From: bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian J Queiser)
Subject: Re: Bronco II scandal in Wall Street Journal
Keywords: bronco
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:11:41 GMT

ppandit@rekha.esd.sgi.com (Parimal Pandit) writes:

>In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, they had a long article about
>the Bronco II. How Ford, in a hurry to match Chevy Blazer, used a
>old design to build the Bronco. This led to numerous safety and
>rollover problems.
>
>Ford realized this but instead of redesigning a better vehicle, they
>brought in lawyers during the development of the vehicle so that they
>can prepare for the lawsuits that were bound to happen. So far 231 people
>have died because of these roller problem and the Bronco had the
>worst rating of any SUV.
>
>I thought about buying a Taurus. Forget it now.
>At Ford, Money is Job 1.
>
>Anyone else see the article and care to comment?

I, too, read this article and thought that it's reporting was quite
fair and thorough, as I feel about most of what I read in that paper.

Some clarifications about the subject, given the post above, are
required, IMHO.

According to the article, as is also widely known, the Bronco II was
built on the Ranger chassis, a design that was not all that old at the
time (1982).  The Bronco II was about 6 months behind the development
and release schedule of the Blazer.  There was pressure to get the
BII off asap due to market considerations and CAFE; this, IMHO from
what I know about the auto industry, is the norm, not the exception.

According to the article, there was concern from the beginning about the
BII's low rollover ratio figure, a number that is calculated by dividing
the transverse length between the wheels by the height of the vehicle's CG;
the higher this number, the better.  When it was beginning to become clear
that the BII was going to have a hard time coming near the Blazer's
expected rollover ratio of 2.25 (the BII's was about 2.0), Ford started
collecting documents, memos, etc. and getting their lawyers involved.
This might seem suspicious, but if you ask me (and I know you didn't), it
seems somewhat logical given our increasingly litegious society.

Before the vehicle was released, Ford engineers made somewhat futile
attempts to increase the rollover ratio--and they did, although still
falling well short of their goal.  However, they did make suspension
changes and strengthened the chassis in parts, in order to prevent
rollover.  Their lawyers knew that the rollover ratio was an unwritten
industry standard and had been used and accepted in court before, but
as we all know from dynamics and strength of materials, there is more
to it than that.  What I got from the article was that Ford wanted to
be prepared in case there were problems, they wanted to be able to
provide carefully documented evidence that there were other attempts
made to make the vehicle safe.

So I wholeheartedly disagree with the posted statement that Ford merely
brought in their lawyers and released the vehicle a la Pinto.  The
lawyers were quite clearly brought in very early in the design and
development stages.

There's a whole lot more to this issue than is presented here.  It was,
perhaps, one of the longest articles I'd ever read in the Journal.
Bottom line is, though, that more people have died in rollover accidents
in the Bronco II than even the Samurai.  Ford has settled a number of
the cases, lost a few in court, won a few in court, and has roughly
100 pending.

On a personal note, my mother had two Bronco IIs.  The first was an
'84.  I pretty much learned to drive on that thing, and I thought it
was a blast to drive.  However, during one of my many fits of
speeding in my teenage years, I took the truck around a residential
street corner a little too fast.  I can't know for sure, but it sure felt
like the inside front wheel lifted.  I was going maybe 40mph.  Once,
though, my mother was driving her '89 in very snowy, cold conditons
on the highway.  For some stupid reason, she didn't have the 4WD
engaged and she lost control.  The truck headed into the median (a deep,
grassy V-shaped strip about 40ft wide, 5-6ft deep) and began to spin around.
Somehow she probably literally bounced out of the V and into oncoming
traffic, which was light.  Next thing she knew, she was across the other
side of the highway, stopped dead on the side of the road as if she just
pulled over and parked there.  She was driving about 50-55mph before it
all happened.  No chassis damage or nothing.  Very bizarre, but no rollover.

You can all make your own conclusions about this truck, but I'd dump
your thoughts about ditching a Taurus because you think Ford is bad
and money hungry, willing to kill people to make a buck.  The BII was
never found to be conclusively unsafe by the government, nor even
Consumer Reports, the rag that killed the Samurai (they just said to
"avoid" the BII).  The numbers of deaths don't say much by themselves.
You have to factor in total sales, total rollovers, driver error,
and driving/road conditions.  Given the figures that were published in the
Journal article (which I wish I still had), there isn't much to convince
me that the BII is all that much more unsafe, if at all, than any other
SUV.

Comparing Taurus to Bronco II is apples and oranges all over again.

As usual, though, YMMV.

Regards,

Brian

bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am the engineer, I can choose K.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Engineering Mechanics
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH