# Ford irony
**URL:** https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692
**Category:** NYSpeed Automotive
**Created:** [April 12, 2006, 7:22pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692 "2006-04-12T19:22:51Z")
**Posts on this page:** 12
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@73ghia](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/73ghia)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 7:22pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692/1 "2006-04-12T19:22:51Z")
The other day I was watching tv and saw an ad by ford saying that even if one life was saved it was worth it. I think tha tppl may forget their aww fuckit thoughts when the f-150’s were having gas tank problems. The "A wrongfull death suit now and then is cheaper than recalling all of the trucks out there. LOL.
Thought I’d share my rant w/ you… I was laughing when I saw it.
---
### Author:  [@Bacon](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Bacon)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692/2 "2006-04-12T19:25:09Z")
Well, you are talking about a company that made the pinto. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@SoloIIscoob](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/SoloIIscoob)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 7:39pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692/3 "2006-04-12T19:39:44Z")
and the crown vic police cruiser…man that was an atom bomb on wheels…
---
### Author:  [@mike125k](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/mike125k)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 7:43pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692/4 "2006-04-12T19:43:23Z")
> [@SoloIIscoob](#):
>
> and the crown vic police cruiser…man that was an atom bomb on wheels…
yea what kind of pos car cant withstand a 70mph read end crash and not sustain damage or possibly puncture the fuel tank…
---
### Author:  [@rj-92](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/rj-92)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 7:44pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692/5 "2006-04-12T19:44:13Z")
Lets not forget the oops we listed the recomended tire pressure too low, that led to many explorer roll overs.
---
### Author:  [@JaysGreenLX](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JaysGreenLX)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 7:46pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692/6 "2006-04-12T19:46:17Z")
We all know the car in Fight Club was a Lincoln.
---
### Author:  [@Fry](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Fry)
#### Post date: [April 12, 2006, 7:51pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692/7 "2006-04-12T19:51:41Z")
Don’t forget the '64-'68 stangs. The top of the fuel tank doubled as the trunk floor. Rear end collision could and did result in gas sloshing into the cabin causing people to DIAF. There are still open lawsuits against them for that one.
---
### Author:  [@carl5463729](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/carl5463729)
#### Post date: [April 13, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692/8 "2006-04-13T19:07:28Z")
I did a paper on the pinto, ford said they didn’t want to spend $25, or something cheap like that, to fix the problem with the pinto. They figured that paying off all of the lawsuits would be cheaper then recalling all of the cars.
---
### Author:  [@HotRodKid](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/HotRodKid)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 2:18am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692/9 "2006-04-14T02:18:23Z")
> [@carl5463729](#):
>
> I did a paper on the pinto, ford said they didn’t want to spend $25, or something cheap like that, to fix the problem with the pinto. They figured that paying off all of the lawsuits would be cheaper then recalling all of the cars.
the pintos were oiginaly designed to have a rubber bladder inside of the gas tank.
early crash testing SHOWED that the stel tank would puncture of the differential , and thatthe doors would jam in the closed position
the bladder, costing $25 to install during assembly, was removed from the design by the BEAN COUNTERS as being to costly, it was NOT NOT NOT the enginieers that removed it
installing the bladder in a car after the car was built was inpossible, as the fuel sender was redesigned in the process, switching back to a “standard” design that wouldnt work with the bladder
and thats why the pinto was ooooh so save … some bean counter wanted to save a few $
---
### Author:  [@LXIFLYBY](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/LXIFLYBY)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 5:44am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692/10 "2006-04-14T05:44:43Z")
See thats funny, thats the same reason their late model crown vics, when hit hard, become an inferno. The tank gets punctured by the differential. Youd think they would abandon putting the gas tank between the rear bumper and the axle…
---
### Author:  [@mike125k](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/mike125k)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 8:15am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692/11 "2006-04-14T08:15:05Z")
> [@LXIFLYBY](#):
>
> See thats funny, thats the same reason their late model crown vics, when hit hard, become an inferno. The tank gets punctured by the differential. Youd think they would abandon putting the gas tank between the rear bumper and the axle…
yea because theres so much room under the car for a gas tank…
the issue with the crown vic only happens when it is rear ended while parked and the other car needs to be traveling 50+mph. no government crash tests require collision standards that high. it is something around 25mph and the crown vic is already tested at higher. its not a fucking tank, its a car, you can’t just smash whatever you want into it and expect nothing to happen. this is in no way fords fault. the car perfectly passes all government crash standards.
---
### Author:  [@TrueBlue](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/TrueBlue)
#### Post date: [April 14, 2006, 9:02am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/ford-irony/10692/12 "2006-04-14T09:02:12Z")
it’s actually tested at **75 mph** , waaaay higher than any other car I’ve seen.