Another recall - fire risk

After seeing CNN tonight, I went out in my garage and disconnected the wire harness that goes to the switch in question on my 1999 Explorer Limited. I don't use the cruise around town so if and when I go on the highway, I can reconnect it. I think it won't take long for Ford to get tired of the bad PR and will issue a recall on all of the vehicles that use a switch that is in question. An other option is to either park it outside the garage or to pay Ford to change it before the recall takes effect. One could always tell Ford that I will pay now and when the recall occurs, you can pay me back! As far as resale value... WHAT resale value. When I decided on the Explorer in

1999, I also considered the Lexus RX300 for $3,500 more. I chose Ford. Now I see that the Ford is worth about $9,000 and the Lexus is worth about $19,000. I'm glad I saved $3,500 in 1999.... Duh...

There is good and bad in this.

Remember the 1970s and 1980s. There were no recalls. People were just stuck with what they bought.

Regardless of a problem like this that seems really big, the manufacturers used to just ignore the consumer.

Now, the reliability is better and the corrective actions are better.

Remember the 1970s and 1980s. There were no recalls. People were just stuck with what they bought.

Regardless of a problem like this that seems really big, the manufacturers used to just ignore the consumer.

Now, the reliability is better and the corrective actions are better.

Not true. The 1970s cars in particular were junk within 3 years.

After watching the CNN story, I have two questions about the design of this thing.

1) Why in heck is the switch hot without the key in the ignition? Does it perform another function where that it required?

2) For years, I thought a two switch system was used. One using the brake light switch and a second was a brake pedal mounted vacumn dump valve to the speed control servo. I can understand getting rid of the vacumn switch as vacumn servos have gone away I suppose. Why did they change to this new system?

After watching the rather lengthy story on CNN, I have to say I don't really enjoy owning a Ford anymore...All I can say is that I hope Ford does the right thing and implements a total recall...The last thing anyone should have to worry about is their car catching fire in the middle of the night and burning down their house...I will not be parking in my garage until the issue is sorted out...For that matter, I don't really want to be driving it period....

"HerkyJerky" wrote in news:1118976872.777800.203010 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Total horseshit. We drove lots of them in our fleet for many many years and many many trouble free miles, both fords and chevys. Some in particular were 1972 Impala, 1975 Malibu, 1978 Nova, 1976 Montego,

1979 Impala. We even had 1972 AMC Matadors and they were the worst but still OK overall mostly because they could never get rid of a front end shake they all had at high speed. They had a heck of a nice Engine/tranny combo though. It's not a 70's but one of my favorite cars was a 1980 full sized Plymouth police package. Rode and handled beautifully.

You have more chance of being struck by lightening.

I have 2 questions regarding this topic:

I saw the Explorer listed on the CNN link:

-Explorer without IVD 1995-2003 What is IVD?

And also where is the switch in my 99 XLT because I too want to disconnect it.

Switch is under the hood, on the master cylinder at the front (nearest to front of car. I just grasped the plug from the sides, squeezed to release the catch and lifted it up. This disconnects the switch wire harness. Now the Cruise will NOT disengage when the brake pedal is depressed but will instead require pressing the offf button on the steering wheel. At least no fire can be caused by a leak from the MS into the switch. I plug it in while driving on the highway and car is out of the garage.

Bullshit! Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, Mopar Volare/Aspen...I could go on and on and on and on. Some of the worst turds-on-wheels came out of Detroit in the

1970s. And even the big cars that they did fairly well got 7 miles per gallon. My mothers "midsized" 1974 Chevy Malibu got 9 MPG around town.

Did anyone ever wonder what else this switch might be used for? It might be more than just cruise. The wiring diagram for my 2002 shows it being tied to the ABS module also. Of course the wiring diagram only shows it being powered with key in run or start, not 24-7 as the story says. So the manual could be wrong or I could be looking at the wrong switch. Its called a brake pressure switch or brake system pressure switch. With regards to the cruise feature, the book says its used as a redundant disable feature for the cruise (the primary disabler being the brake pedal position switch), removing power to the clutch in the speed control actuator. Now I gotta go and probe around with my voltmeter to see if this thing is really hot all the time.

So ket... . Your saying you disconnected that switch and the cruise still works and *cannot* be disabled by pressing the brake pedal. This makes the wiring diagram for my 2002 even more questionable.

By the way folks, Ford is not the only one that does this. A TV station in Minneapolis, several nights ago, ran a story including surveilance video of a Chevy truck lighting up in the middle of the night inside a guys body shop. First the headlights flashed on-off. Followed minutes later by a small glow near the driver door, then smoke, then major fire.

Poor gas mileage doesn't equal "junk in 3 years". Sure, Detroit put out some poor examples in the '70's, they still do. That will never change. You get what you pay for. H

I was the proud owner of a new 1975 Ford Granada - remember that piece of junk? The 70's decade is when all the tight emission controls came into being. It took quite a number of years for the car makers to get that sorted out and to build cars that ran well. Remember when they continued to run after the key was turned off? That was also the

70's.

I also remember the misguided attempt to force people to use seat belts - the seat belt interlock. That was in '74 and the car would not start if the belt was not fastened. I had one that sometimes would not start if the belt was fastened or not. I finally traded it on the '75 Granada.

Only way we finally got cars that would run well again was fuel injection and computer controls.

Really??? My Mom's 1972 LTD Country Squire Station wagon with a 400 cid engine would get 14 around town - at least when I drove it. It would hit about 19 on a long trip (like driving my stuff to college).

I've never actually owned a passenger vehicle that got worse than 10 mpg. My 13 year old F150 still averages 12 and it never goes on a trip any more. In fact, it spends about as much time idling as it does going faster than 50 mph. When it was new and I used it on trips, it would easily hit 20 (300 CID six cylinder, E4OD transmission, 3.08:1 rear gear, SWB).

The POS Cressida I owned didn't get much better mileage than my Mom's '72 Wagon. The Cressida would get 15 around town and it would almost hit 20 on a trip, but the damn thing was such a POS I never drove it any more than I had to. Unless the weather was hot, I preferred my '78 Fiesta to the '83 Cressida. Of course, since I am in NC, that meant I was condemned to driving the Cressida from May to October.

Ed

Some Fords power the switch with a live feed (like my 2003 Expedtion) and some power it with a switched feed (like my

2004 Thunderbird). I have no idea why the difference (or if they changed in 2004). In both cases the circuit is fused (7.5 amp fuse).

Ed

Vega, Pinto and Volare' were junk in 3 years. The bigger cars...mostly tweaks of cars designed in the late 1960's MIGHT have lasted longer, but the fact that they were not junk in 3 years doesn't mean they were GOOD cars either. I think a good summary would be this: The small Detroit attempts in the early 1970s were ALL junk. The rest of the lines were fairly good until they started trying to make them fuel efficient, run on unleaded gas and be cleaner. As the '70's went on, the cars got junkier and junkier. Toyota and Honda weren't much better, rusting out in 2-3 years also. But, to their credit, they evolved to build the quality standards of the world. Detroit also got better, but not "better enough".