Another recall - fire risk

I have 2 questions regarding this topic:

I saw the Explorer listed on the CNN link:
-Explorer without IVD 1995-2003
What is IVD?

And also where is the switch in my 99 XLT because I too want to
disconnect it.

Switch is under the hood, on the master cylinder at the front (nearest to
front of car. I just grasped the plug from the sides, squeezed to release
the catch and lifted it up. This disconnects the switch wire harness. Now
the Cruise will NOT disengage when the brake pedal is depressed but will
instead require pressing the offf button on the steering wheel. At least no
fire can be caused by a leak from the MS into the switch. I plug it in while
driving on the highway and car is out of the garage.

Bull****! Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, Mopar Volare/Aspen...I could go on and on
and on and on. Some of the worst turds-on-wheels came out of Detroit in the
1970s. And even the big cars that they did fairly well got 7 miles per
gallon. My mothers "midsized" 1974 Chevy Malibu got 9 MPG around town.



"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:07:25 -0400, "D.D. Palmer"
> > wrote:
>
>>Not true. The 1970s cars in particular were junk within 3 years.
>>
>
> Total horse****. We drove lots of them in our fleet for many many
> years and many many trouble free miles, both fords and chevys. Some
> in particular were 1972 Impala, 1975 Malibu, 1978 Nova, 1976 Montego,
> 1979 Impala. We even had 1972 AMC Matadors and they were the worst
> but still OK overall mostly because they could never get rid of a
> front end shake they all had at high speed. They had a heck of a nice
> Engine/tranny combo though. It's not a 70's but one of my favorite
> cars was a 1980 full sized Plymouth police package. Rode and handled
> beautifully.
>
>
>>"stevie" > wrote in message ...
>>> cars were better made then.
>>> "Tommy Wood" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> There is good and bad in this.
>>>
>>> Remember the 1970s and 1980s. There were no recalls. People were just
>>> stuck with what they bought.
>>>
>>> Regardless of a problem like this that seems really big, the
>>> manufacturers
>>> used to just ignore the consumer.
>>>
>>> Now, the reliability is better and the corrective actions are better.
>>>
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> After seeing CNN tonight, I went out in my garage and disconnected the
>>>> wire
>>>> harness that goes to the switch in question on my 1999 Explorer
>>>> Limited.
>>>> I
>>>> don't use the cruise around town so if and when I go on the highway, I
>>>> can
>>>> reconnect it. I think it won't take long for Ford to get tired of the
>>>> bad
>>>> PR
>>>> and will issue a recall on all of the vehicles that use a switch that
>>>> is
>>>> in
>>>> question. An other option is to either park it outside the garage or
>>>> to
>>>> pay
>>>> Ford to change it before the recall takes effect. One could always tell
>>>> Ford
>>>> that I will pay now and when the recall occurs, you can pay me back! As
>>>> far
>>>> as resale value... WHAT resale value. When I decided on the Explorer in
>>>> 1999, I also considered the Lexus RX300 for $3,500 more. I chose Ford.
>>>> Now
>>>> I
>>>> see that the Ford is worth about $9,000 and the Lexus is worth about
>>>> $19,000. I'm glad I saved $3,500 in 1999.... Duh...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Did anyone ever wonder what else this switch might be used for? It
might be more than just cruise. The wiring diagram for my 2002 shows
it being tied to the ABS module also.
Of course the wiring diagram only shows it being powered with key
in run or start, not 24-7 as the story says. So the manual could be
wrong or I could be looking at the wrong switch. Its called a brake
pressure switch or brake system pressure switch. With regards to the
cruise feature, the book says its used as a redundant disable feature
for the cruise (the primary disabler being the brake pedal position
switch), removing power to the clutch in the speed control actuator.
Now I gotta go and probe around with my voltmeter to see if this
thing is really hot all the time.

So ket... .
Your saying you disconnected that switch and the cruise still works
and *cannot* be disabled by pressing the brake pedal. This makes the
wiring diagram for my 2002 even more questionable.

By the way folks, Ford is not the only one that does this. A TV
station in Minneapolis, several nights ago, ran a story including
surveilance video of a Chevy truck lighting up in the middle of the
night inside a guys body shop. First the headlights flashed on-off.
Followed minutes later by a small glow near the driver door, then
smoke, then major fire.

> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Not true. The 1970s cars in particular were junk within 3 years.
> >>
"D.D. Palmer" > wrote in message
...
> Bull****! Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, Mopar Volare/Aspen...I could go on and
on
> and on and on. Some of the worst turds-on-wheels came out of Detroit in
the
> 1970s. And even the big cars that they did fairly well got 7 miles per
> gallon. My mothers "midsized" 1974 Chevy Malibu got 9 MPG around town.
>

Poor gas mileage doesn't equal "junk in 3 years". Sure, Detroit put out some
poor examples in the '70's, they still do. That will never change. You get
what you pay for.
H

I was the proud owner of a new 1975 Ford Granada - remember that piece
of junk? The 70's decade is when all the tight emission controls came
into being. It took quite a number of years for the car makers to get
that sorted out and to build cars that ran well. Remember when they
continued to run after the key was turned off? That was also the
70's.

I also remember the misguided attempt to force people to use seat
belts - the seat belt interlock. That was in '74 and the car would
not start if the belt was not fastened. I had one that sometimes
would not start if the belt was fastened or not. I finally traded it
on the '75 Granada.

Only way we finally got cars that would run well again was fuel
injection and computer controls.


On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:03:11 -0500, "Hairy" > wrote:

>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Not true. The 1970s cars in particular were junk within 3 years.
>> >>
>"D.D. Palmer" > wrote in message
...
>> Bull****! Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, Mopar Volare/Aspen...I could go on and
>on
>> and on and on. Some of the worst turds-on-wheels came out of Detroit in
>the
>> 1970s. And even the big cars that they did fairly well got 7 miles per
>> gallon. My mothers "midsized" 1974 Chevy Malibu got 9 MPG around town.
>>
>
>Poor gas mileage doesn't equal "junk in 3 years". Sure, Detroit put out some
>poor examples in the '70's, they still do. That will never change. You get
>what you pay for.
>H
>

"D.D. Palmer" wrote:
>
> Bull****! Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, Mopar Volare/Aspen...I could go on and on
> and on and on. Some of the worst turds-on-wheels came out of Detroit in the
> 1970s. And even the big cars that they did fairly well got 7 miles per
> gallon. My mothers "midsized" 1974 Chevy Malibu got 9 MPG around town.

Really??? My Mom's 1972 LTD Country Squire Station wagon
with a 400 cid engine would get 14 around town - at least
when I drove it. It would hit about 19 on a long trip (like
driving my stuff to college).

I've never actually owned a passenger vehicle that got worse
than 10 mpg. My 13 year old F150 still averages 12 and it
never goes on a trip any more. In fact, it spends about as
much time idling as it does going faster than 50 mph. When
it was new and I used it on trips, it would easily hit 20
(300 CID six cylinder, E4OD transmission, 3.08:1 rear gear,
SWB).

The POS Cressida I owned didn't get much better mileage than
my Mom's '72 Wagon. The Cressida would get 15 around town
and it would almost hit 20 on a trip, but the damn thing was
such a POS I never drove it any more than I had to. Unless
the weather was hot, I preferred my '78 Fiesta to the '83
Cressida. Of course, since I am in NC, that meant I was
condemned to driving the Cressida from May to October.

Ed

HerkyJerky wrote:
>
> Did anyone ever wonder what else this switch might be used for? It
> might be more than just cruise. The wiring diagram for my 2002 shows
> it being tied to the ABS module also.
> Of course the wiring diagram only shows it being powered with key
> in run or start, not 24-7 as the story says. So the manual could be
> wrong or I could be looking at the wrong switch. Its called a brake
> pressure switch or brake system pressure switch. With regards to the
> cruise feature, the book says its used as a redundant disable feature
> for the cruise (the primary disabler being the brake pedal position
> switch), removing power to the clutch in the speed control actuator.
> Now I gotta go and probe around with my voltmeter to see if this
> thing is really hot all the time.

Some Fords power the switch with a live feed (like my 2003
Expedtion) and some power it with a switched feed (like my
2004 Thunderbird). I have no idea why the difference (or if
they changed in 2004). In both cases the circuit is fused
(7.5 amp fuse).

Ed

Vega, Pinto and Volare' were junk in 3 years. The bigger cars...mostly
tweaks of cars designed in the late 1960's MIGHT have lasted longer, but the
fact that they were not junk in 3 years doesn't mean they were GOOD cars
either. I think a good summary would be this: The small Detroit attempts in
the early 1970s were ALL junk. The rest of the lines were fairly good until
they started trying to make them fuel efficient, run on unleaded gas and be
cleaner. As the '70's went on, the cars got junkier and junkier. Toyota and
Honda weren't much better, rusting out in 2-3 years also. But, to their
credit, they evolved to build the quality standards of the world. Detroit
also got better, but not "better enough".



"Hairy" > wrote in message
...
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Not true. The 1970s cars in particular were junk within 3 years.
>> >>
> "D.D. Palmer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bull****! Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, Mopar Volare/Aspen...I could go on and
> on
>> and on and on. Some of the worst turds-on-wheels came out of Detroit in
> the
>> 1970s. And even the big cars that they did fairly well got 7 miles per
>> gallon. My mothers "midsized" 1974 Chevy Malibu got 9 MPG around town.
>>
>
> Poor gas mileage doesn't equal "junk in 3 years". Sure, Detroit put out
> some
> poor examples in the '70's, they still do. That will never change. You get
> what you pay for.
> H
>
>