Author Topic: Zeroes aren't the only things that burst into flames when hit... (Read 249 times)

gofaster · « **on:** October 22, 2002, 04:08:21 PM »

Here I thought Ford had learned its lesson with the Pinto in the '70s. Looks like those engineers are back on the job - 30 years later! Think the NHTSA report will do anything to clear the mark against the Crown Victoria's reputation?

=======from Edmunds.Com===================

Crown Vic Passes Fed Tests
Last updated: 2002-10-11

The Ford Crown Victoria, implicated in a series of fatal fires, has received a clean bill of health from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The NHTSA says that the Vic, a popular police car, meets all relevant safety standards and is no more likely to burst into flames in an accident than other popular police cars. In recent months, police and citizen groups have called for a recall of the Crown Vic, after several dozen Crown Vics caught fire after high-speed, rear-end collisions. Some 14 police officers nationwide have died in similar accidents in the past decade, and the state of Arizona has led the groups asking Ford for a recall and a fix for the issue. Last week, Ford said it would offer shielding that could prevent the puncture of gas tanks in high-speed accidents, which is thought to be the cause of the fires.

J_A_B · « **Reply #1 on:** October 22, 2002, 04:34:32 PM »

I don't care what NHTSA says. Words can't change what the CV/GM physically IS.

In a nutshell:

This is a rear-drive car. The gas tank is directly in front of the axle (not a great location to begin with). Making things worse, it has no bumper to speak of. My Cadillac has a heavy, thick slab of steel as a bumper.....my girlfriend's Grand Marquis has only a flimsy piece of plastic as a "bumper". I know this from crawling underneath the car and inspecting it.

In a wreck, that thin, wimpy piece of plastic isn't going to do squat to protect the car, and if you hit the CV/GM fast enough from behind it WILL break the gas tank. For police, who often have to park on the shoulder of a road while traffic speeds by at 60-70 MPH, this is a VERY relevant issue. A lot of cops prefer the generally inferior Chevy Impala over the CV just because of this issue.

It's a bad design on an otherwise good car. Normal motorists, who are at little risk of being rear-ended by a speeding car, don't have to worry much about this design flaw.

J_A_B

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #2 on:** October 22, 2002, 05:07:03 PM »

I can't help but think back to the movie "Fight Club". I believe that was a crown vic they were looking at.

AKDejaVu

Maverick · « **Reply #3 on:** October 22, 2002, 05:28:10 PM »

AZm has had the car burst into flames 5 times. There is only one survivor and he had 4th degree burns on his face, head and severe damage to his hands as well.

OIO · « **Reply #4 on:** October 22, 2002, 05:56:48 PM »

that must be it! HTC put the zero's fuel tank in the last pixel of the wingtips!

hblair · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2002, 07:48:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by J_A_B
I don't care what NHTSA says. Words can't change what the CV/GM physically IS.

In a nutshell:

This is a rear-drive car. The gas tank is directly in front of the axle (not a great location to begin with). Making things worse, it has no bumper to speak of. My Cadillac has a heavy, thick slab of steel as a bumper.....my girlfriend's Grand Marquis has only a flimsy piece of plastic as a "bumper". I know this from crawling underneath the car and inspecting it.

In a wreck, that thin, wimpy piece of plastic isn't going to do squat to protect the car, and if you hit the CV/GM fast enough from behind it WILL break the gas tank. For police, who often have to park on the shoulder of a road while traffic speeds by at 60-70 MPH, this is a VERY relevant issue. A lot of cops prefer the generally inferior Chevy Impala over the CV just because of this issue.

It's a bad design on an otherwise good car. Normal motorists, who are at little risk of being rear-ended by a speeding car, don't have to worry much about this design flaw.

J_A_B

Crown Vics and Grand Marquis have heavy steel rebars or aluminum rebars. There's lots of cars with the fuel tank in front of the axle. I think most cars today are like that. Did all 14 of these officers burn to death or were they killed in a wreck in which the car happened to burn too? I saw a photo of one of these police cars that was literally wrapped around a tree. I don't see how the officer could have survived the impact myself.

Krusher · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2002, 08:42:15 AM »

Last Night a Dallas cop was rear-ended on Central expressway. His car (Crown Victoria) burst into flames and he died at the scene

hblair · « **Reply #7 on:** October 23, 2002, 08:56:23 AM »

Man, that's bad news krusher. If there's a problem I hope they get it fixed. These cars must be getting juked real hard in the rear for the frame to fold that much in front of the rear axle. Or are the tanks inside the trunk? I can't remember for sure.

john9001 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2002, 10:32:15 AM »

the fuel tank is under the trunk, between the axle and the bumper. in a rear end crash the fuel tank gets pushed into the axle and ruptures.

ford is retro fitting all police cars with a tank shield for free , civilians have to pay for the refit.

NOTE: this does not mean the car will not catch fire in a wreck, it will still burn like all cars do.

i notice people always blame the "car", nobody has said anything about the drivers that run into a police car parked on the shoulder with ALL ITS LIGHTS FLASHING, whats wrong with these drivers? do they become target fixated with the pretty lights and just drive into them?

44MAG

J_A_B · « **Reply #9 on:** October 23, 2002, 04:25:33 PM »

"Did all 14 of these officers burn to death or were they killed in a wreck in which the car happened to burn too? "

Burns. The CV/GM is great at keeping the occupants alive.

Next time you get one in your shop, look it over. Most of the structure of the car is around the passenger compartment, as if it was designed mainly to prevent damage to this section. Generally everything between the wheels is very, very strong, almost tank-like. The very front and rear of the car are extremely weak by comparison. Unfortunately the gas tank is located in that exposed area. IMO if the rear end of the car had the structural strength of the passenger cabin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since this is a BIG car that weighs only 3900 pounds (light for a car of its size), I'm thinking Ford did it that way to save weight.

For normal civilian use, where there's little risk of a stopped car being rammed by a much faster moving vehicle, this isn't much of a concern. In police work though it becomes a very real problem and it is costing lives.

Just another reason why Chevy should have kept building the Caprice. It was better than the CV even without the fires.

J_A_B

gofaster · « **Reply #10 on:** October 24, 2002, 08:45:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by J_A_B
[BSince this is a BIG car that weighs only 3900 pounds (light for a car of its size), I'm thinking Ford did it that way to save weight.[/B]

Actually, that's for energy absorption in a collision. The theory is that if you design collapsable bodies in the front and back, the crumpling metal will absorb some of the impact energy that would otherwise be transfered to the human occupants. If you ever watch a NASCAR race, you'll see the same thing: the trunk will collapse all the way back to the rear wheel but everything between the wheels will retain shape.