As if Ford wasn't losing enough money, AP reports [via Forbes ] the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals today ordered Ford to pay a California woman $82.6m for injuries sustained when her Ford Explorer rolled over in 2002. A jury had originally awarded the plaintiff $369m. Like street cocaine, that number has been cut several times in course of the case. Ford had appealed the verdict all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Explorer met all federal safety standards. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 4th Circuit to determine whether or not their ruling was in line with a previous determination which overturned nearly $80m in damages awarded in a tobacco lawsuit. Today's decision blesses the plaintiff with $55m in punitive damages. The legal point: federal safety standards are not enough to shield automakers from legal liability. The scary bit: class action lawsuits will now fall like rain upon Ford's head. The Blue Oval Boyz have yet to publicly comment on the case, probably as they're busy talking to their insurance agent and trying to figure out what they're going to sell next.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I guess young Mr Ford will still be working for free.
Donal Fagan: I guess young Mr Ford will still be working for free. To be precise, his $25m – $35m per year paycheck is being deferred. So, technically, he'll simply be waiting longer. Saying that, if Ford drops its "F" naming convention, there may be a Godot model in the offing…
Time to surf on over to http://www.rolloverlawyer.com
(yes it really exists)
Given the number of Explorers I’ve seen inverted on the freeway medians and shoulders of I-5 alone this could be very expensive. Didn’t they learn anything from the Bronco?
–chuck
So what was the final cause? Low pressure tires? Bad tires? Bad SUV and inept drivers?
Just curious…
When it first came out, I read that making the Explorer longer than the Bronco was supposed to solve the rollover problems they had with the Bronco. That didn’t make sense to me. I’m not an engineer, but it seemed to me the problem was the width vs the height.
Our Bronco was tippy, but our Intl Scout was worse.
It does seem strange that a vehicle can conform to Federal safety standards and still be faced with such enormous lawsuits. I mean, are the Federal regulations that rudimentary?
Bus – part of it was the owner’s manual instructing people to under-inflate the Firestone tires. The tires themselves had the correct recommendation, but Ford printed a lower figure to improve the ride or “prevent tipping” depending on which story you get.
So just like drug companies with FDA approval, even when you meet the federal safety guidelines your ass is on the line when someone finds a way to screw up. Being certified, approved, etc is not worth the paper it is printed on, but the expense and aggravation goes on.
maybe it’s high time for the government to start offering some protections in return for compliance. the government is getting let off the line here.
So what was the final cause? Low pressure tires? Bad tires? Bad SUV and inept drivers?
Just curious…
Inept drivers…no other way around it.
NickR: It does seem strange that a vehicle can conform to Federal safety standards and still be faced with such enormous lawsuits. I mean, are the Federal regulations that rudimentary?
Yes, some standards are that rudimentary. The roof crush standard, which applies in this case, hasn’t been upgraded since the ’73 or ’74 model year. Some comparable models far exceed this minimum standard (and I’m talking about run-of-the-mill SUVs that compete directly with the Explorer), but Ford chose not to do so for the pre-2002 Explorer.
Federal standards simply set a floor so that (for example) Tata Nanos and Renault Logans can’t be sold here. But that doesn’t relieve a manufacturer of liability from going beyond the minimums, especially when such minimums are far from state of the art.
GS650G:
I’m gonna disagree with you and say that as the vehicle manufacturer, Ford carries the liability here. No way should the government attempt to guarantee the absolute safety of every product sold in the US. Such a plan would create mountains of red tape and be a huge drag on our economy. I think our litigious society does a good enough job punishing those who sell sub-par products… and rulings like this one provide a good deterrent.
Keith Bradsher’s book High and Mighty goes a long way towards explaining why “meeting” government standards will not absolve Ford in a wide variety of personal injury/wrongful death lawsuits.
Bradsher builds a methodical case against body on frame SUV’s in general, and saves his most compelling warning for last. He proves the vehicles are dangerous with conservative drivers at the wheel. Then he raises the troubling spectre of 6500lb vehicles piloted by 20 year old males who buy them cheap and operate them with aging brakes, shocks and tires. Not good.
Balding tires, high center of gravity, horrible drivers, poor Government safety standards for trucks, etc. But the pistonheads here are neglecting the fact that Nasser-era Ford insisted on crappy tires for Explorers.
Why would any manufacturer in good conscience let “Traction B” and “Temperature C” tires go on their cars?
The free marketeer in me feels like one should not be able to sue a manufacturer for being injured by having an accident if the vehicle is not defective. The sports car driver in me is hopeful that an onslaught of rollover lawsuits will make SUVs very unpopular to make and they slowly disappear from the roads of America like so many lonely buffalo.
Sajeev Mehta:
Why would any manufacturer in good conscience let “Traction B” and “Temperature C” tires go on their cars?
Excellent point. As a part time Exploder driver, I think it’s one of the best handling/driving SUV’s with good tires. Yeah, it’s still a truck, but it beats the crap out of the Trailblazer/Yukon.
I guess Ford will take their lumps here. Sell below average standard tires on an SUV to the marginal driving-skill demographic average Ford customer and the result is a trial lawyer rainmaker.
“But the pistonheads here are neglecting the fact that Nasser-era Ford insisted on crappy tires for Explorers.
Why would any manufacturer in good conscience let “Traction B” and “Temperature C” tires go on their cars?
Wrong…making a snap lane change at highway speeds is the reason this happened.
If this women was not so incredibly stupid and just hit the damn thing…she would be able to walk today.
Why would any manufacturer in good conscience let “Traction B” and “Temperature C” tires go on their cars?
Sorry, what does that mean?
The free marketeer in me feels like one should not be able to sue a manufacturer for being injured by having an accident if the vehicle is not defective.
@dolo54:
That’s basically my take on it, as well.
P71_CrownVic: aside from completely bald tires with metal showing, belts don’t decide to separate themselves from a high quality tire because of a snap lane change.
Not that I disagree with you, but Temperature “C” tires was an absolutely idiotic move on Ford’s part. There’d be much less gravity to Explorer rollovers if higher quality tires were used.
CarShark: http://www.armenterprises.com/AboutTires.html
“Temperature grades are A, B or C. Where A is the highest and C is the lowest. This measurement rates the tire’s (manufacturer’s disclaimer again: a properly maintained tire’s) ability to dissipate heat under controlled indoor test wheel conditions.
The test consists of successive 30-minute runs on a bench (industry term for a simulator) in 5 mph increments starting at 75 mph. These test continue until the tire fails due to heat build-up. A grade of C, means the tire meets minimum DOT specifications, while B and A are better than DOT regulations.”
P71_CrownVic:
Wrong…making a snap lane change at highway speeds is the reason this happened.
I don’t know the case facts, but you’re probably correct. Your point is also, however, irrelevant. Ford should have known to over-engineer this vehicle given they types of people who’d be driving it. And over-engineer means, in part, use better than average tires.
Look at silicone breast implant banning from a dozen years+ ago. Companies, doctors, and many individuals’ retirement plans were ruined by lawsuits because our tort system runs more on emotion than reason. No other western nation banned silicone breast implants. (And many Bahama-based plastic surgeons prospered because of it).
And 2 years ago the FDA said, “Nevermind. They’re fine.”
Why even have regulations if the companies are still legally liable? Sajeev mentioned that the standards are just high enough to keep the worst of the worst off our roads, but why given that those vehicles that comply with the standards are still subject to lawsuits.
The same can be said about the tires. If they meet the DOT requirements, that should be sufficient. If it was a defective tire, that is one thing. However, if there were no defects and it met the standards, then the manufacturer of the tire did everything appropriate.
It is not irresponsible for Ford to put “crappy” tires on the car. If they are legally for sale in this country, then they should be “safe” for use.
I am getting absolutely sick and tired of these outrageous monetary settlements. If there was malicious intent, that’s one thing. This was not a premeditated attempt by Ford or the tire company to put her life at risk.
How about calling a spade a spade.
^ ditto to ktm (and half of these posts).
I don’t know the facts on this case, and I don’t care to look them up. I’ve read too many cases where some freakishly idiot driver buys a 5,000+ lb vehicle, drives it like a bat out of hell, gets in a wreck, and sues.
While I absolutely HATE sported-out P/Us and SUVs (you know, the kind that are lower down than my 300ZX, have huge sport tires, and a completely reworked suspension), at least these idiots rework their cars to, more or less, handle their particular driving techniques. Of course, if these fools flipped, it would be hard to fault the car manufacturer.
Instead, on one of my local 2-lane IH’s, we have Expeditions, Suburbans, lifted F-2/350’s (and I mean LIFTED), etc. flying down the fast lane at 110+mph and changing lanes faster than I would feel comfortable in my sports car, effectively driving me off into the shoulder beacuse they didn’t bother to look/couldn’t see me. And people wonder why they end up upside-down in a ditch…
On that note, I do agree that modern safety regulations are crap. What I don’t understand is how so many cars are able to get 4 and 5 star side-impact ratings. Are our cars just THAT safe? If so, why are the rollover BARE MINIMUM standards so low?
The best part is when you compare SUV safety ratings to some convertables, such as the S2000. I’d drive that any day compared to a full-sized beast.
ktm,
The one thing that the federal standards can’t foresee is the overall design and purpose of the vehicle. It is still up to the vehicle manufacturer to determine what are the appropriate design criteria to apply for the type of vehicle they are building and its intended purpose and customer. Certain tires may be appropriate on one type of vehicle and not others.
Does the manual really say to under inflate the tires?
I would think it would hard to overcome this negligence in the courtroom.
frontline: the manual says to inflate them to 26psi. I gather that’s for ride quality on an inherently trucky design.
Using the word “underinflation” at that level is up for debate.(I’m not touching this one!)
frontline: Firestone wanted Ford to specify a tire inflation pressure of 30 psi. Ford overruled Firestone and called for 26 psi, because internal Ford tests showed the SUV was more prone to rolling over at the higher tire pressure.
As to those who said the driver should NOT have swerved, do you always follow your own advice? What if the chunk of metal were headed straight toward your head through the windshield?
The one fatal Explorer rollover that I responded to with the ambulance, several years ago, was essentially a “snap lane change.” The woman driving either dozed off momentarily or wasn’t paying attention, and she drove onto the rumble strip on the left side of the left lane on the New York State Thruway, according to following traffic. She jerked the wheel to the right when she was startled and after she lost it, the Explorer looped about four times, front-to-rear, as well as rolling and ended up on its roof on the _other_ side of a 200-foot-wide grass median, pointing in the opposite direction. Ripped one of the rear Firestones entirely off. Nor did it help that the entire cargo area was filled with cartons of office supplies, literally to the roof. She died, we medevaced her boyfriend in bad shape.
Like it or not it was Ford that decided that vehicled based on pick-up trucks and HELD to pickup turck standards are suitible for your average soccer-mom to load up all the children in and than do 70 to 80 mph down the interstate.
There was a major marketing push FOCUSING ON THE SUPPOSED SAFETY of these vehicles during their heyday in the 1990s by Ford to get your average car shopper to forgo a car (which mostly likely would have been a Honda or Toyota)and get an SUV.
Hell for that matter ALL of the SUV sellers made it a point to hide the fact from the customers that SUVs are NOT held to the same safety standards as passanger cars. How many of the RAV4 driver actually know that the RAV4 has NO rear bumper?
Ford deserves everything that is coming to them. Just like Toyota and Honda would if they were in the same situation. The Fed provides basic guidelines fro safety. No Manufacturers cars would be safe IF they only adheard to those guidelines. More to the point this is a moral issue. Ford is willing to cut corners with safety and has built up a negative reputation, we all know about or actually remember the Pinto Gas tank issue from the 1970s.
The Ford Explorer Sport (2 door) was as bad as the Explorer. The width of the wheelbase was inadequate and with the sports shorter length wheelbase it was a jeep wranger sized package with an suvs worth of suv center of gravity. I’ve seen these almost tip over just at 20mpg avoiding a pot hole.
Ford compensated this by lowering tire pressures to 26 psi to invoke more stability – however a major problem caused premature wear of tires. It wasn’t until 2003-2004 they redesigned the rear suspension and extended the wheelbase to make them safer. Plus the Federal safety regulations that Ford said they met was the 1.5 times the weight but when a vehicle rolls over and the forces involvedd it is nowhere near enough – the courts are basically hitting Ford back about how unstable the vehicle is and their knowledge and denails of this problem they have to pay for with punitive damages. Reaping only what Ford sowed.
The one thing everyone here is forgetting is that the Firestone tires that had blowout issues all came from the same manufacturing facility and were defective.
As mostly stated in earlier posts, Ford originally wanted Firestone to rate the tire pressure at 22psi. Firestone said “Hell, No!” we want 30psi. Ford and Firestone then compromised and met halfway at 26psi.
I drove a ’94 Mazda Navajo, a rebadged Ford Explorer, for 11 years. The original Firestones’ sidewalls were dry rotted after only 2 years, so I replaced them even though they had plenty of useable tread left. At that point, I just went with Big O Tires’ recommendation on the new tires and aired them up to 30psi – some brand x tire made in South America – at least they were better than the Firestones. At 30psi, the ride was better, it didn’t feel like the parking brake had been left on like it did at 26psi, and the tires lasted much longer at 30 than they would have at 26. The vehicle did sit about a half inch higher at 30, but that was fine by me.
The vehicle eventually turned into a money pit and was unreliable (and expensive) for road trips so I got rid of it.
The Explorer was an instant success the day it was introduced. So what did Ford do? In order to increase profits, Ford installed el cheapo C rated tires (instead of the D rated tires first offered in 1991), then under-inflated them to get a cushier ride. It didn’t help matters when the tires turned out to be defective.
Ford blamed Firestone / Firestone blamed Ford, so who’s really at fault?
Ford is. If they hadn’t gone the el cheapo tire route..none of this would have happened.
btw: Does anyone recall the defective draglinks on the late 1980’s Rangers and Bronco II’s?
Remember the recall?
You don’t, because there wasn’t one.
1000’s were replaced for free, but I wonder to this day how many ppl actually knew that Ford replaced them when the vehicles came in for routine service.
Years later, there was a class action lawsuit brought against Ford over these defective draglinks, but I never read anything inre to what the outcome was.
It’s interesting how you never hear about Toyotas or Hondas rolling over or catching on fire or whatever en masse, but the domestics (especially Ford) always seem to have these problems. Gee, I wonder why?
ihatetrees:
“I don’t know the case facts, but you’re probably correct. Your point is also, however, irrelevant. Ford should have known to over-engineer this vehicle given they types of people who’d be driving it. And over-engineer means, in part, use better than average tires.
So now we have to engineer our cars with a stupidity factor? That’s exactly that…stupid.
And…from the story I read…this had NOTHING to do with the tires. This had to do with the stupidity of one CA driver.
Stupidity: ppl buy these high profile vehicles, then drive them like the cars they replaced. So who’s to blame when they roll over?
In today’s owners manuals, and on the drivers side sun visor, there are roll over caveats…but those caveats were no where to be found back in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
Building better to save lives. Despite the hoopla about safety this, and safety that, the automakers don’t really give a damn.
How much of the mandated safety equipment do you think would be on vehicles if the Gov’t hadn’t ordered the automakers to install them?
Look at all the vehicles sold thru 12/31/1965. Seat belts, a drivers side rear view mirror, backup lights, heater and defroster and in some cases, turn signals were OPTIONAL on most vehicles.
First time the Gov’t stepped in was in the late 1920’s, when they ordered automakers to replace the PLATE GLASS used in windshields with safety glass. PLATE GLASS continued to be used till the mid 1930’s in doors and back glasses. Again, the Gov’t stepped in, and demanded safety glass be installed throughout the vehicles.
Over 95% of all vehicles sold prior to 1968 did not have collapsible steering columns.
Think about all the ppl that were injured or died, because the automakers who KNEW this was an safety issue, did nothing about it for decades.
As an automotive insider for nearly 40 years, I could type for hours, all the crap the automakers got away with for years, not to mention all the secret campaigns automakers had to replace defective parts, that owners WERE NEVER MADE AWARE OF!
Those defective parts were replaced when vehicles came in for routine service. People that didn’t bring their vehicles back to the dealers for routine service, were sh*t oughtta luck!
P71 – yes, there’s an expectation of over engineering a vehicle to keep the occupants safe.
It seems to me Ford has a fire issue to deal with in their pickups and SUVs. And in the Panther platform cars.
The Panthers cost the state of Ohio close to $1 million last year to retrofit all of the state Patrol cruisers with fire supression systems after a couple fatalities where a cruiser was hit in the rear and caught fire. This is well documented, yet Ford wants to sell an optional cover for the fuel tank in case of rear end collisions. That’s very poor engineering and poor responsibility on the manufacturer.
Whether the driver of the Explorers that have rolled is completely at fault is certainly questionable considering the evidence that Ford knowingly instructed dealers and owners through the owner’s manual to underinflate the tires. They also asked Firestone for a cheap tire that was not appropriate for the vehicle as pointed out above. By chosing a poor tire AND telling people to underinflate them they have to take some blame. There have also been numerous accounts where said tires did pop causing roll overs, not just a sudden jerk of the wheel.
I’ve also heard that Ford was faulted for basing the Explorer on the Ranger platform, which meant the chassis was inadequate for the heavier SUV.
It’s ironic that Ford has gotten roasted for safety problems time and again, when it led the way back in 1956 by offering its new “Lifeguard” features: padded dash, seat belts and stronger door latches to keep passengers inside, and a “dished” steering wheel to reduce chest injuries. I recall GM had steering columns that actually came to a point, sort of like a blunt spear pointed at your chest. GM also had a habit of lavishly spreading chrome around the dash and inside window frames. Drivers were well advised to keep sunglasses handy.
The real horror stories, of course, go back to the early days of motoring. In a Model A, you have the gas tank a few inches from your lap.
The Explorer was based on the Rangers short and skinny wheelbase platform and with all the extra weight from all the SUV trim and not updating the suspension for stability (that costs money Ford didn’t want to spend).
In fact the Austrailian Explorers had a completely redesigned suspension and in Venezuela where there were high level of rollovers Ford recalled them to update the rear suspension to aussi spec. There would never be that level of recall in the US where they sold 50-60k a year and millions of vehicles to retrofit to make them safer. Easiest and cheapest thing is to ignore it and pay out lawsuits (they had the roving team of settlement specialists that combed news and reports of rollovers in order to come offering an NDA and nominal sum of money – just like the Pinto).
The reason why Ford is always caught in these fatal fiery fiascos is that CFOs rule the company and they want competitive products but they cut so many corners and ignore engineering changes (even though internal reports highlight these defects) just to make that extra profit per vehicle.
P71_CrownVic:
So now we have to engineer our cars with a stupidity factor? That’s exactly that…stupid.
I work for a medical/pharma firm. I completely agree and totally sympathize.
I hold the most of the trial bar in utter contempt.
But the legal realities are what they are. Ford should have known that.
Orian:
The Panthers cost the state of Ohio close to $1 million last year to retrofit all of the state Patrol cruisers with fire supression systems after a couple fatalities where a cruiser was hit in the rear and caught fire.
Another way to look at it…
The state of Ohio caved in to irrational law enforcement union and trial bar pressure and installed an unnecessary and maintenance-costly fire supression system (that’s probably a nice contract to have). This after a couple of cruisers were hit from behind at highway speeds that NO car on the road was engineered to handle.
This is well documented…
I doubt ‘well documented’ means statistically significant. Sure, given the number of Crown Vics used by police, they’re more likely to be hit from behind at 65MPH than Honda Accords. But I haven’t seen many Accord police cruisers across the USA.
…yet Ford wants to sell an optional cover for the fuel tank in case of rear end collisions. That’s very poor engineering and poor responsibility on the manufacturer.
No vehicle is designed to be completely fireproof when hit from behind at 65MPH. If Ohio is so concerned, they should mandate a 65MPH rear crash standard for ALL their government vehicles.
Several police agencies here in NY wanted in on the class action bandwagon regarding this issue, wanting to extort receive some sort of settlement. But they still wanted to continue to buy Crown-Vics. Instead, Ford told them to pound sand and ‘Buy a Dodge Charger’. The agencies then dropped their suits. I guess the Crown-Vic wasn’t / isn’t so bad after all…
BKW,
Both my 1987 Bronco II and 1992 Explorer had rollover warnings plainly visible on the center pillar and sun visor and I know they were also in the owner’s manual. That’s why I don’t feel very sorry for those who suffered a rollover in these vehicles. They knew the risks.
Now THAT would make an interesting series of articles… Write ’em and I’ll read them for sure!!!
I’ve known of a few stories about projects that due to cost cutting or politics were much changed from the design studio to the dealer’s floor. Stories like these have made me take anything a big company says with a big grain of salt. I figure they’ll tell me anything if it helps them make a but more profit. It is also why when I hear GM tell us that plug-in hybrids or full electrics are coming – I don’t get my hopes up or give them much credit for being ‘environmentally’ responsible. I figure those cars are mere car show dream machines and never likely to reach anyone’s garage. Frustrating b/c those concept cars show they have the imagination but not the will to actually make what they are showing.
Here are a few safety issues (good and bad) I have noticed over the years:
My ’65 Beetle has a collapsible steering column and mounting points for shoulder belts for the front AND rear seats.
My ’49 Chevy truck had the gas tank right behind the seat INSIDE the cab. A friend’s father who worked for the auto industry in some capacity back in the 60’s said they studied those era trucks and said that in a HARD rear ender, the cargo bed would break lose and slide forward and crush the rear of the cab. This could cause the seam along the top of the gas tank to rupture and push gas up the rear wall of the cab which would then splash down on the occupants and the dash (possible sparks). I sold mine soon after. My father relocated the gas tank on his ’50 Chevy truck to under the bed in a fuel cell…
My Beetle has a gas tank up front but it is separated from the passenger compartment -almost – the instruments and the glove compartment would leak if the gas really sprayed around the trunk. The gas tank is behind the front axle and in front of a front firewall. Still the gas tank neck or vent hose could leak in a bad crash. 70’s Beetles were better in this regard. My ’78 VW Bus has a well protected gas tank but if one of the gas lines should rupture, the whole tank will gravity feed to the ground (vehicle stopped) or spray a potential 14 gallons of gasoline (vehicle moving) onto a very hot and sparking engine. No wonder they had engine fires that were uncontrollable. I’ll be updating my tank design before it returns to the road again.
We had a 1935 Ford four door which did have safety glass in the rear windows. Either it came that way or it was upgraded along the way. I know b/c we had to replace several cracked side windows and it was possible to touch the plastic/rubber/whatever safety layer of the glass when the broken grass had dropped away.
I have been told several times over the years that the horn button on many of the old cars was designed to protect your chest from the end of the steering shaft. Many cars had the steering box mounted to the frame ahead of the front crossmember so that a hard frontal crash would force the steering box backwards causing the steering column to move towards into the driver while the driver was falling towards the steering wheel. One solution I saw in a newsreel or advertisement somewhere along the way was the whole idea of throwing yourself in the front floorboard for safety before a crash. What a joke! You and the wife are going to fight over who goes into the floorboard? Who has time to GET to the floorboard?
Modern cars don’t seem so modern until I repair/tune/drive a vintage car. Gone are the days when we had to adjust the brake shoes, adjust the carb several times a year, lube 18 different grease joints, polish the chrome to keep it from rusting, adjust the valves, adjust wheel bearings, replace items that were poorly engineered or manufactured every year or so. I wonder if modern folks would be wiser and more careful if their modern vehicles weren’t generally so good and trouble free!
While there are many reasons I don’t want the price of gasoline to increase (lifestyle cuts) I don’t mind potentially fewer cars on the road, people driving with a little more patience, slower speeds…
And before we dive into Nader killing off the Corvair read this: (griN!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvair
GM killed the Corvair off… Cost cutting, inability to compete with the muscle cars, poor quality materials (oily pushrod tubes), some design corner cutting, etc. Not really that different from today is it?
FWIW I really like the Corvair and most of it’s design problems can be overcome with a little TLC and updated parts.
Ford trucks from 1957 thru 1977 had the gas tank in the cab, behind the driver.
1928/31 Ford Model A’s had the gas tank in the cowl panel in front of the driver. The gas tank had a nasty habit of seeping gas…on the drivers foot!
Citroen ID & DS models had collapsible steering columns beginning in, I believe 1955.
ANYONE who has had the mis-fortune of following behind an older Corvair knows what happened…their cars windshield became coated with a light film of oil.
Thinking it was mist, the ppl turned on their wipers…smear city!
1965 thru 1973 Mustangs, and Falcons from 1960 thru 1970, had the gas tank mounted below the trunk’s floor, covered only by the trunk mat.
Exploding Pinto’s…most ppl know the cause…and effect…what most ppl don’t know is a popular conversion today to remove the in-cab gas tank from Ford truck cabs, is to place a Mustang tank where the spare tire was…inches from the rear bumper. In some cases, there IS no rear bumper…it was optional thru the 1970’s.
They never learn: What Ford did to keep the 1971/75 Pinto’s gas tanks from exploding (well after the fact of course), was to place a curved plastic shield between the seam of the gas tank and the rear end housing, and install a longer filler neck.
The exact same type of fix was done recently on Crown Vics.
The Panther (Crown Vic) mules were up and running in 1976, during the Gov’t’s mandated massive Pinto gas tank safety recall. Ford KNEW then, what might happen to Panther gas tanks, and did nothing.
In case ppl don’t know…the 2008 Crown Vics, Mercury Grand Marquis, and Lincoln Town Cars date back to the Ford LTD (later renamed Crown Vic) of 1979: the Panther body.
btw: As I recall, neither my 1986 Ranger Super Cab, or 1991 Explorer had any sort of rollover warnings in the owners manual (I certainly don’t recall any such thing, and I ALWAYS read the manuals). There were no rollover warning decals on the visors, either.
I DO know that some dealers peeled off those rollover warning decals glued to the drivers side sun visor on later model Explorers. It may have happened on earlier models, too.
Explorers, called Exploders by some Ford insiders.
American Motors Rambler offered dual circuit brakes in 1963. So, you had some abilities to actually stop if a brake line ruptured. The big 3 didn’t put them into cars until required by law (1967).
Studebaker offered the first front disc brakes in 1963, with dual circuits added six months later as part of the option. You could actually stop with wet brakes, a novel idea at the time! The big 3 didn’t want to add disc brakes and many cars right through the 1970’s had four wheel drum brakes. It was cheaper.
Mercedes had programmed collapsable unit bodies starting with the finback cars in the late 1950’s. It took government action to require anything similar in big 3 cars, decades later.
(Paradoxically, Mercedes persisted with somewhat dangerous swing axle rear suspension, though).
Volvo introduced shoulder belts in the late 1950’s, and it took a law before auto makers would add them in 1968.
You get the picture.
Another ocmment on the 1st Gen Mustang. I had two of them and I lost my brakes twice because of crummy single circuit brakes. Also that rear facing gas cap/gas neck that was first to get nailed in a rear-ender. Mine leaked. Whole car was cool to look at and a real heap to drive. Dozens of people owned that car before me and none were kind to it. What did I expect for cheap money and a first car?
Still – I’d like to have a nice ’66 2+2 Fastback… Would require some real seatbelts, changing the gas tank arrangement (keep the cap for looks), and big brake upgrades. The rest I could live with.
1963 Studebaker Avanti’s had the first “disc” brakes on an American car, the ’63 Hawk and Lark also had them, but those two models were introduced after the Avanti was. The calipers, btw, were supplied by Girling.
Some ppl think that the 1965 T-Bird was the first American car to have disc’s, but that’s obviously wrong.
1950 Chrysler Imperials had a type of disc brake, but it was one year only, and the system used was unique. I can’t recall what the system was, or how it worked.
Hudson, like all car makers once had 2 (rear) wheel cable operated brakes. When Hudson went to 4 wheel hydraulic brakes in the 1930’s, they kept the cable system intact. So, there were very few Hudsons made from when “juice brakes” were installed, thru 1954 that had brake failure.
btw: Which US automaker was the last to install hydraulic brakes?
Did you say Ford? Right-o, in 1939.
Mustangs thru 1973 had a short neoprene rubber fill hose between the neck and the tank. Why they leaked: Either the neoprene hose rotted, or ppl replaced the neoprene hose with radiator hose, a No No!
First American car with “hydraulic” brakes: Stutz circa 1925. The system was only used one year, because instead of using mineral spirits, Stutz used WATER!
IC Turbo: While some Ford vehicles may have had warning stickers, and made reference to possible rollovers in the owners manual, that doesn’t excuse Ford for replacing the standard equipment D rated tires first installed on Explorers in 1991, with the cheapest available C rated tires (to increase PROFITS!), then underinflating them (against Firestone’s advice) to get a cushier ride.
FoMoCo’s long time advertising wheeze:
“At Ford, Quality is Job One.”
Uh huh, yeah right.
In fact, it should have been…
“At Ford, Profit is Job One!”
My opinion on the tires – safety should NEVER be sacrificed to those extremes for a bit more comfort.
I’ve always believed that a car should only be comfortable as long as it doesn’t significantly take away from handling/safety.
For reference, I drove a friend’s ’96 Cadillac and almost had a heart attack – while it was very comfortable, I’ll never drive one again. I’d rather have bruised kidneys on a daily basis if it means that I can safely navigate my car away from danger; cars should respond to steering wheel input by turning the WHEELS, not by inducing nauseating body roll – or flipping into a ditch.
BKW: 1950 Chrysler Imperials had a type of disc brake, but it was one year only, and the system used was unique. I can’t recall what the system was, or how it worked.
Wikipedia reports that “Chrysler’s Imperial offered a type of disc brake from 1949 through 1953, though in this instance they were enclosed with dual internal-expanding, full-circle pressure plates.”
The Standard Catalog of American Cars: 1946-1975 notes that the 1949 Chrysler Imperials came with “cycle bonded brake linings” but I’m not sure if those are related to disc brakes.
Wikipedia goes on to report “Reliable modern disc brakes were developed in the UK by Dunlop and first appeared in 1953 on the Jaguar C-Type racing car. The Citroën DS of 1955, with powered inboard front disc brakes, and the 1956 Triumph TR3 were the first European production cars to feature modern disc brakes.
The next American production cars to be fitted with disc brakes were the 1963 Studebaker Avanti (optional on other Studebaker models), standard equipment on the 1965 Rambler Marlin (optional on other AMC models), and the 1965 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray (C2).”
Johnster: I have that same Standard Catalog, and the pre war volume, so I could of (should of) looked up the info.
The only Chisler I ever saw those brakes on, in person, was a 1950 Imperial.
…The Citroën DS of 1955, with powered inboard front disc brakes, and the 1956 Triumph TR3…
Having blown three very worn CV joints over the years, I prefer to have the brakes right out there with the wheels… (grin!)
Citroen had to have the least unsprung weight of any brand vehicle!
Drove an Alfra Romeo Alfetta many times in Italy and it had inboard rear brakes. Had to replace a caliper that froze up. Wondered if it was heat from not being out near the wheel and presumably nearer the airflow or if it was the car’s generally miserable lack of TLC by it’s owners over the years. Fun car to drove. Wonderful engine. Lots of rust too…