I couldn’t help but notice while I was on vacation last month that the feds had (more or less) cleared Toyota of culpability in the rash of runaway acceleration incidents that had finally pushed Britney Spears multiple addiction episodes off the front page a year earlier. Not that it did any good mind you, but the National Highway Traffic Safety Board admitted that, um, well, some nitwit drivers voters couldn’t tell the go pedal from the stop pedal and well, never mind, false alarm. Meanwhile,Toyota spent countless expensive engineering hours trying to unsuccessfully replicate the problems claimed by the goofballs that wanted their 15 minutes (and/or some ca$h). Unfortunately, this was hardly the first media/trial lawyer/publicity-hound incident that we have witnessed in the U.S.
In fact, my research shows that these dramas are actually pretty common. Beginning with the Corvair witch hunt, the trial bar and media mafia has made a tidy living suing and defaming the bejabbers out of car companies. In this whack-a-do world, drivers never err. It’s always a baked-in defect that the makers have engineered in to make sure that the victim/driver will never argue with a salesman again. This phenomena can be traced directly to the reception accorded the book Unsafe At Any Speed by a young lawyer named Ralph Nader in 1964. Nader took the Corvair to task for supposed design defects that were at best negligent and at worst, deliberate.
Never mind that some of the claimed defects were standard faults of other cars in those days (and were even worse on the majority of imports), Nader went hunting for a big bad wolf and found it in General Motors, then the worlds largest maker of cars and trucks. His book became the blueprint for the vilification of any manufacturer that failed to build a perfect car from then on.
After Unsafe, any perceived defect or unconventional engineering became fair game for second guessing when dumb, inattentive or impaired drivers met an untimely end or suffered injury while driving a suspect car. The facts of the case were sometimes beside the point – if a car went crash or boom, the villain was sometimes the engineer or executive that designed it a decade (or more) before. As long as the media would point a camera at a grieving widow, mother or wife, there could be no question that somebody had to be responsible and that somebody couldn’t be the dearly departed. Thus the media frenzy was given full flower and has become a hardy perennial for several decades now. Let’s take a look at these episodes in rough chronological order and decide (away from the heat of the moment) if the indictment of these cars and their makers was/is fair.
A caveat: In journalism,there are the facts and there is the truth. The fact is that people died driving some of these cars. Just about everybody agrees on facts. The truth, meanwhile, is less concrete. Is it true that the Corvair was a “dangerous, ill handling car”? Depends on who you ask. Ralph Nader said yes. A lot of commentators here say no; it handled fine-in the right hands.
The fact is that a cheap floor mat from K-Mart can get stuck under the gas pedal and make your car keep running when you want it to stop. (It happens in Daihatsu’s too, believe me). So we’re not going to dispense any justice here today. But I hope that this study will help you pause and think next time the story is designed to whip you into a car maker hating frenzy. This is not an anti-lawyer diatribe. Lawyers do good work and sometimes are all that stands between us and the awesome power of a giant company. This is more of a peek at the tactics that Big Media use to manipulate our opinion and create outcomes. Outcomes that benefit…Big Media. Also, I’m not running for re-election to anything, so I also point the finger at the biggest culprit of all-dumb, lazy drivers.
Chevy Corvair– 1960-1964- The grandfather of media circuses. The Corvair was pilloried in the Nader book and its makers hauled before congress to be publicly flogged in time for the 6:30 news. Nader alleged that the Corvair was a death trap by design and that GM deliberately withheld vital safety equipment that would prevent the car’s tail-happy manners from becoming dangerous at the margin. GM did itself no favors by putting some private eyes on Nader and trying to dig up dirt on his lifestyle and keep him quiet. GM later apologized to Nader, changed the ‘Vairs suspension (for ’64), issued a recall, and killed the car in 1969.
Only after the car had been out of production for three model years did the government admit that compared to other models of the day with similar rear-engine designs (Renault Dauphine, VW Beetle) , the Corvair was no worse and was in some ways better than the competition. In the hands of American drivers, the cars quirky tire pressure differences could be lethal , but the Corvair was built by GM and nobody makes a name taking on a small opponent.
Ford Pinto – Different car, different result. The charge that the Pinto’s gas tank location was unsafe was hard to rebut when you could see it peeking out from beneath the rear apron. Failure by designers to shield it behind something more substantial than one layer of sheet metal and Ford’s mulish refusal to listen to engineers that argued for a redesign led to a Mother Jones expose in 1977 that killed the car’s public image. MJ dug and dug and found that the car was built down to a price target set by none other than the father of the Mustang- Lido “Lee” Iacocca himself.
Worse yet for the company, someone who was in a position to know let it slip that Ford knew that the tank design was a hot potato, but the lawyers convinced them that the resulting lawsuits would be cheaper than fixing the tank. This was just the smoking gun needed to set the media tinder alight and soon Americans information gathering hours were filled with tales of exploding Pinto’s. 60 Minutes , The New York Times and every publication but the Weekly Shopper laid bare Ford’s duplicity. The company eventually recalled the Pinto and indeed put in the fix that had been suggested from the get-go, but there was no saving the car. By 1981 the Pinto was history and Ford’s public image was at low ebb.
Jeep CJ 5- The 5 had been in production for almost 28 years in one form or another when 60 Minutes ran a piece in 1980 about its alleged tendency to roll over like an excited Dachshund when subjected to an evasive maneuver. Left unsaid was how people in the backwoods shouldn’t and wouldn’t be doing evasive maneuvers in a short wheelbase vehicle with a rather high center of gravity (Unless it was to escape TV film crews flashing their business cards).
Ironically, the CJ 5 was due for extinction anyway (it would be replaced by the CJ 7 and then by the YJ Wrangler), but sales fell immediately and for good after the piece aired. Left un- noted was how the DJ 5 (which was substantially the same vehicle) almost never rolled over. It was driven by the postal service and evasive maneuvers would have probably not been included in the employee handbook. The CJ was later vindicated as no more unsafe than any other neck snapping SUV when used responsibly. Thousands of DJ 5’s are still delivering the mail to this day, almost all of them from an upright position.
Another problem with the 60 Minutes hit piece was the context. It took over 400 runs on the test track to get 8 rollovers. And that was when the steering wheel was turned 1 ½ turns (a violent whipsaw, if you ask me) . But even that is deceptive. If you do over 400 evasive maneuvers in a Jeep, we have a name for you : Stunt Driver
Audi 5000– Our own Paul Niedermeyer editorialized on this fiasco/circus/grease fire. In November 1986, 60 Minutes ran a shocking expose on the “unintended acceleration” of the Audi 5000. In 17 minutes, using tear jerking (heavily edited) footage and interviews, CBS laid bare the sins of the designers of one of the most lethal cars ever known. This was a rare moment when we, as a nation, courageously decided to believe anecdotal tall tales told by idiots.
The car that 60 Minutes rigged to replicate the carnage being perpetrated on its hapless owners had an option that wasn’t listed on the order sheet: A compressed canister of air attached to the transmission that could make it fly through doors, windows and bystanders no matter how hard the dimwit behind the wheel pushed the pedal immediately to the left of the gas. This was a time when the public became acquainted with phrases like “WOT”, SUA’s and “Plaintiff’s Bar”.
The fact was, the 5000 had a smaller than usual brake pedal (in the European idiom) that didn’t work AT ALL in North America unless it was pushed, and almost every owner that claimed that their car had become a crazed killer were later found to have pushed the gas pedal to the firewall when they thought that they were pushing the brake. My daughter did this very thing once (in a Ford Aspire). She swore that she was pushing the brake as hard as her right leg could compress it and still managed to jump two curbs, take out a fence and sideswipe a light pole. She didn’t sue anyone. She and the Aspire survived. Her dignity did not.
But not every attempt at whipping the lumpenproletariat into a frenzy is successful. General Motors itself won an isolated battle in the Thirty Years War against sensationalism in 1993. The aggressor was Dateline NBC, then a third place, third rate 60 Minutes wanna-be. On November 17, 1992, the show breathlessly assured us that our GM full size pickup trucks wanted to kill us. And they had the video to prove it. Viewers watched as Silverados, Cheyenne’s and Custom 10’s blew up like time payment IED’s when subjected to a side impact collision by anything bigger than a shopping cart. Body bags were ordered. Funeral homes put out “Help Wanted” signs by the road. Tort lawyers put in frantic calls to swimming pool contractors. It looked like a new wave of death and catastrophe would descend upon the trucks luckless owners.
But there was only one, teeny, tiny problem with the NBC story- it was as phony as Stone Phillips’ surgically enhanced orthodontia. It seemed that the trucks just refused to explode on cue. Sometimes it took repeated ramming for the side saddle tanks to catch fire and prove the bogus point that NBC was trying to make. But small mistakes are for amateurs and the people at Dateline were no amateurs. Just to make sure that people could see what might happen if conditions were just so, the show rigged some toy rocket motors to ignite when the trucks were T-Boned . Mission accomplished. The GM full sizers went Hindenburg and NBC got its “sweeps” trophy. GM trucks resale value plunged. As would happen during the Toyota/Lexus debacle later, some dealers refused them as trade ins.
But the peacock network wasn’t picking on some johnny-come-lately. This victim would fight back. GM lawyers went to work deconstructing the piece and found that there were some obvious camera and engineering tricks used to get the results that the network wanted. Six frames of film proved to be Dateline’s undoing. After watching the piece frame for frame, GM observed that the explosions started before impact and didn’t come from where they should have come from based on the narrative. The story was a high tech hoax and GM destroyed it with a point by point news conference in February 1993. Only later did a sheepish Jane Pauley (who had nothing to do with the original story) apologize to the company and viewers. The original ran almost an hour. The apology got 3 ½ minutes.
Toyota/ Lexus – 2010- Rhonda Smith’s tearful story (to congress, on TV) did it for me. It convinced me that some people shouldn’t own cars. Smith, you will recall, swore before our nations highest elected body that her Lexus ES 350 surged out of control in a WOT (Wide Open Throttle) situation on October 12, 2006 east of Knoxville, Tennessee . It was the classic she said/she said one sided narrative. When Smith finally got her “possessed” ES under control, it managed to start itself while presumably being towed to an exorcism at the local L/T dealer.
Her story made no sense (she claimed to have shifted into neutral and reverse-not possible with that model at highway speeds), but there we were as a nation, lapping it up because we had seen story after mind numbing story for weeks that Toyotas and Lexuses had become sleeper cell terrorist cars that surged out of control maiming and killing when the gas pedal was depressed by their litigious owners. Plus, she looked like our mom, on TV, crying. The sharks really went for the chum this time: Lawyers were advertising within a week that they would review your half baked anecdotal fantasy for free if you would call the toll free number crawling at the bottom of your screen.
CNN spent hours of air time interviewing everyone except a decent mechanic when a Prius owner couldn’t get his enviro-ride to stop just outside LA. Toyota itself even fell for the hype. Big T recalled about 6 million cars for a look -see at the accelerator pedal assembly in question. A shim kit placed in the assembly was duly installed and the furor began to subside. It was only after everybody’s attention shifted and the cameras were turned off that the truth came out.
The NHTSA issued it’s report on the Toyota/Lexus Unintended Acceleration drama in February of 2011. But unlike in the Audi fiasco, recent model cars have modern “black boxes” that tell facts that don’t make for good TV. And when the feds examined those black boxes against the stories their owners told, the owners were revealed to be morons. In the vast majority of cases, the driver was doing the same thing my clumsy daughter did in her Aspire years before- they panicked and pushed the gas harder and harder. Toyota was cleared, but there were no tearful confessions in front of congress by elderly women admitting that they couldn’t tell one pedal from another.
So there you have it- Conclusive proof that silly people with lawyers shouldn’t have cars. Actually, I believe that some shoddy engineering has gone into what we drive since the, oh, 1880’s or so. But its only been rather recently that the mass media, with many hours to profitably fill , has turned our collective consciousness toward suing the pants off of one another over what in the hands of capable, alert drivers can be perfectly safe vehicles.
And I was born at night-but not last night. I know that car companies will do whatever is in their short term interest to make a buck and the consequences be damned. I get that. But as a recovering member of the media, It makes me dizzy with anger when I see obviously stupid, manufactured “crises” aimed at the companies that make our cars. It comes dangerously close to telling us what to think. So I’m going to throw it open and get your take on the whole media frenzy culture and its consequences.
Great write up of a story that needs telling,Toyotas unintended acceleration was obviously bullshit from the get go the fault was US only where the lawyers were and no car is ever designed to accelerate against its brakes, Theres a formula used to prevent that, its almost a shame Toyota doesnt sue for fraudulent claims by media outlets or the NHTSA for gross stupidity in believing these morons. There really are some people who should ride the bus as the lack the brain power or coordination to drive even an automatic car
I don’t seem to ever remember any stories of horses being recalled for “Unintended Acceleration” when they refused to “whoa!” and instead “giddy-upped!”, or wagons, buggies, surreys, and for that matter, chariots being recalled and/or taken off the market for various mishaps, but in those days, there was an unremarked standard that was pretty universally accepted: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! Probably not many lawyers either.
You forgot the Consumer Reports vilification of the Suzuki Samurai… Mine was quite fun to drive “spiritedly.” Never lifted a tire in a corner, either… Unfortunately, the value of my car dropped by half after these reports, just when we were in the market for something with four doors (shortly after our first child was born).
Very good point- But I didn’t forget. Just ran out of space.
Nothing wrong with Samurai’s if driven responsibly.
You’re right about the Samurai, as I loved them when they came out in, what, 1986 or 1987.
Love that avatar, and wish I looked that good in my fedora!
What about the whole Ford Explorer rollover story? Most of the problem boiled down to under-inflated tires that tended to overheat and blow-out at highway speeds, combined with drivers that didn’t react properly to the blowout and exacerbated the problem.
Notice that the, mechanically identical, Mercury Mountaineer and Lincoln Aviator were never mentioned in the news as also having the same potential problem. Even today, U-Haul will not rent trailers to people with Explorers, though the aforementioned Lincoln and Mercuries are not banned, and even though Ford redesigned the Explorer suspension in 2002 and probably made electronic stability control standard. I’ve heard that they won’t even rent to the new 2011+ Explorers, which have nothing in common with their predecessors. This is one case where there would have been a good argument for changing to a new model name.
And don’t forget, the Explorer episode ruptured the relationship between Ford and Firestone- A relationship that stretched back to Henry Ford / Harvey Firestone.
I have read that Henry Ford,during World War 2 and while USA soldiers were fighting the Germans in Europe,was donating large sums of money and equipment to Adolf’s Nazi regime.Henry reputedly wanted and was to become part of Adolf’s new world order.The last few years we see more evidence emerging of corporate and government corruption and impropriety and currently in Australia every day we read of serious matters involving both major political parties.What ever happened to good old fashioned commonsense and decency?
As an operator of a Firestone shop, we saw loads of Explorers coming in for the tire recall. The vast majority of the ones we saw had worn-out tires. This is what was leading to the tire separation issue, that and under-inflation. Of course, putting a car tire on a truck with a swing arm that weighted like 200 lbs didn’t help the issue much but had the owners properly inflated their tires and replaced them when worn the problem would never have happened.
My dear, departed, Dad often told me, “Never underestimate the ability of the human to be stupid.” Next to brakes, the tires are the most important part of a car. Try getting people to replace tires that have ANY tread on them. At the risk of sounding apolitically correct, getting women to spend money on tires is next to impossible. I could sell women snake-oil all day but tires and batteries were always a really hard sell.
I didn’t believe the Toyota nonsense for one second. Witch hunting is alive an well, as is stupidity.
That’s exactly right-Ford spec’d a PASSENGER CAR tire, a lightened one at that, for the Explorer because they already knew the truck was tippy. Ford also spec’d absurdly low recommended tire pressures for the same reason, over Firestone’s objections.
Ford also knew (and covered up) that the tread separations and rollovers were showing up already in hotter countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and instead of protecting American consumers, they quietly replaced those tires and hid what they had found.
And nevermind that Firestone corporate policy was to use old rubber stocks past the point where they could make a consistently well-built tire. Firestone attacked whistle blowers shedding light on some contributors to the tread separations, threatening their businesses.
People can act like frivolous lawsuits are way more prevalent that corporate malfeasance, and they are. But people are dead because of Ford and Firestone’s choices, and that is a fact.
Again this was a lawyer driven problem Australia is bloody hot and had Ford Explorers that didnt fall over on blown tyres but Australia also has a speed limit mostly it echoed the gearshift problem in older 70s Fords I remember seeing the warnings etc as OZ Falcons had the same poorly made shifter and yes knocking one out of park could be done on several worn Falcons I owned but nobody leaves a car running at the kerb and walks away from it as someone else will steal it.
Are American/US market tyres not speed rated?
My less-rollover prone 95 Ex with the front SLA, I make sure I keep good tires on it and keep them at 32-35psi. I also lowered it an inch front to rear. It has a choppier ride, but I’ll take that trade-off.
The result? A very stable vehicle. Lord knows I’ve tried my best to scare the hell out of my friends by driving it like a sports car over the last 11 years.
My GF spun it on the highway due to new tires on the rear and the shop not listening to my 32psi recommendation. All that resulted was the dust on the sidewalls being knocked off and scaring her silly. It sat bolt-upright and just slid on the tires. I know because I was the passenger and was fully expecting it to wind up on its side or roof.
Even Car and Driver couldn’t get it to do anything special in their tests.
[Some rental-truck vendors’] skittishness is ironic considering some of the clapped-out, indifferently-maintained vehicles I’ve had the misfortune of renting from [some rental-truck vendors] over the years, and some of the stories I’ve heard about [some rental-truck vendors]. I’m now very discriminating regarding the rental trucks I use–I’ve found that I generally have a good experience when the rental chain’s parent company is also a US distributor for Smart cars.
(Names have been obscured to avoid attracting the attention of lawyers.)
There should be a [popular web browser] add-on to do that for those of us who are too absent-minded, call it “redact-o-matic” or something…
I believe the Explorer rollover story is the exception. I think it’s legit.
My understanding – from numerous sources – was an unusually high center of gravity – even for an SUV…and by the time Ford learned how rollover prone the Explorer was, the design process had moved too far forward for a simple fix. Therefore the 26 psi spec on the tires, to make it really uncomfortable for drivers to push the limits of the vehicle.
I feel Ford got off much easier than Firestone, but that’s my gut feeling. I do remember Firestone advertising virtually disappeared, replaced with ads for parent Bridgestone. The brand was damaged.
Of course the 2002 redesign, complete w/IRS, addressed the issue – and then some. But IIRC the 2-doors and Sport-Trac models went to the new IRS platform a couple years later.
I thought I’d read of a Merc Mountaineer or two (was the Aviator out at that time?) flipping as well…but remember the Merc and Lincoln variations of the Explorer platform were built in far lower numbers.
A co-worker owns the 2-door version of the original Explorer…the most unstable of all. When he gets his oil changed and someone unfamiliar with the Explorer saga services it, the tires get put back to 32 lbs, which he claims makes it squirrely. So he has to reset them at 26 himself.
I’m not surprised at the U-Haul situation. Judging from my last experience with that company, common sense at U-Haul is in short supply.
Since Ford no longer supply parts for MK1 Explorers I got to meet an engineer who makes replacement parts for them his opinion of Ford suspension engineering is far from complimentry his opinion was that the vehicle is so badly designed that in the event of a tyre failure it would become uncontrolable maybe hes right maybe not.
The 1st gen Explorer with the Twin I-beam is subject to swing-arm jacking in a slide, coupled with a fast steering ratio and a body that sits too high on the frame. Add in rapid wear with the radius arm bushings, and you’ve got spooky handling.
I’ve got the 2nd gen Explorer with the SLA front end, and even I can see improvments in that. One is to not use the same frame for 2×4 and 4×4, and make the RWD frame shorter in section.
This was not one of Fords better efforts, but mine’s got 305,000 miles on it and I have probably driven it far harder than necessary on and off road.
Don’t forget that Consumer Reports also did a one-sided hatchet job on the Explorer’s predecessor, the Bronco II. That one also alleged that the vehicle was prone to tip over, though the tendency wasn’t as strong as the Samurai.
As I recall, Ford sanctioned using lower tire pressures (26 psi?) on the Explorer to soften the ride. Firestone didn’t object. When the tire did fail (in heavily loaded conditions, high temperatures and speed) inexperienced drivers panicked resulting in loss of control.
One of the car magazines (Car and Driver?) purchased a well-used 1st gen Explorer and attempted to recreated the failure. They failed to obtain an out-of-control situation.
Firestone went out of business (as a separate entity) in the 70’s because of the “Firestone 500” tire problem. (Firestone had to give every “500” customer new tires – I got a whole set). Bridgestone bought them. This second “problem” very seriously hurt Firestone. The plant that made the Explorer tires was closed.
IIRC, someone had investigated QC procedures at the facility that made the majority of the tires that went on the Explorers and found it was not up to code.
When we got our first Aztek in 2001, it wasn’t until after I’d driven it home that I noticed the tires on it were the same ones (Firestone Wilderness) as the tires on the Explorers. If I had seen that while at the dealership, I would have asked them to replace the tires.
During the time we owned the first Aztek, I never had a single problem with the tires. I monitored them closely to be sure. But, for the 2-1/2 years we leased the car, they went 30,000 miles with no issues.
I recall some other frenzies that fizzled. One was a TV news magazine (I have forgotten which one) in the late 70s about horrible injuries suffered in secondhand postal jeeps. Yes, they were tippy and had virtually no safety equipment, so it was best not to get into an accident with one. But they were not a mass disaster. Fizzle no. 1.
Fizzle no. 2 was the Ford automatic transmission issue of the 70s. There were fairly widespread reports of FoMoCo cars hopping from park to reverse and driving over their owners. There was some truth here, and there was a massive recall that resulted in a warning sticker on the dash of most every 1970-78 FoMoCo vehicle. This was the result of an easily worn piece in the steering column. But life went on and those of us that drove these learned to either shut off the car or use the parking brake.
Fizzle no. 3 – Another newsmagazine (in the 90s, IIRC) did an expose on the original Mustang with its drop-in fuel tank. With no trunk floor other than the tank itself, virtually any rear end collision would split the tank and engulf the passenger compartment in fire. The fact that all of these cars were 25-30 years old, many of which had tanks compromised by rust and age did not seem to matter. But again, this one went nowhere.
Fizzle no. 4 – Burning Panthers. There was a piece that would puncture the fuel tank of Crown Victorias in a severe collision, causing fires. Ford supposedly offered a fix later.
There are lessons here. Gasoline is dangerous stuff, especially when you carry it around 20 gallons at a time. Mechanical designs have weaknesses, and some will fail faster than others. The laws of physics are broken at your peril. The sad fact is that many people have been injured and killed in all of these examples. But people were and are injured and killed in other ways every day. Our modern transportation avoids some exposure to injury and causes other kinds. The best answer is to be careful and vigilant for yourself and your family. But there are accidents and fires every day, and there is not much that can be done about them absent a significant change in the way we live.
According to an article that I read, no defect was ever found with the Ford automatic transmissions of the 1970s. There were a number of complaints involving GM and Chrysler vehicles, as well, but NHTSA focused on Ford at the urging of Clarence Ditlow of the Center for Auto Safety (founded by Ralph Nader). He “believed” that such accidents were more common with Fords, but he had no actual proof that this was the case. Joan Claybrook issued a consumer advisory to owners of Ford vehicles, the media picked up on it, and the number of complaints regarding Ford vehicles skyrocketed.
I believe that you are right – there was no problem in the transmission. However, it is my understanding that Ford used a cast potmetal shift detent in the steering columns that would kind of round itself off after several years of use. I remember in my ’67 Galaxie, it took little more than a finger touch against the lever towards the steering wheel for the lever to jump down to reverse. None of the GM or Chrysler cars of the era that I experienced did this. Still, it makes you wonder if the early autos with neutral and a parking brake had a better idea.
It is my understanding that both Ford and NHTSA examined the shifting mechanism, along with the transmission itself, and could not find a defect. Perhaps, with age, the shift detent mechanism wore out, but the allegations at the time were not limited to old, high-mileage vehicles. The incident that attracted Clarence Ditlow’s attention involved a Lincoln that was less than three years old. Components may have worn out faster back in the day, but did they really wear out that much faster? And NHTSA had also received complaints about GM and Chrysler vehicles.
There was most definitely a real safety issue with Ford’s column shifter setup – our family had a 1971 LTD for 30 years and we also had a 1969 F100 for over 20 years; both had the problem. The pot-metal piece in the steering column had steps or detents cast into it, and when you shifted you were SUPPOSED to pull the shift lever towards you – this would lift the (harder steel) mating piece over the detents and allow you to change selector positions. However, if you didn’t pull up on the lever very hard when you moved the lever (especially when going back into park), it would cause the shoulder of the pot-metal step between park and reverse to wear down.
Now, combine this worn step with a slightly misadjusted shift linkage – the one connecting the steering column shifter mechanism to the transmission itself. If the misadjustment was such that the transmission went into park (where a mechanical pawl is supposed to engage in a slotted ring) slightly before the shift lever reached the park position in the column, the shift linkage would bind up and tend to want to “pop” the shifter past the worn-down step from park into reverse.
Now, combine this with the tendency of people (myself included) to run hard into parking bumpers and then slam the transmission into park with the front tires compressed up against the bump stop or curb, further binding up the pressure on the entire shift linkage, and it is easy for me to see why these vehicles came out of park so easily.
I remember in the mid-1970s when our LTD came back from a service visit to the dealer with a rectangular warning label affixed to the left-hand end of the dashboard (such that it was only visible with the driver’s door open, heh) regarding this issue.
We wore out the shifter collar on our F100 twice while we owned it – I replaced it once myself and after seeing how it was designed, I could easily see what the problem was.
I remember reading news accounts of people having died because of this issue, with a typical situation being a pickup that had been left in park with engine running in a campsite, which on its own went into reverse and ran over somebody. You were much better off leaving the shift lever in neutral with the parking brake on, if you had to leave the engine running.
This happened with GM and Chrysler cars, too. But the media focused on Ford, because Clarence Ditlow alerted Joan Claybrook to one particular case in nearby Virginia. She then alleged that Fords had a unique problem in this regard, without any proof of an actual defect.
I heard of more than one incident where a Ford-owning ol’ boy would be driving home from the bar after closing time, and would decide in open country that he needed to stop and relieve himself. He’d pull over, put the Ford in park, leave the motor running, and stand behind the open door. The truck would shift itself into reverse, knock him down with the door, and run over him with the left front wheel.
I also saw an episode of COPS in which a late-70’s T-bird or similar car was circling a parking lot in reverse…my guess is that it had this little detent problem also and had been left running while the driver ran in for a pack of ciggies or something.
Pfsm, I too have seen that COPS episode…I seem to remember that the car in question was a small car…perhaps a K-car or something of the sort. But my memory can’t be trusted.
Redmondjp, I know firsthand about the small steps wearing down over time. Just last weekend, my 76 Cutlass hopped into reverse while I was setting the timing. Fortunately a large pine was right behind it so it didn’t travel far or cause any damage. It’s shifter is worn to the point that road bumps can cause it to shift into neutral from drive which leaves me revving and embarassed!
My late grandfather had an old Ford station wagon, also with a totally worn shift mechanism. Unfortunately he was stepping out of the vehicle one day when it popped into reverse and knocked him over. He fractured his skull and elbow but thankfully recovered. And then finally bought himself a (new) Escort wagon!
My parents had a Lincoln Mark something? in the 70’s. The shifting detents were vague from day one. The other potentially confusing factor was the indicator was electronic and would show “P” but the lever wasn’t completely in park.
For an inside look at life in a Ford transmission plant in the 1970s, I recommend the book “A Savage Factory”.
Regarding the “Burning Panthers”, I think that story had to do with police forces complaining that Crown Vic gas tanks may explode in a high-speed rear-end collision, so Ford outfitted police CVs with extra armor around the gas tank. Then some (non-police) owners complained that ALL Panthers should be recalled to get the same extra plating retrofitted. Ford argued (and rightly so, IMO) that police vehicles are unique because they are infinitely more likely to be stopped at the side of a busy highway than the average vehicle, where they may be involved in such as high-speed rear-end collision.
A Savage Factory by Robert Dewar is an interesting book. Mr. Dewar specifcally notes that friends who worked at GM and Chrysler told him that the same things were happening at those companies. His experience at Ford was hardly unique.
While Mr. Dewar attempted to link the conditions and management style of the Sharonville transmission plant to the alleged defect, he never actually provided an explanation of what was causing this problem, or how Ford’s production processes were supposedly contributing to it. It’s also noteworthy that, if anything, Chrysler plants and machinery were in WORSE shape than Ford’s during the 1970s, as Lynn Townsend didn’t invest in new plants and machinery.
A friend who worked with the industry during the 1970s basically told me that, when it came to the condition of the plants and machinery of the Big Three, they went from best to worst in the order of their size. GM had the money to keep up the condition of its plants and equipment, while Chrysler didn’t. Ford fell in the middle.
Exploding fuel tanks is pure Hollywood its absolute BULLSHIT Falcon had fuel tank boot floors into the late 70s in Australia and this is an unheard of problem. Driving on flat tyres was the Explorer problem some people are stupid enough to think a pichup will ride like a car and also lack the skills to cope with a blown tyre emergency I have survived many such emergency of blowout on front tyres if you drove cars in the Aussie bush at speed blowouts are a normal part of life, grow a brain and learn how to drive. A lot of sheeple reach for a lawyer to cover up their own stupidity take some responsibility for your own life its not compulsory to drive cars if you lack the skills neccessary take the Bus
Exactly JP its called personal responsibility if you want to be stupid go right ahead but dont try to sue when it goes tits up.
There is no “piece” on the Panther that punctures the tank it’s all the equipment that police carry in the trunk that punches through the floor and into the gas tank. So they started putting liners in P71 trunks.
Interesting article, but the Pinto episode is not quite what it seems. An article in the September 1981 issue of Rutgers Law Review pokes many holes in the standard narrative of this saga.
The so-called smoking gun memo was misinterpreted by Mother Jones (perhaps deliberately). The memo was a standard cost-benefit analysis regarding a proposed safety standard written by Ford for NHTSA. It did not deal directly with the Pinto gas tank design, or Ford’s possible liability for tort actions arising from the Pinto’s gas tank design.
The judge in the landmark Grimshaw case excluded evidence that would have damaged the plaintiff’s case. This evidence showed that Pinto was struck by a car travelling at a much higher rate of speed than that alleged by the plaintiff. This would have hurt the plaintiff’s claim that the Pinto was a death trap even in relatively low-speed collisions.
Interestingly, an analysis of fire-related deaths in 1971-76 Pintos showed that the car was no more fire-prone than other small cars of the time, and actually safer than many small imports and the AMC Gremlin in this regard. The number of deaths that Mother Jones attributed to fires stemming from ruptured gas tanks in Pintos was actually much lower than the figure stated in the article. It was not in the “hundreds,” as alleged by the article, but about 27.
There is no saving stupid people from themselves, and, as I see every day, after 128 years of practice, the average human animal still cannot control a vehicle. So lets give them more cupholders and electronic devices to ensure their time behind the wheel is spent doing everything else under the sun besides what they should be doing:DRIVING! I am sick of it.
IF the automobile with the internal combustion engine were introduced today, the mere fact that it carries around 10-30 gallons of explosive liquid would render it unsellable in today’s nanny-market and we’d have to keep using our feet like Fred Flintstone.
You would need a dangerous goods licence I have one it allows me to drive things like fuel tankers or cart explosives but they dont just give them out.
Always remember, people are morons until proven otherwise. My ’05 Avalanche has Stabilitrak, and I hate it. NIne times out of ten, I can feel the truck getting loose and get it back under control before the stability system even tries to engage. If you turn it off, the ECM delays throttle response and changes shift points.
And people wonder why automakers keep putting more electronic nannies into cars. Someday there’ll be standard system that will brake the car if it approaches something at certain high rate, just so automakers won’t get sued by drivers who run into things. Already some cars have brake/throttle interlock that will cut throttle when brakes are applied, preventing burnouts. Before long, all our cars will be driven by Google. Airbus airplanes already feature many ‘authoritative’ computer system that can override pilots action, to prevent pilot errors. Of course several accidents have been blamed to that computer system.
Every time my kids bring up flying cars, I remind them that so far, we can’t handle them with only two dimensions to keep track of, let alone three.
Last year ABC News (a Disney Big Media property) hyped up an outright fraud by SIU Prof. David Gilbert on how a “short circuit” in the wiring could cause the Prius accelerator to cause a “surge of acceleration” without showing an error code.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/02/22/abc-news-expert-says-electronic-design-flaw-to-blame-in-runaway/
It was actually one short from power to a logic enable wire and a 200 ohm resistor from power to the accelerator signal wire. (Diagram below.) In other words, the electrical equivalent to a floored accelerator, which could never happen on its own. Check out the other diagrams and a photo here:
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/08/toyota-hits-back-at-david-gilberts-no-fault-code-demonstratio/
Autoblog uncovered that Prof. Gilbert was being paid by parties in lawsuits against Toyota. ABC admitted faking dashboard screenshots in another part of the report.
All the details with references are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_Toyota_vehicle_recalls#ABC_News_acceleration_controversy
The words Prius and huge surge of acceleration dont really belong in the same sentence, I for one would love to see Toyota fight back against the sensationalist news media pick one or two high profile reporters and sue their ass meawhile these news shows will continue the myth that hollywood style explosions actually happen and the sheeple will keep calling ambulance chasing lawyers
Hi Bryce, I generally beat the traffic off the line in both 2000 and 2010 Priuses. At speed the electric torque provides a big push for lane changes and such. 75 mph comes easily, and wind noise is so low I become radar bait without realizing it. (Al Gore’s kid got a 100 mph ticket in a Prius.) I get great mileage driving like that too. Obviously it’s no muscle car, acceleration is not huge. But the idea that hybrids are snails is a myth. Like nearly all cars (except maybe diesel Peugeots and Microbuses), on-the-road performance is mostly up to the driver.
I do agree that the manufacturers should fight back better.
No prob Mike Ive never seen anyone pushing a prius they seem to be bought by very careful drivers who dont try to speed here I drive a Diesel Citroen but turboed its got plenty of performance but granted those older non turbo models have glacial pickup and worse fuel economy
Agreed, I try to drive in a way that counters the impression given by some others. I’ve been passed by Prius a time or three myself, but then Portland’s got more hybrids than anywhere. Cheers!
Just in the interest of balance, what about cars which were, in fact, fatally flawed and deserved to be recalled? I’m thinking of the Fiero, which was designed with a shortened oil pan for the Iron Duke to fit into its new home, and subsequently always ran a quart low, and did, in fact, catch on fire.
I thought the Fiero engine fires had been attributed to faulty connecting rods.
Nice piece, Jeff! When reading the title I thought it would be about those delightful drivers that vacation in NH and either tailgate the locals or drive 15 mph under the limit. Dumb Masses.
Great article and I couldn’t agree more. I think in many ways the old media has comitted suicide with their lack of credibility in so many areas. They can’t get away with it anymore when anyone with a keyboard and a modem can challenge their frenzies with “gasp” actual facts.
By the way, my weekend hauler is a 79 Chevy pickup with the outside of the frame tank. I should be good as long as no one shoots a rocket at it.
You also could have added the partial frenzy whipped up over police Crown Vics exploding when rear ended. Of course you’d have to leave out that most of the accidents happened at speeds in excess of 80 miles an hour and just about any car would explode. It was one of the reasons Ford stopped making the police version of the car. Not because they were unsafe but because of the lawsuits.
Those journalists also never mentioned that before the GM pickup fuel tanks were mounted beside the frame rails (in precisely the same position that the diesel tanks are mounted on every big truck) they were inside the cab, not an ideal placement for many reasons.
I’ll bite.
Are you suggesting Ford should be patted on the head and sent to bed without dinner for the exploding Pinto episode?
Poor mis-understood Ford, knowingly responsible for death and destruction. How dare victims seek compensation!
Oh thats right, tort reform is the answer to all our problems…ill represented corporations are forever losing judgements to a lawyered up citizenry.
And Corvair’s and Explorer’s did (as expected) roll over.
Toyota and Audi were judged guilty in the court of public opinion before proven innocent however.
I’m all for sensible regulation and applying the proverbial grain of salt to any such reporting.
The problem is that Mother Jones misrepresented the memo as a “smoking gun” which supposedly proved that Ford realized that the Pinto’s fuel tank was dangerous. Which, of course, was false, as the memo did nothing of the sort. It was a standard cost-benefit analysis of a proposed regulation, which NHTSA required auto makers to provide.
In the real world, the rate of people who died in fires while driving or riding in a Pinto was average for small cars of that time. The Pinto actually had a better safety record in this regard than several other small cars. The real-world facts do not support the contention that the Pinto was unduly dangerous compared to other contemporary small cars. The real problem was that early 1970s small cars, in general, were simply not very safe. But that problem was not unique to Ford.
Ate Up With Motor recently covered the Corvair issue in a superb article, as always:
http://ateupwithmotor.com/compact-and-economy-cars/65-rebel-yell-the-life-and-death-of-the-chevrolet-corvair.html?start=2
The handling kit with the anti-roll bar that should have been standard was a $10 option. GM certainly paid the price. The article says two senior execs lost children in Corvair crashes.
GM and Ford and Toyota should be held to a higher standard. They promise ordinary people familiar cars they can just put gas in and drive. VWs and Mercedes back then were for the likes of us, who know about tire speed ratings and oversteer.
So cajin I’m with you in these cases where managers knew they were sacrificing safety for a few bucks. Big organizations like GM and NASA (remember the Challenger) often isolate decision-makers from real responsibility. “Mistakes were made.”
When ABC or NBC or CBS or CNN goes after a safe car from a responsible builder to stir up ratings and to hell with the ethics, my blood boils.
Ford has had gas tank safety issues since the ModelA doesnt matter where they put it someone claims its unsafe
Well done Jeff. I kept thinking …. hmmm, well put …. or wow, that’s exactly the right word there.
Audi’s resale value problems were only partly due to the 60 Minutes expose. And the ham-fisted management response. The ’84/’85 models had significant quality problems and costly repairs that convinced many first time Audi owners that one was enough. We had a love/hate relationship with an ’84 5000 Avant.
It seems to me that some of the runaway Fords also had parking brakes that released automatically when the trans slipped out of park … making the situation worse. Am I remembering correctly?
Pete
There was a problem inherit in the design of the Audi.
The Audi used a hydroboost style brake booster and a hydraulic self leveling suspension. On the style of booster that they used if there is no pressurized fluid it is not possible to power through the booster and get braking action unlike a vacuum booster.
Here is how the system is plumbed/works.
The first thing in the circuit is the suspension, the second thing in the circuit is the accumulator, on it’s output is the supply to the booster.
To make things worse they used a very primitive fuel injection system. Unlike modern EFI cars that use a idle speed motor a screw is used to provide the base idle speed and a fidle solenoid is used to provide the Fast Idle. Because it is a simple on-off device it has to provide enough extra air flow to keep the engine running even if it’s -20. So as long as the coolant temp is below about 140 degrees it will idle at about 2500 rpm.
If the check valves in the booster and/or accumulator do not seal 100% the stored pressure will bleed off when the car sits over night.
So here is what happens. The person gets in the cold car and that adds a load to the suspension. Then they start the car and put their foot on the brake pedal. It’s hard as a rock, and the engine fires up and runs at ~2500 rpm. Because the suspension senses a load it starts to fill with fluid. Once it is filled the accumulator starts to fill. Since it is relatively large it takes awhile to fill. About now the person puts the car in gear. Since the accumulator hasn’t filled yet there is no brake assist and in fact the pedal will not move and the booster will not actuate the master cyl. So the car takes off with the engine running at 2500rpm.
It took me hours of reading the factory shop manual and testing the system pressure at different points between times of letting it sit overnight to figure it out the first one a customer brought to me. This was years after the initial frenzy the customer’s complaint that sometimes the brake pedal would be hard as a rock and no amount of pressure on the pedal would cause braking action.
Might have been simpler to licence Citroens hydropnuematic system like Rolls Royce did after failing to improve on it, that at least works, Im not an engineer but having the brakes activate last sounds like asking for trouble you can get up lots of speed without exceeding 2500 rpm.
I remember two “sudden unintended acceleration” TV programs, both dealing with Chrysler:
One was in the mid-1990s, on ABC Primetime, and dealt with the Jeep Cherokee and Grand Cherokee supposedly accelerating out of control because of an awkwardly placed brake pedal. I only vaguely remember the program, but here it is described better:
http://www.leopoldkuvin.com/CM/NoteworthyResults/Noteworthy-Results40.asp
The other was around 2000 – I can’t remember if it was Dateline or Primetime – and was about the 1996-2000 minivans supposedly being knocked out of park by children left in the car. Does anyone else remember this “special presentation”?
I remember the thing about the vans, and it is pretty stupid not to have a shift interlock even back then.
Big Media corruption aside, some good did come out of the original Corvair-era safety frenzy. Precisely because people are foolish and carmakers cut corners when possible, we have laws against building cars that are as unsafe as a Corvair, my Imp, etc. The highway death rate is a fraction of what it used to be, and it’s certainly not because there are fewer cars, or that Americans became better drivers.
The marketing of farm carts – sorry, “sport-utility vehicles” – as station wagons in the 90s proved that the industry is as cynical as ever. Look at all the kids riding around in CRVs and RAV4s without proper rear bumpers. If the law doesn’t ban it, they’ll try to get away with it.
I think that I can give some insight on your point about the highway death rate.
First, seat belts are mandatory in almost every jurisdiction now. This has been a proven lifesaver. Seat belts were not available or widely used during the years when cars could really fly. Also, the mandated use of belts have resulted in the increased apprehension of drunk drivers. In my state, not wearing a seatbelt is a “primary stop” offence-simply, an officer can stop you if he observes you not complying with the seatbelt law. That means that if you had a few cold ones before you put the key in the lock, he’ll probably want to have a little chat with you beside the road.
Second, there was no MADD -type lobby to push for tougher drunk and impaired driving laws back in the 60’s and 70’s. These tougher laws have meant more enforcement with checkpoints and more sophisticated detection methods. Also, the “implied consent” laws have taken some drunk drivers off the road,however temporarily.
I submit this after managing a bail bond business for over a decade. Nobody hates drunk drivers more than I do.
Thanks for your reply, Jeff, your points are well-taken. I do think that the whole “crumple zone” philosophy has made the crashes that do happen more survivable. I look at the massive, rigid hood of my Imp and I try not to imagine it coming through my windshield. Another reason why I drive it like an old lady. (Okay, an old lady who still has her eyesight!)
I read your blog. Its simply super. You have very good content. See my blog also<a href="http://bakaliftindia.com/Hydraulic Goods Lift Platforms Manufacturers
Did everyone forget about the Tesla that the media said would attempt to cremate its occupants for just driving over a small piece of metal? Actually the car hit a class 3 hitch assembly made out of square steel tubing that weighed close to 100 pounds. The cars information system suggested the driver to pull off the roadway as soon as possible and exit the car, which he did. It was some time later that the ruptured battery pack overheated and did burn the car to the melting point. The driver had plenty of time to gather his belongings. If a front engined car hit this item, who knows, oil pan ripped off, steering gear gets twisted and car runs into a minivan full of nuns?