Chrysler refuses recall request

formatting link
>>>>>>

That's a pretty ignorant statement. A certain combination of center of gravity height, track width, etc. makes a vehicle fundamentally more likely to roll than a normal passenger car. This isn't news, and shouldn't be shocking to manufacturers, consumers, or "safety advocates."

Did Ford know this? Of course they did. Did the people that bought the vehicles know this? In some cases probably not, but they should have.

Or are you arguing for outlawing all small SUVs? There was really nothing unusual about the Explorer's size, configuration or suspension design compared to other vehicles in its class, e.g. Cherokee, Scout, CJ, Samurai, Tracker, etc. etc. etc. that had been in production and on (or off) the roads for decades.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel
Loading thread data ...

formatting link
>>>>>>>

you, of all people, shouldn't wade in there with statements of ignorance.

  1. the exploder has a propensity to roll because of track width, c.g., and much more importantly, the spring dynamics.
  2. the cabin pillars were not reinforced, so when it did roll, the cabin crushed killing occupants.

frod knew BOTH factors were deadly ahead of production, but chose to go ahead anyway.

now, do other vehicles have high c.g.'s, yes. can other vehicles be made to roll? yes. do other vehicles have the special combination of these factors together with the springing dynamic amd collapsing cabin of the exploder? no. and did manufacturer's know this ahead of production? /THAT/ is the #1 question on which the criminal liability hinges and which frod fails.

Reply to
jim beam

Please, don't be afraid to get technical:

What specifically about the "spring dynamics" gave it this "propensity" as compared to other vehicles of similar track width and centre of MASS.

Were other vehicles in its class any different? Did it meet the safety regulations for its class?

Reply to
Alan Baker

I seem to remember spending lots of time driving and being a passenger in a similar sized and configured vehicle (albeit older) where one could remove the top completely; there *were* no pillars. It had what I would describe as exceptionally poor steering as well. Somehow International Harvester did not get sued nor was there a huge scandal.

nate

Reply to
N8N

formatting link
>>>>>>

No vehicle can repeal what happens when a driver panics with a blow out and yanks the wheel while stomping on the brakes.

Your irrational hatred of Ford doesn't change that.

Complain to your loving government which through it's CAFE regulation shifted people from big wide and low cars to big tall SUVs.

Reply to
Brent

formatting link
>>>>>>>

completely not true - other vehicles don't do it. and prevention of it is where the "moose test" comes from.

frod /knew/ there is an issue with suspension dynamics - that's why the rear axle shocks were canted at 45 degrees to try and damp out the yaw to which they knew it was prone.

cafe is utterly retarded. and it's a system intentionally designed to be gamed. "flex fuel" vehicles are exempt from cafe - did you know that? it drives a coach and horses through all this mpg bullshit. and every manufacturer can easily make a "flex fuel" vehicle with a free software mod and a few different o-rings. it's nothing but debased political posturing.

Reply to
jim beam

formatting link
>>>>>>>>>> -vehicles >>

manufacture

and how many rolled? bottom line, those things don't have as high a c.g . and they're not driven at 90 by soccer moms juggling lids, latte spills while yapping on cell phones. all of which are perfectly ubiquitous behavior with which other vehicles seem to cope well, both before and during accidents.

Reply to
jim beam

formatting link
>>>>>>>>

The moose test has -nothing- to do with a tire blowing out. As far as I know the explorer does well enough in such tests. Certainly CR ran it through their version of the moose test.

Again, no vehicle can repeal what happens when a tire blows out and a driver panics and yanks the steering wheel and slams on the brakes. Tall vehicles are probably going to end up sunny side down.

CAFE is about limiting our choice. Flex fuel gets some sort of credits, not exemption as I recall. If they were exempt every V8 passenger car would be flex fuel.

Reply to
Brent

formatting link
>>>>>>>>>

it's a fundamental stability test designed to examine roll dynamics. a vehicle with a flat gets roll momentum from the drop in height. how it recovers from that roll determines whether stability with a flat remains stable or becomes unstable. that was the problem with the exploder.

the current exploder does, but the one that killed people never did - it couldn't even pass the much simpler "j" test.

in which case, their cabin needs to not crush and kill the occupants. frod failed on both flat stability AND cabin crush, a deadly combination.

yup, it's going to be the only way cafe can be met. "flex fuel" vehicles are exempt form the manufacturer's "fleet" and thus average. there's no other way manufacturers can meet 50mpg standards with 4000lb vehicles unless they're simply not counted. and this was known from day 1.

Reply to
jim beam

They don't?

Produce the figures...

Which has what to do with your claims that the Ford Explorer had traits that were unique to it?

Reply to
Alan Baker

How does the "moose test" examine "roll dynamics"?

Dont' be afraid to be specific...

And the roll momentum gained from a drop in height due to a flat is miniscule.

Reply to
Alan Baker

I've no idea, but it's definitely doable - 98" wheelbase, narrow track, and live leaf-sprung axles...

Sure they do.

And if a soccer mom drove a Scout at 90 MPH while on the cell, we'd all be hearing about how irresponsible IH was to produce such a vehicle. The truth is, it filled a necessary market niche - a small- ish, off-road capable 4WD station wagon on a truck chassis. Which is what an Explorer is as well. There is no way to make such a vehicle "safer" for high speed highway use without compromising the qualities that made it suitable for its original purpose. For a more contemporary example, consider a Jeep Cherokee. It is the fault of the driver, not the manufacturer, that such vehicles aren't driven with the understanding that its handling is by necessity compromised and should NOT be considered equivalent to a passenger car but more like a box truck, panel van, etc cetera. If you can blame anyone at Ford, blame their dealer network and marketing department for selling the vehicles to people who didn't think they were what they were.

nate

Reply to
N8N

My understanding is that the specific mechanism that caused the Ford rollovers was tread separation, not a simple flat.

nate

Reply to
N8N

However, it is still perfecly legal to sell vehicles with convertible tops or removable hardtops - surely you don't expect them to protect occupants in a rollover, nor do you expect buyers/drivers to have that expectation?

Or hybrid, Diesel, etc... Actually for trucks Diesel is the way to go anyway. I'd love to see small-ish straight six turboDiesels as an option in an Explorer/Cherokee/Trailblazer sized vehicle.

nate

Reply to
N8N

formatting link
>>>>>>>>>>>> -vehicles >>

you must have more of them in your hood than mine. all the ones i've seen have a relatively wide wheelbase and a lower c.g.

none of the scouts i've seen will even /do/ 90.

the explorer was never intended for use as a truck. look under the vehicle. see those shocks canted at 45°? now look under a ranger of f150. that tells you what frod knew. and when they knew it.

you're regurgitating frod's corporate bullshit without any ability to objectively consider or analyze. that weasel worded bullshit does NOT excuse cabins that crush. it does NOT excuse a roll dynamic that will tip the vehicle. and it does *NOT* excuse the deadly combination of the two. especially not when BOTH are known BEFORE manufacture.

Reply to
jim beam

formatting link
>>>>>>>>>>>> ll-vehicles >>

it doesn't matter if the tire was shot out with a howitzer. a vehicle should not roll because of a flat, however it may be caused.

to swallow b.s. about treat separation is gullibility of the highest order.

Reply to
jim beam

You can tell the cg from inspection?

Scout II track width - about 57"

Explorer track width - don't know but the width of the rear axle WMS- WMS is 56.5"

Get one with a 345, it'll go as fast as the engine will rev. 90 is a little stretch with stock sized tires, but then unless you're used to driving vehicles with sloppy, twitchy steering boxes, you probably can't keep it smoothly in a straight line (or in a single lane) above

70 anyway. The go-kart steering wheel doesn't help either. This is why I find this discussion so amusing, the Scout is an *awful* vehicle for highway travel and really requires a sensitive driver to even get it down the road safely, and yet Ford takes all the heat. I'm no Ford fan, but the difference between the two vehicles is really the customer base to which they were sold, and where there's a "better" vehicle for highway travel, it's the Ford.

Probably done that way for packaging reasons & lower load floor. Still could be compensated for by stiffer valving, and I don't have the vehicle specific knowledge to comment.

Again, it's still legal to sell convertibles, and it'll be a sad day when the lawyers effectively outlaw the real off-road capable compact SUV. I don't like seeing them driven as cars either, but there are times that I am glad that I have one.

I am also aware that it is far more closely related to a truck than a car, and drive it as such.

nate

Reply to
N8N

So how do you propose to make a vehicle 100% safe from rollovers when a tread separates and wraps up around the suspension, locking up that wheel and compromising suspension action?

Difficulty: it still has to be usable as a truck and capable of towing an light off-roading.

Go.

nate

Reply to
N8N

formatting link
>>

do, i expect the roll bar to do that. all modern convertibles have to have a roll bar or non-crushing windshield frame.

that said though, personally, i will never ride in an open top car - i think it's absolutely insane. and in my case, certain death in the event of a roll because i'm tall. people that drive them simply don't appreciate the reality.

calling those things "trucks" is a complete misnomer - they're p.i.c.'s

- penis inadequacy compensators. you drive a p.i.c. don't you?

re 6's isuzu, one of the world's foremost truck diesel manufacturers, uses fours. outstanding reliability, durability, torque, performance.

Reply to
jim beam

formatting link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ll-vehicles >>

don't make up bullshit nate - tires don't wrap when they separate. and even if they did, a proper suspension system that doesn't roll the whole vehicle, and a proper cabin that doesn't crush, completely deal with the situation.

don't be a retard - you don't /need/ to have a vehicle that rolls and crushes to go off-roading.

Reply to
jim beam

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.