Ford: Sue us... screw you!

Ford refuses to sell CV's to police departments that sue them:

formatting link
I suppose you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Bob

Reply to
BOB URZ
Loading thread data ...

I don't blame Ford for that. What is really odd is why would the sheriff want to buy a model of car he believes to be unsafe? IF he did buy them and one subsequently exploded and killed one of his deputies, he sure would have a lot of explaining to do in court as to why he bought another "unsafe" CV! This is almost to stupid for words.

"BOB URZ" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@inetnebr.com... | Ford refuses to sell CV's to police departments that sue them: | |

formatting link
| | I suppose you cannot have your cake and eat it too. | | Bob | | | |

Reply to
James C. Reeves

Since I drove Ford LTD police packages since 1978 they handled far better then the Chevy Impala pr Dodge Diplomats. I know from personal experience that they hold up a lot better in a frontal crash then the Dodge Diplomat since I was involved in two head on collisions. Once a drunk cross the center line and hit me and once I rammed a suspect trying to get away that had shot and wounded a fellow officer.

Other then the transmissions they out lasted any other make out there. I worked in a small department where at one time up to three deputies shared one car. It was not unusual to have a patrol car with 500 to 600 thousand miles on it before it was retired. It was amazing that we could get that out of the cars since we had a shade tree mechanic working on the cars.

I left before the problem with fires accord but I do know one trooper died from burns he sustained when his patrol car was hit from the rear and he was trapped in the vehicle. He would have died in the vehicle if bystanders would not have pulled him from the burning car.

Sarge

Reply to
Sarge

On Usenet there is no such thing as "too stupid for words."

Reply to
F.H.

Only in Florida, eh?

Pity!!

Reply to
nospam.clare.nce

| | Only in Florida, eh? | | Pity!!

I wonder if that sheriff's vote counted last time! ;-)

Reply to
James C. Reeves

"Sarge" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@enews4.newsguy.com:

Now, I'm not pulling for Ford, nor do I wish to imply any lack of concern for an officer who was burned from being rear-ended. That said, however, there is an inherit risk involved with carrying around 10 to 30 gallons of a potentially explosive liquid, in ANYTHING. Add to that inherit risk, fast speeds, lots of energy due to the speed and weight of the mediums involved, and your fair share of idiots on the road, and it becomes downright scary. I feel the original lawsuit is bullsh*t. Even a tank, if hit just right could spill fuel and catch fire. It is one of the risks one takes when you get behind the wheel and take off down the road with the other ten million idiots out there. (In my experiece, that percentage of idiots to licensed drivers is probably wayyyyyyy higher.)

P.S. Speaking of idiot drivers...

I drive a 7 mile stretch of very curvy, narrow, no-shoulder, state highway each way to work. This morning, I was behind a bread truck, and a guy in an SUV. We come down a hill around some sharp corners, a nice well banked lefty...an off-camber banked righty, another left, oddly banked, about a 100 yard stretch...another flat right....after this flat right, there begins a minimum-distance passing area on about a 2/10 mile straight going up and over a sharp little hill. Now, you can see vehicles coming toward you over this little hill as you come down the big hill. Naturally, as we come down the hill, a vehicle comes across the opposite hill onto the small straight. The IDIOT in the SUV, decides he doesn't want to follow the bread truck, and whips out to pass him before he even gets around the last right hander going onto the straight. About the time he gets even with the bread truck, here comes the oncoming car.....I thought for sure I was going to witness a fatality. Luckly, the oncoming vehicle see's what's going on, and locks it down, as does the bread truck. The SUV idiot never even slows down...just whips it back in his lane nearly clipping the truck and nearly hitting the oncoming car headon....not even a blip of a brake light....sheeshhh...

It is a shame there is no cell signal in that area....

Reply to
Anthony

"Anthony" wrote in message news:Xns9583E0056BA7Aacziparle3sp835@216.77.188.18... | "Sarge" wrote in | news: snipped-for-privacy@enews4.newsguy.com: | | > Since I drove Ford LTD police packages since 1978 they handled far | > better then the Chevy Impala pr Dodge Diplomats. I know from personal | > experience that they hold up a lot better in a frontal crash then the | > Dodge Diplomat since I was involved in two head on collisions. Once a | > drunk cross the center line and hit me and once I rammed a suspect | > trying to get away that had shot and wounded a fellow officer. | >

| > Other then the transmissions they out lasted any other make out there. | > I worked in a small department where at one time up to three deputies | > shared one car. It was not unusual to have a patrol car with 500 to | > 600 thousand miles on it before it was retired. It was amazing that | > we could get that out of the cars since we had a shade tree mechanic | > working on the cars. | >

| > I left before the problem with fires accord but I do know one trooper | > died from burns he sustained when his patrol car was hit from the rear | > and he was trapped in the vehicle. He would have died in the vehicle | > if bystanders would not have pulled him from the burning car. | >

| > Sarge | >

| >

| >

| | | Now, I'm not pulling for Ford, nor do I wish to imply any lack of concern | for an officer who was burned from being rear-ended. | That said, however, there is an inherit risk involved with carrying | around 10 to 30 gallons of a potentially explosive liquid, in ANYTHING. | Add to that inherit risk, fast speeds, lots of energy due to the speed | and weight of the mediums involved, and your fair share of idiots on the | road, and it becomes downright scary. | I feel the original lawsuit is bullsh*t. Even a tank, if hit just right | could spill fuel and catch fire. It is one of the risks one takes when | you get behind the wheel and take off down the road with the other ten | million idiots out there. (In my experiece, that percentage of idiots to | licensed drivers is probably wayyyyyyy higher.) | | P.S. Speaking of idiot drivers... | | I drive a 7 mile stretch of very curvy, narrow, no-shoulder, state | highway each way to work. This morning, I was behind a bread truck, and a | guy in an SUV. We come down a hill around some sharp corners, a nice well | banked lefty...an off-camber banked righty, another left, oddly banked, | about a 100 yard stretch...another flat right....after this flat right, | there begins a minimum-distance passing area on about a 2/10 mile | straight going up and over a sharp little hill. | Now, you can see vehicles coming toward you over this little hill as you | come down the big hill. | Naturally, as we come down the hill, a vehicle comes across the opposite | hill onto the small straight. The IDIOT in the SUV, decides he doesn't | want to follow the bread truck, and whips out to pass him before he even | gets around the last right hander going onto the straight. About the | time he gets even with the bread truck, here comes the oncoming car.....I | thought for sure I was going to witness a fatality. Luckly, the oncoming | vehicle see's what's going on, and locks it down, as does the bread | truck. The SUV idiot never even slows down...just whips it back in his | lane nearly clipping the truck and nearly hitting the oncoming car | headon....not even a blip of a brake light....sheeshhh... | | It is a shame there is no cell signal in that area.... | -- | Anthony | | You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make | better idiots. | | Remove sp to reply via email

Ah but the lawyers have to blame someone since they can't take Mr. Physics to court.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

For what? The SUV idiot would be using one along with whatever other excuses he was using for not driving.

Reply to
FanJet

OK - I believe that the newer Fords have a safety guard over the fuel tank and differential so as to minimize the chance of an explosion after a rear-end impact.

Saying they have a right to not sell you a product means that if you send food back to a kitchen because it wasn't served right the first time, they can ban you from the place for life?

If Ford has fixed the cars and elim> I don't blame Ford for that. What is really odd is why would the sheriff want

Reply to
USENET READER

Anthony opined in news:Xns9583E0056BA7Aacziparle3sp835@216.77.188.18:

point of order...

Did I read that correctly?

I'm not excusing the SUV driver for the attempt to pass there or under those conditions... but answer this:

What would have happened if the SUV driver HAD hit the brakes?

Am I correct in thinking the Oncomer slowed greatly and the Bread truck slowed greatly... thus opening up a slot for the SUV to fit into?

You should be pretty glad that the guy after making ONE dumb mistake didnt make another one.

Reply to
Backyard Mechanic

Y'think?

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

Someone wrote: "I don't blame Ford for that. What is really odd is why would the sheriff want to buy a model of car he believes to be unsafe? IF he did buy them and one subsequently exploded and killed one of his deputies, he sure would have a lot of explaining to do in court as to why he bought another "unsafe" CV! This is almost to stupid for words."

I believe you can blame Ford for design flaw with their product but the real blame is for the drive that hit the rear of the car in the first place. The problem with the Crown Victoria was the gas tank was being puncture by the rear end due to the way the tank was mounted. This was occurring in multiple crashes with a few catching on fire. Ford at first refused to retro fit the cars with a shield to protect the tank. The new models have been modified to protect this problem. I think you can go back to the days that Pintos were catching on fire from rear end collisions. It took several lawsuits before recognized the problem.

Why would the Sheriff want to continue buying the CV is simply for economy reasons. If an officer totals a car in a wreck he can rob parts of the car to fix his other vehicles. If he starts buying other makes and models he limits his used parts available. The Ford CV out last the Chevy Impala and handles better. Ford police package comes prewired for lights, radio, siren, and cage without having to modify the vehicle to install theses items. You can have all this stuff installed by the dealership prior to taking delivery for the state contract price.

Last is the price of the vehicle. In Louisiana the state contract price for a fully loaded CV was 17000 dollars compared to the state price for a Chevy Impala at 16000 and still having to modify the vehicle to install you top lights and other equipment that you must purchase separately.

Sarge

Reply to
Sarge

I'm wondering if that is happening here in Calif. I've seen a couple of Volvo CHP cars recently.

Reply to
Paul O.

The Sheriff is suing assembly because he thinks the cars are unsafe. Said Sheriff buys a new CV and gives it to officer X who is rear ended and dies due to fire. Officer X's family sues the city for umpty gazillion dollars because they provided him with a vehicle they already believed was unsafe evidenced by the lawsuit against Ford. Or in this day and age Officer X files a suit against the city without an accident ever taking place because they are requiring him to drive a vehicle they believe to be unsafe for his job.

If you believed a vehicle was so dangerous that you felt the need to sue the manufacturer would you put your family in one and send them out on the 11 ~ 7 shift every night of the week? Seems to me this sheriff is either an idiot of just trying to cash in from Ford.

Steve B.

Reply to
Steve B.

"Anthony" wrote

Try 11:30 at night, straight single-lane-each-way road, perfect visibility, me behind a semi with a heavy load, some kind of vehicle behind me that keeps swinging half-way into the left lane as if he wants to pass. We all start slowly from the light, about 1/4 mile to a long and *very* steep uphill. I can see lights at the top of the hill, and can see it's another truck already on the way down. Doofus behind me decides the semi isn't going fast enough, and figures this is the time to pass, and pulls out.

Hmmm.... he doesn't seem to be passing very fast. Changed his mind? No, his headlights are still coming up beside me. Oh, that's why he's so slow... it's a motorhome. Still, he should be moving faster, shouldn't he, what with that truck flying down the hill at us? Ahhh, that's why... he's pulling a goddamn trailer! Like yours, he just barely got back in the right lane in time, as there's no way in hell the truck on the hill could have stopped.

Reply to
MasterBlaster

We've been over this before. See google groups.

Reply to
Brent P

The oncomer and the SUV would have continued hitting the brakes until they ended up both stopped, both facing each other, and the SUV looking like the world's biggest idiot.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Quite acceptable I would think. In fact, I don't see why any agency suing Ford for selling them dangerous, defective fireballs would turn right around and buy more of the same dangerous, defective fireballs that they are suing Ford over. If there's a police department that's doing this, then I have to assume they might not truly beleive the claims they have set forth in their lawsuit.

The town I used to live in is one of the plaintiffs in the case. They seem to genuinely believe their claim: the same year they joined the lawsuit, they replaced their old Crown Vics with new Impalas.

Reply to
Isaiah Beard

Sheriff's don't sue. Some pencil neck politician downtown does it because he wants the attention and is otherwise worthless.

: Why would the Sheriff want to continue buying the CV is simply for economy : reasons. If an officer totals a car in a wreck he can rob parts of the car

Reply to
Tom Line

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.