cleveland parts

NasaGT said:

This thread delivers valuable entertainment, please don't lock it!

Click to expand...

I agree. It gets better with age. The latest has Mike saying that "in-the-day" the majority of Ford guys "ran low 13's and sometimes broke into the 12's." I like it.

Btw, the real Mike the Bike called, and he wants his name back.

mike, i always thought the daytona 500 was run at the end of daytona speed weeks, which is usually the last weekend in feb. in fact the historical record happens to be on my side as the 1963 daytona 500 was indeed run feb 24, 1963 and not in jan. as you stated. at least get your facts straight.

as for the BW T-85 overdrive unit, did you mean the overdrive unit from a BW T-85?

regarding the pinto, you are suggesting that ford intentionally built cars that were designed to kill people? you are the one who is blind here.

regarding the tire pressure difference, ford engineered the explorer to use 26 psi for ride quality, firestone engineered the tire for a 32 psi or 35psi max inflation pressure. as to whether or not it affected the tendency to rollover, i doubt it. remember that any high centered vehicle like the explorer, and the blazer and the suburban, bronco, etc. has a much higher rollover rate than vehicles with lower centers of gravity. in fact jeeps, the suzuki samurai, and the sidekick all had higher on road rollover rates than the ford explorer ever did, and yet the media went after the explorer. would you like to guess why? since you seem to be somewhat pea brained i wont leave you in the dark. the explorer was, and still is, the most popular vehicle in its class. the explorer far out sells the next best selling midsize suv, the jeep cherokee i think, thus it has the highest profile of any suv in that class. what the media doesnt tell you is that gm was sued over the s-10 blazer doing the same thing with the same tires. you notice that goodyear or goodrich equipped explorer and blazers, and other midsize suv did not have problems with tires blowing out? ifrestone tried to blame the explorer because of a design flaw, which was never proven since many suv's had the same style suspension system. firestone then tried to blame ford for recommending lower tire pressures, again to try and remove blame from themselves. again it didnt work. if firestone had stepped up and taken responsibility for their defective tires, they would still have the primary tire supplier contract with ford. of all the tires i have used over the years, firestones have always been consistently the worst. sidewalls ripping out, treads seperating, and then rolling off the car, etc.

as far as ford killing people with there cars, sorry but there needs to be a human agency to make a mistake that causes an accident, that might result in the injury or death of a person. ford did not cause the dodge van to hit a pinto, and ford did not cause someone to react poorly when faced with an emergency situation, and over correct their steering, or stab their brakes and cause a rollover. does the early pinto have a design flaw, yes. was it corrected? yes and no. but how many other cars had a similar design that had similar results in a traffice accident with larger vehicles. well there were a number of cars that had the same design fuel neck as the pinto, and i would bet that a fair number of them involved in accidents similar to the few pintos that caught fire, and they also caught fire. did they get reported nationally? nope. why? again the pinto was the most popular car in its class. and how about the 60 minutes report on the early mustangs and their tank desgin. many cars had that same design, and had similar problems, and yet they didnt make the report, you know cars like the falcon, a few gm cars, etc. why not? again the mustang was, and still is, the most popular car in its class. when the most popular car of the class has a problem, they make a big splash on the news. if you listen to the news reports, pintos were exploding left and right, and explorers were rolling over at the drop of a hat. in real life there were actually very few incidents, they just made a huge media splash.

and how about mid 70's gm trucks and their "dangerous" side saddle gas tanks? the only reason they made a media splash was again, at the time they were the most popular vehicle in their class.

do you remember the suzuki samurai fiasco? probably not, but consumer reports tried to get the suzuki off the market by claiming that it was an inherently dangerous vehicle. they claimed that it had a huge tendency to roll over. how did they prove this? glad you asked. they would drive a suzuki samurai at a moderate speed in a straight line, i think 40mph, but i dont remember, then the driver would yank hard on the steering wheel and then let the wheel go. and yes the only reason that samurai didnt roll over was due to the 8ft wheelie bars mounted on the sides of the car. what they didnt tell you was the wheels at the end of these 8ft bars weighed, you ready for this? 30lbs!!!!!!!!! now first of all, how many people yank the steering wheel in any car and then let it go completely? come people raise your hands, (waiting, waiting, waiting) times up. no one? of course not that is too stupid even for stupid drivers. how many people mount 4 30lb weights on 4 8ft poles on the sides of their cars? anyone? of course not ITS ILLEGAL. what it the point of this? if you believe everything the media spews about everything, go see jim jones about your next cup of cool aid.

180 Out said:

Btw, the real Mike the Bike called, and he wants his name back.

Click to expand...

and just the way he left it thank you

bnickel said:

i'm so sick of listening to this guy stroke himself i can't take it any more, he posts nothing meaningful at all and never, EVER, answers a direct question with a direct answer and worst of all he thinks he know's more than everyone on here combined.


hell me and ol' historic mustang have been in some pretty heated debates before but he and i can at least agree to disagree, mikey here can't even agree with himself, lock the thread....please

Click to expand...

i remember a couple of those debates as for locking the thread, i am having too much fun with it, but i would suggest moving it out of tech and into the talk section.

mikethebike said:

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?

Click to expand...

This is as far as I got before drifting off to sleep!

Excuse me, but don't you look at the tire pressure recommendations on the doors of your vehicles?

All cars have the pressure recommendations based on vehicle weight distribution, not the tire's maximum pressure rating.
So the tires can handle 32 psi... So what?
That doesn't mean that the weight distribution of the vehicle requires the maximum amount.
Our fleet of work vans and trucks (F350 and E350) all use E range tires, which max at 80 psi... However, the load rating and distribution of the vehicles require only 60 psi in the front tires, and 80 in the rear (if fully loaded) according to the door sticker.
If the front tires are aired to 80 psi, they tend to wear funny, overinflated style.
Even though the tires could take more according to the sidewall.

That is what that is all about!
Most vehicles I have owned require less pressure than max... Be they Ford, GM, or other.

Don't try and twist a standard practice into murder. That's just ignorant.
Firestone had issues. Face it.
Dave