'02 Explorer Crash Test
Question:
>question to >NBC is this: when are you going to put together another "Dateline" showing >the 2002 Explorer finishing near the *top* of IIHS’s test, as one of IIHS’s >"Best Picks", and the TrailBlazer near the *bottom*? >Could NBC’s multi-million-dollar contract with GM for the Olympics have >anything to do with it, and with Jane Pauly’s horrified reactions? Just a >thought…
No way 
I’m sure it was completely impartail. HA HA HA HA.
Response:
no daryl, i’d be mad if i couldn’t get a 2002…like you.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I dunno, all this "distrust" and "dismissing" of the various insurance > company and government testing has me..well…dismissive and distrusting! > While I have learned not to trust the government (or insurance companies) > BLINDLY and realize that they DO often do stuff that is STUPID, I suspect > all this auto crash testing has been around long enough that they know what > they’re doing. In other words, I trust the government to have a reasonably > good idea of how to do crash tests to get data that is honestly useful in > the real world. And the insurance industry has self-interest at stake in > creating tests that give them honest, useful data. > So, all this trying to "trash the test" aside, what are you folks with > "early" 2002 Explorers going to do? If it were me, I’d be HOPPING mad. > >>Hmm, I must be a crackpot. I think the test is interesting but hardly > >>definitive. For all the money they spend wrecking vehicles I think it > >>would be a lot more instructive to crash two vehicles together so we > >>could see what might happen in the REAL world in a crash – very few > >>people crash into gigantic concrete barriers these days but the do run > >>into other vehicles with alarming frequency. The theory that these > >>fixed barrier tests are the same as a head on crash is not really > >>sound in my view. The concrete barrier presents a uniform unyielding > >>surface whereas another vehicle would present a non-uniform, yielding > >>surface. And when the test is in Off-set mode, it further compounds > >>teh dissimilarities of the test setup to the real world. > >The barrier presents a uniform, repeatable object to test with; using > >other vehicles doesn’t. > If it’s not representative of the real world it’s of little value. I > see nothing un-repeatable in using another vehicle, it’s just twice as > expensive. You run them on a track to ensure they hit exactly head on > (or exactly offset). Since they are spending a LOT of money on these > tests, why not spend a few thousand more and do it right. > >The tests are representative; that is, they can show what happens in a > >representative crash. Obviously, the costs of testing for all possible > >variations of crashes would be prohibitive, so these tests are done > >instead. > The incidence of cars running into massive concrete barriers is tiny > so they aren’t representative of anything of significance. Doing > something simply because it’s the simplest way isn’t necessary of > value. > >Personally, I think that the offset barrier tests, while spectacular, > >do not represent a sizable percentage of real-world crashes; I.E., > >there aren’t actually very many of them, but those that happen will > >often get high coverage in the media. The testing organizations know > >this, and push coverage of them, because they make good bites on the > >evening news. > >I’m also not impressed with tests done to show the *dollar cost* of > >certain crashes. For example, the rear bumper tests showed, as far as > >I could see, that those with the lower cost for the crash also > >transmitted far more of the crash forces to the frame than those which > >crumpled more. What’s the goal? To save money or injuries? > Related is the most recent IHS figures on running SUVs backwards into > their fixed barrier. Their barrier was so high (completely > non-representive of what is actually likely to run into the back of > one of these things) that it mashed the spare tire on the ones where > it was mounted on the outside, into the tailgate causing lots of > expensive damage. Vehicles without the spare there suffered less > damage. DUH!!!. If they had used a car as the "barrier" the results > would likely have been significantly different. I’ve had two cars > rear end my 92 explorer and I got a $30 bracket bent. Had the IHS > barrier run into the back of me at the same speed the damage would > have run into thousands.
Response:
no it kinda’ reinforces the fact that you’re still pissed that your wife didn’t let you get a 2002.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You folks with early ‘02 Explorers should be suing until the lawyers are all > fat and happy! Seriously! This whole episode kinda reinforces the old adage > to NEVER EVER EVER buy a vehicle in the first year of production/model > change. > The IIHS Web Site indicates that Ford has made the changes, effective > for models manufactured after October 2001, and that the model the > IIHS tested included the changes. There is mention that the changes > were structural. > I now have some concerns regarding the saftey of my ‘02 Explorer > (manufactured in September 2001). What exactly was Ford concerned > about tests on the unmodified model revealing? > > > I recently saw an ad touting the ‘02 as having high crash test > ratings. I > > > found this odd, because it seems to me that about 2 months ago Ford > asked > > > that they don’t even DO the crash test until they had a chance to make > some > > > changes. Did those changes occur already (unlikely) and if so, what > were > > > they? Are vehicles sold before that going to be recalled for those > changes? > > > And if they did not make changes, then what was all that hulaballoo > about in > > > asking that they don’t do the crash test yet? > > Ford asked the IIHS to delay testing the Explorer until after some > > design changes were implemented. The IIHS conducted a test in which the > > Explorer did nicely. I do not know whether or not the Explorer tested > > incorporated the design changes. The IIHS test results are available on > > the web. > > References – > > http://www.accidentreconstruction.com/news/sep01/091001b.asp > > http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2001/pr121101.htm
Response:
> So, all this trying to "trash the test" aside, what are you folks with > "early" 2002 Explorers going to do? If it were me, I’d be HOPPING mad.
Why would you be mad? Ford didn’t make any claims either way about the performance of 2001 Explorers in this test when the vehicle was introduced. All car companies constantly make changes in vehicles during a production run. Heck in many cases vehicles built at different plants will be slightly different. Being mad at Ford because they improved a vehicle after you bought an earlier one is just plain silly. I guess you think the world would be better if no vehicle improvements were incorporated in a vehicle after it was initially introduced. On the other hand, if I ordered a vehicle based on a certain set of features being incorporated in the design, and the manufacturer deleted those features between the time I ordered the vehicle and the time the vehicle arrived, then I would be mad. But this is the exactly opposite case. Ford made no representations that the new Explorer would groove the IIHS test when it was introduced. Regards, Ed White
Response:
I think you should be able to show some relationship between a safety test and the real world injury rate for a vehicle. I think this relationship does not exist for the offset barrier crash test. Best example I can think of off the top of my head in 10 seconds – Toyota Tundra versus F150. The IIHS offset barrier crash test made the Tundra look like the safest vehicle on the planet. The Ford F150 looked horrible. However there is very little difference in the real world injury loss rate for the two vehicles. The Tundra is slightly better, but only slightly, certainly not as much better as the IIHS made it seem when they did the Dateline report on the crash tests. I could live with the IIHS "show boating" if they explained things like this. They know that it is a very severe test that is pushing the envelope and they know that only a very few vehicles are ever involved in an accident remotely like this. They don’t emphasize this enough (on their web site they at least warn you that you can’t compare the results between vehicles of significantly different weights). The NBC reporters make it seem like this test is a true indicator of how safe a vehicle is. In truth, little cars can do well in this test and still be death traps. Big vehicles can do poorly in this test and still be very safe. They never bother to explain this on Dateline Regards, Ed White
Response:
>They recently tested a Ford PU and a Toyota PU and didn’t think the >Ford did nearly as well. That might be right. But since they were >going to destroy both trucks anyway AND since this was NOT a series of >repeat tests, so there’s no statistical significance to it, wouldn’t >we have learned a lot more if they had run both trucks into each other >instead of into that barrier? After all, while we can’t test EVERY >possible combination of vehicles, if you are going to wreck two of >them, why not get the MOST data you can and at least do ONE real world >related test instead of two, non-real world tests. That’s all I’m >suggesting. I know I would have found the results of crashing the >Ford into the Toyota much more revealing of which is better then that >barrier test. YMMMV
I guess my mileage does vary. All such a crash would say is how *those two* vehicles would fsare in that type of crash. All the others would be unrepresented, and therefore we wouldn’t be able to draw any conclusions. By using a representative crash, conclusions can be drawn, because the parameters of the crash are applicable to all crashes done with that test. Yeah, I’d like to see a *LOT* more crash tests done; theyr’e cool to watch! But economics rears its ugly head, and I don’t want to *PAY* for them. So I’ll take the next best thing.
Response:
The truth doesn’t sell much advertising time.. :) JS – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> do poorly in this test and still be very safe. They never bother to > explain this on Dateline
Response:
Speaking of that test, which was widely watched on NBC "Dateline" and featured endless horrified gasps from Jane Pauly, the obvious question to NBC is this: when are you going to put together another "Dateline" showing the 2002 Explorer finishing near the *top* of IIHS’s test, as one of IIHS’s "Best Picks", and the TrailBlazer near the *bottom*? In fact, the older 95-current Blazer was also one of the only vehicles the IIHS has ever tested that also suffered *passenger* compartment collapse in that test, as well as all-around deadly results for both front passengers. Could NBC’s multi-million-dollar contract with GM for the Olympics have anything to do with it, and with Jane Pauly’s horrified reactions? Just a thought…
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Hmm, I must be a crackpot. I think the test is interesting but hardly >>definitive. For all the money they spend wrecking vehicles I think it >>would be a lot more instructive to crash two vehicles together so we >>could see what might happen in the REAL world in a crash – very few >>people crash into gigantic concrete barriers these days but the do run >>into other vehicles with alarming frequency. The theory that these >>fixed barrier tests are the same as a head on crash is not really >>sound in my view. The concrete barrier presents a uniform unyielding >>surface whereas another vehicle would present a non-uniform, yielding >>surface. And when the test is in Off-set mode, it further compounds >>teh dissimilarities of the test setup to the real world. >The barrier presents a uniform, repeatable object to test with; using >other vehicles doesn’t. >If it’s not representative of the real world it’s of little value. I >see nothing un-repeatable in using another vehicle, it’s just twice as >expensive. You run them on a track to ensure they hit exactly head on >(or exactly offset). Since they are spending a LOT of money on these >tests, why not spend a few thousand more and do it right.
You want tests that mimic real life? Fine. Each vehicle must then be tested in a crash with each other vehicle. How many different models are there? Even using just the generic platforms out there, there are easily hundreds on the road. That means *EACH* model would need to be tested with hundreds of other models to do what you want. >The tests are representative; that is, they can show what happens in a >representative crash. Obviously, the costs of testing for all possible >variations of crashes would be prohibitive, so these tests are done >instead. >The incidence of cars running into massive concrete barriers is tiny >so they aren’t representative of anything of significance. Doing >something simply because it’s the simplest way isn’t necessary of >value.
The tests are indeed representative; they aren’t designed to be an exact replica of every type of crash possible. See above. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Personally, I think that the offset barrier tests, while spectacular, >do not represent a sizable percentage of real-world crashes; I.E., >there aren’t actually very many of them, but those that happen will >often get high coverage in the media. The testing organizations know >this, and push coverage of them, because they make good bites on the >evening news. >I’m also not impressed with tests done to show the *dollar cost* of >certain crashes. For example, the rear bumper tests showed, as far as >I could see, that those with the lower cost for the crash also >transmitted far more of the crash forces to the frame than those which >crumpled more. What’s the goal? To save money or injuries? >Related is the most recent IHS figures on running SUVs backwards into >their fixed barrier. Their barrier was so high (completely >non-representive of what is actually likely to run into the back of >one of these things) that it mashed the spare tire on the ones where >it was mounted on the outside, into the tailgate causing lots of >expensive damage. Vehicles without the spare there suffered less >damage. DUH!!!. If they had used a car as the "barrier" the results >would likely have been significantly different. I’ve had two cars >rear end my 92 explorer and I got a $30 bracket bent. Had the IHS >barrier run into the back of me at the same speed the damage would >have run into thousands.
Response:
>Hmm, I must be a crackpot. I think the test is interesting but hardly >definitive. For all the money they spend wrecking vehicles I think it >would be a lot more instructive to crash two vehicles together so we >could see what might happen in the REAL world in a crash – very few >people crash into gigantic concrete barriers these days but the do run >into other vehicles with alarming frequency. The theory that these >fixed barrier tests are the same as a head on crash is not really >sound in my view. The concrete barrier presents a uniform unyielding >surface whereas another vehicle would present a non-uniform, yielding >surface. And when the test is in Off-set mode, it further compounds >teh dissimilarities of the test setup to the real world.
The barrier presents a uniform, repeatable object to test with; using other vehicles doesn’t. The tests are representative; that is, they can show what happens in a representative crash. Obviously, the costs of testing for all possible variations of crashes would be prohibitive, so these tests are done instead. Personally, I think that the offset barrier tests, while spectacular, do not represent a sizable percentage of real-world crashes; I.E., there aren’t actually very many of them, but those that happen will often get high coverage in the media. The testing organizations know this, and push coverage of them, because they make good bites on the evening news. I’m also not impressed with tests done to show the *dollar cost* of certain crashes. For example, the rear bumper tests showed, as far as I could see, that those with the lower cost for the crash also transmitted far more of the crash forces to the frame than those which crumpled more. What’s the goal? To save money or injuries?
Response:
>The IIHS Web Site indicates that Ford has made the changes, effective >for models manufactured after October 2001, and that the model the >IIHS tested included the changes. There is mention that the changes >were structural. >I now have some concerns regarding the saftey of my ‘02 Explorer >(manufactured in September 2001). What exactly was Ford concerned >about tests on the unmodified model revealing?
SInce that type of crash is not very likely, your chances of being impacted (sorry!) by this are pretty small.
Response:
> >I now have some concerns regarding the saftey of my ‘02 Explorer >(manufactured in September 2001). What exactly was Ford concerned >about tests on the unmodified model revealing? > SInce that type of crash is not very likely, your chances of being > impacted (sorry!) by this are pretty small.
I agree that I’m not likely to be affected by this. It’s entirely possible that Ford’s changes, taylored to improve performance in the offset crash test, make the occupants more vulnerable in other circumstances, such as a side impact, or full frontal collision. It’s even possible that the changes didn’t even improve performance in the offset crash test. All we really know for sure is that the October-2001-and-earlier 2002 Explorer was not tested by the IIHS, and probably never will be – leaving those of us who own one wondering.
Response:
I dunno, all this "distrust" and "dismissing" of the various insurance company and government testing has me..well…dismissive and distrusting! While I have learned not to trust the government (or insurance companies) BLINDLY and realize that they DO often do stuff that is STUPID, I suspect all this auto crash testing has been around long enough that they know what they’re doing. In other words, I trust the government to have a reasonably good idea of how to do crash tests to get data that is honestly useful in the real world. And the insurance industry has self-interest at stake in creating tests that give them honest, useful data. So, all this trying to "trash the test" aside, what are you folks with "early" 2002 Explorers going to do? If it were me, I’d be HOPPING mad.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Hmm, I must be a crackpot. I think the test is interesting but hardly >>definitive. For all the money they spend wrecking vehicles I think it >>would be a lot more instructive to crash two vehicles together so we >>could see what might happen in the REAL world in a crash – very few >>people crash into gigantic concrete barriers these days but the do run >>into other vehicles with alarming frequency. The theory that these >>fixed barrier tests are the same as a head on crash is not really >>sound in my view. The concrete barrier presents a uniform unyielding >>surface whereas another vehicle would present a non-uniform, yielding >>surface. And when the test is in Off-set mode, it further compounds >>teh dissimilarities of the test setup to the real world. >The barrier presents a uniform, repeatable object to test with; using >other vehicles doesn’t. > If it’s not representative of the real world it’s of little value. I > see nothing un-repeatable in using another vehicle, it’s just twice as > expensive. You run them on a track to ensure they hit exactly head on > (or exactly offset). Since they are spending a LOT of money on these > tests, why not spend a few thousand more and do it right. >The tests are representative; that is, they can show what happens in a >representative crash. Obviously, the costs of testing for all possible >variations of crashes would be prohibitive, so these tests are done >instead. > The incidence of cars running into massive concrete barriers is tiny > so they aren’t representative of anything of significance. Doing > something simply because it’s the simplest way isn’t necessary of > value. >Personally, I think that the offset barrier tests, while spectacular, >do not represent a sizable percentage of real-world crashes; I.E., >there aren’t actually very many of them, but those that happen will >often get high coverage in the media. The testing organizations know >this, and push coverage of them, because they make good bites on the >evening news. >I’m also not impressed with tests done to show the *dollar cost* of >certain crashes. For example, the rear bumper tests showed, as far as >I could see, that those with the lower cost for the crash also >transmitted far more of the crash forces to the frame than those which >crumpled more. What’s the goal? To save money or injuries? > Related is the most recent IHS figures on running SUVs backwards into > their fixed barrier. Their barrier was so high (completely > non-representive of what is actually likely to run into the back of > one of these things) that it mashed the spare tire on the ones where > it was mounted on the outside, into the tailgate causing lots of > expensive damage. Vehicles without the spare there suffered less > damage. DUH!!!. If they had used a car as the "barrier" the results > would likely have been significantly different. I’ve had two cars > rear end my 92 explorer and I got a $30 bracket bent. Had the IHS > barrier run into the back of me at the same speed the damage would > have run into thousands.
Response:
The model tested was built after Oct 1st, (stated on web page) http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0125.htm Question is: What would have been the results if an early model was tested? I’am sure there are several thousand owners who would like to know. The other question is: Why did the IIHS not release their findings on the origional version??? Sure get the feeling that ford bought them out. I think the early version was crash tested but results were withheld. wth – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I recently saw an ad touting the ‘02 as having high crash test ratings. I > found this odd, because it seems to me that about 2 months ago Ford asked > that they don’t even DO the crash test until they had a chance to make some > changes. Did those changes occur already (unlikely) and if so, what were > they? Are vehicles sold before that going to be recalled for those changes? > And if they did not make changes, then what was all that hulaballoo about in > asking that they don’t do the crash test yet? > Ford asked the IIHS to delay testing the Explorer until after some > design changes were implemented. The IIHS conducted a test in which the > Explorer did nicely. I do not know whether or not the Explorer tested > incorporated the design changes. The IIHS test results are available on > the web. > References – > http://www.accidentreconstruction.com/news/sep01/091001b.asp > http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2001/pr121101.htm
Response:
The IIHS Web Site indicates that Ford has made the changes, effective for models manufactured after October 2001, and that the model the IIHS tested included the changes. There is mention that the changes were structural. I now have some concerns regarding the saftey of my ‘02 Explorer (manufactured in September 2001). What exactly was Ford concerned about tests on the unmodified model revealing? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I recently saw an ad touting the ‘02 as having high crash test ratings. I > found this odd, because it seems to me that about 2 months ago Ford asked > that they don’t even DO the crash test until they had a chance to make some > changes. Did those changes occur already (unlikely) and if so, what were > they? Are vehicles sold before that going to be recalled for those changes? > And if they did not make changes, then what was all that hulaballoo about in > asking that they don’t do the crash test yet? > Ford asked the IIHS to delay testing the Explorer until after some > design changes were implemented. The IIHS conducted a test in which the > Explorer did nicely. I do not know whether or not the Explorer tested > incorporated the design changes. The IIHS test results are available on > the web. > References – > http://www.accidentreconstruction.com/news/sep01/091001b.asp > http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2001/pr121101.htm
Response:
You folks with early ‘02 Explorers should be suing until the lawyers are all fat and happy! Seriously! This whole episode kinda reinforces the old adage to NEVER EVER EVER buy a vehicle in the first year of production/model change.
> The IIHS Web Site indicates that Ford has made the changes, effective > for models manufactured after October 2001, and that the model the > IIHS tested included the changes. There is mention that the changes > were structural. > I now have some concerns regarding the saftey of my ‘02 Explorer > (manufactured in September 2001). What exactly was Ford concerned > about tests on the unmodified model revealing?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > I recently saw an ad touting the ‘02 as having high crash test ratings. I > > found this odd, because it seems to me that about 2 months ago Ford asked > > that they don’t even DO the crash test until they had a chance to make some > > changes. Did those changes occur already (unlikely) and if so, what were > > they? Are vehicles sold before that going to be recalled for those changes? > > And if they did not make changes, then what was all that hulaballoo about in > > asking that they don’t do the crash test yet? > Ford asked the IIHS to delay testing the Explorer until after some > design changes were implemented. The IIHS conducted a test in which the > Explorer did nicely. I do not know whether or not the Explorer tested > incorporated the design changes. The IIHS test results are available on > the web. > References – > http://www.accidentreconstruction.com/news/sep01/091001b.asp > http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2001/pr121101.htm
Response:
Sorry.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> That’s nice and I agree, but you didn’t answer my question. > I saw that news story and my first thought was "they’re trying to prop up > the sagging car sales". I recall only Ford and a couple of "foreign" > manufactures being mentioned. > > I recently saw an ad touting the ‘02 as having high crash test ratings. > I > > found this odd, because it seems to me that about 2 months ago Ford > asked > > that they don’t even DO the crash test until they had a chance to make > some > > changes. Did those changes occur already (unlikely) and if so, what were > > they? Are vehicles sold before that going to be recalled for those > changes? > > And if they did not make changes, then what was all that hulaballoo > about > in > > asking that they don’t do the crash test yet?
Response:
> I recently saw an ad touting the ‘02 as having high crash test ratings. I > found this odd, because it seems to me that about 2 months ago Ford asked > that they don’t even DO the crash test until they had a chance to make some > changes. Did those changes occur already (unlikely) and if so, what were > they? Are vehicles sold before that going to be recalled for those changes? > And if they did not make changes, then what was all that hulaballoo about in > asking that they don’t do the crash test yet?
Ford asked the IIHS to delay testing the Explorer until after some design changes were implemented. The IIHS conducted a test in which the Explorer did nicely. I do not know whether or not the Explorer tested incorporated the design changes. The IIHS test results are available on the web. References – http://www.accidentreconstruction.com/news/sep01/091001b.asp http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2001/pr121101.htm
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I recently saw an ad touting the ‘02 as having high crash test ratings. I >found this odd, because it seems to me that about 2 months ago Ford asked >that they don’t even DO the crash test until they had a chance to make some >changes. Did those changes occur already (unlikely) and if so, what were >they? Are vehicles sold before that going to be recalled for those changes? >And if they did not make changes, then what was all that hulaballoo about in >asking that they don’t do the crash test yet? > Two different tests. > Both NHTSA and IIHS do tests, and they do them differently. > The last test you saw was the IIHS test; Ford asked that the NHTSA > testing be delayed.
No, actually it was the IIHS testing that Ford asked be delayed. See http://www.accidentreconstruction.com/news/sep01/091001b.asp The IIHS test is a very severe test. I think very few accidents are as severe as this test. I am concerned that automakers are devoting a lot of time and money designing vehicles to groove this test, possibly at the expense of other aspects of the vehicle’s design that affect safety. Don’t forget that IIHS is one of the groups responsible for the ridiculous 5 mph bumpers we had to endure in the mid-70’s. If NBC was trying to make a buck by promoting this particular test, no one would care. NBC is the network who previously faked demonstrations that tried to prove Chevrolet trucks with side saddle gas tanks were death bombs. Seems to me we have two less than virtuous organizations promoting a suspect test as a way of furthering their own agendas. Unfortunately, anyone who disputes the usefulness of this test is considered a crackpot at best or a tool of big evil corporations (well, big, evil corporations other than General Electric and big Insurance companies) at worst. Regards, Ed WHite
Response:
>I recently saw an ad touting the ‘02 as having high crash test ratings. I >found this odd, because it seems to me that about 2 months ago Ford asked >that they don’t even DO the crash test until they had a chance to make some >changes. Did those changes occur already (unlikely) and if so, what were >they? Are vehicles sold before that going to be recalled for those changes? >And if they did not make changes, then what was all that hulaballoo about in >asking that they don’t do the crash test yet?
Two different tests. Both NHTSA and IIHS do tests, and they do them differently. The last test you saw was the IIHS test; Ford asked that the NHTSA testing be delayed.
Response:
I recently saw an ad touting the ‘02 as having high crash test ratings. I found this odd, because it seems to me that about 2 months ago Ford asked that they don’t even DO the crash test until they had a chance to make some changes. Did those changes occur already (unlikely) and if so, what were they? Are vehicles sold before that going to be recalled for those changes? And if they did not make changes, then what was all that hulaballoo about in asking that they don’t do the crash test yet?
Response:
I saw that news story and my first thought was "they’re trying to prop up the sagging car sales". I recall only Ford and a couple of "foreign" manufactures being mentioned.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I recently saw an ad touting the ‘02 as having high crash test ratings. I > found this odd, because it seems to me that about 2 months ago Ford asked > that they don’t even DO the crash test until they had a chance to make some > changes. Did those changes occur already (unlikely) and if so, what were > they? Are vehicles sold before that going to be recalled for those changes? > And if they did not make changes, then what was all that hulaballoo about in > asking that they don’t do the crash test yet?
Response:
That’s nice and I agree, but you didn’t answer my question.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I saw that news story and my first thought was "they’re trying to prop up > the sagging car sales". I recall only Ford and a couple of "foreign" > manufactures being mentioned. > I recently saw an ad touting the ‘02 as having high crash test ratings. I > found this odd, because it seems to me that about 2 months ago Ford asked > that they don’t even DO the crash test until they had a chance to make > some > changes. Did those changes occur already (unlikely) and if so, what were > they? Are vehicles sold before that going to be recalled for those > changes? > And if they did not make changes, then what was all that hulaballoo about > in > asking that they don’t do the crash test yet?
Response:
Related Posts