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.

D-MAN63

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.

LeXusBoy

DIESELMAN63,

I agree about the Expedition, pretty nice.

Francis K

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)

dgangi

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

midknight

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

Read previous posts.

Johnny Mo

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.

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.

dgangi

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

D-MAN63

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.

robertito

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.

SecPole14

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

yoji6365

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.

D-MAN63

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.

bizzy928

HOLY OLD THREAD BATMAN!!!