The Complaint Department

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by sweet~Low~93, Dec 31, 2003.

  1. 05' Side fuel door WTF !!

    What's up with the 05' fuel door. ? Is there some dam law were you can't fill up in rear anymore. A rear fuel door would have been sweet on the new 05'

    Rear thing fake on 05' not going to be fuel door.

    Any law were you have to have 3rd Brake light ?

    Looks so dam sick on 05' :bang:

    Needs something done to the Hood for sure . to flat [ Aftermarket :owned:
  2. i agree, a rear fuel door would be soo much cooler. i have one and i like it in the middle :)
    and last i checked, there is fed. law requiring a 3rd brake light
  3. I understand what you are trying to say, but would you mind translating it so those of us who do not speak jibberish can understand it a bit better?

    The rear fill is nearly impossible in a car designed in such a way as the 05 is. Have you seen the trunk area in a 65 Mustang? They have a filler tube right in the middle of the trunk. That is with the rear mounted trunk too. Now imagine if the gas tank were set forward a couple of feet and needed to be filled from the rear. It then becomes an engineering nightmare. But if you want them to stick with cars that explode on rear impact, by all means, they should stick it the gas tank and filler right in the back just for you.

  4. I know what your saying about the old 65' tanks etc.

    But really , how hard would it be to make it a rear filler Design
    Don't you think they 30+ yrs later you could Engineer the design for Safer rear filler.

    With all the time they had to design everything on this car and they add a fake fuel door.

    "there is fed. law requiring a 3rd brake light"

    That sucks, always just shave it off.
    What's the law = all 2-4 door pass. cars need 3rd brake light
  5. It wouldn't be an engineering nightmare to have a rear fuel door. Just make the Mustang like it was in the 60's and early 70's. The current 2005 design is basically the same so there would be no problem having a fuel door in the back of the car. And who cares about the car exploding from a rear end collision. I haven't seen any of the 60's and early 70's Mustangs explode from a rear end collision. That's a bunch of BS. Only the environmentalists and the socialists wouldn't want a rear fuel door in a car.
  6. The design is the same? :nonono:
    They don't explode on high speed rear impact? I guess the tens of thousands of folks buying tank armor for their cars and installing it in classic Mustangs are all retarded then. :nonono:

    EDIT: Who cares if they explode on rear impact? Ever been rear ended at a high speed? I have. I was at a dead stop and the other guy hit me doing 55MPH. Good thing I wasn't in a Mustang :rolleyes:

    How can you say either of these things and expect to be taken seriously? Do you know anything about classic Mustangs? Just because 2 cars are simular in appearance does not mean they are the same structurally. The 2005 gas tank was moved forward to aid in weight distributuion and to prevent them from exploding on impact. Even the SN95 will explode on high speed rear impact. Come on already. If you are going to make claims that you know something as fact, at least take the time to research them before you state them.
  7. I too have also been in a rear end collision. And the person that rear ended me was on the highway doing 60+ MPH. I was going 40+ MPH. Nothing happened to me. Not even a scratch. And the funny thing about this was that I was driving a 1985 Honda Civic S Hatchback. Yes, a Honda Civic Hatchback. The gas tank was right under the seat and the rear end impact went as far as the rear seat. Nothing happened. The whole rear part of the car up to the rear seats was crushed. The gas tank was untouched and there was no gasoline leak. And the car didn't blow up. Don't you love that? I know that I did.

    So my point here is that if someone like me together with a teenie weenie Honda Civic hatchback can survive a 60+ MPH rear end collision, then a LARGER car like the Mustang can do better in an accident. The Mustang is a VERY safe car to begin with. I am not worried if there is a rear fuel door on it. The 60's and early 70's Mustangs had it and they are still on the road today without blowing up. I beleive that they are safer than my 1985 Honda Civic Hatchback that I once owned which got rear ended on the highway. What do you think?
  8. I think that if you were doing 40 and he was doing 60, then you already had forward momentum. This means that you were hit at what would be considered 20 to 30 MPH. Do a search on BON about rear end collisions and Mustangs exploding. When the SN95 Verts get hit hard enough, not only do they burst into flames, but the doors get jammed shut and you cannot escape. Ask around the classic forum about it. I own a 65 and have done my homework. They explode on high impact. period. But you are young and death cannot touch you. I spent 3 month in a neck brace and physical thearopy only to live the rest of my life with ongoing neck and back problems. Why, because there were no head rests in the car I was in. your 85 Civic had 20 years of collision technology on the 65. Crumple zones and shields do a lot for you in a wreck. The classics did not have these.

    All I ask is that you do a little studying before you run your mouth about what you think you know.
  9. I am 40 years old. I have a bad back too. FORUM RULE # 3 Anyways, I understand what you are saying here. We need more stupid safety and pollution laws and restrictions on cars so the environmentalists and socialists in this country can dictate to us what to drive. Get it thru your head man. Cars are safer than ever. If you are scared of driving a Mustang because it may explode in a rear end collision maybe you need to get a different car. There is no need for the socialists to put more restrictions on vehicles anymore. I know for a fact that the socialist/communist idiot Al Gore was trying to get a thing going in this country while he was vice president to BAN the combustible engine. I'm glad that he didn't become president. What bothers me is that the environmentalists and socialists in this country are trying to take away our rights by giving us stupid pollution and emissions laws and safety restrictions on automobiles. It's all stupid and communistic.
  10. I am going to make this as simple as possible for you. I warned you in another thread regarding the fact that this is a family site, NO ADULT CONTENT!!!! If I see it again, it is the end of Ron Jeremy on SN.

    That being said, I am in no way afraid of my car exploding. I only used my story to show you that it happens. People get into accidents. I do not need to buy a different car, do you want to know why? Because I have tank armor. This keeps the fire out of the cabin of the car long enough to escape if it did erupt into flames.

    I will not get into a political debate about socialists and environmentalists. I drive a car that make envirofreaks cry like little girls whenever I drive by. What do I care? But the fact still stands, you and I are out numbered. There are far more people in the world who would rather us drive 5000 LB armored cars that get 5000 MPG then there are people like us. We just have to get used to it.
  11. Hot damn Ron you make such a good point I think I'll go get a Pinto and a Crown Vic cut the front ends off grant the rears together and try my luck.
  12. There is no way that the Mustang could have the fuel filler in the rear and meet the current rear end impact requirements, let alone the more stringent future requirements. The gas tank in the 2005 Mustang is under the rear seat, which is a very safe location.

    It's funny how it always seems that the person who runs around yelling, "I ain't afraid of my gas tank blowin' up" is always the first person to run to a lawyer when it does blow up.

    I don't know tyler65, you were threatening to delete the entire thread "What we don't know about the 2005 Mustang" because you thought it was stupid that people were arguing over the hood prop vs. struts. IMHO this thread is even "stupider"
  13. This maybe stupid but I'll ask anyways. Since that tank is under the rear seat and in front of the rear axle, wouldn't be small because the drive shaft giving it limited space? :shrug:
  14. Hey, didn't anyone notice the fuel door is at least on the left side now. Life is good. :banana:

    2000 White Vert
  15. It will use a saddle tank like the Lincoln LS, that is think of it like motor cycle saddle bags draping over the axle. The Lincoln LS has a 18 gal tank, I sure hope the Mustang has the same.

    One of the articles (M/T?) I think talked about this and said something to the effect that the transmission / driveshaft tunnel & floorpan along with the gas tank were all lifted from the Lincoln LS.

    Yes 2000 White Vert, the gas filler is at long last on the driver's side (where it belongs), so there's at least two of us who are happy. :banana:
  16. re

    did anyone cosider the trunk opening as well? Imagine a gas filler being right at the fake gas cap position... noe you open your trunk and need to lift something over the entire tail and into the trunk. This is why we have the tail section lifting with the deck lid now. It's a convience factor. And one that America has gotten used to. Not to mention what Tyler has been saying wich is a HUGE safety factor.
  17. what are you guys thinking? not with your brains...

    rear filler doors would be insane because
    1-who wants a filler tube in their trunk these days? don't raise your hands at once. believe me when I say that stupid filler tube gets in the way of everything when trying to put stuff in the trunk.
    and the tank sits further up, that would make the tube even more intrusive.
    2-safety. enough said.
    3-function first. novelty second. this isn't as easy as your wing, rims, favorite color.
  18. Yes, I have a 69 Mustang Fastback, that filler neck takes up quite a bit of room, and the trunk is already small enough. I have to agree with Foghorn, exactly what I was going to say.
  19. I dont know about where you guys live.

    But here in the city, when you are at the rear pumps, you hardly have any room to drive the car ALL the way forward, unless you drive a little Honda Hybrid.

    The next car is BOOM right in front of you.

    Not practical where I live.

    I also think its just insane to have it in the rear. I thank Ford for putting it on the DRIVERS SIDE FINALLY!.

  20. Oh, sure, Ford could've engineered a safe, non-intrusive rear fill. But that's a waste of time and money. With the fuel tank located where it is, it's far simpler and more logical to setup a side fill. Look at it this way: if Ford had done a rear fill, something else would not have been developed for the Mustang. Something that might actually matter to the performance of the vehicle. Or does that not matter to you?