Hey, for the outsiders looking in, I spent 30 years in police work, with
close to 20 years pushing a scout car. Our agency used;
Fords 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's years
Mercurys mid 70's
Pontiacs late 70's mid-sized, great handling, fair power
Impalas mid 70's and mid 80's Floors rotted away fairly quick in the
converter area.
Dodges, Plymouths late 70's ungodly speed, poor brakes, quality control
poor, cars fell apart, used a lot of gas.
I have seen all of these makes smashed up in about every type of situation,
Ford's seemed to hold up the best in crash situations. Cars that got
crashed and you would think that the crash were not survivable, officers
survived.
All of these brands had their strengths and weaknesses, I am not painting a
rosey picture about Fords, I am objective in my opinion.
I will drive a Crown Vic in any police type situation without second
thoughts. Their only drawback, is they are poor, to drive in snow deeper
than 3-4 inches (comon snow falli in Michigan). The get stuck easy on
pavement and in parking lots. I suppose that is due to their good handling
ability on dry pavement. They are a pretty tough car, and hold up well with
routine maintenance.
In law enforcement circles, some of the problems with fires were blamed on
equipment bolted in the truck and the bolts piercing the fuel tank, not
Ford's problem. Some agencies store a firemans pick axe, called a halligon
tool (Google search) in the trunk of the Crown Vic, and this tool will
pierce the fuel tank. (The halligon tool is indistructable, will last
longer than dinosaur fossels).
Frank
"Mike Hunter" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]
> More anti Ford BS. The fact is the CV is the safest of ALL of the
> certified police vehicles available in the US. The NHTSA standard for
> rear collision, is the ability of the fuel system to withstand a 30 MPH
> collision. All CVs are built to withstand a 50 MPH collision. Even
> greater protection for the Interceptor is available for those departments
> that specify fuel cell tank liners. Efforts by trial lawyers to extort
> money from Ford were thwarted by the results of the NHTSA investigation of
> rear collision fires cleared the CV of any defects. The tests of CV
> proved it exceeded federal standards and performed better than any other
> sedan on the market today in high speed rear end collisions.
>
>
> mike hunt
>
> .
> "Tom Adkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>> "Jim Higgins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>>>Ford owners not told of ways to reduce fuel-tank fire risk
>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/23/ford.fires/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I was behind a Jeep Grand Cherokee this morning on the way to work. The
>>> gas
>>> tank on that vehicle is hanging out the rear of the vehicle staring me
>>> right
>>> in the face. It is in between the trailer hitch and the rear axle. There
>>> is
>>> no way that the gas tank on one of those is safer than the gas tank on a
>>> Crown Victoria which is mounted at the front of the trunk, above and
>>> slightly behind the rear axle (and separated from the trunk by a metal
>>> bulkhead). So, why is it that the press constantly rants about Crown
>>> Victorias (which actually are involved in very few fires), while
>>> ignoring
>>> other vehicles that have far less safe gas tank locations? Could it be
>>> that
>>> the way Police use Crown Victoria makes them especially vulnerable to
>>> high
>>> speed rear end crashes? And if this is true, is it likely that civilian
>>> Crown Victoria are not at much risk for fires? Think people!
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think I've ever seen a Grand Cherokee in Police duty either.
>
>
