• cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Bridgestone Corp. Wednesday recalled 6.5 million of its Firestone-brand tires -- the second largest tire recall in U.S. history -- in response to complaints the tires may be linked to fatal crashes involving sport utility vehicles.

    Garry Crigger, the company's executive vice president said heat could be a contributing factor.

    "The vast majority of incidents are in the southern states of Arizona, California, Florida and Texas, which suggests there may be a direct correlation between heat and tire performance," Crigger said. "Most of the incidents we have reviewed indicate improper maintenance or damage to the tires, which is often caused by under-inflation of tires. Under-inflated operation of any tire generates excessive heat, which can lead to tire failure."

    "The recall covers size P235/75R15 in all the ATX, ATXII and some Wilderness AT tires that are currently in use on some of the nation's most popular SUVs. The tires have been original equipment on Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Nissan and Subaru vehicles for several years, but most accidents reported to traffic safety officials have involved the best selling Ford Explorer. An estimated 60-to-70 percent of the recalled tires are on the Explorer and its twin Mercury Mountaineer models."

    On the inside wall of the tire is a serial number.
    If that number begins with VD, it is a recalled tire.
  • scottssssscottssss Member Posts: 147
    are on the safety bandwagon now..... Hope you dont get t-boned... Ford admitted to the problem and the problem is being rectified... that 1 Star rating has been around how long??? Toyota is still pumping them out...

    All the reports i have seen point to the fact that the all of the tires involved in accidents were UNDERINFLATED.
    I wonder how many people die each year to tire failure?? I bet it more than we all think...
    Im not trying to say that any death is acceptable but they are INVESTIGATING 46 deaths POSSIBLY cuased by bad firstone tires over the LAST 10 YEARS. That is just over 4 deaths a year. i wonder how many peolpe die in tacomas due to a poor safety cage design..

    Point is People die in cars. Fact of life. People die in fords (probably more bc there are A LOT more on the road). People Die In Toyotas.

    Now lets get back to a relavent topic. we arnt discussing the Explorer, and Very few Rangers come with the Affected tires...
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Well said. I couldn't agree more.

    Am I the only one to see the hippocracy in this room. First, try to explain away the Tacoma's horrible safety record with "it's just tests" or "it wasn't a 4x4" or "it wasn't an ext-cab truck" or some other excuse. Next, blame Ford for putting Firestones on their vehicles and not recalling 7 million vehicles and replacing them. Can we at least try for a little consistancy. And I'll say it too. Amazing.

    Here is an unfortunate business practice. A manufacturing company weighs the price of a recall vs. the judgments or products liability cases. Then, they respond with whichever one is cheaper. This is WRONG. It takes lawsuits like the one in Florida and some media attention to help mitigate this practice.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    First of all CP, you are posting erroneous information my friend. The bad tires have not come from only one location. Eleven incidences have been cased by tires produced elsewhere. See this link:

    Your statement about Firestone recalling tires in other countries is also incorrect. Ford recalled the tires and replaced them with Goodyear tires. Check out the news stories which will confirm this. Firestone has been holding on that the tires are safe but Ford, together with Firestone, have been settling out of court and covering up the problem.

    As far as Scott and CT, as I said amazing. Find me some data that Toyota has been covering up a safety problem like this. You can't. Your attempts to try and reduce Ford's disregard for safety by comparing it to Toyota's crash tests is ridiculous and childish. Toyota didn't pay to cover up a problem and Toyota owners like myself bought the truck knowing it's shortfalls. Mr. Scottsss, if you want to talk hypocrisy, look in a mirror. It's still amazing that you guys can't seem to accept what Ford has done. If Toyota had done the same thing I wouldn't hesitate to condemn them but you guys can't seem to handle the facts. Amazing!!!
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    One more note, there have been close to 300 incidences, not 46. Not all have resulted in fatalities. The last I heard is that the Explorer may be too heavy for the tires.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I still can't get over your ignorance as I re-read your post. You love the crash test data yet don't want to accept the fact that in real life numbers the Tacoma doesn't have any worse of a safety record that any small truck. Ten years or so ago all trucks had bad side impact scores because none had reenforced door panels yet most still had lower injury rates than cars. Anyway, I have no problem, in contrast to you guys, conceding that Toyota need improvement in that area. You guys, on the other hand, are safety Demigods except for any vehicle from the sacred Ford company. I guess that's why you spelled hypocrisy wrong in your previous post because you have problems with that word so close to your name. It fits you guys very well though. Go ahead and preach about safety to us again and I'll join spoog in ignoring your post from here on. I know several people that are in a real dilemma now as to what to do. They have Explorers with these chaotic tires and a chaotic so called recall that so far is useless. Now we learn that the replacement they may get someday, is probably just as bad as the old tire. I guess they'll probably be stuck spending $400 - $500 on new tires themselves unless Ford and Firestone get it together soon.
  • mahimahimahimahi Member Posts: 497
    I was checking out the sites that you guys have posted on the safety. From what I saw, I don't know how anyone(I'm not saying anyone has) can say the Ford doesn't focus on safety. Just by looking at these sites the other companies should be embrassed! While Ford consistantly was proven to be safe and got high marks, there seemed to be quite a difference in the Nissans and Toyotas from site to site?????? Toyota gets one star for the side impact and gets an accepable rating just like the Ranger. The Frontier gets 4 stars in the side impact and a poor overall rating. Upon further review the Frontier's steering column moves quite a bit in the offset crash otherwise not too bad. They didn't do a test on an extended cab or Crew Cab yet same with the Toyota I don't know if it will make a difference, but judgeing by the domestics it actually loweres the side impact results. Overall, from what I've seen here is that The Ranger, and all of Ford's trucks for that matter, are the safest and Toyota has the best offroad truck...of course this is all my opinion.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Ford can do no wrong.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I must admit that when I first saw your posts spoog, I though that you were a bit extreme. Now I can sympathize with some of your frustration and understand why you do what you do. My respect for you, knowing that you have been talking to walls for so long, grows daily.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    From CNN:
    "Ford has replaced Firestone tires free on vehicles sold in Venezuela, Ecuador, Thailand, Malaysia, Colombia and Saudi Arabia after tires failed in those countries. Though not accepting blame, Ford said last week it swapped tires "as a customer satisfaction issue."

    It has not made a decision on replacing tires for U.S. customers, but Ford Vice President Martin Inglis told Reuters Tuesday that warranties on the tires in question are covered by the supplier, not the automaker."

    The last paragraph is a true statement. Look at you data that comes with the car. The tires are covered by the tire maker. That is just the way it is here.

    I stand by my comment that the ONLY Wilderness AT's RECALLED, note the word RECALLED, at this point in time were produced at the plant in Ill.
    If you run in with a tire other than a 235, and one that does not have a VD in the tire SN, do not think it will be replaced according to the data I have seen.

    The failure rate on the Firestone tires is about 0.00034% based on the number produced vs the number failed.
    As stated before, the majority of the failures appear to be a direct result of undrinflation.
    In this day and age of the "perfect" vehicles, such as the Tacoma, many are lulled into the feeling that you just turn the key and go.

    I check my tire pressure at least monthly, oil and water on every fuel fill, brake fluid on every oil change.
    Rangers are inexpensive, but not going to ruin it by lack of checking simple things.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Talk about being a hippocrate. First, you try to explain away the Tacoma's terrible safety record by saying that you don't care about safety and consider the Tacoma an "acceptable risk". Then, you want to chastise Ford for tires they put on an Explorer.

    Just try not to hurt yourself pulling those 180s in your arguments.

    "Ford can do no wrong."

    Of course this is not true. Don't be so naive as to think that any of the other car manufacturers don't do the same thing.
  • rickc5rickc5 Member Posts: 378
    I don't know what the current costs are, but several years ago it was published in a car magazine that new vehicle manufacturers paid in the neighborhood of $4-6 dollars per tire. Yes, FOUR-to-SIX dollars per tire! This is due to the millions of tires required by manufacturers for their new vehicles.

    Another point made in the article was that tire manufacturers bid against each other for the tire contracts and frequently made tires for new cars that were NOT the equivalent of the same size/type tires sold by their retail stores. So, your original tires ON ANY TRUCK (or car) were made by the LOWEST BIDDER! Comforting thought, eh?

    Now you also know why your original tires seem to wear out so fast. Simple, they're inferior tires compared to what you can buy on the aftermarket.

    If you think about this for a few seconds, you'll see that this practice of buying junky tires is "just business as usual" for ANY car manufacturer. Let's not forget that lower costs mean higher profits for the manufacturers. This is why Toyota began "de-contenting" their vehicles in 1995, starting with the Tacoma.

    BTW- I recall that the original Dunlops on several of my Toyota trucks lasted about a year, or 16-18K miles or so. Not what I'd call great tires.
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611


    *Firestone Decatur, Illinois Plant Only
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    2001 Ford Ranger - "The Best Never Rest"
    (Part three of a four part series)

    Published: August 10, 2000
    Date of revision: None
    Source: Ford Motor Company
    By: Steve Blake - Staff Writer

    Environmentally friendly and new "Tremor" audio feature offers
    560 watts of power!

    With the 2001 Ranger, Ford continues fulfilling an environmental promise. In addition to achieving approximate fuel economy ratings between 20 and 29 miles per gallon, both Ranger V-6 engines sold in the United States are certified as Low Emission Vehicles (LEV) further demonstrating their commitment to the environment.

    "The 2001 Ranger will meet low emission vehicle standards and achieve approximately 20-29 miles per gallon. The Ranger allows customers to use their vehicles for work and play while still being an environmentally responsible citizen and when we introduce the new I-4 engine into the Ranger later this winter, all Ranger engines will be LEV - fulfilling a company pledge that, by 2001, all of our pickups and sport utility vehicles will be low-emission vehicles," said Mark Bill, Ranger chief program engineer.

    LEV Rangers mean that the vehicle will emit approximately 70 percent fewer hydrocarbons than last year's federally certified models. In addition, a new on-board vapor recovery system captures fuel vapors and prevents them from escaping into the atmosphere during refueling.

    The Ford Ranger will also continue to be offered as an Electric Vehicle (EV) to customers in California.

    Electric Ranger Returns

    Ford introduced an all-electric version, the Ranger EV, to the U.S. market in 1998. Ford will continue to offer this environmentally responsible vehicle for 2001, with carryover styling.

    The Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) battery-powered Ranger EV achieves real-world driving range of approximately 65 miles on a single charge. Because the battery pack is lighter than the lead-acid version, the Ranger EV's useable payload capacity is 1,250, nearly double its previous payload.

    The Ranger EV is a quiet, zero-emission vehicle that was designed to be a practical, dependable light duty pickup balancing performance, reliability and energy efficiency. It has a high-efficiency three-phase AC electric motor with a single speed transaxle

    The Ranger EV uses a conductive charging system, which is inexpensive, safe and easy-to-use.

    Recycled and Recyclable Materials

    Ranger will be at least 90 percent recyclable by weight. Approximately 10.5 percent of its plastic parts and about four percent of its non-rubber content will be made from post-consumer recycled material. This includes its accelerator pedal, snow shields and engine fan shrouds. The air cleaner cover and tray contain 30 percent post-consumer recycled material, up from 25 percent in the previous model.

    Ford Motor Company produces more LEV pickups and SUVs than any other manufacturer. As of February 2000, more than two million LEV vehicles have been produced.

    Special Features

    New Ranger audio system offers power of Tremor

    Craig Tomai, Tremor project management supervisor says, "Building a powerful audio system in the new Ranger was a priority. With 560 watts of power, the Ranger Tremor audio system is designed 'to rock'!"

    In addition to the new Edge series, the Ranger will be offered with the Tremor - an optional audio package that brings an aftermarket-grade audio system to a compact pickup. It includes a premium, high-powered stereo with 560 watts and a custom designed-in subwoofer enclosure that fits in the rear floor area. The stereo system has been tuned to deliver tonal accuracy and imaging over a wide audio spectrum, from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. "This is an audiophile's delight," says Craig Tomai, Tremor project management supervisor. "It definitely has a ton of power."

    The 560-watt Tremor optional sound system, first incorporated into Ranger in May 2000, was built to exacting standards with the help of program management team member Anthony Davis, who enters his own customized Contour SVT in competitions sanctioned by the International Auto Sound Challenge Association.

    "What I tried to do was represent the voice of the audio customer throughout Ranger's development," Davis says of his role.

    Tremor started after Davis and fellow audio expert Mark Rickman built a demonstration version of an audio-oriented Ranger, using aftermarket parts, while keeping speakers in the normal factory locations. The experiment was designed to determine whether the results would meet expectations of audiophiles' standards.

    A key to the system was a hand-built subwoofer-and-amplifier housing that took up the rear floor area. The 10-inch bass speaker fires its deep tones right at the floor, and the air chamber in the housing magnifies the effect.

    "It works as an air pump," Davis explains.

    Davis worked with Pioneer to develop a new two-way, high-end speaker. He then worked to tune the electronics, developing crossover points and equalization profiles to match the speakers' output to Ranger's unique interior. The result is a Tremor sound system able to deliver bass right down to 20 Hz - far lower than the 60 Hz performance of most factory stereos.

    "Acoustics is just controlled vibration," Davis says. "We looked for three factors in the new Tremor package: sound quality, good installation and an objective measurement of the way 'pink noise' registers on an audio spectrum analyzer, via microphones at each seating position."

    He also wanted a design that would reward the most knowledgeable audio buffs. As a result, the head unit comes with a double-DIN hookup and enough controls to allow the listener pick a sound profile that best suits the music being played. They can even pick up a few more watts of power with a little know-how.

    One challenge was accommodating the large subwoofer. Fold-down storage bins were put in place of the rear jump seats since the subwoofer takes up a large amount of the rear floor space. The subwoofer housing is constructed in a durable carpeted synthetic material, to better resist moisture. The Tremor package is available on SuperCab configurations with either a Flareside or Styleside box. It will be available, as a special package, in spring 2001.
  • rickc5rickc5 Member Posts: 378
    Note that while Toyota uses Firestone Wilderness tires, the recall does not apply to Toyota trucks.

    "The following current model vehicles equipped with Firestone Wilderness tires are NOT involved in this recall:

    Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks
    Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban SUVs
    Ford Expedition sport utility vehicles
    Ford Escape sport utility vehicles
    GMC Yukon and Yukon XL sport utility vehicles
    Mazda Tribute sport utility vehicles
    Nissan Frontier pickup trucks
    Pontiac Aztek sport recreational vehicles
    Subaru Outback sport utility wagons
    Toyota Tacoma pickup trucks
    Toyota 4 Runner sport utility vehicles
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    You seem to be bending things to make them sound different.

    "First, try to explain away the Tacoma's
    horrible safety record with "it's just tests" or
    "it wasn't a 4x4" or "it wasn't an ext-cab truck"
    or some other excuse."

    Since when did Toyota have a horrible safety record? Yes, Tacomas need to be improved to improve the side impact tests but Tacomas nor Toyotas have a horrible safety record.
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    "Well, why didn't GM, Subaru, Toyota, or Nissan
    step and stop using the tires, issue recalls, and
    inform the public that they might be dangerous?"

    When did Ford offer any Recalls? When did Ford stop using the tires? Last week when the story got out? Ever?
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    I stayed up all night and was watching CNN and saw a newsflash about how Ford is trying to cover up a problem with the 2000 Ranger extended cab. It seems as if there have been 84 children killed this past month in Idaho by meteors that have passed through faulty extended cab side windows. If you have a 2000 extended cab Ranger proceed to Cape Canaveral or Houston to have your windows replaced immediately
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I never said that Toyota had a terrible safety record. I was referring to the shortfalls of the Tacoma in vehiclular safety. Have you seen anything where it said that Tacomas were safe trucks? The best I've ever seen was an acceptable rating for a few years for driver's side front impact protection.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Once again I'm wasting my time arguing with a bunch of school kids. Strange how you can't get yourself to admit that Ford has really screwed up. You're still trying to pass the blame to anyone but Ford. Even if every car co. did the same, Ford is the one on the hot seat now and you guys have got to come to terms with it. Find me any record that Toyota has paid people to cover up a similar problem. There was no 180 in what I said. Hypocrisy comes when someone preaches one thing, as you and your pals do about Fords great safety, and then ignore or try to pass the blame when they do the same or worse, as you guys are doing with this situation. You aren't fooling us but you are proving that you have no credibility. Hopefully Ford won't order you or the others in this Ford "do or die" cult to drink poison punch soon. Then we won't have anyone left to make stupid arguments on Ford's side. No use in arguing on this point anymore. You guys can't accept Ford has done wrong and/or don't have the intelligence to comprehend it.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Those companies didn't pay people off to be quiet like Ford. As far as what has come out so far, the Explorer's tires are the only tires being recalled. The other auto manufacturers apparently aren't having any problems with their tires and aren't using the size involved in the recall.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Ignorance is bliss. That seems to apply well to the Ford cult members.
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    These are not my words these are your's

    "First, try to explain away the Tacoma's
    horrible safety record with "it's just tests" or
    "it wasn't a 4x4" or "it wasn't an ext-cab truck"
    or some other excuse."

    Actually you did not use terrible you used horrible.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224

    Wasn't Blue Oval also the same source that said Ford uses shoddy plastic parts in their vehicles, and thazt they rank 28th in customer satisfaction?

    I beleive either Hindsite or Allknowing posted that source. Be careful who you quote from Cspounser.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "I must admit that when I first saw your posts
    spoog, I though that you were a bit extreme. Now I
    can sympathize with some of your frustration and
    understand why you do what you do. My respect for
    you, knowing that you have been talking to walls
    for so long, grows daily. "

    Amazing, isn't it? This room is full of folks who don't understand what facts are. The facts are ignored time and time again. Look at Cspounser, he posts cheesy information about whats next to come for the Ranger( that means NOTHING), and denies the actual CREATED outcomes of Ford products.

    He lives in this fantasy land of looking for ghost future Rangers, while denying documented FACTS from ALREADY created Rangers. It's silly.

    Cthompson offers nothig to this forum, nothing at all. HE's just a bitter dude who likes to ignore facts.

    At least Vince 8 was ridiculous enough to realize the facts. Sure, he spouted the same thing over and over, but thats because his brain told him it was the only thing he could do. THese other guys don't have the brains to let them know when they are being foolish.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    Where was the BLUE OVAL report claiming FORD was cutting corners and in the back of the pack in customer satisfatcion?
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    You obviously aren't reading my posts. Go back and look again. I've said at least 2 or 3 times that Ford was WRONG.

    But, for some reason you only see what you want to see. Go figure. There's no point in discussing topics with someone who can't even open their mind. Maybe I should realize this when someone uses a handle like "allknowing."

    BTW, I've been out of college for years now.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Not quite sure what your point is, but I realize you didn't say those things.

    They were just excuses that were posted for poor safety ratings by various people on this board.
  • mviglianco1mviglianco1 Member Posts: 283
    In a previous post you said Toyota has a "horrible safety record" and I in turn challenged that statement. You then replied that you did not say Toyota had a "terrible safety record". To which I reposted your original comment. That quote is from you, you said it and then later denied it. What is so difficult to understand about that? This is getting away from my original point that because a particular model (tacoma) has unacceptable side impact crash test ratings does not equate with Toyota having a "horrible safety record"
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Nothing to do with an open mind my friend. When I heard what as happened with the tires, I expected to see even the Ford guys in this forum condemning Ford's actions thus far. To my surprise, I find you and the other main Ford supporters harping about the tacoma's crash test results again(as if that makes Fords actions OK) rather than face the issue at hand. As I said before, the crash test results of the Tacoma are irrelevant to this situation. I'm hard on you guys because you're trying to pass the blame. Why not just acknowledge the facts this time and quit trying to pass the buck. I know you're no dummy CT, but you aren't exercising the best common sense in this matter. It pretty much disgusts me that people can love their car company so much that even when they attempt to cover up potential death, they try to point the finger elsewhere. Whether you realize it or not, that's what you were doing and I'll be glad to re-post your responses if you'd like. Please use better judgement next time.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I think that was hihdsite that supplied that link.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    You're right that the Tacoma doesn't have any worse of a safety record than any small truck. I guess that doesn't mean much to the safety Demigods that preach to us daily though. Even the Ford tire issue is caused by Tacoma's side impact test in their eyes.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    I think I get what you're saying. I didn't mean that Toyota as a whole had a terrible safety record (they're actually pretty good overall).

    My mistake. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

    I'll admit that I was probably being a bit over-dramatic about the Taco's safety ratings. Let's just say there's room for improvement and leave it at that.
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    What should one do to "condemn Ford" as you say?

    I guess it all comes down to desensitization (sp?). I'd expect any automaker to do the same thing. Does this make it right or excuseable? Of course not.

    I'd liken it to an ex-con breaking the law after being let out on parole. Does it make it any less of a crime? No. But, is it something that you'd expect? Unfortunately, yes.

    Maybe you don't think I'm not exercising common sense, but I think I'm being realistic.

    I only brought up the Tacoma to show how disinterested you were in safety before and how suddenly it became the foremost of your thoughts in the wake of bad tires.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    Show me where Toyota has paid anybody out of court with a "hush" clause to cover up the side impact tests. You can't which is why the Tacoma impact test is not relevant to this situation. If you really can't see that then remind me never to recommend the college you went to.
  • hulk66hulk66 Member Posts: 37
    Where do you live?? Tacomas do not have wilderness tires on them and never did. All of them that i have seen have goodyear or dunlop. Must be a location thing.
  • hulk66hulk66 Member Posts: 37
    How can you explain why ford has covered up the problem since they knew there was a possible problem with firestone tires? I know that the great FORD has no faults in your minds but if you stop and think about it, i guess ford doesn't want you ranger fans to know!!!
  • cthompson21cthompson21 Member Posts: 1,102
    Where are you getting all of this "hush" information?

    BTW, I learned while attending UIUC that it's infinitely easier to prove a negative than a positive.
  • scottssssscottssss Member Posts: 147
    i try to be the realist in this room now you try to make me out to be some radical.. this is what i think as far as the whole tacoma versus ranger debate..

    the 4wd taco looks better than a 4wd ranger
    the 2wd ranger looks better (which i own)than 2wd taco
    ranger is a nicer truck to drive (ride quality, interior)
    the taco is a better offroader..
    the ranger is a better value..
    the taco is more reliable... but the 2wd ranger is not far behind..
    the ranger is a safer vehicle..
    yes ford messed up in handling the tire issue..
    but at the same time i know that ALL large companies (toyota included) have things they hide from the public.
    I feel that ford has been taking LARGE steps to be a more socially responsible company.

    The tacoma is a great truck. I chose the ranger.

    I have NEVER spouted statistics in this room. i visit this room to read and learn.. and every once in a while i introduce my bad typing, bad grammar, and thoughts.

    so if someone who thinks you own a great truck is a radical, i guess im a radical.

    Spoog calls the ranger "a grocery getter" and he is the voice of reason..

    now what seems more radical??
  • scottssssscottssss Member Posts: 147
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    I am CERTAINLY not disputing the fact that Toyota needs to work on their side impact crashes for their 2wd Tacoma. No question about it.

    But see, the difference between me and others is I ACCEPT the factual data! Amazing isn't it?

    I post data FROM THE SAME SOURCE that gets ignored and turned a blind eye to.

    Thats the problem with this forum. Too many Ranger owners not accepting the facts.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    If you've been following the story, as I have been trying to do, Ford has been settling a lot of lawsuits out of court over the last few years. The settlements required the recipient to keep all information quiet about the evidence and the settlements (some call that a hush clause). If CBS and some other groups had not exposed the problem, Ford would still be paying people off to be quiet. That's the big outrage. If Ford had stopped using the defective tires the problem would probably never have surfaced as it has. Instead Ford chose to disregard public safety and continue to use the tires. It won't take much research on your part to verify this information.
  • scottssssscottssss Member Posts: 147
    Its all Tacomas with the side impact problem.. not just the 2wd ones..

    i have no problems with anyone here. i guess im just a little offended at AK's personel attack..

    As far as your posts go.... Tsb's mean absolutely nothing.. Ford makes pratical use of the tsb system and post everything possible.. while as an example Chevy does not and hence the S-10 has very few tsb's.

    The recalls are significant, but as CP often pointed out, they affect a small portion of rangers on the road..

    Deffect investigations... are just that investigations. If that investigation leads to a recall it was a deffect if not it was a random event. And since there are more Rangers on the road than tacomas there will be more random events.

    i will give you the taco is more reliable. But the Rangers reliability is no where near as bad as you would like everybody here to believe. I just broke 15,000 miles and have not had a single problem. My previous Ford experiences are good... and my present one is even better. I have a Great Dealer, i got a good price, and i have always received great service.

    And to be honest.... if the 2wd taco looked better and cost 2000$ less i probably would have bought one just for that toyota Piece of mind. But as it stands IN MY OPPINION the ranger is nicer looking, is much nicer to drive, and Cost me substantially less than i compably equiped taco. Decision was easy for me.
  • spoogspoog Member Posts: 1,224
    "Its all Tacomas with the side impact problem.. not
    just the 2wd ones.."

    Those test results you posted were on a 2wd Tacoma and a 4wd Ranger.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I think the Ranger is a good truck and in some areas, like crash tests, certainly better than the Tacoma. In contrast, I also think that the Tacoma meets a higher quality standard and is a much more proficient off road vehicle. In most of the points you mention I would agree with you. As I mentioned before however, I would like to see the Ford owners take a serious approach to what Ford has done in this case rather than water down the situation talking about safety issues of other manufacturers. That's why I called you Ford cultists. If the day comes that Toyota does something similar, I'll be the first to condemn their actions. I know many with Explorers that aren't too happy at the moment. If your wife drove an Explorer, would you wait the many months it looks like will be required to get replacement tires that may be just as dangerous, or would you spend $500 for new tires now (even though the tires have many years of tread life left)?
    I know many that are going through that dilemma right now and I don't think that Ford is on top of their popularity list.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    I would usually say that I'm sorry that you were offended at my personal attack, but I must admit that I meant to offend you as you offended me, and most Explorer owners as I explained in the last post. I'm sure that the people that lost family members in Explorer accidents aren't comforted much at all by your reasoning that "all manufacturers do that" or even the fact that the Tacoma scored lower than the Ranger in crash tests. Enough said.
  • allknowingallknowing Member Posts: 866
    In response to your statement: "Its all Tacomas with the side impact problem.. not just the 2wd ones.."
    Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any crash test data on the Tacoma 4x4 available. If it was, it could settle a lot of dispute here. What we do know, however, is that small trucks have a death rate much higher than the average vehicle (Ranger included), and that the Tacoma DOES NOT have an inferior safety record to any other small truck.
  • scottssssscottssss Member Posts: 147
    it was a 2wd ranger
    2000 ext cab test once again a 2wd ranger

    2wd tacoma

    the test was fair and equal. The ranger is MAYBE 2 inches higher off the ground but loking at the ram they used , it didnt make any difference in the test. The test is a fair demonstration of how both vehicles would fair in a side impact. If you would like to say a 4wd drive tacoma would fair better bc its higher off the ground, this maybe true but the 4wdranger would be that much safer as well.
  • eagle63eagle63 Member Posts: 599
    Some Tacomas do have Firestone tires. I was at my local toyota dealership 2 weeks ago and some had the Wilderness AT's. (although they were the black sidewall, not OWL like on ford's.)

    As an Explorer owner I'm pretty ticked about this tire thing. although it gives me a good excuse to go put on some 31" BFG AT KO's that I've been drooling over for the last few months. BTW, anybody interested in a set of Wilderness AT's dirt cheap!!??
  • cpousnrcpousnr Member Posts: 1,611
    2wd Ranger Supercab that the Govt test lab used, it was white as I recall, and rather beat up on the drivers side. . .

    But then again, if you were unbiased, you would have gone to the site and SEEN that it was a 2 wheel drive Ranger.

    If you had read the statisics on the 2 vehicles, you would also have know that the Ranger is a tad bit higher off the ground than a Tacoma.

    Those Tacoma 2wd vehicles are very low to the ground.
This discussion has been closed.