Is your Focus Falling Apart???
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
400HP930........While we are bashing Fords(again or still 
). do you remember about 2 years ago on 20/20 i think, there was a lady in califonia that was sueing Ford(surprise) because her daughter died in an accident when her 1967 Ford Mustang was rearended by another car that was traveling at 50mph when they hit? apperantly the mother was saying that because the gas tank was the trunk floor in the early mustangs(and other fords of that era) and there was no partition between the trunk and the passenger compartment that it was fords fault she died a firey death. i suppose that the collective intelligence of this site believes that ford should have recalled the possible million early (65-70) mustangs and re-engineered them at fords cost. remember that this car was hit while sitting still by another car traveling at 50mph! i was totally amazed by this obviously waste of tax payers dollars. this is probably the same people who blew up fullsize GM pickups 
). do you remember about 2 years ago on 20/20 i think, there was a lady in califonia that was sueing Ford(surprise) because her daughter died in an accident when her 1967 Ford Mustang was rearended by another car that was traveling at 50mph when they hit? apperantly the mother was saying that because the gas tank was the trunk floor in the early mustangs(and other fords of that era) and there was no partition between the trunk and the passenger compartment that it was fords fault she died a firey death. i suppose that the collective intelligence of this site believes that ford should have recalled the possible million early (65-70) mustangs and re-engineered them at fords cost. remember that this car was hit while sitting still by another car traveling at 50mph! i was totally amazed by this obviously waste of tax payers dollars. this is probably the same people who blew up fullsize GM pickups
Guest
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
I would say that IMHO as an engineer that they should have segregated the tank from the passenger area of the car. If a tank is going to rupture (which is possible in a high speed accident) I much rather have it spew its gas somewhere else besides the passenger area of a car.
One thing I like about my car is that the 22 gallon tank is in the front trunk and it is segregated from the passenger area. Thats smart even if everyone isn't doing it.
Unfortunately the 60's was not the greatest era for auto safety so I imagine there are going to a lot of things about the older cars that can be criticised. While they can't be retrofitted, if if can be proven that ford knew that this was killing people and could easily be fixed in later models and did nothing, then I can see some liability there.
If an auto company is going to design their cars in a way that they know will kill people just to save a few bucks via lawsuits instead of building better cars, let people sue them. I rather have a system where lawsuits are filed than one where companies are immune to the repurcussions of their willful actions.
I really don't view our legal system which is superior to most every other in the world and a suit that has enough merit to go to court as a "waste of tax payers money".
One thing I like about my car is that the 22 gallon tank is in the front trunk and it is segregated from the passenger area. Thats smart even if everyone isn't doing it.
Unfortunately the 60's was not the greatest era for auto safety so I imagine there are going to a lot of things about the older cars that can be criticised. While they can't be retrofitted, if if can be proven that ford knew that this was killing people and could easily be fixed in later models and did nothing, then I can see some liability there.
If an auto company is going to design their cars in a way that they know will kill people just to save a few bucks via lawsuits instead of building better cars, let people sue them. I rather have a system where lawsuits are filed than one where companies are immune to the repurcussions of their willful actions.
I really don't view our legal system which is superior to most every other in the world and a suit that has enough merit to go to court as a "waste of tax payers money".
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
with that line of thinking, i can imagine someone getting in a head on accident in a model t. im sure that would result in a fatality! that would be why automanufacturers (all) puts a sticker on the car that states something like this- conforms to all applicable safety standards for the certain year of the car- so i do think that someone sueing Ford because a 30 year old car "blew" up in a 50mph rearend collision is a waste of tax payers money! i would wonder how your 930 would stand up to a 50mph head on collision. would the gas tank be in your lap? Im all for safety,reliability,fuel mileage, etc...... i just dont think you can say a manufacturer intentionally builds unsafe cars. How many years did Volvo sell cars based on their supposed safety record? I do believe i saw a comercial that boasts of the Windstar being the only mini-van with a
5-star crash rating in a head-on collision. HHMMMM. Knock on wood, i personaly have never had to test a vehicles crash rating.
5-star crash rating in a head-on collision. HHMMMM. Knock on wood, i personaly have never had to test a vehicles crash rating.
