Ya been hearing news about firestone again !! Now, people are saying that their "replacement" tires are bad too !!!! Firestone blames Ford for making their SUV so easy to tip over and Ford blames firestone and VICE VERSA !!.

Its funny, because Ford's latest SUV models advertises that new and redesigned "wider form" of the SUV line. That makes me wonder who really is at fault :confused:

I still see LOTS of Firestone "wilderness" brand on SUV's. IMO, those are deathtraps on the highway.

Originally posted by DIESELMAN63
Ya been hearing news about firestone again !! Now, people are saying that their "replacement" tires are bad too !!!! Firestone blames Ford for making their SUV so easy to tip over and Ford blames firestone and VICE VERSA !!.

Its funny, because Ford's latest SUV models advertises that new and redesigned "wider form" of the SUV line. That makes me wonder who really is at fault :confused:

I still see LOTS of Firestone "wilderness" brand on SUV's. IMO, those are deathtraps on the highway.

the funniest thing is the the replacements are said to be worse than the firestone's themselves!!! :p

could u imagine if this nightmare happened to lexus? "the turanza's that come on the GS3 will blow out and cause loss of control and u will most likely slam into something. also, our airbags are defective."

I'll be the first one to say is..

if firestone DOES NOT go out of business in the near future, I'd give props to whoever is holding that company together cuz it does not look good at all for them.:rolleyes:

Who would wanna buy their products now?:confused: :confused:

IMHO, it was the design flaw of the Explorer, not tires. Yes, the tires could have been made stronger, but the weight / design of that particular SUV, placed too much pressure on the tires.

once again, IMO, 2 cents

Originally posted by genearch
I read showed that of 1160 some odd tire failures on exploders, less than 5 were non-firestones.



It's a matter of volume and supply. Firestone for the most part are standard equipment for Explorer's in the past. So of course with that kind of volume, comes more accidents associated with them. The more telling fact is that the same Firestone tires are NOT failing at the same rate on other SUV brands.

1SICKLEX,

Yah my parents are always talking about that. My mom would not let me get an SUV well at least the Expedition as a first car (truck as my dad said). She might let me take the RX though. :-)

I'm with midknight on this one. The percentage of rollovers after tire failure for the Explorer is off the charts compared to other SUVs. Firestone got caught up in this b/c they are the OEM tire for that vehicle. Firestone definitely created a tire with a flawed design, but IMO the suspension on the Explorer is to blame for the rollovers. When this issue first came to light last August, internal Ford documents unsealed from previous court cases showed that suspension testing for the Explorer showed it was as prone to rollover than the Bronco II it was replacing. I think when all is said and done, Ford is gonna get burned pretty badly for this and they what to take Firestone with them. The Explorer will have a rollover problem no matter which brand of tire fails on it.

Just my .06

Pardon the pun, but the jury is still out on the actual cause of the rollover. In general, it is difficult to roll a vehicle without both significant sideways motion AND something to trip the car, such as a curb. Couple of months ago, Car & Driver published an article in which they had obtained an Exploder from a used car dealer (to insure one with poor maintainence in hopes of approximating worst-case conditions) and installed a radio-controlled solenoid-operated valve in one of the steel wheels.

Then, at various speeds up to 80 mph!! they deflated the tire (valve capable of evacuating tire in approx one second, simulating blowout)........in all cases, both front and rear, and at all speeds, their driver was able to maintain control without difficulty. Nor did this tired old Explorer even ATTEMPT to go lurching off much less roll.

I apologize for not posting the link to C&D website but I'm a little short of time this morning and don't have time to go over and find it. It does make interesting reading and their conclusion is that they basically don't have a clue why so many have rolled, esp since most of the Firestones didn't blow, but delaminated their tread (which makes a godawful noise but leaves you with an intact doughnut much longer than would a blowout).

No conclusion here from me, just more grist for the ClubLexus mill.:confused:

Well as far as needing something to help you rollover(i.e. flat tire, or curb) I saw a professional BMW driver flip a 325 on dry pavement while trying to show off the improved handling of the vehicle under hard braking. You can flip any car at anytime. SUV are just at greater risk due to their higher center of gravity. I see Jeep's flipped over here in Chicago all the time. Where are the headlines?

Since we are talking about rollovers, you hear on the news that the 2001 Montero Sport Limited was classified as "unsafe" to drive by I think either Car and Driver or someone else. They did a test and I saw it, the dam SUV would of DEFINATELY tipped over at 37 mph if it wasn't for some safety protocols at the sides.

I am curious, how does the Rx300 and the LX470 handle on this topic? Since I NEVER heard of any problems with the lex, it must be fine !

I saw the Exploder thing on TV, it was interesting.


All in all, if you consider all the evidence and testimony, I would have to say it's the Explorer and not Firestone. Seeing how the same tires are used on Rangers and you can find 357975983754375 Rangers on the road and this problem hasn't been publicized on them. It's amazing how that one agency (forgot what it is called) is still allowing Ford to sell these deathtraps, can't they at least do somthing about it first? What do you think they would do if they found out a Toyota/Lexus vehicle had that problem I bet they would be banned from being sold in the US pretty quick. God, makes you wonder what Ford is pulling to be able to do it, they're basically just killing people and making money from it, it's inevitable to say that there will be more casualties due to Exploders, isn't it, even if it's one.

Here is the fact I known so far:

Firestone...
they have a reputation of making low quality tire 10 years ago, and they almost went bankrupt over it. So, once a thief always a.....

FOrd...

We all know that FOrd only hire the brightest and the Best of the Best engineers to design their cars. We all know that they spent billions on their R&D before selling us their cars right? I mean take a look at the Pinto. (70's car?)

Granted, I wasn't alive to witness it's legendary reputation. But from what I gathered, their Best-of the- Best engineers designed their fuel tank in the Pinto outside the cars main steel cage; for obvious safety reasons; and right behind the rear bumper.

They also attached the rear bumper with long 8" screws parallel to the fuel tank. Again for obvious safey reasons. So when you get into a minor rear end collision, as low as 5mph, the screw will act like a Drill and drive itself into the gas tank. Sometimes causing a spark in the process and BOOM! Instant fireworks.

I have heard FOrd was blaming the oil companies for making gasline so explosive causing it's cars to explode and people to die. I mean why make gasoline flammable so explosive right?? FOrd was the smart company with the Best of the Best engineers...

40 years later...nothing has changed.

Originally posted by 1SICKLEX
yeha I read the Car and Driver article, I don't think it exactly replicates what happened.

Not only does the Montero suck, but it too is a Accident waiting to happen.

If u wanna here what to do when u lose control, read under Racing Stories "I killed 1SICKLEX" some interesting posts.



Yes 1sick, i read it ! Good points made !


Also another thing, I see LOTS of fords STILL with Firestone tires !! I doubt that the owners didn't hear whats been happening the last couple of years. So my question is

WHY DON'T THESE OWNERS GET NEW TIRES?!? They hear how ppl are dying, yet they neglect/ignoring on getting new tires. If I was one of the owners and I keep hearing reports I would immediately change my tires or I would be putting everyone , including family members lives at risk.

I have a few things I want to add to this, personally I did not care for the Firestones when I had them on my Explorer. I think there are a few preoblems and also believe that both are at fault.

1) the original ATX and wilderness tires are "P" tires (ie. P235/75R 15), which means they are meant for passenger cars. In speaking to some people at Ford a long time ago (5+years), there were some TSB's that came out suggesting that at tire replacement time to upgrade to "LT" light truck tires. The Explorer was apparently too heavy for the P type tires. Yes that was the spec from Ford, but the tire engineers at Firestone should have said it won't work - BOTH equally at fault.

2)The C&D article/video..tread separation and tire failure/deflating are NOT the same thing. Tread separtation will most likely occur when you are in a turn (logically if you are going straight the tread may separate but is not as inclined to slip out from under the vehicle) The tread will most likely cause your tire to now become a "dunking donut" (you know the donuts with the donut handle attached) as the tire rotates at 60-70 mph it will cause the vehicle to jump about 8 inches at every tire rotation (which at 70 mph is alot) this will make you lose control I don't care if you are a professional race car driver you will lose control. THe issue is what casues the tread separation.

3)Some people are blaming the manufacturing plant others the tire pressure recommended by Ford, personally I did not agree with the recommended tire pressures and up'd mine to 32psi from the recommended 26 (now changed officially by Ford to 30). Still others blame it on the lack of a nylon cap ply over the steel belts. I don't know, but my Pirelli's have the cap, they are also "S" speed rated, so I don't think its a fair comparison.

4) Billy Tauzin made some comments that were PURE speculation, kind of a what if the tires Ford is replacing the Firestone's with are as bad or worse, there was no field data proof on an Explorer to determine that, but the press got wind of it and took it completely out of context. (I watched all of this crap on C-SPAN)

I think at the end of the day we'll see some combination of blame, but I think Ford will be okay , they have enough diversity, as the tires are only a component of their product vs. Firestone the tires are their product they will have trouble recovering. As far as people getting an inferior product in Ford - every manufacturer has their issues and "internal" memos that go around that are top secret and the "if this ever gets out we are ruined" type stuff. I think Ford learned its lesson from the PINTO disasters, and that's why they reacted the way they did, tires are failing--recall 'em and get them replacements fast. Again I am not saying the replacements are better or worse, but it becomes more an issue of marketing and perception. Ford made themselves look like the good guys, even though their choice of replacement tires may be incorrect-only the test data will tell us for sure.

Oh yeah if anyone did watch CSPAN - good God some of those Representatives of the House are DENSE!

Originally posted by DIESELMAN63


Also another thing, I see LOTS of fords STILL with Firestone tires !! I doubt that the owners didn't hear whats been happening the last couple of years. So my question is

WHY DON'T THESE OWNERS GET NEW TIRES?!? They hear how ppl are dying, yet they neglect/ignoring on getting new tires. If I was one of the owners and I keep hearing reports I would immediately change my tires or I would be putting everyone , including family members lives at risk.




You probably still see them because Ford or Firestone (dont know which one) said it is only certain tires. My mom's friend has an Explorer and they have Firestones. I asked them why and they said theirs were not affected. Also they took them to the Ford Dealer to be tested.

Well the main reason is because I know all the workers, my dad's liquor store is across the street from the plant, I could tell you stories and they could tell me stories. Also, every single ford model ever is played out. Ford quality........enough said. And I just think all their vehicles are trash. Yes it's just my opinion but hey, this is a forum right? My family has never owned a reliable sturdy Ford.

Originally posted by Francis K
Well the main reason is because I know all the workers, my dad's liquor store is across the street from the plant, I could tell you stories and they could tell me stories. Also, every single ford model ever is played out. Ford quality........enough said. And I just think all their vehicles are trash. Yes it's just my opinion but hey, this is a forum right? My family has never owned a reliable sturdy Ford.

I would agree with you Francis ! Well, the only Ford that I don't dislike is the Ford Expedition. I think that is alright but not comparable to the Lincoln Navigator and all the other big SUV's.

DIESELMAN63,

I agree about the Expedition, pretty nice.

an all black Expedition with a chrome grille guard and brush guards and chrome rims, can you say NICE!?

My friends neighbor has one and that thing turns heads like a GS does (okay, that was exageration)

There was a lengthy article on the Firestone/Ford debate in either Time or Newsweek last month that really explained some of the finer points of the argument. For the most part, the Ford engineers knew that the Explorer had inherited some of the problems of the older Bronco II because the suspension remained very similar. In the late 1980's, when the Explorer was being redesigned to replace the Bronco II (the most prone vehicle of its time to flip), the engineers wanted to redesign the front and rear suspension so that it would be a little wider. I guess the bean counters didn't allow for this so the engineers had to look for alternatives to the handling pecularities of the 1960's era I-beam suspension that was still going to remain on the "new" 1991 Explorer (the same suspension used on the Bronco II). They could either lower the height or widen the track. If memory serves me correctly, they chose the former because of cost and also recommended lower tire pressure. That was the reason for the 26psi recommendation from Ford.

So, the Ford Motor Company is definitely to blame for creating a marginal suspension under the skin of the 1991 Explorer. The engineers never really got their wish to redesign the suspension until the new 2002 model. The new Explorer should not have any of these same issues because it doesn't have any of the same suspension components that the 1990's model did.

But...there are a lot of cars and trucks out there with iffy suspensions. The fact remains that the Firestone tires blew out at a rate much higher than any other tire OEM'd by Goodyear or Michelin (which some Explorers had). This undoubtedly was caused by a tire that was not as strong and heat resistant as it should have been. I blame this squarely on Firestone. They should have been aware of the recommendations of 26psi by Ford and should have balked at supplying a tire that could not take that pressure and load rating. Keep in mind that most of the blowouts have been in AZ, Texas, and other hot climates (as well as other hot countries).

So, in my opinion (and in most of the opinions I read about), Ford and Firestone both share the blame. I don't think that is debatable.

What is debatable is how Firestone handled the crisis. One thing I really hate about Japanese companies (Firestone is owned by Bridgstone) is how they attempt to save face. Instead of biting the bullet and cooperating, Firestone chose to fight back. Dumb move. The Japanese don't understand how Americans think about corporate responsibility. It is a commonly held belief in the USA that companies should be held accountable for their actions. After years of fighting back, companies in the USA now bend to public pressure and even go out of their way to avoid being hung in the jury of the press and public opinion. Firestone didn't get this and made the ultimate mistake.

Now nobody in America will buy Firestone and Bridgestone tires. In fact, when I was at a local Toyota dealership last month, the sales person told me that most of the buyers of their cars insisted that the Bridgstone tires be replaced with something else. Same thing was true at a GM dealership.

I am a person who takes a company's reaction to a problem very seriously. I am personally appalled at how Firestone reacted. I have never had good luck with their tires and was definitely not going to shop for the proactively, but now I will NEVER, EVER purchase a Firestone or Bridgestone tire for the rest of my life. In fact, it would make me very happy to see them be purchased by another non-Japanese tire company (I would hate to see them fold because lots of jobs will be lost -- I just hope Goodyear or Michelin buys them).

Just my two cents...

Thx...Doug

you've got to be joking? "American Company's takes greater responsibilty" for their mess? LOL!

Read previous posts.

I think Doug is right. For the most part many American companies especially those like Ford who have been through a Pinto type business ethics issue before, will be prone to act quickly. The best example of quick action was Johnson & Johnson with the big Tylenol scare way back. I don't know if the same can be said for GM with the one recent issue on the saddle bag design of gas tanks outside the frame rails of trucks, but for the most part I think you will see over the past 10 years American companies have gotten much more attuned to safety issues.

It'll be a lot worse getting buried by today's media then it will be to convince stockholders and boards of directors that the safety of the customers has to come first, even before profits.

There are numerous reports and documents that show Ford knew about the potential roll-overs from their cash cow Explorers for years and refused to take action until the media spot lighted it. With intense media coverage, a congressional investigation, millions of dollars worth of law suits, then yes most American Companies will see fit to take responsibility. But taking responsibility after you got "caught" has no respect or honor in my book. IMHO.

:confused:

Let's get real -- there isn't a single company in the world that doesn't want to make a profit for themselves and their shareholders. That being said, every company, regardless of where they are located, has a duty to protect both the consumers who buy their products AND their shareholders. This is a tough balancing act and one that doesn't always look "nice" on the outside. If every company replaced every item that had the chance of being defective, nobody would be in business anymore.

Regardless, one of the things that keeps me in this country is our free economy. Without a doubt, it is the best in the world. And in our modern economy the customer is king. It has taken years for the average consumer to rise to this status, but it has finally happened. For years companies have shunned this fact only to their demise if they continue to do so.

Today, companies in competitive markets (such as auto makers) generally bend over backwards to keep customers happy. They do whatever possible to avoid any kind of scandal, negative label, or other dubious attention. Why? Because customers are demanding satisfaction, and if they don't get it they will take their business elsewhere (the J&J Tylenol scandal is a perfect example of this -- so was the proactive beef recall by Hormel). If Ford didn't react right away and make their customers feel satisfied, herds of feet would have pounded the pavement to the local GM, Chrysler, and Toyota dealership to purchase anything else besides an Explorer. Ford knew this and reacted appropriately...and it paid off. Explorer sales are still very high. Firestone did what Japanese companies tend to do -- protect themselves to the extreme (they NEVER fire executives in Japan...always protect them) -- and it really pissed off the American public. In fact, Firestone had received a LOT of complaints about their tires on the Explorer and never reported them to the US government (as is required by law). Bridgstone management didn't want this information to surface. Well, it did after an investigation into this whole mess (oops). Now Firestone/Bridgstone will pay dearly.

I am completely certain that people in Ford knew that there were problems with the Explorer. Hell...if you think that every automaker (INCLUDING LEXUS) doesn't have hidden dirt on their cars, you are fooling yourself. I'm sure that Ford looked at the situation, assessed the statistics of accidents/injuries because of the existing suspension versus the cost of changing it out and made a decision.

Could the suspension have been improved? Certainly. Would it have stopped the blowouts? Probably not -- the tires themselves have been proven to be defective (much of the issue was due to the load rating of the tires -- something that the suspension design has little effect on). Is the suspension itself hazardous? Certainly not -- it passes every handling test with ease (as opposed to the new Mitsubishi Montero Sport). Yes, in combination with the tires and the tire pressue it can pose problems. But when other brands of tires were used (Goodyear and Michelin), the Explorer had a rollover rating that was as good or better than any other SUV. Why would this justify a complete redesign, especially if the cost to do so wouldn't be justified by increased sales?

I hope you don't think I am a Ford fan. In fact, I have never owned a Ford vehicle (not my taste). But in light of the circumstances of how Ford proactively handled this recall - even to the point of shutting down their assembly lines to replace the defective tires - I can say that I will shop for a Ford car or truck in the future (remember, Ford also owns Jaguar and Volvo).

Thx...Doug

Originally posted by midknight
There are numerous reports and documents that show Ford knew about the potential roll-overs from their cash cow Explorers for years and refused to take action until the media spot lighted it. With intense media coverage, a congressional investigation, millions of dollars worth of law suits, then yes most American Companies will see fit to take responsibility. But taking responsibility after you got "caught" has no respect or honor in my book. IMHO.

:confused:

I agree on this one MidKnight. I am sure Lexus and MB etc.. all have "hidden" secrets about flaws in their design BUT none so serious enough that it risks lives of the driver, passenger and everyone else on the highway.

just my 2 cents.

About delaminationÑ

A guy who works in our building's garage was driving his van in Mississipi a couple of weeks ago, on 7 month old Firestones. The left rear de-laminated, wrapping itself around the axle and freezing it. The van flipped four times, killing his nephew and severely injuring his father and sister. They were not the suspected Wilderness model, so God help anyone with Firestone products.

By the way, while shopping for my GS 300 this past weekend, I was looking at a showroom car, and noticed a sidewall bubble starting on the right rear Goodyear Invicta GA.

This is the same tire that is on the car I received on Monday. I am not happy. I feel like changing the tires right now.

My dad was telling me a story about when Lexus first debuted in the US. He said some old guy just bought a brand new LS400 and was claiming that the cruise control stuck. Lexus, without asking questions, bought that LS400 back from and gave him a new one. He was never heard from again. I read about a guy who had squeaks and rattles in his new GS300. The dealer couldn't fix the problem, so they bought the car back from him. Another thing . . .recently, when the IIHS was crash-testing the LS430, they found the air bag deployed too late in the collision, causing the head to make contact with the wheel. Lexus had their engineers out there the second they heard about it, and they fixed the problem. The IIHS now lists the LS430 as the safest car they've ever tested, beating even the esteemed 5-series. I think it's great that Lexus is this committed to their customers. I mean what other car company would even dream of doing this?
-
Adrian

Yes 1sick, i read it ! Good points made !


Also another thing, I see LOTS of fords STILL with Firestone tires !! I doubt that the owners didn't hear whats been happening the last couple of years. So my question is

WHY DON'T THESE OWNERS GET NEW TIRES?!? They hear how ppl are dying, yet they neglect/ignoring on getting new tires. If I was one of the owners and I keep hearing reports I would immediately change my tires or I would be putting everyone , including family members lives at risk.

1. But it wont happen to me
2. Cant afford it
3. Denial
4. You cant believe the media, they all lie.
5. I'll fix it when I get to it.

We used to hand out a wooden disc with TUIT printed on it.
So when they said ,I'll do it when I get "to it", we'd hand them the wooden disc.
It didnt work that well. People hate being told what to do, when to do it, blah blah.

1. But it wont happen to me
2. Cant afford it
3. Denial
4. You cant believe the media, they all lie.
5. I'll fix it when I get to it.

We used to hand out a wooden disc with TUIT printed on it.
So when they said ,I'll do it when I get "to it", we'd hand them the wooden disc.
It didnt work that well. People hate being told what to do, when to do it, blah blah.


thanks for your input ! I haven't kept up to date with Firestone, I wonder if they improved on their tires? I wrote this thread about 4 years ago. :eek2:

HOLY OLD THREAD BATMAN!!! :woot: :thumbup:

Where are all these ancient threads coming from :D This was probably one of your first few posts Dman.

Where are all these ancient threads coming from :D


not me lol
:p ;)

gs300rich, yep this is probably my 200-300th post :D

tlw, damn man, your slippin, he should have YOUR title.

I did a write-up and a whole thread on just this subject some time ago.....the Ford-Firestone problem. The tires affected were only Wilderness AT's, and then only certain ones, not all Wilderness tires. That's why you still see a lot of Wilderness tires on the road...they are not the recalled AT's ( or shouldn't be ).

I'm not going to rehash all of the details again about the Explorer's suspension, the conflict between Ford and Firestone on recommended tire PSI's, and the low safety margin of error in the Wilderness AT design. This has all been explained by myself and many other sources.....and the public also shares in the blame for not checking the tire PSI's and then foolishly driving overloaded Explorers at high speeds on very hot roadways that contributed to tire heat buildup....most of the failures happened in the South and particularly the Desert Southwest in summer when the roadway gets to blistering temperatures.

It's not Firestone's fault. It was Ford's fault. Toyota and GM used the same Wilderness tires with no problems. ANY tire can separate without warning, even your beloved Michelins or Toyos.

It's not Firestone's fault. It was Ford's fault. Toyota and GM used the same Wilderness tires with no problems. ANY tire can separate without warning, even your beloved Michelins or Toyos.

It was partly, but not totally, Ford's fault. In response to customer complaints about the Explorer's rather harsh truck-like ride ( the Explorer was developed from the Ranger pickup ) Ford downgraded the recommended Wilderness AT tire pressures from 30-32 PSI to 26 to try and smooth out the ride some...an old and inexpensive trick. Firestone objected to this and said that that 26 PSI was not enough. Other SUV tires, however were able to run at 26 PSI and NOT fail....the Wilderness tires apparantly were OK at 30 PSI but marginal at 26....and then under ideal conditions. This shows that the Wilderness tires did not have much of a safety margin of error built in.....and that part of the blame is on Firestone. But the third....and perhaps most crucial factor.......lies with the Explorer's drivers themselves. By neglecting to check their tires regularly and in many cases not even having 26 cold PSI in them....and then driving overloaded vehicles pulling trailers on long vacations on blisteringly hot desert roads....the potential for disaster and tire failure was obvious.