September 11, 2000

The Firestone/Ford Explorer debacle--where marketing and customer service should meet the road, but don't.

Recalls and dangerous products are hardly new to Ford Motor Company (Fix or Repair Daily). Back in the late 1970's, it became quite sadly obvious that there were big problems with the gas tank of its Pinto model. With even a slight rear-end collision, the tanks had a nasty tendency to explode, killing or severely burning the occupants, and sometimes even affecting people in the other vehicle.

For those who care about such things, the Pinto was a re-packaging of the ugly and failed Cortina of the 1960's. Advertising in the early 1970's featured Chaffee College engineering students talking about how the Pinto was a "tight" car. At the time, it seemed to me a strange choice of adjective, but in retrospect was a brilliant assessment of Ford's bean counters, and legal eagles.

As it turned out, Ford was well aware of the tank problem, but did a little cost accounting, and figured that it was better off paying an eventual class action lawsuit award, and retiring the brand, rather than recalling the cars. To be sure, this was cynical, if not just plain evil, but given the short memory of the consumer, the strategy proved correct.

Ford became even more hugely profitable, bought Jaguar and other companies, and really hit the bonanza with the Explorer--one of its most profitable brands ever.

Firestone, in the meantime, was milking its long term relationship with Ford, that literally dates back to Harvey Firestone and old Henry Ford himself. Many things can be said of Ford (or "Ford's" as it is still called in Detroit), but every supplier knows this: it is difficult to become a new vendor, but it is even more difficult to become an ex-vendor.

With the entire automotive business basically controlled by a small number of firms, and innovation and safety never given much stroke, it all adds up to a cozy situation for those on the inside.

Until, of course, people start dying.

Back in 1989, an independent test found that a Ford Explorer with tires inflated to 35 pounds per square inch (PSI) could roll over when making a "sudden" turn. Ford then recommended an inflation pressure of 26 PSI, which was well below the originally recommended 30 PSI. The downside is that lower inflation pressure can cause the tires to overheat, thus promoting tread separation.

Firestone, not wanting to upset its biggest customer, made little of these findings publicly, but must have been waiting for the next shoe to drop--so to speak.

My wife owned a 1990 Ford Explorer, and there were several issues. It went through brakes and tires like no car I had ever seen, and after about 30,000 miles developed an unfixable shimmy. Apparently, the shimmy still occurs in newer model Explorers. You don't have to be an automotive engineer to realize that excessive vibration can do awful things to tires.

It seems to me that even though it's the tires that are failing, the vehicle itself is to blame.

Need more evidence? Why are essentially all the tire failures occurring with only the Explorer? And, more telling, considering the long waiting times and frantic customers, how come all the competitive tire companies haven't started running special promotions for the affected Ford Explorer/Firestone owners? Could it be because they know that their tires would also fail under those conditions?

It will be interesting to see how the management of these two old line companies react to the crisis. There will be plenty of denials, a few resignations, and maybe even a clash of the Titans.

But will there be strong, responsible, manly leadership? Not on your life.