|
More bad news for Ford! :-(
Take a look at this thread from blueovalnews.com
Pretty depressing I must say! http://www.bonforums.com/mustang_safety/ My Ford manager informed me about this this morning... :-( :mad: |
I'm so sick of this.... You try to stand by the Blue Oval and this is the kind of crap you get. Ford has let me down BIG time in the last 10 years.
|
UNIT 5302,
This definately SUCKS!!! When the Hell are things going to get better for Ford? I was out with a friend of mine a couple of weeks ago, She was telling me that the Terminator project has been cancelled also! WTF! She works at Rousch Racing in Livonia, Michigan. Her friend, Mandy, she works at SVT - so needless to say - seems pretty credible. :( Just waiting for the press to get a hold of this one! Mike |
Okay, my views may sound like they arise out of ignorance, but just bear with me.
It is foolish to assume you are safe in any vehicle. Even marginally safe. To expect the vehicle to save your life in a crash, any kind of crash is again foolish. What I think is really a stupid and misleading statement is the part in the Ladys (Dream turn NIghtmare) Story. The number of bones broken in a car accident is not an indication of the severity of the accident. My first accident, I could of been killed, but had no bones broken. And that was at a 60 MPH collision with a vehicle that was sitting still. Define Glancing blow. The car was used, how many times have you all seen people (Or done it yourself) back into curbs, into ditches, over tree stumps? I have in my old Mustang, and had to replace the fuel tank because it was damaged. Wasnt leaking but I knew the intergrity of it was comprimised. Define Mechanically inclined. Did he know to check for condition of the fuel tank? Or did he just check for rear main seal leaks, and power steering leaks? And looks to see if the air filter was dirty? Maybe he even checked the tires and suspension for wear. Door crimping shut. That happened to me on my Old 6 cyl stang in my accident. Doors usually crimp shut when the frame flexs in such a way, or twists. Spinning off the road into a ditch is a perfect was to do that, plus a glancing rear blow from another car. To me that sounds more like a negative aspect in the fundamental Uni-Body design principle. They told of the horrors of the lady being burned, I feel sorry, I wish her a sincere recovery, but if you all noticed, they left out all the details of the accident. Such as speed, cause, and terrain. Trying to force a conclusion onto us that these vehicles are unsafe. When the fact is Every vehicle is unsafe. This may sound harsh, BUT.........Hey ***** happens. Sorry it happens, but it does. |
That is so terrible I feel nauseous after reading the story about the poor woman in the convertible...and to think I was dying for a 95 vert...:( :mad:
I can't wait to see how Ford handles this...can't exactly issue an ENTIRE CAR recall...although I love my Mustang, I'm suddenly happy I own a coupe. I feel just plain SICK reading the list of FIFTY people that died and left loved ones behind because of a motherfucking issue that could have been avoided. |
I have little faith in the discretion of the press. They want stories, Big Stories. 90 percent of the time they give one sided view points. They want to cause Hype.
50 out of how many? That may sound like alot, but how many of that chassis design have been in accidents similar to those, but had no such effects. I'm sure that statistic you wont read in all the Stories. There are an infinite amount of variables that are often overlooked in coming to conclusions. How many peoples 1st gen Mustangs actaully turned into big balls of fire after rear end collisions? Hmmmm. You see a good bit of them still exist, and lots of the ones that do I'm sure you'll find evidence of a rear end collision that didnt cause the car to burst into flames. I'm so sick of people coming up to me when I'm driving my old car and saying or asking how I could drive such a dangerous vehicle. "You know those things explode for no reason dont you. You'll be burned alive." I've heard that one. "Oh my god, why do you drive that heap around (Its not a heap, its in rather great shape). They are so dangerous. You know after I heard about how they explode in any kind of wreck, I wont ride in one ever again." Heard that one when I was getting in my car after leaving the mall. Face it, the world isnt safe. People get hurt and die. Its life. People bust into schools with guns, people bust into McDonalds with Guns, people bust into Luigis (Restraunt in Fayetteville) with guns and shoot and kill people. People get drunk, slam into innocent people. Tornadoes kill people, even though they hide in there Home, which also gives a false sense of securtiy and safety. People die from work accidents around heavy machinery. Or from allergic reactions to food. From Cancer. I feel sorry for those people mentioned above that died in the car accidents. I hope there up there with god now, but life isnt safe people. Thinking that cars with the wieght, momentum, and energy they have behind them going at 50 MPH is okay because you have Airbags and Side beam impact doors is just wrong. Thinking that seat belt is going to save you is just wrong. They will help, but that doesnt mean that all the above will prevent you from passing away. Gas is voilatile, even hot engine oil will cause flames if they hit something hot enough. I'm just so sick of these people suing GM, Ford and any other car manufacture for there misfortune. Its tragic yes, but its what you have to consider everytime you get behind the wheel. Its life. Theres no avoiding it. |
Oh, I'm fully in agreement with Merc on the idea the press is out to get Ford at this point, but the trend has been obvious, and Ford's lack of commitment to fight some of the BS claims has totally destroyed their reputation.
|
Ok...I think anyone with half a brain REALIZES that humans are really unsafe ANYWHERE in ANYTHING, period.
We are outraged because there could have been measures taken to minimize this bs...sensational media aside...facts remain and a picture equals a thousand words...that fuel tank is TOAST in those pics, and the amount of gas spillage is unexcusable. Demands are reasonable here..make us as safe as possible at a non astronomical price, and don't lie to us...I think asking to minimize our chances being BLOWN UP can fit in those "reasonable requests" :rolleyes: |
The problem is not just the accidents and the failure of the integrity of the Mustang, but the fact that Ford knew about the problems before production, and decided to cover them up! That is what the press is going to have a field day over.
|
"It's never satisfactory for anybody to burn alive. If the speed and impact does not kill you, you should not have to worry about burning alive."
That is the smartest thing I've heard from a Ford rep in a LONG time :( |
What a crock!
First of all, Blue Oval News is the online equivalent of the National Enquirer. Most of their stories have very little merit. Secondly, did anyone bother to look at the picture at the top of the page? I don't know of any passenger cars that could sustain an accident like that, and leave the passenger compartment virtually perfect. Look at the saftey cage the frame has become around the passenger compartment! You could have easily walked away. Besides, with the shear volume of vehicles on the road, you can make anything sound deadly. The numbers are available for anyone to manipulate.
Take care, -Chris |
I agree with what Mercury and Belle said. Pretty much any unibody car will have its doors shut closed from a big enough collision. This happened to someone at my school in his 80's s10 when he rear ended someone at like 25 mph. But i do agree that Ford could have done something about the fuel issue if they knew about it for so long. The press is always out to get the big stories that dont happen very often - sensationalism[U]
|
Quote:
Nevertheless, we are pissed because something that COULD have been avoided, and has happened before, hasnt been changed because of COST. Whatever the sensation value BON might have, the fact that fires caused in the Mustang II and Pinto were deemed to be from the same cause. That has been stated for many years before BON was even created. With all the punitive damages Ford was responsible for, you think they would have invested that in actually correcting the problem. I'll "risk" my life on a sportbike, but I get pissed if my life is endangered because of some stupid, poorly thought-out design that COULD be improved...if they can spend time developing a blown Cobra, don't see what the big deal is about relocating a gas tank. Personally, I don't think that 50 people is technically ALOT of motorists, but if even one of them could be solely blamed on the car igniting because of Ford's design...that's one too much, considering this isn't the first time they've messed up in this area. Although I definetely WON'T sell my car because of it, I'll certainly rethink buying another Ford product. |
I am not failing to see any point. If you dig deep enough I'm sure there is a flaw in every system on the automobile. Whats is also not being considered is the frequency of these tragic events, and a failure to see it from a bussiness perspective.
My point is, no matter how you hard you try to design a safe system, its just not going to be a hundered percent safe, there is going to be a flaw somewhere. Look at Nascar. They have all kinds of measures to cut back or prevent fires.Kinda like trying to design a "Safe" FireCracker, that will be gaurenteed not to blow up in your hand. Wont happen. When you have a voilatie substance like gas, and an impact carrying as much force as these car accidents, what else can you expect. It does not matter where on the car the fuel tank is located, its going to happen. Sure some places are better that others (Ask GM)but no matter where you put it, its in the way, and can rupture and burst into flames. Think about moving the gas tank. Think about the amount of engineering that would have to go back into the car. Think of how it would affect the balance and handling charectoristics of the car. Think about how they would have to change things from spring rates to shocks,track and many other variables to get the car to handle in an acceptable manner. Its easy to say when not given the task of doing so. I'm not for big bussiness at all, but I'm definetly not for people trying to get something for nothing. I guess I feel the way I do because I drove around a death trap (sarcasam) for so long before buying a new 2000 model Death trap (I'm sure thats what the media will brand it.). I'm not going to whine and complain and sue Ford if my car catches fire in an accident. And anyone who gives second thoughts to buying another ford because of this, maybe they should check out the design of every other fuel system of the competitors, I'm sure you'll be surprised to find some similarities. Look at the 1st gen Mustang. People say the same thing. I'll never buy one because there dangerous. BUt they drive off in a 60 NOva, or Chevy 2, or even a Camaro which has the same design.:rolleyes: |
Ford could have easily moved the fuel tank forward just like on the 3rd gen GM F-body but it takes up space in the hatch area and maybe sales would have declined just like the F-body. The doors not being able to be opened would bother me more, if the convertible is not as strong as the coupe then it should have been made so. The profit is big on every explorer built so there is not much of an excuse for putting cheap tires on them. Still you have alot of SUV drivers who ask for a disaster. They drive too fast with a high center of gravity vehicle all the while talking on a cell phone with a cigarette in the other hand. It amazes me how many minivans and SUV's go flying by me at 80 mph. The roads are more dangerous than ever and you got to pay attention or else you will pay. I had a full size wagon 12 years ago and was on a 600 mile trip and blew a tire at 75 mph and my car was not even upset handling wise. It was a rear tire and threw the tread and did not go flat. Even if it had gone flat on the front, if you are driving and know how to drive I think it should be manageable. The problem is they knew the tires were cheaply made and they knew the doors would not open.
|
I don't have a lot to say about this except that I really do not care if they are dangerous I will drive them anyway, but then I want a motorcycle.
I have a friend that had a camaro, older body that built a motor for it and after one trip to the track and one wheel stand you could not open the doors without some serious beating and kicking of the inside of the door so I do not think that is that big of a deal. I think almost any unibody car is going to have a big problem with that. As for the rest I am sure it is blown out of proportion and with everything else ford has gone through they are easy targets. JMO! |
:eek: speechless!
|
Quote:
I give up this discussion. Reminds me of the Clinton argument..."who cares if he perjured himself?? All politicians lie" :rolleyes: So I will drop it. Its the "settle for it" attitude that explains many subpar aspects of the world that exists in 2002... |
Quote:
THe amount of gas spillage? If you have a full tank of gas, and it cracks open at the base, what do you think is going to happen? |
I agree with you FiveO. Unfortunately the Oval has become a recent target for media attacks and such...talk about adding fuel to the fire ;)
Like I said, I'm sure that stuff has been sensationalized..I just have my panties in a wad about the lying and covering up at the expense of others...just figure it'd be cheaper to do the design the first time rather than pay for dead peeps through punitive damages...time to buy a fuel cell and send the bill to FORD!!! :D :cool: |
Mustang Belle.
It just seems to me that you reacted the same way the every day Joe will when they read the story. Overreacting. Big time. As for not asking everything to be 100% safe, it seems that your asking for 99.9 percent. Which is unrealistic. Its unrealistic to expect no fire in an accident. And its unrealistic to expect no chassis flex of a unibody car(Which is the culprit usually for stuck doors) As for reinforcing the chassis, with Unibody cars the roof is a major structural point of the car. Thats been know for many of years now. As for throwing in more reinforcements on the chassis, that adds wieght. Weight decreases gas mileage. The gas mileage of the cars sold dictates how many big SUV's the manufacture can make in order to meet Federal regulations. It all trickles down. |
One thing you have to remember is cost. Consumers are now paying as much for a new car as they were for a house 30 years ago. And they're not very happy about it. If a defect kills 50 people, yet millions more are fine, that's an acceptable statistic. If a few hundred die, that's when things should be looked at further. Let's say they decide to install NASCAR fuel bladders in all mustangs. They cost teams $1700, but Ford could probably get them for $1500. Then you have to redesign the tank for placement. Figure by the time the design and machinery is completed, that's another $1000 per car. Then there's the money to train the workers to install and service the new fuel tanks. That would probably only add up to another $300 per car. That means adding another $3000 to the dealer cost, and who knows how much they will add to that. The general practice is 180%, so that would mean that Mustangs would go up another $5400 in cost, on top of any other price increases. All because 50 people died in what cannot be absolutely proven as Fords fault. The public would cry louder, and longer, at the thought of paying that kind of money versus taking their chances.
It reminds me of the lady that won millions from McDonalds because she spilled coffee in her lap. As far as blowing a tire, let me set the record straight: If you have a blow out, you should hope it's the front tire and not the back. When it comes to where you put the two new tires, always choose the back. If you have a blowout in front, you still have some control, thanks to the steering wheel. It's not like driving a Cadillac, but you should be able to pull over safely. When a blow out occurs on a back tire, the driver has absolutely no control what so ever. They often will pitch the car sideways, which isn't a whole lot of fun. I was taught this in a college alignment class, but lived through an experience that verified it. I was driving in my '77 Trans Am (yes, I owned one of them, too) from Ventura up to Santa Barbara to see my girlfriend, who worked at the rock radio station up there. She worked from midnight to 6am, so I would usually hang out with my buddies, and when they went home to crash, I drove up to Santa Barbara. Well, one night I was in a hurry. I was doing at least 70 mph, and just after I left Ventura, I had a blow out in the right rear tire. This stretch of Highway 101 is where the mountains meet the ocean. To my right were shear rock faces, and to my left, beyond the oncoming traffic, was a 50 foot drop onto a beach front campsite. I don't remember what I was doing beforehand, other than driving too fast, but the 10 seconds that occurred after the blow out seem to me like an hour. i heard the blow out, and thought someone had fired a gun. before I could finish that thought, I was staring straight into the rocky moutainside, but sliding sideways up the freeway. I tried to get control of the car, but the steering wheel was useless. Almost exactly like what happens to a car when the cops perform a PIT manuever. The car spun in circles, while still heading towards Santa Barbara, and suddenly was in the dirt on the side of the freeway, still out of control. When I finally came to a stop, I got out of the car and looked around. There was a cloud of dust in the air for at least 50 yards back, and that was just where I had left the pavement. I truly believe I am only alive today because that car had such a low center of gravity. For what it's worth, the damn tow truck driver stole my amp out of the car when he came and got it, too. Take care, -Chris |
Uh...I think we should reference back a few threads about reading people's emotions via the internet. I didn't even recheck this thread until I recieved a notification email...not really indicative of behavior that could be termed "overreacting" :rolleyes:
I disagreed with you, and was pissy about the lack of concern for paying customers...Overreacting would be rushing to the dealer and selling my car, or writing a nasty letter to Ford, etc...I really don't think me grumbling about corparate greed could be termed as blowing things out of proportion. Simply because I may care a little more than yourself about my safety in a vehicle, and at least being informed of my risks, does not constitute "overreacting" ;) Moving on... Chris: Your post was really informative about the kind of labor that would go into reconstructing the rear tank design, and now I have a better understanding as to the extent of the cost involved. Thanks for the explanation :) |
I agree with Chris, Blue Oval New is the equivalnt of the National Enquirer. I think they are blowing this WAY out of proportion. Sure it thas the POTENIAL to happen with the right senario. But how often does this senario happen? Hundreds of thousands of SN-95 Mustangs have been sold, if this was a serious problem someone would have noticed it WAY before now, 8 years after they were first introduced. My brother spun his 96 GT on some ice(we southerners still don't understand the darn stuff:D). He slamed into a bridge railing at 35-40 mph. No ruptured gas tank, no fire.
|
I am going to have to agree with what Mercury has been saying. The bad part about this, besides the obvious which is death, is that I can see mainstream press ranting and raving over how the Mustang is unsafe, blah ,blah, blah. And people jumping to conclusions before they know what the facts are or have any other information about other cars crash performances.
If it was that bad, why hasn't NHTSA done anything about it? Again, probably because there are a bunch of other makes and models that will perform similarly if the samething happened to them. I feel badly for the woman who was burned, however, I have issues with the way that story was written. The "Daniele's son being mechanically inclined gave the car a good once over" and " The force of the impact was not even enough to break a bone in Danielle's body, but the Mustang instantly burst violently in flames" comments are just there to spin what happened and make the reader use emotion instead of fact in their judgement. As stated earlier, breaking bones is not an indicator of how bad the accident was. I rolled my first 91 Gt while going 70 MPH and I walked away with only a sore back. Granted it was a different type of accident, but thats the point. Every accident is different. One article is not going give all the facts and most people wouldn't understand the crash and vehicle dynamics anyway. I'm not a person that likes it when companies covers things up (if that is what happened here), but the way the material is presented and considering the source, I don't like the way it is going down. Its a crappy situation, but it won't stop me from buying another Ford product. Driving a vehicle is dangerous and is a risk we take. |
Ford has had this fuel tank design since the introduction of the Fox platform in 1979-1980.
Why is this a problem now? The newest article claims that Ford argues that there is no Gov't std for fuel tank spillage. This is probably why NHTSA didn't get involved. BON "journalists" then argue that the law is about having a reasonably safe vehicle. Then everyone foams at the mouth over the term "reasonable." I believe the statistics point to a reasonably safe vehicle. 50 people in 14 years probably died from distracted drivers in Mustangs. How many have died from drag racing in those same years? The pictures also show that the mustang is safe at a 50 mph collision. I wonder how many other cars could look like that after the same crash? Doors sticking shut at 35 mph crash: Even if you put a convertible on a lift the doors stick shut. I'd like to see other convertibles performance before i have an apoplectic breakdown about the mustang. Doors sticking shut is a serious issue and should be looked into; however, the performance of other convertibles should not be altogether ignored or dismissed. My main point about vehicle safety has always been: YOU are the single biggest factor in a vehicles safety. How you drive the car, your skill, preparedness, etc are the essential factors in vehicle safety. |
sounds like a witch hunt to me ........if you take a good look at almost any car and use some statistics ,you'll probly find somthing you can say is defective and dangeruos........ford seems to take the brunt of this type of journalism alot ..........
reminds me off the pinto thing when they were singled out ........at that time there were like a couple of hundred car designs that were similar and potentially just as dangerous as the pinto,hell i've owned cars that it seems like they would be more dangerouse then the pinto ever was(example being the old filler behind the license plate set up).....but the pinto was singled out becouse of somone using some statistics and saying they were dangorous......next thing you know everybody was scared to get into a pinto ,but were oblivios to the potentiall of there similarly designed car that could do the same thing i think saying the mustang is any more dangeruos then any other car out there is probly exagerated ........if i was a journalist and wanted a story i'm sure i could muster up some facts and a couple of personal story's that support a theory about gas tanks being just as dangeruos no matter where they put em .......if you think about it the gas tank could rupture no matter where you put it depending on what kind of accident your in......personally i would *want* the gas tank back there ,if it ruptured and caught fire i'd want the intencest flames to be at the back of the car ,instead or the center of the car ,where i would be........ as for the doors ,that happens on alot of cars,hell my doors on my t top don't open or shut real easy when it's parked on uneven ground ,if i wrecked it i wouldn't expect them to open.......and on top of that my gas tanks in the same location......but nobody's singling my car out as un safe i think that this is just a case of somone playing on fords history to make a story when there isn't call for a story |
Ford knew about the Firestone problem for years as well. If anybody would like to argue that Ford's commitment to safety is what it was, you better start checking crash test results. Where Ford was the leader just a few years ago, they're falling back now.
The NHTSA doesn't see every trend out there, the Firestone problem had to be escalated to their attention. The accusations have been made, and even jokes usually have a hint of truth to them. How much truth will surely be told in the near future. If there are serious problems with the cars, it will be made public. As for now, I've seen Ford screw up enough in the recent past to wonder. |
i knew about the Ford gas tank for a long time! anybody could see that it isnt a logical place to put the tank! still i think consumers should know about if a vehicle they buy past the Federal tests from the manufacteror. i still will buy them. i agree its a stupid design. keep your tank full if you are worried about it. it all comes down to the HOLY $DOLLAR$! i feel bad though for families or children that have been killed by corparate sh*theads. i hope this gets spread out to everyone and Ford finally comes forward and explains themselves. i think people are alot smarter now in sense of safety than they were 25 years ago. im still going to keep buying the Stang though! maybe they should make it out of plastic like the Germans do:eek:
|
'mercury" posted....I'm not going to whine and complain and sue Ford if my car catches fire in an accident.
.................................................. .............................................. Come on man don't give us that crap, we all know very well that if it ever happened to you you will take FORD to the laundry .................................................. ..................................... Reminds me of the Clinton argument..."who cares if he perjured himself?? "Mustangbelle306' Clinton is my hero :D |
Lets not get started on Clinton. At least not in this thread. I have a funny feeling most people on here (myself included) have little or no respect for that man.
|
See it's crap like that, makes you want to go to another brand. I they need to fix their problems instead of covering them up.
I knew the fuel tank was all wrong. I remember when I first saw a SN95, I thought "I know that's not the fuel tank in the back like that. No it can't be. That's a fire hazard." Well it was the fuel tank. It a problem waiting to happen. I love the Mustang, and I take pride in Ford, but that is just wrong! |
Dude, the fuel tank is in the back like that on just about every vehicle.
As for Rocket 99GT. I have been driving around in antique mustangs for many years now, as you cant obviously see, my safety isnt much of a concern for me. Rocket you also dont understand once again, obviously, my view point. Its the Real World. Physics and chemistry play a BIG part in the Real World. Unlike quite a few of these other people who dont understand why glass breaks, plastic splits, or why Gas ignites near a heat source or Spark, I DO. Do you think I'm going to blame Ford for Gas being Combustable????? Or for some other moron hitting my car?????? No. Now if there was a problem with Airbags going off while driving, and my airbag smashed me in the face while I was driving, and that caused me to wreck, then yes I would raise alittle hell. People, go after the cause, not the affect. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 AM. |