Author Topic: Sobering thought. (Read 9875 times)

jaythefordman · « **on:** July 05, 2012, 07:51:11 am »

Not sure if this has ever been posted up, but its certainly fuel for thought (pun unintended);

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-47539.html

mojocoops · « **Reply #1 on:** July 05, 2012, 09:22:09 am »

Hmm, interesting read. I was concerned about the fuel tank when I first bought mine. I wonder if there's any way of engineering a separation plate into the boot to cover the tank, or whether it would help at all?

ScottW · « **Reply #2 on:** July 05, 2012, 09:31:47 am »

Even a sheet metal firewall riveted into place over the opening of the rear seat would probably make a difference. It may not make it airtight, but it would at least slow down the fuel trying to enter the cabin.

mojocoops · « **Reply #3 on:** July 05, 2012, 09:46:37 am »

I can see the benefit of having a fire extinguisher in the cabin now, and will stop locking my doors when I drive!

StephenSLR · « **Reply #4 on:** July 05, 2012, 10:24:58 am »

> the top of the Mustang's tank is also the floor of the trunk.

Wow, that could explain the fuel smell I occasionally get in the car.

I wonder how long before our authorities pick up on this and have every old Mustang entering Aus. comply to new regs.

s

jaythefordman · « **Reply #5 on:** July 05, 2012, 10:46:15 am »

Quote from: StephenSLR link=topic=18420.msg183707#msg183707

I wonder how long before our authorities pick up on this and have every old Mustang entering Aus. comply to new regs.

s

Doubt it, unless they want to change a whole lot of regs, apply ADRs retrospectively. Opens a whole lot of cans of worms.

The story is a bit of a beat up, but there is some merit to consider.

I plan a bulkhead behind the seats for mine, and may consider some better engineered fuel tank arrangement, but at the end of the day I think there are bigger worries like lap belts and low seat backs.

Ash · « **Reply #6 on:** July 05, 2012, 10:46:25 am »

I think there is some insight there but I thought it was pretty skewed. Bit like saying don't ride motorbikes because they are dangerous, or don't cross the street as you might get hit by a car. Yes there are dangers with lots of the things and the design of the pretty open tank in the Mustang is not ideal compared to the design of many other cars. I don't think that means we should all sell up, scrap them or never drive them again.

StephenSLR · « **Reply #7 on:** July 05, 2012, 10:57:33 am »

Quote from: Ash link=topic=18420.msg183710#msg183710

I don't think that means we should all sell up, scrap them or never drive them again.

Definitely not but at least with awareness some may decide to build in some safety into their restoration.

I'm thinking a better solution would be to weld in a trunk floor and gooseneck surround and have a fuel cell and gooseneck underneath that?

s

StephenSLR · « **Reply #8 on:** July 05, 2012, 11:02:46 am »

Or you could go for a fuel cell with bladder.

http://www.mustangdepot.com/onlinecatalog/FuelSystems/pro_cell.htm

s

BLKPNY · « **Reply #9 on:** July 05, 2012, 12:52:22 pm »

Will have to recall every Aussie Falcon upto XD too, they all have the tank in the boot. No widespread condemnation on the Aussie fords.

But changing the rear cardboard panel that blocks off the back set, for a glued in sheet of tin, would be a huge improvement on rigidity and body stiffness, and will block off the rear area.

StephenSLR · « **Reply #10 on:** July 05, 2012, 12:58:19 pm »

Quote from: BLKPNY link=topic=18420.msg183723#msg183723

But changing the rear cardboard panel that blocks off the back seat.

What's the difference between the coupe and fastback rear seats?

The fastback has a metal trap door, no cardboard.

Is it more dangerous in a coupe?

s

BLKPNY · « **Reply #11 on:** July 05, 2012, 01:24:17 pm »

Maybe put some sealing strips on the trapdoor, it might stop a rattle while your there.

I have never thought of a car with the fuel tank forming part of the floor as dangerous, but maybe it is a good thing, we only stock tanks made in America/Canada, and not the asian made tanks.

evan · « **Reply #12 on:** July 05, 2012, 06:01:58 pm »

Quote from: BLKPNY link=topic=18420.msg183723#msg183723

But changing the rear cardboard panel that blocks off the back set, for a glued in sheet of tin, would be a huge improvement on rigidity and body stiffness, and will block off the rear area.

Purpose built fire barrier panels are available in the US for just $50. Pity nobody carries them locally. Steph, will you ever bring them in?
I wonder if covering the cardboard sheet with Dynamat would offer some protection?

Evan.

mwizz · « **Reply #13 on:** July 05, 2012, 06:05:34 pm »

I remember another thread on this issue here. It is certainly something to think about.

russ68 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 05, 2012, 07:05:33 pm »

I am thinking the same thing mojocoops - a fire extinguisher may help, though the wife might ask whats that for? Once I explain I might be driving solo.

daphi1 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 05, 2012, 07:45:38 pm »

You could always fit one of these. Should be relatively easy to make if none are available here.

http://www.autoworksparts.com/tank_armor.htm

StephenSLR · « **Reply #16 on:** July 06, 2012, 12:25:58 pm »

Quote from: daphi1 link=topic=18420.msg183754#msg183754

You could always fit one of these. Should be relatively easy to make if none are available here.

http://www.autoworksparts.com/tank_armor.htm

Does it really offer significant protection? The bolts would just shear in a collision and you may have to deal with the armourplate slicing through the rear passengers though I guess the petrol may splash around differently.

I think this beat up may be similar to the way HR Holden fenders were nick-named kidney cutters, it was feared if you get hit by one they'd scoop out your kidneys - get hit by a car and you'll be damaged regardless.

The same with this story, get rear ended hard enough to split the tank.....

s

soc123_au · « **Reply #17 on:** July 06, 2012, 12:49:32 pm »

Yes its terrible, takes me back to the 70s & 80s when you couldnt drive 5kms without seeing a brand new falcon smouldering on the side of the road..........................:soap:

Seriously, there is 100 more likely ways of getting killed or seriously injured driving an old Mustang.

Bumblebee · « **Reply #18 on:** July 06, 2012, 12:58:12 pm »

Is this true for convertibles too? Mine (which would be typical) has a metal plate between the boot and passenger compartment with just a few small holes.

mert · « **Reply #19 on:** July 06, 2012, 01:18:54 pm »

Well... its true the tank is the same.

A bit more metal between the trunk and rear seat, but the same "splash" factor exists.

Non-issue in my books.

shaunp · « **Reply #20 on:** July 06, 2012, 09:01:41 pm »

Oz falcons were like this up till XD, never known them to be an issue, media hype that's all. Holdens had their tanks under the car from HQ LH torana on, and over the axle from HD-Hq from memory so they were a little ahead of Ford Oz, earlier holdens were in the floor like a Falcon / Mustang.

67fasty.sm · « **Reply #21 on:** July 07, 2012, 10:03:59 pm »

every car built in the 1960's would have something that was dangerous be it ford , chev, mopar , and sorry to say but now days its everybody's else's fault for my dimise seems to be the way.
i be more worried about my 67 solid steering column harpooning me , bloody hell i drove a modifed 34 chev roadster orignal door locks and wood frame for years .
i wonder what they would have tried to sue for if he was driving a convertible and died in a roll over.
maybe we should do away with armco's cause if a motorbiker comes off it will take his head off give me a break!

JT_1994 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 07, 2012, 11:16:36 pm »

Not a 'defect' but still pretty bad...

http://www.classicinlines.com/Travis.asp

Ash · « **Reply #23 on:** July 07, 2012, 11:27:33 pm »

Quote from: JT_1994 link=topic=18420.msg183917#msg183917

Not a 'defect' but still pretty bad...

http://www.classicinlines.com/Travis.asp

Yes, that is a terrible loss and a terrible mess. I have to say though that I visit damaged vehicle auctions weekly and see late model cars in the same state, every week.

Yes, old cars have less safety features compared to new cars. But in that example of two cars travelling 80mph to have a head on, which is the same as one car hitting a wall at 160mph, it's going to make a mess of what ever type of car is involved.

j1autotech · « **Reply #24 on:** July 08, 2012, 12:32:34 am »

Quote

But in that example of two cars travelling 80mph to have a head on, which is the same as one car hitting a wall at 160mph, it's going to make a mess of what ever type of car is involved.

160 Mph = 257.49 Kph, that's a fair crunch speed in any car

Just remember this one in Perth last December in a VE commodore, I'm guessing that it wasn't able to get up to 257Kph

Then again, here you have a safety fuel cell in use and still splitting with a rear end collision.

[youtube]K2rcB2AcC7c[/youtube]

Sobering thought.

News:

Author Topic: Sobering thought. (Read 9875 times)