 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / July 20072000 Explorer roll over issue
Do I understand that in 2002 the Explorer was redesigned to be wider, with a lower center of gravity because of rollover issues in the previous models? > Do I understand that in 2002 the Explorer was redesigned to be > wider, with a lower center of gravity because of rollover issues in > the previous models? Your very question shows a bias. You have been sucked in my the press. There was not a rollover issue (compared to similar size SUVs) with the previous model except in the minds of the "I need a sensational story" incompetents that pretended to be reporters and slime sucking bottom feeding ambulance chasing trial lawyers. Even with the defective Firestone tires, the 1996-2000 4 door models had very good injury loss rating. If you want to see a problem vehicle, go look at the 1996-97 Toyota 4Runner. They had a driver roll over death rate three times the 4 door Explorer from the same period (and 60% higher than the 2 Door Explorer). You never hear that in the press, do you? If your question is - are 2002 4 door Explorer less likely to roll over than 2001 4 door Explorers - the answer is probably yes but the injury loss rating and driver death rating statistics don't show any significant difference. 2003-2005 4 door Explorers have an injury loss rating of 77 (100 is average, lower is better). For 2002-2004 it was 76. For 1991-2001 4 Door 4WD Explorer, the injury loss rating was 72. 2WD models are higher, and the 2 door models are much higher. The late 90's 4Runners had an injury loss rating of well over 100. The single vehicle driver death rates due to rollover for a 2002 Explorer 4 door is 26. Guess what it was for 1995-1997 Models - if you guessed 26 you won. NO DIFFERENCE. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_2001_August_1/ai_76998944 Ed I have read the rollover issue through the Internet actually, and I knew there was some controversy over the issue. Thanks for pointing that out.... >> Do I understand that in 2002 the Explorer was redesigned to be wider, >> with a lower center of gravity because of rollover issues in the previous [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Ed >I have read the rollover issue through the Internet actually, and I >knew there was some controversy over the issue. The problem is, most of the internet hits on "Explorer Rollover" take you to trail lawyer sponsored sites. The entire Explorer rollover hype was largely created and promoted by trail lawyers. They used a bunch of lazy reporter to publish their lies and Ford ended up getting it's reputation smeared. It always irked me that major "reporters" never bothered to compare the Explorer accident statistics to those of similar vehicles. The Chevy S10 Blazer, Isuzu Trooper, and Toyota 4Runner all had much worse accident rates, but you would never know this from the articles published at the height of the frenzy. It was much easier for the "reporters" to re-write the lies fed to them by scum suckers than to research the truth. And of course there was/is a bias in the press against SUVs. So a large number of reporters were more than willing to write anti-SUV articles no matter how inaccurate. The Explorer was a favorite target because it was (is?) the number one selling SUV. Ed > Thanks for pointing that out.... >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> >> Ed There are still many today that believe all of that misinformation, mostly pushed by the environuts, that do not want you to buy the vehicles you choose. Even today they will still try to argue the point. The fact is one has a greater probability of being truck by lighting than rolling over in ANY of the multi-millions of different vehicles on the road every day. Contrary to what many would have us believe more cars are involved in rollovers than light trucks or SUVs. The type of SUV that is apt to roll after being stuck, or run up a grade, are those built on a short wheelbase, like a RAV4 or CJ Jeep, not a long wheel base SUV like the Explorer. Many were led to believe the inch or so higher center of gravity would cause an SUV to roll. IF indeed that small difference was causing vehicles to roll one should expect to see box trucks, six wheelers etc., that have a much higher center of gravity, rolling over along the highways every day. LOL mike >>I have read the rollover issue through the Internet actually, and I knew >>there was some controversy over the issue. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >>> >>> Ed > There are still many today that believe all of that misinformation, mostly > pushed by the environuts, that do not want you to buy the vehicles you > choose. Even today they will still try to argue the point. The fact is one > has a greater probability of being truck by lighting than rolling over in > ANY of the multi-millions of different vehicles on the road every day. There are 10,000 rollover crashes and about 1,000 lighning strikes that hit people every year. > Contrary to what many would have us believe more cars are involved in > rollovers than light trucks or SUVs. Actually, in 2000 it was about equal between cars and trucks (including SUVs). http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/809-438.pdf > The type of SUV that is apt to roll > after being stuck, or run up a grade, are those built on a short wheelbase, > like a RAV4 or CJ Jeep, not a long wheel base SUV like the Explorer. No true. Explorers or more likely to rollover than a car, even if a Jeep is even more likely to rollover. > Many were led to believe the inch or so higher center of gravity would cause > an SUV to roll. IF indeed that small difference was causing vehicles to > roll one should expect to see box trucks, six wheelers etc., that have a > much higher center of gravity, rolling over along the highways every day. Explain why trucks and SUVs are much more likely to rollover per million miles traveled than cars, then. Jeff > LOL > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >>>> >>>> Ed >> The type of SUV that is apt to roll after being stuck, or run up a >> grade, are those built on a short wheelbase, like a RAV4 or CJ Jeep, >> not a long wheel base SUV like the Explorer. > > No true. Explorers or more likely to rollover than a car, even if a Jeep > is even more likely to rollover. Common sense. Forgetting the obvious higher center of gravity for the moment, SUV's are far more likely to be overloaded and when they are they seem to almost always be driven by someone grossly inexperienced. Around here it always seems to be an Asian church group that winds up rolling and most of the passengers are not wearing seat belts. Thanks for proving that even today some that fell for "higher center of gravity" crap and the other misinformation, still believe SUVs and particularly Explorers, tended to rollover more than cars. The fact is no vehicle has a tendency to rollover. Even if tipped up to 45 degrees or more all vehicles have a propensity to fall back upon its wheels. Generally a rollover occurs to any vehicle when the vehicle is struck, runs up or down a grade alongside the road or slides into a curb. If you ever had seen the four to six foot ramps that manufacturers used in testing, and stuntmen used to make a car rollover for a movie scene, you would understand the dynamics needed to rollover any motor vehicle at speed Joey Chitwood use to drive cars around a race tack at 35 MPH way up on the two drivers side wheels back in the fifties, and when he left off the throttle the car fell back on its wheels LOL mike >>> The type of SUV that is apt to roll after being stuck, or run up a >>> grade, are those built on a short wheelbase, like a RAV4 or CJ Jeep, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > here it always seems to be an Asian church group that winds up rolling and > most of the passengers are not wearing seat belts. > Thanks for proving that even today some that fell for "higher center of > gravity" crap and the other misinformation, still believe SUVs and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > two drivers side wheels back in the fifties, and when he left off the > throttle the car fell back on its wheels LOL You remind me a great deal of my born again former mother in-law. You are free to believe whatever you choose. I could not careless LOL mike >> Thanks for proving that even today some that fell for "higher center of >> gravity" crap and the other misinformation, still believe SUVs and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You remind me a great deal of my born again former mother in-law. > You are free to believe whatever you choose. Are you making that a gift? > I could not careless LOL Uh huh, that's why you put the LOL at the end. >> You are free to believe whatever you choose. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Uh huh, that's why you put the LOL at the end. I think he means to say he could not be more clueless (not careless). jeff > You are free to believe whatever you choose. I could not careless LOL > > mike Close: you could not be more clueless (not clueless). Jeff > Thanks for proving that even today some that fell for "higher center of > gravity" crap and the other misinformation, still believe SUVs and > particularly Explorers, tended to rollover more than cars. I don't know what other people believe, but the fact is that more trucks and SUVs (combined) rollover compared to cars. And there are more cars on the road. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/809-438.pdf Table 6 shows that in 2000, the fatality rate for cars was 21.53 deaths per 100,000 cars, while it was 26.64 for trucks. There were more rollover crashes involving the 76,192,673 registered trucks than the 127,720,809 registered cars that year. So if there are more cars than trucks, but fewer car rollovers, what does that tell you about the rate of car rollovers compared to truck rollovers? The rate of car rollovers is lower than it is for trucks. And, in 2000, the rate in terms of number of fatalities per 100 million miles driven was 1.74 for cars but 2.15 for trucks. In other words, you were more likely to die if you drove a truck the same distance as a car. And more fatalities in trucks were from rollovers than cars. > The fact is no vehicle has a tendency to rollover. Even if tipped up to 45 > degrees or more all vehicles have a propensity to fall back upon its wheels. That's funny. In SUVs, there were more fatalities in rollovers than nonrollover crashes (in 2000). > Generally a rollover occurs to any vehicle when the vehicle is struck, runs > up or down a grade alongside the road or slides into a curb. And, on page 10 of the report, it says, "Historically, SUVs have been the most rollover prone of the passenger vehicles." > If you ever had seen the four to six foot ramps that manufacturers used in > testing, and stuntmen used to make a car rollover for a movie scene, you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > two drivers side wheels back in the fifties, and when he left off the > throttle the car fell back on its wheels LOL They were doing that in 70s. I saw them at a truck in Northeast PA (no idea where, I was like 10 at the time). Anyway, according the NTSHA report I cited above, trucks including (and especially SUVs) were more likely to rollover from 1991 to 2000. I see no reason why this trend would not continue since 2000. Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> here it always seems to be an Asian church group that winds up rolling and >> most of the passengers are not wearing seat belts. The fact remains statically of the sixteen to eighteen so millions of vehicles sold annually in the US, less than 8% of all those vehicles will ever be in a collision, sufficient to deploy the SRS, in their LIFETIME. Less that 2% of those will be involve a rollover. You are free to believe what ever you wish. (Hint: When thinking of properly belted passengers, think passenger miles) mike >> Thanks for proving that even today some that fell for "higher center of >> gravity" crap and the other misinformation, still believe SUVs and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and SUVs (combined) rollover compared to cars. And there are more cars on > the road. > Anyway, according the NTSHA report I cited above, trucks including (and > especially SUVs) were more likely to rollover from 1991 to 2000. I see no > reason why this trend would not continue since 2000. > > Jeff > The fact remains statically of the sixteen to eighteen so millions of > vehicles sold annually in the US, less than 8% of all those vehicles will > ever be in a collision, sufficient to deploy the SRS, in their LIFETIME. > Less that 2% of those will be involve a rollover. And, you my friend, are free to get a clue. > You are free to believe what ever you wish. (Hint: When thinking of > properly belted passengers, think passenger miles) As I previously mentioned, in 2000, there were 1.74 fatalities per 100 million miles driven for cars but 2.15 for trucks. Is that what you meant? That was in the article that I cited from the NTHSA ( http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/809-438.pdf). Again, I notice that you deleted most of my post without indicating that fact, including the NHTSA citation. Again, you make a fool of yourself, just like with the VIN issue and the rule 78 loan issue. One would think that you would have learned to verify what you say, but I guess you can teach old farts new tricks. Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> Jeff You are entitled to you own opinion but not your own facts. Once again you have problem with numbers. "Per 100 million miles driven" has nothing in common with passenger miles and percentages any more than your misunderstanding of percentages and defects per 100 vehicles. Statistics must be quantified to have any analytical value. How about the raw statistic that says 98.7 out of 100 woman are female? Does that mean one can assume 1.3 out of 100 are male? You constant willingness to argue, because of your failure to understand the subject of which you have chosen to comment, does not make the another persons with whom you so often disagree, wrong as you so often like to believe LOL When told were to search and because you are apparently not capable of doing proper search to find the information you seek, you look for sources to support you convoluted arguments that have nothing to do with the point made. When informed Japanese corporations do not pay US corporate income taxes because of tax credits in Japan, you say you can't find Toyotas corporate tax return on the IRS site. Of course you can't, One must search for the listed amount of taxes paid by publicly held corporations, which is part of the public record, not tax returns, that are not. You are a waist of time mike >> The fact remains statically of the sixteen to eighteen so millions of >> vehicles sold annually in the US, less than 8% of all those vehicles will [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > As I previously mentioned, in 2000, there were 1.74 fatalities per 100 > million miles driven for cars but 2.15 for trucks. Is that what you meant? > Jeff >>>> Thanks for proving that even today some that fell for "higher center of >>>> gravity" crap and the other misinformation, still believe SUVs and >>>> particularly Explorers, tended to rollover more than cars. >>> I don't know what other people believe, but the fact is that more trucks >>> and SUVs (combined) rollover compared to cars. And there are more cars [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> >>> Jeff > You are entitled to you own opinion but not your own facts. Mike, you seem entitled to your own facts. The reference, which you should have been smart enough to read, said, in part: "Controlling for vehicle type shows that within the passenger vehicle category, light trucks are more likely than passenger cars to be involved in rollover crashes and when rollovers occur, the proportions of fatal and injury only type crashes that involve rollovers are also higher among light trucks than passenger cars. In 2000, 2 percent of passenger cars involved in crashes experienced rollovers and 15 percent of passenger cars involved in fatal crashes rolled over. Among light trucks, the proportions were 4 percent and 26 percent respectively (Figure 1). "Within the light trucks category, the vehicles most likely to be involved in rollovers were SUVs and pickup trucks. In 2000, 6 percent of SUVs involved in crashes rolled over, compared with 4 percent of pickup trucks and 2 percent of vans. The proportion that rolled over in fatal crashes was 36 percent, compared with 24 percent of pickup trucks and 19 percent of vans (Figure 2)." (from pp3-4 of <http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/809-438.pdf>) > Once again you > have problem with numbers. "Per 100 million miles driven" has nothing in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > statistic that says 98.7 out of 100 woman are female? Does that mean one > can assume 1.3 out of 100 are male? Please explain why your passenger miles figure is a more accurate measure of whether or not an SUV is more likely to flip than per million miles driven. > You constant willingness to argue, because of your failure to understand the > subject of which you have chosen to comment, does not make the another > persons with whom you so often disagree, wrong as you so often like to > believe LOL Mike, I don't think that whatsoever. Get get a clue, if you can. And Mike, my willingness to argue has nothing to do with my ability understand the subject. Let me ask this: What does the first digit of the VIN have to do with content? Or, what federal law says that it is illegal to have rule 78 auto loans in the US? > When told were to search and because you are apparently not capable of doing > proper search to find the information you seek, The hell I am not. <http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/809-438.pdf>. There, that article from the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminsitration clearly shows that SUVs are more likely to be inovlved in rollover crashes than cars. > you look for sources to > support you convoluted arguments that have nothing to do with the point > made. What do you mean? Please explain why the article from the National Highway Traffic and Safety administration which clearly shows that SUVs have a higher death rate and a high rollover rate than cars does not support my argument that SUVs are more likely to rollover than cars. > When informed Japanese corporations do not pay US corporate income taxes > because of tax credits in Japan, you say you can't find Toyotas corporate > tax return on the IRS site. That is because the IRS does not list or report on which corporations pay income tax in the US. It does report summary data for groups of corporations, but not individual corporations. > Of course you can't, One must search for the > listed amount of taxes paid by publicly held corporations, which is part of > the public record, not tax returns, that are not. I have never argued differently. Furthermore, for the vast majority of corporations, they do not report the amount of income tax paid by jurisdiction. For example, most corporations will report total income tax paid, but not say which countries and states receive income or how much to any country or state. There are, of course, exceptions (as the GM annual report shows), but there is no require to report individual income taxes paid. > You are a waist of time I would say what you are, but that would involve language that I don't use. Jeff > mike > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>>> >>>> Jeff > When informed Japanese corporations do not pay US corporate income taxes > because of tax credits in Japan, you say you can't find Toyotas corporate > tax return on the IRS site. Of course you can't, One must search for the > listed amount of taxes paid by publicly held corporations, which is part > of the public record, not tax returns, that are not. Quit making stuff up. I thought you finally stopped spouting this nonsense. Prove what you said or stop saying it. To recap - I emailed Toyota, they said they paid US Corporate Income Taxes. The Toyota Annual Report has a large line item for foreign taxes (although not broken out by country). I called the IRS. The IRS categorically told me they do not post tax information for individual corporations. You have never provided one verifiable reference to support your fairy tale. You are either a liar, or you actually have some information that you are not willing to share because you like to torture people. Either way, you are a twit. Ed Like I said, many STILL believe that old hype. You are free to believe whatever you choose LOL mike >> There are still many today that believe all of that misinformation, >> mostly pushed by the environuts, that do not want you to buy the vehicles [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >>>>> >>>>> Ed > Like I said, many STILL believe that old hype. You are free to believe > whatever you choose LOL > > mike I believe that the statistics in this NHTSA report are more accurate than what you have to say: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/809-438.pdf And the statistics clearly show that in 2000, trucks were more likely to rollover and that fatalities were more likely to be in truck crashes than car crashes, despite the fact that there were more cars on the road than trucks. How you can believe what you do despite the plain facts presented is beyond me. But then again, we can add to this list: VINs, Rule 78 loans. Jeff The only "problem" with the Trooper was consumer reports. On Jul 24, 12:26 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> wrote: > >I have read the rollover issue through the Internet actually, and I > >knew there was some controversy over the issue. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > The only "problem" with the Trooper was consumer reports. Older Troopers ('94-'96) had significantly higher injury loss ratings than 4 Door Explorers of the same vintage. For '97 and beyond, the Trooper's injury loss rating was only marginally worse than 4 Door Explorers of the era and the rollover rate was slightly better. Even in the earlier period, the Troopers injury loss rating was better than average for all vehicles, but in the lower half of the mid-size SUV category. The Isuzu Rodeo was especially bad. I should note that 2Dr, 2WD Explorers had a significantly worse injury loss rating than 4 door Explorers (the injury loss ratings for Explorer models decreased from 2Dr/2WD, to 2Dr/4WD, to 4Dr/4WD, to 4DR/4WD). Ed > On Jul 24, 12:26 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - >> Do I understand that in 2002 the Explorer was redesigned to be >> wider, with a lower center of gravity because of rollover issues in [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Ed When I was researching this stuff a couple years ago I found a Mercedes car that had a higher rollover fatality rate then the first gen explorers did. No one is interested in facts it seems. If one searches the "Congressional Record" you will discover the government investigation determined Explorers, as well as some other brands, were rolling years back because of the defective Firestone tires with which most were equipped. Explorers with other brand tires were not effected, their height was not the cause. mike > Do I understand that in 2002 the Explorer was redesigned to be wider, with > a lower center of gravity because of rollover issues in the previous > models? >Do I understand that in 2002 the Explorer was redesigned to be wider, with a >lower center of gravity because of rollover issues in the previous models? The big problem was with catastrophic tire failure (blowout or tread separation) causing a rollover. And that tire failure is often precipitated by under-inflation - Ford deliberately specified a lower than optimal tire pressure to improve ride comfort (trying to use the tires as part of the suspension), and then people didn't check their tire pressures regularly and they sank even lower. Run tires at highway speeds (70 and up) while they are grossly under-inflated, and they are going to get hot and come apart on you. It's simple to have safe tires: 1. Buy good quality tires that are of the proper design and load rating for the vehicle - not the loss-leader tires Ford often specced, where the vehicle axle weight is 5 pounds under the tire's maximum weight rating. Go up one tire size (easier) or one Load Rating notch to give yourself a safety cushion. 1A. And definitely NO offshore import no-name tires where the quality is a total crapshoot. They just had a huge recall for some Korean tires (sold under a few dozen no-name names) where they left out a critical inner rubber layer, and the tires are blowing out after they get a few thousand miles on them. 2. Get your actual axle weights at a truck scale and keep the tires properly inflated to the tire maker's "Load and Pressure Chart" recommendations for the tires you bought. The tire maker has the final say on that. 3. And watch them regularly for signs of trouble - blistering or bulging, uneven wear, cupping or uneven wear (alignment or shock absorber problems), cuts or gouges (no hitting curbs), and you'll be fine. --<< Bruce >>-- > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:29:41 -0300, "Haggar" > <haggar@nb.sympatico.ca> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > suspension), and then people didn't check their tire pressures > regularly and they sank even lower. Whether you mean to or not, you are spreading the Firestone propaganda that was printed in the press back during the height of the faux Explorer Rollover "crisis." The truth is that Firestone built defective tires that failed under loading conditions that were well inside the normal load ratings for the tires on the vehicles. Point 1 - Ford's pressure recommendations were not unusually low. Both Toyota and Nissan had similar pressure recommendation for the same size tires on similar vehicles (mid-size SUVs). Point 2 - In congressional testimony, Ford engineers said the pressure was specified for SAFETY reasons. They wanted to reduce the responsiveness of the truck to violent steering inputs. Lower tire pressures reduce steering response and lessen the chance that the driver might get the truck sideways when making violent maneuvers. Point 3 - At the time, the press made claims that the center of gravity of the Explorer was abnormally high because Ford had to raise the engine location to allow for the use of the old style twin I-beam, or twin traction arm front axles. However, the model of Explorer that supposedly had the rollover problems did not use this style of front suspension. Ford had redesigned the vehicle to use conventional A-Arm type suspension. Point 4 - 50% of the 1996 Explorers were delivered with Goodyear tires. There was no problem with high rates of tire failure for those vehicles. Point 5 - The 4 Door Explorers that were supposedly dangerous, actually had lower rollover driver death rates, and lower injury rates that most similar sized SUVs of the period (Only the Jeep Grand Cherokee was better). Point 6 - The Ford recommended tire pressure was well above the pressure necessary to safely support a fully loaded Explorer. Even Firestone admitted that the tires installed on an Explorer of that era SHOULD have been safe if inflated to only 20 psi. The following text was extracted from a Firestone web site during the aftermath of the "crisis" (unfortunately the web site is long since closed down - it was from a report of Firestone's congressional testimony): "A table distributed by Firestone shows that the 2000 Explorer, with tires inflated at Ford's recommendation of 26 pounds, would be safe. But if the pressure fell by 7 pounds -- as is common, Firestone said, because many people fail to check their tire pressure -- the four-door, four-wheel- drive model would reach its carrying capacity...." So, According to Firestone's own load/inflation pressure tables, the tires should have been "safe" with a pressure of only 20 psi. In the original reference, Firestone never once claimed that a pressure of 26 psi was unsafe. They said it just didn't provide as much of a safety margin as 30 psi. This has to be just about the silliest defense on the planet. They might as well have said that a pressure of 36 psi would have provided an even greater safety margin. Of course this is true if you were only worried about substandard tires failing. Ford, had to consider many other requirements. Based on Tire Industry Standards, and Firestone's own data, Ford felt that the 26 psi recommendation was the correct one. Even Firestone explicitly admits that the 26 psi recommendation was safe. According to their own testimony, the tires would have to be under inflated by 7 psi before they were unsafe. As has been pointed out many times before, Goodyear tires inflated to the same pressure recommendation had very few failures. > Run tires at highway speeds (70 and up) while they are grossly > under-inflated, and they are going to get hot and come apart on you. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > notch > to give yourself a safety cushion. While I certainly agree that you should by good quality tires, I strongly disagree with your claim that Ford spec'd tires so close to the axle weight limit. As I pointed out above the tires and pressures specified for the Explorer should have been just fine with very large safety margins (and the Goodyear tires were). I agree Ford can be blamed for installing Firestone tires, given Firestone's history of making crummy tires (Radial 500, 721, etc.), but it wasn't the pressure specification that was faulty, it was the tires. > 1A. And definitely NO offshore import no-name tires where the > quality [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > recommendations for the tires you bought. The tire maker has the > final say on that. The problem is that most consumers have no idea where to get a copy of the load/inflation pressure tables. I have a copy of the industry standard tables, but most people don't. Most tire stores do, but I've yet to see a consumer ask for a copy. > 3. And watch them regularly for signs of trouble - blistering or > bulging, uneven wear, cupping or uneven wear (alignment or shock > absorber problems), cuts or gouges (no hitting curbs), and you'll be > fine. Good advice. Ed >>Do I understand that in 2002 the Explorer was redesigned to be wider, >>with a lower center of gravity because of rollover issues in the [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > --<< Bruce >>-- Statistics are no better than the honesty of those using them. Just like people who argue the merits based on what car or brand name they support. The facts are this: Anytime an emergency maneuver is required to avoid something it is simply a thoughtless reaction. In most cases the initial reaction requires a corrective action and the vehicle is not in a normal attitude when this happens so all those wonderful trick show techniques and center of gravity arguments are meaningless. The fact is SUVs,Jeeps,and Trucks have a much higher tendency to roll in these circumstances than the average car. As Mike always says you can believe anything you want. >>> Do I understand that in 2002 the Explorer was redesigned to be wider, >>> with a lower center of gravity because of rollover issues in the [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > The facts are this: Anytime an emergency maneuver is required to avoid > something it is simply a thoughtless reaction. Not necessarily. Plus, one is able to perform the maneuver much better and more safely with experience (just ask Jeff Gordon and Jeff Burton who tend to do these quite frequently at higher speeds than you or I normally drive). > In most cases the initial reaction requires a corrective action and the > vehicle is not in a normal attitude when this happens so all those > wonderful trick show techniques and center of gravity arguments are > meaningless. Regardless of whether it is a planned or not, gravity and laws of physics still apply. > The fact is SUVs,Jeeps,and Trucks have a much higher tendency to roll in > these circumstances than the average car. > As Mike always says you can believe anything you want. Jeff >>> Do I understand that in 2002 the Explorer was redesigned to be wider, >>> with a lower center of gravity because of rollover issues in the [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >> > Statistics are no better than the honesty of those using them. Bingo! > The facts are this: Anytime an emergency maneuver is required to avoid > something it is simply a thoughtless reaction. Often by drivers who are unskilled to say the least. Much like the U-Haul problems. > In most cases the initial reaction requires a corrective action and the > vehicle is not in a normal attitude when this happens so all those > wonderful trick show techniques and center of gravity arguments are > meaningless. Yep. > The fact is SUVs,Jeeps,and Trucks have a much higher tendency to roll in > these circumstances than the average car. Common sense and a few years of driving should make this obvious. > As Mike always says you can believe anything you want. And he practices what he preaches. :) >>>> Do I understand that in 2002 the Explorer was redesigned to be wider, >>>> with a lower center of gravity because of rollover issues in the [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > >And he practices what he preaches. :) They really ought to insist on much more 'emergency driving' training before you get your license in the USA, but they won't because it would be way too expensive. At a bare minimum they should take all drivers out in a special "Skid Car" that has adjustable outrigger wheels at all four corners so they can reduce the road grip to near zero on command. Northern areas this can be done on any flat parking lot with a little water and some cold weather, in southern states you make a flooded skid-pad area out of glass-smooth concrete. Learn how to manage and recover from skids and slides. Or put students in a Go-Kart and learn power-slides there. A "Reaction Course" - the classic four or five lanes with traffic lights above them and cones to show the errors. You boogie down the road at 40 and all of a sudden your lane and the ones to the left go red - you better manage a clean lane change to the right in a hurry, or you just hit the 'obstacle'. And if they all go red, you better be able to get stopped in a straight line, or brake while retaining control to make that lane change. Pity this skill has been rendered partly obsolete by ABS, which is why the training car does NOT have it. ;-) And they should take you through the physics of vehicle dynamics, and the physics when you add in a trailer to the mix - even if you never do it, you should know the concepts. How to react to a blowout, to getting one wheel off the road and into a ditch - without overcorrecting and rolling. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. --<< Bruce >>-- > Do I understand that in 2002 the Explorer was redesigned to be wider, with a > lower center of gravity because of rollover issues in the previous models? If this is the first vehicle that has been made safer in later models, i would be surprised, think about what you're asking Haggar. > Do I understand that in 2002 the Explorer was redesigned to be wider, with a > lower center of gravity because of rollover issues in the previous models? Some of these replies are interesting and truthful. Some of them are people shooting from the hip. I agree, however, that the trial lawyers were behind a lot of this. What was interesting was that the lawyers from U-Haul even got into this. I remember reading one time that U-Haul would not allow anybody to rent any of their trailers if the person wished to pull it behind an Explorer. However, you could come in with your Mercury Mountaineer and they would allow the rental to leave behind it. Do they still have this rule? FWIW, my sister had an Explorer with these Factory Firestone tires on them. About a month after purchasing new tires, the recall came out. If only she had waited another month........ Oh well. I bet the tire dealer got a bunch of free Firestone tires after scrounging out back through the piles of tires and looking for the size of Firestones that were on the Explorers. <...> > FWIW, my sister had an Explorer with these Factory Firestone tires on > them. About a month after purchasing new tires, the recall came out. > If only she had waited another month........ > Oh well. I bet the tire dealer got a bunch of free Firestone tires > after scrounging out back through the piles of tires and looking for > the size of Firestones that were on the Explorers. IIRC, the tire dealers and Ford dealers were supposed to drill a hole in the sidewall of the tire, so that they could no longer be used. Jeff > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jeff Yes they were. (and I have the carpal tunnel syndrome to prove it ;) ) He was referring to people scrounging up pre-recall takeoffs and turning them in for replacement under the recall. I'm sure it may have happened, but not on a large scale. Most tire dealers don't have big piles of takeoffs laying around anymore. |
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
|
©2008 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.