Classic Mustangs (Tech) Technical discussions about the Mustangs of yester-year.

Mustang death trap?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 1, 2007 | 03:27 PM
  #1  
Makurai's Avatar
Makurai
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 25
Default Mustang death trap?

Hi all,

So a friend yesterday told me that he'd read some report that classic mustangs, with their gas tanks in the back, were known to be particularly dangerous, and that there were many instances where a car was rear-ended, bursting the gas tank forward and spraying the driver, who was then particularly vulnerable if/when fire erupted in the car. Apparently there's been many cases of serious fire injuries in the past, and that there's a company that makes/installs a steel plate behind the passenger's seat to protect the cabin from the fuel spill. Does anybody know anything about this - is this type of modification recommended for a 1970 Mustang fastback?

Or was my friend pulling a Halloween prank on me? He was dressed as Starsky...

Old Nov 1, 2007 | 03:34 PM
  #2  
RSRXION's Avatar
RSRXION
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 499
From:
Default RE: Mustang death trap?

BULL BUTTER ! Tell your friend that we have a news flash for him ... MOST of the cars built in the Mustang era have fuel tanks in the rear. Now the difference is that many times the Ford products used a tank which was exposed from inside the trunk. I doubt very seriously that the rupture/fire ratio is higher on the Fords than any other line of auto makers.

The bottom line is this... ALL cars will suffer ruptured fuel tanks, leaks and possible fires if they're hit hard enough in the right situation. If it makes you feel better, install a panel on top of the tank surface in the trunk of your car. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep on it no matter what you decide to do.

JMHO, Dean
Old Nov 1, 2007 | 03:55 PM
  #3  
choefle's Avatar
choefle
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 159
From:
Default RE: Mustang death trap?

I was hit in the rear in my first 66 coupe pretty hard, but the tank did not rupture. The tank did collapse some, put no leaks.

If you are concerned about your fuel tank rupturing, think about the fuelsafe tanks. They are expensive, but will give you the added safety of a bladder style fuel tank.
Old Nov 1, 2007 | 04:02 PM
  #4  
DanK69RustangVert's Avatar
DanK69RustangVert
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 164
Default RE: Mustang death trap?

In the 70s Ford Pinto's were bad about fuel rupture fires. There was even a bumper sticker for them that said "Bump me, I go BOOM!" and one that read "No bang my car 'eh". Now they were a hazard!

The Mustang was never really any more dangerous than other cars of the era as mentioned above, and as also mentioned the fulesafe tanks or "Fuel cell" is a consideration. I plan to use one in my Mustang.
Old Nov 1, 2007 | 04:08 PM
  #5  
JMD's Avatar
JMD
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,469
From: AR
Default RE: Mustang death trap?

We took the cardboard piece that divides the passenger compartment from the trunk and used it for a template to produce a sheetmetal divider.

We did the same with the package tray.

Is this an all inclusive fix? No, but it should provide a reasonable safety margin.
Old Nov 1, 2007 | 04:09 PM
  #6  
Daze's Avatar
Daze
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 877
From:
Default RE: Mustang death trap?

IMHO the Fords original design is poor however not so poor that Mustangs are a fireball weighting to happen. In an accident any thing is possible. Most current issues with ruptured gas tanks have to do with 40 year old tanks in the cars. I recommend to any one driving a Mustang with the original tank, replace it. If you do that than the worst-case scenario is not any more likely than with other designs.
Old Nov 1, 2007 | 04:20 PM
  #7  
67 evil eleanor's Avatar
67 evil eleanor
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,106
From:
Default RE: Mustang death trap?

I think the biggest problem is that the only thing that seperates the fuel tank from the drivers compartment is the vinal and cardboard that makes up the back seat, a fuel fire can easily burn thru this. To add a steel wall is just a good idea, this could act somewhat like a firewall in case of an ignition in an accident. I have included this upgrade in two of my stangs and willinclude this to all my cars except the concours cars these are mostly trailered. Its a good and easy mod to do, especially in a everyday driver.
Old Nov 1, 2007 | 04:51 PM
  #8  
Starfury's Avatar
Starfury
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 5,896
From: Elk Grove, CA
Default RE: Mustang death trap?

The controversy is over the gas tank being a drop-in design, meaning that it also functions as the floor of the trunk, without anythign separating it from the trunk. What happens is that if you get hit really hard from the back, the tank warps and accordions with the fill nozzle pointed straight at the cabin. If there's a spark, it would ignite the fuel and spray a nice flame towards the cabin. In the coupe and vert models, there's nothing in between the trunk and cabin besides a nice flimsy piece of cardboard on the back of the seat. Fastbacks don't have quite as much of a problem as they have a piece of steel on the back of the seat.

Worst case, yes, this can cause some safety problems. But you have to get hit hard, and it has to be exactly the right circumstance. It's not near as common as many people may lead you to believe. A steel plate will help, but it's only going to buy you a couplemore seconds. Andif you get hit that hard, you have other issues anyway.
Old Nov 1, 2007 | 05:00 PM
  #9  
LPlum's Avatar
LPlum
1st Gear Member
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 61
Default RE: Mustang death trap?

Hi there, I did the update to my 66 years ago. These metal dividers were sold by Canadian Mustang, they now have a US division called American Pony. Go to www.americanpony.com and click on trunk divider.
Good luck!
Lowell
Old Nov 1, 2007 | 06:21 PM
  #10  
69FECoupe's Avatar
69FECoupe
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 686
From:
Default RE: Mustang death trap?

Here is the Sixty minutes II artical. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/...ain47539.shtml



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 PM.