-
Hi Guest!
You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Sammy, you were right about Ford!
- Thread starter MGA Steve
- Start date
Share this page
Bret
Yoda
Offline
Sorry Sammy, I know it's long,
[ QUOTE ]
Part of the problem is how the Explorer was marketed. It wasn't marketed as an off-road vehicle -- it was marketed as family highway/suburban transport. In actuality, they often pictured Explorers in advertisements in situations that were specifically against specifications -- most importantly holding five people and luggage in an overloaded state.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with your statement about how the Explorer was marketed & that overloading was a contributing factor. But just because a vehicle wasn’t marketed properly (for what it was designed for) doesn’t make it a bad design. Nor IMO should it make the manufacture responsible for it’s misuse. Regardless of how it was marketed SUV’s (real or imagined) have a rugged persona that caused family’s to ditch the family minivan in droves. Come’ on Sammy – you’ve been around this industry a long time & image is what it is all about and sometimes (just sometimes) what isn’t said in vehicle commercial rings loud & clear with the buying public.
The actual impact of rollovers is subjective. Forgive me I’m going by memory - but some of the studies I’ve read support the fact that the Explorer have a high rollover rate. I’m not debating that. However I don’t think it is (or was) because it was a bad design. Does it have a higher rollover rate than its contemporaries? Don’t know for sure. But I suspect that if you look at units sold vs. accidents and accidents vs. fatalities –I bet you’d find that every other SUV has similarly large statistics when compared to street cars. Anybody remember the Suzuki Samurai? The S10 Blazer? All had similar allegations made against them but I tend to think that because the Explorer (even with all the bad press) was a major sales success for Ford that it was a logical target because of its market share.
Example; Lets take two like vehicles, but one outsells the other (say 2 to 1). Now perhaps I’m over simplifying this, but if both have a similar accident rate - grabing a number out of the air say 10% +/-1% of all the vehicles sold. Now the larger seller would obviously seem to be the more dangerous vehicle. But wait it could get even more complicated than that, if you look at the overall demographics of the people who purchase these vehicles. Are they high risk drivers (young? Old?) seems this could have an profound affect on the numbers too. Now factor in how a vehicle is or is not being used at the time of the accident. Need I go on?
When my wife & I got our new Explorer in 1995 it came with a surprisingly informitive VHS video that covered all aspects of the Explorer’s uses & capabilities. It also covered the proper & improper ways to load the vehicle. The tape even covered how the center of gravity raised & actual shifted fore & aft depending on how you loaded and covered similar aspect for towing. This was about a 45minute video that covered stuff never seen in any commercial. I wonder how many owners actually take the time to go over the operators manual or a video when they purchase their new cars? As I said in the previous post I feel it’s unfair to hold a manufacture (in this case Ford) for how a product is used after it leaves the showroom floor.
[ QUOTE ]
This is not to say that GM is any better...and I will also agree that there is a lot of user error involved with accidents and SUV issues, but the auto industry is guilty of designing cheap products, marketing them one way, and then claiming user error when the products are used in situations that are reasonable in compared to how they are marketed and sold by improperly trained salespeople.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, not saying I disagree with you but if we limit or some how go after every company that marketed or designed products improperly (intentionally or with forethought) – who’s ruler will be used to judge them by. Seems like a can of worms better left unopened if & has me a little worried about who would be charged with making these decisions for us. Example - from our differences of option in this thread alone – its apparent that what you might feel is good safe vehicle I might consider too dangerous.
[ QUOTE ]
Part of the problem is how the Explorer was marketed. It wasn't marketed as an off-road vehicle -- it was marketed as family highway/suburban transport. In actuality, they often pictured Explorers in advertisements in situations that were specifically against specifications -- most importantly holding five people and luggage in an overloaded state.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with your statement about how the Explorer was marketed & that overloading was a contributing factor. But just because a vehicle wasn’t marketed properly (for what it was designed for) doesn’t make it a bad design. Nor IMO should it make the manufacture responsible for it’s misuse. Regardless of how it was marketed SUV’s (real or imagined) have a rugged persona that caused family’s to ditch the family minivan in droves. Come’ on Sammy – you’ve been around this industry a long time & image is what it is all about and sometimes (just sometimes) what isn’t said in vehicle commercial rings loud & clear with the buying public.
The actual impact of rollovers is subjective. Forgive me I’m going by memory - but some of the studies I’ve read support the fact that the Explorer have a high rollover rate. I’m not debating that. However I don’t think it is (or was) because it was a bad design. Does it have a higher rollover rate than its contemporaries? Don’t know for sure. But I suspect that if you look at units sold vs. accidents and accidents vs. fatalities –I bet you’d find that every other SUV has similarly large statistics when compared to street cars. Anybody remember the Suzuki Samurai? The S10 Blazer? All had similar allegations made against them but I tend to think that because the Explorer (even with all the bad press) was a major sales success for Ford that it was a logical target because of its market share.
Example; Lets take two like vehicles, but one outsells the other (say 2 to 1). Now perhaps I’m over simplifying this, but if both have a similar accident rate - grabing a number out of the air say 10% +/-1% of all the vehicles sold. Now the larger seller would obviously seem to be the more dangerous vehicle. But wait it could get even more complicated than that, if you look at the overall demographics of the people who purchase these vehicles. Are they high risk drivers (young? Old?) seems this could have an profound affect on the numbers too. Now factor in how a vehicle is or is not being used at the time of the accident. Need I go on?
When my wife & I got our new Explorer in 1995 it came with a surprisingly informitive VHS video that covered all aspects of the Explorer’s uses & capabilities. It also covered the proper & improper ways to load the vehicle. The tape even covered how the center of gravity raised & actual shifted fore & aft depending on how you loaded and covered similar aspect for towing. This was about a 45minute video that covered stuff never seen in any commercial. I wonder how many owners actually take the time to go over the operators manual or a video when they purchase their new cars? As I said in the previous post I feel it’s unfair to hold a manufacture (in this case Ford) for how a product is used after it leaves the showroom floor.
[ QUOTE ]
This is not to say that GM is any better...and I will also agree that there is a lot of user error involved with accidents and SUV issues, but the auto industry is guilty of designing cheap products, marketing them one way, and then claiming user error when the products are used in situations that are reasonable in compared to how they are marketed and sold by improperly trained salespeople.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, not saying I disagree with you but if we limit or some how go after every company that marketed or designed products improperly (intentionally or with forethought) – who’s ruler will be used to judge them by. Seems like a can of worms better left unopened if & has me a little worried about who would be charged with making these decisions for us. Example - from our differences of option in this thread alone – its apparent that what you might feel is good safe vehicle I might consider too dangerous.
OP
MGA Steve
Jedi Warrior
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
When my wife & I got our new Explorer in 1995 it came with a surprisingly informitive VHS video that covered all aspects of the Explorer’s uses & capabilities. It also covered the proper & improper ways to load the vehicle. The tape even covered how the center of gravity raised & actual shifted fore & aft depending on how you loaded and covered similar aspect for towing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting! I have Ford Ranger 4x4 pickup with much the same design as the first-gen Explorer. And my truck's Firestone tires were recalled at the same time as the "Explorer" recall (a fact that was little publicized during that recall). But I never got any video, booklet, or other warning about tire or any other problem when I bought it brand-new from a Denver Ford dealer.
And I too am a "Ford guy"--my first was a '57, then a '64 Galaxie, then a '65 Mustang that I had until 2000, etc., etc., up to my current '66 Mustang convertible that I have owned for 20 years and my Ranger. I have never owned a Mopar and the last Chevies I would even consider buying were built in the 1960's. But that does not mean that I can't criticize a company that I have bought products from for decades if they are clearly not meeting the needs of the public--either in safety, in quality, or in product selection.
When my wife & I got our new Explorer in 1995 it came with a surprisingly informitive VHS video that covered all aspects of the Explorer’s uses & capabilities. It also covered the proper & improper ways to load the vehicle. The tape even covered how the center of gravity raised & actual shifted fore & aft depending on how you loaded and covered similar aspect for towing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting! I have Ford Ranger 4x4 pickup with much the same design as the first-gen Explorer. And my truck's Firestone tires were recalled at the same time as the "Explorer" recall (a fact that was little publicized during that recall). But I never got any video, booklet, or other warning about tire or any other problem when I bought it brand-new from a Denver Ford dealer.
And I too am a "Ford guy"--my first was a '57, then a '64 Galaxie, then a '65 Mustang that I had until 2000, etc., etc., up to my current '66 Mustang convertible that I have owned for 20 years and my Ranger. I have never owned a Mopar and the last Chevies I would even consider buying were built in the 1960's. But that does not mean that I can't criticize a company that I have bought products from for decades if they are clearly not meeting the needs of the public--either in safety, in quality, or in product selection.
Bret
Yoda
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When my wife & I got our new Explorer in 1995 it came with a surprisingly informitive VHS video that covered all aspects of the Explorer’s uses & capabilities. It also covered the proper & improper ways to load the vehicle. The tape even covered how the center of gravity raised & actual shifted fore & aft depending on how you loaded and covered similar aspect for towing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting! I have Ford Ranger 4x4 pickup with much the same design as the first-gen Explorer. And my truck's Firestone tires were recalled at the same time as the "Explorer" recall (a fact that was little publicized during that recall). But I never got any video, booklet, or other warning about tire or any other problem when I bought it brand-new from a Denver Ford dealer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now Steve, You ain’t try’n to say I was fibbing about the video are you? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Now I don’t know why you didn’t get one with your Ranger I kind of figured everyone did. I can’t recall how much real maintenance information (oil & fluid changes etc) was on the video, but it did have a lot of stuff on vehicle features and how best to use it.
Also by the time the Firestone recall was sent to us we’d already replaced the original tires due to normal miles, wear & tear. Interestingly enough Ford did send us a sticker with new tire pressure recommendations that we placed over the old PSI values. Funny thing is I don’t recall the two numbers being that different.
[ QUOTE ]
And I too am a "Ford guy"- <snip> But that does not mean that I can't criticize a company that I have bought products from for decades if they are clearly not meeting the needs of the public--either in safety, in quality, or in product selection.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. Anybody that has been around the BCF for any amount of time knows about my Ford vehicle woes and how upset I’ve been over them. My wife’s Explorer’s transmission went out just before when we wanted to sell it – so I spent the better part of a weekend installing a rebuilt unit by myself. Another was a cooling leak on my 2001 F-150 Supercrews’ 5.4L engine. Turned out to be one of the heater hoses had given up the ghost, but to access that hose you need to pull the engine’s entire intake manifold to get at it. We’re talking some major work. But I was luck because I purchased the extended warranty & they covered most of the work.
As for that “Cruse Control” spontaneous combustion problem Sammy hit on earlier. My truck was recalled too, but when I brought it in to the dealership to be checked out they gave it a clean bill of health and said my vehicle wasn’t affected. Now, I know a lot of folks weren’t as lucky as I was having to drive around for months with the cruse disconnected while Ford worked the problems out or worst – had their truck burn to the ground in their front yard for no apparent reason.
[ QUOTE ]
When my wife & I got our new Explorer in 1995 it came with a surprisingly informitive VHS video that covered all aspects of the Explorer’s uses & capabilities. It also covered the proper & improper ways to load the vehicle. The tape even covered how the center of gravity raised & actual shifted fore & aft depending on how you loaded and covered similar aspect for towing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting! I have Ford Ranger 4x4 pickup with much the same design as the first-gen Explorer. And my truck's Firestone tires were recalled at the same time as the "Explorer" recall (a fact that was little publicized during that recall). But I never got any video, booklet, or other warning about tire or any other problem when I bought it brand-new from a Denver Ford dealer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now Steve, You ain’t try’n to say I was fibbing about the video are you? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Now I don’t know why you didn’t get one with your Ranger I kind of figured everyone did. I can’t recall how much real maintenance information (oil & fluid changes etc) was on the video, but it did have a lot of stuff on vehicle features and how best to use it.
Also by the time the Firestone recall was sent to us we’d already replaced the original tires due to normal miles, wear & tear. Interestingly enough Ford did send us a sticker with new tire pressure recommendations that we placed over the old PSI values. Funny thing is I don’t recall the two numbers being that different.
[ QUOTE ]
And I too am a "Ford guy"- <snip> But that does not mean that I can't criticize a company that I have bought products from for decades if they are clearly not meeting the needs of the public--either in safety, in quality, or in product selection.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. Anybody that has been around the BCF for any amount of time knows about my Ford vehicle woes and how upset I’ve been over them. My wife’s Explorer’s transmission went out just before when we wanted to sell it – so I spent the better part of a weekend installing a rebuilt unit by myself. Another was a cooling leak on my 2001 F-150 Supercrews’ 5.4L engine. Turned out to be one of the heater hoses had given up the ghost, but to access that hose you need to pull the engine’s entire intake manifold to get at it. We’re talking some major work. But I was luck because I purchased the extended warranty & they covered most of the work.
As for that “Cruse Control” spontaneous combustion problem Sammy hit on earlier. My truck was recalled too, but when I brought it in to the dealership to be checked out they gave it a clean bill of health and said my vehicle wasn’t affected. Now, I know a lot of folks weren’t as lucky as I was having to drive around for months with the cruse disconnected while Ford worked the problems out or worst – had their truck burn to the ground in their front yard for no apparent reason.
Interestingly, my Expedition was recalled, and I received the notice four or five months ago (but still six months after the recall was initially announced.) As of now, they still don't have the part to install to replace it, so the "fix" is to disable the cruise control completely! Nice!
And I do agree that we can't hold companies responsible for every product which meets the term "dangerous," because that only meets the same criteria as "pornography" -- meaning the great Supreme Court Justice line: "I know it when I see it."
BUT...
Bret,
In actuality, even normalized for number of licensed vehicles, the Explorer's rollover, injury and death rates have at times been far beyond any other mid-sized SUV, and unexplicably, in some years, completely in line with other cars. For 1994-1997 model years, the 2WD Explorer sport carries a death rate of 231 (where average for midsized SUVs is 100 -- more than twice the chance of death.) 58 was for multi-car accident, 173 for single vehicle, and 150 for rollover. The Four-door 2wd had a period like that, but I can't seem to find the report anymore that contained the oarticularly stunning numbers.
I would disagree that people don't buy into the marketing of a car. People buy image, and the advertisments and selling of a vehicle as family transport have led to consumer identification as safe on-road transport. Ford's mission was to utilize Explorers as a replacement to the station wagon. All other domestics did the same thing.
So while I'm not an overly litigious guy, I think where companies have gone out of their way to market and sell products in a way that promotes unsafe usage (such as repeated ads showing overloaded SUVs on highways,) that's more in need of a legal slap then any ad that shows a yahoo doing four-wheel drifts without any disclaimer of "professional driver on closed course."
I suppose the bottom line is: "What was Ford's internal research regarding the safety of its SUV?" And internal videos in the early 1990s show and document a really scary handling characteristic that promoted rollovers, and a lack of structural integrity to support a rolled-over vehicle. But like Mustang/Pinto gas tanks, saddle gas tanks, GM V6 intake leaks, Chrysler transmission failure -- the corporation says: "That's a risk we're willing to take, because it costs less to buy-off a population of plaintiffs than to repair the product."
Automakers, like hospitals, are kings of risk management.
We've gone away from the topic, and I do want to go on record saying that I don't think the safety issue has anything to do with Ford, GM and Chrysler woes. That is simply a product mix, styling, pricing, marketing and quality set.
And I do agree that we can't hold companies responsible for every product which meets the term "dangerous," because that only meets the same criteria as "pornography" -- meaning the great Supreme Court Justice line: "I know it when I see it."
BUT...
Bret,
In actuality, even normalized for number of licensed vehicles, the Explorer's rollover, injury and death rates have at times been far beyond any other mid-sized SUV, and unexplicably, in some years, completely in line with other cars. For 1994-1997 model years, the 2WD Explorer sport carries a death rate of 231 (where average for midsized SUVs is 100 -- more than twice the chance of death.) 58 was for multi-car accident, 173 for single vehicle, and 150 for rollover. The Four-door 2wd had a period like that, but I can't seem to find the report anymore that contained the oarticularly stunning numbers.
I would disagree that people don't buy into the marketing of a car. People buy image, and the advertisments and selling of a vehicle as family transport have led to consumer identification as safe on-road transport. Ford's mission was to utilize Explorers as a replacement to the station wagon. All other domestics did the same thing.
So while I'm not an overly litigious guy, I think where companies have gone out of their way to market and sell products in a way that promotes unsafe usage (such as repeated ads showing overloaded SUVs on highways,) that's more in need of a legal slap then any ad that shows a yahoo doing four-wheel drifts without any disclaimer of "professional driver on closed course."
I suppose the bottom line is: "What was Ford's internal research regarding the safety of its SUV?" And internal videos in the early 1990s show and document a really scary handling characteristic that promoted rollovers, and a lack of structural integrity to support a rolled-over vehicle. But like Mustang/Pinto gas tanks, saddle gas tanks, GM V6 intake leaks, Chrysler transmission failure -- the corporation says: "That's a risk we're willing to take, because it costs less to buy-off a population of plaintiffs than to repair the product."
Automakers, like hospitals, are kings of risk management.
We've gone away from the topic, and I do want to go on record saying that I don't think the safety issue has anything to do with Ford, GM and Chrysler woes. That is simply a product mix, styling, pricing, marketing and quality set.
Offline
Kennys little joke about not buying cars made after 1980 is a mantra I personally live by. Being a tight ass I hardly ever buy new tires if I can avoid it, and have had my share of blowouts, usually one or two a year. I have never had a problem with loosing control of my cars, no matter what I was pulling or how I was loaded.
As for Ford and GM building the only crappy cars out there, thats bull, Toyota doesn't build a good long lasting car in my opinion. My grandmothers 95 Corolla is a rolling POS that is falling apart around her. She has always taken it to the dealer for everything since she bought it new. She has spent a fortune on it this way, buying super cheap door gaskets, new bushings, new ball joints, new everything suspensionwise, and sadly all these parts she has bought cost more than their respective counterparts on my Mercedes. The only thing on the car thats still original is the drive train, and while that bit is solid everything else around is is pure crap, no better than what GM and Ford shoves down our collective throats.
Personally I also think that the roads would be safer if drivers were given proper instruction in how to drive, before they were allowed to get behind the wheel on their own, then they are now with crumple zones and airbags. But thats just my two cents on the matter.
As for Ford and GM building the only crappy cars out there, thats bull, Toyota doesn't build a good long lasting car in my opinion. My grandmothers 95 Corolla is a rolling POS that is falling apart around her. She has always taken it to the dealer for everything since she bought it new. She has spent a fortune on it this way, buying super cheap door gaskets, new bushings, new ball joints, new everything suspensionwise, and sadly all these parts she has bought cost more than their respective counterparts on my Mercedes. The only thing on the car thats still original is the drive train, and while that bit is solid everything else around is is pure crap, no better than what GM and Ford shoves down our collective throats.
Personally I also think that the roads would be safer if drivers were given proper instruction in how to drive, before they were allowed to get behind the wheel on their own, then they are now with crumple zones and airbags. But thats just my two cents on the matter.
kennypinkerton
Yoda
Offline
I was being serious when I said that.
I think everyone should learn how to do PROPER maintence on their cars, learn how to repair them, and let the automotive companies go into Niche car marketing, and focus on replacement parts manufacturing for all the cars that are already out there. No JOKE!
I think everyone should learn how to do PROPER maintence on their cars, learn how to repair them, and let the automotive companies go into Niche car marketing, and focus on replacement parts manufacturing for all the cars that are already out there. No JOKE!