Ford bolstering roofs of some models in wake of lawsuits
When a vehicle rolls over, one of the critical components in assuring the safety of its occupants is the roof structure and its ability to protect, not injure its occupants. On the heels of nearly $250-million dollars in judgments relating to injuries caused in rollover accidents, Ford Motor Company has considerably stepped up its efforts to assure the roof strength of its vehicles.
A new standard proposed by NHTSA in August, 2005 raises the minimum force withstood by a roof structure from a multiple of 1.5 to 2.5 times the vehicle's weight while maintaining sufficient head room for a buckled-in average size adult male to avoid being struck by a crushed roof. Unfortunately, a final ruling could take as long as a year and would give the manufacturers until at least 2011 to comply.
In a letter to the NHTSA, Ford's director of automotive safety office, James P. Vondale, disclosed that some versions of 11 models would have roofs 20 percent stronger than required. For instance, the Expedition and Navigator, as well as some F-250 and E-series models would exceed the standard, matching the Volvo XC90, which has one of the strongest roofs on the market.
Follow the jump for more info and a list of the 11 models from Ford that will receive stronger roofs in the near future. [Source: The Detroit News]Congrats to Ford for stepping up and going above and beyond. The real issue is why does it take so long for these things to happen and why wait for a lawsuit to make a change? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to spend the $250 million on stronger roofs before the lawsuits and avoid the negative publicity they bring?
11 Ford models that will soon achieve roof strengths that meet or exceed the NHTSA proposed mandate of 2.5 time a vehicle's weight and their projected strength:
- F-250 Regular Cab > 3.6
- F-250 Super Cab > 3.5
- F-250 Crew Cab > 3.6
- F-150 Regular Cab > 3.1
- F-150 Super Cab > 3.1
- F-150 Crew Cab > 2.9
- Ford Expedition > 3.0
- Lincoln Navigator > 3.0
- Ford Explorer > 2.9
- Mercury Mountaineer > 2.9
- Ford E-Series Van > 3.6
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
James 7:32PM (12/06/2006)
Ugh, finally. I'm appalled by some of those photos, especially of the F-250s. How is anyone supposed to survive an accident like that?
Reply
Brian 11:41AM (12/07/2006)
Do a websearch for roof crush lawsuits and those lawyer sites indicate that the Toyota 4-Runner and Sequoia and the Nissan XTerra are similarly weak. That's probably not even all the models or manufacturers.
But, yes, let's bash Ford because they are the first automaker to tell the NHTSA that they will exceed the new rules. Hey, it is autoblog we're talking about. Toyotas are handmade by God and their large V8s run on compost.
Reply
Greg 7:42PM (12/06/2006)
Wow.
Just looking at these photo's.... has really given me pause, I've been hunting for a good deal on a Ford Expedition.... but after looking at both the Lincoln and Ford's roofs.... I just lost my appetite for them
What the hell is wrong with Ford? Does this have anything to do with GM's announcement of rollover airbags? Is GM facing lawsuits too?
Putting luggage into my buddy's '01 Tahoe.... I noticed that the rear bumper was really flimsy, and I wondered if the steps 'plastic' top went right through to the bottom.
Cutting corners to save 200 lbs of needed safety construction is stupid... and the more I think about it, I'd have to be blanking stupid to buy one of these aluminum cans.
Reply
Howard Kerr 8:13PM (12/06/2006)
So much for all those folks who insist larger trucks and SUVs are so much safer because they are so solidly built.
Notice that all the vehicles on the list are trucks or SUVs...trucks or truck-based vehicles have always had a lower level of safety requirements. In 1994 Ford made the side door beams in Rangers stronger so that they could withstand a vehicle intrusion...YEARS after these beams were required in cars.
Reply
flat6turboGT1 7:19PM (12/07/2006)
i wonder if those crushed roofs have anything at all to do with the fact that every time I'm avoiding someone on the road it is a truck or SUV. maybe they should start paying attention... recall the recent articles on the Carrera GT that was totalled avoiding a pickup....
Reply
s0crates82 8:26PM (12/06/2006)
I'd rather drive a BMW than get crushed in a Ford.
...I need to make that bumper sticker.
Reply
rrr 9:10PM (12/06/2006)
Why is it that in all four pictures the seat of a rider next to the driver is completely totaled. In the first picture, Pick Up....there's no WAY the passenger survived.
You want to know the sad part?
I heard on TV that it would cost only $11 to make roof stronger. How many lives could have been saved.
Reply
rrr 8:28PM (12/06/2006)
You know what is funny?
F-250 Regular Cab > 3.6
F-250 Super Cab > 3.5
F-250 Crew Cab > 3.6
F-150 Regular Cab > 3.1
F-150 Super Cab > 3.1
F-150 Crew Cab > 2.9
Ford Expedition > 3.0
Lincoln Navigator > 3.0
Ford Explorer > 2.9
Mercury Mountaineer > 2.9
Ford E-Series Van > 3.6
All these trucks are basicaly one truck that has been rebadged. LOL
Reply
That One Person 8:52PM (12/06/2006)
rrr SHUT THE HELL UP...
You are an idiot. The F-150 and F-250 are different platforms. The Navi and Expedition are the same platform. The Explorer and Mountaineer are one platform. And I believe the E-Series is on a modified Super Duty platform. All those vehicles dont share the same platforms. Maybe the same engines but thats it.
Yeah, these pics are pretty disturbing. But I have seen GM, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota and even Mercedes' with worse rollover damage...
I am just glad Ford is doing something. It is a little late...
Reply
chuck goolsbee 9:19PM (12/06/2006)
Just FYI... on a Vintage Rally a few years back (The New England 1000) a late 50s Mercedes Benz 300sl ROADSTER ran into a full grown moose that had jumped out of the woods and onto the road. The moose went into the windscreen and was stopped from killing the passenger by the A PILLAR ALONE. Now THAT is a solidly built car!
From these photos you could crush a Ford Explorer with a 300sl's A pillar.
--chuck
Reply
Chet 9:50PM (12/06/2006)
How bad were the accidents that spawned these photos? Many people have an expectation of invincibility in big trucks and SUVs, but they're still hollow objects with lots of holes in them that their owners impart with a great deal of kinetic energy. And more than a few drivers treat their rigs like sports cars. Engineering has its limits. If NHTSA mandated a 1.5x mass crush resistance and the manufacturers met it, despite strong demand for these big vehicles to get more fuel efficient (read: lighter)... maybe Ford isn't the greedy corporate b*stard some commenters seem to think it is.
Make it bigger! Make it more powerful!
What?!? 11mpg?!? Make it more fuel efficient!
What?!? It's not indestructible? Call my lawyer!
Truth is, if Ford had stepped up and overbuilt the current-generation trucks, we'd be b*tching about their uncompetitive fuel economy and their blind spots.
Reply
motorman 10:19PM (12/06/2006)
that is why they put the wheels on the bottom of a car or truck not on the roof and they expect most drivers with any lick of common sense not have any problem doing that. they are not designed for amateur joey chitwoods. i have been driving for over 56 years and have owned a lot of fast cars and NEVER got one to turn turtle.
Reply
Pallinn 8:17AM (12/07/2006)
Erm... These images surprise you? Why? A 3 ton vehicle just landed on it's roof with obviously considerable force and it caved in. That's what happens, deal with it.
I don't want to burst any safety bubbles here but from my (admittedly not boundless) experience, this is pretty much what every SUV looks like after a bad rollover, be they Toyota Landcruisers or Ford Explorers.
Even one of them "3.5 times the vehicle's weight" superroofs is going to crush like a coke can if the vehicle lands on it with any momentum, which is sometimes the case.
Luckily, because they are "rollovers" after all, the force usually won't hit the roof full on and it will keep it's shape... but if the angle's wrong well then you're just going to get squashed.
Reply
Barney 8:40AM (12/07/2006)
Well, motor man, I ve been driving since the mid sixties and as a pro for the past twenty five. I haven't turned turtle either but seen a lot of accidents. Not all injured or damaged cars were of their own doing. I have an old 1952 pickup that would probably sit on it's roof without collapsing. No reason why a newer truck shouldn't be able to.
Reply
Eeved 3:25AM (12/07/2006)
Hmm...More reasons to not drive a Ford. Thanks Guys! =)
[And to think, people actually waste their money on Fords!]
Reply
iQuack 3:28AM (12/07/2006)
Mostly bad news from Ford lately.
Why are some people loyal to this POS company?
Must be some kind of delusion--just about anything from any other manufacturer is better.
Messing with Ford isn't worth the aggravtion.
Reply
Richard Warren 7:36AM (12/07/2006)
Love the link in the story going to an attorneys site. Big question, who is worse? Ford or a sleaze attorney looking to make a fast buck with an inflated award (many times unheard is after appeal the award gets reduced)?
Fact is, the majority of rollovers are driver induced, overdriving, poor recovery, panic, over correction, tire inflation, overloading, 4 wheel drive adventures.
This gets back to the fact that every design is a compromise of safety, cost, size, chances of the event and if the vehicle meets government standards at the time of manufacture.
Looking at pictures does not tell the whole story, it's what led up to the fact that pictures were needed.
Virtually everything we use on a daily basis could be considered unsafe and have a potential for a lawsuit.
So, climb up on that chair or bar stool and change that light bulb while the power is on.
The chair wiggles, you break the bulb, you get shocked, the chair tips over, you try to correct, your head hits the edge of the nearby table. You hit the floor, break your hip.
The wife rushes in to see what happened right after dropping the partially frozen turkey in the deep fryer that had too much oil in it. (the side of the house and wooden deck are now on fire)
She scoops you up, puts you in the ole Ford to run you to the hospital. The ole Ford has not had it's tires checked in months.
She is in such a hurry she runs off the pavement, over corrects, and rolls the truck. She tries to call from her uncharged cellphone she never plugs in, no answer, help finally arrives.
The police say it's a one car accident, insurance says it's collision, you pay a larger deductible, you find that you don't have rental coverage, but you insist the agent said yes (you never look at the bill)
The house had burned while you were gone.
All induced, not by the product, by by the people using them.
As an attorney wouldn't you love this one!
Reply
Dr. Woo 8:02AM (12/07/2006)
Thank goodness these are all photos of previous-generation models.
I sincerely hope Ford is making significant progress here. A higher center of gravity might make one pause and think about roof integrity, but apparently it isn't always so.
Reply
roadside observer 8:56AM (12/07/2006)
It's amazing how people can draw conclusions from those photos without knowing any of the facts behind the photos. I suppose that you also assume that the drivers had no culpability in these rollovers, like driving too fast for conditions, ignoring traffic signals/other traffic, trying to go around corners too quickly, or improper care/maintenance of the vehicle(like worn or underinflated tires)?
It never ceases to surprise me how people think they should hold no responsibility for their own actions ... that's it's always someone else's fault.
Oh - and for #5:
The Super Duty(F-250 through F-550) is on its own platform.
The F-150/Expedition/Navigator is on its own platform.
The Explorer/Mountaineer is on its own platform.
The E-Series van is on its own platform.
Try getting your facts right, please.
Reply
Rosey 10:07AM (12/07/2006)
I'm assuming that when Ford built theses vehicles, they did meet all requirements that the NHTSA set forth for roll-over protection. So why is everyone bashing on Ford? Shouldn't they bash on the NHTSA for not setting higher standards?
Lets say that you're building a house, the fire marshal says you need one smoke alarm per room. So you put in one smoke alarm in each room. A fire starts, that one smoke alarm doesn't work for whatever reason and your place burns down. Is it your fault for putting in one smoke alarm as required? Or should the fire marshal have required 2 per room?
Reply