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.