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
Some ga wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2005 19:41:43 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
> >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