 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Explorer / June 2009Uhaul Screws Ford Explorer Owners
Do you own or know someone that owns a Ford Explorer? Effective December 22, 2003, Uhaul no longer rents trailers to be pulled by ANY year or model Ford Explorer! Don't believe it? Call your local Uhaul dealer, or try to book one online at www.uhaul.com This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts? Ummm..... we were talking about that LAST year..... welcome back to planet earth 8^) > Do you own or know someone that owns a Ford Explorer? Effective > December 22, 2003, Uhaul no longer rents trailers to be pulled by ANY > year or model Ford Explorer! Don't believe it? Call your local Uhaul > dealer, or try to book one online at www.uhaul.com > > This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts? Well, I'm not on a different planet. I just haven't spent my life in this newsgroup like you have so I welcome the post advising of this and will be happy to rent from other moving companies. J > Ummm..... we were talking about that LAST year..... welcome back to planet > earth 8^) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts? The idea is to look around at other posts....... that's why there's that whole list of subject lines and authors. That way we can see if there's a pertinent discussion going on and add to that discussion. Seems to me it might be thought of as etiquette. This is a corporate decision by Uhaul and I don't see how we can misconstrue it as "screwing" Explorer owners. More like Uhaul is denying themselves a portion of the market. Me?.... after all their hype about one way rentals, I find that motorcycle trailers aren't included in that deal. Here, these trailers need to be returned to the point of origin. That's OK.... I'll load the new bike up in the back of the SuperCrew and unload it onto my buddies deck. Jim Warman mechanic@telusplanet.net As for where I spend my life.... please do not pretend to know anything about me. > Well, I'm not on a different planet. I just haven't spent my life in this > newsgroup like you have so I welcome the post advising of this and will be > happy to rent from other moving companies. Fair comments on your part and I apologize for any offense, none was intended. I'm new to Explorers and started looking at this Newsgroup to for a problem I had with the one I bought a few months ago. For background, I've had a couple of GMC Yukons in the past and got out of SUV's a few years ago. Had the Yukons for boat towing and when I moved to bigger boats that stay in the water I don't need to tow anything anymore. However I wanted something I could drive when the weather was bad so I picked up a 97 2 door 4WD Explorer. The other day while on a round trip drive of about 400 miles I accidently bumped the Overdrive button (poor design I think) on the end of the gearshift. The vehicle was in cruise at 75MPH and came out of O/D. I pushed the button again and from that point until I was home (about 100 miles) the O/D light started flashing. A check of the manual said maybe a transmission problem. I searched the Internet and found some advice to disconnect the battery for a while to reset the computer and see if the light came back on. Did that about a week ago, the light has stayed off, the vehicle seems to shift properly and run in O/D. I'm just searching for some info and when I saw your post criticizing (I thought) this guy for posting on a topic that had been discussed before, I reacted badly thinking I would be similarly chastised if I asked about a topic that was discussed before. So again, I apologize... J > The idea is to look around at other posts....... that's why there's that > whole list of subject lines and authors. That way we can see if there's a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > newsgroup like you have so I welcome the post advising of this and will be > > happy to rent from other moving companies. >This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts? Rent from Ryder instead. Send an email to uhaul saying they lost your business because of this issue. "Jeff Rice" <jeffreyarice@yahoo.com>, doing his best Chicken Little impression, said > Do you own or know someone that owns a Ford Explorer? Effective > December 22, 2003, Uhaul no longer rents trailers to be pulled by ANY > year or model Ford Explorer! Don't believe it? Call your local Uhaul > dealer, or try to book one online at www.uhaul.com > > This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts? Just one: Most likely their insurance carrier said, "No way!" (they like to do things like that once there have been major judgements made against their clients) and not any decision that U-haul made on their own. Lighten up. They certainly aren't "screwing" you. If they said it'd be $100/day then, yes, they would be screwing you. But the situation at hand is no different than saying "No shoes, no shirt, no service". They can rent or not rent to anyone they want as long as the reason doesn't pass muster as "discrimination". So quit yer bitchin' and give your business to someone else. Or is U-haul now a monopoly and I didn't get the memo? With 6 million Explorers produced over the past 13 years, they can look forward to a potential loss of millions of consumers. Who's being screwed now? -Joe I see the red explorer pulling the trailer photo at the top of this page has now been replaced http://www.uhaul.com/trailers/index.html wth > Do you own or know someone that owns a Ford Explorer? Effective > December 22, 2003, Uhaul no longer rents trailers to be pulled by ANY > year or model Ford Explorer! Don't believe it? Call your local Uhaul > dealer, or try to book one online at www.uhaul.com > > This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts? Hi, there, new to the group and was noticing your comments on UP-haul not renting trailers to be towed behind Explorers. I decided to look for myself ( yes, the picture of the red explorer is still there ) and this is what happened when I attempted to make reservations for a trailer for a move at the end of the month. This vehicle is not authorized to tow UP-Haul equipment. UP-Haul does not rent behind this tow vehicle. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. Is there a different vehicle that you can use for towing? You may go back and change your towing setup or continue without towing Since I only got my '92 Explorer last month, I've had already had to replace the transmission ( first attempt at moving, left me stranded Christmas Eve at midnight in the mountains ). I'm looking to see if I can find a way to avoid having that happen again. It was darned disheartening. Thanks, John > I see the red explorer pulling the trailer photo at the top of this page has > now been replaced http://www.uhaul.com/trailers/index.html [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts? Why? What's so special about Explorers that Uhaul doesn't want to rent to Explorer owners? > Do you own or know someone that owns a Ford Explorer? Effective > December 22, 2003, Uhaul no longer rents trailers to be pulled by ANY > year or model Ford Explorer! Don't believe it? Call your local Uhaul > dealer, or try to book one online at www.uhaul.com > > This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts? >Why? What's so special about Explorers that Uhaul doesn't want to rent to >Explorer owners? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts? Maybe you missed the dustup over Firestone tires on Explorers last year? Insurance companies got hit for a lot of money on that, and the Explorer name was prominant. I'm surprised, myself, they didn't ban rentals to vehicles using Firestone tires, as that's where the problem really was.  SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > >Why? What's so special about Explorers that Uhaul doesn't want to rent to > >Explorer owners? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'm surprised, myself, they didn't ban rentals to vehicles using > Firestone tires, as that's where the problem really was. Ah. Ok. I didn't think Uhaul would eliminate the best selling SUV for the past few years from their customer base over that issue. Thanks. >> >Why? What's so special about Explorers that Uhaul doesn't want to rent to >> >Explorer owners? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Thanks. Money. Their insurance company probably made it worth their while. Insurance companies don't always base their actions on just the facts; they tend to look at potential losses. Look here in this forum: there are people who post here saying that the problem was Ford's, because of the lowering of the recommended tire pressure. Never mind that Firestone was made aware of this, and still warranted the tires; its still Ford's fault. Never mind that the whole thing was the direct result of a manufacturing defect on Firestone's part; its still Ford's fault. Never mind that Firestone was caught in several lies and a cover-up; its still Ford's fault. Insurance companies will look at that and see that, in a liability case where Uhaul rented to an Explorer owner, a jury is likely to ignore the facts, and say that the fault lay with Uhaul for renting a trailer knowing that it would be pulled by an Explorer. Even if the jury didn't return such a decision, Uhaul would still have to defend itself, an expensive proposition at best. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > Maybe you missed the dustup over Firestone tires on Explorers last > year? > Insurance companies got hit for a lot of money on that, and the > Explorer name was prominant. > I'm surprised, myself, they didn't ban rentals to vehicles using > Firestone tires, as that's where the problem really was. It was a multi-faceted problem. The explorer is by no means exonerated from blame IMHO. In fact if I were a betting man I'd put more than 50% blame on the vehicle. Firestone had their problems in the Deactur plant also and are certainly not blameless. Ford did a good job of sidestepping any liability but that doesn't change the reality that their vehicles had fairly low tire pressures specified to enable to vehicle to pass muster at rolloverer tests. Add to this incompetent owners that let the tire pressure go even lower than specified, drive in hot climates and you had an issue. I believe UHaul's insurers realize the reality of the situation and are simply limiting their liability. If I were UHaul I'd change insurance companies before this looses them too much business. JP > > Maybe you missed the dustup over Firestone tires on Explorers last > > year? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > owners that let the tire pressure go even lower than specified, drive in > hot climates and you had an issue. Three points to counter your assertions - 1) Goodyears tires of the same size and type, inflated to the same pressure did not have an abnormal failure rate on Explorers. 2) The 26 psi inflation pressure was not "fairly low." For the vehicle type and usage, 26 psi was well above the minimum safe pressure (around 22 psi) for the application. 3) Other similar vehicles with similar tires have specified similar pressures (some models of the following vehicles have specified a 26 psi inflation pressure - 1996-2000 Toyota RAV4, 2000 Toyota Tundra, 1999 Toyota Tacoma, 1989-1993 Toyota 4Runner, 1994-200 Nissan Pathfinder, 1996-2000 Nissan Pick-up, 2000 Xterra, virtually all Mitsubishi light trucks sold in the US, 1993-2000 Isuzu Rodeo and some other Isuzu light trucks, 90-92 Daihatsu Rocky, 1989-2000 Chevy/Geo Tracker- actually lower than 26 in most cases) I do think Ford is partially to blame since they specified the tires. However, since the tire warranty was handled by Firestone and not Ford, Ford can be somewhat excused for not catching the problem sooner. It is my belief that Firestone did not communicate the extent of the problem to Ford until things got out of hand. Better communication between Firestone and Ford probably would have reduced the magnitude of the problem. Ed > Three points to counter your assertions - > > 1) Goodyears tires of the same size and type, inflated to the same > pressure did not have an abnormal failure rate on Explorers. True, but only because they didn't have the exact same flaw and probably didn't last as long (see below for my list of factors that IMO contributed to the problems). > 2) The 26 psi inflation pressure was not "fairly low." For the vehicle > type and usage, 26 psi was well above the minimum safe pressure (around > 22 psi) for the application. 4 psi is not 'well above' considering the way folks treat their cars. > 3) Other similar vehicles with similar tires have specified similar > pressures (some models of the following vehicles have specified a 26 psi [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > trucks, 90-92 Daihatsu Rocky, 1989-2000 Chevy/Geo Tracker- actually > lower than 26 in most cases) They have probably reduced their specs for the same reason Ford did. So why don't these vehicles turn over when blowouts occur? Maybe because they are more stable? Realize that because a tire blows out a little more often than maybe it should doesn't mean it causes the vehicle to turn over. A vehicle should be able to sustain a blowout without catastrophic consequences. > I do think Ford is partially to blame since they specified the tires. > However, since the tire warranty was handled by Firestone and not Ford, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Firestone and Ford probably would have reduced the magnitude of the > problem. Good point. You've got to realize that no one single factor caused these accidents and fatalities. It was a combination of 1. A Batch of tires with a manufacturing flaw (that was minor but contributory). 2. Low inflation specification by Ford (to compensate for vehicle rollover tendencies, once again minor but contributory). 3. High temperatures in southwest US and Southern states (minor but contributory). 4. Abnormally High Tire temperatures due to under inflation (due to sub par maintenance - minor but contributory). 5. Bad Roads in the Southwestern states. (I thought Tennessee roads were bad until I visited New Mexico - Once again a minor point but contributory). 6. Explorer tendency to rollover being high off the ground compared to wheel span (minor but contributory). 7. Owners running tires for very high mileage's, (still legal tread) but the Freestone's tire longevity as a high mileage tire contributed to its own problems. (Minor but contributory). 8. Driver 'panicking' and braking/steering hard instead of coming to a slow steady halt. Add ALL of these together and you have a large problem. If one or two these factors is eliminated the problem may have never occurred. My son drives an Explorer so I'm not condemning it, but it does have it's problems. I'll make sure his rear tires are always inflated to spec and relatively new. Something one should do anyhow. JP > 3) Other similar vehicles with similar tires have specified similar > pressures (some models of the following vehicles have specified a 26 psi [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > trucks, 90-92 Daihatsu Rocky, 1989-2000 Chevy/Geo Tracker- actually > lower than 26 in most cases) > So why don't these vehicles turn over when blowouts occur? Maybe because > they are more stable? Realize that because a tire blows out a little > more often than maybe it should doesn't mean it causes the vehicle to > turn over. A vehicle should be able to sustain a blowout without > catastrophic consequences. You should gather a few more facts before forming an opinion. You sound like the uninformed that run around saying that "all Explorers roll over". * The DRIVER rolls a vehicle over. It doesn't do it by itself. * There are probably more Explorers on the road than all of the vehicles listed above, COMBINED. Those vehicles all roll over too, it's just that there aren't enough of them on the road to draw attention to the model by the sheer small numbers of incidents. The media doesn't latch on and exploit something unless it's happening more often. With MANY more Exporers on the road, it happened more often. Simple math. * The NTHSA rated the Explorer as less likely to roll over than several other SUVs and pickups, and many of those are in that list above. * Car And Driver decided to do its own tests on the Explorer at the height of the media super-scare. They shot the tires out from several Explorers under test conditions, with the driver unaware of the time of the shot. Not one driver rolled, flipped, or did anything but bring the Explorer to a nice, straight stop. They also did some simple physics with heat, tire pressure, and other factors, and found that even a fairly heavily-loaded Explorer would have still been OK with 26PSI. * Most drivers drive with their knees, eat, yap endlessly on the phone, read the paper, put on makeup, play with a laptop, comb their hair, and do 150 other things other than keeping their eyes on the road, in case you haven't noticed. That complete lack of attention results in panic stops and sudden turns. THAT is what caused many of the rollovers. * Many of the deaths were from unbelted drivers and passengers being ejected. Dumb. * The average driver checks air pressure once a year or less. Dumb. * There were actually more Blazer/Jimmy/Bravada rollovers. There are FAR fewer of those vehicles on the road, which, percentage-wise, makes them MUCH more likely to roll. Where was the media horror there? Ever notice how unbelievably narrow the rear axle is on those POS GM SUVs? (Well, they had nothing else to do with the Vega/Monza axle when those POSs were discontinued EONS ago, so GM stuck them under these rolling POSs). See the next item. * Once the media found a pattern, they turned it into a headline story for months. NBC "Dateline" even showed a *horrified* Jane Pauly gasping at Explorers rolling over in Ford stock footage of test Explorers (before they were brought into the market). Um, ALL cars are tested like this, and ALL of them are tested to the limits of their ability to remain flat in cornering. THAT'S WHY THE "TRAINING WHEELS" ARE ATTACHED. Duh. Oh, and that hour of "Dateline" had NOTHING to do with the fact that General Motors had recently bought $38 million worth of advertising for the Olympics, right? * Finally, isn't it a little funny how the "Explorer rollovers" all seemed to have stopped lately? That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that most of the Firestones have been recalled, would it? And the same size Goodyear tires at the same pressure didn't have these problems, now did they? Gather up a few facts before you form an self-righteous, ignorant opinion that makes you look like a dribbling fool. JonnyCab® wrote: > You should gather a few more facts before forming an opinion. You sound > like the uninformed that run around saying that "all Explorers roll over". > > * The DRIVER rolls a vehicle over. It doesn't do it by itself. <snip a lot a stuff> I didn't say all Explorers roll over. Just that they tend to more than they should. It is true if people didn't drive cars there wouldn't be any car accidents. If you notice in my post I listed 8 reasons why I think the explorer got involved in more than it's fair share of accidents. Not that all Explorers roll over. I wouldn't let my son drive an Explorer if I thought he was destined to roll over 'any minute'. You come over as if there is NO problem with the Explorer. If you believe that you are in denial. Remember the very first post of this thread? Uhaul and/or their insurers won't rent if an Explorer will be towing their trailer. THEY must have some data, maybe they will never make public, that has them worried. There is a problem with the Explorer. There was a problem with Firestone tires too, as well a the drivers, conditions, maintenance etc. etc. etc. I will say it again. The problem is multi-faceted. JP >JonnyCab® wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Explorers roll over. I wouldn't let my son drive an Explorer if I >thought he was destined to roll over 'any minute'. What's an explorers "Fair Share" of rollovers? On what basis did you determine that. If explorers have "more" then their "Fair share" then what about all the other SUVs that have MORE rollovers then Explorers? You are woefully uninformed on this issue. >You come over as if there is NO problem with the Explorer. If you >believe that you are in denial. Any vehicle can roll. Explorers roll less then several other SUVs. Unless by "problem" you mean an explorer is not 100% roll proof, you'll have to define what you mean by "problem" and then explain why it's problem for explorers but not for the several other vehicles with HIGHER rollover rates. >Remember the very first post of this thread? Uhaul and/or their insurers >won't rent if an Explorer will be towing their trailer. THEY must have >some data, maybe they will never make public, that has them worried. > >There is a problem with the Explorer. Since when is "Data" needed to form an opinion or take an action? It's unlikely they have any "Data" other then what they have paid out in lawsuits and that's all they care about. Lawsuits whipped up due to the media frenzy over a non-problem, just like the "exploding crown vics" that have a BETTER safety record then many cars. >There was a problem with Firestone tires too, as well a the drivers, >conditions, maintenance etc. etc. etc. > >I will say it again. The problem is multi-faceted. THe only problem is that there are too many people who don't have the necessary info to make an informed opinion. >JP JonnyCab® wrote: > * Finally, isn't it a little funny how the "Explorer rollovers" all seemed > to have stopped lately? That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Gather up a few facts before you form an self-righteous, ignorant opinion > that makes you look like a dribbling fool. Thanks for the compliment. Same to you. I have typed the following from a Firestone memo I found on the internet that gives some insight into why the Goodyear tires fared better than the Firestones. Is it biased? Yes. is it factual? Probably. FOV refers to Ford Of Venezuela "Our condition of correcting the suspension prior to installing the new Bridgestone tires is not acceptable to them even though FOV continues with the so called enhancement program in effect throughout Venezuela using Goodyear tires, but it appears that they do not want to apply it to the Bridgestone tires" In a nutshell what this internal memo suggests is that Ford 'fixed' the explorer prior to fitting Goodyear tires but NOT for Bridgestone/Firestone tires. Therefore 'proving' that since Goodyear tires held up OK after the recall there MUST be a problem with Firestone tires and NOT the explorer. Interesting stuff, no? See http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/suvsafety/ford_frstone/Document%2004.pdf which came from http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/suvsafety/ford_frstone/DocumentsfortheRecorddoc.htm JP > > Three points to counter your assertions - > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > didn't last as long (see below for my list of factors that IMO > contributed to the problems). Why do you think that? As I recall, they had similar tread wear rating (400 for the Firestones, 340 for the Goodyears). I had Goodyears on my 1996 Explorer and when I traded it off at 34,000 miles the OE Goodyears still had plenty of tread left. > > 2) The 26 psi inflation pressure was not "fairly low." For the vehicle > > type and usage, 26 psi was well above the minimum safe pressure (around > > 22 psi) for the application. > > 4 psi is not 'well above' considering the way folks treat their cars. 22 psi is the minimum safe pressure for the Explorer's load. This already includes a safety factor. Another 4 psi is even more safety factor. Another 4 psi would be even more. Life is a tradeoff. Piling safety factors on top of safety factors at the expense of other properties makes no sense. The tires either met Industry Standards, and the 26 psi recommendation was acceptable, or they did not meet industry standards, and there is no way of knowing what the correct pressure should be. Firestone is well aware of the standards. Claiming after the fact that 30 psi would have been a better choice was simply an attempt to miss direct the public from their negligence. And, in my opinion, it is a tacit admission by Firestone that it's tires did not meet industry standards. > > 3) Other similar vehicles with similar tires have specified similar > > pressures (some models of the following vehicles have specified a 26 psi [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > turn over. A vehicle should be able to sustain a blowout without > catastrophic consequences. Actually many vehicles on the list (4Runner, Rodeo, Montero) all have much higher driver death rates and worse injury loss rating than the Explorer. The 4Runner has one of the highest driver death rates due to rollovers of any 4 door SUV. The one thing that sets the Explorer apart is the large numbers that were sold. > > I do think Ford is partially to blame since they specified the tires. > > However, since the tire warranty was handled by Firestone and not Ford, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 1. A Batch of tires with a manufacturing flaw (that was minor but > contributory). I don't think the flaw was minor at all. In fact, the tires were poorly made and did not meet industry standards. > 2. Low inflation specification by Ford (to compensate for vehicle > rollover tendencies, once again minor but contributory). The recommended inflation pressures were well within the acceptable range. And the pressure were set to reduce steering responsiveness so that the vehicles would be less likely to spin out in violent maneuvers. So, I think it would be more correct to say the inflation pressures were chosen to achieve the desired handling characteristics. > 3. High temperatures in southwest US and Southern states (minor but > contributory). If the tires had met industry standards, this would not have been a problem. > 4. Abnormally High Tire temperatures due to under inflation (due to sub > par maintenance - minor but contributory). Again this can affect any tire. However, the sub-standard nature of the tires made this a dangerous situation. > 5. Bad Roads in the Southwestern states. (I thought Tennessee roads were > bad until I visited New Mexico - Once again a minor point but contributory). Not unique to Explorer. However, the defective Firestone tires did make this a more serious problem. My Father's 1999 Ranger came with the defective Firestone tires. We never had a tread separation, but we did have two of the four tires split open in the tread area while driving on gravel roads. My father bought some private label tires as replacement, and after three years they have yet to fail (the private label tires were actually made by Goodyear) > 6. Explorer tendency to rollover being high off the ground compared to > wheel span (minor but contributory). True of most all SUVs. 4 door Explorers have a better rollover record than most similar sized SUVs. The only 4 Door SUV in the class with consistently better number than a 4 door Explorer is the Jeep Grand Cherokee. > 7. Owners running tires for very high mileage's, (still legal tread) but > the Freestone's tire longevity as a high mileage tire contributed to its > own problems. (Minor but contributory). I don't agree that the Firestones would last a significant amount of time longer than the Goodyears. > 8. Driver 'panicking' and braking/steering hard instead of coming to a > slow steady halt. True for any similar vehicle. > Add ALL of these together and you have a large problem. If one or two > these factors is eliminated the problem may have never occurred. Actually, when Ford eliminated the Firestone tires, the rollover incidents virtually disappeared. > My son drives an Explorer so I'm not condemning it, but it does have > it's problems. I'll make sure his rear tires are always inflated to spec > and relatively new. Something one should do anyhow. You might want to read the following: http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/press/107st38.htm Ed > Why do you think that? As I recall, they had similar tread wear rating > (400 for the Firestones, 340 for the Goodyears). I had Goodyears on my > 1996 Explorer and when I traded it off at 34,000 miles the OE Goodyears > still had plenty of tread left. The Firestone tire did wear well, that's all I'm saying. > Firestone is well aware of the standards. Claiming after the > fact that 30 psi would have been a better choice was simply an attempt > to miss direct the public from their negligence. That much is true. However Ford did their level best to point the finger (misdirect as you put it) at Firestone. A LOT was at stake. Neither party is blame free IMO. And, in my opinion, it > is a tacit admission by Firestone that it's tires did not meet industry > standards. They admitted quality problems at the Decatur plant and have since closed it. Firestone never were comfortable with less than 30psi for that tire and looking back (hindsight being 20-20) probably should have declined giving Ford the OK the spec the pressures they did. The profit motive I'm sure swayed them to supply the tire anyway. FWIW http://www.e-z.net/~ts/Firestone.htm Also give this a read (from http://www.firestone-tire-recall.com/pages/overview.html) Quote > Is the Ford Explorer Part of the Problem? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Explorer complaints, but never shows up in most other Ford truck > models. Unquote I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is a multi-faceted problem. ALL I am trying to say is that Firestone are not totally to blame and that Ford are not blameless. Who knows, the blame may or may not be more in Ford's hands than Firestones. We'll never know the whole truth. What is true is that they tried to hide the problem as business partners until the sh.t hit the fan, then they turned on each other. The rest is history. > You might want to read the following: > > http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/press/107st38.htm Interesting reading but you have to realize its an opening statement made a politician from Michigan. He MIGHT just be biased. I can't be bothered to look but I'm sure there is a Tennessee politician on record defending Firestone and blaming Ford. That's political life in the US. JP > They admitted quality problems at the Decatur plant and have since > closed it. Firestone never were comfortable with less than 30psi for > that tire and looking back (hindsight being 20-20) probably should have > declined giving Ford the OK the spec the pressures they did. The profit > motive I'm sure swayed them to supply the tire anyway. Firestone saying that they were never comfortable with an inflation pressure of less than 30 psi for their tires is the same as admitting they knew the tires did not meet industry standards. If you are looking for a smoking gun, then you just identified it. If you are saying that they knew they were building sub-standard tires and sold them anyway, you have just implicated Firestone in a criminal conspiracy. Ed >>They admitted quality problems at the Decatur plant and have since >>closed it. Firestone never were comfortable with less than 30psi for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > building sub-standard tires and sold them anyway, you have just implicated > Firestone in a criminal conspiracy. Well they did lie through their teeth initially until they recanted and recalled the tire so I don't think I've done anything more than they did to themselves already. Interesting you talk about a smoking gun. It seems that is what most people/media/investigators are after. A single, provable, identifiable cause to a problem. Someone or something to point the finger at. Failures of very well engineered systems such as motor vehicles can rarely be traced to one simple thing. It takes a unique combination of factors to create a situation like the explorer/firestone debacle. It became apparent to me me many years ago that the cars you see littering the side of the highway stalled because of several things being wrong with them at the same time until they could no longer sputter on. The owners just didn't take care of them. Treat a car well and you will very rarely be left on the side of the highway thumbing a lift. Even though my escort has 170000 miles on it, it hasn't failed me on the road (except the once when I was stupid enough to let it run out of gas). The probe we once owned only failed us once (2 weeks after it was purchased it). Once I had figured out it's faults and corrected them, it ran like a top. I say all of this simply to demonstrate the point I have laboriously tried to make. It takes more than a simple tire failure to cause a catastrophic failure to a motor vehicle. IMHO the Explorer contributed to the problem - doesn't mean to say it's a piece of unroadworthy do do or that it's worse than other SUV's. Just that it contributed to the specific problem, which I truly believe it did. If you don't, fine, the rather unique set of circumstances that caused the problem will hopefully never happen again, and it shouldn't overly concern us day to day. JP >I say all of this simply to demonstrate the point I have laboriously >tried to make. It takes more than a simple tire failure to cause a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >JP That's all well and good, except that those things that you say the Explorer contributed are also contributed (and in many cases, more so) by the other SUVs in the Explorer's class. Yet they didn't have the same problem. Therefore, there *must* be something unique to the Explorer that the others didn't have; that something is the Firestone tires. Are Explorers perfect? Of course not. No one is saying they are. However, making the claim that Ford *conrtibuted* to the problem is disingenuous, because those things are contributed by many other makes in the same class. It's like one golfer complaining that his low score was caused by dew on the greens, when the other golfers who played on the same greens didn't have a problem. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" >> Maybe you missed the dustup over Firestone tires on Explorers last >> year? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >their vehicles had fairly low tire pressures specified to enable to >vehicle to pass muster at rolloverer tests. And low tire pressure that's still safe is a problem how? >Add to this incompetent >owners that let the tire pressure go even lower than specified, drive in >hot climates and you had an issue. And this is Ford's fault how? Like I said, there are still those who will blame Ford for Firestone's problems. >I believe UHaul's insurers realize the reality of the situation and are >simply limiting their liability. If I were UHaul I'd change insurance >companies before this looses them too much business. > >JP SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" >>Add to this incompetent >>owners that let the tire pressure go even lower than specified, drive in >>hot climates and you had an issue. > > And this is Ford's fault how? Firstly by setting a lower pressure there is less tolerance for poor maintenance, the only reason they reduce the spec was to pass the govt rollover test. One would not typically expect a blowout on the rear left tire to turn a vehicle over, but that is what happens to Explorers. One would normally expect loss of control because of a blowout on the front where steering is compromised. The geometry of the Explorer makes it more likely to turn over than your average vehicle and for whatever reason that fault is accentuated on he rear left of the vehicle. Propenderance to turning over is true of any vehicle high off the ground, but the Explorer appears to be bad in this area. I wouldn't mind guessing that putting the same flawed Firetsone tire under the same conditions of high temp poor maintenance on a 2004 Explorer would result in far fewer vehicles going out of control. JP > Firstly by setting a lower pressure there is less tolerance for poor > maintenance, the only reason they reduce the spec was to pass the govt > rollover test. Are you for real? HIGHER inflation results in better cornering, you idiot. > One would not typically expect a blowout on the rear left tire to turn a > vehicle over, but that is what happens to Explorers. Oh, and I guess you have the FACTS to prove this? It happens on ALL of them? <snicker> It didn't seem to happen to Car And Driver when they ran tests. But, you, of course, are armed with many more facts and test procedures, right? LOL! > One would normally > expect loss of control because of a blowout on the front where steering [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > poor maintenance on a 2004 Explorer would result in far fewer vehicles > going out of control. LOL! <shaking head> Where do they *dig up* people like you? Um, case you haven't noticed (likely because your head seems firmly planted in your rectal cavity), have the rollovers seemed to have stopped? With Michelins and Goodyears on most of those Explorers now, um, do you hear all about rollovers anymore? But wait---you may be right. Ford is now admitting that all pre-IRS Explorers had a secret device, located near the left-rear leaf spring, that periodically poked and prodded the tire to test its ability to remain inflated. <snicker> Yikes, what a complete *idiot*. JonnyCab® wrote: >>Firstly by setting a lower pressure there is less tolerance for poor >>maintenance, the only reason they reduce the spec was to pass the govt >>rollover test. > > Are you for real? HIGHER inflation results in better cornering, you idiot. HIGHER than what? Do you think if you put 200psi in a tire the handling would be truly amazing? Heck let's put in 400. I think you are the I dot. Lower inflation pressure puts more tire on the road. However this also increases tire temperature, (and of course way too little pressure i.e. flat tire reduces handling severely). There is a trade off and I believe Ford went too low (you obviously don't but I do). If Ford were worried that their car wasn't going to pass the govt rollover test and believe things as you do, then they would have raised pressures quite high, no? >>One would not typically expect a blowout on the rear left tire to turn a >>vehicle over, but that is what happens to Explorers. > > Oh, and I guess you have the FACTS to prove this? It happens on ALL of > them? I have read plenty over the last year or so since the problem has arisen and pulled together as many facts as possible over that time period in what I hope is an objective manner. I think neither Firestone nor Ford are blameless. The main FACT is that there was a pretty big scare about the fatalities due to Explorer rollovers. I suppose you are denying the FACTS that warranted the investigations into these crashes in the first place. The accidents didn't happen, right? > <snicker> It didn't seem to happen to Car And Driver when they ran tests. > > But, you, of course, are armed with many more facts and test procedures, > right? LOL! Not at all, but it would appear I am armed with more common sense than yourself. I am not a unidirectional thinker like yourself that can only look AWAY from the Explorer as one of many factors involved. The Motor Vehicle is a remarkable piece of Engineering and it takes a lot of unlucky/unlikely events to cause failures like these. Rarely is just one simple problem the root cause of a vehicle failure. The Explorer is not TO blame for rollovers but it is not Blameless either. If only life were that simple. >>One would normally >>expect loss of control because of a blowout on the front where steering [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Michelins and Goodyears on most of those Explorers now, um, do you hear all > about rollovers anymore? They have stopped!?! You mean NOT ONE explorer has turned over since Michelins and Goodyear's were fitted. Amazing!! Since there are fewer blowouts (i.e. fewer flawed tires) then of course there are fewer rollovers. But it would appear that Uhaul do not trust the Explorer for some reason, a reason we may never be privy to. Their reasons may not have anything to do with the explorere/Firestone problem anyhow. You must understand that tires *will* fail and the vehicle should handle that condition. How come OTHER vehicles that have used Firestones for many years aren't implicated in a similar scare if Firestones are as bad as you imply and that Goodyear and Michelins are goody goody tires? Do they not blow out AT ALL? If it is the TIRES fault, how exactly does the tire turn the car over? Does it reach up and pull the car over? There is more than one thing going on here buddy. > But wait---you may be right. Ford is now admitting that all pre-IRS > Explorers had a secret device, located near the left-rear leaf spring, that > periodically poked and prodded the tire to test its ability to remain > inflated. <snicker> > > Yikes, what a complete *idiot*. Look in a mirror. JP Indeed.... notice the care and attention afforded tires by NASCAR teams.... "Yep, we increased the tire pressure by two psi 'cos the car was too tight...." Aside from the track this thread is taking.... everyone, and I do mean everyone is trying to second guess Uhauls new policiy. This was obviously a corporate decision brought down by the board of directors. We can only ASSUME that they are trying to minimize their liability exposure. What drove the board of directors to this decision will remain a point of conjecture for anyone who didn't attend the meeting (me included). Interesting to note that there is the thought that lower tire pressures mean we need to maintain our tire pressures more religiously........ recommended pressure is recommended pressure..... be it 26, 32, 41, 65 or whatever else is thrown into the mix..... Our best handling/tire life should be at the manufacturers specified number. We have the choice of checking our inflation pressures regularly or not checking our inflation pressures regularly. When someone tells me that they maintain their vehicle well, I look at their tires and their lights..... if we can't notice these oh so obvious signs, I can only imagine about those things that I can't see. Jim Warman mechanic@telusplanet.net > >>Firstly by setting a lower pressure there is less tolerance for poor > >>maintenance, the only reason they reduce the spec was to pass the govt > >>rollover test. > Indeed.... notice the care and attention afforded tires by NASCAR teams.... > "Yep, we increased the tire pressure by two psi 'cos the car was too [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the board of directors to this decision will remain a point of conjecture > for anyone who didn't attend the meeting (me included). I couldn't agree with you more completely. Hence the post you replied to of mine included the following statement by myself. > Their reasons may not have anything to do with the explorere/Firestone problem anyhow. My original post in this thread by me was to point out to Bill Funk his statement was probably not correct. > I'm surprised, myself, they didn't ban rentals to vehicles using > Firestone tires, as that's where the problem really was. I wasn't out to 'get' explorer owners but to shatter a few misconceptions. I respect and agree with your opinion Jim, thanks for chipping in and providing some perspective. JP >> Indeed.... notice the care and attention afforded tires by NASCAR teams.... >> "Yep, we increased the tire pressure by two psi 'cos the car was too [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >I wasn't out to 'get' explorer owners but to shatter a few misconceptions. All you did was continue to promote disproved miss-conceptions. You did make one correct statement when you said it was a -fact that there was a scare-. You are right, there was a scare, one whipped by the media and the usual lawyers into feeding frenzy. When investigated, it was determined that the FIRESTONE Tires were the cause of the problem. That is A FACT. It was NEVER determined that there was anything about the explorer that made it "roll over prone" and in FACT it has experienced LESS roll overs then several other SUVs. And as has been pointed out to you when you try to claim the 26 psi is something Ford should be blamed for, there are MANY other vehicles that specify the same 26 psi. You have not demonstrated a factual basis for a single one of your assertions against the explorer. >I respect and agree with your opinion Jim, thanks for chipping in and >providing some perspective. > >JP > All you did was continue to promote disproved miss-conceptions. You > did make one correct statement when you said it was a -fact that there > was a scare-. You are right, there was a scare, one whipped by the > media and the usual lawyers into feeding frenzy. When investigated, > it was determined that the FIRESTONE Tires were the cause of the > problem. That is A FACT. Be careful how you word that. You make it sound like the ONLY thing that was wrong was the tire. A bunch of other things had to happen to make the tire fail AND to make the vehicle turnover. The flawed tire is ONE of the factors contributing to this problem. As you point out the media did a number on this issue and Firestone came out with a bloddy nose and many people think that the tire is THE problem when it was just A problem. You have not demonstrated a factual > basis for a single one of your assertions against the explorer. And I probably never will. It's my opinion based on what I've read and heard, you don't have to agree with me. I did post the 'Venezuala memo' dialog from a website elsewhere on this thread. Hardly 'evidence' but enough to give an OPEN MINDED person food for thought. Some of you Explorer folks are really close minded. Remember I too am an Explorer owner, I don't think they are junk, but I don't think they are perfect either. If I were to say that Explorers tend to have a problem with the IAC valve would you deny that in the same way? JP >> All you did was continue to promote disproved miss-conceptions. You >> did make one correct statement when you said it was a -fact that there [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >did a number on this issue and Firestone came out with a bloddy nose and >many people think that the tire is THE problem when it was just A problem. The other factors you pointed out are not unique to the Explorer. Thus, they don't prove anything germaine to the thread. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" >> All you did was continue to promote disproved miss-conceptions. You >> did make one correct statement when you said it was a -fact that there [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >was wrong was the tire. A bunch of other things had to happen to make >the tire fail AND to make the vehicle turnover. Please list some that are UNIQUELY the fault of the explorer. It has already been demonstrated that you can blow out a left rear tire on an explorer and NOTHING happens other then the vehicle comes to a straight stop. Please list something about the explorer that makes the tire fail and explain why ONLY the Firestone equipped explorers had the tire failures but the Goodyear equipped ones didn't. We already know that when Firestone shipped tires to the middle east for use on the explorers over there that they added an additional edge wrap that they did not include on the US ones and the explorers in the middle east did not have tire failures. There is zero mystery about the "explorer problem", it was caused by the Firestone tires and even at that explorers STILL had lower rollover rates then several other SUVs and even some cars. The flawed tire is ONE >of the factors contributing to this problem. As you point out the media >did a number on this issue and Firestone came out with a bloddy nose and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >JP > Please list some that are UNIQUELY the fault of the explorer. It has > already been demonstrated that you can blow out a left rear tire on an > explorer and NOTHING happens other then the vehicle comes to a > straight stop. Please list something about the explorer that makes > the tire fail and explain why ONLY the Firestone equipped explorers > had the tire failures but the Goodyear equipped ones didn't. The following is for your perusal. quote An internal memo from Ford of Venezuela says that the Explorer "turned over unexpectedly" when Firestone tires lost their treads, but that other SUV's didn't in similar circumstances. unquote That came from http://www.firestone-tire-recall.com/pages/overview.html I hope that fulfills your request. JP Here is a quote from a USA Today article - "1978: Congress holds hearings on Firestone 500 problems. Firestone tells Congress the problems are consumer ignorance and underinflation. The Center for Auto Safety tallies 34 deaths blamed on Firestones. Firestone hires an attorney to quietly negotiate a settlement with NHTSA, limiting the number of tires that would be recalled while publicly maintaining the tires were not defective. Firestone agrees to recall 10 million Firestone 500 and similar TPC radials, plus 1.5 million private-label tires made for retailers." If you change "Radial 500" to "Wilderness ATX" and the date to 1999, the same article would fit the ATX scandal. The biggest difference was than in 1978 Firestone tires were OE tires on a lot of different models. http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mauto976.htm http://www.firestone100.com/history/100years_body.html Ed >> Please list some that are UNIQUELY the fault of the explorer. It has >> already been demonstrated that you can blow out a left rear tire on an [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >JP Are you serious? Did you see where your cite goes? I can listen to lawyers say their clients are innocent, that they will be exonerated in court, all day long. I ignore such babbling, because it's what such people are *PAID* to do. Gee, Firestone say the problem is Ford's. Ho hum. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" JP > Are you serious? > Did you see where your cite goes? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > do. > Gee, Firestone say the problem is Ford's. Ho hum. I understand your skepticism of the opinions of lawyers who have a case to make. But what about the Ford Memo they quote? Are you saying that was falsified or misquoted? JP >JP >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >JP Do you mean this: "The Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicle rolls over more often than other SUV's do in tire-tread accidents, and it has vibration and suspension problems that Ford can't always explain and sometimes can't fix. Those flaws raise the suspicion that the Explorer itself is contributing to the sometimes fatal accidents that forced the Bridgestone/Firestone recall. An internal memo from Ford of Venezuela says that the Explorer "turned over unexpectedly" when Firestone tires lost their treads, but that other SUV's didn't in similar circumstances. About 31% of Explorer complaints cited mysterious vibrations. Many could not be cured, even after dealers changed tires, shock absorbers and drive-shafts. Less frequent is an odd tire-wear pattern called "cupping." It shows up in less than 2% of Explorer complaints, but never shows up in most other Ford truck models." Read it again; no quotes, only a paraphrasing by Firestone people. neither you nor I know what that note said. Nor do we know what other factors may have been present which Firestone didn't think would help their position. Again, more talk from the defense lawyers. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > Read it again; no quotes, only a paraphrasing by Firestone people. > neither you nor I know what that note said. Nor do we know what other > factors may have been present which Firestone didn't think would help > their position. > Again, more talk from the defense lawyers. Defense lawyers, Firestone people. Where did that come from? From the websites home page I found the following. Quote This is not a Firestone or Ford sponsored site and has no affiliation with Firestone or Bridgestone or Ford Motor Co. Unquote and also on the original page I posted. Quote US lawyers see Venezuela as clear evidence Ford and Firestone had knowledge of the defects months before they took action. Unquote This does not sound like the lawyers are taking sides. Sounds to me like they want both of their hides. I don't think a defense lawyer team would take that approach, but of course I could be wrong on this too. JP >> Read it again; no quotes, only a paraphrasing by Firestone people. >> neither you nor I know what that note said. Nor do we know what other [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >with Firestone or Bridgestone or Ford Motor Co. >Unquote Sure. Yet they still use Firestone's interpretation on everything. >and also on the original page I posted. > >Quote >US lawyers see Venezuela as clear evidence Ford and Firestone had >knowledge of the defects months before they took action. >Unquote Whose "US lawyers"? Oh, Firestone's. >This does not sound like the lawyers are taking sides. Sounds to me like >they want both of their hides. I don't think a defense lawyer team would >take that approach, but of course I could be wrong on this too. Only one example is needed to shoot this down. " Bridgestone argued that under inflated tires may have played a role in the accidents and stated that a tire pressure of 30 psi was needed." Yet Firestone warranted the tires to be safe, and within any reasonable safety criteria, at the pressures Ford used. Why the discrepancy? Is Firerstone lying? Or is Firestone saying that they didn't know about the low pressure recommendation? (That can't be, since Firestone claims thay said the recommended pressure was too low) EIther way, this one quote shows Firestone isn't being at all honest. >JP SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > Whose "US lawyers"? > Oh, Firestone's. I'm still unsure why you say this. I may have missed something. Where do you get the info that the site is from or represents Firestone lawyers? JP >> Whose "US lawyers"? >> Oh, Firestone's. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >JP What I don't see is how you can actually believe that that site is even pretending to be objective. It's so obviously pro-Firestone that it reeks of bias. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > What I don't see is how you can actually believe that that site is > even pretending to be objective. > It's so obviously pro-Firestone that it reeks of bias. I hear what you are saying Bill but like you can't see what the other guy does. If you visit the home page of the website there is a picture of a young child standing NEXT to a tire (not an explorer) with a comforter and with a title under it "Recent Firestone Victim". If this site were pro Firestone and anti explorer would they not say "Recent Explorer Victim" and picture him next to an upside down explorer? See http://www.firestone-tire-recall.com/ On the very same page they say "The failure rate of Firestone and Bridgestone tires is much greater than originally believed. As of 6 December, there have been 148 reported deaths and over 500 serious injuries." No mention of the Explorer, not even once. Any bias you are seeing Bill is because of the way you are looking at it. I don't mean to be offensive, but can't think of better words to describe what I perceive. JP >> What I don't see is how you can actually believe that that site is >> even pretending to be objective. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >JP OK, let's talk about bias for a while. You continue to say that the Explorer in some mystical way contributed to the rollovers, and cite as evidence many factors that are shared by most other SUVs in that class. Those other SUVs have, for the most part, worse rollover rates than the Explorer, yet you continue to say that the Explorer is still somehow uniquely patterend to increase rollover tendancies. There is no evidence of this, especially given the Explorer's excellent (in comparison) rollover rates, even when including Firestone tire-induced rollovers. Not even Firestone has managed to convince any investigative body of any factors in the Explorer that would have made it somehow uniquely susceptible to rollovers within its class, even when equiped with the faulty Firestone tires. Looks like bias to me. The NHTSA has never made any requests nor demands that Ford take any remedial actions in this case. Firestone was found to have manufactured faulty tires, *AND TO HAVE CONTINUED TO SUPPLY THOSE TIRES TO THE MARKETPLACE AFTER THEY KNEW OF THE PROBLEM.* Firestone lied to investigators about their knowledge of the faulty tires. Firestone resisted a recall of their faulty tires. Firestone did everything they could to implicate Ford as being responsible; they claimed to have misgivings about the tire pressures Ford recommended. Yet, they continued to supply their tires, warranting them to be safe using Ford's recommended pressures, and telling the public that the Firestone tires were fully compatible with the Explorer as sold. The facts seem to indicate that the only contribution Ford made to the rollovers was to use Firestone tires. Now, continuing to blame Ford, which has been shown to be safer than others in the same class with respect to rollovers, seems to indicate a real bias against Ford. Claiming that later safety improvements indicates that the Explorer was unsafe before those improvements were made condemns *all* other products that fall into the same situation. Including whatever you drive currently. (Is your present vehicle unsafe? According to your words, if it's not the latest model, it is.) That's bias. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" >> Please list some that are UNIQUELY the fault of the explorer. It has >> already been demonstrated that you can blow out a left rear tire on an [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >JP It fills my quota of worthless drivel from lawyers looking to make a buck by painting EVERYONE with money as a guilty party. It provides ZERO info one what's unique about the Explorer. An anecdote does not a study make. > It fills my quota of worthless drivel from lawyers looking to make a > buck by painting EVERYONE with money as a guilty party. It provides > ZERO info one what's unique about the Explorer. An anecdote does not > a study make. I agree there is a lot of anecdotal stuff on that website. But what caught my eye was their quoting of a Ford internal memo. If the memo reference is factual (and I doubt even lawyers would lie openly in public) then that does add credibility to my assertion that the explorer was contributory. You asked me to find something that singled out the explorer in some way and I did. A Ford memo sounds pretty sound to me regardless if their website if full of stuff that is irrelevant to our discussion. Since you don't like 'lawyer sites' I thought I'd look for something a little more credible. How about Time Magazine? Is that suitable for you? They say in an article quote Ford is clearly trying to pin the damage on Firestone, and vice versa. But a five-month investigation by TIME of Ford documents, which the company prepared for investigators and government lawyers, shows Ford's engineers were wrestling with the stability and handling of the Explorer even before it hit the market in 1990—as a sibling for the notorious bucking Bronco II, which cost the company approximately $2.4 billion in damage settlements. Previously undisclosed memos and e-mails show the extent to which the engineers were juggling decisions about the Explorer's suspension systems, tire pressure, weight and steering characteristics, plus its height and width, all of which could factor into a vehicle's stability. unquote Also Quote The problem you have here is lawyers and the marketing department overruled the safety recommendations of engineers." unnqote Try this for size quote One conclusion stands out amid all the examples of mutually assured destruction: while neither Ford Explorers nor Firestone tires may be unusually dangerous in their own right, the combination of the two has sometimes proved lethal. And these products share a heritage, since Firestone customized the Wilderness AT tires for the Explorer to Ford's specifications. unquote also quote 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. unquote or this quote Ford announced the recall as the 2002 Explorer — loaded with incentives for current Explorer owners — rolled into dealer showrooms. In advertising the new model, Ford touts a "new level of safety," and well it should. Lower and 2 1/2 in. wider than its predecessor, the new SUV is in many ways the culmination of battles that Ford engineers fought out in documents assembled in connection with investigations and lawsuits. Billed as the "all-new 2002 Explorer," it incorporates design improvements that Ford rejected more than a decade ago. unquote All these came from http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,128198,00.html Last word. IMHO the Explorer *did* contribute to the accidents by design and that the companies are equally liable. I normally charge non-profits $40 per hour for my services, commercial entities a lot more. If you want me to do anymore web research on your behalf I'd happy to do so at my normal non-profit rate. How generous of me. JP >> It fills my quota of worthless drivel from lawyers looking to make a >> buck by painting EVERYONE with money as a guilty party. It provides [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > >JP That's all old news. And for all of it the bottom line remains these things... - Explorers with Goodyear tires had no problems, unique or otherwise - Firestone tires from specific plants were found to be defective in both design AND manufacture. Those tires from any plant were defective in design. - the fact that Ford made design changes based on test results does not make a vehicle "defective". - Explorers, even including those with the Firestone POS tires on them, STILL have lower roll over rates and lower accident rates, and lower injury rates, then several other similar and dis-similar vehicles. If the explorers are "defective" then there are dozens of OTHER vehicles on the road equally or more "defective". > That's all old news. Well I apologize for giving you old news. Since the accidents happened a while back I doubt I am going to find any new news. First you ask me to do something, that's not good enough, I do a little more, and that's not good enough either. In your original request for me to find something about the explorer you didn't specify how old the info should be. Evidently I should have asked first. And for all of it the bottom line remains these > things... > > - Explorers with Goodyear tires had no problems, unique or otherwise My contention all along is that is was a combination of factors that contributed to the accidents not any one factor in isolation. The Time article did suggest that the combination of Explorer and Firestone is unique and deadly. I'll requote it for you. quote One conclusion stands out amid all the examples of mutually assured destruction: while neither Ford Explorers nor Firestone tires may be unusually dangerous in their own right, the combination of the two has sometimes proved lethal. And these products share a heritage, since Firestone customized the Wilderness AT tires for the Explorer to Ford's specifications. unquote > - Firestone tires from specific plants were found to be defective in > both design AND manufacture. Those tires from any plant were > defective in design. Ford had a hand in specifying the tire, so must accept partial responsibility for design. Manufacturing flaws? Firestones 'fault' but Ford still have a responsibility to the customer for factory fitted tires. If Bosch brakes were defective would it be reasonable for Ford to point the finger at Bosch and try and dodge any responsibility? Add to this that the very same flawed tire shredded less often on the Ranger than on the Explorer. The Explorer is based on the Ranger frame and share a lot of components, but the tires acted differently on the two vehicles. This suggests beyond all reason that the explorer had a unique influence on the performance of the tires. That's ALL I am saying, it DID contribute to the problems. We can argue about how much all day long but you don't appear to think the explorer had any contributory effect towards the accidents and that it was all Firestones problem. Simply isn't true. But of course I have to present 'old news' to support my argument so you may not be willing to accept it. > - the fact that Ford made design changes based on test results does > not make a vehicle "defective". No but memos I've quoted in this thread have suggested that Ford made design changes to accommodate the Goodyear tires and therefore simultaneously damn the Firestones. In addition I am sure that had Ford fitted brand new Firestones with the same flaw instead of the Goodyear's or Michelins, the problems would have subsided until the tires aged again. It's unfair to compare the performance of brand new tires to older ones. > - Explorers, even including those with the Firestone POS tires on > them, STILL have lower roll over rates and lower accident rates, and > lower injury rates, then several other similar and dis-similar > vehicles. If the explorers are "defective" then there are dozens of > OTHER vehicles on the road equally or more "defective". I agree that other SUV's are prone to rollovers. SUV's have a higher center of gravity. However how OTHER cars behave is irrelevant to the discussion of why the explorer/firestone *combination* was deadly. It's not good enough to say that the Explorer os OK if other vehicles are worse. Once again these problems were due to some unique circumstances, one of which was the Explorer. JP You have obviously made up you mind in spite of the overwhelming evidence that shows you are wrong. Not any point in continuing to give you facts that you will just continue to ignore in your quest to blame the blameless. >> That's all old news. > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > >JP >> It fills my quota of worthless drivel from lawyers looking to make a >> buck by painting EVERYONE with money as a guilty party. It provides [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >into a vehicle's stability. >unquote So? All manufactures tinker. It's how they find a better way to do things. There's absolutely nothing there to say the Explorer is unsafe, or even somehow made Firestone's tires worse. >Also >Quote >The problem you have here is lawyers and the marketing department >overruled the safety recommendations of engineers." >unnqote But that doesn't say (or even hint) that the Explorer was an unsafe vehicle. Only that not every safety recommendation was used. >Try this for size > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >specifications. >unquote That seems to have missed the *fact* that Firestone's tires were indeed unsafe, as Firestone later admitted (after one of their own blew the whistle on them) because of a manufacturing defect. Which Firestone tried to cover up, and lied about for some time. That article was written before the defect was know, when the media was still looking for a victim... er... "responsible party". >also >quote [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >heat on the tires and caused the tread separations. >unquote yet Firestone somehow conveniently continued to supply the tires, while (supposedly) saying that the pressure wasn't going to be handled by the tires. IOW, Firestone willingly and knowingly put thousands of people at risk for money. it just gets better and better, doesn't it? >or this > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >improvements that Ford rejected more than a decade ago. >unquote This is, apparently, saying that any change in manufacture touted as a safety improvement is a tacit admission that the prior model is unsafe, and can be used as such in any procedings as an admission of such. Right. >All these came from >http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,128198,00.html [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >IMHO the Explorer *did* contribute to the accidents by design and that >the companies are equally liable. Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. However, your opinion was not borne out by the investigations, once all the facts were known. >I normally charge non-profits $40 per hour for my services, commercial >entities a lot more. If you want me to do anymore web research on your >behalf I'd happy to do so at my normal non-profit rate. How generous of me. The research has been done. All investigations that had access to the actual facts (and not done by Firestone lawyers) shows the problem was caused by Firestone's manufacturing problems, and not Ford's Explorer. Firestone's bleatings that they thought Fords pressure recommendations were unsafe are proved false by Firestone's continued supplying of their tires for use in what they (after the fact) claimed was an unsafe condition. >JP SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" >> Please list some that are UNIQUELY the fault of the explorer. It has >> already been demonstrated that you can blow out a left rear tire on an [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >JP Just noticed this at that Lawyers site... http://www.firestone-tire-recall.com/pages/accident_reports/11_2_ford_Explorer.html if you read this morons story you see where he's speeding around an off ramp, ADMITS he ran off the off ramp, admits he over corrected leading to the vehicle rolling 8 times. Then he blames ford and firestone for his accident and for the tires being torn off the rim. Gee, I don't suppose his speeding, leaving the road, overcorrecting and rolling the vehicle 8 times had anything at all to do with his problems..... >>> Please list some that are UNIQUELY the fault of the explorer. It has >>> already been demonstrated that you can blow out a left rear tire on an [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >and rolling the vehicle 8 times had anything at all to do with his >problems..... I hadn't read that one before. Rolls 8 times, and flips 1 1/2 times *in the air* from between 55 and 45 MPH? Yeah, right. Went off the pavement, and seems surprised that getting back on is difficult? Where has he been? This has been widely advertised as a problem for *ALL* vehicles for decades. Overcorrection when going off the pavement is a major cause of crashes on paved roads, and it's *always* considered driver error. But then, this goes with the feeling that "It can't be *my* fault." SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" I wasn't zeroing in on anything you said (other than the tire pressure thing) but it seemed like a good place to speak the rest of what was on my mind. I'm seeing a lot of knee jerk stuff "no it's Ford... no it's Firestone...." and I'm still positive it's neither..... it's average joe mindlessly going about his day with no concept of what works and what doesn't. I defy anyone to tell me they don't know at least one person whose only accomplishment in life is to be amazingly still alive. Of course. I need to temper this when I think that anyone that might have joe average as a friend may be too much like joe average to know the difference..... Jim Warman mechanic@telusplanet.net > I couldn't agree with you more completely. Hence the post you replied to > of mine included the following statement by myself. >I wasn't zeroing in on anything you said (other than the tire pressure >thing) but it seemed like a good place to speak the rest of what was on my >mind. > >I'm seeing a lot of knee jerk stuff "no it's Ford... no it's Firestone...." >and I'm still positive it's neither.. You don't believe all those firestone tires blew out due to various and documented design and craftsmanship deficiencies? ... it's average joe mindlessly going >about his day with no concept of what works and what doesn't. I defy anyone >to tell me they don't know at least one person whose only accomplishment in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> I couldn't agree with you more completely. Hence the post you replied to >> of mine included the following statement by myself. Oh, I'm sure that there were manufacturing defects.... just as I am sure that poor or no maintenance allowed the defects to progress to the point of catastrophic failure. How many times do you see someone indicate that their verhicle is exhibiting some disturbing behaviour yet they insist on driving it? At the same time, it is fairly common for me to be road testing a car for one problem and notice an unsafe condition that the customer isn't interested in having fixed...... Perhaps you could tell us why every last Explorer fitted with these same tires didn't do the dipsy-doodle..... the PO of my Ex had the Firestones changed for free..... quite luckily, it was time for new tires and the old ones hadn't given any problems. I see tires featuring abnormal wear everyday and the vast majority of the time, the customer is totally unaware of the problem. A cars tires will not leave the road without some input (or lack of input in the case of maintenance) from the operator. A car is nothing more than a piece of machinery.... there are costs associated with operating this piece of machinery, most of them amortized over the life of sacrificial parts. Treat the machine right, and the cost per hour will more than likely be low..... treat the machine wrong and the cost per hour will be higher OR, the machine will not be in optimum condition. Personally, I abhor driving a car with problems.... whether I'm driving the Ex, the truck or the bike (but not in weather like this), I walk all the way around the vehicle at least once a day... I lift the hood once a week and also at every fill. In 30 years, I only had a vehicle leave me stranded twice - once when a DRL module forgot to turn the headlights out and once when a TFI module self destructed. There-in lies the difference between an oil change and a service... one takes 5 minutes, the other close to an hour.... Cars don't kill people - people kill people.... sometime through inaction or stupidity - sometimes their weapon of "choice" is their car... Jim Warman mechanic@telusplanet.net. > You don't believe all those firestone tires blew out due to various > and documented design and craftsmanship deficiencies? >> Indeed.... notice the care and attention afforded tires by NASCAR teams.... >> "Yep, we increased the tire pressure by two psi 'cos the car was too [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >My original post in this thread by me was to point out to Bill Funk his >statement was probably not correct. Except that you didn't. Here's what you wrote: "Firstly by setting a lower pressure there is less tolerance for poor maintenance, the only reason they reduce the spec was to pass the govt rollover test. One would not typically expect a blowout on the rear left tire to turn a vehicle over, but that is what happens to Explorers. One would normally expect loss of control because of a blowout on the front where steering is compromised. The geometry of the Explorer makes it more likely to turn over than your average vehicle and for whatever reason that fault is accentuated on he rear left of the vehicle. Propenderance to turning over is true of any vehicle high off the ground, but the Explorer appears to be bad in this area. I wouldn't mind guessing that putting the same flawed Firetsone tire under the same conditions of high temp poor maintenance on a 2004 Explorer would result in far fewer vehicles going out of control." Poor maintenance is not in any way a factor that's limited to, nor controlled by, Ford. Thus, it's a non sequitur. Car and Driver showed that such a tire failure does *NOT* cause an Explorer to roll. Neither has any other investigation shown this. Instead, the investigations showed that the rollovers were usually caused by an over-reaction on the part of the drivers. >> I'm surprised, myself, they didn't ban rentals to vehicles using >> Firestone tires, as that's where the problem really was. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >JP SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" >Indeed.... notice the care and attention afforded tires by NASCAR teams.... >"Yep, we increased the tire pressure by two psi 'cos the car was too [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >we need to maintain our tire pressures more religiously........ recommended >pressure is recommended pressure..... be it 26, 32, 41, 65 or whatever else I can put my tires to 65 psi?? Thanx Jim! (jesting, my friend) >is thrown into the mix..... Our best handling/tire life should be at the >manufacturers specified number. We have the choice of checking our inflation [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >>maintenance, the only reason they reduce the spec was to pass the govt >> >>rollover test. Actually, Barry.... according to the load rating on the sidewall, you might be able to...... now whether this is something you would want to do...... 8^) BTW..... I have found that my Bridgestones on the EX seem to like 35 psi front and rear, ride well and exhibit very little wear (could have something to do with the rubber compound, too). When I bought the SuperCrew, the PO had dumped the factory Michelins in favour of some ten ply Coopers then proceeded to reduce the tire pressure to make up for the stiffer sidewalls (how many ways can we spell goofy).... I have since returned to Michelins on the truck and now it rides the way it was intended. Jim Warman mechanic@telusplanet.net > I can put my tires to 65 psi?? Thanx Jim! > > (jesting, my friend) > I think you are the I dot. Lower inflation pressure puts more tire on > the road. However this also increases tire temperature, (and of course [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rollover test and believe things as you do, then they would have raised > pressures quite high, no? There was no government rollover test. Ed > > Firstly by setting a lower pressure there is less tolerance for poor > > maintenance, the only reason they reduce the spec was to pass the govt [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Yikes, what a complete *idiot*. Regardless of which side of the Explorer/Firestone debate you are on, the fact that you have to resort to personal attacks and name calling only lessens your credibility. Do you really think that you are the only one entitled to express an opinion in a public forum? Dave > >>Add to this incompetent > >>owners that let the tire pressure go even lower than specified, drive in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > maintenance, the only reason they reduce the spec was to pass the govt > rollover test. There was no government rollover test and there still isn't a test, just a calculation. A test is planned. > One would not typically expect a blowout on the rear left tire to turn a > vehicle over, but that is what happens to Explorers. One would normally [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > poor maintenance on a 2004 Explorer would result in far fewer vehicles > going out of control. Actually, even when you include rollovers related to Firestone tire failures, Explorers still have one of the best safety records of any 4 door SUV. 4 door Explorers have a lower rollover death rate than almost all similar SUVs. The only other 4 door SUV in the Explorer's class with a consistently lower rollover death rate is the Jeep Grand Cherokee. Explorers attract more attention because of the large numbers on the road. However, the fact is, the Explorer is one of the safest 4 door mid-sized SUVs - even when the accidents related to Firestone tires are included. Regards, Ed White >>>Add to this incompetent >>>owners that let the tire pressure go even lower than specified, drive in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >maintenance, the only reason they reduce the spec was to pass the govt >rollover test. There are plenty of other SUVs with similar low pressures. Without the Firstone tires, they don't have the tire failures that the Explorer did with the Firestones. >One would not typically expect a blowout on the rear left tire to turn a >vehicle over, but that is what happens to Explorers. I can't agree. People roll their vehicles simply because they manage to leave the pavement, and overcorrect when trying to get back on the pavement, without any tire failure. That's nothing but the fault of the driver. In the Explorer/Firestone rollovers, there has not been *ONE* case of the tire failure causing the rollover; instead, it has *always* been a case of driver over reaction. Car and Driver showed that a tire failure on the rear axle of an Explorer does not cause a loss of control. SUVs handle differently than regular cars. It's up to the driver to drive properly. This is, ans was at the time, well known. >One would normally >expect loss of control because of a blowout on the front where steering >is compromised. The geometry of the Explorer makes it more likely to >turn over than your average vehicle and for whatever reason that fault >is accentuated on he rear left of the vehicle. There is no evidence that a tire failure on the left rear of an Explorer is more likely to cause a rollover than any other tire failure position. Is the Explorer more likely to roll that a regular car? Yes. And the same is true for *ANY* vehicle in the Explorer's class. In facxt, the other SUVs in that class *DO* roll over more than the Explorer; check the NHTSA'a own figures. The Explorer is one of the safest mid-size SUVs for rollovers, even including the highly publicized Firestone incidents. >Propenderance to turning >over is true of any vehicle high off the ground, but the Explorer >appears to be bad in this area. Not so. The NHTSA shoiws the Explorer (especially of that era) to be among those LEAST likely to roll over. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/roll_resistance/appendix1.html >I wouldn't mind guessing that putting >the same flawed Firetsone tire under the same conditions of high temp >poor maintenance on a 2004 Explorer would result in far fewer vehicles >going out of control. But that's not the point. >JP SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" well, I guess I'll have to get my brother-in-law to move me... Do you own or know someone that owns a Ford Explorer? Effective December 22, 2003, Uhaul no longer rents trailers to be pulled by ANY year or model Ford Explorer! Don't believe it? Call your local Uhaul dealer, or try to book one online at www.uhaul.com This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts? http://reservations.uhaul.com/(my2ivc55rfcbwkz4e0azy455)/Default.aspx still has explorer pictured. Do you own or know someone that owns a Ford Explorer? Effective December 22, 2003, Uhaul no longer rents trailers to be pulled by ANY year or model Ford Explorer! Don't believe it? Call your local Uhaul dealer, or try to book one online at www.uhaul.com This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts? I drive a 2000 Ford Explorer and uhaul rents to me. >Do you own or know someone that owns a Ford Explorer? Effective >December 22, 2003, Uhaul no longer rents trailers to be pulled by ANY >year or model Ford Explorer! Don't believe it? Call your local Uhaul >dealer, or try to book one online at www.uhaul.com > >This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.