'66 Stang danger of explosion if hit in rear?

Reply

  #1  
Old 07-31-02, 04:48 AM
boman's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: North Alabama, USA
Posts: 487
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
'66 Stang danger of explosion if hit in rear?

Wife wanted me to see if I could get any info on the danger of a '66 Mustang exploding if hit in the rear. I told her I remembered the older Pintos getting a lot of press on this but was not sure about the Mustangs. I'm hoping this problem, if it was a problem with these cars, was resolved by 1966. She wants to get rid of it if it one of the ones exploding when hit in the rear.
Comments?
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 07-31-02, 05:21 AM
O
Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 114
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Do you mean 76 or 86 mustang, cause 66 mustangs where out long before the pinto. And the bad exploding rap pinto got, I think was not as bad as it was made out to be. My uncle was hurt bad in pinto accident, when a dump truck ran into the back of the pinto pushing it into a tree. Yes he was he hurt bad, but no the car did not explode. IMO I would be more scared of some the new mini SUV. Next time you are behind one, notice anything hanging below the bumper. Yep the gas tank. Anyway I never heard of any problems with the mustang exploding, but that could happen in any car accident with any car.

Just my opinions.
 
  #3  
Old 07-31-02, 05:29 AM
boman's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: North Alabama, USA
Posts: 487
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
but that could happen in any car accident with any car.

Agreed. Was just wondering if these were a little more apt to explode. Tx for response.
 
  #4  
Old 07-31-02, 06:54 AM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,531
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
There was a 20-20 like segment acouple of years ago about early 65-70 mustangs with gas tank bursting and fuel entering pass comp. They were trying to get Ford to start a recall.

Problem is confined to sedan and fastbacks(without folddown rear seat). Only barrier between trunk and int is some type of cardboard and the rear seat. For those of you that don't realize the trunk floor is the fuel tank. The folddown rear seat has a metal door seperating the trunk from the int.

The recall that was being asked for involved a non-flammable barrier to be installed behind the rear seat. This could easly be done by removing the rear seat and fitting a tin barrier covering the opening.

Larry BTW

Proud owner of '70 Mach I 351 Cleveland
 
  #5  
Old 07-31-02, 07:35 AM
boman's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: North Alabama, USA
Posts: 487
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
There was a 20-20 like segment acouple of years ago about early 65-70 mustangs with gas tank bursting and fuel entering pass comp. They were trying to get Ford to start a recall.

That i sin line with what my youngrst son was saying to the wife about gas entering the passenger compartment. Don't guess Ford ever did the recall? Guess I can plan on putting a barrier in this car.
 
  #6  
Old 07-31-02, 07:37 AM
R
Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Mass.
Posts: 337
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
I've heard the same thing as Toytaman. I'd suggest you dig into some of the Mustang owners / restorers web sites. I've heard there is a simple fix. Installing a sheet metal barrier on the seat back. With all the restored 65's and 66's out there, I'm sure you'll find a solution.

We take for granted the safety improvements in newer cars. The older cars (most) dont have shoulder belts, air bags, disc brakes, ABS, radial tires, crumple zones, etc.

Dont' get rid of the Mustang!
 
  #7  
Old 07-31-02, 07:53 AM
boman's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: North Alabama, USA
Posts: 487
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Dont' get rid of the Mustang!

Don't intend to. Sounds simple enough to fix the tank problem. My bro-inlaw had this one under a shed for two years. I had to clean chicken poop and a lot of dirt off of it. I was kinda surprised how well it cleaned up. The wife does not know it, but I have spotted another '66 sitting on a carport/garage with a few layers of dirt and a flat on it. Might just stop by and ask about it.

My dad bought a new '62 Metropolitan once (last year they were sold here in the states, I think ). We wound with 4 of them ! Motors, parts, etc. I really wish I still had the one he bought new. Kind of expensive now when you can find one.
 
  #8  
Old 07-31-02, 01:39 PM
J
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Anything with a pulse is considered a death trap by most critics .

My Trans Am has the tank in the rear, and it's strong back there as well. No fear of problems.
 
  #9  
Old 07-31-02, 03:20 PM
J
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: corona Ca.
Posts: 471
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
just to let you know exactly what happened with the pinto, and how the stang is different, I did a report on this in college. Ford used a filler tube that, when hit in the rear would come dislodged from the tank, causing fuel leakage, and if there was any spark from the collision...you know the rest. The sad part is that they did analysis and studies on this when the car was in its stages of devopment. The part that would fix the prob would cost under $2 bucks each. However, they weighed the cost of replacement vs cost of unlawful death suits, and accident suits, and played the gamble that it would cost less to not replace this.

This is all documented, and yes, our beloved car companies are famous for doing this.
 
  #10  
Old 07-31-02, 06:16 PM
boman's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: North Alabama, USA
Posts: 487
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
, our beloved car companies are famous for doing this.

I think when big businesses do cost analyses, it is more than the auto industry .
 
  #11  
Old 07-31-02, 06:30 PM
J
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
With our society the way it is, being so litigious, I think companies have "rethunk" that stance a bit .
 
  #12  
Old 08-29-05, 01:33 PM
D
datsundan
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, the risk of fire is there.

Just to let everyone know, you are correct about the possibility of fuel entering the passenger compartment of early Mustangs, in the event of a serious rear end collision. However, this problem is not limited to Mustangs only. The segment that aired on 20/20, for who knows what reason, failed to mention the exact same possibility on many cars from that era. [For instance, my co-worker's son's 1970 Chevelle, in which he was rear-ended extremely hard, fuel entered the passenger compartment, ignited, and he was severely burned. He was pulled from the vehicle and is doing well now (this was several years ago).] However, regarding classic mustangs, there are several companies that sell a metal barrier and, as extra protection, a fuel cell. I plan on getting these two safety upgrades on my 1967 Mustang with the realization that a classic car will never be as safe, overall, as most newer cars. Just my input. Thanks.
 
  #13  
Old 08-29-05, 01:45 PM
K
Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Livonia, Michigan
Posts: 923
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
This discussion is just another reason we should be driving diesels. Diesels don't have this problem.
 
  #14  
Old 08-29-05, 03:58 PM
M
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA - N.E.Tn
Posts: 47,117
Received 226 Votes on 201 Posts
Originally Posted by Kestas
This discussion is just another reason we should be driving diesels. Diesels don't have this problem.
BUT WHERES THE FUN IN THAT!
 
Reply
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Description: