Clash of the Titans: Ford v.s. GM

[V8slayer]

I don't know if this is in the right forum. So lock or move as you see fit Mods. It's just an issue that's been nagging me.

It's my understanding that GM launched an advertising campaign in the 70's saying that seat belts are dangerous and it's better to be thrown around in a car during a crash. All this so the public won't want seat belts installed. And they reasoned that the campaign, which cost millions is worth 10 pounds per car where the seat belts would cost 30 pounds per car in the UK. At that time, there was overwhelming evidence from government reports that says seat belts saves lives.

More recently, I read that the Ford explorers had wiring in the rear light array (left I think) that could lead to the gas tank exploding on fairly minor rear impacts. And Ford decided it was cheaper to litigate and pay liabilities than issue a recall, so they kept it quiet.

Both acts are equally dispicable. And I guess it's hard to pick a winner in this contest. But the real question I have is this: With companies so blatantly disregarding human life in pursuit of profits, why don't consumers respond? Why was there no boycott of Ford products? Why didn't car buyers say, you don't care about our lives, so we don't care about your's?

[STOVE BOLT]

Answer To Your Question Is Short And Simple.
People Want What They Want. Suv`s Are The Rage Now. The Explorer Has Been Damned Since It`s Conception, But,IT Still SeLLs. Why,? People Want Them.

[YogsVR4]

As long as people know what they're buying - let them get what they want. We don't stop people from jumping out of airplanes, why the heck would they be disuaded from buying a cheap SUV on the off chance it might blow up.

[V8slayer]

I'm not trying to tell people what to do.

I'm simply surprised at what they don't do. Obviously these corporate types only respond to money. So make them lose a ton of it, and maybe, in the future, they won't think human life is so cheap. Or at least they'll know the consequences of disregarding human life isn't cheap.

And your responses surprise me more than anything.

How can you respond with indifference instead of outrage?

[chevydrummer76]

they don't call them ford exploders for nothing

[Vettribution87]

There is a possibility that in the 1970's GM might have genuinely believed that seat belts were unsafe. There needs to be proof that they were doing that ad campaign purely to save money on seat belts.

Even if it is true that GM were lobbying against seat belts for financial gain you have to remember that the 1970's was a long time ago. Being bitter at GM now is like being bitter at Mitsubishi in the 70's because they made warplanes that were used against us in the 40's.

GM in the 1970's was very different from how it is today. There have been countless corporate reshuffles and nowadays there are more realistic, engineering minded people in charge and less cold-hearted, arrogant bureaucrats.

[383PhoenixAm]

Every car make will do this, guy. And people will buy whatever. It's like voting for John Kerry. Its a stupid idea, but in the end people will do it anyway.

[kman10587]

Please keep politics out of this forum. And I don't believe that Toyota or Honda would display such a blatant disregard for human life just to make a little money. And in return, people buy their product because they know that it's relatively safe and errorproof.

[chevydrummer76]

no car is error proof

[V8slayer]

I'm not a fan of Japanese cars and I hate to say it, but if there was a holocaust and the world became a waste land, the first thing I would do is run to my nearest Toyota dealer to steal a Landcruiser.

Look at any survey and comparison, American cars, even German cars can't compete with Japanese for reliability.

As I understand it, the Japanese obscess over detail and try their best to get everything perfect before a car is sold. That way, they save money by needing less recalls.

[Thunda Downunda]

Originally Posted by V8slayer

It's my understanding that GM launched an advertising campaign in the 70's saying that seat belts are dangerous and it's better to be thrown around in a car during a crash. All this so the public won't want seat belts installed. And they reasoned that the campaign, which cost millions is worth 10 pounds per car where the seat belts would cost 30 pounds per car in the UK. At that time, there was overwhelming evidence from government reports that says seat belts saves lives.

I'm not in a position to dispute your claim, so I'm not calling you mis-informed or anything. But it seems a little odd. GM-US was the first car company in the world to offer airbags, on 1970 Chevrolet (full size). And GM-Holden, which GM owns (and of which I am familar with) chose to fit seat belts as standard equipment to all Holdens since 1966 - years before Government mandated them here. Not what I'd call the actions of a safety-derilect company, you agree?

[V8slayer]

This is a report I read in either Car or Evo. They're both British magazines. I believe sometime in the last four months. You can check them out if you want. But I don't think they would make something like this up.

[chevydrummer76]

I've never heard of that seat belt story....My truck is a 76 and its seat belts work just fine.( i know because i've been run into)

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by V8slayer

More recently, I read that the Ford explorers had wiring in the rear light array (left I think) that could lead to the gas tank exploding on fairly minor rear impacts.

I always thought of GM cars more likely to explode on you. My cousin has a friend who is very well off. I found out that, it was a long time ago maybe 10 years, anyway this girl's grandfather died when his gmc exploded on him. I dont know if it was a truck or a suv, but the woman and her family sued GM and won, getting lots of money. I've never heard of gmcs blowing up though until she told me that. Anybody heard of simular cases?

[fredjacksonsan]

Yeah, for awhile GMC and Chevy pickups had the gas tank on the outside of the frame rails on the driver's side, making it much more likely for the tank to rupture and cause an explosion/fire if the vehicle was hit from that side. There was a big brouhaha during the 80's.