|
|
Post by gm4ever on Jun 1, 2011 9:36:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 65stang on Jun 1, 2011 14:20:42 GMT -5
That would be fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by gm4ever on Jun 1, 2011 15:06:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gm4ever on Jun 1, 2011 15:13:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 65stang on Jun 1, 2011 23:21:01 GMT -5
LOL... Well I guess it would be fun until someone gets rearended. I thought that the rear end colission fires had something to do with the turn signal or rear lights being on. Was that the case? My Dad's friend from work had a brown/gold one that was in nice shape that he used as a daily driver through the 80s-90s. Here is one someone fixed up, and a hot rod one. www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHe8nPG1k-0www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnX7AB7iwVs&feature=related |
|
|
|
Post by agshelby on Jun 2, 2011 8:45:40 GMT -5
LOL... Well I guess it would be fun until someone gets rearended. The Pintos were unfairly singled out for the rear gas tank issues. Most cars from the 60s (including mustangs) had the gas tank double as the trunk floor and the rear seat as a barrier for the passengers. In a rear end collision the gas tank can rupture and spread gas to the passengers. I remember that there was a 60 minutes show back in the 90s on early mustangs that pushed the same story line. They sell a fire barrier for mustang coupes and convertibles as a result of the panic this show caused. I think that the pintos and mavericks can make a neat little car. Their style is much cleaner than the mustang II and they can be made to perform with a 302 drivetrain. www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/05/17/60II/main47539.shtml |
|
|
|
Post by 65stang on Jun 2, 2011 11:11:49 GMT -5
I entirely agree. The Maverick and the Pinto look much better than the Mustang II. I like both of them. What's that link for? It just goes to their site.
|
|
|
|
Post by 65stang on Jun 2, 2011 11:15:25 GMT -5
I knew about the safety barrier and have thought about getting it. I'm not sure why they designed it the way with the tank as the floor.
|
|
