So? All manufactures tinker. It's how they find a better way to do things. There's absolutely nothing there to say the Explorer is unsafe, or even somehow made Firestone's tires worse.
But that doesn't say (or even hint) that the Explorer was an unsafe vehicle. Only that not every safety recommendation was used.
That seems to have missed the *fact* that Firestone's tires were indeed unsafe, as Firestone later admitted (after one of their own blew the whistle on them) because of a manufacturing defect. Which Firestone tried to cover up, and lied about for some time. That article was written before the defect was know, when the media was still looking for a victim... er... "responsible party".
yet Firestone somehow conveniently continued to supply the tires, while (supposedly) saying that the pressure wasn't going to be handled by the tires. IOW, Firestone willingly and knowingly put thousands of people at risk for money. it just gets better and better, doesn't it?
This is, apparently, saying that any change in manufacture touted as a safety improvement is a tacit admission that the prior model is unsafe, and can be used as such in any procedings as an admission of such. Right.
Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. However, your opinion was not borne out by the investigations, once all the facts were known.
The research has been done. All investigations that had access to the actual facts (and not done by Firestone lawyers) shows the problem was caused by Firestone's manufacturing problems, and not Ford's Explorer. Firestone's bleatings that they thought Fords pressure recommendations were unsafe are proved false by Firestone's continued supplying of their tires for use in what they (after the fact) claimed was an unsafe condition.