I’ve always thought Firestone tires sucked. The only set I’ve ever bought wore out after about 20,000 miles. I’d rather pay a little extra and get Pirellis or Michelin.
I have Firestone performance tires that came new on my Nissan Sentra. I don’t feel any less safe than with any other tire. My tires didn’t have the problems, and even if the tread did separate, the chance of a compact sedan flipping due to tread separation is miniscule. I think Ford is as much to blame, if not more so…I’ve seen very little hard evidence to show that Firestone is totally at fault. Firestone’s been making tires for decades, and if one (or two) types of tires have had problems during a very short span, on only one type of vehicle, out of the billions of tires they’ve made over the years, I don’t view that as a major problem.
Would you not buy an Audi today because the Audi 5000’s of 10 years ago had a transmission problem that caused them to suddenly accelerate? Remember that debacle? I don’t think many people are terrified of Audis. Just like I’m not terrified of Firestones.
Jman
Its more the principle that Firestone valued profit over human life that will keep me from buying their products. Sure its nothing new for the business world, but its still not acceptable.
Qwertyasdfg,
If the news reports are correct, Ford recommended a lower tire pressure than what Firestone recommended. Today, in fact, the new media was abound with reports about low tire pressure and the fact they can cause blow outs and tire separation.
If those reports are true (and as one that used to work in the tire industry) then I tend to side more with Firestone on the positive side than against.
As I said before, you have to have proper inflation, well torqued lugs nuts etc…Your tires are the most important part of your safety needs when driving.
Just something to think about before you completely put Firestone on the bad side.
< techie remembers the cyanide problem with Tylenol many years ago and people still use it – all because someone else was at fault, while Ford may not be totally at fault, if in fact they recommended a lower psi than what Firestone set for the safety of their tires then that’s something you need to be concerned about…btw, I have several friends with Firestone tires on their regular vehicles and never had a problem >
[Edited by UncleBeer on 08-30-2001 at 12:26 PM]
Um Mods, please fix the link, all I did was a cut and paste and it (vB) added the crap, I assure you I didn’t do that, it was the vB software that did that.
Thank you!
Gawd, I hate “either-or blame”. Look, neither Firestone nor Ford was blameless. Deal with it. Ford should never have released such an unsafe vehicle on the market, and Firestone should never have sold defective tires. Both sides screwed up, with disastrous consequences.
Since this is a Firestone thread, allow me to mention how they’re at fault. First off, the most glaring defect, tread separation, had NOTHING to do with underinflation. Nothing. These were seriously flawed tires that should have never left the factory. Second, as far as I’m concerned, the tires that blew out due to “hot roads” were also defective. News flash, people: summer is hot! A tire that’s useless at least three months of the year is like an umbrella that can’t handle downpours. If a tire can’t handle normal operating conditions, the tire company has no business selling it, except maybe as a limited-use discount item. Third, while underinflation may be responsible for some of the blowouts, that doesn’t erase culpability for the fatalities that resulted. Look, people are not perfect, and you can’t expect everyone to keep every part of their car in tip-top condition. I’ve driven with underinflated tires on several occasions and never experienced a blowout. Any product that carries a serious risk of death if the consumer isn’t absolutely perfect in its use does not belong on the market. Now, from what I’ve seen, part of the fault lies with the flawed vehicle design, so this could mitigate some of the blame, but the idea that “underinflation” completely absolves Firestone of blame is ludicrous.
In any event, there’s no way in hell I’m buying Firestones now. I’m utterly disgusted by how they handled this situation, and any company that gets blood on its hands in the name of profit doesn’t deserve my money.
Besides, I want my tires to last, dangit. Give me a good set of Michelins any day.
I agree that both companies are to blame, not one or the
other, although the media would mostly have one believe
that Firestone is the bad guy. But this business about
not expecting people to keep their car in tiptop condition
is a lame arguement. Sure, I dont check my inflation the
way I should. But if I have a blowout, why would I not
point some blame at little old lazy me, instead of solely the manufacturer? I cant stand that victim-y, litigious
nonsense. What, people who drink and drive should blame
the bartender, too, because they arent perfect and cant
be expected to always moderate themselves?
i have been biased against firestone since a very young age. my oldest brother was killed by the firestone 500 in the late 70’s. (funny, nobody seems to remember them. firestone must be proud of thier p.r. people) a former girlfriend of mine bought an explorer new in 96 and i told her to ditch those tires. she ended up upside down in the california desert off i-15. luckily, her and her passenger were not killed. the cause of the accident was the determined to be the firestone tire by the investigators.
i will not ever purchase a firestone or bridgestone tire. i avoid driving or riding in vehicles with them installed. im not really afraid of injury or death, since the chance is small. i boycott this company in the memory of loved ones.
lately i have been buying goodyear, cooper and kelly tires. i am not brand loyal, so i spread my business around. but firestone (or olsen tire) wont get a penny.