Allpar Forums banner
41 - 60 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
324 Posts
68RT said:
A lot of cars including Chrysler (My 71 had the tank filler behind the license plate) had the filler located there. Very common in the past. Fuel tanks were almost universally under the floor of the trunk for years.
Fuel tank in my '69 (British) Ford Cortina WAS the floor of the trunk. It had a flange horizontally around it that fit into a big hole in the trunk and was held by several bolts. In case of rupture and fire I would have been protected by the fabric of the rear seat; there was no solid wall in the front of the trunk. I believe that the early Mustangs used a similar design.

I read an exchange between someone thinking of restoring an early Mustang and a Ford exec maybe five or so years ago. The 60s Mustang fan went on and on, until the Ford exec suggested that he just buy a new Mustang: it would be cheaper, more efficient, and far safer.
 

·
Registered
2017 Ram 1500 3.6 Crew
Joined
·
6,374 Posts
Dr. Z said:
Ask yourself why they were moved out.

I do not think Ditlow is insane. I think he has tunnel vision. Yes, the tank placement in these vehicles was sub-optimal for safety. Yet they did not perform all that poorly and passed all existing and the more recent tests. The tunnel vision is in always blaming the vehicle and demanding ever safer vehicles without regard for any other factors. At some point we need to stop and ask, how many lives will we save with more safety stuff, vs how many will we lose by ignoring inspections, driver retraining, etc ... not to mention the arguable relationship of oil purchases (due to the weight of all the safety gear cars use more fuel) and terrorism?
Safety has been thought of by manufacturers for years. Chrysler Airflow was a prime example. Tucker was going to be the first to put seat belts into cars. However, it must sell before the manufacturer can be successful. Many innovations just do not set well in the buyers eyes and delay their implementation. Tucker, for example, found in focus groups that people thought the car was unsafe if he needed seat belts. It took til 1956 before Ford was able to market them as an option successfully.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
Back in those days the perception was that if the car was safe, you didn't need seat belts, if the manufacturer pushed belts, it was an admission the cars were unsafe; perception number 2 was you needed belts only if you were a reckless driver. That kept them out of cars for years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,475 Posts
The Twitter page for that woman who witnessed a truck destroy a vehicle shows she just has a vendetta ("Innocent families are burning to excruciating fiery deaths so Chrysler can save money"), with the poorly photoshopped Jeep on fire. She should seek therapy and other avenues of recovery. As others have said, pretty much ANY vehicle getting hit like that would suffer significant damage, and the occupants would suffer serious injury or death from such an accident in most 2004 or older vehicles. People seem to forget the reason why their Civics and Corollas of today weigh twice what they used to... that whole reinforced safety cage. I bet whatever SHE was riding in would have been destroyed just as badly, and that's probably part of her major issue - "That could have been me" is just being replaced by outrage at Chrysler/Jeep.

Will a car ever be designed that will be 100% safe in all accident types? No. There will always be a scenario that someone can't account for or foresee ever happening, that will result in deaths. That's why they're called accidents. The manufacturers don't try to make cars "Float" or provide an inflation system in case you drive into a lake. If some technology is made that makes that feasible down the road, and it's mandated, cars built before that aren't going to be recalled to be retrofitted. The whole rear gas tank thing is part of that.

One thing though: I seem to recall at some point hearing them push for the same type of recall on the XJ Cherokee, which does make me ask why the XJ wasn't included when it has the same design. Is there something different in regards to the XJ? And NO, I'm not saying this silly recall should be expanded. Just like I'm not saying Crown Vics should be recalled for the same reason, or Chevy Tahoes, or any other rear-tanked car or truck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UN4GTBL

·
Say no to kool-aid
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
John Rogers said:
Of course, of course. Highlighting the insane stupidity of this entire thing. From the lady who pursue it, to Ditzlow who took it farther, I mean what an idiot. To the NHTSA that didn't have even brain power to tell this idiot to take a hike, Then actually fought Chrysler over it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,855 Posts
Is there a term limit for liability when you're engineering to a specific set of standards? It's an issue that's way bigger than the auto industry.

Of course not!

You can have a contract and still sue!

You can have a will and still sue!

You can have pre-nuptial agreement and still sue!

So if you meet all industry and government regulations for safety, you are still a potential target of lawyers.

But who will stop the lawyers?

Judges? They are all former lawyers!

Politicians? They are mostly all lawyers!

There is no industry as UNREGULATED as our legal system!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MoparNorm

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,262 Posts
Erik Latranyi said:
Is there a term limit for liability when you're engineering to a specific set of standards? It's an issue that's way bigger than the auto industry.

Of course not!

You can have a contract and still sue!

You can have a will and still sue!

You can have pre-nuptial agreement and still sue!

So if you meet all industry and government regulations for safety, you are still a potential target of lawyers.

But who will stop the lawyers?

Judges? They are all former lawyers!

Politicians? They are mostly all lawyers!

There is no industry as UNREGULATED as our legal system!
What do you call 100,000 laywers at the bottom of the ocean?







A good start :)
 

·
Registered
2017 Ram 1500 3.6 Crew
Joined
·
6,374 Posts
Erik Latranyi said:
Is there a term limit for liability when you're engineering to a specific set of standards? It's an issue that's way bigger than the auto industry.

Of course not!

You can have a contract and still sue!

You can have a will and still sue!

You can have pre-nuptial agreement and still sue!

So if you meet all industry and government regulations for safety, you are still a potential target of lawyers.

But who will stop the lawyers?

Judges? They are all former lawyers!

Politicians? They are mostly all lawyers!

There is no industry as UNREGULATED as our legal system!
AMEN. And when the politicians retire, they revert to lawyers and lobbyists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Dr. Z said:
I would have skipped the article entirely... just sayin'. If we ignore him, he will go away
Unfortunately he is like a cold sore. He may go away but he will pop up when least expected or wanted. Plus annoying as heck!!!!
 

·
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
Joined
·
8,808 Posts
Stratuscaster said:
I wonder how Ditlow & Embrey would like to explain how this could be fixed by a recall before more people die? Or are they only upset because their accident of choice involved a gas tank rupture and a fire?

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20130624/WDH01/306240356/One-dead-bizarre-crash

In all seriousness, the only thing that I can think of that would reduce death and dismemberment in that kind of crash would be crumple zones and underride guards on commercial vehicles, making the back of the commercial vehicle react more like a large passenger car or light truck when collided with. Just and underride guard alone won't be enough since the back of the commercial vehicle will not yield and the passenger car will be crushed, and just a crumple zone wouldn't be enough because the car would still be pushed under the truck, threatening the occupants with decapitation.

I would like to see better underride guards on commercial trucks simply for when a driver misses seeing a tractor trailer and rear-ends it without another driver hitting from behind, but I don't think that would have helped much in the example that you cite.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
37,211 Posts
Yes.

Side note, speaking of commercial vehicles, the first fuel economy standards were just proposed -- a roughly 10% rise in fuel mileage planned. Personally I think just measuring their fuel mileage empty and under load, city and highway, using standard methods, would probably increase mileage just as much, by making it clearly visible, without needing to mandate anything.

Cummins is big into natural gas engines now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,124 Posts
The commercial freight lobby is extremely powerful. Nearly as powerful as big ag (ADM), and big oil (Exxon-Mobil). I guarantee the only reason the 10% rise in fuel economy is only because they were already planning on it, and they wanna get credit for it. Commercial freight has a lot of the power brokers in their pockets. This is leftover from the Teamster/Civella/Skimming era.

We will not see crash standards changed on big rigs in my lifetime; unless it is market driven; meaning big freight see's it as a profitable thing to do.
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
Muther said:
The commercial freight lobby is extremely powerful. Nearly as powerful as big ag (ADM), and big oil (Exxon-Mobil). I guarantee the only reason the 10% rise in fuel economy is only because they were already planning on it, and they wanna get credit for it. Commercial freight has a lot of the power brokers in their pockets. This is leftover from the Teamster/Civella/Skimming era.

We will not see crash standards changed on big rigs in my lifetime; unless it is market driven; meaning big freight see's it as a profitable thing to do.
Absolutely your opinion and not fact.
The reality is, CA has required the entire trucking fleet to be changed over twice in the last 6 years, for both safety and emissions. At $175,000-$225,000 a pop for just a tractor, that is millions in cost for even small to medium sized trucking companies.
That means less competition, higher prices and the cost of everything shipped by truck will increase.
Crash standards on trucks have changed several times in the last decade.
I have several friends who are truckers, it's not an easy industry to work in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,855 Posts
Muther said:
The commercial freight lobby is extremely powerful. Nearly as powerful as big ag (ADM), and big oil (Exxon-Mobil). I guarantee the only reason the 10% rise in fuel economy is only because they were already planning on it, and they wanna get credit for it. Commercial freight has a lot of the power brokers in their pockets. This is leftover from the Teamster/Civella/Skimming era.

We will not see crash standards changed on big rigs in my lifetime; unless it is market driven; meaning big freight see's it as a profitable thing to do.
To demonstrate the ridiculousness of your opinion, keep in mind that truck manufacturers (Class 6-8) care very deeply about fuel economy. That is why they fought low-sulphur diesel as it LOWERED fuel economy and increased costs for everyone.

Also, consider a 0.5 MPG increase on a tractor trailer that will drive over 100,000 miles in its typical year is a significant cost savings and selling point.

Lastly, not everything is a conspiracy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,778 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
38,586 Posts
Erik Latranyi said:
Lastly, not everything is a conspiracy.
Only those who are part of the conspiracy would say that! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,855 Posts
valiant67 said:
Only those who are part of the conspiracy would say that! :)
Shhhh. The chair is against the wall. The chair is against the wall.
 
41 - 60 of 69 Posts
Top