U-Haul bans Ford Explorer

Page 2 of 5  
You're ignorant of what businesses do.


to
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message

Well, I work fairly high up in a successful business, you little fuck. Why don't you enlighten us as to why your little second rate college educated dumbass, with no graduate schooling, thinks that we are collectively ignorant as to "what business do?"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why
Yes, It's very clear that you are an "educated" man. Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually U-Haul is probably like most other big companies, in the transportation industry. Meaning that it is most likely self-insured. No large company can afford to have full time, complete coverage, for everything. They decide what they can spend up to, then buy catastrophic coverage to meet the cost of anything over that amount. Kind of like the deductible you pay, but theirs is usually high enough so that they pay for most of the claims. The insurance company just administers the claims process, except for the 'BIG ONES'.
One trucking company I used to work for was self-insured to $5,000,000 per year for accidents, but they kept a whole bunch of lawyers driving Beemer's around the country defending against claims, so their actual cost before the insurance kicked in was close to $8,000,000.
-- Diamond Jim "The Old Devil Dog"

to
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
C. E. White wrote:
It seems to me, the ban would make more sense if they refused to

That's an odd thing to say.
Since the faulty tires have been recalled and replaced why would Firestone tires not be suitable in Dec 2003, several years after the original 'scare'?
I know you don't agree with me but if Firestone have (begrudgingly) recalled the faulty product and made good, then UHaul should have no problem with them. However if (and I say if so as not to offend you) the Ford Explorer was implicated and Ford never have admitted it or repaired the vehicles, then a ban makes perfect sense.
I'm not saying that is UHauls tack, they publicly state it has nothing to do with suitability. That may be their true position or they may just want to avoid a fight with Ford seeing how they turned on their co-conspirator, Firestone. We'll probably never know; but it's food for thought.
JP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yet, U-haul is refusing to rent for use behind Explorers because of the public's perception of the Explorer. When the Explorer was not the cause of the problem, and it's several years after the scare.

You seem to be asking Ford to somehow repair Firestone's problem. Consider that Ford did step up and offer free replacement of Firestone tires long before Firestone ever did, too.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Funk wrote:

I wasn't saying that at all. But since you bring that subject up. Please forgive my double posting of the following article I discovered today from Time Magazine.
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 Ford's decision to increase the stability of the Explorer by lowering the tire pressure soon had unintended consequences. The mushier tires held the road better but worsened fuel economy. When Ford asked Firestone to fix the problem, Firestone reduced the weight of the tire about 3%. unquote
Sice Firestone made the tires to For'd specifications one could actually argue that it's Ford's fault, though that wasn't my original intent. My intent was to establish joint culpability which I believe is the case.
See http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,128198,00.html
JP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You make it sound like that's something unusual. It's called a TPC spec and ALL auto makers ask the tire companies to "customize" their tires to the auto makers spec. They issue a TPC spec and the tire makers bid on the contract. Low bid wins. If Firestone did not think they could make a tire that was safe and meet the TPC spec then they should not have bid it.

Nope, it's STILL firestones fault. They built the faulty tire. It's been proven that - - they left out a nylon band - at least one of their factories workmanship was crap leading to defective tires. - Goodyear built to the same TPC spec and didn't have any of those problems. Was the Goodyear bid higher? I don't know. But FS should not have bid something they could not produce at the bid price.
Anyone who ever had a set of those POS firestones knows what crap they were. They were so poorly made that they were impossible to balance.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AZGuy wrote:
If Firestone did not think

That's correct. And that's where they went awry. They are a fault, never denied it. But it's not ALL their fault. But since the exact same tire with the same flaw didn't fail as often on the Ranger gives one food for thought. I doubt very much they intentionally supplied a tire they KNEW was going to fail, but it's true they made a serious error in judgment.
Was the Goodyear bid higher? I don't know.
Well I do. See a 1996 Ford letter to Goodyear http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/suvsafety/ford_frstone/Document%2035.pdf
Don't tell me this doesn't prove anything, I am simply answering your question.
But FS should

True. They thought they could, but as it turns out they didn't do a stellar job.
JP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Why don't you tell me what it "proves". I see nothing in it but standard attempts by both sides to improve their profit position. None of the letter has anything to do with tire performance.

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

It doesn't prove anything. I was simply answering your question.
Consider it a free gift of knowledge from me to you.
JP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You still just *don't* seem to be able to understand something very simple:
There are more Explorers on the road than any other SUV.
Percentage-wise, there were actually FEWER Explorer rollovers than many other SUVs. The difference is the sheer NUMBER of Explorers on the road---something like 7,000.000. SEVEN MILLION. I believe the numbers were about 195 deaths, right? And the majority of the deaths were also attributed to unbelted occupants.
Um, 195 out of 7,000,000 is around .00279 percent. You're going to sit there and tell me that the Explorer is a rolling death trap?
And your argument about the Ranger makes even less sense, since the Ranger shared many of the Explorer's suspension components. Again, the reason you don't HEAR of Ranger rollovers is simply that there aren't as many on the road. On top of all of that, the Explorer's front suspension was completely redesigned in 1995, with totally different geometry.
The "rollover" media scare seems to have gone away now that the Firestones have, haven't they?
And you just don't seem to place any importance on Car And Driver's tests, which clearly indicate that EVERY time a tire failed, the driver was able to bring an Explorer to a straight, uneventful stop.
Why is this difficult for you to understand? More of nameplate on the road=more rollovers per nameplate, and panicky, unattentive DRIVERS are really the problem. Cars NEVER roll over on their own.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Re: U-Haul bans Ford Explorer Group: alt.autos.ford Date: Mon, Jan 12, 2004, 10:46am From: snipped-for-privacy@localnetnospam.com (JonnyCab)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you just don't seem to place any importance on Car And Driver's tests, which clearly indicate that EVERY time a tire failed, the driver was able to bring an Explorer to a straight, uneventful stop.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It's a lot different when you're in a test knowing that a tire failure is going to be expected then when you're on the road not expecting it to happen.
I would also submit that the C&D drivers are paying more attention knowing they're in a testing situation.
Eric
"Save The Sync, Ban MOS"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"I know you don't agree with me but if Firestone have (begrudgingly) recalled the faulty product and made good, then UHaul should have no problem with them. However if (and I say if so as not to offend you) the Ford Explorer was implicated and Ford never have admitted it or repaired the vehicles, then a ban makes perfect sense."
"Being implicated" is what you said. Then you went on to say, "and Ford never have admitted it or repaired the vehicles", which says that you think Ford should have repaired the Explorer to somehow fix Firestone's *documented* problem. This my statement: "You seem to be asking Ford to somehow repair Firestone's problem."

Written before Firestone's defective manufacturing was brought to light.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

The fact that Firestone warranted the tires to be safe at Ford's recommended pressures gives the lie to the idea that Firestone thought the pressures were unsafe.

" Firestone admitted that those tires were no good" Gee, it would seem that that one statement shows the crux of the matter, doesn't it? Firestone admitted that those tires were no good... Firestone admitted that those tires were no good... Firestone admitted that those tires were no good... Gee, those were the tires involved in the rollovers, weren't they?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Funk wrote:

I think we are simply talking cross purposes. that is not what I was trying to say tho it is clear to me that is the way you read it. Apologies if I made myself unclear.
Firestone should fix their problems. Yes. Ford should fix their problems. Yes.
The tire recall took care of Firestones problem, those tires are now (hopefully) out of circulation. Ford made design changes to the Explorer in 2002 which should make it safer. So that takes care of that problem going forward.
The only difference is that Firestone admitted their problems (admittedly after a long period of lying about it). Ford have never admitted their part of the problem.
JP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

*ALL* manufacturers make changes to make their vehicles safer. That's called progress. You seem to be still working on the idea that making a vehicle safer is an admission that the prior models were 'unsafe'. During the investigation, the NHTSA still rated the Explorer as second best in rollover stats, *including* those from the Firestone debacle. Saying that the Explorer was unsafe concerning rollovers also condemns all other SUVs in the same class except the Jeeps. Yet, those other models, which have a *higher* rollover rate, also have changed to be safer. Were those vehicles somehow safer concerning rollovers than the Explorer? No, they weren't. Claiming that the Explorer added to the problem through some unknown, mystical characteristic that the NHTSA somehow missed, and stil lmanaged to give the Explorer an excellent rollover rate, just seems so disingenuous. The facts simply don't support such a claim.

What problem, exactly? The NHTSA couldn't come up with such a problem. Even with all the publicity, the Explorer's rollover rate was till lower than almost every other SUV in the Explorer's class. If the Explorer was so unstable, how on earth did it manage to stay upright so much?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Funk wrote:

Progress is wonderful and modern cars are so much better than just 15 or 20 years ago in almost every respect. It is not my argument that new found improvements condemn an earlier model.
But the fact that Ford engineers wanted to make 4 improvements to the explorer in 1989 to correct oversteer prior to launching the vehicle and Ford only chose the 2 least expensive suggests to me that they 'had the technology' back then but chose not to implement it. Cost I'm sure was a factor. However AFTER the debacle Ford promptly put into place the remaining 2 improvements their engineers had suggested a decade earlier. (which were BTW to lower the engine in the engine bay and set the wheels 2" further apart).
They made a judgment call. They got it wrong. We all make mistakes and Ford are no exception.

The Ford of Venezuela memo I quoted elsewhere in this thread would counter your assertion and support the idea that some unique problem existed with the explorer in tire-tread failures (i.e. not all types of tire failure). It was after all Ford's own employees that suggested such a link and that the explorer fared badly compared with other SUV's with regard to this specific type of tire failure.
Remember that the Tire failure rate as published by Ford at the time was 250 per million. Neither the Explorer or the FS Tire are 'junk' but both had flaws that combined to cause the fatalities. The fatalities were due to a unique combination of factors that we hope will never recur with ford firestone or any other vehicle/tire combinations.

Ditto my previous comments.
JP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

On the one hand, you say "It is not my argument that new found improvements condemn an earlier model." Then you say the above.

Who says they "got it wrong"? Not the NHTSA. Not any other investigative body. Maybe you don't understand the process of keeping engineers under control. Giving the engineers full rein means the product would never reach the market, as there are always improvements that can be made. At some point, "Enough!" must be called, and the product produced.

My assertion is that the NHTSA, as well as other organizations with the authority to do so, have found the Explorer to be very safe concerning rollovers in their class. Your memo does not counter that at all.

The Firestone tires in question were faulty. Firestone has admitted that. Maybe it's time for you to admit that, too. It seems that you are having a hard time dealing with reality. Do you own Bridgestone stock, by any chance?

Which ones? The ones that claim the FS tires were not junk? The ones that claim that the Explorer has some mystical quality that makes it roll over more, when no one else can find this quailty?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Funk wrote:

Precisely. They have to make a judgment call as to what is necessary and what isn't. IMHO they got it wrong. If you don't agree, fine. Try telling that to the relatives of the dead.

It points out a specific vehicle/tire failure combination that was implicated in the fatalities. It does not say whether the Explorer is in 'general' safe or otherwise. It is specific. Saying it is 'safe in it's class' I will not deny, but I do contend that these fatalities were due to a unique set of circumstances; ONE of which was the explorer and NOT other vehicle types.

I have NEVER denied that the tires had a flaw. I mean NEVER. Because I argue that the explorer was contributory you seem to believe that I mean the tire was not at fault. Far from it. It takes a lot to make a vehicle fail, I have listed elsewhere in other threads eight factors that I have gleaned as pertinent to this issue, only ONE of which was the explorer, ONE of is the tire flaw, and so on.
Now you do seem to deny that the explorer has ANY type of weakness with regard to the rollovers that caused the fatalities in question.
No I do not own Firestone stock. Nor have I ever (unless my Mutual funds hold them without my explicit knowledge).
I DO own an explorer which my son drives. It is NOT a train wreck, It's not a road hazard. But the explorer WAS contributory to the accidents with the firestone tires (as well of course were the tires). The Venezuela memo from FORD says so. It's not something I MAKE UP as I go along. But something I observe from reading widespread reports of the accidents over the years, some of which include references to documents subpoenaed at the time.
I do not say these things as someone who 'likes' firestone nor one who 'likes' or 'dislikes' Ford. But I do have 4 fords on my driveway, some of which have Bridgstone tires, some have Michelin, some have Goodyear. (I used to have a car with Firesstone tires too, but I sold that vehicle; which BTW was a Ford).
I am impartial I believe. You wear rosy colored glasses.
JP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Oh, my. When facts fail, try emotion. Your opinion is great, it just defies reality.

The tire implicated was found to be faulty. It was manufactured with a defect. Get over it.

Then you simply deny reality. No one else can find this set of circumstances you claim exists.

Yet no one else finds this mystical quality of the Explorer to be a problem. I wonder why you cling to this so strongly? Got stock in Bridgestone?

No, what I'm saying is the same thing all the other investigators are saying: the problem was Firestone's.

Then what's the deal? Why are you so eager to find blame when no one else can?

How, exactly? By using Firestone tires?

Ford, along with everyone else at the time, didn't know WHAT the problem was. Except Firestone, and they lied. To everyone.

Sure. You find fault where no one else does, even those who did the investigations. What makes you more knowledgeable then the NHTSA?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
  Click to see the full signature.
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.