Honda Fit Tires..

Page 2 of 2  
JD wrote:


It's just another example of guv'ment getting in your face. Soon you will be told when to get up, what to have for breakfast, when to have a crap, when to socialize etc. etc. etc...
Ya jis gotta git use(d) to it!
JT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/09/2010 07:57 PM, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

actually, this is frod's doing, not "guv'ment" per se. frod were the ones who spent hundreds of millions of dollars convincing legislators that it was a tire problem, not a fundamental vehicle problem when their exploder killed and injured thousands of americans when their product rolled and the roof collapsed, just because of a flat tire.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

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

I think you are being unfair to Ford. Here are my thoughts:
1) 4 Door Explorers of the mid 1990s had a lower lower rollover death rate than 4Runners, S10 Blazers, Troopers, and many other contemporary mid-sized 4 Door 4WD SUVs (see http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3507.pdf ) 2) 50% of 1996 Explorers were sold with Goodyear tires that did not experience the same high incident of tire blowouts as Firestone tire equipped Explorers from the same model year. 3) After Ford recalled the Firestone equipped Explorers and replaced the tires, the tire failure rate dropped drastically. 4) The Ford recommended tire pressures were well above the minimum required to safety support a properly loaded Explorer (even Firestone finally acknowledged this). In fact other SUVs (4Runners and Pathfinders) of the era had the same size tires with the same pressure recommendations. 5) The press made a big deal about front suspension, vehicle height, and J manuver testing that was related to the Generation 1 Explorers. However, most of the tire failures occured on Generation 2 Explorers that had a completely different front suspension. Ironically, the Generation 1 Explorers that had the "bad" twin traction beam front suspension and the bad handling characteristics had very good accident statistics (see http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3009.pdf ) - but then they didn't suffer the sort of tire failures experienced by later models with the improved front suspension and a wider track - go figure.
I suppose Ford did spend millions defending the Explorer. And Firestone spent millions trying to smear Ford and deflect blame for faulty tires. If you want to trash Ford for installing crappy Firestone tires on Explorers, then I agree with you. But I do not agree that there was an inherent vehicle design flaw that made 4 Door Explorers less safe than was typical for orther similar sized SUVs of the era. Certainly Generation 1 and 2 Explorers are not as safe as current models, but they were not less safe than contemporary SUVs of similar size and cost. I do believe that the two door Explorers (the Explorer Sports), particualrly the 2WD versions, were not as safe as most 4 door SUVs becasue of the shorther wheelbase. The reduced stability (comapred to 4 dr Explorers) and the fact that 2 Door 2 WD Explorers were realtively cheap and attarctive to younger buyers are the chief reasons that 2 Door Explorers had significantly worse accident statistics than 4 door Explorers. However, even the relatively dangerous 95-97 2Dr 4WD Explorer Sport had a lower driver death rate than the supposedly safe 96-97 4 dr, 4wd Toyota 4Runner. To be fair to Toyota, it is important to note that the current generation 4Runner is one of (if not) the safest mid/large SUV you can buy. On the other hand, the first generation 4Runenr was a virtual death trap. Every generation improved (but then the same is true for many vehicles).
It is always difficult to interpert accident statistics since they are a influenced by both the vehicle design and the types of drivers that are attracted to the vehicle. Explorers were among the first SUVs to attract non-traditional truck buyers. I believe that lots of people who were brought up driving traditional cars ended up driving Generation 1 and 2 Explorers because of the SUV craze that started in the mid-90s. These peole were not used to driving vehicles with a high center of gravity and therefore were more prone to making mistakes that led to a rollover accident. However, the fact remains that Explorers of that era had a relatively low accident death rates. For sure death rates related to rollover type accidents were higher, but overall death rates were lower than for many contemporary vehicles.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim beam wrote:

...and the net result is that guv'ment did get in our face. Well not mine, I don't and don't ever plan to own such a vehicle.
JT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/10/2010 08:05 PM, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

no, frod got in our face with their corrupt whitewashing of their deliberate manslaughter. "guv'ment" is simply the product of a populace that allows corporations to buy their way out of jail.

--
nomina rutrum rutrum

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

There are those that claim it is an advantage.....but it would be so minor, it's not worth the hassle. Most anyone can have a home air compressor, not many have bottled nitrogen (I have it at work where there are advantages to using it in process and storage, but my car tires, not!).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/08/2010 05:24 PM, JD wrote:

"the dealer says". that should have been a clue right at the start - dealers say lots of things which aren't true. in this case, it's called "keep the customer coming back".

air works fine.

you don't want to turn it off - if you get a nail in your tire, it might not flat immediately, but leak faster than your once-a-month schedule and therefore be dangerous, both to you and other road users.

no and yes. tpms has a limit below which it triggers the alarm - it's not an active gauge. you should continue to monitor actual tire pressure in the normal way
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

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

It appears to be the latest thing. I looked at a Venza and it's tires were filled with nitrogen. My car buddy says it's a load of hooey since air is mostly nitrogen anyway. Using canned nitrogen instead of the gas station air will keep moisture out of the tires. But I have a little tire compressor that doesn't produce moisture.

OK, I hadn't talked to my car buddy before I posted my questions. He was out of town. Air it is!

Good point. I just thought it was another un-necessary warning light but I see what you're saying. I've read in some other forums that the sensors can be pretty sensitive to minor pressure changes but it's just another light and better safe than sorry.

Thanks for your very helpful reply.
--
JD..

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/09/10 11:13, JD wrote:

IIRC the moisture comes from compressing air containing water vapor, not that the compressor generates it. Special filters remove most of it from compressed air for SCUBA.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Harding wrote:

My car buddy mentioned the air filler at self-service gas stations. The ones where water comes out with the air.
--
JD..

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/10/2010 06:05 AM, JD wrote:

the water is already in the air - it's called "humidity". compression and cooling simply allows it to condense.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

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.