Comments on: Ford commits to strengthening truck roofs

By: Renton

Renton — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:16:13 +0000

Magneto will still be able to crush them.

By: Veda

Veda — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 06:38:26 +0000

E Moose, seems like you’re the one who missed all the jap bashing in the other topics.

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 03:07:50 +0000

Typical blinded bias BS from Veda as usual, I’m used to it by now.

This is a good move Ford. Hopefully they’ll continue to pursue this new safety angle, because Volvo can help with this tremendously (and they’ll win lots of new customers).

By: A non E Moose

A non E Moose — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:08:07 +0000

Veda, you are an ass. I don’t and never have owned a Ford. My point is exactly in your words. You bash them for doing it “after the litigation.” Who cares if that prompted it or not. It means NOTHING. They are doing it, while the Euros and Asian brands will still go in with sub-standard (according to the soon-to-be required levels) safety in their roofs. How come every manufacturers is not being bashed. THAT is my point. You obviously missed it.

By: Veda

Veda — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 01:10:40 +0000

“If Toyota or MB came out today and announced it would do this, you guys would be all over them for being proactive and I am sure you would bash Ford.”

E moose, don’t be an idiot. The fact of the matter is that Ford wasn’t being proactive since they did it after the litigation. If they came out of nowhere and announced their commitment to making their vehicles safer then no one’s gonna give them the shits above.

The last thing we need is another idiotic fanboy who would go defend their god brand without knowing the context of the topic.

By: mujician

mujician — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:03:32 +0000

Negativity, I’m all for it. But, you are right E Moose. It is amazing how many people are just waiting for a reason to bash Ford. What is funnier yet is it’s pretty much Ford alone. A little goes to GM and Chrysler (all of which are domestic, and the people that are bashing them are from the states,LOL). But the majority is to Ford. I would like to know who or what gave Ford the target?

By: A non E Moose

A non E Moose — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:32:31 +0000

Here come all the idiots out of the wood work to pick on Ford again. Sheesh, you guys are such a bunch of morons. First, you bash Ford for not having strong roofs, and now you bash them for saying they are going to do something about it. Who gives a crap what it has to do with, just as long as they are doing it is all that matters. Try to recognize progress when you see it, rather than bash it.

If Toyota or MB came out today and announced it would do this, you guys would be all over them for being proactive and I am sure you would bash Ford. Now that the tables are turned, how come mo onw has mentioned that no one else is stepping up to do the same?

By: LamborghiniZ

LamborghiniZ — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:54:38 +0000

Wait, Ford cuts costs in vehicles by making them typically unsafer than the competition? You mean ford has a history of doing this? WHAT? (cough cough 1995 Explorer..)

By: WEKS

WEKS — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:47:52 +0000

While I agree, on a certain level with Robert here above, more security just can’t be bad.
Remember that some nasty sh*t can still happen while following the rules.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:22:22 +0000

Roof strength should be a concern of all and is an important safety feature. However, the people who have been winning these suits are driving like 70 mph around 35 mph curves in SUVs or having accidents at 30+ over the speed limit and not wearing seatbelts! I think that’s bull****. If you’re driving recklessly, no one’s roof strength is going to save your pathetic and stupid head. Not GM, not Toyota, not Ford.

By: Brendino

Brendino — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:14:38 +0000

Of course it doesn’t have anything to do with recent litigation. ::shifts eyes::