Mustang Bullitt Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
466 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There is a breaking story on BON (Blue Oval News) today regarding safety issues with the SN95 Mustang platform.

Not sure of any direct relationship to the Bullitt, right now, but it is an interesting read.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crs2879 on 2002-01-29 12:09 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crs2879 on 2002-01-29 12:10 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
It would apply to the Bullitt in every way, shape, and form. This is pretty damning evidence that shows two extremely serious flaws with '94+ Mustangs. I'd hope the NHTSA opens an inquiry to these two very serious safety issues...

http://www.bonforums.com/mustang_safety/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Sorry, I don't visit the BON site anymore. The flaming posts and the questionable info from the website was enough to chase most of us away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
This is EXTREMELY alarming information. Based on this, don't give us more HP fix the safety issues. I have two kids, 2 & 9, and don't want them to be hurt because of Fords negligence. A monetary settlement can't replace a life.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,360 Posts
i'm not a huge fan of BON either BUT mostly because of the other members and their flames! Robert Lane trys very hard to present evidence to the comsumer about (and from) Ford for both positive and negative feedback!

Robert Lane was one of the driving forces behind getting the 1999 Cobra recalled and reworked to produce a TRUE 320 HP!!!!
some of the evidence he points to from Ford's own paperwork, tests, and "cover ups" are pretty damning!!!
i'd say that once again, there are some safety issues that were hidden from the consumer!

we'll see how this plays out!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mystang99 on 2002-01-29 16:05 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
A monetary settlement can't replace a life.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Well, my one big gripe with Ford is that they consider that monetary settlements are the way to go. Look at the documents that leaked out over the Pinto's fuel design (which, ironically, is what we're talking about with '79+ Mustangs). They recalled the Explorer because you know they figured a recall would be cheaper than having a couple-hundred more tire failures and their associated lawsuits. Ford doesn't seem to put too much accounting value in "goodwill"--something Chrysler reversed themselves on over 10 years ago...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,360 Posts
actually as far as major manufactures go, the BEST part of a settlement is that ALL court records can be sealed ...PERMANENTLY!
all testimony, evidence, records, etc.. all sealed and hidden as part of the settlement. can't even be used in future court procedings about exact same kind of problems!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,235 Posts
As far as the fuel system is concerned,take a look uder your Bullitt,and take notice of where the fuel line travels....Along the inside of the driveshaft tunnel!!!! If,in racing situations,the driveshaft was to fail,it could damage the fuel line,causing high pressure fuel to spray everywhere!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
***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>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
I'm with Blakwing as well. What I read was that during Ford testing, the fuel tank lost 5 ounces of fuel instead of the 'standard' one ounce. And this is Ford's standard, obviously they passed the Federal one. If I am rear ended at 50mph, the fuel loss will be the least of my concerns, and far more worried about broken necks and backs. BON makes Geraldo Rivera look like a class act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
501 Posts
I read the story and am not too concerned.On a funny note though.Can you imagine a 4 door Mustang (2 extra to get out of a rear end collision) , also I used to own a 1974? Pinto Bean that was rear-ended.No Fire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,591 Posts
AMEN!!!!! I'm with Blakwing, my god Life is dangerous we all die from it.
Mike Scavage say's, Journalism is the work of the Devil. Of course I don't believe that but I do believe that some journalist are telling their own version of the truth. For they're own personal reasons.
How many people freaked over the 65-70 mustang story about exploding gas tanks. Or the exploding side inpacts in the Chevy/GMC Pickup. In the Pickup story, the Night Line got into trouble about putting incendiaries into the truck to make the explosion look mor more dramic in the test. Only reason they got caught was the Firefighters at the test site to put out flames, ratted on them. I ask, did many of you hear about that? Probly not. I found about it though Hot Rod magazine. In the Old Mustang case the crash test showed that the dumy would have broken his neck from the old style seats, did anyone run out and get High back late model seats. NO because we freaked over the Gas and Fire. Go figure!
I for one don't always believe what I hear, and half of what I see. I'm from Missouri.
And if that kills me, Well I'm going to die some day and right now I can't aford a M1 battle tank to go to work in because they are the only real safe ride out there.
You smokers better not be one of the fraindy cats because your smoking your own personal time BOMB.
Have a nice safe life..... Next time your hauling ass, doing 145 on the interstate if you get rearended you might not be able to open your doors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
I'm with Blakwing, too. If I was that concerned about safety I'd never buy a two door vehicle ever again. Instead I'd buy an Excursion and rule the road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
586 Posts
My 3 year old rides in the Tahoe. He's got a better view there, anyway.

Guess I'll just have to tromp on the Bullitt a bit extra to stay ahead of the guy behind me!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
2 responses:

1. There are plenty of small cars on the road that are just as likily to sustain the same level of damage (if not more). We are at no more of a risk than most any car on the road.

2. If you, as an individual, are concerned about the fuel tank, then the swap to a fuel cell is very easy, plus you gain a few extra gallons of fuel capacity. Not to mention how cool it cools to see "Fuel Safe" visible under your rear bumper line. If you plan to take your Bullitt on any track, then please invest in a fuel cell.

Have Fun,
Randy R...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
The only slightly troubling test was the jamming closed of a convertibles doors.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm curious--what are the door differences between a Mustang coupe vs. convertible? Since the coupe doors have no tracks for the windows to follow and no "upper part" (don't know what it's called), why would the coupe door vs. convertible door be any different?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,730 Posts
It’s my understanding that it structurally weekends the car when the hard top is removed. To compensate, they put extra supports in the doors and through out the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,944 Posts
I read someplace that the Convertibles get an extra 500 pounds as part of making up for nohard top. In the older convertibles, most of this was in the floor pans of the car. I have not paid attention to this in many years so I don't know if the NEW Mustangs do this in the doors or under the car or both. Interesting read on the issues though.

Take care.

Bud
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,360 Posts
"WARNING DISENTING OPINION" roflmao!!!
Blak you raise some valid points and yes, Robert can be a "sensationalist" at times!
i will not change how i drive OR what i drive because of his information nor will i seek any kind of recompense from Ford!!! my comments were based solely on the fact that i just get sick and tired of finding out cover up after cover up over the years from ALL the major manufacturers, especially automobile companies.
i liked the comment about life being dangerous.....PERIOD!!!! (and i could drop of a heart attack 10 minutes from now too!)
But, after the Firestone fiasco, im just fed up with a world full of lies, cover ups, and deceit!!!!! that was all i wanted to say!
too many companies only seem to care about the bottom line and covering their ass!!

i appreciate your helping me look at other issues here though!!!!!!!!
marty

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: mystang99 on 2002-01-30 14:38 ]</font>
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top