I did. You just ignore the facts and refuse to see the truth.
Compared to Toyota? I suppose you are ignoring the latest revelation
of how Toyota destroyed documents that discussed how unsafe 4Runners
were. As I pointed out to you several times, 4Runners from the 1990's
were more likely to roll and kill the occupants than Explorers. You
conveniently ignore that FACT when you start trashing Explorers.
What exactly does this mean? No manufactuerer is prepared to kill
citizens. All manufacturers make mistakes. I am more concerned with
Toyota's unwillingness to address problems. There is plenty of
evidence that Toyota has known about the sticky accelerator pedals for
at least 3 years. I posted a link to a Design News article where the
Toyota engineers discussed how they learned of the problem in 2007.
They knew the pedals might be slow to return, or even stick in place.
And yet, they did nothing. They didn't even change the design until
this year. Explain to me how that is reasonable.
Not true. The original, generation 1, Explorers used the twin I-Beam
/ Twin Traction beam front suspension. After 2005 the front suspesnion
of the generation 2 Explorers was competley different (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Explorer for a better explanation of
the differences). They used upper and lower A-arms with torsion bars.
The Generation 1 two door models with the twin I beam type suspension
are the ones that are alway talked about in the early engineering
memos regarding the Consumer Reports lane change manuever. The 2 Door
version had a shorter wheelbase and took a lot of work to get it to
pass the Consumer Reports manuver. The Consumer Reports test is not
any sort of regulatory requirement, but if your vehicle fails the
test, CR makes a big deal out of it (ask Isuzu ans Suzuki about that).
Ford wanted to make sure they could pass it. As I recall, even the
Generation 1 2 Door model passed the test when CR tested them. The 4
Door version (the one built in by far the largest numbers) never had
the same level of difficulty with this test. It had a longer
wheelbase. The 4 door, 4WD version was even more stable. In terms of
stability, the 2 door, 2 wd version made before 2005 was the least
stable. All of the Generation 2 models were much better. Ironically
most of the bad Firestone tires were on the Generation 2 models. Most
of the memo's in your long list of memos were dealing with discussions
between Ford and Firestone regarding recalling tires. Read some of
them. Not only was Firestone unwilling to recall the defective tries,
they constantly pressured Ford not to recall them either.
Not at all. The problem is you don't care to know the facts.
Which dates do you want me to stick to. After 1995, the Explorer's
front suspension was completely different than the prior models. You
apparently did not know that. And since you only are willing to read
Trial Lawyer misinfomration sites, you don't have the actual facts,
just their skewed version designed to help them win clients and cases.
Do you really beleive this? That list you sent includes a lot of memos
that are true, but the interpertation is often skewed. The list is
constructed in such a manner as to confuse the issue. The early memos
regarding Generation 1 and even Bronco IIs are highlighted. Yet most
of the conclsuions drawn from these memos have nothing to do with
Generation 2 Explorers. Generation 2 Explorers had a wider front
track. Generation 2 Explorers had the engine lowered to improve the
COG. So the trail lawyers get in front of jury and parade a out a
bunch of carefully selected memos that indicate that some Ford
engineers wanted to widen the track and lower the engine for
Generation 1 Explorers. Other Ford Engineers siad it was not
necessary and they could pass the CR test just by adjusting tire
pressure. The goal was to pass a magazine's BS test. They were able to
pass it. Where is the smoking gun? And none of these discussions about
lowering the engine or widening the track had anythig at all to do
with Generation 2 Explorers (1995-2001). But these are the models that
mostly had the bad tires. So trail lawyers took documents related to
one model of the Explorer and used those to indicate that another had
problem - which it didn't. Is that fair? And the fact remains, that
even when you factor in the bad tires, Explorers did not have a
particualrly high rollover rate. If you average all Explorers together
(the relativvely bad 2 door 2 wheel drive models, and the very stable
4 door 4wd models) the overall Explorer rollover rate was at least
average for the class (mid sized SUVs). As I have pointed out several
times, the Toyota 4Runner from the same era (1990's) was far more
likely to be involved in a rollover accident that an Explorer. Why
don't you address that issue?
Show me your link to that statistic.
Here is one I found:
Single-vehicle fatal rollover crashes per million registration-years,
1995-98, 1-3-year-old selected passenger vehicles
2WD utility Vehicles
Light Chevrolet Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick two-door 1994-95 - 196
Light Jeep Cherokee four-door 1995-96 - 37
Midweight Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo four-door 1996-97 - 150
Midweight Toyota 4Runner four-door 1996-97 - 80
Midweight Jeep Grand Cherokee four-door 1996-97 - 66
Heavy Ford Explorer four-door 1995-97 - 84
Very heavy Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon four-door 1995-96 - 23
4WD utility Vehicles
Light Chevrolet Tracker/Suzuki Sidekick two-doora 1994-95 - 127
Midweight Jeep Cherokee four-door 1995-96 - 12
Midweight Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo four-door 1996-97 - 104
Midweight Toyota 4Runner four-door 1996-97 - 119
Midweight Jeep Grand Cherokee four-door 1996-97 - 27
Heavy Ford Explorer four-doora 1995-97 - 51
Very heavy Chevrolet Tahoe/GMC Yukon four-doora 1995-96 - 40
For the 2WD vehciles the Explorer and 4Runner were very close with a
slight edge in favor of the 4Runner (probably not statistically
significant). I assume that these stats included the shorter wheelbase
2 door version of the Explorer. But for the 4WD versions it wasn't
close. The 4Runner had a rollover rate over twice that of the 4WD
Explorer. So again, I ask, if you are so upset about the "dangerous"
Explorer, why haven't you gone super nova over the 4Runner from the
same era. Could it be you are completely blinded by a pro-Toyota bias?
Here is the bottom line from a source I don't think even you could
claim, was pro-Ford:
"Is the Ford Explorer more rollover-prone than the dozens of other
"No. According to federal data and safety ratings, the four-door
Explorer's rollover record is pretty typical of midsize SUVs."
Do you take lesson from Mike Hunter? This seems like his tactic - make
a ridiculous claim, back it up with "data" no one else can find, and
when challenged lie like hell.
It seems to me you don't care about truth. And certainly you son't
use logic. Instead of addressing the original topc of this thread you
try to defelct attention by dragging misinfomration from a decade ago.
Where is the logic in that?
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:34:26 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
The emperor is dressed fairly well.
There's a reason I buy "J" VIN Toyota products, and that's because I've
seen some of the 'quality' from NUMMI and the US plants.
I have had few problems with my Japanese made Toyotas.
I haven't had any problems with my US made ones, because I only buy
Japanese made ones.
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.