[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
I don't doubt your knowledge or facts on this, but I would still argue against the SUV as a whole. Personally, if you ain't going off roading, then you don't really need the damned thing. Buy a nice wagon or something. ;-)

Its worse than that. Even William Clay Ford back in Aug noted the S/UV is wastes too much energy, is too unsafe, and is environmentally unfriendly. He said that Ford will address those problems in future designs. However GM, in the same news report, instead insist that S/UVs will account for as much as 90% of future sales and GM will be selling many new models in the future. Previously, an auto spokesman (company not mentioned) is reported to say that the higher deaths in autos attributed to S/UVs should be solved by making cars heavier. S/UVs are not about need. And they even use obsolete tech 1960, low performance engines. They even have lower safety standards and lower MPG requirements - neither makes sense.

Having said this, we have an exception. The next year Chevy Envoy has a 60 Hp/liter engine - doing what Japanese S/UVs have also done in the past year - put an average performance engine in S/UVs. Keep your ears tuned. Every so often you will hear an average performance Japanese S/UV. That is progress - allbeit grossly too slow and argueably towards the wrong final objective.

But after how long? A year? Did Ford have to wait over a year to do "studies" before they reacted in this manner? I could understand the passing of SOME months...but if they were finding problems with other sizes of Firestones, then they should have been announced as they were being found.

Appreciate the fundamentals that make quality work. If you have tire problems, then your trusted supplier does the investigation. There are too many other things to study - especially when the failure rates were only 1.5 per million. If Ford only did a study after a year - then they were excessively fast. Again you must look at everything in perspective. Look at those numbers. It is why people make so many emotinal conclusions - they see trends but don't see numbers.

Outrage would be properly cited when Ford had no quality - pre-1981 under Henry Ford. Back then they inspected everything and trusted no one. But quality is why Walmart eats Sears. Walmart never checks or even counts products that arrive on the shipping dock. Those products go right to the shelves, uncounted, unverified, and 'trusted'. Quality is trust of your trusted supplier. It is only recently that Ford finally decided that Firestone was not trusted - that the information that even government investigators also trusted was not accurate. So Ford did a major study - before the government even considered it. The study had to be quite large because of the numbers - 1.5 per million. As soon as Ford learned facts, then those facts were reported. One could argueably say that Ford trusted too long.

However fact remain that Firestone - just like GPU in 3 Mile Island - lied or stonewalled to everyone including the Feds. Only Firestone had sufficient information to see the problem. One might also conclude that government and the press trusted too long. This is a story that dates back to early 1990s. Why did the NHTSB and the press remain quiet so long? Were they also criminally negligent - or do those numbers - 1.5 per million - indicate that only Firestone could have seen the problem earlier?

I don't mind giving Ford some credit for making this massive recall, as from what I see, it will effectively wipe out any profits for this year (and maybe longer). But Ford will most likely be found negligent along with Firestone at any trials that come up as a result of deaths. You make a compelling argument, but it still appears that Ford did some dragging of its feet, which makes it LOOK bad in the eyes of many. [/b]

What you call foot dragging is normal procedure everywhere - especially when "look at the numbers - 1.5 failures per million". IOW we should also be blaming and suing the American and other S American government for having these numbers and remaining quiet? Why did they remain quiet? Were they also co-conspirators? Look at the numbers. This lookes like insignificant statistical anomolies attributed to many different sources - that was until we realized Firestone's response. Only Firestone could have known all crashes were attributed to one source - them. Those 1.5 per million failures, at first, did not all point directly to Firestone - at least not until other facts were known. And Firsteone hide those other facts - and did not fix the tire design.

Those 1.5 failures would each appear as from different possible sources - that was until someone finally was able to put together enough case studies to see a trend. Only then are 1.5 per million problems are coming from the same source.

This common source was not apparent until we starting hearing Firestone's response and learned, from leaks, that Firestones manufacturing process had flaws known to top Firestone management. Again - look at the numbers. 1.5 per million is a difficult failure rate to identify to only one source.

Unfortunately blame will fall on Ford - not because Ford is negligent - but because Ford has deep pockets. Honesty among lawyers? Why do you think GM hired Ken Starr to coverup murder - people burning to death in 1990s Chevy Malibus?