Auto-Forums.net

[Guest]

The buzz is about a recall of Ford F150s and Excursions for fires that
start near the master cylinder.

Speed control seems to be deactivated by a switch that is activated by
hydraulic pressure. Does that same switch activate brake lights?

The wires going to the swtich seem to be hot at all times.

Is there a sneak circuit involved?

Did Ford conduct a failure modes and effects analysis on the switch?

Other cruise controls are deactivated by the same mechanical switch
that lights the brake lights. Strictly mechanical activation of the
switch, no hydraulic pressure required.

[WEBPA]

I'm sorry. I missed the the law firm with which you are affiliated. Is it John
Edwards' firm?

[Guest]

I doubt it very much. Edwards seems to prefers medical
malpractice litigation, it is more lucrative and harder for the
defendant to defend against when you are accused
of killing babies and old folks. LOL


mike hunt



WEBPA wrote:

[Guest]

No affiliation with any law firm. Just a private citizen that is
disgusted with the way manufacturers and governments spend more to
cover the smoking hole than fix the problem.

[Guest]

What ever led you to the conclude that having the owners of
nearly 700,000 vehicles bring theirs to a dealership,
to examine it to see if it has a defective part, is a government
or corporate cover up?


mike hunt



dickboyd@aol.com wrote:

[Guest]

Wow, that's a leap. I didn't say the switch fires was a coverup. I said
they spend more money to cover the smoking hole than to fix the
problem. Automobile companies spend more money justifying the status
quo than improving designs. In the cases where liability is an issue,
they spend more money advertising that there is no problem than in
correcting the problem.

It seems to me that if the manufacturers correct the design, lawyers
take that as an admission of guilt and begin lawsuits. So manufacturers
backpedal on the reason for design corrections. Or worse yet, continue
with marginal or unsafe designs.

States are equally at fault for not disclosing dangerous locations.
Even though there is a Supreme Court decision that publishing dangerous
locations cannot be used for disclosure in civil suits. In other words,
ambulance chasers can't just pick up the list and start suing. Yet
states refuse to list dangerous locations.

The fault appears to be design. If the part is faulty, the design
should compensate.

The first check seems easy enough, open the hood and feel the switch
and wires. Instead the implicit recommendation is to continue to drive
the vehicle and take it to the dealer when you get a chance. Or call
the fire department if it catches fire. Taking it to the dealer will
undoubtedly be bundled with a sales opportunity.

[Guest]

I worked for thirty years in automotive design for Ford,
VW and GM. I get so sick of hearing we only design good enough
to get by, that's BS. What makes you think it is a design
failure anyway? Thus far there have been 36 complaints from the
shark lawyers, with the NHTSA, about Ford fires that their people
attribute to the switch. If it were in fact a design failure ALL
the switches on ALL of the several millions of vehicles, from
1998 to 2002, with that switch would be problematic. They are
not. IF there were a design problem the NHTSA would order a
recall. They have not. Ford is voluntarily calling in nearly
700,000 built during the build time of the 36 to check if there
IS a problem with any of the switch or some other reason those
vehicles caught on fire. Thousand have already been examined
ahead of the recall announcement and no defect has been found.

How often did you see the press releases from the shark and the
stories on TV of Crown Vic police cars catching fire in an
accident? Did the NHTSA order a recall? Crash test, that cost
Ford hundreds of thousands of dollars to duplicate the crashes,
proved that the cars that caught five were hit at speed above 70
MPH. The federal standard for a rear collision, without damage
to the fuel tank, is 30 MPH. The NHTSA closed the investigation
when Ford proved its vehicle meet and even exceed that standard
and actually builds the Crown Vic and other Fords to be hit at 50
MPH, without damage
to the tank. That killed the sharks case. Did you see anything
about the vindication of the Ford Crown Vic on TV? I sure didn't.

Look at all the millions of dollar spent on vehicles today to
engineer and install shift interlocks because a handful of Audi
owners a number of years ago claimed their cars "accelerated on
their own, even when the driver had their foot on the brake."
After all was said an done none of those claims were founded on
fact. The drivers were in fact tramping on the throttle, not the
brake. Those shark lawyers nearly bankrupt Audi. Years later,
the dealerships and Audi won the litigation against several
of the drivers. Did you ever see that on TV? I didn't

Look at the millions it cost Ford over the alleged "rollover
problems with the Explorer" because of "bad design." The facts
when it was all said an done was the Firestone tires on the
Explorer and OTHER vehicles were defective and caused the
vehicles to rollover, not the vehicle on which they where
mounted. Ford and all SUV's still today are thought by many to
be improperly designed and have a "tendency to rollover." The
real truth is far different. No vehicle has a "tendency" to
rollover. If lifted up on one side, even to over 45 degrees,
every vehicle has a tendency to fall back on its wheels. SUV's
are not more likely to rollover because their center of gravity
is two inches higher than any other vehicle in
the same scenario. If a higher center of gravity did indeed
induce rollover one should expect to see six wheeled truck laying
on their sides almost daily. Shorter wheelbase vehicles like the
Civic, Rav4, Escape or Forester are more "likely" to rollover
than longer wheelbase vehicles like the Explorer and Tahoe.


mike hunt


dickboyd@aol.com wrote:

[Rick Brandt]

MajorDomo@mailcity.com wrote:
[snip]

[Guest]

We have a Ford product. However, the switch even though connected to
the master cylinder is offset so if it overheats or catches fire, will
not affect the plastic brake fluid reservoir. My question is why Ford
would use a hydraulically actuated switch rather than a mechanically
actuated switch. Seems to me the extra machining adds to the cost of
the brake system and introduces more chance for hydraulic failure.

Why would a cruise control interrupt switch have electrical power, even
with the ignition off? Even so, why would the switch be located below a
plastic container. Boy Scouts are taught how to use kindling to build a
larger fire.

In case that particular switch fails, it seems that the replacement
bill will be much higher than for failure of a mechanically actuated
switch. Even if it does not cause a fire.

Several cars have sneak circuits for electrical accessories via the
emergency flasher system or the brake lights. VW had some of the best
designs, but used more relays to defeat headlights and other heavy
electrical loads if the ignition switch was in other than the run
position.

I agree with you on lawyers cooking the books. Exploding GM saddle gas
tanks where the media had to use pyrotechnics to get the tank to ignite
did a lot to destroy credibility of the media.

Jerry Curry and Diane Steed cooked the books on heavy cars and never
retracted or issued a correcting statement. The pictures of a crash of
a pick up truck and a light car were dramatic, but the truth was the
crash dummies in the lighter cars had less damage than the dummies in
the heavier vehicle. Occupants of the lighter car would have survived
behind the well designed crumple zones. Occupants of the heavier
vehicles without crumple zones would be dead.

Lawyers prevent logical repairs. If car companies redesign, lawyers go
after them for poor design. That action by lawyers really puts a damper
on making corrections.

Again, firefighting records indicate more switch related fires than
NHTSA. Aren't governent agencies talking to each other? Why did this
incident originate from the fire fighting community?

[tom]

Look at the millions it cost Ford over the alleged "rollover

[Peter D. Hipson]

And I was with you right up to this point. The problem is that drivers
don't have experience with blowouts, handling skids (and virtually all
LEOs get really upset when you go to a parking lot and try to get
experience), and other emergency conditions.

One well known automotive magazine did a test of the ford problem.
Their finding was that any compentent driver would have no problems,
and they ran the test a number of times. Never lost control. However
it is esay to see that some drivers, when they encounter a situation
such as this simply slam on the brakes, jerk the wheel and hold on for
dear life.

Just one more example of dumbing down America.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:48:36 -0600, "Rick Brandt"
<rvtjbrandt@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

[Guest]

Is is not me contenting it was the tire, not the vehicle. Ford
was not the one to make the final concluded that the Firestone
tires WERE the problem. That conclusion was made by the NHTSA
and the courts. Ford simply proved that Explores with other
brand tires did not have a problem and that other brand vehicles
with the Firestone tires had the problem as well. Of course you
can believe differently if what is your opinion.


mike hunt


Rick Brand wrote:

[webpa]

At last! Some rationality. To bad it will be completely ignored.