68rustang
Active Member
stangman16 said:
The steering column is a very real concern. I believe 68 was the first year for for the collapsable columns. I sold an extra on ebay that somebody was going to stick in a 66.
good old exploding tank question..
- Thread starter smitzer
- Start date
The steering column is a very real concern. I believe 68 was the first year for for the collapsable columns. I sold an extra on ebay that somebody was going to stick in a 66.
reenmachine
20+ Year Stangneter 
Perhaps you mean IED (Improvised Explosive Device) explosions???thehueypilot said:
IUD explosions -- now there's some disturbing imagery!!!!!
(you probably have to be pretty old or have really paid attention in health class to get this...)
reenmachine said:Perhaps you mean IED (Improvised Explosive Device) explosions???
IUD explosions -- now there's some disturbing imagery!!!!!
(you probably have to be pretty old or have really paid attention in health class to get this...)
I get it.
Man I must be getting old.
I read an article where an old Mustang did explode from a rear impact. I think one of the victims in the back seat were burned very badly. Probably more of a freak accident more than anything else.
atomicpunk
Member
I'm not sure I'd drive around scared to death, but I wouldn't write it off as "impossible" either. Here's the link from the 60 minutes story a few years back.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/05/17/60II/main47539.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/05/17/60II/main47539.shtml
Hack
15 Year Member
I really hate stories like that. It's absolutely the worst kind of sensationalism that the press does. Also, people that sue at any opportunity really annoy me. That's a big reason why businesses here can't compete with overseas companies. Gee, let's sue the American automakers out of business so we can all drive Hondas - wouldn't that be great?atomicpunk said:
There's no car in the world that's foolproof or accident proof. It's dangerous on the road and you can die in an accident.
Recall the Mustang?!?! What a doorknob!
68rustang
Active Member
People that expect a 35-40 year old car to be safe enough for their kids to drive should have their heads examined. That whole article was BS. I feel sorry for the people that lost loved ones but to say they only died because they were driving unsafe mustangs is a stretch.
Okay, now that I have that out of the way...
They said in the article that they abandoned the design in 71. I thought the Pinto's and MII had the same "problem" with the floor of the trunk being the top of the tank.
Okay, now that I have that out of the way...
They said in the article that they abandoned the design in 71. I thought the Pinto's and MII had the same "problem" with the floor of the trunk being the top of the tank.
Pinto tank was under the floor. There was something on the axle i think that would puncture the tank in a bad collision. The solution was to put a thick plastic shield between the tank and axle. Problem was only on 2- and 3-door cars. Wagons were longer so they didn't have the "problem".
thehueypilot
Active Member
atomicpunk said:
Looking at the newer cars with plastic fuel lines and plastic fuel tanks does not give me a feeling of being any safer. When running over something lying on the road that could tear up the bottom of a car I would rather be in my old Mustang than a newer car with a plastic fuel system.
thehueypilot
Active Member
reenmachine said:Perhaps you mean IED (Improvised Explosive Device) explosions???
IUD explosions -- now there's some disturbing imagery!!!!!
(you probably have to be pretty old or have really paid attention in health class to get this...)
That was a typo....but I get it as well.
Ther is also not much steel between the back end of the car and the fuel tank. Installing a 1.5" x3" piece of steel tubing between the two frame rails just in front of the existing trunk brace makes the chances of anything disasterous happening muchmore slim.
Add the steel barrier between the back seat and the trunk and you're good to go.
Add the steel barrier between the back seat and the trunk and you're good to go.
84convertablegt
New Member
id say that it is a risk u have to take driving a classic mustang. it is a horrible design, but it was a long time ago, and designs were obviously not as good. cars have come a long way, and not so far at the same time. there are a million other things to be worried about driving a classic stang. single bowl master cylinders, solid steering shafts that will brake your chest and face in half, no crumple zones, lap only seat belts, and lastly the gas tank. if you want safety, spend the big bucks and fix your stang with modern goodies, or buy a new car. all old cars are inherintly less "safe" than modern cars. think about what separates the gas tank in a mustang from the rear end. nothing but that flimsy valance panel basically. but also, even the new crown vics have had a lot of publicity lately about blowing up in side and rear end collisions, especially police cars that see alot of highway traffic use. the media does blow everything out of proportion. id say the best bet is to just seal up the trunk area with metal and drive carefully.
68rustang
Active Member
The Crown Vics are another example of biased reporting. Much of the controversy stems from DFW area police and some "tests" that they conducted or someone conducted on their behalf. Basically they clamied the car failed to protect the gas tank during 75 mph collision tests. Well duh, there isn't much that can. Secondly the "trunk pack" which I think is a rack that police use to carry and mount things in the trunk was modified to acheive the results they were looking for. SOmething about a crowbar welded to a two ton floor jack and being oriented in such a way as to guarantee the crowbar and the jack handle would puncture the tank.
There was quite a discussion about this over at c-c.com.
c-c.com thread here
There was quite a discussion about this over at c-c.com.
c-c.com thread here
Similar threads
