Classic Mustangs List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Wallace, John (email redacted)

Hello folks. Though I'd re-post some of our earlier conversations on this
topic, back when Bryant Gumbel was fanning these 30 year-old flames. There
were many more than the four messages below, but I think these distilled the
matter down to the core message (see my post below for the stunning
conclusion)

-JW
Blue '72 hardtop 351C


Date: 16-Jul-1998 14:37:19
From: Wallace, John ((email redacted)
Subject: RE: [CM:12374] Bryant Gumble


After having read the source material CBS quoted on the web page, I'm
mystified that this story was considered newsworthy. The reviewer
highlighted several phrases that propose the problems cited, which were
immediately followed by the reason that the concerns were not justified.
In fact, the conclusion of the National Transporation Safety Board
investigation explicitly states:

"Analysis of accounts of accidents received of both the drop-in and
strap-on tanks suggests that little, if any, difference exists between
vehicles with drop-in tanks and those with strap-on tanks in crash
situations insofar as susceptibility to fire or the severity of the
results are concerned."

The "fix" suggested by the CBS report, welding or modifying the floor of
the trunk was also discounted by the investigation

"NHSTA inquiry revealed that a subsequent investigation by the Army
Tank-Automotive Command, which advised that it has final responsibility
in such matters for all army vehicles (military Mustangs?!) resulted in
a circular dated September 8, 1969, to all Commands, recommending no
change in the manufacturer's design of the gas tank, vent lines, and
trunk area. The recommendation were based on investigation findings
that (1) the upper half of the [drop-in] tank is made of heavier guage
steel than that used on conventional tanks, (2) the failure rate
involving the cutting or rupturing of the tank top was minimal and (3)
possible adverse effects could result from the addition of separate
trunk flooring or vent-line guards in the trunk area."

In light of this info, I'd say that the "documentary" was driven more by
a sensationalistic idea that the beloved Mustang could be a secret
killer than any actual concern that Mr Gumbel or CBS had. I bet a lot
more air-time was given to the video footage of the rear-end impact
testing (one result out of apparently several hundred tests, I might
note) than to the actual investigation conclusion.

As to what the whole thing means to the public at large and we
enthusiasts in particular:
Stay out of crashes. They're dangerous and you might get hurt.

Duh
-JW
Blue '72 hardtop 351C
^^ note that my 'stang isn't even being criticised. I just
thought the whole thing stank of "selective reporting".


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael J. Kupec [SMTP:]
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 1998 4:50 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [CM:12374] Bryant Gumble
>
> Sounds like "Crying Mumble" is just trying to stir up a name for himself
by
> reporting on something that hasn't been in production for over 30 years
now!
> In case anyone hasn't noticed, the early Falcon's, and just about every
> other mid-size Ford sedan had the drop in gas tank. My own personal
feeling
> about the "Pinto Fiasco" was that is had a hidden adgenda by GM - with
> lawyesr possibly backed by GM. Remember their version of the Pinto - the
> Vega for those too young - was a disaster! The motor had a lifespan
shorter
> than the Wankel rotary engine and the body practically came from the
factory
> with rust/cancer! The Pinto was a good solid little compact car that sold
> well and had very few flaws. I especially remember the one court trial
Ford
> had about the Pinto's "exploding" gas tank. This was the one where a
carload
> of girls were "burned alive" as the press reported it after being hit in a
> rear end collision. The information they left out was that the car was hit
> by a drunk driver driving a full size van that was going in excess of 55
> MPH! (BTW - the Pinto was standing still at either a stop sign or light).
> The autopsy reporst had stated that the occupants of the Pinto were
already
> dead when the car burst into flames. The press really does love
"distorting"
> the truth in their great "freedom of the press" rhetoric.
>
> It's been over twenty years since this accident happened - most of the
finer
> details were/are fuzzy to me - but I do remember the above as it happened.
>
> BTW - I like seeing the "surprised" look on peoples faces when I tell them
> that the Mustang has the same "exploding" tank that the Pinto has. They
say
> they only thought the Pinto was made like that - little do they know......
>
> Michael J. Kupec
>
> members.xoom.com/BroncoMike
>
> I live with constant fear and danger every day...
> and sometimes she lets me go four-wheeling!
>
> Get in, Sit down, Shut up, and Hold on!
>
> It's a Bronco thing, They wouldn't have a clue!
>
> Management & Data Systems, Lockheed Martin Corporation
> Woodbridge, Virginia, USA (703) 680-6903
> 1970 Bronco w/351W (in a constant state of disassembly/refinement...)
> 1964 1/2 260 Convertible w/PS, PB, & Power Top
> 1965 289 HP "K" Coupe w/PS, PB, & Pony Int. (Early '65, not a GT)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Foley <>
> To: <>
> Date: Thursday, July 16, 1998 3:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [CM:12373] Bryant Gumble
>
>
> >I also saw the segment and was very disturbed as it casts a shadow over
> >the hobby. Especially when they interviewed the burn victims. I always
> >new there wasnt much difference between a Pinto and a Mustang's gas
tanks. I just never knew why they only focused on the Pinto. I think even
the Maverick was set up the same way.
> >
> >I liked the idea of the fix they had in mind and wouldnt even mind doing
> >this myself. (Installing a metal plate between trunk and back seat). Not
sure how this would work on a convertible though. It will be interesting to
see how the lawsuit comes out or if we ever
> >hear another word about it.
> >just my .02,
> >
> >Patrick Foley
> >
> >Rick Pargeter wrote:
> >>
> >> > What did he say that was so bad?
> >>
> >> Big piece that said that the 65-70 drop in gas tanks are a fire
hazard.
> >> Check out the link www.cbs.com, and follow the Public Eye link. Don't
know
> >> how long it will be on that page, though.
> >>
> >>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the list info you'll ever want: antler.moose.to/~server/cm