Please list some that are UNIQUELY the fault of the explorer. It has already been demonstrated that you can blow out a left rear tire on an explorer and NOTHING happens other then the vehicle comes to a straight stop. Please list something about the explorer that makes the tire fail and explain why ONLY the Firestone equipped explorers had the tire failures but the Goodyear equipped ones didn't. We already know that when Firestone shipped tires to the middle east for use on the explorers over there that they added an additional edge wrap that they did not include on the US ones and the explorers in the middle east did not have tire failures.
There is zero mystery about the "explorer problem", it was caused by the Firestone tires and even at that explorers STILL had lower rollover rates then several other SUVs and even some cars.
Oh, I'm sure that there were manufacturing defects.... just as I am sure that poor or no maintenance allowed the defects to progress to the point of catastrophic failure. How many times do you see someone indicate that their verhicle is exhibiting some disturbing behaviour yet they insist on driving it? At the same time, it is fairly common for me to be road testing a car for one problem and notice an unsafe condition that the customer isn't interested in having fixed......
Perhaps you could tell us why every last Explorer fitted with these same tires didn't do the dipsy-doodle..... the PO of my Ex had the Firestones changed for free..... quite luckily, it was time for new tires and the old ones hadn't given any problems. I see tires featuring abnormal wear everyday and the vast majority of the time, the customer is totally unaware of the problem.
A cars tires will not leave the road without some input (or lack of input in the case of maintenance) from the operator. A car is nothing more than a piece of machinery.... there are costs associated with operating this piece of machinery, most of them amortized over the life of sacrificial parts. Treat the machine right, and the cost per hour will more than likely be low..... treat the machine wrong and the cost per hour will be higher OR, the machine will not be in optimum condition. Personally, I abhor driving a car with problems.... whether I'm driving the Ex, the truck or the bike (but not in weather like this), I walk all the way around the vehicle at least once a day... I lift the hood once a week and also at every fill. In 30 years, I only had a vehicle leave me stranded twice - once when a DRL module forgot to turn the headlights out and once when a TFI module self destructed. There-in lies the difference between an oil change and a service... one takes 5 minutes, the other close to an hour....
Cars don't kill people - people kill people.... sometime through inaction or stupidity - sometimes their weapon of "choice" is their car...
Actually, Barry.... according to the load rating on the sidewall, you might be able to...... now whether this is something you would want to do......
8^)
BTW..... I have found that my Bridgestones on the EX seem to like 35 psi front and rear, ride well and exhibit very little wear (could have something to do with the rubber compound, too). When I bought the SuperCrew, the PO had dumped the factory Michelins in favour of some ten ply Coopers then proceeded to reduce the tire pressure to make up for the stiffer sidewalls (how many ways can we spell goofy).... I have since returned to Michelins on the truck and now it rides the way it was intended.
quote An internal memo from Ford of Venezuela says that the Explorer "turned over unexpectedly" when Firestone tires lost their treads, but that other SUV's didn't in similar circumstances. unquote
Well they did lie through their teeth initially until they recanted and recalled the tire so I don't think I've done anything more than they did to themselves already.
Interesting you talk about a smoking gun. It seems that is what most people/media/investigators are after. A single, provable, identifiable cause to a problem. Someone or something to point the finger at.
Failures of very well engineered systems such as motor vehicles can rarely be traced to one simple thing. It takes a unique combination of factors to create a situation like the explorer/firestone debacle.
It became apparent to me me many years ago that the cars you see littering the side of the highway stalled because of several things being wrong with them at the same time until they could no longer sputter on. The owners just didn't take care of them. Treat a car well and you will very rarely be left on the side of the highway thumbing a lift. Even though my escort has 170000 miles on it, it hasn't failed me on the road (except the once when I was stupid enough to let it run out of gas). The probe we once owned only failed us once (2 weeks after it was purchased it). Once I had figured out it's faults and corrected them, it ran like a top.
I say all of this simply to demonstrate the point I have laboriously tried to make. It takes more than a simple tire failure to cause a catastrophic failure to a motor vehicle. IMHO the Explorer contributed to the problem - doesn't mean to say it's a piece of unroadworthy do do or that it's worse than other SUV's. Just that it contributed to the specific problem, which I truly believe it did. If you don't, fine, the rather unique set of circumstances that caused the problem will hopefully never happen again, and it shouldn't overly concern us day to day.
"1978: Congress holds hearings on Firestone 500 problems. Firestone tells Congress the problems are consumer ignorance and underinflation. The Center for Auto Safety tallies 34 deaths blamed on Firestones. Firestone hires an attorney to quietly negotiate a settlement with NHTSA, limiting the number of tires that would be recalled while publicly maintaining the tires were not defective. Firestone agrees to recall 10 million Firestone 500 and similar TPC radials, plus 1.5 million private-label tires made for retailers."
If you change "Radial 500" to "Wilderness ATX" and the date to 1999, the same article would fit the ATX scandal. The biggest difference was than in
1978 Firestone tires were OE tires on a lot of different models.
That's all well and good, except that those things that you say the Explorer contributed are also contributed (and in many cases, more so) by the other SUVs in the Explorer's class. Yet they didn't have the same problem. Therefore, there *must* be something unique to the Explorer that the others didn't have; that something is the Firestone tires.
Are Explorers perfect? Of course not. No one is saying they are. However, making the claim that Ford *conrtibuted* to the problem is disingenuous, because those things are contributed by many other makes in the same class. It's like one golfer complaining that his low score was caused by dew on the greens, when the other golfers who played on the same greens didn't have a problem.
Are you serious? Did you see where your cite goes? I can listen to lawyers say their clients are innocent, that they will be exonerated in court, all day long. I ignore such babbling, because it's what such people are *PAID* to do. Gee, Firestone say the problem is Ford's. Ho hum.
I understand your skepticism of the opinions of lawyers who have a case to make. But what about the Ford Memo they quote? Are you saying that was falsified or misquoted?
It fills my quota of worthless drivel from lawyers looking to make a buck by painting EVERYONE with money as a guilty party. It provides ZERO info one what's unique about the Explorer. An anecdote does not a study make.
if you read this morons story you see where he's speeding around an off ramp, ADMITS he ran off the off ramp, admits he over corrected leading to the vehicle rolling 8 times. Then he blames ford and firestone for his accident and for the tires being torn off the rim. Gee, I don't suppose his speeding, leaving the road, overcorrecting and rolling the vehicle 8 times had anything at all to do with his problems.....
Do you mean this: "The Ford Explorer sport-utility vehicle rolls over more often than other SUV's do in tire-tread accidents, and it has vibration and suspension problems that Ford can't always explain and sometimes can't fix. Those flaws raise the suspicion that the Explorer itself is contributing to the sometimes fatal accidents that forced the Bridgestone/Firestone recall. An internal memo from Ford of Venezuela says that the Explorer "turned over unexpectedly" when Firestone tires lost their treads, but that other SUV's didn't in similar circumstances. About 31% of Explorer complaints cited mysterious vibrations. Many could not be cured, even after dealers changed tires, shock absorbers and drive-shafts. Less frequent is an odd tire-wear pattern called "cupping." It shows up in less than 2% of Explorer complaints, but never shows up in most other Ford truck models."
Read it again; no quotes, only a paraphrasing by Firestone people. neither you nor I know what that note said. Nor do we know what other factors may have been present which Firestone didn't think would help their position. Again, more talk from the defense lawyers.
I hadn't read that one before. Rolls 8 times, and flips 1 1/2 times *in the air* from between 55 and
45 MPH? Yeah, right. Went off the pavement, and seems surprised that getting back on is difficult? Where has he been? This has been widely advertised as a problem for *ALL* vehicles for decades. Overcorrection when going off the pavement is a major cause of crashes on paved roads, and it's
*always* considered driver error.
But then, this goes with the feeling that "It can't be *my* fault."
Defense lawyers, Firestone people. Where did that come from? From the websites home page I found the following.
Quote This is not a Firestone or Ford sponsored site and has no affiliation with Firestone or Bridgestone or Ford Motor Co. Unquote
and also on the original page I posted.
Quote US lawyers see Venezuela as clear evidence Ford and Firestone had knowledge of the defects months before they took action. Unquote
This does not sound like the lawyers are taking sides. Sounds to me like they want both of their hides. I don't think a defense lawyer team would take that approach, but of course I could be wrong on this too.
I agree there is a lot of anecdotal stuff on that website. But what caught my eye was their quoting of a Ford internal memo. If the memo reference is factual (and I doubt even lawyers would lie openly in public) then that does add credibility to my assertion that the explorer was contributory.
You asked me to find something that singled out the explorer in some way and I did. A Ford memo sounds pretty sound to me regardless if their website if full of stuff that is irrelevant to our discussion.
Since you don't like 'lawyer sites' I thought I'd look for something a little more credible. How about Time Magazine? Is that suitable for you? They say in an article
quote Ford is clearly trying to pin the damage on Firestone, and vice versa. But a five-month investigation by TIME of Ford documents, which the company prepared for investigators and government lawyers, shows Ford's engineers were wrestling with the stability and handling of the Explorer even before it hit the market in 1990?as a sibling for the notorious bucking Bronco II, which cost the company approximately $2.4 billion in damage settlements. Previously undisclosed memos and e-mails show the extent to which the engineers were juggling decisions about the Explorer's suspension systems, tire pressure, weight and steering characteristics, plus its height and width, all of which could factor into a vehicle's stability. unquote
Also Quote The problem you have here is lawyers and the marketing department overruled the safety recommendations of engineers." unnqote
Try this for size
quote One conclusion stands out amid all the examples of mutually assured destruction: while neither Ford Explorers nor Firestone tires may be unusually dangerous in their own right, the combination of the two has sometimes proved lethal. And these products share a heritage, since Firestone customized the Wilderness AT tires for the Explorer to Ford's specifications. unquote
also quote With the Explorer's 1990 production date approaching, Ford engineers listed four options for improving the stability of the SUV: widening the chassis by 2 in.; lowering the engine; or lowering the tire pressure and stiffening the springs. Ford chose the latter two fixes and recommended a tire pressure of 26 p.s.i.?rather than the 30-to-35 p.s.i. that Firestone normally used in its tires?to produce a more road-gripping ride. This created friction between Ford and Firestone after last year's recall, with Firestone insisting that the low pressure had increased the heat on the tires and caused the tread separations. unquote
or this
quote Ford announced the recall as the 2002 Explorer ? loaded with incentives for current Explorer owners ? rolled into dealer showrooms. In advertising the new model, Ford touts a "new level of safety," and well it should. Lower and 2 1/2 in. wider than its predecessor, the new SUV is in many ways the culmination of battles that Ford engineers fought out in documents assembled in connection with investigations and lawsuits. Billed as the "all-new 2002 Explorer," it incorporates design improvements that Ford rejected more than a decade ago. unquote
All these came from
formatting link
Last word.
IMHO the Explorer *did* contribute to the accidents by design and that the companies are equally liable.
I normally charge non-profits $40 per hour for my services, commercial entities a lot more. If you want me to do anymore web research on your behalf I'd happy to do so at my normal non-profit rate. How generous of me.
I have typed the following from a Firestone memo I found on the internet that gives some insight into why the Goodyear tires fared better than the Firestones. Is it biased? Yes. is it factual? Probably. FOV refers to Ford Of Venezuela
"Our condition of correcting the suspension prior to installing the new Bridgestone tires is not acceptable to them even though FOV continues with the so called enhancement program in effect throughout Venezuela using Goodyear tires, but it appears that they do not want to apply it to the Bridgestone tires"
In a nutshell what this internal memo suggests is that Ford 'fixed' the explorer prior to fitting Goodyear tires but NOT for Bridgestone/Firestone tires. Therefore 'proving' that since Goodyear tires held up OK after the recall there MUST be a problem with Firestone tires and NOT the explorer.
That's all old news. And for all of it the bottom line remains these things...
- Explorers with Goodyear tires had no problems, unique or otherwise
- Firestone tires from specific plants were found to be defective in both design AND manufacture. Those tires from any plant were defective in design.
- the fact that Ford made design changes based on test results does not make a vehicle "defective".
- Explorers, even including those with the Firestone POS tires on them, STILL have lower roll over rates and lower accident rates, and lower injury rates, then several other similar and dis-similar vehicles. If the explorers are "defective" then there are dozens of OTHER vehicles on the road equally or more "defective".
Well I apologize for giving you old news. Since the accidents happened a while back I doubt I am going to find any new news. First you ask me to do something, that's not good enough, I do a little more, and that's not good enough either. In your original request for me to find something about the explorer you didn't specify how old the info should be. Evidently I should have asked first.
And for all of it the bottom line remains these
My contention all along is that is was a combination of factors that contributed to the accidents not any one factor in isolation. The Time article did suggest that the combination of Explorer and Firestone is unique and deadly. I'll requote it for you.
quote One conclusion stands out amid all the examples of mutually assured destruction: while neither Ford Explorers nor Firestone tires may be unusually dangerous in their own right, the combination of the two has sometimes proved lethal. And these products share a heritage, since Firestone customized the Wilderness AT tires for the Explorer to Ford's specifications. unquote
Ford had a hand in specifying the tire, so must accept partial responsibility for design. Manufacturing flaws? Firestones 'fault' but Ford still have a responsibility to the customer for factory fitted tires. If Bosch brakes were defective would it be reasonable for Ford to point the finger at Bosch and try and dodge any responsibility?
Add to this that the very same flawed tire shredded less often on the Ranger than on the Explorer. The Explorer is based on the Ranger frame and share a lot of components, but the tires acted differently on the two vehicles. This suggests beyond all reason that the explorer had a unique influence on the performance of the tires. That's ALL I am saying, it DID contribute to the problems. We can argue about how much all day long but you don't appear to think the explorer had any contributory effect towards the accidents and that it was all Firestones problem. Simply isn't true. But of course I have to present 'old news' to support my argument so you may not be willing to accept it.
No but memos I've quoted in this thread have suggested that Ford made design changes to accommodate the Goodyear tires and therefore simultaneously damn the Firestones. In addition I am sure that had Ford fitted brand new Firestones with the same flaw instead of the Goodyear's or Michelins, the problems would have subsided until the tires aged again. It's unfair to compare the performance of brand new tires to older ones.
I agree that other SUV's are prone to rollovers. SUV's have a higher center of gravity. However how OTHER cars behave is irrelevant to the discussion of why the explorer/firestone *combination* was deadly. It's not good enough to say that the Explorer os OK if other vehicles are worse. Once again these problems were due to some unique circumstances, one of which was the Explorer.
Sure. Yet they still use Firestone's interpretation on everything.
Whose "US lawyers"? Oh, Firestone's.
Only one example is needed to shoot this down. " Bridgestone argued that under inflated tires may have played a role in the accidents and stated that a tire pressure of 30 psi was needed." Yet Firestone warranted the tires to be safe, and within any reasonable safety criteria, at the pressures Ford used. Why the discrepancy? Is Firerstone lying? Or is Firestone saying that they didn't know about the low pressure recommendation? (That can't be, since Firestone claims thay said the recommended pressure was too low) EIther way, this one quote shows Firestone isn't being at all honest.
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.