Ford: Ford to Police: get lost!

com (Brent P) wrote:
 

I've owned two vehicles that actually has this feature. The first was a
1968 (?) Toyota Corolla, which had the fuel tank mounted between the rear
suspension towers. The second was an 1986 Audi 5000. The Quattro used the
same fuel tank location as the FWD version, and ran the rear drive shaft
underneath the fuel tank. Granted, a live rear axle complicates the
engineering, but considering the type of service (See other post), it
should be worth serious consideration.
 

For basic day to day transportation, the CV is solid transportation. A
local non-urgent medical transportation company is using them (probably in
PI trim) for routine patient transport.

The problem comes in when you put that same design into a use with a much
higher probability of high-speed crashes. As I said in my other post, a
high speed pursuit is about as close to racing use as the car is likely to
get. Almost every sanctioning body I can think of specifies fuel cells in
place of the original fuel tank.
 

Is this the same "emotionalism" that recognized the hazard associated with
the mid-80s GM full sized pickups, with their fuel tanks _outside_ the
frame rails?

/------------------------------------------------------------\
| George Ruch |
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" |
\------------------------------------------------------------/

In article <bfoom3$itl$atl.mindspring.net>, com
says... 

And you completely disregard that most modern police departments not
only have two-way radios in their cards, they also have inter-city ties
too.

And LoJack works btw.

In article <com>, "V.B. Mercon"
<ransmission@ ford@fail> says...
 

Well - you're lucky your transmission didn't self destruct yet.

In article <bfovk8$1b4$uwaterloo.ca>, Richard Bell wrote:
 

Not that I know of.
 

That's my point. If you make enough vehicles and use them enough there will
be a wide variety of events that occur in low numbers.

In article <west.earthlink.net>, Ima wrote: 

Really? where would you put it? Under the back seat? So do you blame
when a taxi company buys the used vic from the police department and
lets the U joints go and at 350,000 miles the drive shaft let's go
through the gas tank and floor boards sending burning gasoline into
the passenger compartment? Oh ford of course, they shoulda made it
front wheel drive or located the gas tank under the trunk because they
knew taxi companies would neglect the cars at the end of their useful
life. Just like they are expected to have designed the vehicle to take
being rear-ended at 70mph when parked on the side of the road.

Or maybe the car should have a force field generator to prevent crashes.
For crying out loud we aren't talking about 1000s of vehicles bursting into
flame from parking lot bumps. We are talking about 29 vehicles bursting into
flames after being hit at expressway speeds while parked over ten years and
who knows how many 100s of thousands of cars being used 24/7 and how many
thousands of crashes.

Not to forget, by the time the trunk is crushed on a vic, that's the backseat
on smaller cars and it would still be a fuel tank rupture.

In article <com>, BOB URZ wrote:
 

That's dangerously sounding like an arguement to get rid of RWD cars.
 

The man of a million names could make it up like everything else.

Both Chevrolet and Dodge offer a certified police vehicle to
compete with the CV. They are only V6 powered but can be had
for about $2,000 less.. Few departments use them except for city
service and detective work. The major reasons are FWD is unsafe
for highway patrol or pursuit work, very small back seats that do
not allow room for the cage, higher maintenance costs, lower
resale value that soon negates any original cost savings. Taxi
companies gobble up used police CV's, but have very little use of
the others.



mike hunt



Richard Bell wrote: 

"The Ghost of General Lee" <lee> wrote in message
news:com... 

Of course....The Dukes of Hazzard Safety Ramp!