Re: Anyway to disable the tire pressure monitor system on a 2007 ford escape?

----- Original Message ----- From: Newsgroups: alt.autos.ford Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:10 PM Subject: Re: Anyway to disable the tire pressure monitor system on a

2007 ford escape?

No, I mean that a P235R15 tire inflated to 22 pis is rated to safetly support the load of a fully laoded Explorer. There are industry standards for P metric tires. All tires of a given size and type should meet the minimum industry standards no matter how they are constructed. The "evil" tires installed on Explorers were P235/75-15 S105 Tires. The industry standard load inflation table for this tire size follows:

Cold Inf. Pressure Load

20 1543 23 1653 26 1753 29 1852 32 1940 35 2028

For use on "light trucks" the laodvalues for P series tires are derated by 10%. So at 26 psi, the tires on an Explorer should have been suitable to support a load of 1,578 lbs. This is a tire industry standard, not a Ford standard, or a Firestone standard. A P235/75-15 Tire inflated to 26 psi is rated to carry 1,578 lbs at it's maximum rated speed when mounted on a light truck. Since the Explorers used "S" rated tires, the maximum safe speed is 112 mph. Explorers are limited to 105 mph top speed by the vehicle's PCM.

I've seen vehicles from all sort of manufacturers with the wheels tucked in like the one in the picture. I just saw a Generation 1 Tundra last week on the side of the road with the wheel tucked in. The Tundra probably was the victim of a ball joint failure. The picture you posted is highly unusual, I don't think it is a "typical" failure. I would suspect the vehicle had been in a prior accident or that the upright had been damaged in some way.

Actually the Explorer's front suspension was completely redesigned in the mid-90s (1995), not the late 90s. The strut bushing you are whining about went away when the twin I beam front suspension was eliminated in 1995.

How can you say that? Explorers that came with Goodyear tires from the factory had no unusal problems with tire failures. And since the defective Firestones tires have been replaced, you never hear of any problems with Explorers and tire tread separations. Even back before the Firestone tire recall, Explorers did not have a particularly high driver death rate due to rollovers. The driver death rate due to vehicle rollover for the following 1994 -1997 CARS was higher than for

1994 -1997 4 door 4 wheel drive Explorers -

Chevrolet Lumina Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Mitsubishi Galant Pontiac Grand Am Chevrolet Cavalier Hyundai Sonata Pontiac Sunfire Dodge Neon Kia Sephia Hyundai Accent Geo Metro Chevrolet Monte Carlo Mazda MX-6 Dodge Avenger Oldsmobile Achieva Acura Integra Mitsubishi Eclipse Ford Probe Toyota Tercel Hyundai Accent Ford Mustang Pontiac Firebird (sedan and convertible) Chevrolet Camaro (sedan and convertible)

Reply to
C. E. White
Loading thread data ...

On Feb 5, 11:46=A0am, "C. E. White" wrote:

First, I was not talking about strut bushing but rather lower (right) control arm bushing. I did imply, however, that it takes ford to ignore a known defect for decades. Another example of a ford fast- reacting genius is 3.8 head gaskets. That defect was ONE OF THE reasons for high rollover rate. Low tire pressure was another one. Low explorer owners' IQ is quite likely the third reason. Not too good tires might have contributed as well. Second, I didn't say that exlorers had the above suspension defect from early 90's. I said from beginning of production up until they re- designed the suspension in the late 90's. OK, mid 90's. Third, rollover death rate and rollover rate are not quite the same thing. A mustang or firebird - especially covertible - is more likely to kill an idiot who had bought them in the first place than an SUV, even ford SUV. But even rollover rate is not a pure indication of suspension quality. You are what you drive, and this means that let's say an individual who drives a camaro could be more likely to drive wrecklessly than the one who drives a Lexus. In official stability testing, the worst ever was Isuzu Trooper also sold as Acura... don't remember model name. BTW, rollover also can be caused by an impact, not necessarily JUST driving. I can see how a geo metro could go belly up after being hit by an explorer... as a result of a "normal" explorer rollover. The broken knuckle case I mentioned was not typical, and I never claimed it was but I've never seen a Honda or Toyota in that or similar condition regardless of age or mileage. I have, however, seen, a chrysler masterpiece that lost its second ball joint at less than

600 miles. If interested, there are pictures of that thing on our site
formatting link
Reply to
leoruss7

Please explain how bad head gaskets cause rollovers.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Why are you, ford falks, can't read (or comprehend) the entire sentence: "Another example of a ford fast-reacting genius is 3.8 head gaskets."??? In any case, this was an example of ford's dedication to keep a minimal feedback from the outside life. To be more specific, it was a suble attempt to say that there is nothing ford is not capable of doing... except the right thing such as accepting responsibility and admitting its screw-ups. Making cars is not even discussed. Hope it helps.

Reply to
leoruss7

The words "that defect" is supposed to refer to what is immediately before it, which, in this case was head gaskets.

You just weren't clear enough. No big deal.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

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.