U-Haul bans Ford Explorer

I like your reasoning... the only reason I like it is because you have no political or social influence what-so-ever. It may interst you that insurance companies cover liability only..... if you are right, someone elses insurance company will cover the litigation costs. If you are wrong, your insurance carriers coverage will only cover liability..... if you are wrong, your integrity is called into question. If your integrity is questionable, people don't trust yo. If people don't trust you, they wont give you their money..... HELLOOOOO!!, is anyone home??

Yes, the consumer is benificiary when it comes to frivolous lawsuits..... companies need to pass ALL their costs down the line - is this some unknown secret? And yes, I firmly believe the Firestone tire debacle to be frivolous....... It is those people who lack basic doses of common sense who are first to blame someone else for their errors and omissions. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink..... similarly, you can admonish a motorist about his lack of maintenance and he/she will fail to mend his/her ways.

I spilled my coffee and, much to my surprise, it was hot........ ring any bells??

Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

BTW, you gain much credibility if you lose the cutesy shit and get honest with the folks you want to listen to you.

Reply to
Jim Warman
Loading thread data ...

You make it sound like that's something unusual. It's called a TPC spec and ALL auto makers ask the tire companies to "customize" their tires to the auto makers spec. They issue a TPC spec and the tire makers bid on the contract. Low bid wins. If Firestone did not think they could make a tire that was safe and meet the TPC spec then they should not have bid it.

Nope, it's STILL firestones fault. They built the faulty tire. It's been proven that -

- they left out a nylon band

- at least one of their factories workmanship was crap leading to defective tires.

- Goodyear built to the same TPC spec and didn't have any of those problems. Was the Goodyear bid higher? I don't know. But FS should not have bid something they could not produce at the bid price.

Anyone who ever had a set of those POS firestones knows what crap they were. They were so poorly made that they were impossible to balance.

Reply to
AZGuy

Leave politics out of this discussion!

~CyberWolf

Reply to
CyberWolf

no you hand out the money to the lawyers, the little guy gets left overs.

Reply to
Perry

If Firestone did not think

That's correct. And that's where they went awry. They are a fault, never denied it. But it's not ALL their fault. But since the exact same tire with the same flaw didn't fail as often on the Ranger gives one food for thought. I doubt very much they intentionally supplied a tire they KNEW was going to fail, but it's true they made a serious error in judgment.

Was the Goodyear bid higher? I don't know.

Well I do. See a 1996 Ford letter to Goodyear

formatting link
Don't tell me this doesn't prove anything, I am simply answering your question.

But FS should

True. They thought they could, but as it turns out they didn't do a stellar job.

JP

Reply to
JP White

"I know you don't agree with me but if Firestone have (begrudgingly) recalled the faulty product and made good, then UHaul should have no problem with them. However if (and I say if so as not to offend you) the Ford Explorer was implicated and Ford never have admitted it or repaired the vehicles, then a ban makes perfect sense."

"Being implicated" is what you said. Then you went on to say, "and Ford never have admitted it or repaired the vehicles", which says that you think Ford should have repaired the Explorer to somehow fix Firestone's *documented* problem. This my statement: "You seem to be asking Ford to somehow repair Firestone's problem."

Written before Firestone's defective manufacturing was brought to light.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

The fact that Firestone warranted the tires to be safe at Ford's recommended pressures gives the lie to the idea that Firestone thought the pressures were unsafe.

" Firestone admitted that those tires were no good" Gee, it would seem that that one statement shows the crux of the matter, doesn't it? Firestone admitted that those tires were no good... Firestone admitted that those tires were no good... Firestone admitted that those tires were no good... Gee, those were the tires involved in the rollovers, weren't they?

Reply to
Bill Funk

I think we are simply talking cross purposes. that is not what I was trying to say tho it is clear to me that is the way you read it. Apologies if I made myself unclear.

Firestone should fix their problems. Yes. Ford should fix their problems. Yes.

The tire recall took care of Firestones problem, those tires are now (hopefully) out of circulation. Ford made design changes to the Explorer in 2002 which should make it safer. So that takes care of that problem going forward.

The only difference is that Firestone admitted their problems (admittedly after a long period of lying about it). Ford have never admitted their part of the problem.

JP

Reply to
JP White

Ok, I'll go along with that. :)

I just want the point to be, your fellow citizens (you and me) are the bleeding hearts that hand over the fat cats money to the lawyers/coffee burnt.

Yeah, most of the time it doesn't go to court but the money is exchanged anyway but only because they know it will for sure, if it went to court and the jurers might even give them more and the "number" will be public.

I like bashing lawyers as much as anybody:) but it ain't all their fault. :/ We need to face up to the blame.

Alvin in AZ (take that english comp teacher;)

Reply to
alvinj

*ALL* manufacturers make changes to make their vehicles safer. That's called progress. You seem to be still working on the idea that making a vehicle safer is an admission that the prior models were 'unsafe'. During the investigation, the NHTSA still rated the Explorer as second best in rollover stats, *including* those from the Firestone debacle. Saying that the Explorer was unsafe concerning rollovers also condemns all other SUVs in the same class except the Jeeps. Yet, those other models, which have a *higher* rollover rate, also have changed to be safer. Were those vehicles somehow safer concerning rollovers than the Explorer? No, they weren't. Claiming that the Explorer added to the problem through some unknown, mystical characteristic that the NHTSA somehow missed, and stil lmanaged to give the Explorer an excellent rollover rate, just seems so disingenuous. The facts simply don't support such a claim.

What problem, exactly? The NHTSA couldn't come up with such a problem. Even with all the publicity, the Explorer's rollover rate was till lower than almost every other SUV in the Explorer's class. If the Explorer was so unstable, how on earth did it manage to stay upright so much?

Reply to
Bill Funk

=========================== Me too, I agree. AND If you ask me, just ban all the SUV's period because people cant drive them without hurting themselves and the people they run into(or roll over). I say make them drive station wagons because thats what they really *need*. Whats really sad is the lawyers get most of the money(or a very large percentage) when a tragic accident happens, *death money*. It is probably a good thing that Firestone lost their ass over this because it will make them and other tire makers pay attention to their product and the impact it can have, but it is also sad that it takes big $ to make them even care. As for Ford, I don't think it is their responsibility to *try* to make a high rideing truck stable enough to handle like a sports car. They are just trying to build what they think will sell. Oh, and one more thing---All you SUV owners out there. If you bought that thing because you think it's "safe", think again. But, down deep I don't think you bought it because it's "safe", I think you bought it because you think it's "cool". ~let the flames begin~ :)

Reply to
Scott M

Pogo, that lovable little possum, once said "I have seen the enemy and he is us....". The truly sad thing is that, even if a lawsuit is warranted, it is not the little guy that gets the gold..... that conniving little shark in the Armani suit is sure to come out well ahead of the game.

Speculation on my part is that the vast majority of people hae absolutely no clue about their autos..... this is borne of real world experience... As a group, those that ascribe to this NG have an above average interest in their cars. Most people are happy if they can remember which side the gas door is on. Most people think that changing the oil occasionally is just as good as changing the oil regularly. Most people think that if some object will fit in the back, their car can handle the weight.

Me: When I was changing your oil, I noticed that your brake pads are getting thin. Cust.: You're lying.... my brakes were 'good' this morning......

Me: Your check engine light is on.... we'll have to address that first. Cust.: It's been on for two years.... that's not part of the problem.... (That one may escape some people).

Me: What kind of car.... Cust.: It's white and it has four doors...... I think the motor is in the front....

I could keep on going..... Uhaul is well within their rights to say who gets to rent and who doesn't. Whether it is good for Uhaul or not is up for conjecture. Enacting a petiton may or may not bring results. I do know that this litigation complex that the world is enveloping has me wondering if I should lend a shovel or rake to my next door neighbour....... I would certainly hate to be named a co-respondant in some suit where a digit was injured or a back muscle pulled simply because I failed to give a three hour familiarization seminar on the device in question.

Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

Reply to
Jim Warman

So, you've personally tested the driving habits of EVERY SUV driver in the world, and are qualified to make above recommendation ?

Reply to
Gary Glaenzer

yeah, we've got an old 81 Bronco, from back when Ford knew how to build 'em

Only use it 3-4 times every summer for fishing at my folks', it stays at their place, gassed up and trickle charger on it, in case of a heavy snow in the winter

The entire 'U-Haul ban' is nothing more than a pre-emptive strike by U-Haul

If there's an accident involving an Explorer towing a U-Haul, the lawyeers are going after everyone...Ford, U-haul, the hitch manufacturer, the guy who put the hitch on, everyone that ever touched it

It's good business sense, just a shame that the shyster lawyers make the other 5% of the legal profession look bad............

Reply to
Gary Glaenzer

Progress is wonderful and modern cars are so much better than just 15 or

20 years ago in almost every respect. It is not my argument that new found improvements condemn an earlier model.

But the fact that Ford engineers wanted to make 4 improvements to the explorer in 1989 to correct oversteer prior to launching the vehicle and Ford only chose the 2 least expensive suggests to me that they 'had the technology' back then but chose not to implement it. Cost I'm sure was a factor. However AFTER the debacle Ford promptly put into place the remaining 2 improvements their engineers had suggested a decade earlier. (which were BTW to lower the engine in the engine bay and set the wheels

2" further apart).

They made a judgment call. They got it wrong. We all make mistakes and Ford are no exception.

The Ford of Venezuela memo I quoted elsewhere in this thread would counter your assertion and support the idea that some unique problem existed with the explorer in tire-tread failures (i.e. not all types of tire failure). It was after all Ford's own employees that suggested such a link and that the explorer fared badly compared with other SUV's with regard to this specific type of tire failure.

Remember that the Tire failure rate as published by Ford at the time was

250 per million. Neither the Explorer or the FS Tire are 'junk' but both had flaws that combined to cause the fatalities. The fatalities were due to a unique combination of factors that we hope will never recur with ford firestone or any other vehicle/tire combinations.

Ditto my previous comments.

JP

Reply to
JP White

If one were to compare the safety of say the Ford Probe (Fast, Handles well) and the Ford Explorer (slower and handles less well) my vote for safety would go with the explorer.

IMHO It is much more likely you will be involved in vehicle to vehicle collision than be put in a situation where you inadvertently put the vehicle sideways and risk a rollover.

Having a big heavy vehicle is a huge factor when considering vehicle safety.

So if people buy the vehicle because they think it's safe, they are probably making a decent choice. Could they do better, sure. Could they do worse, absolutely.

JP

Reply to
JP White

Reply to
!Ö©ê

Let me point out that in many cases the "fellow citizens" are not given all the facts. Judges routinely prohibit some facts from even being brought up in these cases. For example, the driver may have been a drug user and may have been driving for 12 hours prior to an accident. BUt the judge may rule that those facts are immaterial to the case an prohibit the defense from introducing them.

Reply to
AZGuy

Why don't you tell me what it "proves". I see nothing in it but standard attempts by both sides to improve their profit position. None of the letter has anything to do with tire performance.

Reply to
AZGuy

ANyone who makes such blanket statements is a troll.

because

Reply to
AZGuy

Most excellent comment on lawyers !!!!

Reply to
AZGuy

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.