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
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.
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.
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
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.
baker email@example.com wrote:
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
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.