Return-Path:
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 04:52:29 -0700 (MST)
From: owner-fordtrucks97up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks97up-digest)
To: fordtrucks97up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks97up-digest V1 #38
Reply-To: fordtrucks97up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks97up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks97up-digest Saturday, March 28 1998 Volume 01 : Number 038



=======================================================================
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 in 99 crew cabs ["Chad Royse" ]
head restraints [Rich Cower ]

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:12:57 -0500
From: "Chad Royse"
Subject: RE: head restraints in 99 crew cabs

Rich,
I really think you're over reacting to this. 8^) I agree it's (rear head
restraints) better to have than not to have, but it's not the same thing as
Chevy's gas tank mistake. That's a little worse. And it's not like they
replaced the rear three point seat belts with lap belts or maybe substandard
door latches that sometimes fly open. Besides, with a frequent horse
trailer on the aft side, you've got the worlds biggest rear bumper. If
something hit that trailer hard enough to send your children's heads through
the rear window, I would be more worried about the king-pin breaking and
sending the trailer into your cab.

On the other hand, what are your options? Do Chevy's have rear head
restraints? Even if they do, most unbiased opinions agree that Chevy
diesels are number three for power and reliability. Dodge? Not a bad
truck, but number two in my book. But there is NO crew cab.

As I recommended before, if you're that happy with your '97... Keep it! For
a lot less money than one would lose replacing a truck that's about a year
old, you could upgrade the one you have. There is mass upgrades for the
F-series and the PS.

It already sounds like you have one of the safest families in the US, don't
drive yourself nuts over that last inch.

Chad

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-fordtrucks97up ListService.net
[mailto:owner-fordtrucks97up ListService.net]On Behalf Of Rich Cower
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 1998 10:45 PM
To: 'fordtrucks97up listservice.net'
Subject: re: head restraints in 99 crew cabs


(Removed to conserve space. Please see original post.)

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

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 22:12:51 -0800
From: Rich Cower
Subject: head restraints

Chad,

I don't think I'm overreacting, and I don't think the analogy with the
Chevy gas tanks
is wrong. Ford has removed a safety item in a truck that can - and I
believe will - result
in injury and possibly death. We won't know why they did this until someone
gets injured
and through the process of legal discovery the memo's/meeting minutes of
why that decision was
made are opened up and in the public record - or until Ford responds in
this forum.
It could have been as simple as what GM did with the Chevy trucks - the
cost of making them
safe was deemed to be lower than the settlements they projected from the
lawsuits. I'd
hope not, but then - Ford certainly isn't jumping in here to make a comment
on why this
was removed. I don't know what it costs to build a seat with head
restraints,
it could have worked out to be more than the projected settlements. Who
knows?

We use a 5 inch drop bumper pull (?) for the trailer. I'm not sure how it
could come into the
cab.

Ford went backwards on safety - the head restraints that are in pickups are
there for a
very good reason. Accident/injury data has shown they can save
lives/prevent injury. Ford should not make a full seat - obviously to be
used by people - and remove something that can save lives/prevent injury.
You can rationalize all you want about the vehicle size "winning"
in a collision, or why we're using the truck the way we are - but it
doesn't explain why
they removed these things from a seat that is clearly intended for humans
to sit on.

We wern't geting rid of the 97 - we planned on having two of them. Why not,
they really
are great trucks. Sorry - I won't even look at a GM product, and Dodge -
while number
two in our book as well - is a distant second. Too many friends have had
too much trouble
with those things.

We're waiting for what I've seen here as the Ford "suburban killer". It
should have about
what we want. Hopefully, it'll have decent safety options. In the interim I
picked up a
new BMW 740il last night, it's quite safe but it sure won't carry what the
F350 will. I plan
to hold onto it until Ford fixes this - or at least offers an option of a
safe seat.
Something that still irks me is I was quite willing to stick a 97 seat in
(it didn't even
have to match, and I was prepared to pay for it) and I couldn't get anyone
at Ford (here or
at corporate) to tell me if that was possible.

I've experienced their customer service first hand - and what I've seen
does not look good.

thanks...rich

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

End of fordtrucks97up-digest V1 #38....

---

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.