I would overrule the objection. This situation is different than the jurisdiction issue. Whether Ford has dealerships all over Indiana is clearly probative of only one issue -- whether they do enough business in Indiana to be subject to its long-arm jurisdiction. However, the location of the accident is not just probative of venue. It is also probative of the central issue: describing what happened the day of the accident.
Evidence which is admissible on one issue but inadmissible on another, is admissible. Rule 402 says evidence is admissible if it tends to prove any issue and inadmissible only if irrelevant to all issues.
This concept is known as "limited admissibility," and is important in understanding relevance. Recall Rule 409 that excluded evidence of medical expense payment when offered to prove liability, Implicit in the rule was that medical expenses might be admissible for some other purpose, such as showing the custom of the business, if that other purpose were itself a material issue.
Note also that trial events may affect materiality. Even if Ford had not admitted venue in its Answer, if Ford's attorney conceded in opening statement that the rollover occurred in Bloomington, that concession would remove venue from the list of disputed issues.