Complaint Review: Ford Motor Company - Dearborn Michigan

I am the one that orders these cars for my department. I also have access to Ford's Fleet website. After doing this for so long, I think my knowledge of the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor is pretty far up there.

Ford says that their Crown Vics are able to withstand a 65mph rear impact with no fire. I believe that. We won't have to worry about all of that because Ford is going to discontinue making the Crown Victoria in 2011 they said. The new Ford Police Car is already on their fleet website now. They didn't give it a model name on the order guide. They just call it the new police car. I think I heard someone say that it's made from a Taurus and just souped up.

Well, anyways I have driven Crown Victorias for many years and have never had any problems with it that was the car's fault. They have been the best for many years but don't worry, folks. They are going away after 2010 or 2011 model years.

The Fleet Guy

The report on the Ford Crown Victorias is a bit overdone. How many of us get rear-ended at such high rates of speed? I feel bad about the police officers killed due to the gas tank problem with these cars, but since then Ford has repaired the problem and the cars are safe. My 1999 Ford Crown Victoria and it is the best car I have ever owned.

Crown Victorias might not be safe enough for police officers, but I guess nothing would be then. Caprices are not any safer, please observe information below ..

I'd just like to tell you to do some research before bashing a company. First of all, the Ford Focus is NOT a piece of crap. It has been on Car and Driver's 10 Best List for 4 years running. My sister's fiance owns one, and he has never had any problems on it yet. (All recalls were taken care of prior to owning it ...).

Moving onto the Crown Victoria:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/Current/
CrownVic/CrownVic021003.html

Please retract your statement, after reading the truth:

The subject vehicles meet current Federal motor vehicle safety standard for fuel system integrity (FMVSS No. 301), which requires a vehicle to withstand a 30 mph rear collision without fuel spillage in excess of established limits. NHTSA has proposed to amend FMVSS No. 301 to require a 50 mph rear impact; however, Ford has conducted tests in which the vehicles' fuel system did not leak in 50 mph rear impact tests.
Almost all of the post-crash fuel leaks occurred in very high-speed incidents, with crash energies far in excess of those generated by FMVSS No. 301 tests.

There is no single factor that contributed to the post-crash fuel leaks in the CPVI vehicles. In addition to the components identified in the Ford TSB, leaks were also caused by a deformed frame rail, shock absorber supports, the differential cover, and stowed items in the trunk.
There have been numerous high-energy rear crashes in CVPI vehicles with little or no loss of fuel.

Based on an analysis of FARS data, the risk of fire per fatal rear crash in the CPVI vehicles was comparable to that of Chevrolet Caprice police vehicles. A study conducted by the Florida Highway Patrol reached similar conclusions.

If you want to argue with the government, go ahead .. but get out of the US if you want to.

And Caprice fires, hah:

1994 - 96 CHEVY Caprice with Havyduty Cooling Systems
1994 - 96 CHEVY Impala with Havyduty Cooling Systems

Problem

Flow restricter valve on heater hose fails and leaks coolant in rear of engine compartment where it may ignite

Complaints

34 complaints, including nine fires, plus more than 8,800 warranty claims

Vehicle population

75,000

http://www.kondomotors.com/
text/carmarketdata/recall-nhtsa.html

Need more proof?

http://www.automag.com/
StopLight/02_oct07_content.asp

Over the last 10 years, 12 officers have been killed when a Crown Victoria petrol tank ruptured and the contents caught fire, often after the cruiser was hit in the rear in a high-speed crash.NHTSA's Office of Defect Investigation determined the Crown Victoria police car exceeds federal standards for fuel system safety and found the rate of fires was no greater than with Chevrolet Caprice police cars, which GM dropped after 1996.


Sure, the Crown Victoria has killed a few officers? What vehicle hasn't? You can't find a vehicle on record that hasn't killed people in a wreck unless it hasn't been released yet. Nice try, sherlock. Not even your maud-fricket aunt's Volvo can say that no one's ever been killed in a Volvo. Cars can only be safe up to a limit .. when you exceed those limits, there is not hope.

Ford has not always, emphatically not always, designed rear wheel drive vehicles with fuel tanks between the rear axle and bumper. In the middle 1960's the fuel tanks for full size Ford products were above the rear axle, between the rear wheel housings. (This same design was used for the early 1970's German-built Mercury Capri)

But the Ford fuel tank design problems go way back. In the 1960's, the popular Mustang was one of the few American cars in which the fuel tank itself was part of the floor of the trunk. The tank was not even isolated into a separate compartment, let alone hung separately and below the the floor of the trunk. The Mustang tank was just dropped into the trunk compartment.

After the Pinto fiasco, which was mitigated, if not solved, by the installation of simple bolt covers (which Pinto station wagons did have), Ford should have learned its lesson. Now, besides the Crown Vic, Mercury Marquis and Lincoln Town Cars, all of which have EXACTLY the same fuel tank design as the Crown Vic police cars and should also be recalled, problems with the Mustang are once again in the news.

Seems the 1994 - present Mustang convertible failed Ford's internal 50 MPH rear end crash performance tests. And was granted a waiver of this corporate design standard by Ford management. Not only does the fuel tank design of this series of Mustang not meet Ford's own internal standards, there is another serious problem with the convertible models. The convertible's doors become jammed by the rear end impact and are unable to open. Occupants are thus trapped inside a possibly burning vehicle. Ford's own engineering chief recently swore to these facts regarding the Mustang in a deposition (publicly available) he was forced to give in a wrongful death lawsuit involving the Mustang.

While the Mustang fuel tank problems are a bit off topic regarding the Crown Vic police cars, its seems to me to demonstrate Ford has yet to learn and understand the lessons of its fuel tank design problems. Other manufacturers have their own problems in this area. But given the spectacular public relations and legal fiascos Ford, in particular, has suffered over its fuel tank designs, they should be going out of their way to design and sell vehicles with best in class fuel tank designs. Ford has done this in the past, and other manufacturers are doing so presently, so Ford can step up to the plate - if its management so chooses.

First, I want to point out that most of the reports and/or rebuttals posted on this site are filed by the general public; not by our staff. It is our policy to leave the reports/rebuttals unedited UNLESS the errors are so bad that the meaning of the story is affected.

In any event, our rebuttal/report forms do not have spell check, so minor mistakes are likely to go unnoticed, especially in larger stories. However, even if someone is just plain bad with spelling and/or grammar, their complaints and arguments are no less valid.

Furthermore, bad spelling and/or grammar has no bearing on the merits of the complaint or rebuttal. If it did, your second sentence, one that happens to be a run-on, would completely discredit your entire argument. BUT, like I said before, it does not really matter if there are spelling errors within a report.

This report, and the subsequent rebuttals (even those with errors) can still be understood, and in my opinion, are helpful to the readers. That is the important thing; isn't it? In your case, however, the rebuttal that you submitted, is one that serves no legitimate purpose.

Additionally, no one has the right to tell another person to go back to school. People with low levels of intelligence, or self confidence, tend to point out spelling and grammar errors in an effort to boost their own self esteem. This is especially true for people who have failed in life, or for those who are unsatisfied with what they have not been able to accomplish.

If pointing out spelling errors is the only thing that you can offer this site, I ask that you not participate at all.

Finally, if you are going to discuss a person's academic level, or suggest that they further their education, it is only fair that you tell us what your credentials are. What qualifies you to do so Gary? .. Well??

Also Gary, please share your age with the rest of the class; we are very curious.

MSP - Associate Editor
Consumer Advocate/Investigative Reporter
badbusinessbureau.com, llc
[email protected]

To The Great Thorn:
He/she needs to go back to school to learn proper grammar and spelling. People tend to not take seriously people with poor grammar and spelling and your site is filled with poor spelling so take note.

An observer.

I contacted William C. Ford, "Henry Ford's great grandson. I told him by email that all he needs to do is to rip apart a Mercedes Benz, say a 1985 to a 1991 SEL and look where Benz puts their gas tank and how they vent it.

Ford Motor Company needs to have an open mind as to what other car makers are doing.

It sure seems to me that Ford feels the more money they pay their engineers and CEO's the better the car company will be. If you want action, pay me $200,000 a year and see what you get.

William C. Ford, You need to dig the peanut butter out of both of your ears and listen to what "The Great Thorn" is telling you.

Trust me William C. Ford, I know you are reading what is posted on this web site about Ford cars and trucks. I "The Great Thorn" have connections!

Like I told you William C. Ford by email, if you want to regain that $5.45 Billion you lost last year, you better listen to what the car buyers are saying. Just like Rush Limbaugh said the other day. If the CEO is doing the company commercials you can bet that they are having slow times.

If I were you Mr. Ford, I would instruct your customer relations team to come to the rip off report on a daily basis and read the car buyer complaints. I assure you that no car dealer can divert rip off reports and that is a fact!

By the way Mr. Ford I have a question for you now that I know you are reading this. How do you know if a Ford dealer has earned the BLUE OVAL label if they have the ability to divert C.S.I.? If you want to use your BLUE OVAL program to your advantage, you need to KILL C.S.I. diversion.

You also need to recalculate all of your "BLUE OVAL" dealers and see if they really have earned this Blue Oval status.

I talked to a Ford employee at Ford Crop in Dearborn a short time ago and he told me that Ford has no way to tell if a Ford dealer is diverting the C.S.I. on their "Heat deals" You know what a "Heat Deal is.

If what he is telling me is true, Ford's "Blue Oval" certification program could provide car buyers with a false sense of honesty about Ford car dealers. I am sure that you do not want car buyers to have a false sense of honesty, Do you?

How do you calculate if a dealer is qualified for the BLUE OVAL status if a dealer can divert C.S.I.?

Mr. Ford you need to have a DIRECT LINE of contact between you and the car buyers, which are your customers. The car dealer is just the necessary middleman.

I at one time sold cars for a living and I know about C.S.I. Diversion. Mr. Ford, please post your response on this Rip Off Report. Continue to use Bill. That's OK.

Signed
The Great Thorn.

Obviously you work for Ford. First and for most, you don't actually believe that people are going to listen to anyone from Ford saying all wheel drives are like this and that the Crown Vistoria's problems are not from the fuel tank design. You apparently don't drive one, you probally don't even drive a Ford.

The fact of the matter is, even the NHTSA says that's the problem. As does ALL police, the attorney generals for these states in which deaths have occured as a result and the consumers. So I really don't think thousands upon thousands of people are wrong. This car's fuel tank design IS the cause for these explossions, there is NO doubt about that. Ford just can't seem to make a reliable car, much less stand behind these cars when there becomes a dangerous problems.

The fuel tank behind the axle is a "flawed" design? Have any of you ever looked under any other rear wheel drive car? Try the Ford Mustang (used by the Arizona State Police) and the recently discontinued Chevrolet Caprice (another popular Police/Special Service vehicle)to name a couple. I don't recall complaints about those cars being a fire hazard.

The fact is nearly every American made, rear wheel drive car from the last forty or more years was made with the fuel tank behind the rear axle.

To say that Ford knew these were going to be used as Police cars and should have designed them differently shows you're out of touch.

Do you think you local Police department would want to pay considerably more for a special built car, just for them? They bought a run of the mill Ford with a heavy duty suspension and vinyl seats, and they got what they paid for.

The current Crown Vic. may have problems, but the fact that it's fuel tank is behind the rear axle isn't one of them.

Rather people care to think about this as having heat applied causing an increase in the Crown Victoria explosions in the AZ area, if you stop and think, oddly enough, most of these explosions have happened in AZ.

The bottom line line is simply that Ford perduced a vehicle that they sold to police departments nationwide (over 100,000)knowing that these vehicles would be used in High-speed chases, and injustly designed these fuel tanks. They knew from the previous design problem with their Pinto's that by them putting the same fuel tank design in these vehicles they would be subjecting police and civilians to a deadly possibility. They knew this design could and would explode upon rear-end impact. These vehicles do not need to exceed any MPH but, rather the Crown Victoria was parked or proceeding at high speeds, once rear-ended, there was a great chance that these vehicles would explode causing near fatal to fatal injuries.

The fact of the matter is Ford IS responsible, they knew this would happen and just as with any of their vehicle designs, they refuse that there is a flaw until many people have to die as a result of these designs. The sadest part is that our government still purchases Fords and probally will always purchase Fords. The government is just as responsible, if not more for continuing to back Ford. They don't drive these vehicles, why the hell should they care.

First, the Arizona police officer who died on June 12 was with the Chandler Police Department and not Gilbert as I had previously stated. Also, his car was not "T-boned" -- it slammed sideways into a lamp post after having collided with another vehicle. A report in the June 29 Arizona Republic indicates that the officer may have been driving as fast as 75 MPH in a 45 zone without emergency lights or siren.

Second, liquid gasoline is not as explosive as gasoline vapors. A really great way to vaporize gasoline is to apply heat. (Do not try this at home.) There is an abundance of heat in Arizona. Las Vegas may sometimes get as hot as Phoenix, but for not nearly as long a period. The Phoenix metro area is about 10 times the size of Vegas so it is more likely to experience unusual problems with its ambulance fleet simply because it has more of them.

Finally, the June 29 "Arizona Republic" reports that the cities of Phoenix and Chandler, each having experienced a Crown Victoria police car explode and burn an officer, have decided to replace the original Ford-supplied gas tanks with fuel bladders at a cost of about $2500 per car. Chandler has 130 and Phoenix has 735 Crown Vics. The newspaper reports that the Chandler city council felt that they could not depend on Ford to correct the problem quickly enough.

Many thanks to Larry of Phoenix, AZ for the additional information that you've provided on Ford's fuel tank problems. I never heard anything about the rescue vehicles, but it's great you knew about it. I pertictually don't understand how Ford is always getting in trouble with the Federal Government as to their cars designs, but can continue to design these deadly cars. I know my Focus is due to be announced to be completely recalled and quite honestly can't wait to get rid of this death trap. And of course you hit the nail on the head when you stated, "Common threads always seem to be Ford and fuel tanks." You couldn't be more right. There are several BIG problems with their Focus, yet one of the main concerns is a probelms that exists from the engine to the fuel tank, amazing, Huh??

If the Federal Government opts for Ford's business, then they should have someone continously checking their designs and monitoring their progress. They definately don't need to let Ford continue to create these dangerous and potentialy deadly vehicles, with little to no responsibility of what they have or will cause.

Many thanks to Larry of Phoenix, AZ for the additional information that you've provided on Ford's fuel tank problems. I never heard anything about the rescue vehicles, but it's great you knew about it. I pertictually don't understand how Ford is always getting in trouble with the Federal Government as to their cars designs, but can continue to design these deadly cars. I know my Focus is due to be announced to be completely recalled and quite honestly can't wait to get rid of this death trap. And of course you hit the nail on the head when you stated, "Common threads always seem to be Ford and fuel tanks." You couldn't be more right. There are several BIG problems with their Focus, yet one of the main concerns is a probelms that exists from the engine to the fuel tank, amazing, Huh??

If the Federal Government opts for Ford's business, then they should have someone continously checking their designs and monitoring their progress. They definately don't need to let Ford continue to create these dangerous and potentialy deadly vehicles, with little to no responsibility of what they have or will cause.

Many thanks to Larry of Phoenix, AZ for the additional information that you've provided on Ford's fuel tank problems. I never heard anything about the rescue vehicles, but it's great you knew about it. I pertictually don't understand how Ford is always getting in trouble with the Federal Government as to their cars designs, but can continue to design these deadly cars. I know my Focus is due to be announced to be completely recalled and quite honestly can't wait to get rid of this death trap. And of course you hit the nail on the head when you stated, "Common threads always seem to be Ford and fuel tanks." You couldn't be more right. There are several BIG problems with their Focus, yet one of the main concerns is a probelms that exists from the engine to the fuel tank, amazing, Huh??

If the Federal Government opts for Ford's business, then they should have someone continously checking their designs and monitoring their progress. They definately don't need to let Ford continue to create these dangerous and potentialy deadly vehicles, with little to no responsibility of what they have or will cause.

First off i know a girl who knows the officer who was rear ended and died but it wasnt in suburban gilbert the gentleman passed away in chandler arizona.

gas tanks dont explode from being in contact with the sun.......do you know larry how hot something has to be to explode.the summer sun in arizona is hot dont get me wrong....how do i know you ask..

...well im from arizona so thats how and i really doubt it will cause a solid steel gas tank to explode.i have a chevy truck with the gas tank mounted outside the frame rails ive seen this style of truck get hit in a side impact collision which the gas tank is mounted on the side and it usually takes about a 60 mph collision to rupture the tank.

gas tanks dont explode in the general heat larry come on now it takes a hell of lot more than 110 degrees to rupture the tank and you say it has to do with a full tank........well its about 105 here during the day in las vegas and i just filled up my tank does that mean mine is going to blow up i dont think so.

In the past 4 years four Arizona police officers have been involved in serious accidents involving Crown Victoria patrol cars. In all four cases the fuel tanks ruptured after collision with another vehicle. Three officers died as a result of fires and a fourth was hideously burned but has survived.

Three of the cars were rear-ended while they were parked at night on the shoulder with emergency lights flashing. In the most recent accident -- resulting in another death -- the police car was T-boned.

Two of the dead officers were with the Arizona Highway Patrol. The officer who was badly burned but lived was a member of the Phoenix Police Department. The most recent fatality was a policeman in suburban Gilbert, AZ.

Both the City of Phoenix and the state of Arizona have suspended plans to purchase additional Crown Vic's.

It is not known what -- if any -- effect Arizona's high temperatures may play in this. Several years ago the Phoenix Fire Department had a number of fuel tanks explode on their Ford Econoline-based ambulances. These explosions were not the result of collision, but seemed to have been linked to the heat and how close to full the fuel tank was. My recollection was that the Fire Department adopted a policy of never filling the tanks completely and that ended the problem.

The common threads always seem to be Ford and fuel tanks.