Because the Explorer was re-engineered to dramatically reduce rollover potential before the time period being examined by this study, which only applies to 2002 and later models. The study doesn\’t examine every vehicle that has ever been driven.
\’The institute found that the average death rate for all vehicles has declined from 110 from 1990 to 1994 to the current rate of 79 for the 2002-2005 period.\’
Why isn\’t the headline something like \’Changes in auto industry lowers death rate in cars\’?
I look at this website infrequently, but every time I do, you’re in there with some “I-know-everything” comment. Why don’t you get a job or if you have a job, quit wasting your employer’s money.
By the way, you are partially correct about the 2002 Explorer design change. Firestone/Bridgestone had a big roll (no pun intended) in correcting the stability of, not only the Explorer, but other SUV’s that had similar killing problems. Explorers rolled over more often than other SUV\’s in tire-tread accidents, and had vibration and suspension problems that Ford couldn’t always explain and sometimes couldn’t fix. Ford’s 2002 new “porthole frame” took care of the vibration problem and Firestone took care of the 15″ ATX and ATXII tires.
Back to the point… I can’t wait for your thesis style reply; it’s just a delete click away for me.
Yeah… \”reason\” makes what I considered to be a perfectly acceptable contribution to the discussion, only to get slammed by some jerk whose own rant I found to be quite offensive.
In one paragraph, they state how offensive reason is, then in the very same breath (well, the next paragraph) they go on to agree with the analysis…go figure…
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
With all the exposure given to Ford Explorers, how were they omitted from the article?
Because the Explorer was re-engineered to dramatically reduce rollover potential before the time period being examined by this study, which only applies to 2002 and later models. The study doesn\’t examine every vehicle that has ever been driven.
\’The institute found that the average death rate for all vehicles has declined from 110 from 1990 to 1994 to the current rate of 79 for the 2002-2005 period.\’
Why isn\’t the headline something like \’Changes in auto industry lowers death rate in cars\’?
I look at this website infrequently, but every time I do, you’re in there with some “I-know-everything” comment. Why don’t you get a job or if you have a job, quit wasting your employer’s money.
By the way, you are partially correct about the 2002 Explorer design change. Firestone/Bridgestone had a big roll (no pun intended) in correcting the stability of, not only the Explorer, but other SUV’s that had similar killing problems. Explorers rolled over more often than other SUV\’s in tire-tread accidents, and had vibration and suspension problems that Ford couldn’t always explain and sometimes couldn’t fix. Ford’s 2002 new “porthole frame” took care of the vibration problem and Firestone took care of the 15″ ATX and ATXII tires.
Back to the point… I can’t wait for your thesis style reply; it’s just a delete click away for me.
Before you go and criticize someone for their \”rants\”, and since you said, \”no pun intended\”, it should have been role, not \”roll\”.
Yeah… \”reason\” makes what I considered to be a perfectly acceptable contribution to the discussion, only to get slammed by some jerk whose own rant I found to be quite offensive.
In one paragraph, they state how offensive reason is, then in the very same breath (well, the next paragraph) they go on to agree with the analysis…go figure…
that I think could have been taken as being offensive is \”The study doesn\’t examine every vehicle that has ever been driven.\”
It could sound sarcastic depending on how you read it…
But, maybe they were just making a statement.
Not sure how they were being rude.
Just my two cents.