Irony has its revenge...........

RE: Irony has its revenge...........

The volvo is probably too expensive, though I have not checked the price. A city is going to go with the cheepest product that they can buy. There used to be a saying at my old dept. " when you are in a shootout, don't forget that your gun was built by the cheepest bidder". As for the cv being safe, I can tell you that there is a major recall on the police package where a bolt is adjusted that aparently caused all of the problem. In a rear end collision the bolt would puncture the tank and cause the fire. Not the impact itself. I am sure there are more problems, but I have done no research.

How many reported crashes are there for the headlight's on our mark's. Does that mean that there is no problem with them? Does that mean that there is no safety issue? They passed all of the government test's. Would we be back stabbing pieces of crap for suing Ford over this? Look how many of us have gone to the ntsa site and filed a complaint. We still drive the car's dont we? Some of us have gone out an purchased more of them. It seems to me that if there was no flaw in the construction, then Ford would not have recalled the cv.
 
RE: Irony has its revenge...........

From what I've read, the problem is with all the equipment that PI's carry in the trunk. In a rear end collision, a lot of the stuff that must be carried in the trunk, damages the fuel tank. What Ford did was design a carrier of some sorts that was supposed to hold all the gear and which in turn would make it safer.

I guess there are independent tests that show it's no safer even after using that carrier.


http://members.tccoa.com/lastmrk/Images/lastmrk2.jpg
 
RE: Irony has its revenge...........

As for the cv being safe, I can tell you that there is a major recall on the police package where a bolt is adjusted that aparently caused all of the problem. In a rear end collision the bolt would puncture the tank and cause the fire. Not the impact itself.
Click to expand...

I sure as heck hope that's not the problem... isn't that what the problem was with the PINTO? They better have learnt their freaking lesson...
 
RE: Irony has its revenge...........

How many reported crashes are there for the headlight's on our mark's. Does that mean that there is no problem with them? ...Would we be back stabbing pieces of crap for suing Ford over this? Look how many of us have gone to the ntsa site and filed a complaint...
Click to expand...

That's a good Q. I had to really think about that, because at first it sounds right. But, I think you are makeing "complaining to ntsa" equivalent with "sueing Ford", and they aren't.

I don't think anybody was planning to sue Ford over the headlights. By filing that lawsuit, aren't they in effect saying "these cars are so unsafe as to be unusable, we want our money back". I think at most we wanted to get safer headlights, not different, better, free cars.

If I were to buy a second mark, I personally would make every effort to buy a mark with HIDs; also all the "I want a mark, what do I look for posts" I see are answered with "make sure you get one with HID lights". So even though I don't think it would be hypocritical to _complain_ about the lights and then buy a mark with the same lights ("yeah I know the lights suck but it was a great deal at those miles" - that's not a hypocritical statement! ), I do believe it would be hypocritical to _sue_ over the safety of the vehicle and then buy more of them.

Also, I don't think that, among people familiar with the mark8 headlights, very many non-HID models are purchased.

So, let's say I am sueing Ford over the headlights, and I go out and buy another Mark with non-HID. Yes, I think that would be hypocritical - clearly I do not believe my safety is jeopardized when using the product... If I were Ford's lawyer, I would immediately point that out to the judge and move for dismissal, LOL.


94 Mark VIII, Black / Black
 
RE: Irony has its revenge...........

Hi Flamark!

From what I heard it was the cars getting rear-ended by drunks when parked on the side of the road by police officers doing what thay are paid to do. I don't get how the cops are the bad guys here?

We DO want safe vehicles, which is one of the reasons for a full size car. It's also the reason they have lights facing the REAR of the car.
Our car is our "office" so we have to have space to carry stuff.

The cars have to be durable as they get driven in a city environment, are often abused, and idle a lot.
Municipalities don't want to spend much money on the cars, ditto on upkeep, so Volvos are out. (So are Beemers. Damn!)

Right now the CV is the only game in town, like it or not.
 
RE: Irony has its revenge...........

It's about time you got here. They flanked me and have been beating me something terrible. :) Glad to see you stop by. Hope thing's are going well with your new position.

As for the lawsuite thing, there were many people on this board who wanted to hire a lawyer to sue for the headlight's. I did not pull that out of my butt.
 
RE: Irony has its revenge...........

I can only speak for me, but the people using the cars are not even involved in this story, are they? In my posts I was talking about the administrators who buy cars and file lawsuits. It's just a coincidence that they are police and police cars, it could just as easily have been city permit insepctors or parks department...



94 Mark VIII, Black / Black
 
RE: Irony has its revenge...........

Dallas is one of the departments that is on Ford's butt about the CV...They lost an officer last October in a rear-ended PI. Just recently they had an independent company run some tests on the CV in rear end crashes. They showed the results on the news. It was pretty eye opening. The first crash was without the trunk organizer tray and all of the typical stuff cops keep in their trunk. The fuel tank was punctured several places by the tire iron and several other items. The next test was with about 300 pounds of sand in bags. The seam in the fuel tank separated and was dumping out fuel. The last test was with the tray/organizer and the tank was punctured still. Our mayor is really going toe to toe with them, she and the city lawyers are determined to keep Ford over the fire till they get a solution. I personally think they need to look more at bladder type liners for the tanks, maybe some Kevlar or something to keep it from being punctured. I know someone can come up with a workable solution, it's just that nobody wants to pay the bill.
 
RE: Irony has its revenge...........

Its not Fords fault that the tanks puncture at 75mph, the cars were not designed for that, and its not Fords fault that th CV can take a rear end hit like that better than 99% of the cars on the road, why is Ford getting sued?. Why did not the PDs do tests before buying the cars to see if it met up to their standards, if the PDs bought a product without knowing its safety potential or lack of it then why are they suing, and if the PDs dont wanna foot up the bill for making them safer then they deserve to have supposedly unsafe cars (which the CVs are not unsafe).

IMO, its simply a matter of lets blame someone for this because we didnt do the proper testing when we bought these vehicles to see how they handled the crashes.
 
RE: Irony has its revenge...........

There is a bolt in in the crown vic that punctures the tank in a rear end collision. After a few cop's died they looked into it and found the problem. Ford has since fixed it. Do the other cars have a bolt that punctures a tank in a rear end collision? No they do not. Ford realized the problem after the fact and fixed it. The gas tank location is also odd in these vehicles. There are very few other's with this configuration.

As for police dept's testing these cars, that is just plain dumb. Police dept's are already strapped as it is with this economy. Most forces are leaving positions vaccant as people retire to help save a few buck's. Now you want agencies to go buy a car just to total it? The citizen's of our communities would go nut's. They can barely afford to pay us as it is. Neither you nor I still have all of the fact's with this issue, yet you insist on calling people names.

You want to talk about irresponsible people? How about people who dont spay or nuder their pet's. How about people who let thier animal's run around outside so they can jump on people's car's, urinate on their doorstep's and meow all night long keeping people awake. Most cities have leash law's requiring their pet's to be on a leash at all times when outside. They also have law's about keeping a rabies tag on them. This goes for cat's and dog's. It's kinda funny how some will pass judgement on other's when they themselves are the worst offender's.
 
RE: Irony has its revenge...........

err... the cat thing is for another thread but since its locked, we have found a specialist, Dr. Botsford of the Woodland Animal Hospital in Brighton, Michigan to do the surgery for a monthly payment, thank god for him. He just called us an hour ago offering to do the surgery at a reduced rate. If you want to discuss it any further, please email or message me on AIM, Yahoo, or MSN. Check my profile for the screennames, thank you. MSN isnt working for me right now, so im still on AIM, and Yahoo.

Im just wondering, why if the PDs are so concerned about safety why dont they test the cars themselves. Strapped for cash is a valid reason, but if spending $20k for testing a vehicle, and finding a defect then having the manufacturer correct it means saving lives, then its worth it, correct?.

Im not calling anyone names, and this is the first I have heard of the bolt causing it to rupture, more info please(links).
 
RE: Irony has its revenge...........

http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/latestnews_archives.html

There is alot of good reading there. Ford lied when it said that it passed the 75 mph crash test. Ford lied when it said that the new shield in the trunk would protect the tank from rupture. In fact, it made the matter worse. Another thing to consider is the number of crown vic's that have gone up in flames, but nobody was killed. Those are not really reported and hard to track.

As for the cost of testing the car, the cities will not do it. They dont have the money and fall back on Ford's claim's of safety. The police dept. cannot go buy and cruiser and crash it without the authorization of city hall.

In Texas they did buy 3 of them and had a university do a crash study on them. Guess what happened in all three tests. The gas tank broke and poured fuel everywhere. This was with Ford's supposed shield's in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top