Another recall - fire risk

In 1972 I bought a new Dodge Charger. With the exception of a carb linkage problem, that was fixed, it was an excellent car. No other problems in

55,000 miles. In '74 I bought a new Caprice Classic convertible. No problems with it except for the ignition module that went out during the first week that I had it. Also, at the same time, my wife bought a new Mustang II. Wasn't much of a car but no real problems. In '77 I bought a new Camaro. No problems with it except for the seat vinyl came apart at the seams, which the dealer replaced. I've also had several used cars including a '75 Monte Carlo that gave no trouble at all, and a '78 Olds 98 That was nearly flawless. I draw my conclusions from real experience. Where do you get yours? H

"Remember when they continued to run after the key was turned off? That was also the

70's. "

My '92 Explorer doesn't run with the key off, but I can pull the key right out while it's running and drive it with no problems. As a plus, I never accidentally lock my keys in the truck this way. You do need the keys to start it though so there is a plus for Ford.

I draw mine from our 1978 Plymouth Volare' that had front fenders that were rusted out within 18 months. And from our 1977 Mercury Monarch (Granada clone) that had a wiring harness fire within the first year. And from my father's 1977 Sedan DeVille which stalled constantly until he gave up and traded it in. And from my mother's 1970 Chevy Nova which had some sort of annoying carburator problem that never could be fixed. And from my aunt's

1970 Ford Maverick that was TOTAL junk before the 48 month loan was paid off. And from my parents 1979 Chrysler LeBaron (built on the Volare/Aspen chassis) that we called "LeBomb" and LePieceofshit because it had SO many things wrong with it. And from my mom's 1974 Chevy Malibu that had that freakin' seat belt lock (which admittedly, doesn't in itself make it a bad car) and got 9 MPG around town (perhaps less with the A/C on). And yes, 9MPG even on a car that was otherwise perfect would qualify a 1974 vehicle as "crap" in my book.

I am in Pittsburgh which, I admit, is tough on cars. Lots of STEEP hills all day long and nasty winters. Perhaps you are in an easier climate. That being said, cars before the 1970s and after have held up much better. Thus proving my assertion that the 1970s was a BAD time for cars.

Yeah but that vehicle is now 14 model years old. I wonder how many years it ran well before that happened? The '70's crap was doing shit like that right from the factory!

1970 Ford Maverick that was TOTAL junk before the 48 month loan was paid off. And from my parents 1979 Chrysler LeBaron (built on the Volare/Aspen chassis) that we called "LeBomb" and LePieceofshit because it had SO many things wrong with it. And from my mom's 1974 Chevy Malibu that had that freakin' seat belt lock (which admittedly, doesn't in itself make it a bad car) and got 9 MPG around town (perhaps less with the A/C on). And yes, 9MPG even on a car that was otherwise perfect would qualify a 1974 vehicle as "crap" in my book.

I am in Pittsburgh which, I admit, is tough on cars. Lots of STEEP hills all day long and nasty winters. Perhaps you are in an easier climate. That being said, cars before the 1970s and after have held up much better. Thus proving my assertion that the 1970s was a BAD time for cars.

Actually, your assertion was- "The 1970s cars in particular were junk within

3 years", which simply isn't true, in most cases. It looks to me like the difference between your *bad* cars and my *good* cars is the dealership service departments. Mine were fixed when something cropped up and yours weren't. As far as the harness fire thing is concerned, that seems to be more a Ford thing rather than a '70's thing. Hence this thread. Fuel mileage wasn't good in the '70's. Wasn't good in the '60's or '80's, either, if you had any horsepower at all. I thought the eighties were the worst. That's why I only bought one new car during that decade, an '86 Monte that didn't even come close to being as good a car as the used '75 Monte I'd had previously. Here in SE Iowa, we have the salty winters but not so hilly. From my point of view, it has been a *bad* time for cars since about the mid to late '70's, with few exceptions. H

*L* my 87 Ranger could start without the key in the ignition. My kids figured that one out. But you couldn't depend on it, sometimes it would and sometimes it wouldn't........*sigh* I miss Rodney.

As I asked before, the CNN website lists the cars with the switch involved as Explorers without IVD 1995-2003. What is the IVD stand for?

Interactive Vehicle Dynamics.

a stability control system. The service manual information showsthis system being available sometime after Feb. 18, 2002. For whateverreason, Explorers having IVD no longer have a Brake Pressure Switch andhave a Redundant Pedal Switch. This Redundant Pedal Switch is shown asbeing powered all the time.

So does my 2003 Mountaineer Premier (V8 AWD) have that? And does that mean it would NOT have the offending, fire causing, switch?

My family owned two Pintos. I can assure they were not junk in three years. I bought one new in 1972, drove it through three years of college, autocrossed it a dozen times a year, camped in it, drove across country in it, etc. After three years I sold it ot my sister, who drove it to college for another 3 years. I then bought it back, drove it back and forth to work for a year before selling it to another college student. In all that time it needed one reapir - a new starter. And it only needed that becasue I bought gas at a self service stationa and got 50% water. I burned the starter up becasue everytime I when up a hill, I'd get more water in the fuel system and have to repeatedly crank the car to get it going. (I finally had to remove the tank and clean out all the water). The other Pinto was driven my my older sister for 7 years. When she bought a new car, I sold it to a friend. His three children used the car one after another for another 8 years. Then he sold it - still running. I think he had to repalce one roacker arm in the time he owned it. So don't tell me Pinto were junk after three years. It just isn't so.

I don't have any personal experiences with Vegas or Volarie, except I never lost to a Vega in an autocross (or a Toyota either for that matter).

Ed

I'm glad you lived (thru Pinto) to tell ths story.

Depsite all the legends, Pinto's were not particualrly fire prone. As far as bursting in to flame on impact, early Chevettes were much worse, but they rarely get mentioned in the press. I never could figure this out. As far as driver death rates, any of the competitive Japanese cars from that era were worse, but the press never mentions that - I wonder why? Or the VW Bettle - now there was a rolling death trap. I saw a guy roll one of those in flat parking lot once. Of course we just rolled it back over and he drove it home, just a little worse for the wear. My Sister had a 80 Accord (replaced the Pinto). When it was 6 years old she was hit by a Mustang that ran a stop sign. The Mustang drove away, the Accord was a total loss (my Sister was not injured). Her old Pinto was still doing fine when the car that replaced the Accord was junk (a 1986 Jetta).

The only real complinat I had against my Pinto was a lack of power. Despite having the 2L OHC Four instead of the 1.6L OHV Four, I was still non competitive with many other cars in my class at any autocross that had high speed sections. If you kept the speeds down, I could do OK against most cars in my class. I always had much better luck autocrossing my Pinto than my Datsun 280Z or my Jensen-Healey. The Datsun was particularly bad. I suppose my best luck was with an Austin-Healey Sprite, but it suffered from a lack of power (I only ran stock classes). For shear tire smoking fun, my

1978 V-8 Fairmont was a trip (even though it was mostly non-competitive - too nose heavy).

Regards,

Ed White