Wow, who knew this topic would turn in to such a "heated" discussion.
The Crown Vic is an old design, dating back to 1979. The fuel tank design where it is mounted vertically behind the rear axle is a design unique to Ford full sized cars. Ford used this design since 1965. All Ford intermediate and compact RWD cars never used this design. GM and Chrysler RWD cars never used this design.
The problem is that almost all RWD full framed cars have the fuel tank mounted behind the axle, in the crumple zone, regardless of fuel tank style. The alledged issue with the Crown Vic is that when this area is crushed, the axles sharp components puncture the tank. The rear bolts for the parking brake cable, the frame buckling and the rear sway bar mounts on early Crown Vics have been sited as likely puncture areas. Ford took steps to eliminate these problem areas with a polymer sheild for ealier models and a suspension redesign in 1998 that removed some of the high risk bolts.
NHTSA conducted a study on the safety of the fuel tank design for the Crown Vic. Long story short the conclusion was as follows:
*The crash energy levels associated with post rear impact fuel tank failures in the CVPI vehicles are significantly greater than the levels in FMVSS 301 tests.
(FMVSS are the rear end crash standards that all cars must meet, done at 30 MPH)
*Fuel tank failures during high-speed rear impacts can result from numerous causes in addition to the hex-headed bolt and U-brackets identified in the Ford TSB.
*Crash reports identify many causes for loss of fuel system integrity during a high-energy rear crash, such as puncture from a deformed frame rail, lower shock absorber supports, or stowed items in the trunk, hydrostatic rupture, and other causes.
Based on analysis of FARS data, the risk of fire per fatal rear crash in the subject vehicles is comparable to that of the GM B-body vehicle (Caprice).
*The vast majority of reported post rear crash fires in the subject vehicles (over 80%) occurred in CVPI vehicles, even though they constitute less than 15% of the total Panther vehicle production.
*The Florida Highway Patrol Study did not identify a difference between the post rear impact fire risk in CVPI vehicles and that of the Caprice police vehicles.
*Ford-sponsored testing indicates that the subject vehicles are not unique in their inability to maintain fuel tank integrity in at least one example of a severe rear impact crash.
*There have been numerous high-energy rear crashes involving CVPI vehicles within the scope of Ford's TSB that exhibited little or no fuel loss and no fire.
* The available information regarding fuel tank failure mode, the risk of fire per fatal crash, field performance, and crash testing indicate that the performance of the subject vehicle in high-energy rear crashes is not unlike that of the most comparable peer vehicle, the GM B-body
In other words, the Crown Vic is about as likely to catch fire than it's nearest comparable vehicle the Caprice in a high speed collision. Additionally, it seems the CVPI is more likely to cathch fire simply because it is more likely to be involved in a very high speed rear end collsion.
Bottom line though, placing the fuel tank behind the rear axle in the crumple zone is an old fashioned design and is not as safe as a tank placed in front on the axle.
Here are some pics from the study:
These are high speed rear end results (70 MPH)
Caprice for Comparison
Crown Vic and Caprice tank design
Overkill,
you seem to take any critism against Ford so personally. This discussion is about the Ford Crown Vic fuel tank design, and you bring in all these other cars fuel tank designs. They are not the issue it's the Crown Vic's tank. If we want to bring other cars into the discussion, lets not mention the 1980's Ford Fox body fuel tank design (don't get me wrong, I like these cars, I was just trying to make a point).
