alright, let us look at a few of these things, first the pinto. that memo that indicated the cost comparison was REQUIRED by the nhtsa, using nhtsa numbers. in other word the government required ford to hang themselves. second, the few pintos that did have their tanks rupture were hit by cars the were traveling at high speeds, and were much heavier than the pinto, on the order of 2 to 3 times the weight. in fact the biggest news was the pinto the burst into flames, and the person who died sued ford. the article casually mentioned that the dodge van that hit the pinto was doing 70mph at the time and the driver never hit his brakes. hmmmmmm interesting that the media threw it in as an after thought isnt it.
as for the ford explorers, the firestone tires were a defective tire, THAT was proved in court. it seems that firestone used wire in their steel belts that were corroded, and would fail dramtically on a regular basis, and not just on explorers, but many other vehicles as well. now the explorer is a high centered vehicle, and most people faced with an emergency stuation, like a tire blowing out, panic and do stupid things like hit the brakes hard, over correct when steering etc. they also tend to drive high centered vehicles like the explorer as though it was some like an ltd station wagon. car and driver tested the theory that explorers were prone to rolling over when the left rear tire blew out at speed. they bought a 91 explorer, and except for replacing shocks, that had long ago died, with stock replacement ones, and installing a roll cage to protect the driver, and rigging the left rear tire to deflate suddenly, the vehicle was as it came off the used car lot, and it was stock. they started the test at 30mph and went all the way to 70mph, and each time the explorer tracked perfectly each time, until the 70 mph test, when it wiggled a bit and required a minor steering correction. but never through out the test, did the explorer do anything to indicate a propensity to roll over.
how about you decide to study the real facts rather than just spout something you heard or read once or twice.
Ford could have chosen to build the car the SAFER way but chose instead to build it by the the method that killed more people. Period. And the weight factor..why didn't Toyota, Chevy, Nissan or VW have the same problem? Better design? Ya think?
And the Explorer....exactly WHY did Ford recommend 26 psi instead of the stated 32 psi that Firestone wanted? Could it have been the roll-over factor that was eliminated with the 6 psi reduction in tire pressure?
Here is what you guys need to understand...I DON'T CARE whose name is on the car! You people defend Ford for choosing to kill more people for a little more profit and I condem them for it.
When I was 13 years old in January 1963 and Ford placed 1,2,3,4,5 at Daytona, I discovered the 260 Cobra and then in 1965 Bondurant won GT title in the Daytona Coupe and The GT-40 MkII-b won the 66 LeMans 1-2-3 I was hooked. But then NONE of that racing experience made it's way to the street....well, maybe if you were Fred Lorenzen of Bud Moore you could get some of it. But you and I could not go to the Ford dealer and get any of it.
They built the BOSS cars and put a 780 cfm carb on the 302 and a 715 cfm on the 429!! WHAT sence did that make. There was a guy on the U.S.S. Orion in 1970 who had the 429 with the 8500 rpm NASCAR rotating assembly, 2 inline 4's, headers, cam and a slew of special stuff. He had the car for sale for less than 1/2 of what he had in it because a 427 Camaro stomped his ass on I-64 one night.
To Fords credit they did a magnificent job during the 1980's with the fuelie 302's. Took a page from the Chevy book of small-block support. Do I like the new Mustang? I think it is evil-wicked looking. I won't buy one. For the price of a 1 year old GT fully equipped I can buy a very good c-5 Vette. I want the most performance for the money I can get.....at this time, in a new car that is probably the GT Mustang. But I don't like the solid rar axle, the MacPherson strut front of the interior.
One more thing, back 'in-the-day' here is how the majority of Ford guys acted....1971, Charleston, SC...a Ford mechanic at Palmetto Ford had a 65/66 Mustang with a very strong 289 that ran low 13's and sometimes broke into the 12's. He stops at Randy's house one Sunday and wants to race Randy's 69 Nova. Randy gives the keys to his younger brother and says:
"Ken, go start it-up for the boy"
Ken starts the Nova and after it idles for about 60 seconds Ricky gets in his Mustang and slinks away. Why, you may ask? He was wanting to run a 289 aganist a 494 cid Dominator equipped 10.5 sec 1/4 mile car. WHY?????? Maybe because he believed all the hype that Ford put-out.
There was a Ford down there that was bad-ass and was owned by Bill Newton. 1956 T-bird...490+ cid tunnel-port, 2-4's. Ran like scaulded ****. Beat a BB Chevy built by Baldwin Chevrolet in New York. Beat him in the 1/4 and on top end....it had a Borg-Warner T-85 OD unit behind the top-loader. Now...was that cool or what?
Understand this....if Chevy screws-up with the Vega engine...I'll call them on it. If Oldsmobile does it with the diesel...I'll call them on it. If Fords KILLS people with the tank mounting design of a car...I'LL call them on it. If Ford kills people with the 26 psi recommendation in tire pressure, I'll call them on it...and I HATE Firestone!
It's people who are blind to the facts thaa allow the manufacturers to get away with murder....pun intended.
Ya'll have a good night.
-- we might also ask where is the "stock" in Pro Stock these days? As in, who cares?
I did, but once again, you obviously didn't. You've chosen once again to compare different results to what I and others have posted. You keep it up, we need more morons like you driving Chevys.
