Ford Explorer Rollovers
Does Ford Cover-Up the Facts to Suit It’s Purpose?

July 2,2007

By Carrisa Bisnar

Auto industry cover-ups are not an uncommon occurrence, especially for Ford Motor Company. Ford Motor Company has been under investigation numerous times for withholding pertinent information from the public and from authorities regarding defective and dangerous products. In fact, Ford Motor Company holds quite a history of secrecy and deceit.

Ford has endured several investigations regarding the continued production and or sale of products with known defects. Currently, the Ford company is facing much scrutiny concerning the rollover rates of its best-selling SUV—the Explorer model. There have been many allegations that the rollover-prone vehicle is responsible for the death and serious injury of numerous victims. Are these allegations leading to the publication of yet another defective product cover-up by the infamous auto manufacturer?

In the 1980’s, Ford acknowledged the emergence of a new type of market segment—compact sport-utility vehicles (SUV’s). This new segment was opened up by the introduction of the Isuzu Trooper in 1981 and then by the Jeep Cherokee, which was introduced in 1984. General Motors also joined the compact SUV craze with a plan to put the Chevy Blazer into production.

To fight the competition and maintain its market share, Ford created the Bronco II model followed by the Explorer model. The production of the Bronco II lasted a short six years—from 1984-1990. It was replaced by the Explorer model, which was introduced to the public in March of 1990 as a 1991 model.

The design of the Ford Explorer was very similar to that of the Bronco II. The Bronco II was built on the same frame as the Ford Ranger pickup truck and the Explorer model followed with a similar Ranger based platform. The wheelbases-to-height ratios were very similar as well. The Bronco II had a 1.38-inch wheelbase-to-height ratio and the Explorer adopted a similar style with a 1.51-inch wheelbase-to-height ratio. The Explorer also shared the same front end as the Bronco II model.

It is important to note the design similarities between the Ford Bronco II and the Ford Explorer due to the fact that the Bronco II model was known as being prone to rollover collisions. The frame of the Bronco II is the problem. It provides the vehicle with a higher center of gravity than most SUV’s, which causes the car to rollover more easily.

Technical Services Forensic Engineering has published reports, based on internal Ford documents, claiming that Ford knew the Bronco II model exhibited “handling” problems. Technical Services Forensic Engineering is a company that provides expertise in mechanical systems. The report describes that the Bronco II results in friction rollovers when the cornering forces (tire friction forces) generated by the driver’s steering input becomes high enough to cause the vehicle to rotate around its longitudinal axis and lift the tires off the ground.

In 1982, before the Bronco II was offered to the public, Ford engineers were conducting safety tests on the Bronco II at the Arizona Proving Ground. The vehicle repeatedly tipped up on its protective outriggers at speeds as low as 30 miles per hour. This is clear proof that the Ford Bronco II is very likely to rollover in the hands of the driving public.

Ford Bronco II lifts up on two wheels during routine safety testing in 1989.

Ford became very concerned immediately following these safety tests and even considered a last minute cancellation of the Bronco II production program. However, the SUV was very profitable, which led Ford Motor Company to continue the production and sale of the Bronco II, despite its tendency to rollover. According to this evidence, it is clear that Ford knew about the Bronco II’s rollover defect; however the car company failed to make any substantial modifications due to the costs that they would incur.

In 1987, the Ford Bronco II produced 43 rollover fatalities resulting in a formal investigation by the National Highway Traffic Association (NHTSA) in 1989. The investigation was closed in 1990 after David Bickerstaff, a Southfield engineer and expert witness, testified that the Bronco II’s rollover rates were as safe as other vehicles.

However, a reopening of the Bronco II rollover controversy has been under recent consideration due to the current release of reports, based on internal Ford documents, by Craig Linder and the Detroit Free Press. According to these reports, Ford Motor Company paid David Bickerstaff $5 million to testify that the Bronco II’s rollover rates were as safe as other vehicles. Apparently, Bickerstaff had originally testified that the Bronco II was dangerously prone to rollover collisions and changed his statements as soon as he began receiving payments from Ford.

All of the evidence that ties Ford Motor Company to its knowledge of the Bronco II’s defective frame leads to an even bigger scandal. Ford’s current best-selling SUV, the Ford Explorer, was originally built on the same pickup truck frame as the Bronco II, despite the known rollover behavior of the former. Many claim that the current rollover problems concerning the Ford Explorer are a result of Ford Motor Company’s decision to disregard the past mistakes made with the Bronco II. This claim is inaccurate. Ford Motor Company learned very well from the mistakes made with the Bronco II model. The car company learned that they could get away with murder, literally. They continued the production and sale of a product with a known defect and covered it up by offering bribes to provide false testimonies in court.

Ford Motor Company knew that the Explorer model was going to continue the same rollover problems of the Bronco II. The auto manufacturer knew that it was much more cost effective to continue the production of the new SUV with the same defective and rollover prone frame than to redesign the SUV and retool the production line. When Ford introduced the Explorer model in 1990, the company was concerned enough about its stability that it advised consumers to maintain a relatively low tire pressure of 26 pounds per square inch.

The car company continued a low tire pressure recommendation for many years. This recommendation eventually aided in the Ford/Firestone scandal and recall. This is just another example of Ford Motor Company’s lack of concern for public safety. By recommending a low tire pressure, the car company was attempting to use a temporary remedy as a permanent solution to a life threatening issue.

Ever since the federal government first made automobile safety a national concern, Ford Motor Company has been kicking and screaming in its attempts to avoid accountability. There are reports of 3,826 deaths in Bronco II and Explorer rollovers between 1983 and 2001. The car company’s record of addressing safety issues is marked by attempts to delay, block and obfuscate impending safety standards. This is an issue of public safety. The number and severity of rollover collisions could be drastically reduced if Ford Motor Company would make safety “job one”.

Currently Ford is fighting Congresses fuel economy mandate and NHTSA’s attempt to increase minimum roof strength to prevent roof crush injuries.

Bisnar | Chase has been awarded the highest ranking a law firm can be awarded, signifying that the lawyers have reached the best heights of professional excellence and are recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity.

*The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Icon is a service mark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under permission from Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. in accord with the terms and conditions established by Martindale-Hubbell.