Ford owners not told of ways to reduce fuel-tank fire risk

I am consistantly amazed by these plagiaristic bastuhds,,,, devoid of any conscious thought, they can only offer links to sensationalistic articles or do a very bad cut and paste in order to look like they can form any sort of self-ascribed opinion.

I'm not sure that any of us are here to discuss Ford restructuring efforts.... and I'm not really sure we need to be demanding safer cars when it is safer drivers that we need. We have ventured onto a slippery slope.... we are demanding that cars offer better survivability in a wreck, yet nobody seems to be trying very hard to avoid having a wreck in the first place.... (kinda like spilling a fresh cup of coffee in your lap and being surprised that the coffee is hot).

Since 1992, Canada has legislated daytime running lights on motor vehicles.... I can attest to their efficacy since there have been many times I would have thought it safe to pass except for the added visibility of oncoming cars that DRLs afford. And yet some feel these are an infringement on their "freedoms". Still others are overwhelmingly concerned about the restraints control module being able to store crash data..... if you weren't doing something wrong, is there anything to worry about? If you're not doing something wrong and you are worried, I have to wonder how free you really are....

In the end, it will always boil down to us.... We are the people that operate these machines.... We are the people that maintain these machines. If we are lax in one or both of these areas, can we truly blame those that build the machines?

All it would have taken for the old Pintos to stop bursting into flames would be that the guy behind desn't run into the Pinto. Obviously, common sense is something too big to ask for....

infringement

If the Ford owners in question are deaf and blind and therefore can't read a paper or listen to the news, they should not be driving.

There is no question the current practice of allowing people that do not know how to drive, to teach others to drive, is not working. Better driver training is sorely needed. More than half the drivers on the road today do not even know how to properly position their vehicle to make a left turn, where to stop at a stop sign to be able to see cross traffic approaching. Few drivers actually know the proper procedure of how to overtake or be overtaken by another vehicle passing in the opposing lane.

As to DRS, they have been debated to death in the US. The consensus is they cause more accidents than they prevent ESPECIALLY when passing! That was the conclusion of engineering department of several universities when the Congress decided to NOT make them mandatory in the US. You obvious disagree but as far as the US is concerned that makes no difference. DRL's are available as an option for those that do not think to turn on their headlamps when they believe they need to be extra visible to other drivers. You cans search the US Congressional Record for the detailed deficiencies of DRLs, if you are interested.

mike hunt

I was behind a Jeep Grand Cherokee this morning on the way to work. The gas tank on that vehicle is hanging out the rear of the vehicle staring me right in the face. It is in between the trailer hitch and the rear axle. There is no way that the gas tank on one of those is safer than the gas tank on a Crown Victoria which is mounted at the front of the trunk, above and slightly behind the rear axle (and separated from the trunk by a metal bulkhead). So, why is it that the press constantly rants about Crown Victorias (which actually are involved in very few fires), while ignoring other vehicles that have far less safe gas tank locations? Could it be that the way Police use Crown Victoria makes them especially vulnerable to high speed rear end crashes? And if this is true, is it likely that civilian Crown Victoria are not at much risk for fires? Think people!

Ed

If Ford is reporting the accident/injury rate accurately, the Crown Victoria has a good record. Move the tank somewhere else and other problems will crop up. If there is a way to improve the old vehicles, let customers pay and have them upgraded. Ford has to be careful about liability when they start doing it for free. I've been flamed for saying this before, but I have personally seen minor accidents where those vehicles were crunched up to the rear glass. I guess I would say it was only minor to the vehicle that did the hitting, not the CV. Still, that would not stop me from driving or owning such a vehicle.

I don't think I've ever seen a Grand Cherokee in Police duty either.

Grand Cherokees are indeed use by police agencies, we employed several over the past few years in the agency in my town (I retired last August from the department)..

As far as the Crown Vics in police use, it seems that the majority of burned up police cars were a result of officers on traffic stops on an expressway. Motorists drive into parked police cars all the time, for some reason, motorists, often drunk drivers, drive into the flashing lights. Common practice (in Michigan) is for police officers is to angle park their car behind the violator's car in order to reduce a direct hit to the rear of the police car.

Chevies ain't without problems as pursuit vehicles either:

More anti Ford BS. The fact is the CV is the safest of ALL of the certified police vehicles available in the US. The NHTSA standard for rear collision, is the ability of the fuel system to withstand a 30 MPH collision. All CVs are built to withstand a 50 MPH collision. Even greater protection for the Interceptor is available for those departments that specify fuel cell tank liners. Efforts by trial lawyers to extort money from Ford were thwarted by the results of the NHTSA investigation of rear collision fires cleared the CV of any defects. The tests of CV proved it exceeded federal standards and performed better than any other sedan on the market today in high speed rear end collisions.

mike hunt

Hey, for the outsiders looking in, I spent 30 years in police work, with close to 20 years pushing a scout car. Our agency used;

Fords 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's years Mercurys mid 70's Pontiacs late 70's mid-sized, great handling, fair power Impalas mid 70's and mid 80's Floors rotted away fairly quick in the converter area. Dodges, Plymouths late 70's ungodly speed, poor brakes, quality control poor, cars fell apart, used a lot of gas.

I have seen all of these makes smashed up in about every type of situation, Ford's seemed to hold up the best in crash situations. Cars that got crashed and you would think that the crash were not survivable, officers survived.

All of these brands had their strengths and weaknesses, I am not painting a rosey picture about Fords, I am objective in my opinion.

I will drive a Crown Vic in any police type situation without second thoughts. Their only drawback, is they are poor, to drive in snow deeper than 3-4 inches (comon snow falli in Michigan). The get stuck easy on pavement and in parking lots. I suppose that is due to their good handling ability on dry pavement. They are a pretty tough car, and hold up well with routine maintenance.

In law enforcement circles, some of the problems with fires were blamed on equipment bolted in the truck and the bolts piercing the fuel tank, not Ford's problem. Some agencies store a firemans pick axe, called a halligon tool (Google search) in the trunk of the Crown Vic, and this tool will pierce the fuel tank. (The halligon tool is indistructable, will last longer than dinosaur fossels).

Frank