posted
Too strange that they will rent a trailer to a Mountaineer owner.Same vehicle...different trim and emblems. Posts: 5682 | From: Dearborn,Mi. | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Surely they will include the Montaineer at a later date. It is amazing the kind of world we live in these days when politics and lawyers take presence in todays real world everyday events. Not slamming politicians or lawyers just saying they have the upper hand on just about everything. Just my $0.02 Personally, I could not be either of them (politician or lawyer) regardless how much money they make. I will shut up now..
-------------------- Darrell Cook
1998 Onyx Black 6-speed SS 1969 Rallye Green 4-speed Camaro Project Car: 1968 SS/RS 396 375hp 4-speed Camaro Posts: 59 | From: Bowling Green, KY | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Since I have a 4WD Explorer with a towing package and a frame mounted hitch you can bet this pi$$e$ me off! I wonder how long it will be before others follow suit!
BTW.....I just checked an Explorer Forum I belong to and a post on this subject that was just started is now up to 11 pages...........everyone is really hacked off by this. Should be interesting to follow in the days ahead!
[ 08. January 2004, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: SS_CarGuy ]
Posts: 502 | From: Fort Mill, South Carolina....Charlotte | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
This thing gets better by the minute! All kinds of members are contacting FORD and U-Haul. Right now FORD is pretty much brushing this aside....here is a typical response received by one member:
"Dear Pete,
Thank you for your message of 01/6/04 regarding your 1996 Ford Explorer. We appreciate the time you have taken to write us concerning U-Haul's renting policies.
The Ford Explorer, which has virtually defined the compact, sport utility vehicle segment since its introduction in 1990. The Explorer retains the type of rugged good looks that have made it the industry's most popular SUV.
Pete, to directly assist you with your request, we recommend that you contact U-haul directly. We value you as a customer and are confident that U-haul would be in the best position to address this matter on your behalf.
Ford Motor Company is committed to maintaining a satisfying and long-term relationship with our customers. Your loyalty is valued and appreciated. We would like you to continue to enjoy the many Ford products and services that we have to offer.
At Ford Motor Company, we consider the satisfaction of our customers as one of our most important objectives. If you have any other inquiries or concerns, please feel free to contact us and we will be happy to address them.
Thank you for contacting Ford Motor Company.
Sincerely, Edwin Ford Motor Company (tr) Customer Relationship Center"
Since this reply basically says absoluely nothing, it will be interesting to see if Ford is forced into dealing with this issue head on later.......man there are going to be a lot of really irate people out there since Ford has sold millions of Explorers!
-------------------- Dave S Black 2000 Camaro SS Posts: 502 | From: Fort Mill, South Carolina....Charlotte | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Before all the owners start getting upset with Ford and U-Haul they need to realize that neither one of these companies brought this on. This whole thing is costing both of these companies millions of dollars. The owners and their lawyers that sued these companies are the ones responsible for this happpening and they should be the ones the rest of the owners should be upset with not the companies themselves.
Posts: 52 | From: Michigan | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by ws6wu6: Before all the owners start getting upset with Ford and U-Haul they need to realize that neither one of these companies brought this on. This whole thing is costing both of these companies millions of dollars. The owners and their lawyers that sued these companies are the ones responsible for this happpening and they should be the ones the rest of the owners should be upset with not the companies themselves.
I think you are right about the attornies...but unfortunately the two companies (Ford and UHaul) are the only ones who can solve this problem...NOT THE ATTORNIES. And Ford stands to lose big time on this. Not only are their existing customers affected but the future owners of every new Explorer they sell from here on out will not be able to rent a trailer from UHaul either......read the article!
This is a real mess that will not go away any time soon.
-------------------- Dave S Black 2000 Camaro SS Posts: 502 | From: Fort Mill, South Carolina....Charlotte | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Well Ford only has a limited amount of pressure they can put on U-haul so really there isn't much Ford can do about it. I did read the article that is why I said it is costing these companies millions of dollars. Do you think Ford likes the idea that this is going to affect their future sales. Of course not but there is only so much they can do. Also U-haul is going to lose business because anyone that drives an Explorer will have to go someplace else and will probably continue to go someplace else. Well what do you expect U-haul to do spend more money defending court cases then they make off trailer rentals to explorer owners. That deosn't make good business sense. It still comes down to if they want to get U-haul to rent trailers to them then quit suing them. That isn't in the companies control it comes back to the lawyers greed and the owners not willing to take responsibility.
Posts: 52 | From: Michigan | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
FireChicken
11 Secret Herbs & Spices
Member # 2067
posted
Personally, I dont hold Uhaul at fault for this decision at all. They are simply reacting to an environment where personal responsibility is on the decline, as lawsuits increase. If they have to fight lawsuits on a regular basis because people dont follow instructions, use common sense, or take accountability, then they will go out of business.
Its a shame, but I see the purpose in their decision.
The second problem is that I assume most of this relates to the roll-over crap from a few years ago. Some people just dont understand that if you drive an explorer at 75 mph and try to make a hard turn, you are going to roll. If you are driving an SUV, you have to drive much slower, mostly because of the higher center of gravity. you end up requiring less force to tip the vehicle. Putting a trailer on ANY vehicle increased the complexity in its operation, no matter what kind of vehicle it is. Again, another stab into the heart of personal responsibility.
posted
Many people that do rent a U-Haul trailer go way too fast or have it loaded wrong so that it sways.Most U-Haul trailers have a 45mph max sticker on them.
Posts: 5682 | From: Dearborn,Mi. | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by 2002Z4CSS: Many people that do rent a U-Haul trailer go way too fast or have it loaded wrong so that it sways.Most U-Haul trailers have a 45mph max sticker on them.
Yeah, it's even posted backwards on the fender so you can read it in your mirror.
I heard this morning that someone is suing Walmart because the plastic sack their groceries was in broke, causing the contents to fall on their foot and ankle, injuring them. Does that make sense? Sue Walmart because a sack broke?
posted
Have to agree with the flaiming birdman on this one. I see this as U-haul just defending itself from more lawsuits, to the dismay of Explorer owners. If you're pissed, then put the blame where it belongs, most likely the idiots who improperly used the equipment. While some accidents may have been legit, I'll bet the majority was IIA (Idiocy in Action).
Many times, lawyers can sniff out a quick settlement from tired-of-being-sued corporations that don't want the negative publicity or whatever reason. They're in it more often than not for their cut of the pie, not for justice. To stem the flow of cash, it's easiest, although not the most business-savvy, decision to just stem the flow of blood by pinching it at its source, apparently in this case Ford Explorer.
Mad or not, there's not much anyone can do about it. Buy some Moutaineer badging and fake out the U-haul place. Brand discrimination? Yep. Is it against the law? Nope. Another reason you should buy a Tahoe or Denali!!! Posts: 577 | From: Aiken, SC | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
There have been similar accidents with Mountaineers, but the percentage of Explorers on the road to Mountaineers is considerable, and so the accident figures. Plus, Mountaineers sell to a more highly educated/older demographic...perhaps these people are more aware or educated about their vehicles and maintenance/stability issues than Explorer owners.
This statement says a bunch:
“The bottom line is, if you don’t overload the vehicle and you’ve got the proper tires with the appropriate ratings and they are properly inflated and you drive with common sense, you really shouldn’t have any problems.”
That's the WHOLE key and safety equation on ANY vehicle...
...I wonder how many people who were involved in those accidents that sued Ford and Firestone complied with those guideliness...d@mn few I would guess. However, if a vehicle manufacturer ignores a tire maker's recommendation with regards to tire pressure for a certain vehicle and advertises a lower pressure to give their vehicle a better ride quality, and this in itself is a cause or the primary cause for the blowout, then they should be held liable. There has been some discussion that Ford did just that...
-------------------- 'b0
1991 Formula SLP350 A4 2001 Mitsu Eclipse GT A4 2001 Chevy Blazer ZR2 4x4 2002 SOM Trans Am Firehawk M6 #360
posted
wonder how many people who were involved in those accidents that sued Ford and Firestone complied with those guideliness...d@mn few I would guess. However, if a vehicle manufacturer ignores a tire maker's recommendation with regards to tire pressure for a certain vehicle and advertises a lower pressure to give their vehicle a better ride quality, and this in itself is a cause or the primary cause for the blowout, then they should be held liable. There has been some discussion that Ford did just that...
AMEN to that,,,,,,,
-------------------- 94 Z28/UltraZ Hood & Box/2 1/2 Drop/52mmTB & Bypass/160 Stat/Pulley/ Catback & pipe/Shifter/Kirkey seats/5 point belts/WW Wing/Ford9"-4.11- Detroit locker-Strange axles/ZEKE'S Heads & LT4 HC/Stainless Headers & Y/1LE Panhard/BMR SFCs-STB-Relo Brackets-Tunnel Brace-Adj Tq arm-adj Sway bar-Adj LCAs/ Line lock & LT4 PP & clutch/Monster tach & light/T REX F Pump/T shifter grip/DS Loop/A Great Friend MIKE !!24/08/03=12.487@113.486/1.785 60ft. 19/10/03=12.477@113.030 /1.807 60ft. 15/05/04=12.438@112.269/1.767 60ft www.timelord3.com www.stealthperf.com www.timelord3.com Posts: 558 | From: Loretteville,Mars | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by SS_CarGuy: [QBBTW.....I just checked an Explorer Forum I belong to and a post on this subject that was just started is now up to 11 pages...........everyone is really hacked off by this. Should be interesting to follow in the days ahead! [/QB]
My sister has an Explorer, as well as 3 people at work. Could you post or email me the Explorer forum, so I can pass it on to them?
-------------------- '02 SOM SS Camaro #3111 M6, Hurst, every GM option Mods: !CAGS, SLP CAI, SLP lid, K & N filter, SLP bellows, power antenna, air temp module, 160 thermostat, Hotchkis sig. series STB, SLP bolt on SFC's, engine plaque, NGK 55 plugs, Mobil 1, Custom rear deck mat, MBA letters on back, Raptor shift light, Silverstar bulbs, Lou's short stick, QTP cut out, SLP decal,Auto Headlights Disable Mod, Decklid Hatch Spring Mod, Drill mod for clutch hydraulics, stronger M6 parts added, Painted calibers, 4 Drilled & Slotted rotors, SS floor mats, SSOA member M02-3111 Posts: 641 | From: northern Delaware | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Personally, I could not be either of them (politician or lawyer) regardless how much money they make. I will shut up now.. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
