Detroit auto makers try some new tricks

I'll take your word for it - I don't slide under vehicles, if I can help it.
[/QUOTE]

Any particular reason?

Not necessarily. Nothing wrong with alloys and reason would
dictate that crash worthiness has improved greatly with modern
design techniques.

Which part of that are you "huh?"ing?

 

Yep, "high tech" that every low-cost Falcon, Valiant, and Chevy II
used to have as standard equipment.


Nitrogen cylinders are cheaper and add less weight, so that's why
they're used. But even the best lose the ability to hold the hood up
after a few years. *NOTHING* sets off my "mad gland" faster than getting
whacked in the head by a hood or liftgate after I've raised it and
falsely believed that it would stay there >:-|

Kinda like the Lexus that parallel parks. We used to call that feature
"driver's education."

 

Hmmm... I guess it *does* parse that way, too, doesn't it? Oh well....

 

I thought they did it with a boat trailer and a load-levelling hitch,
not a hidden support. Of course it *later* came out that if you *did*
tow a trailer with a Citation and a load-levelling hitch (with all 4
wheels, I mean), the unibody would tweak to the point that you might not
be able to open your doors... :-/


The early 80s- the days of the GM X-cars- are the "brief period 25 years
ago" when Japanese cars might actually, quantifiably have been "better"
than some American cars, and how the whole mythology got started.
There's a grain of truth in every myth, after all.

 

Its actually been well documented, reported by owners who have noted the
changes, by Chrysler service techs who post here, and by folks on the
forums dedicated to the 300/LH cars like the ones Bill Putney posts
links to regularly. Raising the hood and noting that a 2005 has a
different PCV system from a 1999 is hardly "anecdotal." Noting the
different part number (and reading TSBs) for parts is not "anecdotal."

I've seen none of that for Toyotas, and yes its true that I haven't
*looked* because I don't care, I would at least expect that those who
own the vehicles would be able to post more than, "Oh that's fixed."
Show me the revised systems and parts, please! I want to know exactly
HOW it was "fixed."

 

Based on the small amount that I've looked into that, it seems to me
that a lot of people zeroed in on the fuel tank installation simply
because "its different." The fatal crashes have tended to be such
violent high-speed things that my initial reaction is that *ANY* car
would probably have suffered a ruptured fuel tank and fire, but scrutiny
descended on the Crown Vic because its the only car on the road that has
a fuel tank situated just that way (although, for example, my wife's
Chrysler LH car is not terribly different in general principle, but
rather different in implementation being a front-drive).

But that doesn't mean a lot. The fuel tank placement in the Ford Panther
platform (Crown Vic, Police Interceptor, and Town Car) should,
theoretically, in many ways be much safer than other cars and SUVs- its
buried deep in the chassis, away from the rear and sides of the car, and
is rather hard to actually crush the thing because its so far forward in
the chassis (its AHEAD of the trunk well, behind the rear passenger's
seat and above/behind the axle, and pretty well inboard of the
structure). Its got a lot of "crush zone" around it, certainly more than
your average vehicle with the tank slung under the trunk well and only
8-10 inches forward of the rear bumper. It was also used on a whole,
long line of Ford cars that predated the Panther (yes, there *were*
Fords older than the Panther platform yet younger than the Model T, hard
as it is to believe!) such as my high-school friend's 1971 LTD. Having
spent a lot of time under *that* car only bolsters my contention that
the location of the fuel tank is fine, but it was physically larger than
the current Panther and had more room around the tank.

Now what may be more of a problem with the Panther than the older
designs is the possiblity that once the fuel tank is breached, fuel and
vapors intrude into the passenger comparment. Ford *did* build a lot of
cars where the wall of the fuel tank was actually the floor or wall of
the trunk itself (the "drop-in" Mustang tank, for example) and that was
pretty much a bad idea in most people's view. But the Panther is NOT
built that way- the tank is outside the passenger area and doesn't share
a common wall with it.

Bottom line- its all a moot point because the Charger police-package car
is going to kick the Ford Interceptor right out of the market segment
anyway ;-) Heck, the 3.5L HO v6 Charger is faster than the 4.6L v8 Ford
Police Interceptor, and the 5.7L Hemi is back in late-60s CopCar
performance territory, though not quite as fast as the legendary '69
Polara Pursuit package but it does corner better ;-)

 

Absolutely!
Given the fact that I've put over 300,000 miles on a couple of them, YES
they are. My present daily-driver is a 440, and my show car has its
never-out-of-the chassis 440 (although it only has 160,000 miles). I
pulled the heads on that one when I bought it (at 140,000 miles) and
found no ridge, and in fact no detectable wear on the cylinder walls at
all. The pistons were the factory orignals with the factory part
numbers, as were the rods and bearings so that was clearly the first
time it was ever opened that far. I did replace the bearings while I was
in there, put in hardened valve seats for unleaded fuel, and buttoned it
right back up without lifting it out of the engine bay. Big-block
Chryslers are without a doubt some of the most reliable and
over-engineered production car engines ever built.

OK, I'll assume you aren't making it up. It just strikes me as very
weird that after 30+ years of driving, restoring, tinkering with, and
associating with clubs of dozens of other people who own, drive,
restore, tinker with, and even race Chrysler engines (everything from
2.2s to 440s and Hemis), I have *never* once heard of a crankshaft
failure in ANY engine that didn't lose lubrication first, or that wasn't
being pushed to 4x its stock power output for racing. I've personally
put about 3/4 MILLION miles on Chrysler engines in my driving life, not
even counting dozens of friends who have similar amounts of mileage.
I've seen people do a lot of dumb things to their cars, and I've seen
more than a few odd, inexplicable failures too, but why haven't I seen
crank failures? Blown 2.2/2.5 head gaskets? YES- aluminum heads on iron
blocks in the early days before MLS head gaskets would do that. Burned
pistons? yes, sometimes especially on poor quality 80s fuel. Broken
rods- occasionally, but extremely uncommon and far less frequent than
small-block Chevrolets or Chevrolet v6s. Slipped timing chains that put
a valve through a piston (back in the days of plastic-coated "silent"
timing gears- a huge mistake by American v8 builders admittedly) YES.
But CRANKSHAFTS? On a NORMALLY ASPIRATED 2.2, pulling about 110
horsepower out of a crank with geometry almost identical to one that
easily produces 375 in a 440 and close to 500 in a stock 426 Hemi? I'm
sorry, it just doesn't add up.

 

Japs were better starting with 40 years ago and were better even 10 years
ago! Initially American cars 'look' better but small Jap cars outlast the
service queens.

Charles of Schaumburg

 

I'll try to type slowly so every one can understand.There are those
out there who used to accuse GM of blaming the consumer when something
goes wrong with their vehicle. It seems they think that the consumer
should suspect when something is wrong with their car and should do
something about it, instead of waiting for GM to contact them about
the problem. This has been suggested for the past 20 years or so.


Fast forward to 2007. It seems as if the Toyota Tundra' s are having a
lot of problems with their engines.Toyotya is saying the engines are
fine, the consumers are somehow doing something to cause thsese
engine failures, just the same as GM used to do.



***No need to be insulting. You could have just said that in the first
place.

Natalie

 

From http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/CrownVic/Index.html

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.
- Based on analysis of FARS data, the risk of fire per fatal rear crash in
the subject vehicles is comparable to that of the GM B-body vehicle
(Caprice).
- The vast majority of reported post rear crash fires in the subject
vehicles (over 80%) occurred in CVPI vehicles, even though they constitute
less than 15% of the total Panther vehicle production.
- The Florida Highway Patrol Study did not identify a difference between the
post rear impact fire risk in CVPI vehicles and that of the Caprice police
vehicles.
- Ford-sponsored testing indicates that the subject vehicles are not unique
in their inability to maintain fuel tank integrity in at least one example
of a severe rear impact crash.
- There have been numerous high-energy rear crashes involving CVPI vehicles
within the scope of Ford's TSB that exhibited little or no fuel loss and no
fire.

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.

Ed

 

"Ted Mittelstaedt" ...

What about it - did Toyota fix it? Did they blame the consumer? That's the
point I'm trying to make. That they're not perfect, but usually do a good
job of fixing the problem.

Which vehicle did that, and what was Toyota's response?

Yet, like Ed, you're showing no proof. Instead you're doing your own
cheerleading.

*shrug*

My car (a 2000 Echo that I bought in 1999) hasn't had any major problem,
except sand in the bearings, that were caused by my son driving it
off-pavement. It has >100 k on it, by the way.

See my comment above, and can't you talk to someone without attacking them
personally?

You do not know the first thing about *me* so stop with that "people like
you" shit.

I make my own decisions based on my experience.

Our 1987 Corolla FX 16 didn't have *any* major problems until it was over 15
years old.

But you don't respect *anything* a Toyota fan says, so I give up.

Natalie

 

"aarcuda69062" ...

Because I don't work on cars?

But then why did the 90s CVs do that?

The whole sentence - I can't understand some of the terminology.

Natalie

 

"Steve" ...

The generalizations some of you are making is most certainly anecdotal. Not
all Japanese cars are well-made, but you guys keep pissing on the our
insistence that Toyota is better at rectifying mistakes. Like you, I can
only go by my own experience, as well as those around me. I don't see any
publication or internet source as being irrefutable. My husband and I have
had very good luck with Toyotas, and see no reason to change now, but we
have not ruled out domestic vehicles in the future.

See my comments above.

Natalie

 

*snipping for brevity*

Thanks - that's by far the most cogent response I've seen on that issue.

And you did it without being nasty - unlike some on this thread.

Natalie

 

*snipping for brevity*

Thanks Ed!

Natalie

 

And yet, there is no history of that particualr design being more fire prone
than other cars of the era. Take a look at many cars of the era that had the
fuel filler behind the licence plate - in some cases the filler tube ran
naked trhough the trunk. Or for that matter look at station wagons from the
50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's. The fuel tanks were usually in the passenger
side rear fender with no inner liner. Or how about pickup trucks before the
70's - the gas tank were usually in the cab with a flexible hose connecting
the tank to the external filler neck.

Ed

Ed

 

Can you actually prove that is generally true? I certainly know of many
domestic cars that are very old and have given very good service. And I know
many Japanese cars that are very old and have given very good service. But
the reverse is also true (for both Japanese and Domestic vehicles). I've
owned Japanese, American, German, and English cars. The worst car I ever
owned was a Toyota. The second worst was a Chrysler (although to be honest,
the least reliable were English, but at least they were "fun"). My family
and I have had generally good luck with Ford products over my lifetime (50+
years). I can only remember one Ford that gave my Father any significant
trouble, and most of the problems with that car were related to improper
diagnosis of a very minor problem (if you want to know how a missing piece
of insulation can generate thousands of dollars of repairs, I'll relate the
story).

Ed

 

Yes, I believe you're correct. Hey that was quite a few years ago.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

OTOH, I had a '76 Datsun B-210 which, when coming to a stop at lights or
stop signs, stalled out on me repeatedly after a few years. Took it to a
repair shop which specialized in foreign cars (not many foreign cars around
here yet at that point in time - that was to change drastically in the next
few years, & I had basically mistrusted the Chrysler dealership where I had
taken my '72 Duster for servicing, so was temporarily scared off re:
dealership service centers) & wound up with 3 filters in the fuel line, but
that little Datsun still stalled out on a regular basis. The good news was
that it always started again, immediately - was basically a PITA sort of
deal rather than a major problem (it never stranded me). Other than that I
liked the car & kept it for 8 years, but because of that one problem I
switched over to Toyota in '84. My sister & BIL had already purchased a
Tercel & loved it - no probs. A Tercel was a little too small for me, so I
bought an '84 Corolla. And have had 3 more Corollas since then, all with
engines which have displayed no problems; great cars, in general.

Cathy

 

Because I don't work on cars?[/QUOTE]

I didn't suggest that you work on them, I suggested that you look
for yourself.

As someone else had already posted, they didn't.
The Crown Vic PI doesn't suffer any greater fire risk than it's
counterpart from GM. But, since Ford already -had- public
notoriety from its Pinto and Taurus fiascos, the media
capitalized on it.

okay;

"I've worked on" means that I am a mechanic by trade.

"retired late model cop cars" means vehicles that were previously
in service to law enforcement agencies and are now in private
service as private security patrol vehicles, taxi cabs and
private ownership.

"had sheet metal screws run thru the fuel tank from the trunk
bulkhead from the mounting of radio equipment, shotgun racks and
the usual other cop car accessory stuff." means that in the
process of equipping said vehicles when they are put into
service, the people installing the equipment would not think
about where and what they are drilling holes/driving sheet metal
screws thru/into. Sheet metal screws have pointed tips that when
driven with crash force can and will puncture a fuel tank unless
of course the screw already has punctured the fuel tank during
installation of the cop equipment.
Makes for a bomb just waiting its chance to go off.

"trunk bulkhead" means the forward most vertical wall of the
trunk compartment which happens to be the next part of the car
directly behind the fuel tank.

" mounting of radio equipment, shotgun racks and the usual other
cop car accessory stuff" means all of the not supplied by the
original vehicle manufacturer pieces of equipment that gets
bolted down in a police vehicle. IOWs, cops carry a lot of crap
in their trunks.

The rest means that basically, the damage that compromises the
vehicles crash worthiness, i.e., the screws aimed at or already
puncturing the fuel tank is self inflicted by the agency or
municipality that owns the vehicle. It would certainly look bad
for them to take responsibility for their mistake so they instead
opt for suing the vehicle manufacturer for building an unsafe
vehicle (even though it isn't), it's the American way.