***WARNING.. DISSENTING OPINION WITHIN*****
Maybe it's just me.. But I honestly don't see this as "that" big of a problem. The Mustang meets or exceeds all the federal requirements for crash worthiness. We've already ahd a couple board members get involved in a couple serious crashes and come out of it with little more than scrapes and bruises.
While I do believe the Robert Lane does usually have the best interests of his readers at heart I do also believe that he has gotten a bit sensational with his reporting.
The most important data, that is no where to be found in this article, is how did every other car in the Mustang's class perform in exactly the same tests?
Also.. the "Hit List" or injury list is also hardly damning evidence.. With less than 40 names on the list and over a million SN95 or newer Mustangs on the road I find these types of injuries to be so rare as to not warrant investigation or concern. A great many cars, from every manufacturer, still have fuel tanks located under the trunk, every last one of them would be succeptible to these types of crashes and pretty much the same results. If it's so tragic that a fuel cell "can" or "may" rupture with a
50 mph impact how tragic would it be if that 50 mph impact were broadside into the drivers door? a 50 mph impact would be sufficient to forcefully relocate you to the passenger seat. A gruesome prospect indeed. The Story of Danielle Wright, opening the article, is one fraught with questions. They state that it was only a "Glancing" blow from the Honda civic that caused Danielle's convertible to burst into flames and jam both doors closed. Well the Mustang fuly passes the federal requirement for rear end impacts and fuel tank leakage requirements that state that it must be able to sustain a 35mph impact. Now either this was a freak occurence, a tragic one at that, or the Honda hit Danielle's car a whole lot harder that is elluded to. In fact, the only indication the article gives of the force of the impact is to say that it wasn't sufficient to break any of Danielle's bones. That is hardly telling of the severity of the impact. Missing details are indeed troubling.
The only slightly troubling test was the jamming closed of a convertibles doors. But again.. How do other convertibles do in this test? Put the same impact and test to the BMW or Miata convertibles and I'd be willing to place a large amount of money on the fact that jamming doors would be the least of your concerns. Instead the removal of the front license plate of the car that hit you from the back of your head would be a primary worry. In a signifigant rear end collision all convertibles, by their very nature, would be succeptible to "Folding" and possibly jamming the doors based solely on the fact that convertibles have no roof to keep this type of flexing from taking place. Also the 'verbage" of the questioning is suspect in the interviews..
"Do you feel that Ford's customers deserve to know about this door openability issue?"
Ok.. so now.. you walk into a dealaership and they, and Ford, should now be required to tell you about every result of every type of impact on a vehicle?
"Before you buy this car Mr. Buyer, I'm legally required to tell you that if your hit by a Red squirrell, not a grey one, in the lower 3rd quadrant of the front fender and you spin off into a willow tree that there is an increased possibility that you passenger in the trunk may get a nosebleed form his right... no left nostril."
Please. Every car buyer should do thier homework on any vehicle they purchase. Crash data is readily available in many locations, test data of all sorts is at everyones fingertips.
This is one of those articles that rubs me the wrong way. It'w very "Sensational", has little to no impact on real world use of our cars, and it would seem that it's only purpose is to agitate the readers and spark possible litigation against Ford. To much data is missing, comparison tests for reference are not there, and the injury data does not fully support any of the claims.
Bottom line.. don't fear driving your Mustang, don't worry about your kids being safe in it. They are just as safe, if not safer in your Bullitt, then they would be in any other comparable car.
_________________
Blakwing
2001 DHG Bullitt #171
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Blakwing on 2002-01-29 18:16 ]</font>
