Honda Fit Tires..

It's just another example of guv'ment getting in your face. Soon you
will be told when to get up, what to have for breakfast, when to have a
crap, when to socialize etc. etc. etc...

Ya jis gotta git use(d) to it!

JT

 

the diffusion rate probably needs checking. tubless tires are usually
liked with a chlorinated rubber that's got a much lower diffusion rate
than other compounds.

 

jeepers, spelling. tubeless and lined, not liked.

 

actually, this is frod's doing, not "guv'ment" per se. frod were the
ones who spent hundreds of millions of dollars convincing legislators
that it was a tire problem, not a fundamental vehicle problem when their
exploder killed and injured thousands of americans when their product
rolled and the roof collapsed, just because of a flat tire.

 

IIRC the moisture comes from compressing air containing water vapor, not
that the compressor generates it. Special filters remove most of it from
compressed air for SCUBA.

 

I think you are being unfair to Ford. Here are my thoughts:

1) 4 Door Explorers of the mid 1990s had a lower lower rollover death rate
than 4Runners, S10 Blazers, Troopers, and many other contemporary mid-sized
4 Door 4WD SUVs (see
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3507.pdf )
2) 50% of 1996 Explorers were sold with Goodyear tires that did not
experience the same high incident of tire blowouts as Firestone tire
equipped Explorers from the same model year.
3) After Ford recalled the Firestone equipped Explorers and replaced the
tires, the tire failure rate dropped drastically.
4) The Ford recommended tire pressures were well above the minimum required
to safety support a properly loaded Explorer (even Firestone finally
acknowledged this). In fact other SUVs (4Runners and Pathfinders) of the era
had the same size tires with the same pressure recommendations.
5) The press made a big deal about front suspension, vehicle height, and J
manuver testing that was related to the Generation 1 Explorers. However,
most of the tire failures occured on Generation 2 Explorers that had a
completely different front suspension. Ironically, the Generation 1
Explorers that had the "bad" twin traction beam front suspension and the bad
handling characteristics had very good accident statistics (see
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3009.pdf ) - but then they
didn't suffer the sort of tire failures experienced by later models with the
improved front suspension and a wider track - go figure.

I suppose Ford did spend millions defending the Explorer. And Firestone
spent millions trying to smear Ford and deflect blame for faulty tires. If
you want to trash Ford for installing crappy Firestone tires on Explorers,
then I agree with you. But I do not agree that there was an inherent vehicle
design flaw that made 4 Door Explorers less safe than was typical for orther
similar sized SUVs of the era. Certainly Generation 1 and 2 Explorers are
not as safe as current models, but they were not less safe than
contemporary SUVs of similar size and cost. I do believe that the two door
Explorers (the Explorer Sports), particualrly the 2WD versions, were not as
safe as most 4 door SUVs becasue of the shorther wheelbase. The reduced
stability (comapred to 4 dr Explorers) and the fact that 2 Door 2 WD
Explorers were realtively cheap and attarctive to younger buyers are the
chief reasons that 2 Door Explorers had significantly worse accident
statistics than 4 door Explorers. However, even the relatively dangerous
95-97 2Dr 4WD Explorer Sport had a lower driver death rate than the
supposedly safe 96-97 4 dr, 4wd Toyota 4Runner. To be fair to Toyota, it is
important to note that the current generation 4Runner is one of (if not)
the safest mid/large SUV you can buy. On the other hand, the first
generation 4Runenr was a virtual death trap. Every generation improved (but
then the same is true for many vehicles).

It is always difficult to interpert accident statistics since they are a
influenced by both the vehicle design and the types of drivers that are
attracted to the vehicle. Explorers were among the first SUVs to attract
non-traditional truck buyers. I believe that lots of people who were brought
up driving traditional cars ended up driving Generation 1 and 2 Explorers
because of the SUV craze that started in the mid-90s. These peole were not
used to driving vehicles with a high center of gravity and therefore were
more prone to making mistakes that led to a rollover accident. However, the
fact remains that Explorers of that era had a relatively low accident death
rates. For sure death rates related to rollover type accidents were higher,
but overall death rates were lower than for many contemporary vehicles.

Ed

 

That's why I ask if there was a way to turn it off and/or if it had a
dedicated fuse.

But I'm going to leave it alone and wait for my urination monitor.

 

My car buddy mentioned the air filler at self-service gas stations. The
ones where water comes out with the air.

 

<snip shilling bullshit>

no "ed", stop spamming this forum with your paid detroit bullshit.

fact 1. frod knew the vehicle had a stability problem at prototype,
before production.

fact 2. they decided to proceed with production because it was cheap and
the profit margins were huge.

fact 3. they knew the roof would collapse, but hid behind "truck"
regulations to ensure they didn't need to spend the few bucks per
vehicle necessary to strengthen the roof pillars to give it sufficient
rollover strength - the rollovers they knew would happen.

fact 4. frod did their classic pinto-style cost benefit analysis, i.e.
(profit margin x sales volumes) - (average payouts to families of
bereaved x expected fatality rate) = profit. thus they proceeded and
bound the recipients of bereavement payouts to silence.

fact 5. when frod /were/ caught and exposed for what they'd done, they
showed up in d.c. with no less than FIVE lobbyists PER REPRESENTATIVE to
whitewash the whole goddamned thing and screw a perfectly innocent tire
manufacturer. (but who gives a **** about our japanese military and
economic allies, right ed?)

fact 6. no vehicle should roll just because of a flat. period.

fact 7. no vehicle should have the roof collapse just because it rolls.
period.

fact 8. any corporate officers involved in producing a vehicle with
known fatal defects, and for which they had to override the safety
warnings of multiple engineers, and even multiple nhtsa safety officers
with multiple steps 1 through 7 above, should be doing at least 30 years
for manslaughter. and getting ass-raped while doing it.

now, you goddamned prostitute., **** off back to detroit and tell your
masters what i just told you. especially #8.

 

the water is already in the air - it's called "humidity". compression
and cooling simply allows it to condense.

 

This is BS, straight from the scum sucking shark lawyer playbook. As I
pointed out in the past, the engineering documents that scum suckers pick
select phrases from were related to the generation 1 Explorers that had the
twin traction beam type front suspension. Most of the Firestone tire
problems were assocaited with the second generation Explores that had
upper/lower A arm type front suspension with torsion bars. Only a moron or a
trial lawyer would try to use engineering documents assocaited with the
first generation Explorers to try and draw conclusions about the second
generation Explorers As I also pointed out, the First generation explorers
that supposedly had the stability problems actually have very good accident
statistics. So you are taking engineering doucments out of context, applying
them to a substantially differnt vehicle, and drawing ridiculous conclusion.
Lawyers do this so they can extort money. Why are you doing it?

And this is different from other vehicle manufacturers in what way? How is
this different that wht Toyota did with the first generation 4Runner? (see
http://www.sjblaw.com/CM/Highlights/Toyota-Crashworthiness.asp for a Scum
Sucking Trial Lawyer attack on the first generation 4Runners).

The Explorer's roof exceeded the government standards in place at the time
(even the scum sucking trail lawyer sponsored Canter for Auto Safety admits
this is true). There is no separate "truck" regualtions for Ford to hide the
Explorer behind - "Standard No. 216 - Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars
(except convertibles) (Effective 9-1-75) and Multipurpose Passenger
Vehicles, Trucks and Buses (except school buses) with a Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating of 2722 kg (6,000 lbs.) or less (Effective 9-1-94), This standard
specifies requirements for roof crush resistance over the passenger
compartment (see
http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/industry/design/roof_crush/gm_docs/12.pdf
) . SUVs and cars have had to meet the same standard since the 1970's. The
government eventually raised the standards, but the fact is, most of the
mid-90's small SUVs would not meet the current standards. There was (still
is) disagreement over the importance of roof crush strenght. The IIHS is
recommending very high crush resistance. Vehicle manufacturers (including
Toyota) argue that the very high levels of resistance advocated by IIHS are
unnecessary. You might be interested to compare current models - see
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/roof/detailsbyclass.aspx?55 .

You are making this up this up. And BTW, it wasn't even true for the Pinto.
You might like to read these:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/toyotas-coutroom-tactics-intended-stalling-deception-and-hidden-documents/
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/10/toyota.whistleblower/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Schwartz_Study

What has Ford trying to state it's case got to do with the Japanese? I
assume you are making up the 5 lobbyist per representative BS. And for sure
you are making up stuff when you claim Firestone was " perfectly innocent
tire manufacturer." It is such a ridiculous statemnt that I can't even
imaigne you making that claim. What comes to mind if I say Radial 500 or
721?

You might want to read:
http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=232
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/13/business/13ford.html

Look at the stats - Explorers were no more likely to roll than other
contemporary SUVs. The 4 door models have better accident and death rates
that similar SUVs from other manufactuers from the same time period. And I
don't think anyone would claimed they rolled jsut becasue of a flat. Car and
Driver demonstarted that this was not the case. I think the most you can say
is the vehicle rolled becasue of the response of the driver to a flat. Have
you ever had the tread peel off car you were riding in? I have. At least in
my case it was very dramatic. If you panic, bad things can happen. If you
panic driving an SUV, it is easier to make bad things happen. See:
http://www.explorerexpress.com/reviews/car_and_driver.php .

You are just repeating yourself here. See factoid 3 for my response.

So are you leading the charge to arrest the execs at Toyota, Honda,
etc?......They have all covered up problems in the past.

Very articulate of you. I recommend that you actually try researching the
truth instead of spewing a bunch of hate filled half-truths, outright lies,
and trail lawyer ads.

Ed

 

actually ed, it's the truth, as submitted to courts under oath.

as for the rest of your bullshit, if you're not going to acknowledge
truth, and prostitute yourself for just a few detroit shekels, then, i
hope you end up getting ass-raped some day too. people like you may get
away with deception for a while, but sooner or later it catches up with
you. and bubba will be waiting.

 

....and the net result is that guv'ment did get in our face. Well not
mine, I don't and don't ever plan to own such a vehicle.

JT

 

no, frod got in our face with their corrupt whitewashing of their
deliberate manslaughter. "guv'ment" is simply the product of a populace
that allows corporations to buy their way out of jail.

 

As you know by now, it is mandated by federal law.

It monitors the tire pressure. You have yet to tell us why you want to
pull the fuse and turn it off.

You have yet to tell us how that system interferes with your life.[/QUOTE]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0813/Scientists-hack-into-cars-computers-control-brakes-engine