Idiots + cars = LOL

[Blind_Io]

I remember when they "broke" that story of the Crown Vic police intercept fuel tanks. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. They looked only at total number of fuel tank ruptures and did not take into consideration the increased number of high speed rear-end collisions experienced by highway patol cars that spend a good chunk of their service lives stopped on the side of highways and freeways.

The number of fuel tank ruptures per high speed impact is about on-par with most other vehicles, and better than some.

 

[TC]

I always thought it had more to do with the natural gas powered cars. Didn't they have a propane-like pressurized fuel tank in the back?

 

[GRtak]

Due to Federal laws mandating crumple zones and some not-so-great decisions made by the Ford design team, the back end of a CVPI isn't anywhere near as solid as the front end. I'd also remind you all of the tendency of the CVPI to have a fuel tank rupture if hit from behind.

I remember when they "broke" that story of the Crown Vic police intercept fuel tanks. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. They looked only at total number of fuel tank ruptures and did not take into consideration the increased number of high speed rear-end collisions experienced by highway patol cars that spend a good chunk of their service lives stopped on the side of highways and freeways.

The number of fuel tank ruptures per high speed impact is about on-par with most other vehicles, and better than some.

Blind took care of that for me.


Anytime you hit a vehicle hard enough for it to shoot fuel out and it hits a hot engine, you have the possibbility of a fire. Chevy trucks with side tanks were the previous victims of this style media coverage.

 

[Spectre]

I remember when they "broke" that story of the Crown Vic police intercept fuel tanks. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. They looked only at total number of fuel tank ruptures and did not take into consideration the increased number of high speed rear-end collisions experienced by highway patol cars that spend a good chunk of their service lives stopped on the side of highways and freeways.

The number of fuel tank ruptures per high speed impact is about on-par with most other vehicles, and better than some.

Not exactly. While you are correct about the ruptures to impact being on par with other vehicles in an empty CV, one thing that came out in the abortive City of Dallas v. Ford lawsuit was that with the normal amount and type of gear that most departments issue loaded in the trunks, the tank rupture risk went up by (IIRC) some 140% over the near-contemporary RWD Caprice offerings. What happens is that the car gets hit from behind and all the crap in the trunk bottom gets shoved through the thin sheet metal lower front wall of the trunk and into the fuel tank, especially if there's any particularly hard or sharp objects back there - such as a tire iron or various rescue equipment. This did result in fuel tank rupture and often fire and was demonstrably repeatable by third party organizations.

To prevent this, Ford came up with what's called the 'trunk pack organizer' as a retrofit and then as an option on the later P71s. Here is their acknowledgement of the issue as well as techniques and information on how to mitigate the risk: https://www.fleet.ford.com/showroom/CVPI/TrunkLoading.asp

The trunk pack has the side of the plastic tray that faces the tank made out of Kevlar in an attempt to prevent crap from penetrating into the tank. It does go a long way to reducing the chances of a tank rupture, but the risk of fire is still elevated over that of a RWD Caprice. They also took the opportunity to give departments the option to relocate the spare from the inconvenient 'step' up under the parcel shelf down into the main part of the trunk if they wanted. Here are some pictures of the trunk pack, which has had a few revisions:

http://img396.imageshack.**/img396/9885/trunk2bu2.jpg

The related civilian 'cargo organizer' that was introduced with the Mercury Marauder:

The trunk pack also keeps other forms of stupid from happening - such as this CVPI which had improperly stored flares ignite after the crap in the trunk shifted.

Come on guys, do you really think I'd buy a car with the intention of sticking my mom in it without doing my research? Bottom line - there remains an elevated risk of rupture and fire with gear in the trunk. Was it to the level of the Ford Pinto, as lampooned below?

No, it isn't. The media (as is usual) blew it way out of proportion. But there is a documented issue with the car having an elevated fire risk while laden and therefore it is the policy of many departments to avoid rear impacts when at all possible. For some large departments that had elevated incident counts of CVPI's going on fire, Ford paid for aftermarket fire-suppression systems, panels or tank guards (which I am keeping an eye out for in junkyard cars) and later introduced their own system that could be fitted to 05 and up CVPIs.

It's been discussed to death in CVPI circles. Here's the typical sort of "My car got hit from behind but didn't go on fire" pic from one of the CVPI forums, for example:

Though some guys on the CV forums go a bit overboard in correcting the issue.

I always thought it had more to do with the natural gas powered cars. Didn't they have a propane-like pressurized fuel tank in the back?

No; in fact conversion to CNG was one of the 'solutions' offered to the problem.

Anytime you hit a vehicle hard enough for it to shoot fuel out and it hits a hot engine, you have the possibbility of a fire. Chevy trucks with side tanks were the previous victims of this style media coverage.

No, they weren't. The Chevy trucks actually wouldn't go on fire even if the tanks were ruptured so the media used explosive charges to detonate the tanks in their 'documentary' coverage. Not so with the CVPI.

 

[Blind_Io]

I still don't consider that to be a design flaw. Any vehicle hit with sufficient force will have a similar problem. When I was rear-ended in my Civic at about 30 mph the force was enough to buckle the floor of the trunk and throw my first aid kit into the underside of the trunk lid with enough force to dent the lid upward and crack the paint.

Improperly stored items in the trunk are the responsibility of the driver/owner. Ford had to engineer a response to human laziness/stupidity when combined with extreme impacts. I maintain that any car with a rear-mounted fuel tank would have similar problems in similar circumstances.

 

[DubyaStep]

I still don't consider that to be a design flaw. Any vehicle hit with sufficient force will have a similar problem. When I was rear-ended in my Civic at about 30 mph the force was enough to buckle the floor of the trunk and throw my first aid kit into the underside of the trunk lid with enough force to dent the lid upward and crack the paint.

Improperly stored items in the trunk are the responsibility of the driver/owner. Ford had to engineer a response to human laziness/stupidity when combined with extreme impacts. I maintain that any car with a rear-mounted fuel tank would have similar problems in similar circumstances.

so then where would you suggest the police put all that gear? what is a trunk for?

 

[prizrak]

I still don't consider that to be a design flaw. Any vehicle hit with sufficient force will have a similar problem. When I was rear-ended in my Civic at about 30 mph the force was enough to buckle the floor of the trunk and throw my first aid kit into the underside of the trunk lid with enough force to dent the lid upward and crack the paint.

Improperly stored items in the trunk are the responsibility of the driver/owner. Ford had to engineer a response to human laziness/stupidity when combined with extreme impacts. I maintain that any car with a rear-mounted fuel tank would have similar problems in similar circumstances.

According to Spectre's info above it appears that the issue was much less prominent for the Chevy's with same gear in the trunk. Sounds like a design flaw to me...

Also a vehicle that is designed for service duty and will get hit a LOT should be a bit more resilient when it comes to getting hit...

 

[Blind_Io]

so then where would you suggest the police put all that gear? what is a trunk for?

I've seen the back of police cars, they typically just toss their crap in there any which way. Stowing gear properly will reduce the chances of it puncturing the floor of the trunk. The rates of fires from these collisions is still pretty close to other cars that have similar accidents. If the problem could be solved by a simple heavy-duty drop-in organizer then it couldn't have been too big of a problem.

The new Ford Interceptor has been crash tested in rear-end collisions up to (and I think above) 75 mph.

 

[Spectre]

I still don't consider that to be a design flaw. Any vehicle hit with sufficient force will have a similar problem. When I was rear-ended in my Civic at about 30 mph the force was enough to buckle the floor of the trunk and throw my first aid kit into the underside of the trunk lid with enough force to dent the lid upward and crack the paint.

Improperly stored items in the trunk are the responsibility of the driver/owner. Ford had to engineer a response to human laziness/stupidity when combined with extreme impacts. I maintain that any car with a rear-mounted fuel tank would have similar problems in similar circumstances.

Ah, but you don't know where they put the fuel tank on the CV. Many vehicles, like my XJR, mount a wide boxy (18"x18"xwidth of car, for example) gas tank above the axle but behind the rear passenger seat. XJ40 pictured.

Others mount a long but shallow fuel tank on the frame rails behind the rear axle, but still mostly above it, like my ex-Pathfinder. (Someone else's Pathfinder pictured.)

Where'd they put it on the Crown Vic? (ignore the labelling the Volvo guy put on it, and the spare tire isn't where he thinks it is. Pause it at 0:11 to see it.)

Here's the pic if you can't get the above to work.


Yup, it's hung between and ahead of the rear frame rails that were 're-engineered' to crumple more easily in a crash (to meet Federal crumple zone requirements), directly in line between the bumper, any crap in the lower bottom part of the trunk, and the differential pumpkin. There are no shields or guards, either - the tank is exposed on all sides and the body is thin sheet metal. That's the problem; the gas tank is caught between the anvil of the rear axle and the hammer of whatever was in the trunk.

That deliberately weakened frame is why the post-'Whale'-redesign Crown Vics can't tow for crap, either. The rear frame horns won't support towing more than 2500lbs.

It would probably have been just fine if they hadn't had to weaken the rear frame.

 

[DubyaStep]

I've seen the back of police cars, they typically just toss their crap in there any which way. Stowing gear properly will reduce the chances of it puncturing the floor of the trunk. The rates of fires from these collisions is still pretty close to other cars that have similar accidents. If the problem could be solved by a simple heavy-duty drop-in organizer then it couldn't have been too big of a problem.

The new Ford Interceptor has been crash tested in rear-end collisions up to (and I think above) 75 mph.

It has a Kevlar front. Do you know what Kevlar is? (really, im asking)

I just dont see it as thier fault. Yes, they toss shit in there sometimesa but that doesnt change the fact that its a trunk, thats what they are for. are you saying Ford didnt plan for people using at as a trunk or that they just made a bad guess on design?

 

[Blind_Io]

It has a Kevlar front. Do you know what Kevlar is? (really, im asking)

I just dont see it as thier fault. Yes, they toss shit in there sometimesa but that doesnt change the fact that its a trunk, thats what they are for. are you saying Ford didnt plan for people using at as a trunk or that they just made a bad guess on design?

Yes, I know what Kevlar is, I have three pairs of pants with kevlar liners for riding. A tire iron at the wrong angle will still go right through a kevlar-reinforced trunk organizer when hit with 2,000 lb going 70+ mph.

 

[zookiemike]

Man, All that makes me miss my old P71.
I had a 98 with full code3 skid plates on it. Was a great car. 25mpg and drove sweet.
Until it shot 2 spark plugs into the hood. helicoils and coil packs baby:lol:.
I had a 76 ltd and the fuel tank was slid in from the bottom between the axel and the rear shelf.
Dont know if that was a panther chassis but it looked the same as far as tank location.


Now for something completely different.. NSFW...kinda? Lots of redneck noise LOL

 

[prizrak]

Yes, I know what Kevlar is, I have three pairs of pants with kevlar liners for riding. A tire iron at the wrong angle will still go right through a kevlar-reinforced trunk organizer when hit with 2,000 lb going 70+ mph.

That just reinforces the point of bad design. This is a vehicle made to be abused and shrug off colisions (I have never seen an undented CVPI with NYPD on the side) so it should be designed in a way that would prevent gear in the trunk from puncturing the gas tank when getting hit from behind.

Also keep in mind that even if you put your gear in the back "properly" it will get tossed about quite a bit under police driving conditions, they don't exactly drive like old ladies...

 

[JipJopJones]

Now for something completely different.. NSFW...kinda? Lots of redneck noise LOL

My friends and I found this video years ago, I watch it regularly and it never fails to amuse. :lol:

 

[Blind_Io]

That just reinforces the point of bad design. This is a vehicle made to be abused and shrug off colisions (I have never seen an undented CVPI with NYPD on the side) so it should be designed in a way that would prevent gear in the trunk from puncturing the gas tank when getting hit from behind.

Also keep in mind that even if you put your gear in the back "properly" it will get tossed about quite a bit under police driving conditions, they don't exactly drive like old ladies...

The "bad design" was mandated when crumple zones were required, that is not the fault of Ford. I said earlier that even my much newer Civic with only a single item in the trunk and less than half of highway speed still had damage due to a crumpling trunk floor.

If you hit anything hard enough it will fail. If you fill the trunk full of sharp objects like tools and tire irons and flammable items like road flares then hit it with a 70 mph 2,000 lb hammer don't expect it to roll away undamaged. Where else would one mount the fuel tank? Under the floor of the trunk? That puts it closer to the back of the car and in a position where it is even more likely to break open in a wreck because there is less energy absorption between the impact and the fuel tank. Pretty much the only place left to put it is under the passenger compartment ahead of the rear axle, but since the Crown Vic is a body-on-frame RWD that makes mounting it there problematic due to the drive shaft and frame rails.

My XTerra has the tank mounted under the passenger area because my spare hangs under the rear cargo deck, it also means it has a much smaller tank and therefore much more limited range, a dealbreaker for most police departments.

So where would you guys mount and protect the fuel tank to prevent a rupture in the event of a crash in which the police car is stopped and is hit by a 2,300 lb (small-midsize SUV) vehicle doing 70 mph?

 

[Blind_Io]

That just reinforces the point of bad design.
This is a vehicle made to be abused and shrug off colisions (I have
never seen an undented CVPI with NYPD on the side) so it should be
designed in a way that would prevent gear in the trunk from puncturing
the gas tank when getting hit from behind. <br>
<br>
Also keep in mind that even if you put your gear in the back "properly"
it will get tossed about quite a bit under police driving conditions,
they don't exactly drive like old ladies...

The "bad design" was mandated when crumple zones were required, that is not the fault of Ford. I said earlier that even my much newer Civic with only a single item in the trunk and less than half of highway speed still had damage due to a crumpling trunk floor. If you hit anything hard enough it will fail.   If you fill the trunk full of sharp objects like
tools and tire irons and flammable items like road flares then hit it with a 70 mph 2,000 lb hammer don't expect it to roll away undamaged.

Where else would one mount the fuel tank? Under the floor of the trunk? That puts it closer to the back of the car and in a position where it is even more likely to break open in a wreck because there is less energy absorption between the impact and the fuel tank. Pretty much the only place left to put it is under the passenger compartment ahead of the rear axle, but since the Crown Vic is a body-on-frame RWD that makes mounting it there problematic due to the drive shaft and frame rails.

My XTerra has the tank mounted under the passenger area because my spare hangs under the rear cargo deck, it also means it has a much smaller tank and therefore much more limited range, a dealbreaker for most police departments.

So where would you guys mount and protect the fuel tank to prevent a rupture in the event of a crash in which the police car is stopped and is hit by a 2,300 lb (small-midsize SUV) vehicle doing 70 mph?

https://pic.armedcats.net/b/bl/blind_io/2011/08/22/tpdrearend.jpg

This is a significant crash, the frame is a taco, the c-pillar is bent, the back doors are bent, yet it didn't burst into flames. How much more is expected of a vehicle?

 

[Spectre]

So where would you guys mount and protect the fuel tank to prevent a rupture in the event of a crash in which the police car is stopped and is hit by a 2,300 lb (small-midsize SUV) vehicle doing 70 mph?

Same place it is on the XJS, XJ40 and X300/8. On the back of the rear seat bulkhead, ahead/above the axle housing.

This would actually give more usable trunk space than the car currently has.

 

[argatoga]

Now for something completely different.. NSFW...kinda? Lots of redneck noise LOL

That deserves to be in the awesome thread.

 

[prizrak]

The "bad design" was mandated when crumple zones were required, that is not the fault of Ford. I said earlier that even my much newer Civic with only a single item in the trunk and less than half of highway speed still had damage due to a crumpling trunk floor. If you hit anything hard enough it will fail.?? If you fill the trunk full of sharp objects like
tools and tire irons and flammable items like road flares then hit it with a 70 mph 2,000 lb hammer don't expect it to roll away undamaged.

Where else would one mount the fuel tank? Under the floor of the trunk? That puts it closer to the back of the car and in a position where it is even more likely to break open in a wreck because there is less energy absorption between the impact and the fuel tank. Pretty much the only place left to put it is under the passenger compartment ahead of the rear axle, but since the Crown Vic is a body-on-frame RWD that makes mounting it there problematic due to the drive shaft and frame rails.

My XTerra has the tank mounted under the passenger area because my spare hangs under the rear cargo deck, it also means it has a much smaller tank and therefore much more limited range, a dealbreaker for most police departments.

So where would you guys mount and protect the fuel tank to prevent a rupture in the event of a crash in which the police car is stopped and is hit by a 2,300 lb (small-midsize SUV) vehicle doing 70 mph?

https://pic.armedcats.net/b/bl/blind_io/2011/08/22/tpdrearend.jpg

This is a significant crash, the frame is a taco, the c-pillar is bent, the back doors are bent, yet it didn't burst into flames. How much more is expected of a vehicle?

There is one problem with your entire line of thinking here. The Caprice did not have these same problems.

 

[Spectre]

The Caprice carried a shallow but long polymer/plastic gas tank under the trunk and not in front of it next to the axle. The Crown Vic's tank is made out of stamped steel and carried next to the axle.

Both tanks could rupture in a rear end incident, but in the case of the Caprice, the crumpling rear end wouldn't shove materials formerly stored in the trunk through the trunk wall and the gas tank, heated from the significant friction of penetration... In the Caprice, there was no way for that to happen as the tank was under the trunk instead of in front of it.