Return-Path:
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 04:52:30 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks97up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks97up-digest)
To: fordtrucks97up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks97up-digest V1 #37
Reply-To: fordtrucks97up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks97up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks97up-digest Friday, March 27 1998 Volume 01 : Number 037



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1997 And Newer Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
fordtrucks97up-digest-request listservice.net
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send
email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

RE: head restraints ["Chad Royse" ]
Grab Bars [Jim Lujan ]
97 Exhaust ["Ron Joyce" ]
Ford QUALITY & Executive Salaries ["." ]
re: Head restraints in 99 crew cab [Rich Cower ]
re: head restraints in 99 crew cabs [Rich Cower ]

=======================================================================

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:51:05 -0500
From: "Chad Royse"
Subject: RE: head restraints

I'm curious, what do you use your truck for? It sounds like a grocery
mobile, kid hauler. The trucks you are buying are serious haulers. About
as serious as it gets (for pickups). Why don't you have your wife haul the
kids in something more realistic, and save the truck for when your towing or
hauling?

Also, I think I know why you can't get anyone at Ford to talk to you about
it. I really don't think that Ford had Wives driving kids to soccer
practice in mind when they designed the F350 Crew Cab Truck. I think they
were thinking more along those lines with the Explorer and Expedition.

Last thing... You really couldn't put your family in a safer vehicle. A
truck like yours is going to "win" almost ANY vehicle to vehicle collision.
The only time I would see a full size truck being less safe than an
automobile is when hitting a large solid object, like a concrete pillar to
an over-pass. Their frames are so stiff they wouldn't absorb much shock.

So I really wouldn't worry about it. Or if you're still THAT concerned, get
a vehicle that does meet your needs (or keep your '97, come on... did you
really were it out in a year?).

Best regards,
Chad

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-fordtrucks97up ListService.net
[mailto:owner-fordtrucks97up ListService.net]On Behalf Of Rich Cower
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 9:28 PM
To: 'fordtrucks97up listservice.net'
Subject: re: head restraints


Ken - a serious answer:

The boys are 8 and 9, with a little one in a car seat. I have a 16 year old
daughter that
needs to ride back there too. With the exception of the baby, they are all
tall enough that their heads would impact the rear window in a rear end
collision. I've put them in the back seat of a 99 Crew Cab on the lot and
verified this. It was also in our intent to keep this vehicle for a long
time - and these kids aren't going to get any smaller.

I have to disagree, the cars we've looked at (volvo's, bmw's and even the
hummer) have head restraints on the rear seat. The big difference is in a
car - when the head snaps back it does not hit a glass window. I'm sure you
can see the difference in a head hitting nothing vs. a head impacting the
rear window of a pickup. It's whiplash vs. head trauma. I drive a Volvo
now, my wife (and kids) usually ride in our 97 Crew Cab Ford (with
restraints on the rear seat). Saftey is very important to us.

My question is more basic - why did Ford remove this saftey feature - it's
in our 97 but not in the 99. Adding it - it wasn't in our 99 F350 Crew Cab
- - and then removing them appears to
be a bad move. I'd like to see the memo's and minute meetings on that
decision. Unfortunately, it'll take someone getting hurt and then using the
discovery process to pull them out of Ford with a court order. I just don't
want it to be my kids who are the injured parties.

Again - this a great truck. I won't knowingly put my kids in an unsafe
vehicle - and the
backseats on the 99 Crew Cabs are not safe. I've had no luck in calling
Ford, emailing Ford, talking to my dealer. I'm owned Fords trucks for many
years - and fortunately - I've never had to try to deal with their
"customer service" group. It stinks.

rich


>Serious question: how old and how tall are your children?

>Unless they're teenagers (or soon to be), head restraints
>can't possibly an issue. If this makes this truck
>inherently unsafe, then by your criteria 99% of all autos
>are unsafe because the vast majority do not have head
>restraints in the back seat.

>Ken




+-------------- Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1997 and Newer --------------+
| Send posts to fordtrucks97up listservice.net, |
| List removal instructions on the website. |
+----------------- Site: http://www.ford-trucks.com -----------------+

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:38:45 -0700
From: Jim Lujan
Subject: Grab Bars

Has anyone added aftermarket grab bars on the cab interior of their trucks?
I have a '97 F350 Crewcab 4x4. Stock they sit pretty tall. Well, when
I pick up my 85-year old grandmother to go 4-wheeling, it would be nice
for her to have something to grab ahold of climbing in and hanging on when
we are out on the road.

I was thinking of something mounted along the window pillar frame and
top of the door frame. I believe the Expedition has these. Do the '99s
have these bars?

I have seen chrome bars for the exterior of a truck, but not the interior.

-Jim-

'97 F350 PS 4x4 CCab LB - Banks Stage II Enhanced

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:22:36 -0800
From: "Ron Joyce"
Subject: 97 Exhaust

Change muffler tailpipe configuration from 97 to 98
The TSB for the WARRANTY repair is # 97-26-13
+ Ford WILL cover ALL costs


Unless I missed it, what Trucks does this apply to?
Simply the F150, or all, or ?

- - -Shawn
'97 F350 PS CC LB
Sorry about not making the make and model clear, I wasn't aware that the
exhaust was pitting and turning the rims green on any other, then the 97
F150, any other models will have to check with your dealer.
Ron
97 F150 4+4, Styleside, S.C. 4.6 etc etc etc

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 13:14:00 -0800
From: "."
Subject: Ford QUALITY & Executive Salaries

Hello,

A news flash just came over the TV regarding the payments made to the Ford
Motor Company executives. There is a proposal now before the board of
directors to make Ford executives responsible for Ford product "QUALITY" by
attaching a quality figure to their salaries and bonuses.

More than anything else in the world, this is the most important way of
dealing with megabuck salaries and bonuses that are based on the bottom
line. The bottom line can be, and often is obtained by cutting cost by
cheapening the product and passing the rework resulting therefrom to the
Ford dealers and customers. Ford, in my opinion, has learned that using
lawyers is a better way to eliminate rework and warranty cost, especially
when there is an engineering defect. Paying lawyers detracts from the
resources necessary to pay for the warranty work, and in my opinion lawyers
should be eliminated from the quality equation where their skills are used
at great cost to all concerned in a court of law to defeat a legitimate
consumer claim. In my opinion lawyers should be used to make certain that
Ford does comply with existing labor, environmental, anti-trust, and safety
laws, but not to defeat the consumers legitimate claims against poor vehicle
quality in a court of law.

As the existing lemon laws are structured any customer that has a legitimate
complaint will encounter mounds of legal cost to solve the "bad vehicle"
problem. In these instances the lawyers get rich whether they loose or not,
resulting in the consumer and/or Ford paying the tab to the lawyers. Lawyers
"never loose"! The parties that hire them loose. Therefore, if the Ford
executives are held accountable for "QUALITY" then their salaries and
bonuses will be accountable to the aggrieved customers, because the customer
complaints will reflect on the executives' salaries. Hit em in the pocket
book now! Send letters to the Ford board of directors telling them that the
QUALITY based salary process is a cost cutting process. If the engineering
is performed correctly at the manufacturing plant then the customer and
dealers won't have as many complaints to process, resulting in lower legal
cost to the Ford Motor Company. A win, win situation for manufacturer,
dealer, and customer.

WRITE NOW don't wait. Ford executive salaries tied to "QUALITY" makes more
sense than any other payment system. Why should the "stockholders" or the
consumer pay for short cuts that the executives take to increases "their
bottom line," and then pay for the production cost TWICE, once for the
executive salaries that increase not because of sales, but because of
product quality cuts, and again in the "warranty and rework" cost.

WRITE NOW! to the Ford board of directors.

Always remember that "rework" cost three times more to get the job done
right, because the job wasn't done right the first time. The cost are 1)
the job was paid one time, 2) again to repair the failure, 3) and again
because the time used in "rework" stopped the production of additional new
goods. In the chain of "rework" are the manufacturers, dealers, customers,
all of them talking about problem with paint, whines, grinds, clunks, engine
skips and misses, all at a cost of hundreds of dollars and hour for "rework"
that should never have occured in the first place.


If anyone can send this message to any other list, them please do so.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:37:00 -0800
From: Rich Cower
Subject: re: Head restraints in 99 crew cab

Chad,

Forget the kids. Would you suggest an adult ride back there? I couldn't do that. I often
sit back with the kids in our 97 (it has head restraints) and read to them, play games, etc.
on long trips. I sure wouldn't do that in the 99.

rich

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:45:18 -0800
From: Rich Cower
Subject: re: head restraints in 99 crew cabs

We use the truck for everything - why not? She likes driving them, largely
because
they are "large". With four kids, we can't them in an explorer - and the
expedition
doesn't come with the Powerstroke engine. She also pulls a horse trailer
around quite
often and needs that vehicle. Ford puts a full rear seat in that vehicle -
it's clearly
designed to carry people there - not cargo.

We're seeing a LOT more of these vehicles than we did when we got our 89
Crew Cab.
People seem to be purchasing bigger vehicles, and given the numbers of them
we're
seeing in our area (especially when compared to 10 years ago) they are
clearly being
used for something other than hauling or towing. I'll bet even money that
Ford has
demographics of purchases to show this. Bigger vehicles are "in" - and
let's face it, when
you want big it's hard to beat the F350 Crew Cab.

A serious concern of ours is - why is Ford dropping a saftey item? Remember
- - this is in
our 97 Truck. Most vehicle manufacturers appear to be making an effort to
move in the other direction - Ford's website
http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.ford.com/corporate-info/govt_policy/safety.html actually has a
safety section where they claim to be making progress. I've claimed - and
no one has convinced me differently yet - that Ford has taken a step
backward in vehicle safety from the 97 to the 99 Crew Cab rear seat.

Sure, it's a safe truck and will "win" in a collision. But again, why drop
something that
clearly makes the vehicle safer? And it's something that they had in the
earlier models?
They went to the trouble to add air bags - and they have the off switch for
the passenger
air bag - in ALL BUT THE CREW CABS. This would suggest that they want you
to put poeple
(kids?) in the reat seat that could be injured by an air bag deploying. I
could speculate on why they removed the restraints - and why they didn't
offer it as an option. My gut tells
me this looks like one of those "liability" decisions - similar to what GM
records show
they did with the gas tanks on their trucks a few years back. I used to
hold Ford
to higher standards than this, not anymore. They've lost the luster, and
they've lost a
customer - and I can assure you this vehicle was something I really wanted
to own.

I've copied an address at Ford I got when the "Voice of the Customer", Bob....


To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.




Advertising - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Jobs

This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.