Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BuddyP

Ford agrees to settle Explorer 'rollover' suit

11 posts in this topic

Geezus Krist, it's been seven years!

They're just NOW setteling? :unsure:

The Corvair, wich was a GREAT little Pseudo-Euro Car built by GM

died an unjust death at the hands of Ralph Nader a couple years

after his stupid-assed book, but the crappy-build quality and 100%

liability of Ford in terms of tire inflation practices THEY told their

customers about, and all the suspension flaws aside, Ford keeps

churning out Explorers like nothing ever hapened.

And this after we all forgot about the Pinto fiasco...

Ford gives American cars a bad name! <_<

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rollover problems were due to the tires and driver stupidity, not design flaws in the suspension. Ford replaced all the Wilderness tires with Bridgestones and has not had a single rollover case arise since then.

Part of the rollover issue was poor driver reaction to the tire blowout.[1]When a tire blew, the driver experienced a large jerk and many drivers reacted by jerking the wheel in an attempt to regain control. This action causes a shift of the vehicle's weight, which results in the roll-over of the vehicle, especially when this occurs at higher speeds (many reports of roll-overs were of vehicles being driven at speeds of 70 MPH and above). Larry Webster, a test-driver for Car & Driver magazine was able, in a test simulating dozens of tire blowouts, repeatedly able to bring a 1994 Explorer to a stop without a single rollover, even at speeds of 70 MPH.[1][2] According to Forbes magazine, car experts and NHTSA claim that the vast majority of crash accidents and deaths are caused not by the vehicle, but by the driver, by road conditions or some combination of the two.[3]

We own an Explorer and it has been a great vehicle with nothing needed yet besides routine maintenance at 45,000 miles. The whole Explorer thing is overblown and the ones that should be paying up are Firestone, not Ford. Of course, let's do the American thing and go after the big evil car company and sue to our little heart's content.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It WAS 100% Ford's fault.

- FORD cheaped out and used pre-existing (read: cheap) tires for the Explorer *

- FORD told their customers to MASSIVELY underinflate tires, against Firestone's specs.

- FORD had the "deny-deny-deny" policy long after people were dying

And consider THIS:

If the suspension had NOTHING to do with it, and it was all TIRE failure than the following would be true:

25 % of the time tire failure would have occured on the LF tire

25 % of the time tire failure would have occured on the RF tire

25 % of the time tire failure would have occured on the LR tire

25 % of the time tire failure would have occured on the RR tire

That was not the case, an OVERWHELMING majority of the cases was ONE specific tire.

Riddle me that. <_<

-----

* GM designs a tire & specs. it out specifically for EACH & every vehicle it develops.

Ford, in their interest to always undercut GM pricewise just says "close enough"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It WAS 100% Ford's fault.

- FORD cheaped out and used pre-existing (read: cheap) tires for the Explorer *

- FORD told their customers to MASSIVELY underinflate tires, against Firestone's specs.

- FORD had the "deny-deny-deny" policy long after people were dying

And consider THIS:

If the suspension had NOTHING to do with it, and it was all TIRE failure than the following would be true:

25 % of the time tire failure would have occured on the LF tire

25 % of the time tire failure would have occured on the RF tire

25 % of the time tire failure would have occured on the LR tire

25 % of the time tire failure would have occured on the RR tire

That was not the case, an OVERWHELMING majority of the cases was ONE specific tire.

Riddle me that. <_<

-----

* GM designs a tire & specs. it out specifically for EACH & every vehicle it develops.

Ford, in their interest to always undercut GM pricewise just says "close enough"

IIRC, Firestone has admitted to some responsibility in this matter, so I don't think you're being 100% fair.

Additionally, as the first high volume SUV, the Explorer had a high proportion of first-timers who, clearly, were not familiar with the decidedly un-car-like handling of the vehicle. These were trucks, afterall, and I believe that the lame settlement probably reflects the lack of real, hard evidence that Ford did anything negligent.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole Explorer thing is overblown and the ones that should be paying up are Firestone, not Ford. .

not really, Firestone rated the tire pressure at 32 psi, Ford lowered the pressure to 26 due to piss poor ride. Firestone contacted Ford to NOT send them out with the pressure that low. But they ignored it.

Firestone never made anything great for a tire though anyway.

Edited by BuddyP
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how bad Firestones are when you consider how good Bridgestones are. The Turanza LS-Hs and Potenza RE960s on our Bimmer and VW are so much better than the Michelins, Goodyears, Yokohamas, Falkens, and BFGoodriches we've had before.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wrong to say 100% but honestly the tread separation WAS mostly due

to Ford's stupid instructions to customers. It's 95% Ford's fault, and again

why were such a majority of the tires on ONE corner of the truck? :confused0071:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how bad Firestones are when you consider how good Bridgestones are. The Turanza LS-Hs and Potenza RE960s on our Bimmer and VW are so much better than the Michelins, Goodyears, Yokohamas, Falkens, and BFGoodriches we've had before.

Agreed. My Potenza G009s are the best tires I have ever had on my Impala, and I will be replacing my noisy Good-Year Wranglers on my Suburban with a nice set of Duelers once they get worn down, or I change out the rims.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the Firestone fiasco, it was Ford's neglect that caused the tire failures for the most part IMO. Had they followed Firestones specs, there most likely would not have been a problem. 26 PSI is a pretty low number for any vehicle, let alone a truck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only morons would run their tires at 26 PSI

and, only morons drive on firestones or bridgestones to begin with

Edited by regfootball
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0