Your very question shows a bias. You have been sucked in my the press.
There was not a rollover issue (compared to similar size SUVs) with
the previous model except in the minds of the "I need a sensational
story" incompetents that pretended to be reporters and slime sucking
bottom feeding ambulance chasing trial lawyers. Even with the
defective Firestone tires, the 1996-2000 4 door models had very good
injury loss rating. If you want to see a problem vehicle, go look at
the 1996-97 Toyota 4Runner. They had a driver roll over death rate
three times the 4 door Explorer from the same period (and 60% higher
than the 2 Door Explorer). You never hear that in the press, do you?
If your question is - are 2002 4 door Explorer less likely to roll
over than 2001 4 door Explorers - the answer is probably yes but the
injury loss rating and driver death rating statistics don't show any
2003-2005 4 door Explorers have an injury loss rating of 77 (100 is
average, lower is better). For 2002-2004 it was 76. For 1991-2001 4
Door 4WD Explorer, the injury loss rating was 72. 2WD models are
higher, and the 2 door models are much higher. The late 90's 4Runners
had an injury loss rating of well over 100.
The single vehicle driver death rates due to rollover for a 2002
Explorer 4 door is 26. Guess what it was for 1995-1997 Models - if you
guessed 26 you won. NO DIFFERENCE.
There are still many today that believe all of that misinformation, mostly
pushed by the environuts, that do not want you to buy the vehicles you
choose. Even today they will still try to argue the point. The fact is one
has a greater probability of being truck by lighting than rolling over in
ANY of the multi-millions of different vehicles on the road every day.
Contrary to what many would have us believe more cars are involved in
rollovers than light trucks or SUVs. The type of SUV that is apt to roll
after being stuck, or run up a grade, are those built on a short wheelbase,
like a RAV4 or CJ Jeep, not a long wheel base SUV like the Explorer.
Many were led to believe the inch or so higher center of gravity would cause
an SUV to roll. IF indeed that small difference was causing vehicles to
roll one should expect to see box trucks, six wheelers etc., that have a
much higher center of gravity, rolling over along the highways every day.
Common sense. Forgetting the obvious higher center of gravity for the
moment, SUV's are far more likely to be overloaded and when they are
they seem to almost always be driven by someone grossly inexperienced.
Around here it always seems to be an Asian church group that winds up
rolling and most of the passengers are not wearing seat belts.
Thanks for proving that even today some that fell for "higher center of
gravity" crap and the other misinformation, still believe SUVs and
particularly Explorers, tended to rollover more than cars.
The fact is no vehicle has a tendency to rollover. Even if tipped up to 45
degrees or more all vehicles have a propensity to fall back upon its wheels.
Generally a rollover occurs to any vehicle when the vehicle is struck, runs
up or down a grade alongside the road or slides into a curb.
If you ever had seen the four to six foot ramps that manufacturers used in
testing, and stuntmen used to make a car rollover for a movie scene, you
would understand the dynamics needed to rollover any motor vehicle at speed
Joey Chitwood use to drive cars around a race tack at 35 MPH way up on the
two drivers side wheels back in the fifties, and when he left off the
throttle the car fell back on its wheels LOL
I don't know what other people believe, but the fact is that more trucks
and SUVs (combined) rollover compared to cars. And there are more cars
on the road.
Table 6 shows that in 2000, the fatality rate for cars was 21.53 deaths
per 100,000 cars, while it was 26.64 for trucks. There were more
rollover crashes involving the 76,192,673 registered trucks than the
127,720,809 registered cars that year. So if there are more cars than
trucks, but fewer car rollovers, what does that tell you about the rate
of car rollovers compared to truck rollovers? The rate of car rollovers
is lower than it is for trucks.
And, in 2000, the rate in terms of number of fatalities per 100 million
miles driven was 1.74 for cars but 2.15 for trucks. In other words, you
were more likely to die if you drove a truck the same distance as a car.
And more fatalities in trucks were from rollovers than cars.
That's funny. In SUVs, there were more fatalities in rollovers than
nonrollover crashes (in 2000).
And, on page 10 of the report, it says, "Historically, SUVs have been
the most rollover prone of the passenger vehicles."
They were doing that in 70s. I saw them at a truck in Northeast PA (no
idea where, I was like 10 at the time).
Anyway, according the NTSHA report I cited above, trucks including (and
especially SUVs) were more likely to rollover from 1991 to 2000. I see
no reason why this trend would not continue since 2000.
The fact remains statically of the sixteen to eighteen so millions of
vehicles sold annually in the US, less than 8% of all those vehicles will
ever be in a collision, sufficient to deploy the SRS, in their LIFETIME.
Less that 2% of those will be involve a rollover.
You are free to believe what ever you wish. (Hint: When thinking of
properly belted passengers, think passenger miles)
As I previously mentioned, in 2000, there were 1.74 fatalities per 100
million miles driven for cars but 2.15 for trucks. Is that what you meant?
That was in the article that I cited from the NTHSA (
Again, I notice that you deleted most of my post without indicating that
fact, including the NHTSA citation.
Again, you make a fool of yourself, just like with the VIN issue and the
rule 78 loan issue.
One would think that you would have learned to verify what you say, but
I guess you can teach old farts new tricks.
You are entitled to you own opinion but not your own facts. Once again you
have problem with numbers. "Per 100 million miles driven" has nothing in
common with passenger miles and percentages any more than your
misunderstanding of percentages and defects per 100 vehicles. Statistics
must be quantified to have any analytical value. How about the raw
statistic that says 98.7 out of 100 woman are female? Does that mean one
can assume 1.3 out of 100 are male?
You constant willingness to argue, because of your failure to understand the
subject of which you have chosen to comment, does not make the another
persons with whom you so often disagree, wrong as you so often like to
When told were to search and because you are apparently not capable of doing
proper search to find the information you seek, you look for sources to
support you convoluted arguments that have nothing to do with the point
When informed Japanese corporations do not pay US corporate income taxes
because of tax credits in Japan, you say you can't find Toyotas corporate
tax return on the IRS site. Of course you can't, One must search for the
listed amount of taxes paid by publicly held corporations, which is part of
the public record, not tax returns, that are not.
You are a waist of time
Mike, you seem entitled to your own facts.
The reference, which you should have been smart enough to read, said, in
part: "Controlling for vehicle type shows that within the
passenger vehicle category, light trucks are more likely
than passenger cars to be involved in rollover crashes
and when rollovers occur, the proportions of fatal and injury only type
crashes that involve rollovers are also higher among light trucks than
passenger cars. In 2000, 2 percent of passenger cars involved in crashes
experienced rollovers and 15 percent of passenger cars involved in fatal
crashes rolled over. Among light trucks, the proportions were 4 percent
and 26 percent respectively (Figure 1).
"Within the light trucks category, the vehicles most likely to be
involved in rollovers were SUVs and pickup trucks. In 2000, 6 percent of
SUVs involved in crashes rolled over, compared with 4 percent of pickup
trucks and 2 percent of vans. The proportion that rolled over in fatal
crashes was 36 percent, compared with 24 percent of pickup trucks
and 19 percent of vans (Figure 2)."
(from pp3-4 of
> Once again you
Please explain why your passenger miles figure is a more accurate
measure of whether or not an SUV is more likely to flip than per million
Mike, I don't think that whatsoever. Get get a clue, if you can.
And Mike, my willingness to argue has nothing to do with my ability
understand the subject. Let me ask this: What does the first digit of
the VIN have to do with content? Or, what federal law says that it is
illegal to have rule 78 auto loans in the US?
The hell I am not.
There, that article from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Adminsitration clearly shows that SUVs are more likely to be inovlved in
rollover crashes than cars.
What do you mean? Please explain why the article from the National
Highway Traffic and Safety administration which clearly shows that SUVs
have a higher death rate and a high rollover rate than cars does not
support my argument that SUVs are more likely to rollover than cars.
That is because the IRS does not list or report on which corporations
pay income tax in the US. It does report summary data for groups of
corporations, but not individual corporations.
I have never argued differently. Furthermore, for the vast majority of
corporations, they do not report the amount of income tax paid by
jurisdiction. For example, most corporations will report total income
tax paid, but not say which countries and states receive income or how
much to any country or state. There are, of course, exceptions (as the
GM annual report shows), but there is no require to report individual
income taxes paid.
I would say what you are, but that would involve language that I don't use.
Quit making stuff up. I thought you finally stopped spouting this nonsense.
Prove what you said or stop saying it. To recap - I emailed Toyota, they
said they paid US Corporate Income Taxes. The Toyota Annual Report has a
large line item for foreign taxes (although not broken out by country). I
called the IRS. The IRS categorically told me they do not post tax
information for individual corporations. You have never provided one
verifiable reference to support your fairy tale. You are either a liar, or
you actually have some information that you are not willing to share because
you like to torture people. Either way, you are a twit.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.