Another study showing Ford's Rollover Tendencies

formatting link
Why would anyone want to buy an new Explorer? At least if you buy it used you can get it very cheaply...and rightfully so....

Reply to
Norman
Loading thread data ...

Wow, I have an 11 year old explorer, and it hasn't rolled over? 195k miles...

Your hero Bill O'Rielly would even correct you on this one. The Explorer doesn't roll over, the driver does.

JS

Reply to
Jacob Suter

Jacob Suter wrote in news:ZGPRc.12504$ snipped-for-privacy@fe50.usenetserver.com:

and I have been smoking 2 packs a day for 30 years and have no health problems....ergo, smoking is safe.....

Reply to
Norman

Well yes and no... Explorers don't seem more apt to roll over the older they get... Smokers on the other hand do the opposite.

The physics don't change - the driver does.

JS

Reply to
Jacob Suter

Norman, This issue has more to do with tire care and maintenance (READ: Driving on hot roads at high speeds on under inflated tires) and driving habits skills and abilities then any inherent "explorer characteristics".

Ya you can roll an explorer, but you can roll any vehicle if you maintain and/or drive it inappropriately.

As to your smoking, you really are comparing apples to oranges.

People who skydive are far more likely to die in a skydiving accident then people who do not skydive.

Yet people who press the envelope and skydive recklessly (with less then adequate equipment care, training and/or caution) are far more likely to die in a skydiving accident then those who are meticulously careful in the care of their equipment, their training and the execution of their "sport".

Reply to
351CJ

The smoking analogy was used to simply highlight the flaw in Jacob's reasoning...I do not smoke btw....

While the Fox article was somewhat lacking in detail, the point I was trying to make, was that compared to other SUV's, Ford's are at the bottom of the pack when it comes to rolling over....A point the injury lawyers will be sure not to miss....

Reply to
Norman

Whew! Glad my 2003 Sport was not included. Or the 2001 I had... or my

Reply to
Frank Mancuso

WOW, that was a far reach. The Mazda RX8 is less likely to roll over.. who would have thought..

I was wondering if they have the government "Hit by a Mac Truck" crash safety test. I'd hazzard to guess that the Mazda would be the worst on that list.

I just have to laugh that new media outlets need to sensationalize any information they give, and then con the gullible into believing anything by offering only part of the information.

To think that a low profile sports car is less likely to roll over in a tight turn situation than a higher profile SUV or minivan. WOW.. they must have hired a real genius to figure that one out.

Next thing they will tell us is that sports cars are more likely to get stuck in a foot of snow than an SUV. What other insightful bits of information will they figure out next?

Perhaps they should spend more time studying why so many drivers have so little common sense that they drive outside the handling capabilities of the vehicle they are in? That would be a better waste of my tax dollars.

Reply to
MJM

I don't think there's any question that Explorers and other SUVs have a greater propensity to roll over. The more manufacturers can improve their stability, the better. That's why you have to drive them more carefully than a car. I don't get that the sense that my 92 is unreasonable unstable. But I drive slowly and avoid significant lateral g-forces. Part of the problem that I see is that some folks drive SUVs like cars and WAY too fast in the snow. Of course, unexpected tire tread separation doesn't help.

Reply to
Anthony Giorgianni

I have to wonder about articles like this. Did you actually go look at the Government test results? Yes some Explorer models are only rated "two stars" for rollover resistance. But the following 2003 vehicles are rated just as poorly:

2003 Cadillac Escalade EXT 4-DR. 4x4 w/SAB 2003 Chevrolet Avalanche 4-DR. 4x2 w/SAB 2003 Chevrolet Avalanche 4-DR. 4x4 w/SAB 2003 Chevrolet Blazer 2-DR. 4x4 2003 Chevrolet Blazer 4-DR. 4x4 2003 Chevrolet Tahoe 4-DR. 4x2 2003 GMC Yukon 4-DR. 4x2 2003 GMC Yukon Denali 4-DR. 4x2 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4-DR. 4x2 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4-DR. 4x4 2003 Jeep Liberty 4-DR. 4x2 2003 Land Rover Discovery Series II 4x4 2003 Mitsubishi Montero Sport 4-DR. 4x2 2003 Mitsubishi Montero Sport 4-DR. 4x4 2003 Nissan Pathfinder 4-DR. 4x2 2003 Nissan Xterra 4-DR. 4x2 2003 Nissan Xterra 4-DR. 4x4

And two vehicles actually were rated worse than any Explorer / Mountaineer:

2003 Chevrolet Blazer 2-DR. 4x2 2003 Chevrolet Blazer 4-DR. 4x2

Why doesn't this "fair and balanced" article mention all these other dangerous vehicles? Where is the outrage about the S10 Blazers which have always had worse accident statistics than Explorers (or Toyota 4Runners - the old style have the worst rollover death rate of any similar sized SUV).

I might also ask, why you didn't research the truth before dumping all over the Explorer. Do you have some hidden agenda?

The truth is simple - many people who want SUVs want them jacked up to the sky for some ridiculous reason. Raising the center of gravity makes a vehicle less stable (all else being equal). Ford (and GM, and Nissan, and Jeep, etc.) are all guilty of trying to provide Customers what they want, no matter how irrational what they want might be. Next time you feel the need to complain about the propensity of most SUVs to rollover, look in the mirror - You (or at least SUV Customers) are the source of the problem.

Regards,

Ed White

Reply to
C. E. White

In most cases it's the driver that causes the rollover.

Reply to
Bill

There's not a vehicle out there that will roll over without some input from the person handling the controls...... unlless, of course, you believe that a gun can take itself out of the gun safe and kill someone with no input from the person "at the controls".

Your post is pointless and your efforts would be much better spent working on the solution (driver education) to needless MVAs of any sort and less time trolling.

Reply to
Jim Warman

I find it disturbing that after all the problems with the Explorer, and after its redesign with a completely new suspension, the current Explorer's ability to resist rollovers is worse than, for example the Blazer/Emvoy twins and the Toyota 4Runner. I have a '98 Mountaineer and have had no stability problems, but then I've been driving a long time (including some track work in my younger days) and have a pretty good feel for a vehicle's limits. Even so, I would have expected a better rating after a redesign.

Ken

envoy tw

Norman wrote:

Reply to
Kenneth J. Harris

Actually not true... There are far more dangerous SUVs, but we don't hear about them flipping over? S10 Blazer for one. The difference is the S10 Blazer wasn't really marketed to the same 'group' as the Explorer (Blazer was aimed for a lower class market, hence the 2.8L V6 and the sleazy interior). In 91 the top-of-the-line Explorer was something like 5-6k higher than a top-of-the-line Blazer, which put it into the "middle class" market - also known as the biggest whiners on earth ("I jerked the wheel and it flipped over and its ALL THEIR FAULT")

When you want to get down to it, Goodyear has far more manufacturing defect based tire failures than Firestone... So why the big hooey about Firestone? Goodyear tires tend to get hung on lower price vehicles and/or vehicles that don't have a tedency to roll (like Chebby Cavaliers and Dodge Rams)...

Also judging from my insurance, my Explorer is the safest car in my driveway - my Dodge 1500 2WD and Santa Fe 2WD both have higher liability insurance rates. The Dodge has RABS and dual airbags, the Santa Fe has

4 wheel ABS, traction control, dual *AND* side curtain airbags (and a 5 star crash test rating). This tells me either Explorer rollovers aren't a major issue, or they're turning out to be due to driver error and the insurance companies are able to recover their costs via suing the driver...

JS

Reply to
Jacob Suter

He said Fox. ha-ha. haha haaa.

Reply to
JonnyCab®

Quite simply, because Firestone lied. Firestone tried to tell the world that their bad tires were Ford's fault, because Ford specced the wrong pressure. What they failed to mention was that Firestone knew about the TP recommended, and warranted the tires to handle it. Instead, they did their best to make the whole problem someone else's fault. All the while knowing full well that the real problem was a manufacturing problem *that they knew about*, and they still shipped the bad tires.

This is the second time Firestone's done this, BTW.

Bill Funk Change "g" to "a"

Reply to
Big Bill

My dog has a tendency to roll over. I'm trying to get the AKC to recall him. ;-)

Reply to
Herb Kauhry

"JonnyCab®" wrote in news:10hiaaa4uknmc91 @corp.supernews.com:

That was clever and informative.

Reply to
Norman

Probably because Explorers in real life (actual crash data) have fewer roll-over fatalities than almost any other SUV (only the Jeep Grand Cherokee fared slightly better, as I recall). One would imagine that data to be more meaningful than the theoretical report.

=Vic= Bear Gap, PA

Reply to
Vic Klein

More so than anything you've said so far.

The NHTSA seems to differ with you and Fox. Guess who I believe...

Reply to
JonnyCab®

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.