Ford plans new police model to replace Crown Vic

Ford Motor Company ^ | Friday November 13, 2009 | Ford

[taildragger]

DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) -- Ford Motor Co. says it plans to sell a new police cruiser vehicle to replace the Crown Victoria once the sedan is phased out of production in 2011.

[hinckley buzzard]

Those days are over. All law enforcement agencies will be required to buy police cars from goobermint motors or the feds will withhold funds. Hide and watch - its coming.....red

Interesting prediction...we shall see...

[OA5599]

I concur. I’ve ridden in a significant number of them as NYC taxis. They are being phased out with smaller imports, minivans and hybrids. The replacement vehicles provide a jarring ride over the rough city roads. They simply don’t compare to the Crown Vics. Especially when it’s 4 am and you’re a wee bit inebriated!

[Kenny Bunk]

Waring, they fixed that embarrassing cop car explosion thing ages ago. Rear Shock Mount was puncturing the tank when the vehicle was struck from behind, so they put a skirt around it that just kinda mushes the tank a little bit.

FoMoCo Engineering, Baby! Besides, why the complaint? Exploding Fords is a hallowed Anerican tradition ... Pintos, Explorers, Crown Vics ... if you can’t stand the heat, get outa the damn car.

[Spktyr]

It wasn’t just that. While most civilian CV’s didn’t catch fire in rear end collisions, a statistically significant amount of them did.

Specifically, one of my older friends had its corporate twin, the Mercury Grand Marquis. It got rear ended by a drunk driver while parked and the fuel tank ruptured. It was only luck that it didn’t get sparked; and there was nothing in the trunk.

Also, if the problem is police accessory screws being too long, why would a special shield help prevent fire? And why would they also install the shields on Town Cars?

http://www.autosafety.org/category/categories/vehicle-fires/crown-victoria-fires/crown-victoria-fires-latest-news

Someone has faulty info here, and it’s not me.

[thefactor]

As a cop I have driven Impalas and Crown Vics. Given the choice give me a Vic anyday and twice on Sunday. One thing these companies don’t realize is that cops don’t care about gas mileage. Departments do. Cops don’t pay for gas.

[tlb]

This might make for a good replacement

http://cache.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/HelloKittyTRFinalsmall.jpg

[DuncanWaring]

Explorers explode? I thought they just rolled over.

[OA5599]

It wasn’t just that. While most civilian CV’s didn’t catch fire in rear end collisions, a statistically significant amount of them did.

figures please

Specifically, one of my older friends had its corporate twin, the Mercury Grand Marquis. It got rear ended by a drunk driver while parked and the fuel tank ruptured. It was only luck that it didn’t get sparked; and there was nothing in the trunk.

Anecdotal. Here's my anecdote: When I was a child, I had to evacuate my apartment building because a drunk driver rear ended a car parked on the side of the road in which my building was located. The car was not a Crown Vic, yet the fuel tank ruptured and there was a huge fire. The road happened to be a service road for a limited access highway, and the drunk driver was likely doing 60+ mph. Crown Vics are not the only cars which have fuel tanks, and those fuel tanks in any car are susceptible to rupture at highway speeds.

Also, if the problem is police accessory screws being too long, why would a special shield help prevent fire?

You do realize there are multiple ways to get the same results? The shield is between the fuel tank and the rear axle. In the event of a high speed rear end crash, the fuel tank can be pushed into the rear axle, causing it to burst.

However, the majority of the fires in Crown Vics were due to police equipment in the trunk puncturing the tank. (For this, there is also a package called the trunk pack which is a trunk liner.)

If you bothered to read articles at the link you gave me, one of the latest Crown Vic fires was in Texas in 2003. It was determined that the "videotape mounting bracket punctured the tank."

And why would they also install the shields on Town Cars?

They didn't. (Although they did offer it on Town Car based limos.)

Someone has faulty info here, and it’s not me.

I guess the NHTSA has faulty info. They rate the Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, and Town Car a perfect 5 stars in every crash rating. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studied Crown Victoria crashes in 2002 and determined the car met safety standards. Many of the police crashes resulted from high-speed incidents that few cars would withstand, the agency ruled.

[nascarnation]

I lived in OH back when the 55mph limit came in.
They were the first state to figure out you can make a lot of money on interstate speeding fines.
And if they are out of state victims, little chance of voter retribution.
Has continued to this day.
Even though they’ve just passed gambling, I don’t expect this revenue enhancer to change.

[Yardstick]

lol — looks like it should be dispensed from a gumball machine.

[Yardstick]

Man what a badass machine. It looks like could suck the others up into its hood scoop.

[Spktyr]

NHTSA says otherwise. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/CrownVic/Index.html "PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:� The fuel tank can rupture following a high- energy rear collision resulting in severe fires.� A vehicle occupant surviving the impact trauma could be killed as a result of fire intrusion into the passenger compartment." Also, the crash tests that generate those star ratings are done at speeds below what the people being rear-ended are seeing (read the report at the link). More from the report: "ODI Findings: * The crash energy levels associated with post rear impact fuel tank failures in the CVPI vehicles are significantly greater than the levels in FMVSS 301 tests. * Fuel tank failures during high-speed rear impacts can result from numerous causes in addition to the hex-headed bolt and U-brackets identified in the Ford TSB.� Crash reports identify many causes for loss of fuel system integrity during a high-energy rear crash, such as puncture from a deformed frame rail, lower shock absorber supports, or stowed items in the trunk, hydrostatic rupture, and other causes." They also go on to note that the B-Body was just as bad - but IMHO that's okay because GM hasn't sold a B-Body in over a decade. Here are some other data points and a reference site: http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/timeline.html

[Kenny Bunk]

Explorers explode? I thought they just rolled over.

The Ford Exploder has been known to do both, sometimes on the same day.

[Spktyr]

Let's try that again:

NHTSA says otherwise. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/CrownVic/Index.html

"PROBLEM DESCRIPTION; The fuel tank can rupture following a high- energy rear collision resulting in severe fires. A vehicle occupant surviving the impact trauma could be killed as a result of fire intrusion into the passenger compartment."

Also, the crash tests that generate those star ratings are done at speeds below what the people being rear-ended are seeing (read the report at the link). More from the report: "ODI Findings:

* The crash energy levels associated with post rear impact fuel tank failures in the CVPI vehicles are significantly greater than the levels in FMVSS 301 tests.

* Fuel tank failures during high-speed rear impacts can result from numerous causes in addition to the hex-headed bolt and U-brackets identified in the Ford TSB. Crash reports identify many causes for loss of fuel system integrity during a high-energy rear crash, such as puncture from a deformed frame rail, lower shock absorber supports, or stowed items in the trunk, hydrostatic rupture, and other causes."

They also go on to note that the B-Body was just as bad - but IMHO that's okay because GM hasn't sold a B-Body in over a decade. Here are some other data points and a reference site: http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/timeline.html

Ford's own study shows that non-police CV cars are statistically more likely to go on fire than the competition, or even their own Taurus:

[Kenny Bunk]

The best way to attach anything to a Ford is to use long, self-tapping sheet metal screws down through the trunk floor. Six inches, at least.

The mistake PD mechanics across the country were making is not wadding chewing gum firmly around the screw first, or using Fleers, when any fool chemist could tell you that only Dubble Bubble is gasoline proof (but not ethanol blend).

BTW, don't use an electric drill for the pilot holes. Lost several pals that way. Why do cops actually need cars, anyway? Most donut shops and pizza places deliver.

[OA5599]

The NHTSA says otherwise? Really? Why did you leave this out from the NHTSA link you provided?

Under the present circumstance, it is unlikely that further investigation would produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a safety-related defect in the subject vehicles. Therefore, this investigation is closed based on the evidence available at this time.

[Spktyr]

Why did you leave this part out?

“The available information regarding fuel tank failure mode, the risk of fire per fatal crash, field performance, and crash testing indicate that the performance of the subject vehicle in high-energy rear crashes is not unlike that of the most comparable peer vehicle, the GM B-body.”

Basically, they closed the investigation because the CV was no better than a B-Body, so therefore by government logic, there was ‘no defect’. However, the B-Body design was also terrible! The only cars sold in the last decade that kept the fuel tank in the Fed-mandated crumple zone were the Ford Mustang (fixed in 05) and the Panther-platform cars. Everyone else removed their fuel tanks from that location long ago. Sure, it used to be par for the course, but so did dashboards without crash padding or not installing seatbelts at the factory. By modern standards not affected by government logic, that is a clear defect in the design.

[OA5599]

Ford's own study shows that non-police CV cars are statistically more likely to go on fire than the competition, or even their own Taurus:

Your pretty little graph is useless. It's fatalities per 100,000 vehicle years. Fatalities per rear end collision is the statistic you need, particularly high speed ones.

[OA5599]

This just in: New cars are safer! All old cars now declared defective!

[DuncanWaring]

And here I thought “Exploder” was just a figure of speech ...