sleepdog@optonline.net

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ctoria_lawsuit

This is good for a laugh. Of course the plaintiff's attorney alleges
coercion on the part of Ford because they won't sell Crown Vics to PDs
involved in the suit.

GMAFB!

15 rear-end collisions wind up in fiery infernos. How about some
scientific basis using a control group of Impalas to see if they fair
any better?

Some ga

On 22 Mar 2005 19:41:43 -0800, sleepdog@optonline.net wrote:

>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ctoria_lawsuit
>
>This is good for a laugh. Of course the plaintiff's attorney alleges
>coercion on the part of Ford because they won't sell Crown Vics to PDs
>involved in the suit.
>
>GMAFB!
>
>15 rear-end collisions wind up in fiery infernos. How about some
>scientific basis using a control group of Impalas to see if they fair
>any better?

I think a better comparison would be to compare the CV's to Toyota
Echo's (Toyota's the gold standard right?).

I mean if the CV has a fire after being rear ended by a truck @ 100MPG
An Echo or Impala or Smart car should be fine in a similar accident
no?

3 dog nite@swatch.com

On 22 Mar 2005 19:41:43 -0800, sleepdog@optonline.net wrote:

>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ctoria_lawsuit
>
>This is good for a laugh. Of course the plaintiff's attorney alleges
>coercion on the part of Ford because they won't sell Crown Vics to PDs
>involved in the suit.
>
>GMAFB!
>
>15 rear-end collisions wind up in fiery infernos. How about some
>scientific basis using a control group of Impalas to see if they fair
>any better?
lmfao
yup prolly would
the rear axles prolly wouldent shear off too

lmfao
hurc ast

Mark

On 22 Mar 2005 19:41:43 -0800, sleepdog@optonline.net wrote:

>This is good for a laugh. Of course the plaintiff's attorney alleges
>coercion on the part of Ford because they won't sell Crown Vics to PDs
>involved in the suit.
>
>GMAFB!
>
>15 rear-end collisions wind up in fiery infernos. How about some
>scientific basis using a control group of Impalas to see if they fair
>any better?

Wasn't this foolishness put to bed last summer? Who keeps trying to bring it
up?

I hope Ford does deny sales to anyone who is still pursuing this bullshit.
The vehicle far surpasses Federal requirements in this area.

rodney

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 23:13:57 -0500, Some ga wrote:

> On 22 Mar 2005 19:41:43 -0800, sleepdog@optonline.net wrote:
>
>>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ctoria_lawsuit
>>
>>This is good for a laugh. Of course the plaintiff's attorney alleges
>>coercion on the part of Ford because they won't sell Crown Vics to PDs
>>involved in the suit.
>>
>>GMAFB!
>>
>>15 rear-end collisions wind up in fiery infernos. How about some
>>scientific basis using a control group of Impalas to see if they fair
>>any better?
>
> I think a better comparison would be to compare the CV's to Toyota
> Echo's (Toyota's the gold standard right?).
>
> I mean if the CV has a fire after being rear ended by a truck @ 100MPG
> An Echo or Impala or Smart car should be fine in a similar accident
> no?

Yes, Toyotas are very crash worthy. I pick one out the wheel wells of my
Lincoln now and then, and they look like new. Just a little smaller than
before.

Rodney

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Mikehunt@lycos.com

The NHTSA studied the rear collision situation involving 1992 to
2002 CV two years ago. The result of the testing showed the CV
far exceeded the federal standard for damage to the fuel tank.
The standard is 30 MPH, the CV is designed to take a 50 MPH hit
without damage to the fuel tank. The CV safety margin was
dramatically apparent when the FWD Chevrolet and the FWD Dodge
vehicles, the only others certified police vehicles on the
market, where stuck at the same speed and destroyed at 50 MPH.
The NHTSA closed its investigation of CV fires, with a finding
that the CV was indeed safe as designed for its intended use.

The shark lawyers are simply trying to find another avenue to get
Ford to pay off their legal costs, now that the NHTSA ruling has
eliminated any chance of them winning a product liability case
against Ford in any court.

By the way Toyota is a Japanese corporation and can only be sued
in Japanese courts that do not allow class action cases or the
large punitive damages, where the shark lawyers make their
millions


mike hunt



Some ga wrote:
>
> On 22 Mar 2005 19:41:43 -0800, sleepdog@optonline.net wrote:
>
> >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ctoria_lawsuit
> >
> >This is good for a laugh. Of course the plaintiff's attorney alleges
> >coercion on the part of Ford because they won't sell Crown Vics to PDs
> >involved in the suit.
> >
> >GMAFB!
> >
> >15 rear-end collisions wind up in fiery infernos. How about some
> >scientific basis using a control group of Impalas to see if they fair
> >any better?
>
> I think a better comparison would be to compare the CV's to Toyota
> Echo's (Toyota's the gold standard right?).
>
> I mean if the CV has a fire after being rear ended by a truck @ 100MPH
> An Echo or Impala or Smart car should be fine in a similar accident
> no?



mike hunt

marvin@mars.com

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:21:20 -0500, Mark <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 22 Mar 2005 19:41:43 -0800, sleepdog@optonline.net wrote:
>
>>This is good for a laugh. Of course the plaintiff's attorney alleges
>>coercion on the part of Ford because they won't sell Crown Vics to PDs
>>involved in the suit.
>>
>>GMAFB!
>>
>>15 rear-end collisions wind up in fiery infernos. How about some
>>scientific basis using a control group of Impalas to see if they fair
>>any better?
>
>Wasn't this foolishness put to bed last summer? Who keeps trying to bring it
>up?
>
>I hope Ford does deny sales to anyone who is still pursuing this bullshit.
>The vehicle far surpasses Federal requirements in this area.


lmfao
where??

cv are CRAP

hurc ast

marvin@mars.com

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:40:21 -0500, Mikehunt@lycos.com wrote:

>The NHTSA studied the rear collision situation involving 1992 to
>2002 CV two years ago. The result of the testing showed the CV
>far exceeded the federal standard for damage to the fuel tank.
>The standard is 30 MPH, the CV is designed to take a 50 MPH hit
>without damage to the fuel tank. The CV safety margin was
>dramatically apparent when the FWD Chevrolet and the FWD Dodge
>vehicles, the only others certified police vehicles on the
>market, where stuck at the same speed and destroyed at 50 MPH.
>The NHTSA closed its investigation of CV fires, with a finding
>that the CV was indeed safe as designed for its intended use.
>
>The shark lawyers are simply trying to find another avenue to get
>Ford to pay off their legal costs, now that the NHTSA ruling has
>eliminated any chance of them winning a product liability case
>against Ford in any court.
>
>By the way Toyota is a Japanese corporation and can only be sued
>in Japanese courts that do not allow class action cases or the
>large punitive damages, where the shark lawyers make their
>millions
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>

yup
meanwhile how many police has ford killed???


hurc ast

MajorDomo@mailcity.com

How can a guy who claims to know so much about cars be so far
wrong to call the CV crap? The CV is cheaper to buy, insure,
maintain and repair than anything in it price class. The CV is
without a doubt the best car available in the US today at
anywhere close to its price range. Every other car in that range
is much smaller and with nothing more than a V6 engine. Given
the proper maintaining the CV will easily outlast anything else
in that price range as well. No other police vehicle even comes
close to holding up as good as the CV. We serves them all by
the thousands. Look at the Taxi fleets in NYC there are hundreds
of them running with 500,000 miles to 1,000,000 miles in the
toughest use a vehicle can be subjected too and on some of the
worst street in the country. Give us
a brake. Nobody here cares if you don't like Ford vehicles so
don't talk stupid when trying to denigrate them


mike hunt



marvin@mars.com wrote:
>

>
> lmfao
> where??
>
> cv are CRAP
>
> hurc ast

MajorDomo@mailcity.com

Ford didn't kill anyone. The drivers of the vehicles, that hit
the parked CV, did that. For the record more police officers we
killed, during that time period on bicycle patrol than died in a
CV when they were hit in the rear at high speed.

Try doing some research before you choose to comment on a subject
that you obviously have little or no knowledge, WBMA. If you did
perhaps then your posts would not make you look so foolish so
often


mike hunt



marvin@mars.com wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:40:21 -0500, Mikehunt@lycos.com wrote:
>
> >The NHTSA studied the rear collision situation involving 1992 to
> >2002 CV two years ago. The result of the testing showed the CV
> >far exceeded the federal standard for damage to the fuel tank.
> >The standard is 30 MPH, the CV is designed to take a 50 MPH hit
> >without damage to the fuel tank. The CV safety margin was
> >dramatically apparent when the FWD Chevrolet and the FWD Dodge
> >vehicles, the only others certified police vehicles on the
> >market, where stuck at the same speed and destroyed at 50 MPH.
> >The NHTSA closed its investigation of CV fires, with a finding
> >that the CV was indeed safe as designed for its intended use.
> >
> >The shark lawyers are simply trying to find another avenue to get
> >Ford to pay off their legal costs, now that the NHTSA ruling has
> >eliminated any chance of them winning a product liability case
> >against Ford in any court.
> >
> >By the way Toyota is a Japanese corporation and can only be sued
> >in Japanese courts that do not allow class action cases or the
> >large punitive damages, where the shark lawyers make their
> >millions
> >
> >
> >mike hunt
> >
> >
> >
>
> yup
> meanwhile how many police has ford killed???
>
> hurc ast