Uhaul Screws Ford Explorer Owners

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?

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?

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.

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.

Look in a mirror.

JP

Reply to
JP White
Loading thread data ...

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

Reply to
Dave Brower

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 snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

Reply to
Jim Warman

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

Reply to
John R

I couldn't agree with you more completely. Hence the post you replied to of mine included the following statement by myself.

My original post in this thread by me was to point out to Bill Funk his statement was probably not correct.

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

Reply to
JP White

This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts?

Reply to
stevef

This is an outrage!!! Your thoughts?

Reply to
stevef

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.
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.

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 don't think the flaw was minor at all. In fact, the tires were poorly made and did not meet industry standards.

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.

If the tires had met industry standards, this would not have been a problem.

Again this can affect any tire. However, the sub-standard nature of the tires made this a dangerous situation.

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)

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.

I don't agree that the Firestones would last a significant amount of time longer than the Goodyears.

True for any similar vehicle.

Actually, when Ford eliminated the Firestone tires, the rollover incidents virtually disappeared.

You might want to read the following:

formatting link
Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

There was no government rollover test and there still isn't a test, just a calculation. A test is planned.

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

Reply to
C. E. White

There was no government rollover test.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

The Firestone tire did wear well, that's all I'm saying.

Firestone is well aware of the standards. Claiming after the

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

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

formatting link
Also give this a read (from
formatting link
Quote

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 shit hit the fan, then they turned on each other. The rest is history.

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

Reply to
JP White

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.

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.

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.

THe only problem is that there are too many people who don't have the necessary info to make an informed opinion.

Reply to
AZGuy

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.

Reply to
AZGuy

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 snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

Reply to
Jim Warman

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

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

Reply to
JP White

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.

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.

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.

Not so. The NHTSA shoiws the Explorer (especially of that era) to be among those LEAST likely to roll over.

formatting link
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.

Reply to
Bill Funk

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

Reply to
C. E. White

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.

Reply to
Bill Funk

The other factors you pointed out are not unique to the Explorer. Thus, they don't prove anything germaine to the thread.

Reply to
Bill Funk

I can put my tires to 65 psi?? Thanx Jim!

(jesting, my friend)

Reply to
barrythedude - remove yer HAT and COAT to reply

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.