Mustangs are very safe cars.......
- Thread starter 86brick
- Start date
Welcome!
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
salvageV6
Daily Driver
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 20,992
Typical Ford but at least the new ones go fast. 
What is humorous about this is the fact that just about ANY domestic or foreign compact or sub compact is just as bad.
Lets see any 82-2002 F body or a Honda civic or toyota corolla take a 35mph rear hit and still be able to open the doors.
Most of the time, these cars will break apart when subjected to high speed collisions. I dont think there is any way around it.
Lets see any 82-2002 F body or a Honda civic or toyota corolla take a 35mph rear hit and still be able to open the doors.
Most of the time, these cars will break apart when subjected to high speed collisions. I dont think there is any way around it.
Yeah but what about the fuel integrity crash test that the '99 to current Mustang failed? Ford doesn't seem to care about passing and they don't warn the consumer about this......... I'd be more worried about being burnt to death and that is probably the worst way to die (definitely the most painful)!!!
FORD = Fried Owner Really Dies
Originally posted by 86brick
Yeah but what about the fuel integrity crash test that the '99 to current Mustang failed? Ford doesn't seem to care about passing and they don't warn the consumer about this......... I'd be more worried about being burnt to death and that is probably the worst way to die (definitely the most painful)!!!
FORD = Fried Owner Really Dies
BTW, I'm in no way bashing the performance of the Mustang as far as going fast, but safety wise I think they are lacking big time and Ford doesn't seem to care!!!
Chris McDade
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2001
- Messages
- 1,840
That's nice!!!!!!!!!
I have alot of friends that own Mustangs....There going to be happy to here this
I have alot of friends that own Mustangs....There going to be happy to here this
TurboBuickSix
Active Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2001
- Messages
- 1,118
Flashback to the Pinto days! Five bucks says Bob Cosby will be posting shortly to play these unfair tests down.
Actually, I wasn't going to reply at all...but seeing as how I was brought up.. 
My only comment is that BON is run by a disgruntled former employee that goes out of his way to find such things about Fords. It is likely that if there was a Robert Lane out to get each car company, similar stories would emerge for virtually all cars.
FWIW....I am on my 4th Fox-body Mustang (they all have the gas tank in the same location). Somehow I don't feel less safe in it then when I'm driving (or were driving) any of my other vehicles (past or present).
Do you know anybody that has been killed in a fiery car crash - regardless of make? Obviously not. Sick joke.
My only comment is that BON is run by a disgruntled former employee that goes out of his way to find such things about Fords. It is likely that if there was a Robert Lane out to get each car company, similar stories would emerge for virtually all cars.
FWIW....I am on my 4th Fox-body Mustang (they all have the gas tank in the same location). Somehow I don't feel less safe in it then when I'm driving (or were driving) any of my other vehicles (past or present).
Do you know anybody that has been killed in a fiery car crash - regardless of make? Obviously not. Sick joke.
As an FYI, one of my friends had bought an 87 GT (t top car) from me back in 1997. We were heading back to my house and turning off one of the major roads. It was raining out and he got rear ended at about 30mph. The damage shifted both quarter panels to one side, broke one quarter window and ripped the studs for the seat out of the floor. No fires, no gas leaks. As a matter of fact, I pressed the inertia switch and started it back up and moved it off the road.
I have owned about 5 Fox body Mustangs. My friends have had even more. I have know plenty of guys who had some pretty hairy accidents with them and not 1 had caught fire when hit in the back.
I have owned about 5 Fox body Mustangs. My friends have had even more. I have know plenty of guys who had some pretty hairy accidents with them and not 1 had caught fire when hit in the back.
No Bob I don't know anybody that has been killed in a firey car crash, but you drive a '99 Cobra so maybe if I'm lucky........
Yeah another sick joke from me, but just so you know I would never want anything bad to happen to you shipmate!
BTW Bob, I only posted this because I was worried you were in danger! Honest........................
equalizer442
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,501
frames
TurboBuickSix
Active Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2001
- Messages
- 1,118
Bob...
I swear you have a siren on your PC that sounds when someone posts the word "Mustang" or "Bob" or any variation or combination of the two.LOL!!...Sure you were'nt going to reply j/k
Brick,you need help!! Without Bob the Mustang guys are helpless!
I swear you have a siren on your PC that sounds when someone posts the word "Mustang" or "Bob" or any variation or combination of the two.LOL!!...Sure you were'nt going to reply
j/kBrick,you need help!! Without Bob the Mustang guys are helpless!
Weren't a few police officers burned alive in FORD crown vics???, Then there is the FORD pinto. Off hand I can't think of any other car that has problems with gas tanks igniting except those 2 FORD vehicles. OBTW, Ford also admitted that it would be cheaper to settle wrongful death lawsuits from Pinto owners burning alive than it would be to recall them. This was brought out by the US post office who had many Pintos. Talk about the worse car to drive if you have to stop every 100 feet while cars pass you.
Hello again! By my member name you could probably guess that I have owned a few Mustangs.One thing that you may not know is that I am a former Police Officer and as such have worked many accidents. I have been involved in accidents involving Special Service Mustang LX 5.0's as well as in the Crown Victoria. I hve never had a fuel cell rupture in a Mustang (including one that I was driving and got rear ended at 35mph to 40 mph) or in Crown Victoria Police Cars (of which I have wrecked a few)!. I have pictures of and seen several fatalities involving both of these vehicles involved in rear end collisions while the car was stationary and was hit by vehicles traveling in excess of 65mph.To be fair,I also have pictures of the old Dodge Diplomat,Plymouth Gran Fury,Chevrolet Caprice,and a couple of others.The reason for going into this is in most cases any vehicle would suffer the same fate given the same conditions. I certainly would not want to be sitting in my GN beside he highway and someone hit me at 65 or up!I also hve worked many fatalities involving the 5.0 Mustangs-but the problem was not in the construction of the vehicles-just the speeds involved along with the dynamics of the collission.Just food for thought...
Some are trying to turn this into a Ford bashing session, so I might also remind you of the infamous GM saddle tank fires on the 73-87 pickups and also the rear impact fires on G body models
If you dont believe me, then check out these:
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/articles.cfm?ID=570
http://consumerlawpage.com/article/gm-exploding-tank.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/US/9508/auto/lawsuits/09-12/
It should be noted that the government wanted gas tanks mounted within the confines of the frame rails and away from crumple zones. But the problem is that many small subcompact and compact cars just dont have the space or room for such placement. This leads to having to design a tank that contain the fuel in the event of an accident.
In the instance of the Crown Victoria, it should also be noted that the tank is in the same identical spot that GM used on all the 58-64 fullsize cars. The tank is a very narrow unit that tucks behind the rear axle and infront of the trunk floor. This was done to afford more trunk space, but as they are learning now, it crushes the tank between the axle and this is the same identical problem GM had with those late 50's- early 60's cars.
The problem is nothing new.
The problem with the G body was the fact that the tank was basically unprotected since GM eliminated the frame crossmember in the rear. The only thing protecting it was the rear 5 mph bumper mounted on shock absorbers. The low mounted filler neck provided a perfect place to release fuel in a collision. This design remained on the B bodies up to 1996.
If you dont believe me, then check out these:
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/articles.cfm?ID=570
http://consumerlawpage.com/article/gm-exploding-tank.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/US/9508/auto/lawsuits/09-12/
It should be noted that the government wanted gas tanks mounted within the confines of the frame rails and away from crumple zones. But the problem is that many small subcompact and compact cars just dont have the space or room for such placement. This leads to having to design a tank that contain the fuel in the event of an accident.
In the instance of the Crown Victoria, it should also be noted that the tank is in the same identical spot that GM used on all the 58-64 fullsize cars. The tank is a very narrow unit that tucks behind the rear axle and infront of the trunk floor. This was done to afford more trunk space, but as they are learning now, it crushes the tank between the axle and this is the same identical problem GM had with those late 50's- early 60's cars.
The problem is nothing new.
The problem with the G body was the fact that the tank was basically unprotected since GM eliminated the frame crossmember in the rear. The only thing protecting it was the rear 5 mph bumper mounted on shock absorbers. The low mounted filler neck provided a perfect place to release fuel in a collision. This design remained on the B bodies up to 1996.
TurboBuickSix
Active Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2001
- Messages
- 1,118
So it is the testing standards that are bogus? These tests did'nt exist in the 50's and 60's or did they or are those cars the reason for the testing standards of today.Auto makers should be able to learn from previous mistakes from 50 years ago.
Similar threads
