Is Toyota's recall that different from Ford's?

[Tom Schindler]

I do feel that Firestone had a problem with the tires because tires should not come apart because of a slightly lower tire pressure, but Ford ignored Firestone's recommendation to run a higher tire pressure.

Firestone still gave Ford the OK to do so.



Fault lies 100% on Firestone.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Caymen,

Ford claims that Firestone said it was OK to run lower pressures. Firestone denys that and said they always recommended the higher pressures, but Ford insisted on the lower pressures for better ride comfort. So who is lying and who is telling the truth?



Do you have any difinitive proof of who is actually lying, Ford or Firestone? Otherwise it's just a matter of he says, she says and both pointing the finger of blame at each other. I never heard of any memo or document being presented by Ford that clearly stated that Firestone either recommended or approved of running the lower tire pressures. I think Ford is claiming that it was a verbal OK from Firestone...How convenient. And even if there was a verbal approval, how much did Ford coerce Firestone into conceeding it was OK.



The reality is, other SUV's from GM also had tread separation roll over problems with and without Firestone tires, but they had far less incidents because they recommended running the higher tire pressures specified by the tire makers.



We don't know all the political posturing that was going on behind the scenes between Ford and Firestone, just like we don't know everything that has been going on behind the closed doors at Toyota. In all cases, I suspect that Ford, Firestone, and Toyota all knew there was a problem and they tried to sweep it under the rug and got caught. Now we are at the finger pointing stage



What suprised me was that Toyota stopped the sale and production of the vehicels with the gas pedal problems. Was that just more plitical posturing to show they are serious about fixing the problem (better late than never) ? I don't know, but I doubt that Ford, GM or Chrysler would have gone to that extreme. Is Toyota that serious, or are they just show boating? We may never know. Perhaps Ford's recalling of Firestone tires was just their show boating to make Firestone look like the villan. It was probably cheaper to replace the tires and divert the blame to Firestone rather than face all the lawsuits that they were going to have to pay out. That made Firestone the scapegoat and Ford look like the hero.



And don't believe everything you see or read in the media. They hype everything up and claim that's what the viewers want to know about. Michael Jackson's death was a big story that went on far too long, and is still going on. Yes, he had a large fan base, but I don't think his following was anywhere near as big as the media would like you to believe, so they shuve it down our throats. Much like they are doing with the Toyota issue.



...Rich

 

[Bud Williams]

The best example of a company taking action would be Tylenol.

They were sabotaged by some clown tampering with their products.

They took all their products off the shelf, created better tamper packaging

industrywide and restored their good name.

If all companies took this action, we would have alot of problems solved

very early.

 

[Les]

The Firestone and Ford tire controversy was a period of unusually high tire failures on some Ford vehicles.



In May 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) contacted Ford and Firestone about the high incidence of tire failure on Ford Explorers, Mercury Mountaineers, and Mazda Navajos fitted with Firestone tires. Ford investigated and found that several models of 15" Firestone tires (ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness AT) had very high failure rates, especially those made at Firestone's Decatur, Illinois plant. This was one of the leading factors to the closing of the Decatur plant.[1]



Joan Claybrook, who was the president of the public advocacy group Public Citizen and previously an Administrator of the NHTSA, stated before the Transportation Subcommittee United States Senate Committee on Appropriations on September 6, 2000, that, "there was a documented coverup by Ford and Firestone of the 500 defect". Also Clarence Ditlow; Executive Director for the Centre for Auto Safety in his statement before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in Washington DC, September 20, 2000[2] stated "Emerging Information shows that both Ford and Firestone had early knowledge of tread separation in Firestone Tires fitted to Ford Explorer vehicles but at no point informed the NHTSA of their findings".



The Ford Explorer was first offered for sale in March 1990. Ford internal documents show the company engineers recommended changes to the vehicle design after it rolled over in company tests prior to introduction, but other than a few minor changes, the suspension and track width were not changed. Instead, Ford, which sets the specifications for the manufacture of its tires, decided to remove air from the tires, lowering the recommended psi to 26. The maximum pressure stamped into the sidewall of the tire was 35psi; however tires should only be inflated to the pressure listed by the vehicle's manufacturer.



The failures all involved tread separationthe tread peeling off followed often by tire disintegration. If that happened, and the vehicle was running at speed, there was a high likelihood of the vehicle leaving the road and rolling over. Many rollovers cause serious injury and even death; it has been estimated that over 250 deaths and more than 3,000 serious injuries resulted from these failures.



Ford and Firestone have both blamed the other for the failures, which has led to the severing of relations between the two companies. Firestone has claimed that they have found no faults in design nor manufacture, and that failures have been caused by Ford's recommended tire pressure being too low and the Explorer's design. Ford, meanwhile, point out that Goodyear tires to the same specification have a spotless safety record when installed on the Explorer, although an extra liner was included into the Goodyear design after recommendations to that effect were made to Ford. Firestone included an extra liner in its product and this was then also used to replace tires on Ford Explorers.



Many outside observers tend towards blaming both parties; Firestone's tires being prone to tread separation and failure, and the SUVs being especially prone to rolling over if a tire fails at speed compared to other vehicles. A subsequent NHTSA investigation of real world accident data showed that the SUVs in question were no more likely to roll over than any other SUV.[3]



A product recall was announced, allowing Explorer owners (and owners of its stablemates) to change the affected tires for others.



A large number of lawsuits have been filed against both Ford and Firestone, some unsuccessful, some settled out of court, and a few successful. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have argued that both Ford and Firestone knew of the dangers but did nothing, and that specifically Ford knew that the Explorer was highly prone to rollovers. Ford denies these allegations.



Car and Driver magazine tested a first-generation Explorer with a built-in rollcage and a special device that would flatten the tire at the push of a button. While driven by professionals on a closed track, the Explorer did not flip in any of the numerous tests.



In a 2001 letter to Jacques Nasser, Ford Motor Company Chief Executive, John T. Lampe, Chairman / CEO of Bridgestone/Firestone, announced that Bridgestone/Firestone would no longer enter into new contracts with Ford Motor Company, effectively ending a 100-year supply relationship.[4]

 

[Richard L]

Ford internal documents show the company engineers recommended changes to the vehicle design after it rolled over in company tests prior to introduction, but other than a few minor changes, the suspension and track width were not changed. Instead, Ford, which sets the specifications for the manufacture of its tires, decided to remove air from the tires, lowering the recommended psi to 26.

And that is why Ford used a lower than recommended tire pressure. There is no mention of Firestone saying it was OK to run the tires at a lower pressure, although they may have said OK.

"there was a documented coverup by Ford and Firestone of the 500 defect". Also Clarence Ditlow; Executive Director for the Centre for Auto Safety in his statement before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in Washington DC, September 20, 2000[2] stated "Emerging Information shows that both Ford and Firestone had early knowledge of tread separation in Firestone Tires fitted to Ford Explorer vehicles but at no point informed the NHTSA of their findings".

That shows that both Ford and Firestone knew there was a problem and covered it up. So both are just as guilty! Firestone knew their tires were problematic, and Ford also knew the the tires were probematic as well as that the Explorers were prone to rolling over, but their solution was to reduce tire pressure which even made the Firestone tire even more prone to failure.



I'm sure in the end we will find out that Toyota executives and engineers were aware of the gas pedal problems and tried to sweep it under the rug, and I'm sure it is not the first time or the last time an auto maker with try to avoid paying for safety recalls.



Ford is no better or no worse than any other auto maker when dealing with expensive recalls. If you think Ford's resurgent popularity or you want to bury your head in American built pride makes them any better, then you are delusional.



All auto companies know about problems and defects that are never mentioned to the public or even the owners of these defective vehicles. Until people start getting killed and they get sued, only then do they start pointing fingers at their suppliers, when they both knew all along but it was too expensive to fix.



...Rich

 

[Les]

I'm sure in the end we will find out that Toyota executives and engineers were aware of the gas pedal problems and tried to sweep it under the rug, and I'm sure it is not the first time or the last time an auto maker with try to avoid paying for safety recalls.

Toyota Used Ex-Regulators to Help Kill Probes

Toyota (TM) hired ex-government regulators to kill at least four investigations into problems with its cars in the U.S. That's the conclusion of an investigation by Bloomberg. The news service reports that, "Christopher Tinto, vice president of regulatory affairs in Toyota's Washington office, and Christopher Santucci, who works for Tinto, helped persuade the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to end probes including those of 2002-2003 Toyota Camrys and Solaras, court documents show. Both men joined Toyota directly from NHTSA, Tinto in 1994 and Santucci in 2003. "

 

[Richard L]

Les,

Thanks. That's not to mention the unknown number of defects that the auto makers have been 100% sucessfull in killing or sweeping under the rug even when they were serious safety violations.



So we know that Ford and Firestone knew about their Explorer/Tire problem and hid the facts from the public and the government. And now Toyota hires regulators to try to hide their sticking gas pedal problems.



But it's not just Ford and Toyota. I'm sure that GM, Chrysler, Honda, BMW, Daimler, VW, Suzuki, Hyundai, Farrari, etc all have skeletons in their closets that they don't want anybody to know about.



Remember that after the Ford/Firestone fiasco, and Ford recalled and paid to replace all the Firestone tires, the CEO, Nassar was fired ! It all comes down to build safe cars as long as it does not cost the shareholders any money.



I'm sure Caymen will ignore all these facts and just assume that Firestone said the low tire pressure was OK, so it's 100% Firestone's fault, when it reality it was a coverup conspiracy with Ford and Firestone knowing full well that there was a problem and both were equal willing partners in the coverup. That makes them equally guilty, legally and morally guilty. Ford was just a little smarter in making Firestone the fall guy.



It's kind of like some of the true life investigation shows where the two- suspects point to their other partner saying that the other guy pulled the trigger. Yet, in the eyes of the law they are both equally quilty regardless of who pulled the trigger.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

Remember that after the Ford/Firestone fiasco, and Ford recalled and paid to replace all the Firestone tires, the CEO, Nassar was fired !

Nassar was fired because he dumped too much money into Jaguar and Volvo with no return while drug down the quality of the Ford cars.



Nassar was NOT a good CEO for FoMoCO.



Since when is wikipedia regarded as facts?





Tom

 

[EddieS'04]

Dear Lord,

These essays are driving me crazy. Makes want to :banghead: it might be more fun to:toilet:.Please remind some that we all have biases including the ones that think they dont but want to enlighten us :btddhorse:

Lord Im glad this board insnt' capable of virtual reality :smack:.

Help me to get off off this :soap:. Before I do this again :toilet:

Or this :banghead:

Cant hear the tune but:boohoo:

Weird Huh? :back2topic: :driving: Ah on the road again...:love:

 

[Richard L]

Since when is wikipedia regarded as facts?

Since we can't get any from you! :grin:

Nassar was fired because he dumped too much money into Jaguar and Volvo with no return while drug down the quality of the Ford cars.

Do you really think Ford or any corporation would publish the whole truth as to why the CEO was fired. In many instances they don't even say the CEO was fired...He just resigned for personal reasons, or health reasons, etc. Obviously they did not think he was a good CEO for a number of reasons, but we will never know al the facts about his firing. All we here are the rumors circulated by the automotive press to spark interest in their articles.



Also, I did not say he was fired because of the recall to replace all the Firestone tires, but it just seems peculiar that he was fired shortly there after? Probably not the sole reason he was fired, just another straw on the camel's back, but never the less, a very heavy straw.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

Also, I did not say he was fired because of the recall to replace all the Firestone tires, but it just seems peculiar that he was fired shortly there after? Probably not the sole reason he was fired, just another straw on the camel's back, but never the less, a very heavy straw.

That could be a reason, but then again at that time, Ford was entering their down swing. The Focus was plagued with issue after issue because Nassar cheapened every single part he could and more than he should.



A change was needed.



I am not degrading Alan Mulaly, but he is only doing what the average on the street person would have done. Seriously? The secret to the success of any company?



Build what people want to buy. Sell it for a fair price. Give the customer a reason to buy.



Too many in the upper ups have lost touch with reality and what it is really like to survive.



Still, in an interview with Bill Ford I read years ago, that was one of the main reasons Nasser was fired. His vision was to build Jaguar to beat out M-B and BMW. I am sorry it isn't going to happen. Jaguar is English. He spent crap loads of cash on Jaguar while letting the core vehicles suffer.





Tom

 

[gary s]

good read:

popular mechanics: "target toyota: why the recall backlash is overblown"

also the top 5 recall of all time: 2 fords, gm, audi, dodge.



as far as the firestone issue, just like toyota, those are the vendors the mfg chose and it is still the auto mfg's responsibilty regardless.



again tom has a problem with facts, i think he needs to "no" the definition.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gary S,



It's not about facts. It's about emotion. Emotion drives people's opinion and biases their perception...and it's the perception that defines an individual's reality.



So, let sleeping dogs lie, I say. You aren't going to change people's opinions, especially those that are based more by emotions than by objective reasoning.



Lord knows I've tried to get Socratic with folks on here. Most will engage in that exercise until they start to get truly introspective. Then, one of two things happens. Either there is growth and people begin to understand why they think the way they do and to give merit to other trains of thought...OR....they get uncomfortable and bail, typically with a quick jab and then they are out of the conversation.



Most aren't comfortable working to understand why they think and feel the way they do. That's why many can't discuss religion and politics. It is because they don't know and/or can't articulate why they belief what they belief. That's typically what one has to do, and has to be able to articulate if they want to share their opinion and beliefs with others in some genuine, constructive manner.



It's a growth thing. Some just can't do it. Maybe it's a genetic thing. Maybe there is some "objective reasoning" gene that some have and others don't.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



I can reason with you. I actually like you as a person. You are able to convey yourself in a well written sentence.



To be taken serious, you need to use the right word in the right context in the right sentence. I do not have a college education, but have done very well and actually better than most that did go.



I do not care about Toyota. I do not care about the jobs they displaced in America. I don't care. Toyota failed and they will pay for it.





Tom



p.s. don't give me no BS "I have a disability", I do too, but I overcome it. I may have it, but it does not have me.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



Not sure what you are talking about with the disability. Not sure I was talking about you, but obviously you thought I was.



But, since you chimed in, I will ask you: Is there ONE, even ONE complimentary thing you can genuinely say about Toyota and/or its cars? And, if there isn't any one single complimentary thing you can say, why is that? Is it because you don't know enough about them, or is it because you truly think there is absolutely NOTHING of merit about the company?



Go ahead...no baiting here...you opened the door. Answer the questions; unemotionally and with reason, please.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Not sure what you are talking about with the disability. Not sure I was talking about you, but obviously you thought I was.

No, it isn't you.

Is there ONE, even ONE complimentary thing you can genuinely say about Toyota and/or its cars?

No.

And, if there isn't any one single complimentary thing you can say, why is that?

I am the "goto guy" within my family and friends. I get the phone call when something needs fixed. I do it for free with no strings. I have gotten my fingers dirty on more Toyota's than I care to admit.



Cheap plastic interiors, thin doors, cheap handles, crappy knobs, etc. If that is quality, then I must be in the wrong industry.



I will say between Toyota and Honda, Honda's are far better cars.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



(please read with the respect intended and you will begin to understand me better)...





Let me introduce you to an old saying I use. It's called "flipping the bozo switch". When I talk to someone and they simply say or do things that are so ludicrous or say or do something that just seems irrational and they STICK TO IT, then I tend to "flip the bozo switch" on them.



Once the bozo switch is flipped, then I consider the person I am flipping it on a "bozo". Someone who I am skeptical towards henceforth.



This practice of mine may not be fair. It may not be right, but THAT'S what I do, and I am comfortable enough with the practice to admit I do it. That's one thing about me. I may not always do right, but when I do things wrong, or things that I should probably do better (like stereotyping or being biased in this case) I at least recognize that I am doing it and don't justify it nor do I apologize for it.



So, where am I going with this? I just want to let you know that it is assertions like your above that make me WANT to flip the bozo switch on you. But, don't worry, I haven't. Not yet. You probably don't care if I do...but that's a different matter.



However, what you are saying is "flip worthy" because obviously anyone who is objective and who knows anything about Toyota can and should be able to come up with at least one complimentary thing of merit about the company or their cars.



An inability to come up with just one thing is excusable if one knows little about the company or its cars. I don't think you fit that bill.



So, the fact that you can't come up with one thing, to me, means you are irrationally biased against the company.



I've seen that kind of bias before. The most common example I often come up with is adolescent boys that follow sports teams. They tend to NEVER give teams or players on said teams other than their "favorite" team any credit, any praise, any recognition for skills, good plays, etc. They HATE the other teams, and all the other teams and players STINK. They trash talk the other teams all the time. Heck, some even do that here when talking sports.



There are lots of things to compliment Toyota on. Sure, they may not be as good as Ford at many things (maybe even most things if one wishes to think that); but not a single thing of merit to mention? Not one!!??? Really???....of course that's simply irrational (IMHO).



Heck, anyone should be able to compliment them on their marketing. Compliment them on their ability to make a huge foothold in the American car market. Compliment them on they longstanding, great selling line of small and mid-size sedans (whether one likes them or thinks they are worthy or not...one could compliment them on their success).



TJR

 

[gary s]

tjr,

very good point.



tom,

the BS disability statement. i am curious, who is that directed at? i find that disturbing.

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



If I must say something complimentary about Toyota it is this. They use round tires.



Sorry, I guess trying to get a an axle into the wheel bearing on a Camry and having the CV joint come apart just pissed me off too freaking bad.





Tom



p.s. my brother had a 1992 Camry.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



No need to apologize. You are simply reinforcing what I've observed about you already....that you have very black and white (polarized) beliefs.



TJR