From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Consumer Reports
Date: 6 Jun 94 15:46:00 GMT

-> I can't remember where I saw this, but it was "a motorist's
-> nightmare:  sitting at a light behind a Pinto (exploding gas
-> tanks), with an Audi 5000 behind you (unintended accelration),m a
-> Chevy pickup beside you (exploding gas tanks), and a Samurai
-> turning left into the pickup! (roll-over)

exploding Pintos:  rag stuffed in fuel neck, rear-ended at >40mph
                   (60 Minutes didn't tell you there was no gas cap)

Audi 5000:  "unintended acceleration" claims found invalid by the
            NHTSA  (was originally a "60 Minutes" expose)

exploding pickups:  Dateline expose was faked.  (you should start
                    wondering how much of the "news" you watch is fake)

overturning Samurais: so what?  You can roll Jeeps too.

From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Consumer Reports
Date: 7 Jun 94 16:12:00 GMT

-> : exploding Pintos:  rag stuffed in fuel neck, rear-ended at >40mph :
->                    (60 Minutes didn't tell you there was no gas cap)

> And all this time I thought is was exposed bolts ramming into the
> metal gas tank, rupturing it.

 Nope.  The "official" reason for the fires was fuel running out of the
(uncapped) filler tube when the car got hit, then being ignited by the
muffler near the fuel tank.  The official Ford recall repair was to add
a piece of sheet metal as a splash guard for the muffler.

 Mustang IIs, which had an identical rear tank/muffler configuration,
were not recalled.  Maybe because people tended not to drive around in
Mustang IIs with rags stuffed in the filler necks.