U-Haul bans trailer rentals for Ford Explorers

This only applies to the 15" Firestone tires (I.E. 235 75R15, 225 75R15 &

Remember, about half the Explorers sold during this time were equipped with Goodyear tires inflated at the same pressure. None of the Goodyear tires failed, only Firestones. Of the Firestones, the older ATX design was generally flawed and the newer Wilderness AT design had failures in the tires made from only one plant. There was no doubt about the "problem" being the tires. When all was said and done, though, even with the Firestone tires that had an abnormally high failure rate, the Explorer had FEWER rollover incidents per million vehicles than almost any other SUV, so the whole thing was enormously overnlown by lawyers because of the tremendous popularity of the Explorer and the ripe target it made.

=Vic= Bear Gap, PA

You're right - the *real* problem is the driver. He's responsible for the proper operation of the vehicle, and also responsible to ensure the vehicle is in proper shape. However, we are going into a thought mode that says we should be protected from ourselves, and that's where this case gets interesting: who's responsible for us; ourselves, or Big Daddy?

You are expecting Ford to take rersponsibility for Firestone's manufacturing defect. Yes, problems were happening. Yet, when Ford started checking, they couldn't detwermine what the problem was. Firestone knew, but they weren't saying. Ford had a good idea the problem was Firestone's, because their Explorer wasn't having the same problem with Goodyears (also OE tires), but Firestone simply lied, and said there were no problems with their tires. It wasn't until a whistleblower in a Firestone factory opened up that Firestone's secret was out.

Firestone claimed up to the bitter end that the problem wasn't theirs. Ford stepped up to the plate and actually offered FREE tires, when they had no legal responsibility to do so.

Not only was this not Ford's fault, but between Ford and Firestone, Ford is the one who actually did something about it.

By and large I feel there's a consensus here re: U-Haul's probable motivation for their ban, as well as the principal issues in the Firestone / Ford lawsuits. While it'll be interesting to see how Ford responds to U-Haul's recent action, and also how industry practices and the judicial system generally evolve in coming years, in the meantime I've got a problem.

I'm in Calgary, and I've got to move some stuff right away, and to the best of my knowledge U-Haul has got a virtual monopoly in the local trailer rental business. Anybody, (esp. in Canada), have any ideas about where else I might look?

I swear I'm a responsible driver and careful about the maintance of my unit. I've always used higher than recommended pressures on my Explorer tires because otherwise the handling sucked.

for their ban, as well as the principal issues in the Firestone / Ford lawsuits.

Nope - apparently nothing to do with Firestone. It has everything to do with idiots who don't know how to drive with a trailer in tow, and their lawyers:

This policy is not related to safety issues. U-Haul has chosen not to rent behind this tow vehicle based on our history of excessive costs in defending lawsuits involving Ford Explorer towing combinations. This is an unusual circumstance and we don't like having to make this decision. We don't like saying "no" to our customers and we apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

We are asking you for another chance in working with you to find alternative options to help with your move. Sincerely, Deanna Gilling U-Haul Customer Service

for their ban, as well as the principal issues in the Firestone / Ford lawsuits.

Classic doublespeak.

And where are those costs coming from? It's strange that there's been nothing in the media (that I've seen, anyway) about Uhaul having problems with Explorers.

As you see it has hit the media now.

motivation for their ban, as well as the principal issues in the Firestone / Ford lawsuits.

I saw the same thing in the paper this morning. I note that the problem isn't with the Explorer per se, but rather with the *perception* of the Explorer the public (or, rather, that some of the public) has.

There will always be those who will not accept responsibility for their actions, and will instead sue the ones they feel will best be intimidated.

This is not true. In fact, in congressional testimony Firestone admitted that the tires should have been safe if only inflated to 22 psi. Don't let BS statements from Firestone like "we would have preferred it if Ford had recommended 30 psi." Damn right they would have preferred it, after they built millions of sub-standard tires and sold them to unsuspecting Customers. If you go back to the Radial 500 fiasco, Firestone tried to blame that on under inflation as well. If Firestone believed their tires were unsafe at 26 psi, they should have refused to sell them to Ford for Ford's intended usage. Goodyear had no problem with the 26 psi inflation pressure. For that matter several other SUVs contemporary to the Explorer also had similar tires with the exact same pressure recommendation. Firestone was negligent. Firestone's lawyers tires to misdirect the blame. Don't let them fool you. Hopefully Ford has finally learned their lesson. This is at least the third time Ford has been burned by Firestone tires.

And Ford did not recommend the lower pressure to soften the ride. They were trying to reduce the responsiveness of the steering so that drivers would not get the vehicle sideays (i.e., they were trying to make it "push," aka "understeer") in order to improve safety.

References: