What the hell do you expect when you purchase a Ford, anyway? Reliability? Value? Don't be a fool. Again, you bought a Ford!
Firestone cancelled Ford in a tactic to try and shift blame from their involvement. Of course, they just settled their suit in Texas before the verdict came back which is a sure sign that they know they f*cked up.
TRUCKS are not CARS and can't be driven the same way. The SUV replaced the station wagon and minivan as the soccer mom's first choice and they clearly haven't taken the time to learn to CORNER!
TRUCKS are not CARS and can't be driven the same way. The SUV replaced the station wagon and minivan as the soccer mom's first choice and they clearly haven't taken the time to learn to CORNER!
Explorer 4 times more likely to rollover when tires fail
Ford tried to replace good Firestones tires with worse tires (Goodyear, General)
Bottom line: The Explorer is a very dangerous vehicle.
Ford tried to replace good Firestones tires with worse tires (Goodyear, General)
Bottom line: The Explorer is a very dangerous vehicle.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
bill ford has had both his lineages dragged through the mud, i'll bet hes pissed. (for those who don't know, hes grandson of both henry ford and harvey firestone).
when a tire does fall apart it is possible to come to a safe stop as long as you don't start yanking the wheel all over the place. hell, people drive on flats and don't know it, and when a tread seperation happens the tire is still inflated much of the time.
theres that woman in south texas whose truck rolled after the tire failed due to a puncture, the defense was why don't "wilderness" tires not stand up to offroading better. and then theres the ranch hands and serious off-roaders who know that tires are just rubber and some steel so they carry a couple of spares.
when a tire does fall apart it is possible to come to a safe stop as long as you don't start yanking the wheel all over the place. hell, people drive on flats and don't know it, and when a tread seperation happens the tire is still inflated much of the time.
theres that woman in south texas whose truck rolled after the tire failed due to a puncture, the defense was why don't "wilderness" tires not stand up to offroading better. and then theres the ranch hands and serious off-roaders who know that tires are just rubber and some steel so they carry a couple of spares.
<< Firestone cancelled Ford in a tactic to try and shift blame from their involvement. >>
Wrong. Ford (the customer) was attempting to shift TOTAL blame to Firestone (the supplier). Firestone could not easily defend itself without calling the customer a liar.
<< Of course, they just settled their suit in Texas before the verdict came back which is a sure sign that they know they f*cked up. >>
Wrong again. Ford settled before the trial (guilty?). Firestone was holding out for the verdict. The PLAINTIFFS decided to deal after the jury was out for days. (Longer jury deliberations usually result in favorable outcomes for the defendant).
Firestone is now telling their side of the story. And they seem to be doing pretty well...
The Firestone vs Ford debate seemed a lot like a pissing contest between the two CEO's. Both companies should accept some culpability especially as they refused to work together to resolve this issue in an expedious manner.
Funny since the Car and Driver test found that the Explorer handled every single tire-blowing test with no problems. They couldn't roll it over, and they tried.
I saw their little test and I was not impressed. They rigged an Explorer so that a REAR tire would deflate nicely while driving STRAIGHT ahead. They defended their testing method by saying that it was the rear tires that had tread seperation on MOST Exploreres that rolled. They might have a point, but I'd like to see what happened when a FRONT tire deflated.
Also, a tread seperation is much different than having a tire deflate in a nice controlled test.
Let's say a rear tire had a tread seperation while driving down the freeway, which is what Car and Driver said was the most common situation.
The tread could fly around in a unpredictable manner and become temporarily jammed in the wheel well, causing the back of the vehicle to slide. Maybe this reason is why drivers over reacted and jerked the wheel, causing the rollovers.
I belive my theory can be backed up by a real world rollover case. See bold text below.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,128198,00.html
....Engineers were concerned from the get-go about the Explorer's stability during emergency handling procedures. After a test-track trial in April 1989?one year before the Explorer reached showrooms billed as a rugged and reliable family vehicle?a report noted that the SUV prototype "demonstrated a rollover response ... with a number of tire, tire-pressure [and] suspension configurations." Another report noted that the Explorer's "relatively high engine position ... prevents further significant improvement in the Stability Index [a measure of resistance to tipping] without extensive suspension, frame and sheet-metal revisions," which the company rejected.
.....While undergoing handling maneuvers in 1989, an Explorer prototype showed a greater tendency to lift its wheels while turning?a possible prelude to rollovers?than even the Bronco II. The test report observed that the Explorer had to be "at least equivalent to the Bronco II in these maneuvers to be considered acceptable for production."
That was a rock-bottom standard, since the image of the Bronco II continued to worsen. In June 1989 a Consumer Reports article titled "How Safe Is the Bronco II?" rated its handling as poor in a test that simulated rapid lane changes. The Consumers Union publication advised "prudent buyers" to steer clear of it. According to an original analysis prepared for TIME by University of Michigan statistician Hans Joksch, an expert in automotive statistics, the Explorer has had approximately the same rate of fatal rollovers as the Bronco II.
With the Explorer's 1990 production date approaching, Ford engineers listed four options for improving the stability of the SUV: widening the chassis by 2 in.; lowering the engine; or lowering the tire pressure and stiffening the springs. Ford chose the latter two fixes and recommended a tire pressure of 26 p.s.i.?rather than the 30-to-35 p.s.i. that Firestone normally used in its tires?to produce a more road-gripping ride. This created friction between Ford and Firestone after last year's recall, with Firestone insisting that the low pressure had increased the heat on the tires and caused the tread separations.
Ford engineers could hardly wait to replace the Explorer's outmoded front suspension. In another 1989 memo, engineer Charles White noted the start of discussions "to revise the Ranger and [Explorer] suspension due to out-of-date performance of the Twin I-Beam." White added that although Ford had planned to replace the Twin I-Beam in 1998, "it was agreed that we would look at earlier incorporation of a new front suspension out-of-cycle for the reasons stated above, not safety."
Replied engineer David Houston: "In the event you take a poll, my vote would be to change the cycle plan to replace the current front suspension at the earliest possible opportunity. I believe that this would positively position the [Explorer] to be immune from criticism arising from allegations regarding limit handling maneuvers"?an apparent reference to the SUV's test-track performance.
Ford's decision to increase the stability of the Explorer by lowering the tire pressure soon had unintended consequences. The mushier tires held the road better but worsened fuel economy. When Ford asked Firestone to fix the problem, Firestone reduced the weight of the tire about 3%.
By 1995, Ford had finally replaced the Explorer's unloved Twin I-Beam with a short-and-long-arm suspension but didn't act on previous recommendations to lower the engine and widen the chassis. And since the new suspension weighed less than the Twin I-Beam, the change raised?not lowered?the SUV's center of gravity.
A warning light flashed in August 1996 when, documents show, a trainee test driver in Oscoda, Mich., lost control of an Explorer while conducting lane-change maneuvers at 52.5 m.p.h. According to the accident report, the driver overcorrected for a rear-end slide, sending the vehicle first into a four-wheel slide and then a 360[degree] flip.
I saw their little test and I was not impressed. They rigged an Explorer so that a REAR tire would deflate nicely while driving STRAIGHT ahead. They defended their testing method by saying that it was the rear tires that had tread seperation on MOST Exploreres that rolled. They might have a point, but I'd like to see what happened when a FRONT tire deflated.
Also, a tread seperation is much different than having a tire deflate in a nice controlled test.
Let's say a rear tire had a tread seperation while driving down the freeway, which is what Car and Driver said was the most common situation.
The tread could fly around in a unpredictable manner and become temporarily jammed in the wheel well, causing the back of the vehicle to slide. Maybe this reason is why drivers over reacted and jerked the wheel, causing the rollovers.
I belive my theory can be backed up by a real world rollover case. See bold text below.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,128198,00.html
....Engineers were concerned from the get-go about the Explorer's stability during emergency handling procedures. After a test-track trial in April 1989?one year before the Explorer reached showrooms billed as a rugged and reliable family vehicle?a report noted that the SUV prototype "demonstrated a rollover response ... with a number of tire, tire-pressure [and] suspension configurations." Another report noted that the Explorer's "relatively high engine position ... prevents further significant improvement in the Stability Index [a measure of resistance to tipping] without extensive suspension, frame and sheet-metal revisions," which the company rejected.
.....While undergoing handling maneuvers in 1989, an Explorer prototype showed a greater tendency to lift its wheels while turning?a possible prelude to rollovers?than even the Bronco II. The test report observed that the Explorer had to be "at least equivalent to the Bronco II in these maneuvers to be considered acceptable for production."
That was a rock-bottom standard, since the image of the Bronco II continued to worsen. In June 1989 a Consumer Reports article titled "How Safe Is the Bronco II?" rated its handling as poor in a test that simulated rapid lane changes. The Consumers Union publication advised "prudent buyers" to steer clear of it. According to an original analysis prepared for TIME by University of Michigan statistician Hans Joksch, an expert in automotive statistics, the Explorer has had approximately the same rate of fatal rollovers as the Bronco II.
With the Explorer's 1990 production date approaching, Ford engineers listed four options for improving the stability of the SUV: widening the chassis by 2 in.; lowering the engine; or lowering the tire pressure and stiffening the springs. Ford chose the latter two fixes and recommended a tire pressure of 26 p.s.i.?rather than the 30-to-35 p.s.i. that Firestone normally used in its tires?to produce a more road-gripping ride. This created friction between Ford and Firestone after last year's recall, with Firestone insisting that the low pressure had increased the heat on the tires and caused the tread separations.
Ford engineers could hardly wait to replace the Explorer's outmoded front suspension. In another 1989 memo, engineer Charles White noted the start of discussions "to revise the Ranger and [Explorer] suspension due to out-of-date performance of the Twin I-Beam." White added that although Ford had planned to replace the Twin I-Beam in 1998, "it was agreed that we would look at earlier incorporation of a new front suspension out-of-cycle for the reasons stated above, not safety."
Replied engineer David Houston: "In the event you take a poll, my vote would be to change the cycle plan to replace the current front suspension at the earliest possible opportunity. I believe that this would positively position the [Explorer] to be immune from criticism arising from allegations regarding limit handling maneuvers"?an apparent reference to the SUV's test-track performance.
Ford's decision to increase the stability of the Explorer by lowering the tire pressure soon had unintended consequences. The mushier tires held the road better but worsened fuel economy. When Ford asked Firestone to fix the problem, Firestone reduced the weight of the tire about 3%.
By 1995, Ford had finally replaced the Explorer's unloved Twin I-Beam with a short-and-long-arm suspension but didn't act on previous recommendations to lower the engine and widen the chassis. And since the new suspension weighed less than the Twin I-Beam, the change raised?not lowered?the SUV's center of gravity.
A warning light flashed in August 1996 when, documents show, a trainee test driver in Oscoda, Mich., lost control of an Explorer while conducting lane-change maneuvers at 52.5 m.p.h. According to the accident report, the driver overcorrected for a rear-end slide, sending the vehicle first into a four-wheel slide and then a 360[degree] flip.
UK PRESS: Ford Motor Chmn Plots Change Of CEO
Dow Jones Newswires
LONDON -- William Ford Jr., chairman of Ford Motor Co. (F), is plotting to remove Jacques Nasser as Ford's chief executive after a strategic review is completed in November, the Sunday Times reports.
Citing sources at the company, the paper says Ford plans to back Nick Scheele, former chairman of Ford Europe and now president of Ford North America, for the top job.
Newspaper Web site: http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/business
-London Bureau; Dow Jones Newswires; 44 (0)20 7842 9320
Dow Jones Newswires
LONDON -- William Ford Jr., chairman of Ford Motor Co. (F), is plotting to remove Jacques Nasser as Ford's chief executive after a strategic review is completed in November, the Sunday Times reports.
Citing sources at the company, the paper says Ford plans to back Nick Scheele, former chairman of Ford Europe and now president of Ford North America, for the top job.
Newspaper Web site: http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/business
-London Bureau; Dow Jones Newswires; 44 (0)20 7842 9320
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter