Chrysler refuses recall request

Unless you either compromise ground clearance to the point that it's not useful, you end up with a Hummer-width and -length vehicle if you want to mitigate its natural propensity to roll. Not everyone feels the need to drive a tank, and some (clearly many) are willing to accept the slight increased risk of not doing so.

Those who *understand* those risks, however, don't try to drive them like they're Porsches and do keep an eye on tire pressures, shock and bushing condition, etc. Where the Explorer "failed" was a tire pressure spec that was too close to the minimum safe pressure and a customer base that was more of a "set it and forget it" mentality, and also treated the vehicles like they *were* cars.

And stop bringing up the "crush" argument, it's silly because 100% rollover protection is not legally required; if consumers care about such things they can look up crash test results before purchase.

nate

There was no requirement for same at the time the Explorer was introduced; FMVSS 216 did not apply to vehicles w/ GVWR >6K lbs. - that only changed for 2013-2017 MY vehicles (phase-in.) Nor does it apply to convertibles, although many manufacturers have voluntarily fitted either fixed roll bars or devices that deploy when an impending rollover is detected.

That's your prerogative, and a position I can respect. I find it sad however that you would limit yourself because of the vanishingly small risk, but I'm not you. However please don't tell me that *I* can't drive a convertible.

You know, some people even enjoy riding bicycles and motorcycles, which offer even less protection in a crash...

I don't doubt it, but I like sixes because they're inherently smooth and balanced whereas any four (save a boxer) is going to be rough as a cob without balance shafts etc.

nate

but it's legally required on cars - vehicles sold to ordinary people driving on roads. the exploder was not fitted like a utility farm vehicle, it was fitted for soccer moms. but i guess that when you've had the frod enema - it's not what's right, it's what's legal that matters, despite the fact that frod went to great lengths to avoid having the exploder classified as a car so they didn't have to spend a few bucks making the cabin proof against crushing under the vehicle's own weight.

they can't if the vehicle is new. they can't if the the manufacturer won't share their own prototype testing results. and "crash testing" does NOT include roll or cabin crush propensity.

more to the [rhetorical] point, why am i wasting my time with you? you have all the analytical skills of a dead hamster.

And that's the point. They're more similar than different under the skin, but IH gets no heat because it is viewed as a sort of quasi- roadworthy little truck built by a company best known for heavy trucks and farm tractors, and the Explorer is seen as a perfectly acceptable vehicle for the suburban housewife - despite the fact that they share very similar handling characteristics.

nate

frod carefully avoided the requirement because it was cheaper. buy just a few bucks.

i think convertible drivers should be encouraged. you should get one.

au contraire - you /should/ drive one!

but they aren't under the impression that they're protected by a car...

says the guy that's never driven one. way to go nate - now get back to your convertible and your pic..

but they don't - and you're wrong saying they do. the scout has a lower c.g, is slower, and has a wider stance. each increment may not be colossal, but the combination is sufficient to keep the thing rubber side down.

Why would you classify a truck as a car? It's clearly *not.*

If it *were* classified as a car, it would have also counted towards Ford's car CAFE numbers as well, aside from the fact that it's, well, a light truck.

The only argument that you could possibly make that would make any sense is that Ford should have voluntarily implemented some kind of rollover protection structure into the roof of the Explorer, despite the fact that there was no requirement for them to do so. However, any student of automotive history knows that traditionally in the US safety hasn't sold (at least when safety measures have been used as advertising points by American manufacturers. For some reason European mfgrs. such as Volvo and M-B have had better luck with that.)

And neither should be drivers of trucks and SUVs.

If they think that they are, then they're dumb.

it's not a "truck", it's a rolling living room, complete with sofas.

thanks for reinforcing my argument. but you're not following it at the level intended, so that's no surprise.

why should they have to be legally compelled not to kill people????

see above.

i know a pic driver that's spectacularly dumb.

Choice is good.

I sure wouldn't want to live in a world without open top cars. YMMV.

Let's see you compare ACTUAL FIGURES....

And in what way does canting the dampers impact the vehicle's resistance to rollover? Don't be afraid to get technical...

So let's see an actual prediction...

You're the one not producing any numbers at all.

Actually, it's utterly true.

And moreover, unless the Explorer is using an incredibly radical new suspension, none of the shock absorbers play any role whatsoever in determining the geometry of the any of the wheels' motions. =

Much like you...

No proof that the Scout has a lower centre of MASS, no proof that the Scout has a wider stance...

So you not only play an engineer on Usenet, you also play a cost accountant and project manager!

>>>>>>>>>>

The moose test is essentially a paniced lane change. It has no relevance to a blow out where a driver reacts incorrectly.

CR runs common vehicles through its test at every generation. If the exploerer failed the famous run-it-harder until fails consumer reports test there would have been press releases and a lot of coverage.

It's stability with four sounde tires was acceptable for an enclosed truck, it suffered from defective tires and drivers who did not know how to react to a blow out.

"Roofs on the Honda CR-V and Ford Escape are marginal, and the Kia.s is poor."

You're talking future CAFE, I am talking past and present CAFE. The rules have changed since 1976.

If a driver reacted correctly there would be no roll over, provided the tire didn't blow out while one was already braking or making a sudden move.

Have a tire blow out and yank the wheel and slam on the brakes in your civic. See what happens.

I take it you haven't seen any convertible passenger cars recently.

all recent convertibles are required to have rigid windshield frames that don't collapse if the vehicle rolls.

again, that should not be a factor. correctly designed vehicles don't roll just because of a flat, regardless of who is behind the wheel.

not with a flat, but otherwise i have - it flips end to end while sliding sideways, it doesn't roll.

Since this is about B pillars collapsing and it has no B-pillars, this is well, irrelevant.