Re: TOYOTA SEZ IT HAS [another] FIX FOR PEDAL ... DO YOU BELIEVE IT?

Page 3 of 3  


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?

See above

See above

Show me your link to that statistic.
Here is one I found:
From http://hl2.bgu.ac.il/users/www/2673/project/Rollover%20risk%20of%20cars%20and%20light%20trucks.pdf
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:
From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/etc/before.html
"Is the Ford Explorer more rollover-prone than the dozens of other SUVs? "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?
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Cross posting deleted automatically)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

Screw you Mike, you wanna be newsgroup cop. Aren't you late for work at the Security Kiosk at the mall? Run along now...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny, everyone else seems to have a different count than you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Cross posting deleted automatically)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hunter wrote:

the Security Kiosk at the mall? Run along now...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It's funny to see the Toyota folks get their panties in a bunch when it's revealed that the emperor has no clothes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

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.