|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
This isn't about the '05 and newer ones, but the mid-90s on. I had heard once that Mustangs were unusually bad or hazardous in rear-end crash situations because the fuel tank was located more vulnerably than in most cars. Sort of a Pinto situation, I suppose. I never found out for sure if that was hype, or the beer talking, or just anti-Stang and/or anti-Ford propaganda. Does anyone have any reasoned and educated input?
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,854
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,854 |
eh...the gas tank is pretty visible from behind the car...but i'm no engineer.
1999 Silver Frost SVT
#609 of 2760
Quaife, lightened SVT Flywheel, SPEC stage II clutch, removed resonator, k&n drop in - various other goodies too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816 |
So what's up with Fords and gas tanks?
Pinto
Crown Vic
Mustang
...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 777
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 777 |
I have also heard this, but not confirmed by an expert
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Originally posted by Big Daddy Kane:
So what's up with Fords and gas tanks?
Pinto
Crown Vic
Mustang
...
Ignorance of the people who talk about it basically.
1. Pinto was a real problem, there was a piece of structure that would pierce the fuel tank in a rear end collision. It was obviously fixed in a recall.
2. Crown Vic was mostly a fabrication of a single police dept that did crash testing that was deliberately falsified in order to produce the resultes they desired, ie Crown Vics pouring fuel. It is very sadly true that Police Officers have died in fires in Crown Vics after being rear ended, but these accidents have been extremely severe hits, with the striking cars moving in excess of 70mph and often over 100mph and hitting the stationary Crown Vic. At a minimum this is over twice the energy that any crash testing anywhere for a street car is done.
Further, the risk of leaking fuel isn't terribly great in a hit like that; the risk is that the car is hit so hard that the doors can no longer open. When you combine that with an obliterated fuel tank, and an ignition source, you find very sad circumstances. Any and every car is susceptible to these same things if struck hard enough, and the Crown Vic, because of how it is used by police, is more susceptible to these types of hard rear end hits.
3. Mustang isn't particularly bad, despite the location of the tank in the 79-04 cars. The tank is fully sperated by steel bulkheads from any passenger compertment. However, the Mustang (just like any car) is susceptible to the same sort of extremely hard hit that a Crown Vic is. This has occured in a few cases, and very sadly the vehicle occupants have died. But these are all very extreme accidents. Asking for engineers to design around hits like those is not terribly far away from asking airplane engineers why they can't keep people from dying when the planes hit the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816 |
Originally posted by Rara:
Originally posted by Big Daddy Kane:
So what's up with Fords and gas tanks?
Pinto
Crown Vic
Mustang
...
Ignorance of the people who talk about it basically.
That's what I figured...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Originally posted by Big Daddy Kane:
Originally posted by Rara:
Originally posted by Big Daddy Kane:
So what's up with Fords and gas tanks?
Pinto
Crown Vic
Mustang
...
Ignorance of the people who talk about it basically.
That's what I figured...
Same here. Thanks for the reality check.
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 688
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 688 |
I heard that the 64.5 to I believe 1970 had a bad tank also. That was more from a design aspenct. They just droped the tank in and put a pipe to the rear end to fill. There is nothing seperating the gas tank and the passangers except for the back or the rear seat. So when rear ended the tank pops out spreading gas throught the conpartment. Making a big fire hazard
2002 Ford ZX2 5spd (2nd baby)
Former owner of 1998 Mystique (never filled the shoes on my first love)parents traded for new sable
Former owner of 1996 Mystique(My true baby  )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Well most cars from the pre-safety era were pretty basic as far as crash protection was concerned. The 60's and earlier were especially bad. Ever see a "tanker" mid-year Vette? 40 gal. of fuel a couple of feet behind the seats.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
