Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 6/13/2002 9:36:21 PM EDT
Ok how many of you have had problems like this in your states: [url]http://www.auto.com/industry/iwirc9_20020309.htm[/url] [url]http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/0613Copkilled13.html[/url] Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis police crusiers supposidly blowing up when rear ended by other vheicles and killing their officers. The media here has been harping about this here in Arizona all week. And its driving me crazy. Because they are all WRONG. I have no love for the Ford Motor Company, but this has nothing to do with the design of the vheicle. The impact speeds of the vheicle in all these cases are simply to great for a conventional fuel tank not to splatter and explode. But the brainless blithering idiots still spout off. There is nothing wrong with the car. I hate to say it but if a Dodge Intrepid or Chevy Impala were hit in the same way they would go up too. The only way to prevent this from happening is to make all police crusers have NASCAR approved fuel cells or make all police officers drive light trucks, where the fuel tanks are forward of the rear axle and protected by the frame to the outside. Even switching to trucks there would be some fire danger from a high speed side impact. Really only a NASCAR type fuel cell is the only way to be certain.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:44:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Even switching to trucks there would be some fire danger from a high speed side impact. Really only a NASCAR type fuel cell is the only way to be certain.
View Quote
I'm not familiar with the NASCAR models. How much fuel do they hold? Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:46:52 PM EDT
I've heard about some of the ridiculous (and possibly illegal) things GM has done to pander the Impala to the police here in SC. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if a large Chevy dealer in AZ was behind some of the stories. Some car dealers spend a lot of money with local newspapers and TV channels, so it's possible their influence (due to dollars spent) is behind some of it. After all, how else are two completely inappropriate vehicles supposed to compete against the Crown Vic? I'm not a Ford fan, but they do make the only suitable product.z
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:47:25 PM EDT
Put the cops on horses............problem solved[:D] Sgtar15
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:49:19 PM EDT
The media likes to sell us lies for the sake of ratings. Remember the lawsuit GM filed against, I believe, NBC for planting explosives in pick-up trucks they claimed would explode upon a side impact. The trucks [b]WOULDN'T[/b] explode the way they wanted on film so they provided the [i]dramatic[/i] explosion. A$$holes!
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:59:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GodBlessTexas:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Even switching to trucks there would be some fire danger from a high speed side impact. Really only a NASCAR type fuel cell is the only way to be certain.
View Quote
I'm not familiar with the NASCAR models. How much fuel do they hold? Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
View Quote
NASCAR mandates a 22 gal bladder inside the cell for the Trucks, Winston Cup, and Bush. That is variable. The little Goodys Dash series cars have the same design but hold only 7 gallons. The fuel cell is a box of 1/4" steel plate welded togather containing a "rubber" bladder, that in some models is further filled with a foam rubber like material. In a impact the rubber bladder deforms instead of splattering like the single wall metal or plastic fuel tank. The steel keeps the rubber bladder from getting shredded by sharp edged debri. Even if punctured, the bladder is (and this depends on maker) either self-sealing or is filled with a porous foam sponge that prevents the fuel from spraying around like a busted water balloon. Because the rubber bladder is the heart of the system the shape of the cell can be very flexable.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 10:04:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By misterhemi: The media likes to sell us lies for the sake of ratings. Remember the lawsuit GM filed against, I believe, NBC for planting explosives in pick-up trucks they claimed would explode upon a side impact. The trucks [b]WOULDN'T[/b] explode the way they wanted on film so they provided the [i]dramatic[/i] explosion. A$$holes!
View Quote
The real shame there was that the old GM pickups that had the side mounted fuel tanks outside of the frame rail really do catch fire in side impacts. And NBC destroyed the case for thousands of claimants. Not only that, the tanks were vulnerable to corrosion and road debre in that position. My uncles 77' Chevy 4x4 burned down at a stoplight in Huntington Beach CA. Piece of road trash knocked a hole in the tank- they think, could have been just a seam seperating from corrosion.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 11:50:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 3:01:10 AM EDT
A neighboring community had a pretty bad vehicle fire with one of the newer Police Interceptors (LE model of the Crown Vic) about a year ago after a rear-end collision that should have just caused minor damage. If I recall correctly, Ford wound up buying them a new car and paying for the lost equipment. Officer luckily got out with very minor injuries. The newer ones don't have very much fuel capcity, either. They only hold about 12-15 gallons or so and on a busy shift, you may have to refuel a couple of times. My buddy's older model CV caught fire one night while at the shop for normal maintenance. Our shop is in the middle of nowhere and it was completely unattended-It burned for a couple of hours before anyone found out. It was supposedly an electrical fault. I have seen lots of totaled CVs. They do a real good job of occupant protection-we haven't had any serious injuries yet. They are generally pretty good cars.
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 3:02:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: The real shame there was that the old GM pickups that had the side mounted fuel tanks outside of the frame rail really do catch fire in side impacts. And NBC destroyed the case for thousands of claimants. Not only that, the tanks were vulnerable to corrosion and road debre in that position. My uncles 77' Chevy 4x4 burned down at a stoplight in Huntington Beach CA. Piece of road trash knocked a hole in the tank- they think, could have been just a seam seperating from corrosion.
View Quote
All the statistics that I've seen show that 73-87 GM pickups are only slightly - and I mean a minuscule fraction of a percentage - more likely to catch fire in side impacts than Ford or Chrysler trucks were. As far as road damage, all the 73-87 GM trucks I've seen so far had plastic stone shields under the tanks. They did a good job of keeping the tanks from being damaged by road debris, but also held dirt (and therefore moisture) next to the tank, eventually causing rust. I'm planning on replacing mine with plastic ones, assuming that's legal in NH.
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 4:42:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/14/2002 4:43:40 AM EDT by Ross]
If I didn't know my 94 Caprice 9C1 was a better car, I'd buy a CV in a second. As Armdlbrl said, there's only so much a tank will take before a post-crash fire starts. Also alot of fires in police cars can be traced to all the electronic equipment they have installed. I mean, lights, siren, several radios, computer with data-link, sometimes a Lo-Jack tracker, and on and on. There's alot of electronics in those things, and an electircal fire is a big possibility, especially with the use seen on a working police car. As stated the CV/PI does a great job of protecting the occupants, and it is the only one out there that fits the bill...right now[;)] I wouldn't worry about it anymore than I'd worry about any other car detonating. Given the number of injuries and deaths, compared to the number of CV/PIs made, I think they're pretty safe. Also I noticed the wording of the article: "NHTSA said it had so far linked eight deaths and 15 injuries to high-speed rear-end crashes that led to fires in the sedans." Does that mean the deaths and injuries were actually caused by fire? Or just what the article says, "...to high speed rear-end crashes" that just happened to lead to fires in the sedans? You have to watch the way ANY media words things. Ross
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 4:53:24 AM EDT
? I won't be surprised if the Chevy dealers were behind it , they did take a pounding in some police circles after the InstaClear windshield fiasco .
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 4:57:00 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 4:58:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 5:10:37 AM EDT
The Corvette uses a bladder type fuel tank. Most aircraft do as well. At some point the government will get off their duff and mandate something similar on ALL cars. In mass production it will be VERY cost effective. When was the last time you saw a race car EXPLODE? A few catch fire but never do they explode due to the foam filler.
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 5:52:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DVDTracker:
Originally Posted By sgtar15: Put the cops on horses............problem solved[:D]
View Quote
Another set of rear-ends you don't want exploding...
View Quote
LMAO [:D]
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 6:04:50 AM EDT
Sounds like a direct parallel to the Chevy pickup inferno machine. JUST CRAP.
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 6:12:00 AM EDT
There is a problem with the Crown Vic. I've never heard of a 91-96 Caprice catching fire from a rear impact, even when there were just as many of them on the road as the CV, or any of the older Dodge Gran Fury's, or the newer Chevy Impalas. Ford even did some type of recall modification of CV interceptor models' fuel tanks, and the car Chandler PD fire had that modification done. My first thought was to compare the 10 officers killed, and those seriously burned in the past few years by CV vehicle fires to the infamous Glock 40 caliber KB's: There are more of them out there now than any other model, so your going to hear about more bad thing going on with those models. However, as I have already stated, back in 80's and early to mid 90's, there were just as many, if not more Chevy Caprices' in Police fleets, and I still can not recall one Caprice gasoline fire from any sort of impact. I'm very happy I'm driving a 2001 Impala now, but soon may be going to a valley agency with the CV. I'd like to see them switch to the Imapla: You don't sacrifice must room, and they can go just as fast from 0-100. You don't need to go any faster than that in a large city anyway. Just my experienced opinion,,,, Jay [img]http://www.commspeed.net/jmurray/images/iroc-cop.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 7:49:46 AM EDT
Explain this [Instaclear] fiasco, if you would?
View Quote
The (said with sarcasm) "rocket scientists" at Ford decided to put their radar blocking film on the inside of police car windshields, like they did on some CV's sold to civilians. According to one friend that's into HAM radios, the radar blocking film blocked 95% of the K-band signals. Because the film reflected the signal back at the occupants, many officers were concerned about health effects. A few departments switched to exterior radar transmitters because of this. Fortunately, common-sense at Ford overrode the desire to prevent owners from using radar detectors, so they've since stopped. I still don't understand what Ford when they decided to use their radar blocking film on a police car's windshield.z
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 8:19:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/14/2002 8:20:34 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis police crusiers [red]supposidly blowing up[/red] when rear ended by other vheicles and killing their officers. The media here has been harping about this here in Arizona all week. And its driving me crazy. Because they are all WRONG.
View Quote
"supposedly"?!? Tell Officer Jason Schechterle that he is only [b]"supposedly"[/b] suffering from 3rd and 4th degree burns over his whole body: [img]http://www.azcentral.com/slideshows/gifs/1125jason3.jpg[/img][img]http://www.azcentral.com/slideshows/gifs/1125Jason1.jpg[/img] [url=http://www.azcentral.com:80/news/articles/0510jason10-ON.html]Cabbie gets 12 years for crash that burned officer[/url] Besides the Ford Pinto, how often have you heard of the same model of cars exploding into flames when rear ended??
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 9:40:59 AM EDT
I just wish that Chevrolet would bring back the Caprice. Cancelling production of that car has to be one of the dumber things GM ever did. GunLvr
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 9:42:45 AM EDT
What is sad is that the Crown Vic is the only acceptable product out there as a patrol car. The new "impala" is simply too small. The SUV's dont handle well enough, not even when lowered and with suspension upgrades. The Crown vic is a good car. I even prefer it to the older Checy's we still have in service.
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 1:45:46 PM EDT
Macallan That is a VERY dumb thing posting the Schechterle case. The drunk cabbie that hit him was doing 100 miles a hour according to accident investigators. NO sedan sold in the us would have failed to catch fire. Certainly no rear drive sedan. Even the Impala and Intrepid, which have their tanks in front of the rear axle line would probably have caught fire- since the rear end of Schecterle's CV was moved almost three feet forward by the impact. The only vheicles demonstrated to take a 100 mile an hour impact into a obstical and not explode is a NASCAR stock car. And as to "name another vheicle" you just hit another point. They dont name another vheicle. They are condemming the Crown Vic WITHOUT comparing it to other models of car on the road. In fact they aren't even comparing it to the thousands of Crown Victoria TAXI CABS on the road. The CV also happens to be the most common taxi in the US as well as the most common police car. Police Crown Vics are exploading because police use puts them in positions where they are more likely to be rear ended by people who are speeding. Period. Also, its true that SUV's don't handle as well as the sedans- but I wasn't suggesting that you use SUV's. For one thing- most SUV's have their fuel tanks moved behind the rear axle to accomidate additional side doors on a shorter wheelbase. You wouldn't solve the problem. I said use TRUCKS Ford, Chevy, and Dodge 1500 series 4 door pickups w/ 6ft beds and the 4 door Dodge Dakota. In 2wd. They are no higher than the sedans, are wider, can fit bigger tires and brakes, have more carrying capacity, and have their fuel tanks mounted in a safer position. They are also all more powerful and faster than the sedans. SUV's are simply built with bodies that are too tall- on top of manditory 4wd underpinnings- to not have a bad effect on handling. They are not suitable for general police purposes.
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 3:50:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Macallan That is a VERY dumb thing posting the Schechterle case. The drunk cabbie that hit him was doing 100 miles a hour according to accident investigators.
View Quote
I think you missed the point of my response. I objected to your use of the term "supposedly". It ignored the facts and seemed like a cold-hearted attempt to trivialize and dismiss the entire subject. It was YOUR use of the phrase "police crusiers [red]supposidly blowing up[/red] when rear ended" that was stupid. I just graphically pointed it out.
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: And as to "name another vheicle" you just hit another point. They dont name another vheicle. They are condemming the Crown Vic WITHOUT comparing it to other models of car on the road. In fact they aren't even comparing it to the thousands of Crown Victoria TAXI CABS on the road. The CV also happens to be the most common taxi in the US as well as the most common police car. Police Crown Vics are exploading because police use puts them in positions where they are more likely to be rear ended by people who are speeding. Period.
View Quote
Fair enough. If you're right then when (or if) it is properly investigated the facts should bear this out.
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 4:07:04 PM EDT
"Besides the Ford Pinto, how often have you heard of the same model of cars exploding into flames when rear ended??" the ford mustang ('65-'66 models)...gas tank dropped into trunk to install. in effect, the top of the gas tank was the "floor" of the trunk. yes, it saved manufacturing costs...but ford payed out millions of dollars to crash/burn victims and their families. in a rear ender, even relatively low spead ones, the tank ruptured, the hardboard tank cover and rear seat back were thrown forward by the impact force...and gasoline sprayed forward into the front of the interior. the early mustang and pinto were notorious fire hazards. then again, i own a 1985 fiero...aka the "keep a close eye on your oil and coolant levels" car! and yes...i have seen at least three fiero's self-imolate (none due to collision).
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 6:03:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Macallan That is a VERY dumb thing posting the Schechterle case. The drunk cabbie that hit him was doing 100 miles a hour according to accident investigators.
View Quote
I think you missed the point of my response. I objected to your use of the term "supposedly". It ignored the facts and seemed like a cold-hearted attempt to trivialize and dismiss the entire subject. It was YOUR use of the phrase "police crusiers [red]supposidly blowing up[/red] when rear ended" that was stupid. I just graphically pointed it out.
View Quote
I can't speak for ArmdLbrl, but I think he was trying to point out that one Crown Vic catching on fire doesn't make a trend. How many of them are in service? 10,000? 50,000? What percentage of these would have to catch fire when rearended in order for it to be a design flaw and not merely random chance? It sounds a lot like a lawsuit I read about, where a woman's car left the road for some reason, rolled violently several times (she'd been doing 75mph or so before leaving the road), and during one of those rolls she was ejected when a door flew open. She sued the automaker, saying the car had a design flaw because the door shouldn't have opened, and because it did she got ejected. Now, is it realistic to expect a car door to NEVER fly open when the car rolls several times at 75mph? If it happens to ONE car, does this mean it's a design flaw, or simply bad luck? If she had been wearing her seatbelt, would she have been ejected? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't consider it a design flaw if 1% of a particular model car catch fire when rearended at high speeds. Same goes for 5%, and probably even 10%. I think the relevant factor is speed, not design. If 5% or 10% of the same car model caught on fire after being rearended in parking lot fenderbenders, THEN I'd say there's a design flaw.
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 6:15:39 PM EDT
Are CV/PIs available to the Public? or are the LEO Only?
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 6:54:14 PM EDT
while you're at it, may as well blame Ford for all those Firestone tire failures too [whacko]
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 7:19:28 PM EDT
I dunno, anybody remember the Ford Lifebox ambulance's in the mid 80's, that used to have the electrical fires, and burn up so fast you barely had time to get the patient out the back doors and then hope your O2 cylinder did not blow. Kinda gave new meaning to the old F-O-R-D Found On Road Dead saying.
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 7:54:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: The only vheicles demonstrated to take a 100 mile an hour impact into a obstical and not explode is a NASCAR stock car.
View Quote
ANY race car, not just the insipid NASCAR. They didn't develop it. It was used first in sports car racing about 10 years before NECKCAR ever started using them. Most safety innovations for racing and for the street came from sports car racing, not NECKCAR.
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 9:40:12 PM EDT
Considering the cars are Fords, why is anyone surprised there blowing up?
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 9:51:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/14/2002 9:53:53 PM EDT by Mortech]
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By Mortech: ? I won't be surprised if the Chevy dealers were behind it , they did take a pounding in some police circles after the InstaClear windshield fiasco .
View Quote
Explain this fiasco, if you would?
View Quote
Lets see , how do I make it short , lets say certain state patrol purchasing officer order quite a few new Chevy Caprice for use in normal radar patrol . In this state the use K band radar units putting out a nominal 100mW of power . Interesting thing is that metal reflects radar beams and the officers usually leave them on full time . Most people don't realize that radar emmissions are classified as 'ionizing radiation' . So this means state patrol officers were running around for a few weeks have this radiation being reflected back at them for hours at a time by the metallic coating on the windshield . Seems some bright person put up a stink in with in a couple of weeks most of the vehicles were mothballed except for detective/office fleet use . In the end I noticed they ended up buying Crown Victorias and alot of the smaller police depts and tribal police depts ended up with some pretty new Caprices .
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 10:39:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/14/2002 10:40:43 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: The only vheicles demonstrated to take a 100 mile an hour impact into a obstical and not explode is a NASCAR stock car.
View Quote
Obviously then, police cars (which very often are needed to travel at those high speeds) CAN be made MUCH safer. The fuel system protection of police cars should be constructed like NASCAR stock cars because that's often how they need to be driven. Take the ten zillion dollars that Ford/Mercury will certainly spend in legal defenses and class action settlements and retrofit or produce NASCAResque protection for its entire line of highspeed cop cars.
Link Posted: 6/15/2002 4:59:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ECS: while you're at it, may as well blame Ford for all those Firestone tire failures too [whacko]
View Quote
I think Ford had more to do with it than Firestone did, telling people to lower the air pressure in the tires if they didn't like their vehicle's stiff (i.e., truck-like) ride. But the majority of the blame still rests on the shoulders of the people who didn't know how to handle a tread separation, blowout, whatever. Of course, what do you expect from people whose natural reaction to a car making a right turn in front of them is to swerve left, into the oncoming traffic lane, so they don't have to wait?
Link Posted: 6/15/2002 10:13:38 AM EDT
ADTECHARMS, I don't know about the CV/PI, but this summer the new Marauder will be available. Better, more fun car...[url=http://www.mercuryvehicles.com/vehicles/marauder/default.asp]2003 Mercury Marauder[/url] No motor vehicle with a rear-mounted fuel tank can be expected to survive a 60+ mph rear end collision without fuel leakage. The feds test to what, 35 mph? There's way more energy involved in a 60 mph collision. Cars rarely "blow up" from a fuel tank rupture like they do in the movies. Unless the fuel is atomized then ignited, it's more like what you see when a NASCAR Cup car fuel tank goes up. The one I witnessed at an accident scene was like that. Most of this is crap. It's the hysterical ramblings of lawyers trying to make money and/or a name/rep for themselves. Yes, officers have been killed and injured in post-collision fires and that's a sad thing. But so far, there doesn't seem to be a design flaw here. A note: GM ultimately won nearly all of the pickup fire suits, including the one that resulted in the $105 million judgement. They are expected to prevail on appeal on the $5 billion judgement in the LA case. Ford won the bulk of the Pinto cases, too. The design was consistant with industry standards of the time.
Link Posted: 6/15/2002 10:56:24 AM EDT
There's been over a half MILLION police CVs made according to the article. That's not even counting the civvie ones. That's a pretty large population, and I find it hard to beleive there's a huge danger of this. I think there is a danger of it, just not a huge one based on how many are in service. Ford is doing the standard dumb thing though and just performing eye-wash fixes for the current fleet. On the CrownVic board, the service guys are saying all the fix is, is to grind down some sharp points on the suspension. I just don't see that as an effective fix for a 65MPH hit. I mean why bother? Of course the answer is to make Ford look like it's actually doing something, without having to do anything. Gotta love big business. In the Army, our Aviation post-crash fires dropped significantly after crash-worthy fuel cells were used. We still have post-crash fires though. I don't think the risk can ever be eliminated in a patrol car unless you quit using gasoline. Crashworthy fuel cells would probably be a good idea as an option, as the car companies could make some extra money, and many departments would probably spring for it if the cost is spread out over the fleet. If any of the car makers start with a crashworthy tank, the others will have to follow anyway. I can see the reason to investigate the risk, but right now, I just don't see it as a high risk compared to the other possibile ways to die in a 65MPH car crash. Ross
Link Posted: 6/15/2002 10:57:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ADTECHARMS: Are CV/PIs available to the Public? or are the LEO Only?
View Quote
You can buy them as a civillian, just not from Ford. The Merc Marauder is the closest thing, an in fact it's a better car than the CV/PI. Of course it's not a 95 Impalla SS, but what is?[;)] Ross
Link Posted: 6/15/2002 6:50:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NH2112:
Originally Posted By ECS: while you're at it, may as well blame Ford for all those Firestone tire failures too [whacko]
View Quote
I think Ford had more to do with it than Firestone did, telling people to lower the air pressure in the tires if they didn't like their vehicle's stiff (i.e., truck-like) ride. But the majority of the blame still rests on the shoulders of the people who didn't know how to handle a tread separation, blowout, whatever. Of course, what do you expect from people whose natural reaction to a car making a right turn in front of them is to swerve left, into the oncoming traffic lane, so they don't have to wait?
View Quote
True enough, but still, if lowering tire pressure say 5 psi is enough to cause blowouts, then there was no margin of saftey in the tires to begin with..thats my point.
Link Posted: 6/15/2002 7:30:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/15/2002 7:33:54 PM EDT by Dave_G]
Ross, Apples and Oranges. Comparison of military helicopters costing millions to a $23,000 automobile is absurd. The helicopter fuel cells in question cost more than the whole car. The odds of a significant fuel tank failure as the result of a high-speed (65+) rear end collision is very high on just about every vehicle with a rear-mounted fuel tank. Fires are likely if the conditions are right. Sure, they could design a race-type fuel cell for the police Crown Vic, but they would be so expensive that few, if any, agencies would buy them except on new vehicles, and then only if they were required equipment. Short of a major redesign and a much more expensive vehicle, all Ford can do is minimize the hazard by directing the removal/softening of sharp edges. The Feds set the standard at no fuel tank leakage from a rear-end collision at 35mph. The CV meets that spec. Bitch at the Feds, not Ford. The problem is very, very small across the fleet, civilian and law enforcement.
Top Top