Ford to Police: get lost!

I've owned two vehicles that actually has this feature. The first was a

1968 (?) Toyota Corolla, which had the fuel tank mounted between the rear suspension towers. The second was an 1986 Audi 5000. The Quattro used the same fuel tank location as the FWD version, and ran the rear drive shaft underneath the fuel tank. Granted, a live rear axle complicates the engineering, but considering the type of service (See other post), it should be worth serious consideration.

For basic day to day transportation, the CV is solid transportation. A local non-urgent medical transportation company is using them (probably in PI trim) for routine patient transport.

The problem comes in when you put that same design into a use with a much higher probability of high-speed crashes. As I said in my other post, a high speed pursuit is about as close to racing use as the car is likely to get. Almost every sanctioning body I can think of specifies fuel cells in place of the original fuel tank.

Is this the same "emotionalism" that recognized the hazard associated with the mid-80s GM full sized pickups, with their fuel tanks _outside_ the frame rails?

/------------------------------------------------------------\ | George Ruch | | "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" | \------------------------------------------------------------/

And you completely disregard that most modern police departments not only have two-way radios in their cards, they also have inter-city ties too.

And LoJack works btw.

Well - you're lucky your transmission didn't self destruct yet.

Not that I know of.

That's my point. If you make enough vehicles and use them enough there will be a wide variety of events that occur in low numbers.

Really? where would you put it? Under the back seat? So do you blame when a taxi company buys the used vic from the police department and lets the U joints go and at 350,000 miles the drive shaft let's go through the gas tank and floor boards sending burning gasoline into the passenger compartment? Oh ford of course, they shoulda made it front wheel drive or located the gas tank under the trunk because they knew taxi companies would neglect the cars at the end of their useful life. Just like they are expected to have designed the vehicle to take being rear-ended at 70mph when parked on the side of the road.

Or maybe the car should have a force field generator to prevent crashes. For crying out loud we aren't talking about 1000s of vehicles bursting into flame from parking lot bumps. We are talking about 29 vehicles bursting into flames after being hit at expressway speeds while parked over ten years and who knows how many 100s of thousands of cars being used 24/7 and how many thousands of crashes.

Not to forget, by the time the trunk is crushed on a vic, that's the backseat on smaller cars and it would still be a fuel tank rupture.

That's dangerously sounding like an arguement to get rid of RWD cars.

The man of a million names could make it up like everything else.

Both Chevrolet and Dodge offer a certified police vehicle to compete with the CV. They are only V6 powered but can be had for about $2,000 less.. Few departments use them except for city service and detective work. The major reasons are FWD is unsafe for highway patrol or pursuit work, very small back seats that do not allow room for the cage, higher maintenance costs, lower resale value that soon negates any original cost savings. Taxi companies gobble up used police CV's, but have very little use of the others.

mike hunt

Richard Bell wrote:

Of course....The Dukes of Hazzard Safety Ramp!

No way that happens at 15 mph. The town car has a full frame under there and a tempo would have impacted directly into the frame (or gone under it with brake dive)

|Just a note: the GM locals are trying to get impalas into the police |dept. They gave the unmarked guys 6 of them. How they hold up |is yet to be seen. But i don't see the cops liking them any better |than the taurus they hated.

I propose they gas one up and park it on the should of Central Expressway in Dallas, and monitor results (from a distance). Shouldn't be long until a drunk nails it. Bring weinies and marshmellows.

And the injured policemen ought to be suing the police departments for providing such "unsafe" vehicles for their work. This reminds me of the flight attendants suing the tobacco companies for making the cigarettes rather than suing their employers for permitting passengers to smoke them.

I like the way you think. I always taught my kids that the things you do in life have consequences. I would hope that they not land on someone. LOL

mike hunt

The Ghost of General Lee wrote:

You didn't think he actually expected us to believe that story did you? ;)

mike hunt

Brunt P wrote:

Well, if anyone here is a nascar fan they would have seen Bobbie Labontes recent wreck where the rear of his car hit the wall and the car was fully engulfed in flames from a ruptured fuel cell. Now, this is in a car with a full roll cage and fuel cell with bladder. So even with all this protection, there was still fire and fuel spillage. Morel of the story, nothing is 100%.

BOB

I'm just telling you what I saw (two times). I could be off on the speed, but not by much because the Tempo that hit the Town Car was almost stopped so I said 15MPH. Plus it was an old Tempo and the damage was not horrible to it. The driver of the Tempo got out and appeared to be unhurt.The whole back end of the TC was opened like a tin can all the way into the rear deck of the back seat. I was flabergasted. I don't think the frame was that bent. The Tempo road over the frame and ripped the body. I remember that Ford was the company that used the bottom of the trunk as the top of the fuel tank in the Pinto and early Mustangs in order to save $7. They professed the safety of that cheesebox until they were ordered to recall them.

No sir, I am not repeating someone else's nonsense, and I am not giving an opinion. Here are the facts,the Fuel Tank on my 1986, 1989,1990, and 1998 Taurus is in front of the rear axle, under the passenger seat, not between the rear axle and the body as in the CV. (I went to the junk yard to find a

95 CV just to be sure, Checked a 2003 CV also, OK.) Also, the Taurus has front and rear crumple zones that yields and spares the passenger compartment in a rear-end, or head on collision. That makes the Taurus safer with respect to the position of the fuel tank in rear end collision. I am not advocating, or, clamoring for a law suit, OK. But for you to say that the positioning on the fuel tank on the CV can not, or need not be improved is like having tunnel vision. Improving safety is part of my job, and I examine many cars, Domestic and Foreign, for design improvements. The CV is my car of choice for long trips, and I am sure I never will drive my car like the police do, or stop on the shoulder of Highways constantly, so I do not face the hazards they do. Things are bad as they are with Stupid Laws, Drunks and Mental cases, and Criminal elements. That is just a part of what the police face everyday, therefore they should not have to worry about equipment failure also. Even one such occurrence is too many.

Only way it's possible is for the tempo to miss the structure of the vic entirely and just go through trim and sheet metal with it's structure.

It was never done in pintos and using the fuel tank as the trunk floor was common design of many manufacturers in the 1960s.

I'd agree.... no way in hell is that story true. The front of a Tempo is absolutely no match for the rear of a Town Car. We're talking Pee Wee Herman VS Lennox Lewis type of mismatch here. Bob