or Autox.  Current trailer + car comes in around #1600 so towing capacity isn't a huge priority, but I wouldn't mind a little more than the Escape's #3500.

Current choices in my desired price range are 2002-2008 Trailblazer (4.2), 2002-2008 Explorer (4.0), or a Durango 2004-2009.  All can be found pretty easily with 100-120k miles for between $3-6K.  I'm quite fond of how the Trailblazer looks and the power available from the 4.2.  The Explorer is like a familiar old friend, but I've been bitten by the 4.0L timing chain noise as well as the plastic coolant fixture for the thermostat.  I know practically nothing about the Durango other than my fear of all things related to modern dodge reliability. 

Does anyone have any inputs or recommendations for the above vehicles. 

Here's the current setup.

I'm glad you posted a picture because I was wonder what would be only 1600# for both car and trailer. Now I understand. 

No input on which might be the better vehicle for you, but in looking locally I see a lot of the Saab 9-7x at prices that match, or better the Trailblazer. Sheet metal and trim differences aside, it's the same vehicle, and regularly available with the 5.3 LS engine.

The atlas 4.2 is a nice engine, supposedly they fixed a couple bits a few years into the run but there are always 200k mile ones around here.  

I am not one for the quality of Chrysler vehicles from the era, says the guy with a pair of 2016 fca vehicles.  

Given the choice of the 3 i’d go trailblazer because of the engine.  The exploder has a better rear axle but I really like the straight 6 of the gmt360 platform and the frames are pretty beefy.  

I have no direct experience with any of the 3 you listed but here is a off hand recommendation.  

If searching for a Durango, also look for the '07-'09 Chrysler Aspen.   This is the much forgotten, tarted up Durango that Chrysler sold for just 3 years.   The depreciation and slow sales from no name recognition might lead to an highly equipped Apsen for the same or less than a Durango.  Aspen/Durango Wiki 

Similar: The Explorer was also sold as the Mercury Mountaineer and the Trailblazer was offered with at least 5 different badges.  

In reply to John Welsh :

The mountaneer was V8 only.

From what I've heard the early ugly body Durangos are absolutely terrible vehicles.

Floating Doc said:

In reply to John Welsh :

The mountaneer was V8 only.

Except for '98 to '10 (or all the years) where the 4.0L was offered in the Mountaineer.  However, the epa rating of the 4.0L 6cyl and the 5.0L 8 cyl (and some years 4.6L) was the same at 13/15/18.  fueleconony.gov

The GMT360  platform , from 2005 up is pretty solid.  The Saab version gets the V8.  Gas mileage s the 6 cyl. is the same, basically.  The Trailblazer versions, can be pretty solid.  Things to look for/replace are: thermostat/housing (PIA to replace), transmission lines along frame rail rust away. Change the tranny fluid . The 4x4 actuators can be troublesome.  AC O-rings should be checcked.  This all happens around 100,000 miles.  But once fixed, you're good to go.  Tows pretty well with the Six cyl.  Towed a Mustang , and used my utility trailer regularly.

My son had problems with a Durango 4.7 variety.  Noisy lifters and electrical gremlins.  2004 I think it was.

Ford versions have rear end problems, but some can go high miles.

Dirtydog said:

The GMT400  platform , from 2005 up is pretty solid.  The Saab version gets the V8.  Gas mileage s the 6 cyl. is the same, basically.  The Trailblazer versions, can be pretty solid.  Things to look for/replace are: thermostat/housing (PIA to replace), transmission lines along frame rail rust away. Change the tranny fluid . The 4x4 actuators can be troublesome.  AC O-rings should be checcked.  This all happens around 100,000 miles.  But once fixed, you're good to go.  Tows pretty well with the Six cyl.  Towed a Mustang , and used my utility trailer regularly.

My son had problems with a Durango 4.7 variety.  Noisy lifters and electrical gremlins.  2004 I think it was.

Ford versions have rear end problems, but some can go high miles.

Saabs could have the 4.2 as well.  While i’m an LS fanboy, for the love of god do not buy a gm truck with the displacement on demand.  The Saab is a much nicer ride overall because they actually let them do some things, and inside is way nicer than any of the others.  

In reply to Patrick :

I agree, the Saab is nice.  I had the Buick Rainier version.  Replaced the air bags, and deleted the compressor.  Still rode pretty well though,and had a lot of bells and whistles.

I'd throw the Pilot/MDX into the mix as well. Not great fuel economy, but great motor and overall build quality. 

The buick Rainer could also be had with the 5.3 litre v8. The gmc envoy had a few variations including a Denali trim aswell as the xuv version with the retractable roof. Or you can go more extreme and get a trailblazer ss with a 390 hp ls2.

If you’re in an area with rust look the trailblazer over carefully. My neighbor has owned three and rear control arms, crossmembers, and rear axle tubes had severe rust problems.

Wally said:

If you’re in an area with rust look the trailblazer over carefully. My neighbor has owned three and rear control arms, crossmembers, and rear axle tubes had severe rust problems.

True of any of them, really.

My son has an 02 Exploder that we bought for $2800 a couple of years ago with 160k on it. XLT 4x4 4.6L. It had one rusty rocker panel (not bad for Michigan), which I replaced ($80 for a pair of them on eBay), and various other old car/deferred maintenance type stuff. It's been pretty solid for him, a few minor issues like light bulbs and a belt tensioner. It's comfortable and reliable, but the fuel mileage is pretty terrible, around 13-15 mpg.

Honestly, the only reason we didn't look more seriously at Trailblazers was that I'm still fairly brand loyal to Ford, and I didn't want my kid's first car to be some damn Chevy. 

Durango? That's an old DCX product. No thanks.

I worked as a tech in a ford dealership for a while and I wouldn't own one of those explorers. The rear diffs eat up bearings regularly, the trannys go out regularly, wheel bearings go out regularly. I was working on one once and told one of the senior techs "gawd I hate these things" he replied, "I love them, they put my kids through college."

gearheadmb said:

I worked as a tech in a ford dealership for a while and I wouldn't own one of those explorers. The rear diffs eat up bearings regularly, the trannys go out regularly, wheel bearings go out regularly. I was working on one once and told one of the senior techs "gawd I hate these things" he replied, "I love them, they put my kids through college."

The 2004 that I had experienced all of these problems and the cracked hatch window trim panel too. It was a nice enough lil truck, but I steer others away.

collinskl1 said:

gearheadmb said:

I worked as a tech in a ford dealership for a while and I wouldn't own one of those explorers. The rear diffs eat up bearings regularly, the trannys go out regularly, wheel bearings go out regularly. I was working on one once and told one of the senior techs "gawd I hate these things" he replied, "I love them, they put my kids through college."

The 2004 that I had experienced all of these problems and the cracked hatch window trim panel too. It was a nice enough lil truck, but I steer others away.

Yeah, my son's has that, too, but since his inadvertent off-road experience last winter, the truck is cosmetically challenged, so it doesn't really matter at this point.

I will say this, though. Rear strut replacement on that vehicle is a job I never want to do again. Actually, the fronts were no picnic, either, as the lower cross-bolt was corroded solid and ended up needing to be cut on one side. But reaching those nuts on top of the rears is no fun at all.

How about a ml430 Like this

Or older Pilot Like this

Run screaming from the 2002 explorer, its even listed as the worst car ever thru carcomplaints.com by a large margin. Im not a fan at all of the 4.0sohc engine, its powerband is more like a car and it feels like it has significantly less power than the 4.0 ohv.

I however love the the 4.0 ohv. Max torque is at 2200 rpm, which is pretty much 65mph. I have 2 trucks with it, a 00 explorer and a 91 ranger. Ive got 23mpg out of my explorer, my mom driving a similiar one with a SOHC got 17mpg. Explorer has 250k oni t and ranger has 241k. If you want explorer go for something from before 2000 with the OHV 4.0

Antihero said:

Run screaming from the 2002 explorer, its even listed as the worst car ever thru carcomplaints.com by a large margin. Im not a fan at all of the 4.0sohc engine, its powerband is more like a car and it feels like it has significantly less power than the 4.0 ohv.

I had never heard of that website, so I took a look. Interesting that the 2003 Accord is #2 on that list. Must be that mid-2000s Honda auto tranny.

Tom_Spangler said:

Antihero said:

Run screaming from the 2002 explorer, its even listed as the worst car ever thru carcomplaints.com by a large margin. Im not a fan at all of the 4.0sohc engine, its powerband is more like a car and it feels like it has significantly less power than the 4.0 ohv.

I had never heard of that website, so I took a look. Interesting that the 2003 Accord is #2 on that list. Must be that mid-2000s Honda auto tranny.

I hadnt til recently, but when you consider the 00 explorer i have has like.....100 complaints and ive owned it for 13 years and driven it everywhere vs the fiancees 02 explorer with breaks everytime you look at it and has several thousand complaints......i think its a valid tool

Unlike others, i don't dislike those Durangos. It predates a lot of what sucked about Chryslers starting in the mid-00's (like electrical issues). What i would say about them is avoid the 3.7/4.7  as they are way more likely to have issues (cylinder head related) than the older engines you could also get (3.9/5.2/5.9) which by that time had basically no major issues at all. 

I have done a fair amount of work on Trailblazers and i still like them ok. If the Explorers with the 4.0sohc/5spd auto were more reliable i'd like them the best of the 3, but alas. 

Get a Durango with a hemi. I actually really like the new-hemis. If you can get one recent enough to have cylinder deactivation, it will make a positive difference compared to the older thirstier ones.