The Complaint Department

I should not have said that about that thread. It started off on a good note but went south later on. I try to give every thread a chance to straighten itself out before I actually act. This thread could have gone in a far better directiuon from the beginning, but failed to with no help from yours truly.

Sorry

Let us not forget about what are friend Ron Jeremy loves to complain about, price of the car. If they had to engineer that into it, how would it have impacted cost?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/05/17/60II/main47539.shtml

http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=96&did=828

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1977/09/dowie.html

http://www.evangelical-friends.org/north-america/voice/december2003/

These are just a few links to name a few. Each one either directly involves mustangs, or at least mentions their propensity for fuel detonation. When I get back later I will try to find the article with the aftermath pictures of the mustangs that have exploded. Sure enough, in most of the situations where the driver could not get out because the car had caught fire, it was because the doors had jammed shut.
The new mustang does not have a rear fuel door because it would be too strong of a safety concern. For people like Ron that believe it is the communists/socialists that make up this paranoia, I would love for one of you to talk to one of the people who have had a family member die in something like this. I think they may beg to differ. Ron, anytime I see a post written with you as the author, I find they often lack intelligent thought. Gas tanks mounted behind the rear axle is a design of the past, and if you get under any of todays cars, you will find that the gas tank is never mounted there anymore. Look at the facts, before you make yourself look like an a**.

The normal side of me wants to say and But the moderator in me has to tell everyone to play nice.

As for the decorative emblem on the back of the car being a functional fuel filler.....well, that's a shame that it isn't. I think that the running horse emblems should be functional as well. What's with Ford?

We miss normal Tyler

I would love to see a rear fill. To get from the rear to the tank under the rear seat would be a fun journey. Maybe they could make the fill tube clear like a crazy straw

I think a rear mounted filler would be almost impossible.
for one, our tanks on the old rear fillers are vented.
can't do that today. they are sealed for emissions.
yes, the old car's pollute while standing still in our driveways.

the filler tube needs to handle the flow and pressure of today's modern gas pumps and nozzles. I have trouble making the nozzles not spill any gas down my rear valance and bumpers because the filler tube cannot relieve the pressure unless you hold the nozzle at a certain angle and press it hard to shove the nozzle down the tube as far as it can go.

and yes, modern placement of the gas tank is much better then our old cars.
people like ron jeremy need to think before they post.
old mustang tanks are a drop in design. the top of the tank IS the trunk floor.
it doesn't take much of an impact to dislodge and tear the tank, causing the fuel to slosh forward into the passenger compartment.
newer tanks are mounted to where they are protected from most impacts.

It would take a sacrifice in accessibility for the trunk, but I know that Ford *could* engineer a fill solution that would work. Routing a 1" pipe to the tank would not be *that* difficult, it could probably be done with minimal/no intrusion to the trunk. And it could be engineered to disconnect from the tank in a collision and leave the tank sealed. None of these are really that hard of an engineering problem. But it would add money, for a feature that is at best of debateable value -- I could fill my car from either side, whoop-e-ding. I don't mind filling from the side, and if it saves a few bucks then I'm all for it.

Dave

Hmmm, I didn't know mine was vented, I'll have to check it out. And yeah, the gas tank really is the floor, man, I feel better about getting hit from behind all the time.

That rear fill really sucks, I once washed and waxed my car (right after a nice new coat of paint had been applied) and then went to fill it up, the gas ran over all over my new paint and valance, I was pissed. I remember now to always bring a rag and stand there making sure it doesn't run over.

As someone who many years ago was a professional gas pump jockey, I can tell you that 1960's Ford Falcons, Mustangs and some of the Fairlanes with the gas filler in the center were a total pain in the but. Most of them couldn't be filled up at full speed as they would spit back at you and they almost aways would spit back when the pump clicked off.

IMHO this thread is getting ridiculous, the filler is on the side, it is never going to be on the rear again. Get over it and move on to something else!

Since the 2005 Stang is Retro why not put the gas cap behind the licence plate like on old cars.

I give up :damnit:

What a ridiculous thread....

Yeah, I'm sure there's a way for Ford to engineer a rear fill for nostalgia's sake. But, if they are smart (and they are), they would cerrtainly not waste engineering manpower on non-saleable (and perhaps risky) features. Would they sell more cars with a rear fill? After all, who currently manufactures a car with a rear fill that could "steal" a sale from Ford? Better yet, what kind of yutz would even make the filler location a consideration when purchasing a car?

Ford makes cars with features that give them their best opportunity to sell alot of them to make more money. That is what being a "business" is about. Nobody at Ford will take a pay cut so they can keep building Mustangs after they squander their engineering budget making ridiculous features for nostalgia's sake. Would you rather have the rear fill if they were to have shifted their engineering resources and gave up the variable valve timing 3V V-8 engine? Not likely.

Let's hope this thread ends soon...I'm getting stupider just reading it....

PK

You guys want REAR fill THAT bad, go buy a 90's Caprice, put some ponys on the side and MUSTANG letters accross the windshield and be done with it.

Sometimes it's easier to

Here, I'll sum it all up.

Who gives a s*** whether the gascap is on the side or the rear. Its a freaking gascap for god sakes.

2005 Stang is Retro

Here's the way i see it. rear fuel door on 99-03 mustang No reason too

But when Ford comes out with it's new design 05' mustang.. there going restro look

Int gauges looks restro.. body line looks old school 65- fastback-
68 tail lights look-

' I guess it's better to have a fake rear filler then not to have that at all'
fake one will still add the look to rear end.



But why are they putting the fuel door on Drive side now ?
Mustangs have not had it on drive side since 74-78 mustang II

When you see pics on cars in Mags, 75%-80% you will see drivers side.
it's just looks better for some reason.

Keep the fuel door on pass side.

Perhaps I should post a poll and let everyone vote whether I should lock and delete this thread to keep us all from getting any dumber, or should I let it keep going and see just how low we can go.

Technically, there has been nothing done in this forum that is considered being against the rules, but I have a bad feeling it will end up that way.

Perhaps everyone can ignore this post before certain members lose even more credibility with the rest of the forum.

My vote is lock and delete. Some of the arguments for rear fill in here give me a headache.