Ford Learned Nothing from the Pinto

[rbattelle]

Anyone else hear about the Crown Victoria Intercepter gas tank hazard? Some detail here.



Give me a break. Ford came out with a protective shield for the intercepters and now they're adding them to their Lincoln Town Car limos as well.



I think Bill Ford is a Twinkie. What a total mess his company is. Today (Monday) Phil Martens and Matt DeMars, two high-level North American Ford executives jumped ship in advance of Uncle Billy's impending re-re-re-recovery effort.



I'm amazed that the new F-150 and the Mustang have not been enough to rescue Ford. I really like both of those vehicles (although I don't know anything about their quality). Now Ford is counting on the Fusion to drag them out of trouble. Anyone see the Fusion? Looks like an unholy lovechild of an old Focus and a CTS.



-Ryan

 

[brods]

Besides being old news, you might want to do your homework before jumping on the media bandwagon. Do some digging into the Pinto thing and you'll find the issue was way blown out of proportion by the ambulance chasers and the media. Look at the GM saddle tank debacle. Todays journalism is about ratings, not about the facts presented in a unbiased way.



Look at the word choice in the article you link to, how many times does it say "exploding gas tank". Come on, does the tank really "explode" or, in a severe accident, does it sometimes rupture and spill gas and sometimes that spilled gas catches on fire? Guess every single vehicle on the road with a rear gas tank is an "explosion" just waiting to happen, yes?



Statistically does the crown vic burn more than other cars, maybe, but I see no numbers cited. Even if it does, in general I bet your still safer in that car than being in a sub compact. No vehicle is perfect and can protect the occupants from every situation. And there is ALWAYS a better design! If a product is reasonably safe, when is enough enough?

 

[EBottema]

Yes- Dont believe the media, the CV PI's do not have a fire problem.

The problem is there is lots of electronics/sharp equipiment/explosive materials in the trunk of a police car and when the car is hit at 65+ mph the gas tank pops and thing short and spark and fires happen. this could happen with ANY CAR. It would be safer to have the tank under the seat however that is not DOT approved... Don't believe the media, it is a farse

 

[BNH4221]

Well, the way I see it, Ford had a problem. Ford fixed the problem (via the shields) then Ford re-designed so that current issue CVPI's do not need the shield.

Doesn't seem like much of a conspiracy to me.





As far as a recovery effort, take a look at GM or just about any of the major industrial powers. Its the retirement and health care thats croaking them. Not the cars. Ford is not alone.



Pinto?? How about the Audi? Bankrupted by a blatently biased test done for 60 minutes. Saddle tanks on the GM pickup. Another joke. Corvair? Ralph Nader. Who's next? Truth pays no part in these "journalistic" reports. Selling papers and TV time. It is all about the $$.



I have no faith in the media.



It is all a plot by George Bush to get Halliburton a contract for the axle shields. Just my theory... ...



Steve

 

[rbattelle]

Besides being old news, you might want to do your homework before jumping on the media bandwagon.

Perhaps. The thing that pointed me to the whole issue was a small sidebar in a recent automotive publication indicating that Ford had just (as of 3 October, anyway) released the shield plate kits for the Town Car limos. It made no reference to the above website... that was my own finding. I was not aware that the issue was such old news, and I apologize for posting something that everyone already knows. I will be more careful in the future.



If the flaw was serious enough to warrant a retrofit kit from the original manufacturer is it really just media sensationalism? I suppose it could be.



On edit: futhermore, I shouldn't have titled this post the way I did. I'm ashamed that I have perpetuated what was probably blown out of proportion. Again, I'll be more careful in the future to remember that all (or almost all) media contains a bias and a tendency to spin stories toward greater revenue.



-Ryan

 

[brods]

Ryan, no need to apologize, media bias is just one of my hot buttons. I think media bias and/or sensationalism is a large contributor to the problems of today, making people more disgruntled and dissatisfied. I was surprised that they sucked you in, since typically your posts show you’ve done quite a bit of research into the topic being discussed and you have a logical approach to things.



Anyway, apparently factual data has no relevance to the media or to public opinion or to a jury for that matter, so I find it entirely plausible that a manufacturer would make a “fix” for a perceived “flaw” in order to bolster their image, help avoid lawsuits, etc. , regardless of the validity of the “flaw”.

Sometimes its easier to just give em what they want then to have to constantly defend a position supported by the facts.



Good article in defense of the CV

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Auto_News/Numbers_Dont_Damn_Crown_Vic.S175.A6797.html



Quote from the above link:



“According to the NHTSA report (which you can download if you want to wade through it yourself), there were only 17,000 crash fires among more than ELEVEN MILLION reported crashes last year.

Thus, despite what you may been led to believe, crash fires are rare, and fatal fire crashes even rarer. But when they do happen, they get a lot of media attention. This is especially true if the vehicles involved are police cars. ”







Just to be fair and show the other side, typical media coverage

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/22/eveningnews/main515830.shtml





Feel free to sue a manufacturer over 32 year old technology! Is this a great country or what?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/05/17/60II/main47539.shtml



Makes me wonder what will happen when there are a large number of hybrids and fuel cell cars having accidents. Bet the ambulance chasers are just drooling in anticipation!



Jim

 

[BNH4221]

Anyway, apparently factual data has no relevance to the media or to public opinion or to a jury for that matter, so I find it entirely plausible that a manufacturer would make a “fix” for a perceived “flaw” in order to bolster their image, help avoid lawsuits, etc. , regardless of the validity of the “flaw”.

Perhaps Brods, perhaps. However, in the case of the CVPI, I believe there was indeed a problem. Cars these days are specifically designed to have integrity in rear end impacts and not to have fire damage ( I refuse to say "explode"). CVPI obviously did not meet this requirement. It is Fords response here that matters. They did not try and ignore it or sweep it under the rug; the acknowledged the issue and made a retro fit fix while they were redesigning the product.

I do agree with your statement that factual data has no relevance to the media. I have known people and organizations that have been the victims of the 60 minutes or "spotlight" shows. Total lies and fabrications. When presented with the true facts, they are not interested. They sold their paper, got their name on the air and are done. They don't care. It is all about the $$.

That is why I will not watch them or patronize any of their affiliates.



Steve

 

[rbattelle]

I was surprised that they sucked you in

Lapse of judgement.



-Ryan

 

[brods]

..... However, in the case of the CVPI, I believe there was indeed a problem. Cars these days are specifically designed to have integrity in rear end impacts and not to have fire damage ( I refuse to say "explode"). CVPI obviously did not meet this requirement. .....

Even if you accept the dubious high numbers from CAS, though, they are still tiny compared to the millions of Panther cars driven millions of miles over many years. And when you zoom down on police cars, you are looking at vehicles driven 24/7 with particular exposure by highway patrol units parked on the road or roadside - behind violators, accidents or construction sites - right in the path of high-speed vehicles. The California Highway Patrol told the ODI it averaged one rear-impact collision per week resulting in the "totalling" of the CHP vehicle.



ODI took all this into consideration. Further, from their huge database, they compared the fire-fatality rate of 1992-2001 Panthers with GM's 1985-1996 RWD B bodies, which in those years included police units selling at about the same rate as the Fords. Chrysler had largely withdrawn from the police car market in 1989 when it folded its RWD cars, just as GM did in 1996.

The upshot was that the Panthers and the GM B's had more or less comparable fatals-from-fires, 21 fires out of 267 fatal crashes for Panther and 12 fires out of 190 fatal crashes for the B's. After the CAS squawked again, ODI examined crashes of all sedans in the FARS database and found the "ratio of fires in fatal vehicles per total fatal vehicles yields a ratio (including police vehicles) of 0. 033 for both Ford Panther and all other sedans. " Moreover, if police units were excluded, the Panther had a ratio of 0. 029, or lower than all other sedans.



The ODI concluded that Panther vehicles had no safety defect and were actually as safe or safer than other vehicles in high-energy rear crashes. According to a statement from Ford, NHTSA records show there are 18 other comparable vehicle models with higher fire-fatality rates than the Panther since 1980. I've only touched on the highlights of the ODI report. You should read it yourself at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/CrownVic/CrownVic021003.html



Police officers in parked Crown Vics have survived rear-end crashes which crushed the cars to forward of the B-pillar, at impact speeds of 55 to as much as 115 mph, from bullet vehicles ranging from Hondas to 18-wheelers. The NHTSA/ODI study demonstrates convincingly - at least to me - that Panthers arguably could be the safest cars on the road.



Nevertheless, Ford has announced that 2005 CVPI units will incorporate a new fire suppression device to enhance safety in high-energy rear impacts. There is, of course, no such thing as absolute safety. There is no fuel tank position in a vehicle that can be protected in a crash that crushes the vehicle. In-tank fuel bladders, hawked by some because of race-car usage, simply don't have the durability and emissions compatibility required of civilian or police cars.



So don't be led down the garden path by those who substitute sensational anecdotes for sound science.

Read The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) report linked in the above quote. Read the NHTSA report and look at the pictures of the destroyed cars: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/CrownVic/index.html. Ok, so now please explain what requirement(s) the CVPI obviously did not meet?





The issue I have is the blame game the media plays and that so many people blindly join in. To listen to the hype you’d think the car was generally unsafe and a rolling fireball waiting to happen. That is just not true. One has to accept that every single machine is a series of engineering compromises. There will always be a “better” design and no car can ever protect the occupants from every conceivable situation. Is the CVPI perfect, no. Can it be improved, yes, and so can every other car manufactured today. Is Ford or was Ford negligent, the facts show they were not.



I can imagine how tough it must be for a manufacturer today. See how easily everyone just assumes the car is defective? And if the manufacturers improve something, like adding the gas tank shield, then the ambulance chasers will use that against them saying, “See it was a defect because they fixed it, so you have to award my client the 10 bazillion dollars we are suing for”.



Jim

 

[TKingsbury]

I think the Crown Vic is in the spotlight because it is by far the most popular police car in the U. S. . These cars probably have the highest rate of high-speed car vs. stationary car accidents due to the fact that they spend alot more time than other cars parked on the side of busy interstates. I think you'd have to have the perfect circumstances to make one catch fire. But, like everything it is all for the safety of the "kids".

Travis. .

 

[BNH4221]

Ok, so now please explain what requirement(s) the CVPI obviously did not meet?

Brods,

I commend you on your research. You are absolutely correct. In reading the material you provided, it is clear that the CVPI meets all applicable federal safety standards.

It would appear that Ford went beyond what was mandated and added the safety package as an additional buffer for the High Speed impacts that CVPI's seem to face due to their type of use.



So, now I am an example of what can be distorted by the media, of what can happen when research is not thorough and how lawsuits start. I can take the heat, I didn't do research. I relied on what I knew of the CVPI and anecdotal evidence. Shame on me! :{

The issue I have is the blame game the media plays and that so many people blindly join in. To listen to the hype you’d think the car was generally unsafe and a rolling fireball waiting to happen. That is just not true.

You and I are in total agreement here.



Steve

 

[BigGunZ]

Ford has a serious problem with quality right now for sure. A close friend of mine just bought a F150 for himself, and a Freestyle for his wife. Within 300 miles, the F150 launched it's transmission. Within 100 miles the Freestyle developed the equivelant of electrical tourettes. The Freestyle couldn't be diagnosed so they gave her a new one. Within 100 miles again it crapped a valve body. Two new Fords under the same roof. I'm so glad I switched to Dodge.

 

[BigGunZ]

And since we're talking about the Crown Vic... I had a student (scuba class) that was in an accident where she rear-ended a patrol car parked on the interstate. The car caught fire and the officer was unable to get out. He didn't survive. The incident ruined her life. The family sued her (and Ford I assume) and walked away with a bundle. This young girl spent years in therapy and is still very freaked out over this.