Why shouln’t this be made public? Ignoring safety – wow.

Goes to show how bad Ford really is.

Anyone else as confused as I am, isn’t Volvo controlled by Ford?

Since you bring up ignoring safety, then they should also bring up how the roll overs occurred in all the cases they use. i.e. What caused the roll over in the first place? Bad driving, speed, bad tires, etc. My point is that while the roofs may have crushed, the driving may have been a factor that needs to be considered. Also, if there was a safety cage, they vehicles would be heavier, and more costly. Then the greenies would be complaining more loudly about gas mileage. Yikes, it never ends.

Yes, Volvo is owned by Ford, but the folks at Volvo know a thing or two more about ocupant safety than over at ford.

It’s companies like Volvo and Saab that historically went out of their way to do things like use boron-enhanced steels for roof structure for the very reason that it’s stronger. That’s why the Focus and Mazda 3 have lower crash tests ratings (on average) than the S40, for example. (NCAP, 2006).

I think the reference to: “If the public was aware of the difference in positions between Ford and Volvo as it relates to safety, it would not be good PR” is due to the fact that there would be a glaring discprepancy within the company. The fact that Volvo knows how to further protect a car’s occupants, but Ford chooses not to impliment that know-how, would be bad PR.

In response. As I understand it this isn’t about people dying because of weak a weak roof, it is the denial by Ford that the roof has any effect on the outcome of an accident. There have been lawsuits against Ford on the basis that the Ford roofs were failing. In the suit, Ford went on record saying that there is no problem with the roofs and they aren’t the cause in the deaths (like big tobacco saying smoking doesn’t cause cancer, and the resulting lawsuits).

This information shows that Volvo engineers told Ford that the roof could be a major factor in rollover deaths.

Ford doesn’t need this out there.

you mean the fiberglass roof on my Wrangler won’t protect me in a rollover? I guess I will have to add an actual cage.

You mean the roof of a 4,000lb DCX sedan would probably crush the same as a 4,000lb Exploder?

Auto manufacturers are not the ones responsible for the accidents in most cases.

Ford was not responsible for people underinflating their light truck tires.

An automaker is not responsible for the person who gets drunk and hops behind the wheel.

If I shoot myself in the skull, can my family sue the gun manufacturer?

Mike, my point exactly!! It is easy to blame the automakers as negligent. That whole fiasco with the tires. I bet not one of them was properly maintained, inflated, or regularly checked like they are supposed to be. I check my tires on my truck once a week, but that is because I drive in construction and always need to look out for nails and screws (happened more than once).

“If I shoot myself in the skull, can my family sue the gun manufacturer?”

Unfortunately, they can and have.

Families of drunks who die while drunk-driving file suit – and often win – cases.

^^when on earth did the explorer only weigh 4000 lbs?

this would suck, cars would get way heavier on top, making rolling over far more likely. then cars that almost never roll would suffer.

Note, this must refer to American Fords…

Euro Fords:

Focus Mk 2 is the safest in its class – recieved the highest safety rating ever in 2005.
Fiestas here in an accident with a Freelander would come out better off… (shown on top gear)

Maybe Americans need to think European!

Volvos are the cars I would go for for safety, no two ways about it. But as a medium hatchback goes? Ford’s Focus doesn’t fare too badly at all:

Focus Mk 2:

“Virtually all models get six airbags (the base model Studio has to make do without curtain airbags). It also scored a maximum five stars in the Euro NCAP crash tests for front and side impact out, performing all rivals. Optional safety equipment includes adaptive headlights and a traction and stability control system. Anti-theft measures should be pretty good with all models getting an immobiliser and an alarm is fitted on higher spec models.”

1994 ford Exploder:
Curb Weight: 4053 lbs

2000 Ford Exploder:
Curb Weight: 3875 lbs

2006 Ford Exploder:
Curb Weight: 4440 lbs

“That’s why the Focus and Mazda 3 have lower crash tests ratings (on average) than the S40, for example. (NCAP, 2006).”

Don’t know about the Mazda 3, but the Focus Results vs Volvo S40:

Ford Focus Mk 2 (2004):

Test Scores: Front 16 (100%) Side 18 (100%) Belt Reminder 2 Overall 35 Pedestrian 15 (42%) Child Protection 40 (82%)

Volvo S40 (2004)

Test Scores: Front 13 (81%) Side 18 (100%) Belt Reminder 3 Overall 34 Pedestrian 18 (50%) Child Protection 40 (82%)

Safer peds in the S40 by 8%, but Safer front on Focus by 19%. Can’t be a bad car for safety eh?

Of course, if you’re referring to the US Focus… That’s a different story

JohnnyBlazE,
I was referring to the US spec cars (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/) since the Ford roof strength discussion seems to be a US topic (I certainly could be mistaken on this… If so, my apologies). I also referenced the ‘06 model year (I don’t know how the ‘04 S40 is related to the Mazda and Focus, but I know that late in ‘04, the Volvo was updated to the current model).

I’m not saying that the Focus is a bad car. I was simply pointing out that between cars which share architechure, there can be differences in safety performance. Ford has even suggested that they will continue to incorperate the best safety technology that Volvo has developed along side what they have done (I think there was a TV ad with this being stated). Having one branch of the company (Volvo) disputing what they (Ford) have stated in court doens’t look so hot, as Lou pointed out.

Thanks for the Euro specs.

You mean my SUV isn’t safer b/c it’s huge and heavy? – Joe Q. Moron

Are you guys serious when you say the car companies shouldn’t be blamed for having roofs that cant withstand a rollover? Thats the craziest **** I ever heard. Of COURSE they should build roofs to withstand rollovers. They’re SUVs! They rollover! Thats what they do! They should be able to do that without everyone dying, regardless of who caused the accident.

Everytime some idiot offs himself, another idiot wants to blame someone else.

Aero – we have an understanding

America needs to fix up I think!

With all due respect you gentlemen who want to put the blame for the Explorer rollover fiasco on underinflated tires are simply ignorant of the full scope of the promlem. Tire maintenence was one issue in the overall rollover issue but it was exacerbated by both defective tires (well proven) and a poorly designed vehicle in the Explorer (which was essentially a refitted Ford Bronco, which also had a history of rollover problems). This is not simply an issue of driver error, it is a situation in which any driver faced with the need to make a limit maneuver to avoid an accident might find themselves unable to recover control of their vehicle. Let us also not ignore the fact that Explorers were leaving the Ford factory on underinflated tired because Ford knew of the stability problems and, unofficially, prescribed lower tire inflation levels as a solution. One thing that this story should make clear to you is that unless you have sat in on a jury trial on one of these cases there is information that has not been made public to you.

Also, on the gun analogy – Indeed, if you shoot yourself in the head, the gun manufacturer should not be liable, unless, that is, they made a gun with a faulty firing mechanism that caused the accidental misfire that killed you. Now, say you were handling your gun after a beer or even two and this gun with a fautly firing mechanism discharges while you had it pointed in the direction of yourself, who is responsible – you or the gun? Beer or no beer the defect existed and contributed to the accident. Jurys routinely make determinations of what percentage an indivdual contributed to their own fate, while still taking an account of other causative factors. This is not an all or none situation and personal irresponsibility does not necessarily eliminate, althought it can mitigate, the responsibility of a manufacturer for products with defects that contribute to injury.