Ford to Police: get lost!

Also unfounded. Even the fireball pinto didn't have a higher incidence of fuel fire than other cars of its class in that era.

The issue with the pinto was that ford knew of a failure mode and did not correct it.

|I wouldn't say the problem only recently developed. Probably more correct |to say recently recurred. I still remember the exploding Ford scare in the |late '70s. Same exact problem. Hit them in the rear and watch the |explosion. In the summer of 1978, you could buy a used Ford for pocket |change as everyone panicked and tried to unload them.

That was about the same time as the infamous Exploding Chevy Pickup scare.

Not quite. Chevy was already making the pickups with side-saddle tanks back then, but the infamous "Oh, it didn't blow up! Lets add some pyrotechnics for the cameras!" scare didn't hit until much much later, when the trucks had been merrily going about their business for almost

Isaiah Beard opined

Hell, The way they handle it around most places would be to cite Johnson, the van driver.

Maybe the cops were distracted by his turn signal.

What I'd like to know is why this is such a big issue now... I find it hard to believe that the old Ford Customs that police used for tens of years would fare much differently in a high speed rear-end collision. Maybe there's a little more trunk to absorb the impact, but still, at highway speeds hitting a car that is barely moving shoudl easily get through or mangle the rear frame rails and body enough to hit the tank.

Car's have been made with the gas tank in that same spot for decades, and only now is there a big bruhaha about it. All I have to say to the police is to drive safely and it's not an issue, either that or start using Geo Metros as police cruisers like they do in England.

The problem is that pigs are so damned stupid. They hide in the bushes and when they decide to find a better hiding spot they will pick a horrible time to move into traffic and they barely touch the gas pedal. If you ask me all those dead and burned cops got exactly waht they deserved for not doing their job properly and ignoring unsafe driving behavior for the easier job of hiding in the bushes to catch speeders.

There is an easy answer. If a police officer in injured on the job he is covered by state workman's compensation laws. Under the WC laws, litigation is not allowed because the employer assumes ALL liability for ALL injuries on the job. Even if it's your fault that you got hurt. For the shark lawyers to get their millions they have turned to product liability laws in states that are known for liberal juries on product liability awards like Arizona and Mississippi. It is all about money. The NHTSA conducted an investigation of 1997 through 2002 CV and found NO product defect. They kicked the props out from under any attempt at litigation in their findings, by Ford proving it builds the CV to take a rear hit of 50 MPH, the NHTSA lists the CV as the SAFEST, by far, of any police vehicle far exceeding the 30 MPH federal standard to which all others are built. That does not satisfy the Ford haters, but so what, who cares what they think?

mike hunt

Cory Dunkleberger wrote:

Can I take a guess? you were cited for speeding recently, right. LOL

mike hunt

Cory Dunkle wrote:

I'm thinking it was a recent bust of his crop of marijuana plants growing in his basement.

The fuel tank and the trunk floor are two different things. They are very closely spaced, though...

On a related note, I came across an article in the Blue Oval News, same subject, tonight. 350,000 police units, 20 years, 14 police deaths due to the rear-end collision fires. There was also an incident recently where a female officer was inside on of the CV units and was rear-ended at ~100mph. She survived because the cruiser had the new plastic shield surrounding the fuel tank... Free for the police, $150 for you to buy and install.

Also a collaboration with reps from the aerospace industry for installing fire supression systems as another safety measure.

Here we go again, more BS in the NG's about the CV. The gas tank is, technically, behind the rear-end but it is ABOVE the axle. The fire suppression system will be offered as an option. During those same years you elude to, more officers died on frontal collisions and more officers died on bicycle patrol as well. Police work is dangerous. The NHTSA investigation into the CV resulted it a finding that the CV was not a hazard and in fact far exceed the federal standard for rear collisions. Just more Ford bashing by shark lawyers looking for a way around state workmen's compensation laws.

mike hunt

J>

I hope that I didn't present that wrong... I'm completely behind Ford on this one. The stats just don't begin to prove the unsafe claim! That was also the intent of the article - how can a car this safe be unsafe?!

So what you're saying is it was WRONG of Ford to offer the shield for the gas tanks?