Irresponsible Attack on the Integrity of Classic Mustangs Claimed
16 July 1998
Ford: CBS News and 'Public Eye with Bryant Gumbel' Opt for Drama Over Facts; Irresponsible Attack on the Integrity of Classic Mustangs is Unfounded DEARBORN, Mich., July 15 -- The following was released today
by Ford Motor Company :
The CBS program "Public Eye with Bryant Gumbel" has announced that it will
broadcast a story tonight alleging that the fuel systems in 1960s-era Mustangs
are unsafe. The CBS story is based on allegations contained in a lawsuit
filed against Ford in California. Based on the communications we have had
with CBS during the preparation of this report and the wire service reports we
have seen, Ford believes that the facts of the case will not be accurately and
fairly reported by CBS. The following correspondence between Ford and CBS
producers Jonathan Klein and George Osterkamp summarizes our response to the
allegations.
Office of the General Counsel
Ford Motor Company
Parklane Towers West
Suite 300
Three Parklane Boulevard
Dearborn, Michigan 48126-2568
July 15, 1998
Mr. Jonathan Klein, Executive Producer
CBS News
524 West 57th Street
New York, New York 10019
Mr. George Osterkamp, Producer
CBS News
825 Battery Street
Floor One
San Francisco, California 94111
Re: Mustang Flange-Mounted Fuel Tanks/"Public Eye with Bryant Gumbel"
Dear Messrs. Klein and Osterkamp:
Bill George of Ford's Broadcast News Center shared Mr. Osterkamp's May 7,
1998, letter with me. Let me first introduce myself -- I am an in-house Ford
Motor Company attorney who is involved in handling the pending litigation
initiated by Benjamin Hodges through his attorney, David Rand. The fact that
you mention this lawsuit in your correspondence and make reference to
materials produced and/or generated during the pendency of this matter are
indicia that you have been in contact with Mr. Rand and/or his client, Mr.
Hodges. Perhaps Mr. Rand has not shared with you the facts of the Hodges
accident: Ben Hodges was 17-years-old at the time of this accident -- an
inexperienced and uninsured driver; the 1967 Mustang had been "tuned up" by an
acquaintance just prior to the accident; he was driving the Mustang on a
California freeway on a rainy night when it stalled; rather than pull over to
the shoulder of the road, he attempted to restart the engine without success;
he was stopped in his lane of travel when another vehicle traveling 60-65
miles per hour slammed into the rear of the Mustang; a post-collision gasoline
fire, unfortunately, occurred.
The points raised in your May 7 letter appear to be derived largely from
the allegations in the Hodges case. Many of the statements and
representations in your letter appear to be self-selected and incomplete
excerpts from depositions and other documents in Hodges, in disregard of a
balanced and truthful report of the facts.
In the 1960s, a number of automobiles sold in the United States utilized a
"drop-in" or flange-mounted tank like the Mustang including Volvo, Toyota,
Rolls Royce, Fiat, BMW, Audi and others. The flange-mounted tank design was
one of several fuel system design configurations used by vehicle manufacturers
in the 1960-1970 time period. Other vehicles were equipped with strap-on fuel
tanks and a number of foreign cars had over-the-axle fuel tanks with tanks
completely located in the trunk and a filler pipe often routed through the
passenger compartment.
The allegations CBS is making against the first generation Mustang could
equally be made against any car manufactured anywhere in the world during the
l960s. Your statement that "the combination of the drop-in gas tank and the
lack of any solid barrier between the trunk and the passenger compartment may
create a serious risk of explosive fire inside the car in the event of a rear-
end collision" is not only unsubstantiated and untrue, but ignores the fact
that almost all cars manufactured in the 1960s had fuel system components
located in the trunk -- in particular -- a filler pipe extending from the
exterior wall of the vehicle through the trunk and into the fuel tank. This
filler pipe, either free-standing or attached to an exterior panel of the
vehicle, used with a strap-on or over-the-axle fuel tank, could separate from
the tank during a collision and permit gasoline vapors and/or liquid to be
expelled into the trunk of the vehicle. Hence, there is nothing unique in
vehicles with strap-on or over-the-axle tanks that would isolate the trunk
compartment from gasoline vapors and possibly liquid fuel in the event of a
rear or side collision.
Addressing the memo of Mr. Sherman Henson, his deposition in Hodges which
is a matter of public record, indicates that at the time the memo was
prepared, Mr. Henson was a young engineer with Ford Motor Company with no fuel
system design experience. The memo was a draft which was never signed or
approved, and was based on his opinion that if the top of a flange-mounted
tank was somehow violated in a crash fuel vapor could be expelled into the
trunk. The truth is that in "real world," high speed collisions, the
deformation and tearing of metal could readily breach Mr. Henson's suggested
"bulkhead" concept if the vehicles collide so as to deform the area of the
bulkhead. Furthermore, referencing my prior discussion of exposed filler
pipes in the trunk, his observation would have equal application to strap-on
and over-the-axle tanks. This discussion does not address issues of
manufacturing feasibility; serviceability; application in hatch-back, station
wagons, vans, MPV vehicles, etc.
As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) conducted an engineering evaluation of the 1960s Mustang fuel system
in the early 1970s and concluded, based on independent accident data analysis
and its own testing, that "drop-in fuel tank systems present no fire hazard
which does not also exist in strap-on or other similarly located motor vehicle
fuel tank systems." Attached are portions of the deposition transcript of
former Associate Administrator for Motor Vehicle Programs of NHTSA, Robert
Carter, from the Hodges case and the complete closure document generated by
NHTSA in determining that the fuel system in the first generation Mustang did
not present an unreasonable risk to occupant safety. Crash Test 301, which
you reference, was an experimental crash test conducted in the late 1960s.
The test was conducted to evaluate occupant kinematics (movement) not fuel
tank performance. Moreover, the vehicle used in the test was a cobbled
Mustang. Prior to crash, the trunk lid, package tray cover and left door had
all been removed from the vehicle. The test itself was a 30 mile per hour
fixed-barrier rear impact, which even today is not a part of the government's
fuel system integrity crash test standard. It was an extremely severe test --
approximately two (2) times more severe in energy than the current federal
government standard.
Your statement that Ford testified in deposition that "there is no
evidence the test was given to NHTSA" is incomplete and misleading. Ford no
longer has the records, many of which were generated over 30 years ago,
submitted in response to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
request for information on flange-mounted tanks which would confirm which test
reports were provided to NHTSA. What is clear from the NHTSA final report,
however, is that a number of crash tests were provided to the Agency. While
it is true that Ford has "no evidence that this test was given to NHTSA," we
likewise have no evidence that it was not; the testimony was that 20 years
after the investigation was concluded we do not have complete files that would
tell us which test reports had been provided. You will note, Mr. Robert
Carter has testified that for NHTSA's purposes, whether or not Crash Test 301
was included in Ford's submission was immaterial because NHTSA was conducting
its own independent engineering and data analysis assessment of the flange-
mounted tank design and would not have relied upon Ford's crash tests.
With respect to Mr. Rand's crash test in Hodges, Ford Motor Company has
reviewed that crash test film but, unfortunately, plaintiff's expert has not
been deposed on the crash test and we can therefore make no further comment,
other than to note that there was no tank violation or dissemination of fuel
into the trunk or passenger compartment (with or without a solid steel
bulkhead) based upon information provided to us by plaintiff's attorney and an
inspection of the crash vehicle by Ford's experts.
You state that "Ford has paid millions of dollars to settle more than 70
lawsuits arising from this design," and that Ford has chosen to settle all
these suits out of court. Contrary to your statement, several of these
lawsuits were tried, with verdicts in Ford's favor. It is often in the best
interest of the parties and court rules attempt to promote resolution of
lawsuits prior to trial.
As described above: (1) the gas tank configuration and location of the
Ford Mustangs produced during the 1960s were not unique for cars of that
period; (2) the Mustang met or exceeded all industry safety standards
applicable at the time it was manufactured and possessed state-of-the-art
safety technology; (3) the performance of the Mustang fuel system relative to
post-collision fire was comparable to that of other vehicles in its peer
group; and (4) the Mustang was not defective or unreasonably dangerous.
The first generation Mustang, introduced in 1964, was one of the top-
selling vehicles of its era. Its popularity has not diminished over time. In
recent years, an entire industry has developed around the classic Mustang,
with hundreds, if not thousands, of Mustang clubs and aficionados across the
country engaged in activities to preserve and promote the Mustang. A national
media attack on this highly successful vintage sports car some thirty years
after its production is not only unsubstantiated, but presumably of dubious
news value. Stated another way, the fact that there are so many registered
Mustangs in 1998 -- thirty years after production -- is unassailable
"evidence" of the design integrity and performance of this car line.
Very truly yours,
Louis J. Banciu
Counsel
