Clash of the Titans: Ford v.s. GM

I don't know if this is in the right forum. So lock or move as you see fit Mods. It's just an issue that's been nagging me.

It's my understanding that GM launched an advertising campaign in the 70's saying that seat belts are dangerous and it's better to be thrown around in a car during a crash. All this so the public won't want seat belts installed. And they reasoned that the campaign, which cost millions is worth 10 pounds per car where the seat belts would cost 30 pounds per car in the UK. At that time, there was overwhelming evidence from government reports that says seat belts saves lives.

More recently, I read that the Ford explorers had wiring in the rear light array (left I think) that could lead to the gas tank exploding on fairly minor rear impacts. And Ford decided it was cheaper to litigate and pay liabilities than issue a recall, so they kept it quiet.

Both acts are equally dispicable. And I guess it's hard to pick a winner in this contest. But the real question I have is this: With companies so blatantly disregarding human life in pursuit of profits, why don't consumers respond? Why was there no boycott of Ford products? Why didn't car buyers say, you don't care about our lives, so we don't care about your's?

Answer To Your Question Is Short And Simple.
People Want What They Want. Suv`s Are The Rage Now. The Explorer Has Been Damned Since It`s Conception, But,IT Still SeLLs. Why,? People Want Them.

As long as people know what they're buying - let them get what they want. We don't stop people from jumping out of airplanes, why the heck would they be disuaded from buying a cheap SUV on the off chance it might blow up.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I'm not trying to tell people what to do.

I'm simply surprised at what they don't do. Obviously these corporate types only respond to money. So make them lose a ton of it, and maybe, in the future, they won't think human life is so cheap. Or at least they'll know the consequences of disregarding human life isn't cheap.

And your responses surprise me more than anything.

How can you respond with indifference instead of outrage?

they don't call them ford exploders for nothing

There is a possibility that in the 1970's GM might have genuinely believed that seat belts were unsafe. There needs to be proof that they were doing that ad campaign purely to save money on seat belts.

Even if it is true that GM were lobbying against seat belts for financial gain you have to remember that the 1970's was a long time ago. Being bitter at GM now is like being bitter at Mitsubishi in the 70's because they made warplanes that were used against us in the 40's.

GM in the 1970's was very different from how it is today. There have been countless corporate reshuffles and nowadays there are more realistic, engineering minded people in charge and less cold-hearted, arrogant bureaucrats.

Every car make will do this, guy. And people will buy whatever. It's like voting for John Kerry. Its a stupid idea, but in the end people will do it anyway.

Please keep politics out of this forum. And I don't believe that Toyota or Honda would display such a blatant disregard for human life just to make a little money. And in return, people buy their product because they know that it's relatively safe and errorproof.

no car is error proof

I'm not a fan of Japanese cars and I hate to say it, but if there was a holocaust and the world became a waste land, the first thing I would do is run to my nearest Toyota dealer to steal a Landcruiser.

Look at any survey and comparison, American cars, even German cars can't compete with Japanese for reliability.

As I understand it, the Japanese obscess over detail and try their best to get everything perfect before a car is sold. That way, they save money by needing less recalls.

It's my understanding that GM launched an advertising campaign in the 70's saying that seat belts are dangerous and it's better to be thrown around in a car during a crash. All this so the public won't want seat belts installed. And they reasoned that the campaign, which cost millions is worth 10 pounds per car where the seat belts would cost 30 pounds per car in the UK. At that time, there was overwhelming evidence from government reports that says seat belts saves lives.

I'm not in a position to dispute your claim, so I'm not calling you mis-informed or anything. But it seems a little odd. GM-US was the first car company in the world to offer airbags, on 1970 Chevrolet (full size). And GM-Holden, which GM owns (and of which I am familar with) chose to fit seat belts as standard equipment to all Holdens since 1966 - years before Government mandated them here. Not what I'd call the actions of a safety-derilect company, you agree?

This is a report I read in either Car or Evo. They're both British magazines. I believe sometime in the last four months. You can check them out if you want. But I don't think they would make something like this up.

I've never heard of that seat belt story....My truck is a 76 and its seat belts work just fine.( i know because i've been run into)

More recently, I read that the Ford explorers had wiring in the rear light array (left I think) that could lead to the gas tank exploding on fairly minor rear impacts.

I always thought of GM cars more likely to explode on you. My cousin has a friend who is very well off. I found out that, it was a long time ago maybe 10 years, anyway this girl's grandfather died when his gmc exploded on him. I dont know if it was a truck or a suv, but the woman and her family sued GM and won, getting lots of money. I've never heard of gmcs blowing up though until she told me that. Anybody heard of simular cases?

Yeah, for awhile GMC and Chevy pickups had the gas tank on the outside of the frame rails on the driver's side, making it much more likely for the tank to rupture and cause an explosion/fire if the vehicle was hit from that side. There was a big brouhaha during the 80's.

Kinda Sounds Like Gm Caught That Virus From Ford. You Know, The Pinto With The Exploding Gas Tank, And The Self Destructing "firestone" Tires.. Bigger Brouhaha Over This One.

Yep. You ever see the wear pattern on tires from the front end of an Exploder or "Twin I-Beam" suspended pickups? Worn all to hell on both inside and outside, almost without exception. Conlcusion: Tires underinflated, tires never rotated (both consumer problems) or suspension puts side loads on tires.

The exploding Pinto we made fun of all through college.

Weren't Pontiac Fieros notorious for randomly catching fire on the highway?

I've heard that about the Fieros to, but not about the Explores.And about the firestone tires wasn't Fords fault and ford stopped putting firestones on their car and trucks, but why GM still does is beyond me.

kman10587--Please keep politics out of this forum. And I don't believe that Toyota or Honda would display such a blatant disregard for human life just to make a little money. And in return, people buy their product because they know that it's relatively safe and errorproof.

HMMM kinda contradicted what you wrote huh?? by teh way nothing is flawless

tot eh orig debate....

we are also talking about the same ppl who ride around on those firestone tires with 90psi in the tires, i dont know how many ppl brought cars in with tires over inflated or underinfalte cuz it didnt LOOK right. and now were asking the question about seatblelts and the exploding gas tanks??? in point, alot of ppl are naieve about cars and could care less. unfortunatley ignorance and apathy apply to alot of ppl involving cars. Id be willing to bet that 80percent or mroe of those ppl driving the new ford exploders, dont even know that it could explode... as far as the 1970s ad that chevy put out about seatbelts, that was along time ago and it was pretty dispicable,but EVERY car manu could care less about human life over the almighty buck, sad but true..all cars have a fault in them somewhere that could hurt ya, they just dont share abougt it cuz itll cost too much to fix....and anybody that is dumb enough to ride around with no seatbelt or the chance to blow up, why hold it against the car manu...i mean we are in the age of ppl that need directions on the back of soap boxes on how to use properly....just a thought

kman10587--Please keep politics out of this forum.

What'd I say?

kman10587--Please keep politics out of this forum. And I don't believe that Toyota or Honda would display such a blatant disregard for human life just to make a little money. And in return, people buy their product because they know that it's relatively safe and errorproof.

HMMM kinda contradicted what you wrote huh?? by teh way nothing is flawless
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GASSIN ABOUT? I SAID NOTHING I DID NOT MEAN. IF POLITICS GOT IN, SO WHAT! IF YOUR "GOD" I AM TRULY SORRY. OTHER WISE, KISS MY A--.

Cool it guys.

.....i seem to remember that for a long time during the testing of seat belts, lots of things did go wrong.
don't forget that you are talking about seatbelts of more then 30 years ago.

even as recent as five years ago, incorrectly fitted seatbelts could in extreme circumstances, de-capitate you.
(i vaguely remember a story in a tabloid about a kid was killed in this way).
airbags, if you aren't sitting correctly, can kill you.

you three year old car with it's 4* passenger saftey doesn't stand a chance against a new car with 4* passenger safety.

things go wrong with new cars.
that's a given.
manufacturers try to the best of their ability to reduce faults before shipping out cars but sometimes there are things that just couldn't be forseen.

did think bmw know about the first mini ones would se themselves on fire?
did toyota know that the first yaris's to get to uk would need to have their brakes re-calibrated?

stove bolt if you look closely at who i was reffering my comment too, it wasnt you. GEEZ kid lay off the caffine and redmeat, and keep the immature language to yourself, remember just a forum not do ir die...have a nice day none the less, but read everyting before you respond with such beligerance

oh and by teh way stove never said anything about disagreeing with your comment anyhow, think ya better re read what my comment was, think long and hard this time about what it means...cyas

yeah i remember a few cases in the early 70s to mid 70s before shoulder straps were put into effect and even when they were. Few cases where ppl who were in a rolling cars accidnet, were cuz in half at the mid section, or cut severly due to the force of the roll. if youve ever been in an accident or rearended, that seat belt really hurts when your thrown forward, in most cases itll leave a bruise on your chest and waste. Air bags can break your neck if you hit it hard enough....really when you think about it NOTHING is truely safe except watching what your doing and trying not to get in an accident.