CBS special on exploding Mustangs!!??
benk
Mustangs with their drop in gas tank having a history of exploding??
First I've heard of it.
http://www.cbs.com/navbar/locationie.html
They also mention a protection plate you can install behind the rear
seat to prevent gas from *splashing* the occupants. Any thoughts?
Griff1324
heard of the gas tanks exploading on the mustangs also!!! As for the firewall
for the trunk, probably not a bad idea! I found it very intersting that they
said that by the year 2000 there will be more classic mustangs on the road then
there is now!
later,
Chris
'65 Black 289 Mustang Coupe
Brad
benk wrote in message <35ad82e...@news.direct.ca>...
Yeah. I've had a '67 for over a decade now and I remember someone telling
me that the bolts that anchor the lap belts on the front buckets go thru the
floorboards and are dangerously close to the gas tank. Thus, a full tank,
some pressure and a sudden pop into the tank and BOOM!
The problem with this today is that if a '67 hit almost anything but an
Expedition, it'd crush it and maybe dent bumper in the process. Ask me
about the '80s Civic, '91 Olds and '90 Buick I crushed and didn't even break
the chrome. :) (BTW, they all hit me.) :):):)
Brad
Remy Triant
> Hey what's with the special on CBS public eye about how the classic
> Mustangs with their drop in gas tank having a history of exploding??
Was that with or without the special network newsmagazine exploding charges?
RT
Rexven
>Hey what's with the special on CBS public eye about how the classic
>Mustangs with their drop in gas tank having a history of exploding??
>First I've heard of it.
Hmm.. Are you sure they aren't referring to the Pinto II's..err.
Mustang II's?? <grin>
...................
Have you ever imagined a world without hypothetical situations?
Remove *nolamers* to e-mail.
Erich Coiner
>
> Hey what's with the special on CBS public eye about how the classic
> Mustangs with their drop in gas tank having a history of exploding??
> First I've heard of it.
>
>
> They also mention a protection plate you can install behind the rear
> seat to prevent gas from *splashing* the occupants. Any thoughts?
I also saw the segment, after my Sister in law in Denver called and said
you must watch this.
Way back when there was all the furor over the exploding Pinto's I
observed that the design everybody was all upset about was the same in
Pintos, Mustangs, Torino's etc. Virtually every car Ford made thru the
60's had the gas tank as trunk floor design.
The sheet metal behind the seat is probably a prudent thing to install.
Done correctly, you would not even see it.
Erich
benk
benk
benk
price? Should be easy enough to do oneself. Either that or beer for
a sheet metal friend.
benk
ruiter
How many 'other' things are not safe compared to today's car ? If you
would look at that, every classic car would be dangerous.
Reinier
---
DEARBORN, Mich., July 15 /PRNewswire/ -- The following was released
today by Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F - news):
The CBS program ``Public Eye with Bryant Gumbel'' has announced that it
will broadcast a story tonight alleging that the fuel systems in
1960s-era Mustangs are unsafe. The CBS story is based on allegations
contained in a lawsuit filed against Ford in California. Based on
the communications we have had with CBS during the preparation of this
report and the wire service reports we have seen, Ford
believes that the facts of the case will not be accurately and fairly
reported by CBS. The following correspondence between Ford and
CBS producers Jonathan Klein and George Osterkamp summarizes our
response to the allegations.
Office of the General Counsel
Ford Motor Company
Parklane Towers West
Suite 300
Three Parklane
Boulevard
Dearborn, Michigan
48126-2568
July 15, 1998
Mr. Jonathan Klein, Executive Producer
CBS News
524 West 57th Street
New York, New York 10019
Mr. George Osterkamp, Producer
CBS News
825 Battery Street
Floor One
San Francisco, California 94111
Re: Mustang Flange-Mounted Fuel Tanks/"Public Eye with Bryant
Gumbel"
Dear Messrs. Klein and Osterkamp:
Bill George of Ford's Broadcast News Center shared Mr. Osterkamp's May
7, 1998, letter with me. Let me first introduce myself -- I
am an in-house Ford Motor Company attorney who is involved in handling
the pending litigation initiated by Benjamin Hodges through
his attorney, David Rand. The fact that you mention this lawsuit in your
correspondence and make reference to materials produced
and/or generated during the pendency of this matter are indicia that you
have been in contact with Mr. Rand and/or his client, Mr.
Hodges. Perhaps Mr. Rand has not shared with you the facts of the Hodges
accident: Ben Hodges was 17-years-old at the time of this
accident -- an inexperienced and uninsured driver; the 1967 Mustang had
been ``tuned up'' by an acquaintance just prior to the accident;
he was driving the Mustang on a California freeway on a rainy night when
it stalled; rather than pull over to the shoulder of the road, he
attempted to restart the engine without success; he was stopped in his
lane of travel when another vehicle traveling 60-65 miles per hour
slammed into the rear of the Mustang; a post-collision gasoline fire,
unfortunately, occurred.
The points raised in your May 7 letter appear to be derived largely from
the allegations in the Hodges case. Many of the statements and
representations in your letter appear to be self-selected and incomplete
excerpts from depositions and other documents in Hodges, in
disregard of a balanced and truthful report of the facts.
In the 1960s, a number of automobiles sold in the United States utilized
a ``drop-in'' or flange-mounted tank like the Mustang including
Volvo, Toyota, Rolls Royce, Fiat, BMW, Audi and others. The
flange-mounted tank design was one of several fuel system design
configurations used by vehicle manufacturers in the 1960-1970 time
period. Other vehicles were equipped with strap-on fuel tanks and a
number of foreign cars had over-the-axle fuel tanks with tanks
completely located in the trunk and a filler pipe often routed through
the
passenger compartment.
The allegations CBS is making against the first generation Mustang could
equally be made against any car manufactured anywhere in the
world during the l960s. Your statement that ``the combination of the
drop-in gas tank and the lack of any solid barrier between the trunk
and the passenger compartment may create a serious risk of explosive
fire inside the car in the event of a rear- end collision'' is not only
unsubstantiated and untrue, but ignores the fact that almost all cars
manufactured in the 1960s had fuel system components located in the
trunk -- in particular -- a filler pipe extending from the exterior wall
of the vehicle through the trunk and into the fuel tank. This filler
pipe,
either free-standing or attached to an exterior panel of the vehicle,
used with a strap-on or over-the-axle fuel tank, could separate from
the tank during a collision and permit gasoline vapors and/or liquid to
be expelled into the trunk of the vehicle. Hence, there is nothing
unique in vehicles with strap-on or over-the-axle tanks that would
isolate the trunk compartment from gasoline vapors and possibly liquid
fuel in the event of a rear or side collision.
Addressing the memo of Mr. Sherman Henson, his deposition in Hodges
which is a matter of public record, indicates that at the time the
memo was prepared, Mr. Henson was a young engineer with Ford Motor
Company with no fuel system design experience. The memo
was a draft which was never signed or approved, and was based on his
opinion that if the top of a flange-mounted tank was somehow
violated in a crash fuel vapor could be expelled into the trunk. The
truth is that in ``real world,'' high speed collisions, the deformation
and
tearing of metal could readily breach Mr. Henson's suggested
``bulkhead'' concept if the vehicles collide so as to deform the area of
the
bulkhead. Furthermore, referencing my prior discussion of exposed filler
pipes in the trunk, his observation would have equal application
to strap-on and over-the-axle tanks. This discussion does not address
issues of manufacturing feasibility; serviceability; application in
hatch-back, station wagons, vans, MPV vehicles, etc.
As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) conducted an engineering evaluation of the 1960s
Mustang fuel system in the early 1970s and concluded, based on
independent accident data analysis and its own testing, that ``drop-in
fuel tank systems present no fire hazard which does not also exist in
strap-on or other similarly located motor vehicle fuel tank systems.''
Attached are portions of the deposition transcript of former Associate
Administrator for Motor Vehicle Programs of NHTSA, Robert
Carter, from the Hodges case and the complete closure document generated
by NHTSA in determining that the fuel system in the first
generation Mustang did not present an unreasonable risk to occupant
safety. Crash Test 301, which you reference, was an experimental
crash test conducted in the late 1960s. The test was conducted to
evaluate occupant kinematics (movement) not fuel tank performance.
Moreover, the vehicle used in the test was a cobbled Mustang. Prior to
crash, the trunk lid, package tray cover and left door had all
been removed from the vehicle. The test itself was a 30 mile per hour
fixed-barrier rear impact, which even today is not a part of the
government's fuel system integrity crash test standard. It was an
extremely severe test -- approximately two (2) times more severe in
energy than the current federal government standard.
Your statement that Ford testified in deposition that ``there is no
evidence the test was given to NHTSA'' is incomplete and misleading.
Ford no longer has the records, many of which were generated over 30
years ago, submitted in response to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's request for information on flange-mounted tanks
which would confirm which test reports were provided to
NHTSA. What is clear from the NHTSA final report, however, is that a
number of crash tests were provided to the Agency. While it is
true that Ford has ``no evidence that this test was given to NHTSA,'' we
likewise have no evidence that it was not; the testimony was
that 20 years after the investigation was concluded we do not have
complete files that would tell us which test reports had been provided.
You will note, Mr. Robert Carter has testified that for NHTSA's
purposes, whether or not Crash Test 301 was included in Ford's
submission was immaterial because NHTSA was conducting its own
independent engineering and data analysis assessment of the flange-
mounted tank design and would not have relied upon Ford's crash tests.
With respect to Mr. Rand's crash test in Hodges, Ford Motor Company has
reviewed that crash test film but, unfortunately, plaintiff's
expert has not been deposed on the crash test and we can therefore make
no further comment, other than to note that there was no tank
violation or dissemination of fuel into the trunk or passenger
compartment (with or without a solid steel bulkhead) based upon
information
provided to us by plaintiff's attorney and an inspection of the crash
vehicle by Ford's experts.
You state that ``Ford has paid millions of dollars to settle more than
70 lawsuits arising from this design,'' and that Ford has chosen to
settle all these suits out of court. Contrary to your statement, several
of these lawsuits were tried, with verdicts in Ford's favor. It is often
in the best interest of the parties and court rules attempt to promote
resolution of lawsuits prior to trial.
As described above: (1) the gas tank configuration and location of the
Ford Mustangs produced during the 1960s were not unique for
cars of that period; (2) the Mustang met or exceeded all industry safety
standards applicable at the time it was manufactured and
possessed state-of-the-art safety technology; (3) the performance of the
Mustang fuel system relative to post-collision fire was
comparable to that of other vehicles in its peer group; and (4) the
Mustang was not defective or unreasonably dangerous.
The first generation Mustang, introduced in 1964, was one of the top-
selling vehicles of its era. Its popularity has not diminished over
time. In recent years, an entire industry has developed around the
classic Mustang, with hundreds, if not thousands, of Mustang clubs and
aficionados across the country engaged in activities to preserve and
promote the Mustang. A national media attack on this highly
successful vintage sports car some thirty years after its production is
not only unsubstantiated, but presumably of dubious news value.
Stated another way, the fact that there are so many registered Mustangs
in 1998 -- thirty years after production -- is unassailable
``evidence'' of the design integrity and performance of this car line.
Very truly yours,
Louis J. Banciu
Counsel
SOURCE: Ford Motor Company
ArsonFindr
>
it wasn't explosive charges, it was model rocket motors used to ignite the
spilling fuel.
bill
64.5 coupe: 260 bored .060, 3 sp., a/c, SVO cam, Performer intake, Holley 4v,
Pertronix, 289 Hi-Po manifolds, 1.5" A arm drop kit, 1" lowered rear, Jacobs
wires.
66 coupe: '93 HO 5.0, a/c, ps, C4 & bench seat. (wife's car)
96 S-10 X-cab: 4.3 Vortec V6.
TFrog93
>Hey what's with the special on CBS public eye about how the classic
>Mustangs with their drop in gas tank having a history of exploding??
>First I've heard of it.
>
>http://www.cbs.com/navbar/locationie.html
>
>
>They also mention a protection plate you can install behind the rear
>seat to prevent gas from *splashing* the occupants. Any thoughts?
Their commentary was fairly evenhanded, and the problem appears to be real.
Keep in mind that these cars were built 30-34 years ago, and ALL cars had
problems back then. The classic Mustangs, when rammed from the rear, feature
an emergency gasoline dispersal system - unfortunately, this E.G.D.S. means
that the gas is sprayed all over the back seat and its occupants. Remember,
this was pre-Nader.
I don't think that Ford, itself, has any liability as far as recall and quick
fix, since these cars are so old and they met safety standards of the day
(none). If I owned one, though, I might take a look at more protection for the
fuel tank...
They also pointed out that the classic Mustangs, being collectibles, are still
running around in far greater numbers than most cars made at the time. Also,
given the number of classics being rebuilt and restored, they forecast that
even MORE classic Mustangs will be on the roads next year, and the year after.
That means more drivers who are unaware of this problem.
This problem is unique to the Mustang. You can imagine what problems would
arise if Corvairs were suddenly rediscovered, restored and rebuilt in large
numbers. Or Pintos...
Of course, the danger from ignited fuel may be special to the Mustang, but
there aren't many older cars out there that will protect you adequately if
someone slams into the rear at 55mph...
dwight
Dennis E. Sparrow
ultra flame retardant, newsgroup cruising jumpsuit the next time I
decide to take one of my Cougars out for a spin, eh? Has anyone
ever come to the conclusion that the 17 year old kid just plain
fucked up? No, not my kid! It always has to be the fault of
someone else, much less the fault of someone. Sounds like the
plaintiff's attorney is losing some weight and starting to get
hungry.
Dennis Sparrow
'67 Cougar (with an explosive gas tank)
'67 Cougar GT (with an explosive gas tank)
'68 Cougar XR7 (with an explosive gas tank)
'73 Mach-1 (with an explosive driver)
Mustang Marty
ruiter wrote in message <35AE3394...@yahoo.com>...
.............
>Ben Hodges was 17-years-old at the time of this
>accident -- an inexperienced and uninsured driver; the 1967 Mustang had
>been ``tuned up'' by an acquaintance just prior to the accident;
>he was driving the Mustang on a California freeway on a rainy night when
>it stalled; rather than pull over to the shoulder of the road, he
>attempted to restart the engine without success; he was stopped in his
>lane of travel when another vehicle traveling 60-65 miles per hour
>slammed into the rear of the Mustang; a post-collision gasoline fire,
>unfortunately, occurred.
I wonder how many cars won't catch fire, let alone leak gas, when hit from
behind at 60mph??? I say, not many. The worst test they ever throw at a car
is a 35mph offset to the front and rear of a car. A lot of car can't pass
that one.
The Continuing Tom
1) The reporting as "news" of an old story where only inflammatory (no pun
intended) information is presented in an effort to create a fearful response
in the viewer and then claim some sort of commitment to a providing
life-saving service to the community.
2) Affecting a "little guy" fighting the Goliath position to enhance their
perceived prestige for promotional purposes and to deflect criticism that
they do not report any real news and are slanted in favor of big businesses
they are owned by.
But really it just carries forth the tradition of vapid mudslinging laid
down by Ed Bradley's 60 Minutes fact-free hit piece about the totally false
Audi 5000 unintended acceleration allegation.
--
To reply remove NOSPAM from address.
Mustang Marty wrote in message <6om3qm$qee$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>
>ruiter wrote in message <35AE3394...@yahoo.com>...
>.............
>>Ben Hodges was 17-years-old at the time of this
>>accident -- an inexperienced and uninsured driver; the 1967 Mustang had
>>been ``tuned up'' by an acquaintance just prior to the accident;
>>he was driving the Mustang on a California freeway on a rainy night when
>>it stalled; rather than pull over to the shoulder of the road, he
>>attempted to restart the engine without success; he was stopped in his
>>lane of travel when another vehicle traveling 60-65 miles per hour
>>slammed into the rear of the Mustang; a post-collision gasoline fire,
>>unfortunately, occurred.
WindsorLX
Brad wrote:
> Yeah. I've had a '67 for over a decade now and I remember someone telling
> me that the bolts that anchor the lap belts on the front buckets go thru the
> floorboards and are dangerously close to the gas tank. Thus, a full tank,
> some pressure and a sudden pop into the tank and BOOM!
Are you sure you didn't confuse that with thte Pinto? That was the reason the
early Pinto would explode with a rear end, they used seat bracket bolts that
were made for LTD's and they were too long. Maybe CBS was confused and meant to
say Pinto instead of mustang.. LOL
ruiter
Mustang Marty wrote:
> ruiter wrote in message <35AE3394...@yahoo.com>...
> .............
> >Ben Hodges was 17-years-old at the time of this
> >accident -- an inexperienced and uninsured driver; the 1967 Mustang had
> >been ``tuned up'' by an acquaintance just prior to the accident;
> >he was driving the Mustang on a California freeway on a rainy night when
> >it stalled; rather than pull over to the shoulder of the road, he
> >attempted to restart the engine without success; he was stopped in his
> >lane of travel when another vehicle traveling 60-65 miles per hour
> >slammed into the rear of the Mustang; a post-collision gasoline fire,
> >unfortunately, occurred.
> >...............
>
> I wonder how many cars won't catch fire, let alone leak gas, when hit from
> behind at 60mph??? I say, not many. The worst test they ever throw at a car
> is a 35mph offset to the front and rear of a car. A lot of car can't pass
> that one.
Yes, at 60 mph your changes are very little. I think if a current-day car is
hit at 60 in the back you will have a fire too.. The place of where the gastank
was simply isn't there anymore.
Reinier
95 GT coupe
Tygress(Emily)
wrote:
>In article <35ad82e...@news.direct.ca>, w...@direct.ca (benk) wrote:
>
>> Hey what's with the special on CBS public eye about how the classic
>> Mustangs with their drop in gas tank having a history of exploding??
>
>Was that with or without the special network newsmagazine exploding charges?
No no, Dateline used model rocket engines on the GMC trucks. All
the "hip" shows use them now!!
'85 Cutlass 383, 700R-4, 3.70 posi, NOS cheater
12.60's on the engine
11.34 on NOS
'69 Camaro 421sb, 1200 ATI @ 13 psi, intercooled,
Big Shot plate, autocross suspension
Stuart & Janet
>This problem is unique to the Mustang. You can imagine what problems would
>arise if Corvairs were suddenly rediscovered, restored and rebuilt in large
>numbers. Or Pintos...
>>Of course, the danger from ignited fuel may be special to the Mustang, but
>there aren't many older cars out there that will protect you adequately if
>someone slams into the rear at 55mph...
>
>dwight
-----------------------------
The original "exploding" Pinto was hit while virtually stopped by a Lincoln
doing almost 90 mph. The gas tank being underslung was punctured by the
sharp rear axle bolts and casting. That is why newer Fords have that thick
plastic surround at the tank front.
As for the safety of old Mustangs ,if they ARE NOT LESS safe than new cars
then what the hell have we been doing for 30 years!!?
Still we put shoulder belts ABS, Air bags,Traction control,higher brake
lights,DRL's, crumble zones,more and bigger mirrors and what have you and
still we can't stop from killing each other on the roads.
If we could get it through our thick heads that we are travelling down the
road at what ever speed and not sitting in our living rooms or at the make
up mirrors or at the office or at the dinner table and start to pay
attention to what we AND everyone around us is doing,in short start
DRIVING!! then we will keep on smashing into each other.
We all want safe cars but unless we all drive tanks the safest car is the
one parked with no driver!!! rant mode off. StuK
PS Am I preaching to the converted!?
>
Tim Stallman
of them blowup. And we're talking about a car that doesn't go to the junk
yard when the odometer turns over! Did enjoy the footage though.
65FB with 185000 miles (or maybe it 285000)
Erich Coiner <erich_...@hp.com> wrote in article
<35AE1E...@hp.com>...
> benk wrote:
> >
> > Hey what's with the special on CBS public eye about how the classic
> > Mustangs with their drop in gas tank having a history of exploding??
Jared Rude
(Remy Triant wrote:
>
>>In article (benk) wrote:
>>
>>> Hey what's with the special on CBS public eye about how the classic
>>> Mustangs with their drop in gas tank having a history of exploding??
>>
charges?
>
> No no, Dateline used model rocket engines on the GMC trucks. All
>the "hip" shows use them now!!
Well, now, lets be fair. The rocket engines were only PLACED in the gas
tanks to make SURE the truck exploded JUST IN CASE it didn't explode ON IT'S
OWN. Or, at least this is what NBC said in their apology to GM on the
following Dateline NBC.
Does anyone really beleive the rocket engines weren't ignited?
--
Jared Rude
1990 LX 5.0
nospam...@bellsouth.net
remove "nospam_" to reply
danno
Dateline put the rocket engines on the ground right where the GMC pickup
was supposed to be broadsided by whatever car they used to hit it
(Citation?). The fired off the rockets at the moment of impact, and
that ignited the fuel.
Funny thing is, they had to use the rockets to get the fuel to ignite.
I heard that they smashed a few pickups, and even hit them with cars
that had all their headlights on to try to light the fuel when they
crashed. They had to use the rockets, or they couldn't get a fire! ;-)
Danno
Brent A. Peterson
> As for the safety of old Mustangs ,if they ARE NOT LESS safe than new cars
> then what the hell have we been doing for 30 years!!?
You have to take various aspects of safety. In some areas
mustangs are the same or better. Especially once one gets
into the early 70s models.
> Still we put shoulder belts ABS, Air bags,Traction control,higher brake
> lights,DRL's, crumble zones,more and bigger mirrors and what have you and
> still we can't stop from killing each other on the roads.
My '75 maverick was hit in the passenger side by a semi truck.
My '73 was sideswiped by a 16yr old who crossed the double
yellow line driving a '79 mustang. (Avoiding him by going
off road would have met a certain impact with a big tree)
Mavericks have a large square tube door beam. roughly
4"x3". Most modern cars do not have anything like this.
Early crash protection design was done conservatively.
Since it was less understood it was built big and strong.
I was glad to see at least a smaller beam in the doors
of my '97 GT in addition to the more modern ~1" round tube.
I have in the course of running my web site recieved
many stories on mavs that held together through some
incredible impacts.
In any case, the ford unit body design, (mustang,falcon,
maverick,granada in the compact class with fairlane/torino
in the intermediate with a scaled up version of the same
basic design) I think has proven itself in the nearly 40
years since its introduction in 1959. The last ford
in the US made with this basic design was the 1980 granada.
It may be lacking in ABS,etc, but that design does have
its benifits. Upgraded with the lastest additional feaures
and use todays knowledge to fix any weaknesses that
might exist in impact, and these old cars would likely
exceed their modern counterparts gaining the benifit of
both worlds so to speak.
I did not see the CBS story, only learning about it
here. But to me it is obvious that they are trying
to fabricate something solely for ratings or whatever.
The basic mustang design was used in many models
over a peroid of 21 years. Even just limiting to compacts
is several million vehicles. And in nearly 40 years of
existance, CBS claims 70 incidents? Its trival. I
do not see how anyone could do better.
--
-Bp Email:\petebre\@armour.iit.edu\ (remove anti-spam \'s)
Maverick & Comet: http://www.iit.edu/~petebre/maverick/
Walt
engines in their gas tank, then possibly having it explode
while they are alone in the car isn't all that bad. :)
Jared Rude wrote:
>
> Well, now, lets be fair. The rocket engines were only PLACED in the gas
> tanks to make SURE the truck exploded JUST IN CASE it didn't explode ON IT'S
> OWN. Or, at least this is what NBC said in their apology to GM on the
> following Dateline NBC.
>
> Does anyone really beleive the rocket engines weren't ignited?
>
Chris Matthaei
>Tygress(Emily) wrote
>(Remy Triant wrote:
>>
>>>In article (benk) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey what's with the special on CBS public eye about how the classic
>>>> Mustangs with their drop in gas tank having a history of exploding??
>>>
>>>Was that with or without the special network newsmagazine exploding
>charges?
>>
>> No no, Dateline used model rocket engines on the GMC trucks. All
>>the "hip" shows use them now!!
>
>tanks to make SURE the truck exploded JUST IN CASE it didn't explode ON IT'S
>OWN. Or, at least this is what NBC said in their apology to GM on the
>following Dateline NBC.
If I recall, their reason was "to simulate the sparks caused by an impact".
Hehehe.
Chris
'91 5.0 LX http://www.mcs.net/~fuzzy/
Walt
How will there be more 60's era Mustangs (the subject of
the CBS special) on the road by the year 2000 than there
are now??? Does CBS know of a warehouse somewhere of
60's era Mustangs just waiting for the price to be right
to be sold and restored into 'daily drivers'? Gee, I
wonder how many 64.5 Mustangs are stockpiled???
Griff1324 wrote:
<snip>
Erich Coiner
>
> I find this interesting too.
>
> How will there be more 60's era Mustangs (the subject of
> the CBS special) on the road by the year 2000 than there
> are now??? Does CBS know of a warehouse somewhere of
> 60's era Mustangs just waiting for the price to be right
> to be sold and restored into 'daily drivers'? Gee, I
> wonder how many 64.5 Mustangs are stockpiled???
>
Well Walt,
I own a 69 Mach1 that I have owned since 1988. It has had a thrown rod
this whole time so I have never registered or driven the car.
I will begin the engine rebuild this summer so this is one car that will
suddenly be "On the road again"
My real goal is to have the car on the road by the time my son turns 16
(he's 3 now so I think I have a realistic goal)
Erich
emanon
>hit at 60 in the back you will have a fire too.. The place of where the
>gastank
>was simply isn't there anymore.
If a modern-day car ever got hit at 60MPH, the driver had better hope that the
car blows up. If not, he'll be one mangled individual for the rest of his
life. The plastic cars they make today would be squashed like pancakes at
those speeds.
I like how the government runs all of these crash tests at 25MPH (maybe up to
35-40MPH at most) and feels comfortable with the results, claiming that any
car that passes such a test is safe. What about the accidents where one car
crosses the intersection of a freeway? In that case, both cars will be coming
at each other, both doing 60MPH (or faster, considering they would both be in
the fast lane). That's like going from 120MPH to 0MPH in a matter of
milliseconds. Now I can't say for sure (my brakes aren't that good), but
that's gotta hurt.
I didn't see that show on CBS, but it all sounds like a bunch of tree-huggin'
hippy crap. Some liberal bitch just hated the fact that some Mustangs were
out there eating up all of the precious gas and draining the Earth's
resources, while here Kia was getting 1,402,382.06MPG. Therefore, she made up
some story (like that doesn't happen all of the time), hoping that it would
frighten some people enough to convince the EPA to finally outlaw sports cars
all together... as they tried so hard to do for 25 years now. Either it was
that, or it was some ploy by a Japanese automotive company. Take your pick...
either one is just as concerning.
Dennis E. Sparrow
>Walt wrote:
>>
>> I find this interesting too.
>>
>> How will there be more 60's era Mustangs (the subject of
>> the CBS special) on the road by the year 2000 than there
>> are now??? Does CBS know of a warehouse somewhere of
>> 60's era Mustangs just waiting for the price to be right
>> to be sold and restored into 'daily drivers'? Gee, I
>> wonder how many 64.5 Mustangs are stockpiled???
>>
>
>Well Walt,
>
>I own a 69 Mach1 that I have owned since 1988. It has had a thrown
rod
>this whole time so I have never registered or driven the car.
>I will begin the engine rebuild this summer so this is one car that
will
>suddenly be "On the road again"
>
I am sitting on 3 '67-'68 Cougars with a big garage full of parts
and have a friend that is sitting on about 20 restorable Cougars of
the same era. Once these old cars get fixed up and back on the
road, they usually stay there for a long time. As the prices of
newer cars keep skyrocketing, rebuilding classics become a more
viable option. I can totally redo a Cougar for around 5k and have a
vehicle that looks and runs just as good as a 20k one.
Plus, my parts are extremely cheap and I can perform most of the
labor myself.
Dennis
Jared Rude
>Well, if one has a habit of storing their model rocket
>engines in their gas tank, then possibly having it explode
>while they are alone in the car isn't all that bad. :)
Can you say, "Darwin Award" ?
TFrog93
>How will there be more 60's era Mustangs (the subject of
>the CBS special) on the road by the year 2000 than there
>are now??? Does CBS know of a warehouse somewhere of
>60's era Mustangs just waiting for the price to be right
>to be sold and restored into 'daily drivers'? Gee, I
>wonder how many 64.5 Mustangs are stockpiled???
They had some figures that indicated that the number of restored Mustangs is
growing, and they projected these figures to indicate that still more would be
restored and returned to the roadways. You can't deny that there's a thriving
business out there in just this area.
Yes, there will eventually be a finite number of 64 1/2 Mustangs out there,
with no more to be found, but I'd be willing to bet that there's plenty more
out there yet to be rediscovered. After all....HOW MANY did Ford build?
dwight
benk
>road, they usually stay there for a long time. As the prices of
>newer cars keep skyrocketing, rebuilding classics become a more
>viable option. I can totally redo a Cougar for around 5k and have a
>vehicle that looks and runs just as good as a 20k one.
>Plus, my parts are extremely cheap and I can perform most of the
>labor myself.
>
She didn't buy that point of view. Since the divorce she kept the
Neon and I kept my convertible. I am sure glad I restored the 67
then. :)
pfl...@screen.wiltec.twc.com
On Fri, 17 Jul 1998, emanon wrote:
> I like how the government runs all of these crash tests at 25MPH (maybe up to
> 35-40MPH at most) and feels comfortable with the results, claiming that any
> car that passes such a test is safe. What about the accidents where one car
> crosses the intersection of a freeway? In that case, both cars will be coming
> at each other, both doing 60MPH (or faster, considering they would both be in
> the fast lane). That's like going from 120MPH to 0MPH in a matter of
> milliseconds. Now I can't say for sure (my brakes aren't that good), but
> that's gotta hurt.
Crash stats for the last 20 years clearly show the majority of traffic
accidents occur at under 45MPH. Given how car companys don't have infinte
money to spend on development (and I don't have infinte money to pay for a
100% safe car) It seems to me that we are all just 'playing the odds'.
I have been hit twice, and both times I was stopped, the other vehicle was
going 40MPH (in my little Mazda MX3) 1st time, they just about sheared the
front of the car off (happend so fast, I barely had time to blink). Second
time I was stopped at a light when some WOMAN decided not to stop. She
plowed into me at 45MPH, shoved me into a buick, and then SHE was hit by
some dumbass tailgateing her! (never hit her brakes) I saw this one coming
in my rear view mirror and had just enough time to relax into my seat.
They actually fixed my car from both of those hits, and it ran great until
I traded it in on my lastest jap-car.
Both times, I walked away from these without a scratch. thank god for
crumple zones...
PF
LeAnne Davis
>
> Walt wrote
> >Well, if one has a habit of storing their model rocket
> >engines in their gas tank, then possibly having it explode
> >while they are alone in the car isn't all that bad. :)
>
> Can you say, "Darwin Award" ?
only if they are successful in child prevention...to win a Darwin, one must add
some chlorine to the gene pool eliminating one's own genes - those who've
already shared their genetic data are ineligible
see http://www.officialdarwinawards.com for Darwin nomination requirements...and
past nominees & winners...
LeAnne
--
LeAnne Davis, CQE, CPT mailto:LeAnne...@ti.com
Mechanical Products Configuration Manager 972-952-5620
Raytheon SES Systems
Std Disclaimer: These are my opinions, get your own....
http://www.geocities.com/~fannincounty
LeAnne Davis
>
> Second time I was stopped at a light when some WOMAN decided not to
> stop. She plowed into me at 45MPH, shoved me into a buick, and then
> SHE was hit by some dumbass tailgateing her! (never hit her brakes) I
> saw this one coming in my rear view mirror and had just enough time
> to relax into my seat.
drop the sexist crap...there are idiot drivers in both genders...
for example...collisions affecting me...
1984 - a woman in a beamer ran a red light & hit the passenger front
fender of my 76 Regal...
1986 - a 1976 Chevy PU driven by a male ran a red light & broadsided me
(driver's side) in my 1985 Ranger PU...
1990 - a man flies off the tollway in Dallas in a "borrowed" vehicle
& broadsides a red 1990 Jag ragtop shoving her into my red
1990 Geo Metro ragtop & a taxicab to my left. The taxi took the
brunt of the damage from those of us innocently waiting for our
light...My 5 seconds of fame - we were on the morning traffic
reports...
Thankfully, none of our Mustangs have ever been in collisions...
Subic Sailor
LeAnne Davis wrote in message <35B35E93...@ti.com>...
:Jared Rude wrote:
:>
:> Walt wrote
:> >Well, if one has a habit of storing their model rocket
:> >engines in their gas tank, then possibly having it explode
:> >while they are alone in the car isn't all that bad. :)
:>
:> Can you say, "Darwin Award" ?
:
:
:only if they are successful in child prevention...to win a Darwin, one must
add
:some chlorine to the gene pool eliminating one's own genes - those who've
:already shared their genetic data are ineligible
Indeed!! If you have no offspring and castrate yourself you are eligible to
recieve the Darwin Award. What a pleasant thought. Living to see yourself
recieve the Award.
FWIW, as far as I know, I am still eligible for the Darwin Award, unless a
court can prove otherwise, ;) (no kids that I KNOW of)
:see http://www.officialdarwinawards.com for Darwin nomination
requirements...and
:past nominees & winners...
:
:LeAnne
Subic Sailor
LeAnne Davis wrote in message <35B3621B...@ti.com>...
:pfl...@screen.wiltec.twc.com wrote:
:>
:> Second time I was stopped at a light when some WOMAN decided not to
:> stop. She plowed into me at 45MPH, shoved me into a buick, and then
:> SHE was hit by some dumbass tailgateing her! (never hit her brakes) I
:> saw this one coming in my rear view mirror and had just enough time
:> to relax into my seat.
:
:drop the sexist crap...there are idiot drivers in both genders...
Hehem!! LeAnne, you sound like the sexist one. You could do with an
attitude check yourself. NOWHERE in his post, as quoted above by you, does
it reflect any sexism. He merely states, so no one would misunderstand,
that it was a woman. It does not say it happened BECAUSE it was a woman.
OTOH, you accuse him of sexism,
If he had been hit by a man and stated so, no one would be jumping up and
screaming sexism. You are like many people I have met who are so
in-fucking-secure about themselves that they go out and look for trouble.
Even when trouble is nowhere around.
Now, where is that boy that cried 'Wolf!'.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Subic Sailor
subic31*hotmail.com
I'd rather have a daughter in a whorehouse
than a son on the Green Bay Packers.
1991 LX 5.0 Coupe 5 SPD
Monroe GP Struts/Shocks (should have got Koni's)
K&N Filter Charger
Flowmasters 2 Chamber
Front Brake Rotors w/73mm SVO calipers
Air silencer removed
MAC Under Drive Pulleys
Generic Gas :)
Women libbers are ok. I just wouldn't want my sister to marry one.
To find out a girl's faults, praise her to her girl friends.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
:for example...collisions affecting me...
:
:1984 - a woman in a beamer ran a red light & hit the passenger front
: fender of my 76 Regal...
:1986 - a 1976 Chevy PU driven by a male ran a red light & broadsided me
: (driver's side) in my 1985 Ranger PU...
:1990 - a man flies off the tollway in Dallas in a "borrowed" vehicle
: & broadsides a red 1990 Jag ragtop shoving her into my red
: 1990 Geo Metro ragtop & a taxicab to my left. The taxi took the
: brunt of the damage from those of us innocently waiting for our
: light...My 5 seconds of fame - we were on the morning traffic
: reports...
:
:Thankfully, none of our Mustangs have ever been in collisions...
Dennis E. Sparrow
Afterall, he's really the sexist one here calling everybody "BITCH".
DS
Subic Sailor wrote in message <6p0hkh$mk6$1...@news6.ispnews.com>...
LeAnne Davis
>
>LeAnne Davis wrote in message <35B35E93...@ti.com>...
>
> Indeed!! If you have no offspring and castrate yourself you are
> eligible to recieve the Darwin Award. What a pleasant thought.
> Living to see yourself recieve the Award.
not exactly...you are only eligible for honorable mention or some such *unless*
you succeed in killing yourself while doing something too stupid to believe....
> FWIW, as far as I know, I am still eligible for the Darwin Award,
> unless a court can prove otherwise, ;) (no kids that I KNOW of)
surely, you aren't stupid enough to be nominated - after all, you were smart
enuf to buy a Mustang! <grin>
> :see http://www.officialdarwinawards.com for Darwin nomination
> r: equirements...and past nominees & winners...
L
--
LeAnne Davis, CQE, CPT mailto:LeAnne...@ti.com
Mechanical Products Configuration Manager 972-952-5620
Raytheon SES Systems
Std Disclaimer: Ces avis sont les miens, obtiennent vos propres avis!
http://www.geocities.com/~fannincounty
LeAnne Davis
>
> LeAnne Davis wrote in message <35B3621B...@ti.com>...
> :pfl...@screen.wiltec.twc.com wrote:
> :>
> :> Second time I was stopped at a light when some WOMAN decided not to
> :> stop. She plowed into me at 45MPH, shoved me into a buick, and then
> :> SHE was hit by some dumbass tailgateing her! (never hit her brakes)
> :drop the sexist crap...there are idiot drivers in both genders...
>
> Hehem!! LeAnne, you sound like the sexist one. You could do with an
> attitude check yourself. NOWHERE in his post, as quoted above by you,
> does it reflect any sexism.
then, why did he emphasize the gender by making it all caps?
LeAnne Davis
>
> Really! I think you (LeAnne) should harp on RacerMK1 instead.
> Afterall, he's really the sexist one here calling everybody "BITCH".
hmmm....first message I read by him was soooo stooopid, RacerMK1 went into my
kill-file. I normally only correspond with those having a facsimile of
intelligence - is it worth removing it from the kill-file?
LeAnne
TFrog93
writes:
>Dennis E. Sparrow wrote:
>>
>> Really! I think you (LeAnne) should harp on RacerMK1 instead.
>> Afterall, he's really the sexist one here calling everybody "BITCH".
>
>hmmm....first message I read by him was soooo stooopid, RacerMK1
>went into my kill-file. I normally only correspond with those having a
>facsimile of intelligence - is it worth removing it from the kill-file?
No, LeAnne. He's a lamer. From what I can tell, probably about 17, and lonely
as hell. He'll be gone shortly.
dwight
Subic Sailor
LeAnne Davis wrote in message <35B49CA7...@ti.com>...
:Subic Sailor wrote:
:>
:>LeAnne Davis wrote in message <35B35E93...@ti.com>...
:>
:> Indeed!! If you have no offspring and castrate yourself you are
:> eligible to recieve the Darwin Award. What a pleasant thought.
:> Living to see yourself recieve the Award.
:
:not exactly...you are only eligible for honorable mention or some such
*unless*
:you succeed in killing yourself while doing something too stupid to
believe....
Visit the official Darwin Awards Site,
http://www.officialdarwinawards.com/index.html , where you will see that you
do not have to kill yourself, simply remove yourself from the gene pool.
The following is taken from the opening page :
'Following the ideas of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards are given, usually
posthumously, to the individual(s) who remove themselves from the gene pool
in the most spectacular fashion. However there is an exception to the
requirement to die. If said individual does not die, however does render
him/her self incapable of producing any children - they may be eligible for
the dubious honor of receiving the award while still alive.'
:
:> FWIW, as far as I know, I am still eligible for the Darwin Award,
:> unless a court can prove otherwise, ;) (no kids that I KNOW of)
:
:surely, you aren't stupid enough to be nominated - after all, you were
smart
:enuf to buy a Mustang! <grin>
:)
:> :see http://www.officialdarwinawards.com for Darwin nomination
:> r: equirements...and past nominees & winners...
:
:L
:--
T Hwang
It made me wonder how many pro. racing drivers in the world are females?
Tony
LeAnne Davis wrote:
>
> Subic Sailor wrote:
> >
> > LeAnne Davis wrote in message <35B3621B...@ti.com>...
> > :pfl...@screen.wiltec.twc.com wrote:
> > :>
> > :> Second time I was stopped at a light when some WOMAN decided not to
> > :> stop. She plowed into me at 45MPH, shoved me into a buick, and then
> > :> SHE was hit by some dumbass tailgateing her! (never hit her brakes)
> > :
> > :drop the sexist crap...there are idiot drivers in both genders...
> >
> > Hehem!! LeAnne, you sound like the sexist one. You could do with an
> > attitude check yourself. NOWHERE in his post, as quoted above by you,
> > does it reflect any sexism.
>
> then, why did he emphasize the gender by making it all caps?
>
LeAnne Davis
>
> LeAnne Davis wrote in message <35B49CA7...@ti.com>...
>
> :not exactly...you are only eligible for honorable mention or some
> :such *unless* you succeed in killing yourself while doing something
> :too stupid to believe....
>
> Visit the official Darwin Awards Site,
> http://www.officialdarwinawards.com/index.html , where you will see
> that you do not have to kill yourself, simply remove yourself from
> the gene pool.
I stand (actually, sit) corrected - they've changed the rules since I last read it in
detail - that's what I get for referencing it without reading it again first...just don't
tell my DSO that I admitted to being wrong - I'll never live it down...<griN>
Subic Sailor
LeAnne Davis wrote in message <35B75A11...@ti.com>...
:Subic Sailor wrote:
:>
:> LeAnne Davis wrote in message <35B49CA7...@ti.com>...
:>
:> :not exactly...you are only eligible for honorable mention or some
:> :such *unless* you succeed in killing yourself while doing something
:> :too stupid to believe....
:>
:> Visit the official Darwin Awards Site,
:> http://www.officialdarwinawards.com/index.html , where you will see
:> that you do not have to kill yourself, simply remove yourself from
:> the gene pool.
:
:
:I stand (actually, sit) corrected - they've changed the rules since I last
read it in
:detail - that's what I get for referencing it without reading it again
first...just don't
:tell my DSO that I admitted to being wrong - I'll never live it
down...<griN>
The way I look at is I am glad life is short. I don't want to live as long
as it would take to live some of the things down I have done. ;)
:L
rob...@hotmail.com
see it for myself.
thanks,
rob love
In article <35AE3394...@yahoo.com>,
rruite...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Here is the official Ford Response to the CBS special. I think it is bs.
> How many 'other' things are not safe compared to today's car ? If you
> would look at that, every classic car would be dangerous.
> Reinier
>
> ---
> DEARBORN, Mich., July 15 /PRNewswire/ -- The following was released
> today by Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F - news):
>
> The CBS program ``Public Eye with Bryant Gumbel'' has announced that it
> will broadcast a story tonight alleging that the fuel systems in
> 1960s-era Mustangs are unsafe. The CBS story is based on allegations
> contained in a lawsuit filed against Ford in California. Based on
> the communications we have had with CBS during the preparation of this
> report and the wire service reports we have seen, Ford
> believes that the facts of the case will not be accurately and fairly
> reported by CBS. The following correspondence between Ford and
> CBS producers Jonathan Klein and George Osterkamp summarizes our
> response to the allegations.
>
> Office of the General Counsel
> Ford Motor Company
>
> Parklane Towers West
> Suite 300
> Three Parklane
> Boulevard
> Dearborn, Michigan
> 48126-2568
>
> July 15, 1998
>
> Mr. Jonathan Klein, Executive Producer
> CBS News
> 524 West 57th Street
> New York, New York 10019
>
> Mr. George Osterkamp, Producer
> CBS News
> 825 Battery Street
> Floor One
> San Francisco, California 94111
>
> Re: Mustang Flange-Mounted Fuel Tanks/"Public Eye with Bryant
> Gumbel"
>
> Dear Messrs. Klein and Osterkamp:
>
> Bill George of Ford's Broadcast News Center shared Mr. Osterkamp's May
> 7, 1998, letter with me. Let me first introduce myself -- I
> am an in-house Ford Motor Company attorney who is involved in handling
> the pending litigation initiated by Benjamin Hodges through
> his attorney, David Rand. The fact that you mention this lawsuit in your
> correspondence and make reference to materials produced
> and/or generated during the pendency of this matter are indicia that you
> have been in contact with Mr. Rand and/or his client, Mr.
> Hodges. Perhaps Mr. Rand has not shared with you the facts of the Hodges
> accident: Ben Hodges was 17-years-old at the time of this
> accident -- an inexperienced and uninsured driver; the 1967 Mustang had
> been ``tuned up'' by an acquaintance just prior to the accident;
> he was driving the Mustang on a California freeway on a rainy night when
> it stalled; rather than pull over to the shoulder of the road, he
> attempted to restart the engine without success; he was stopped in his
> lane of travel when another vehicle traveling 60-65 miles per hour
> slammed into the rear of the Mustang; a post-collision gasoline fire,
> unfortunately, occurred.
>
> The points raised in your May 7 letter appear to be derived largely from
> the allegations in the Hodges case. Many of the statements and
> representations in your letter appear to be self-selected and incomplete
> excerpts from depositions and other documents in Hodges, in
> disregard of a balanced and truthful report of the facts.
>
> In the 1960s, a number of automobiles sold in the United States utilized
> a ``drop-in'' or flange-mounted tank like the Mustang including
> Volvo, Toyota, Rolls Royce, Fiat, BMW, Audi and others. The
> flange-mounted tank design was one of several fuel system design
> configurations used by vehicle manufacturers in the 1960-1970 time
> period. Other vehicles were equipped with strap-on fuel tanks and a
> number of foreign cars had over-the-axle fuel tanks with tanks
> completely located in the trunk and a filler pipe often routed through
> the
> passenger compartment.
>
> The allegations CBS is making against the first generation Mustang could
> equally be made against any car manufactured anywhere in the
> world during the l960s. Your statement that ``the combination of the
> drop-in gas tank and the lack of any solid barrier between the trunk
> and the passenger compartment may create a serious risk of explosive
> fire inside the car in the event of a rear- end collision'' is not only
> unsubstantiated and untrue, but ignores the fact that almost all cars
> manufactured in the 1960s had fuel system components located in the
> trunk -- in particular -- a filler pipe extending from the exterior wall
> of the vehicle through the trunk and into the fuel tank. This filler
> pipe,
> either free-standing or attached to an exterior panel of the vehicle,
> used with a strap-on or over-the-axle fuel tank, could separate from
> the tank during a collision and permit gasoline vapors and/or liquid to
> be expelled into the trunk of the vehicle. Hence, there is nothing
> unique in vehicles with strap-on or over-the-axle tanks that would
> isolate the trunk compartment from gasoline vapors and possibly liquid
> fuel in the event of a rear or side collision.
>
> Addressing the memo of Mr. Sherman Henson, his deposition in Hodges
> which is a matter of public record, indicates that at the time the
> memo was prepared, Mr. Henson was a young engineer with Ford Motor
> Company with no fuel system design experience. The memo
> was a draft which was never signed or approved, and was based on his
> opinion that if the top of a flange-mounted tank was somehow
> violated in a crash fuel vapor could be expelled into the trunk. The
> truth is that in ``real world,'' high speed collisions, the deformation
> and
> tearing of metal could readily breach Mr. Henson's suggested
> ``bulkhead'' concept if the vehicles collide so as to deform the area of
> the
> bulkhead. Furthermore, referencing my prior discussion of exposed filler
> pipes in the trunk, his observation would have equal application
> to strap-on and over-the-axle tanks. This discussion does not address
> issues of manufacturing feasibility; serviceability; application in
> hatch-back, station wagons, vans, MPV vehicles, etc.
>
> As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
> (NHTSA) conducted an engineering evaluation of the 1960s
> Mustang fuel system in the early 1970s and concluded, based on
> independent accident data analysis and its own testing, that ``drop-in
> fuel tank systems present no fire hazard which does not also exist in
> strap-on or other similarly located motor vehicle fuel tank systems.''
> Attached are portions of the deposition transcript of former Associate
> Administrator for Motor Vehicle Programs of NHTSA, Robert
> Carter, from the Hodges case and the complete closure document generated
> by NHTSA in determining that the fuel system in the first
> generation Mustang did not present an unreasonable risk to occupant
> safety. Crash Test 301, which you reference, was an experimental
> crash test conducted in the late 1960s. The test was conducted to
> evaluate occupant kinematics (movement) not fuel tank performance.
> Moreover, the vehicle used in the test was a cobbled Mustang. Prior to
> crash, the trunk lid, package tray cover and left door had all
> been removed from the vehicle. The test itself was a 30 mile per hour
> fixed-barrier rear impact, which even today is not a part of the
> government's fuel system integrity crash test standard. It was an
> extremely severe test -- approximately two (2) times more severe in
> energy than the current federal government standard.
>
> Your statement that Ford testified in deposition that ``there is no
> evidence the test was given to NHTSA'' is incomplete and misleading.
> Ford no longer has the records, many of which were generated over 30
> years ago, submitted in response to the National Highway Traffic
> Safety Administration's request for information on flange-mounted tanks
> which would confirm which test reports were provided to
> NHTSA. What is clear from the NHTSA final report, however, is that a
> number of crash tests were provided to the Agency. While it is
> true that Ford has ``no evidence that this test was given to NHTSA,'' we
> likewise have no evidence that it was not; the testimony was
> that 20 years after the investigation was concluded we do not have
> complete files that would tell us which test reports had been provided.
> You will note, Mr. Robert Carter has testified that for NHTSA's
> purposes, whether or not Crash Test 301 was included in Ford's
> submission was immaterial because NHTSA was conducting its own
> independent engineering and data analysis assessment of the flange-
> mounted tank design and would not have relied upon Ford's crash tests.
>
> With respect to Mr. Rand's crash test in Hodges, Ford Motor Company has
> reviewed that crash test film but, unfortunately, plaintiff's
> expert has not been deposed on the crash test and we can therefore make
> no further comment, other than to note that there was no tank
> violation or dissemination of fuel into the trunk or passenger
> compartment (with or without a solid steel bulkhead) based upon
> information
> provided to us by plaintiff's attorney and an inspection of the crash
> vehicle by Ford's experts.
>
> You state that ``Ford has paid millions of dollars to settle more than
> 70 lawsuits arising from this design,'' and that Ford has chosen to
> settle all these suits out of court. Contrary to your statement, several
> of these lawsuits were tried, with verdicts in Ford's favor. It is often
>
> in the best interest of the parties and court rules attempt to promote
> resolution of lawsuits prior to trial.
>
> As described above: (1) the gas tank configuration and location of the
> Ford Mustangs produced during the 1960s were not unique for
> cars of that period; (2) the Mustang met or exceeded all industry safety
> standards applicable at the time it was manufactured and
> possessed state-of-the-art safety technology; (3) the performance of the
> Mustang fuel system relative to post-collision fire was
> comparable to that of other vehicles in its peer group; and (4) the
> Mustang was not defective or unreasonably dangerous.
>
> The first generation Mustang, introduced in 1964, was one of the top-
> selling vehicles of its era. Its popularity has not diminished over
> time. In recent years, an entire industry has developed around the
> classic Mustang, with hundreds, if not thousands, of Mustang clubs and
> aficionados across the country engaged in activities to preserve and
> promote the Mustang. A national media attack on this highly
> successful vintage sports car some thirty years after its production is
> not only unsubstantiated, but presumably of dubious news value.
> Stated another way, the fact that there are so many registered Mustangs
> in 1998 -- thirty years after production -- is unassailable
> ``evidence'' of the design integrity and performance of this car line.
>
> Very truly yours,
>
> Louis J. Banciu
> Counsel
>
> SOURCE: Ford Motor Company
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
keith jack
>does anyone have a copy of this program?? i missed it and REALLY would like to
>see it for myself.
>thanks,
Just proves the point -- if you want a nice, safe life, stay
in bed and don't move...but quit jacking up insurance rates
for the rest of us because you're stupid or greedy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Jack
Author: Video Demystified
kj...@video-demystified.com
http://www.video-demystified.com/
Jeff Meyers
MJamesN
there.
MAttman
67 sports sprint