- Joined
- July 18, 1999
- Messages
- 8,839
- Reaction score
- 1
- City, State
- Annapolis, MD
- Year, Model & Trim Level
- '97 Limited
Check this out guys, another proud feather in Ford's cap-
BlueOvalNews has discovered that the Ford Mustang may have a serious safety problem involving post collision fuel system integrity that Ford has known about for a long time, but that has not been disclosed to consumers. This problem could cause the car to catch fire after a rear impact.
Specifically, the Mustang cannot pass Ford's safety segment guidelines for 50 MPH rear collision impacts. Ford requires that their products meet this standard as per Ford Corporate safety segment guidelines.
Ford may argue that the Federal government doesn't even require Ford to pass any requirement other than FMVSS 301. As such, Ford would like you to believe that they should not be penalized or held responsible for attempting to go beyond the Government's regulations.
But that's not the law. The law specifically requires that Ford design reasonably safe vehicles, not just minimally safe vehicles. The law also requires Ford to design vehicles with fuel systems that are safe at all speeds. Is it fair and reasonable for consumers to expect the Mustang's fuel system to fail in a 50MPH rear collision? What do the Mustang's own engineers have to say about fuel system leaks that occur after a rear collision?
In reality, technology is such today that manufacturers have the ability to mass-produce cars with fuel systems that will not fail in collisions that are otherwise survivable. This means that if you survive a collision so should the fuel system. Ford's engineers appear to agree. During a deposition taken in late 2001, the 1994 Mustang Program Manager was asked: "Would you agree that no matter what the speed of the impact is, no matter what the angle of the collision is, is there any acceptable reason to you where somebody would be burned alive?" The Program Manager responded that it's not reasonable to expect "that a person would survive the impact but some kind of fuel system integrity problem would cause him to burn." Ford's PEO Manager/Chief Engineer for the SN95 Mustang program agreed that "Any amount of fuel that comes out of the fuel tank, filler pipe or other fuel containment components of the fuel system as a result is something that an engineer needs to be concerned about." Why? Because fuel that comes out of the fuel system during a crash has the high potential of causing a fire.
Ford Mustang - The Failed Tests
The "Offset" Tests: During the development of the SN95 Mustang, Ford subjected twelve prototype Mustangs to 50 mph car-to-car crash tests with 50% overlap on the filler side. These tests are often referred to as "offset" tests. The Mustang's fuel system failed by leaking Stoddard (a chemical Ford uses to simulate fuel) eleven of the twelve tests. Of the twelve tests the only one (test #8277) that did not leak Stoddard was not a valid test under Ford's testing protocols and Ford's Crash Test Development Engineer testified under oath that it could not be relied upon. Out of the twelve offset tests conducted during the development of the SN95 Mustang, not a single one passed a test that met Ford's safety segment guidelines for fuel system integrity. Ford's engineers testified under oath that Ford does not have a Mustang crash test to demonstrate compliance in the offset mode for the SN95 Mustang. Moreover, Ford NEVER tested a production level Mustang, like the ones sold to the public, to an offset test to see how it would actually perform. Is it reasonable safety when Ford Motor Company does NOT have a crash test that demonstrates that the SN95 Mustang Coupe or Convertible cannot meet Ford's Corporate fuel system integrity during a 50 mile per hour offset (filler cap side) rear collision? Finally when the SN95's Fuel System Product Design Engineer was asked in testimony "Do you know whether Ford Motor Company has a crash test that demonstrates that either the SN-95 convertible or the SN-95 coupe meets the safety segment design guideline for a 50 mile per hour offset crash?" Ford answered "Do we have a 50 percent coupe or convertible compliant 50 offset, I don't believe so." Is this Ford's definintion of reasonable safety?
The "Corner" Test: Additionally, Ford deliberately chose not to test ANY Mustang to see what would happen in a rear corner collision. During depositions, Ford engineers admitted that a corner hit is not the same as an offset impact and that such an impact would make the car crush in a unique way. Under deposition, the Mustang's Fuel System Product Design Engineer was asked "You can't say that if you subjected an SN-95 production level vehicle to a corner hit at 50 miles an hour, that the fuel system would survive integrity or would maintain integrity, correct?" Ford responded "I can't say." Is this reasonable safety?
The "Inline" Tests: Ford subjected six SN95 Mustang prototypes to 50 mph car-to-car crash tests in the centerline "inline" mode. All six of the inline crash tests were failures; however, after eight and half years Ford changed the results of one of the tests conducted on 12-23-92 from a fail to a pass on 4-11-2001. The immediate question is: how and why did Ford amend a test result from eight and a half years prior from a fail to a pass? And how did Ford even certify the Mustang for production under their own safety guidelines without having one documented inline test that passed? Read how and why Ford changed the test results.
Ford Defends Mustang's Fuel System Integrity Tests
Ford maintains that despite these test failures, the Mustang is reasonably safe. It maintains that it did laboratory tests and computer simulated crash tests for the SN95 Mustang Program and that when you combine what was learned in the crash tests, the lab tests and the computer simulations, their well-trained engineers adjudged that the Mustang would meet Ford's design guidelines. Yet, Ford NEVER even conducted a crash test of a production Mustang to verify this engineering assumption. Engineering judgment can be wrong, a crash test result cannot. The fuel system will either leak or it will not when subjected to a test - no judgment engineering speculation is required.
In one of the most astounding sets of documents to ever leave Ford Motor Company, Ford's own engineers even discredit Ford's fuel system design. Ford's Car Chassis Engineering Department published a report titled "Barriers To Good System Designs." The report concluded, in part, the following barriers: "Vehicle tests do not reflect real life scenarios", "Misunderstood design process", "No system design approach", "Inadequate (system) test procedures", "Lack in checks and balances" and "Lack of understanding the fuel system impact on other vehicle systems." Those are just a few examples. The engineers also had comments about how poor management affects them as fuel system engineers. They describe management style as "management by crisis" and describe management mindset as "cost before quality." The complete report, including Ford documents can be found here.
Consumers Not Told Of SN95 Mustang Fire Dangers
Ford knew there were safety issues with the SN95 Mustang fuel system before the first one was ever sold to the public. Ford consciously chose not to tell consumers about this issue, instead Ford has carefully guarded this secret. When asked under oath "You did not ever consider issuing any type of warning to customers with respect to post-collision fires; did you?" The Mustang's Chief Program Engineer responded, "Didn't feel it was necessary or appropriate to do that. We wouldn't do that in - you know, there's all kinds of scenarios as alluded to in the more general discussion. We have a number of warnings on the car already, all the warnings that are due care or required for, you know, legal requirements at the time are on the car."
The SN95 Ford Mustang was NOT tested in any way for rear corner fuel system integrity. Ford cannot even say what would happen to the Mustang's fuel system if it were hit in that angle.
The Ford Mustang failed ALL 18 of the fuel system integrity tests
Ford NEVER tested an actual production SN95 Mustang
BlueOvalNews has discovered that the Ford Mustang may have a serious safety problem involving post collision fuel system integrity that Ford has known about for a long time, but that has not been disclosed to consumers. This problem could cause the car to catch fire after a rear impact.
Specifically, the Mustang cannot pass Ford's safety segment guidelines for 50 MPH rear collision impacts. Ford requires that their products meet this standard as per Ford Corporate safety segment guidelines.
Ford may argue that the Federal government doesn't even require Ford to pass any requirement other than FMVSS 301. As such, Ford would like you to believe that they should not be penalized or held responsible for attempting to go beyond the Government's regulations.
But that's not the law. The law specifically requires that Ford design reasonably safe vehicles, not just minimally safe vehicles. The law also requires Ford to design vehicles with fuel systems that are safe at all speeds. Is it fair and reasonable for consumers to expect the Mustang's fuel system to fail in a 50MPH rear collision? What do the Mustang's own engineers have to say about fuel system leaks that occur after a rear collision?
In reality, technology is such today that manufacturers have the ability to mass-produce cars with fuel systems that will not fail in collisions that are otherwise survivable. This means that if you survive a collision so should the fuel system. Ford's engineers appear to agree. During a deposition taken in late 2001, the 1994 Mustang Program Manager was asked: "Would you agree that no matter what the speed of the impact is, no matter what the angle of the collision is, is there any acceptable reason to you where somebody would be burned alive?" The Program Manager responded that it's not reasonable to expect "that a person would survive the impact but some kind of fuel system integrity problem would cause him to burn." Ford's PEO Manager/Chief Engineer for the SN95 Mustang program agreed that "Any amount of fuel that comes out of the fuel tank, filler pipe or other fuel containment components of the fuel system as a result is something that an engineer needs to be concerned about." Why? Because fuel that comes out of the fuel system during a crash has the high potential of causing a fire.
Ford Mustang - The Failed Tests
The "Offset" Tests: During the development of the SN95 Mustang, Ford subjected twelve prototype Mustangs to 50 mph car-to-car crash tests with 50% overlap on the filler side. These tests are often referred to as "offset" tests. The Mustang's fuel system failed by leaking Stoddard (a chemical Ford uses to simulate fuel) eleven of the twelve tests. Of the twelve tests the only one (test #8277) that did not leak Stoddard was not a valid test under Ford's testing protocols and Ford's Crash Test Development Engineer testified under oath that it could not be relied upon. Out of the twelve offset tests conducted during the development of the SN95 Mustang, not a single one passed a test that met Ford's safety segment guidelines for fuel system integrity. Ford's engineers testified under oath that Ford does not have a Mustang crash test to demonstrate compliance in the offset mode for the SN95 Mustang. Moreover, Ford NEVER tested a production level Mustang, like the ones sold to the public, to an offset test to see how it would actually perform. Is it reasonable safety when Ford Motor Company does NOT have a crash test that demonstrates that the SN95 Mustang Coupe or Convertible cannot meet Ford's Corporate fuel system integrity during a 50 mile per hour offset (filler cap side) rear collision? Finally when the SN95's Fuel System Product Design Engineer was asked in testimony "Do you know whether Ford Motor Company has a crash test that demonstrates that either the SN-95 convertible or the SN-95 coupe meets the safety segment design guideline for a 50 mile per hour offset crash?" Ford answered "Do we have a 50 percent coupe or convertible compliant 50 offset, I don't believe so." Is this Ford's definintion of reasonable safety?
The "Corner" Test: Additionally, Ford deliberately chose not to test ANY Mustang to see what would happen in a rear corner collision. During depositions, Ford engineers admitted that a corner hit is not the same as an offset impact and that such an impact would make the car crush in a unique way. Under deposition, the Mustang's Fuel System Product Design Engineer was asked "You can't say that if you subjected an SN-95 production level vehicle to a corner hit at 50 miles an hour, that the fuel system would survive integrity or would maintain integrity, correct?" Ford responded "I can't say." Is this reasonable safety?
The "Inline" Tests: Ford subjected six SN95 Mustang prototypes to 50 mph car-to-car crash tests in the centerline "inline" mode. All six of the inline crash tests were failures; however, after eight and half years Ford changed the results of one of the tests conducted on 12-23-92 from a fail to a pass on 4-11-2001. The immediate question is: how and why did Ford amend a test result from eight and a half years prior from a fail to a pass? And how did Ford even certify the Mustang for production under their own safety guidelines without having one documented inline test that passed? Read how and why Ford changed the test results.
Ford Defends Mustang's Fuel System Integrity Tests
Ford maintains that despite these test failures, the Mustang is reasonably safe. It maintains that it did laboratory tests and computer simulated crash tests for the SN95 Mustang Program and that when you combine what was learned in the crash tests, the lab tests and the computer simulations, their well-trained engineers adjudged that the Mustang would meet Ford's design guidelines. Yet, Ford NEVER even conducted a crash test of a production Mustang to verify this engineering assumption. Engineering judgment can be wrong, a crash test result cannot. The fuel system will either leak or it will not when subjected to a test - no judgment engineering speculation is required.
In one of the most astounding sets of documents to ever leave Ford Motor Company, Ford's own engineers even discredit Ford's fuel system design. Ford's Car Chassis Engineering Department published a report titled "Barriers To Good System Designs." The report concluded, in part, the following barriers: "Vehicle tests do not reflect real life scenarios", "Misunderstood design process", "No system design approach", "Inadequate (system) test procedures", "Lack in checks and balances" and "Lack of understanding the fuel system impact on other vehicle systems." Those are just a few examples. The engineers also had comments about how poor management affects them as fuel system engineers. They describe management style as "management by crisis" and describe management mindset as "cost before quality." The complete report, including Ford documents can be found here.
Consumers Not Told Of SN95 Mustang Fire Dangers
Ford knew there were safety issues with the SN95 Mustang fuel system before the first one was ever sold to the public. Ford consciously chose not to tell consumers about this issue, instead Ford has carefully guarded this secret. When asked under oath "You did not ever consider issuing any type of warning to customers with respect to post-collision fires; did you?" The Mustang's Chief Program Engineer responded, "Didn't feel it was necessary or appropriate to do that. We wouldn't do that in - you know, there's all kinds of scenarios as alluded to in the more general discussion. We have a number of warnings on the car already, all the warnings that are due care or required for, you know, legal requirements at the time are on the car."
The SN95 Ford Mustang was NOT tested in any way for rear corner fuel system integrity. Ford cannot even say what would happen to the Mustang's fuel system if it were hit in that angle.
The Ford Mustang failed ALL 18 of the fuel system integrity tests
Ford NEVER tested an actual production SN95 Mustang
