What's the skinny on the crown vic. It's a big car that has issues with gas tank integrity...Does the caprice have similar stats in being rear ended? Seems that you'd have sufficient crumple zones in such a behemoth.They're now talking about some kind of fire arrest system/ plactic barriers and tool carries that keep sharp objects from doing bad things in the trunk area. For a big car, it's a decent looking beast. They are made of metal, thus the post to this group- plus I value the depth of knowlege in this group Regards Pat
No, it has issues with idiots that don't understand physics. NO car will withstand a 70mph rear-end collision and that's just the way it is. The Crown Vic is a fine auto and is pretty highly regarded as a police cruiser. If you want to park on the side of the interstate and be able to withstand rear-end collisions, park an M1A1 Abrams tank there. Otherwise the solution is to not get hit in the first place.
If you ever get the chance, crawl under a 1968 Ford Galaxy, (or a 67, a 66, a 65) the gas tank is in the same place on a mid 60s full size Ford as it is in the current production model, and has been for many years, so why all the hub-bub about gas tank integrity....?
That's the question in my mind. What has changed in the last couple of years that has caused the upswing in explosions(or are the events simply more publicised).. Any stats on the caprice in a similar period? Yeah, I know that the caprice is old- but how bout some suff on the 2 cars over the same period.Was there some difference made in the way that the units are deployed? Seems that Ford is going to an extraordinary amount of effort if there is no problem. All becaiuse of the litigous nature of our society? Pat
The problem here in the DFW area is straight on rear end collisions...ie full or near full width impacts. Has something to do with the exact placement of the fuel tank and some of the bracketry for ancillary systems. From what I've seen of the testing, it looks to be a tank design problem too.
Statistically, the death rate isn't that high for the car over all. The big noise is about cops being made into crispy critters when the tanks rupture. One report that I heard stated that something like 98% of the time when hit in the rear, the Vic. would have a fuel spill.
It has been shown that drivers tend to steer where they look, so unless they make a conscious effort not to do so, they'll steer toward the attractive nuisance of a flashing blue light on the shoulder of the road. This is a particular risk with tired, inattentive, or impaired drivers, particularly at night. In years past, that was just a recognized risk of being a speed cop.
Now the lawyers want to sue Ford for not armoring the Crown Vic to withstand a 75 MPH rear impact without fuel leakage. Today, no regular production car can withstand such an impact, and there's no federal standard even suggesting that they should. But the lawyers are attempting to generate an expectation that Ford do so.
Ford is in the unenviable position of trying to build a lawyer proof car. There is no such thing. Even NASCAR vehicles designed to withstand horrific impacts don't always do so. And they don't carry
200 pounds of loose junk in their trunks either.
Ford *could* reinforce the rear end of the Crown Vic, weld down the trunk lids so cops couldn't store loose junk there, and install racing fuel cells. That could help in this particular situation, but it won't lawyer proof the cars. There 'll always be *some* situation where it won't be enough.
Ford has a real set of problems here, because if they cave to the lawyers on this, they are unlikely to be able to meet a price and performance point that police departments can afford, and cops will want to drive. They'll also be opening themselves up to lawsuits when their regular production cars don't meet the same expectation.
The latter is a real concern for you and me, because it'll mean we'll likely all wind up being stuck paying for and driving cars armored against risks you and I are unlikely to encounter. It would be better for us, and better for Ford, if Ford just abandons the cop market. Let the cops ride mopeds, where there is no possible expectation of surviving a 75 MPH rear impact. If they complain, blame it on the lawyers.
Actually, the Vic is the last sedan left on the market that is really up to the job of police cruiser. That market used to be split between the Vic and the Caprice, and the word a couple years back was that both were to be eliminated. GM went first, effectively handing the market to Ford who has kept the Vic in production. When the Vic is gone, cops will be driving SUV's and pickups; which have safety problems of their own.
In the last year, I've replaced 6 fuel tanks on retired late model Crown Vic squad cars for a private security company due to screw holes from the previous mounting of radios, gun racks, flare boxes, first aid kits, etc.
Seems the numb nuts doing the original install of the above listed police equipment didn't bother to think what might be positioned directly forward of the front trunk bulkhead (the fuel tank) when they set about to drilling holes and running nice long hex-headed lag screws....
I'm guessing that since most of these boo-boos are more or less self inflicted (munincipal fleet mechanics) , the axe falls on Ford.
Why now and not back in the 60s, 70s, 80s?
Cop cars are getting very crowded these days, 800MHZ trunked radio systems, repeaters, laptop computers, swat gear, defibrulators, riot gear, spike strips, video equipment, topless dancers, etc....
I'm surprised they don't need 8 ply/10 ply tires with all the crap they haul around.
There is a tab or protrusion on or near the axel which will penetrate the tank as it's driven forward in a rear end crash. The news showed mechanics grinding down this tab which looked to be a 5 minute job. As far as I understand, discussions of shields would prevent the tank from hitting the protrusion. I have no idea why it was there if it wasn't needed.
Local departments have been retrofitting a bladder system in tanks ("at their own expense") and some have discussed fuel cells. Not hear anything lately.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.