Here is what you said: “Something like an overheating U-joint could be an ignition source.”
This is what Rick and I questioned. So yes, we’re saying it wasn’t a contributing factor. The most likely source would be the catalytic converter or a dragging brake but if any of the brakes got that hot it would greatly affect braking action.
So, you’d let me cut one of those fuel lines, ignite the leak, and sit on the seat with all the protection that the SOLID METAL cover gives you? How much heat do you think conducts right through that SOLID METAL and right into your seat? How long before “SOLID” METAL changes phases into liquid and gas at those kind of temperatures, what with the moving exterior air acting like a blast furnace?
Certainly, I’d rather experience a fuel fire from the back seat in that kind of setup, but still, there’s not a whole lot of distance between passengers and fuel lines/tank. Heat conducts *quite *well through metal, and when the vehicle is moving and causing the air to act like a blast furnace, it doesn’t take long before anything on the other side of that metal (whether the metal is still solid, or especially if it’s not) is also on fire.
The differential is a potential source. I have personally seen a differential unit that caught fire. There is a significant amount of power lost in the right-angle drive gearing in there (part of the reason front-wheel-drive vehicles are more efficient), and if there’s a problem that causes increased friction, things can spiral out of control in a hurry: more heat, more friction, even more heat, and so on. An inattentive driver may not notice that the engine is struggling to maintain the vehicle’s speed, and so the fire can become well-established before anyone notices. It’s in a bad spot, typically close to the fuel tank and directly beneath the trunk, so heat from it stands a good chance of igniting either fuel or trunk lining.
You are not talking about a normal vehicle; you are talking about a vehicle rebuilt to nearly double its design weight, possibly higher with ten people on board. You’re talking about a 14-year old overstressed vehicle built for glam, glitz, comfort and flash, not for durability and safe failure. A vehicle rebuilt by someone a bit less skilled and bound to engineering details than Ford’s design team.
I think a poorly maintained driveline on such a vehicle could easily have been a cause from either spot overheating or sparks (from, say, a 20+ foot driveline out of position because of a worn U-joint). Remember also that these vehicles tend to have sectional drivelines with multiple U-joints… all of which is sized and placed to allow the flattest floor possible, meaning the design is probably undersized and thus subject to even greater stress and unsafe failure.
Even if it is something more likely, like a broken fuel return line pooling fuel in the trunk and set off by any hot spot or spark, it will almost certainly trace to a combination of (1) poor design related to the gross extension of the vehicle and/or (2) poor design related to the aim of comfort and luxury over safety and/or (3) failure of a component not designed for such overloaded service for 14 years.
There is also the issue of being able to notice driveline, brake and fuel problems; the vehicle is so ungainly and poorly responding that it could take a long time for a driver (who had only driven this vehicle five or six times in all) to notice failing rear brakes, fuel issues, a noisy diff or driveshaft, etc. Maybe he will say “I thought something was wrong and was going to look at it when we unloaded” - but by then it was too late.
ETA: A poorly maintained differential covered in the usual road grease could easily flash into flame; it happens on heavy equipment. While it may be rare on road cars for a reason, this was not a normal vehicle; age, overload and inability to detect problems could have all made it possible. I would still put the bet on fuel-line failure.
If you look at the picture of the moving burning car it is pretty obvious the fuel tank was not on fire to start with. Most of the flames are from the trunk/passenger compartment. There is some glow visible below the car but no real flames.
If the fuel tank had been the cause there would be a trail of burning gas on the ground behind the car. Also in a fire at or near the fuel pump the wires to the fuel pump would fail in very short order causing the pump to shut down and the engine to stall. The engine did not stall so again this points to the fuel pump not being the source of the fire.
Fun fact. When they build limos they often don’t get the driveshafts centered when they weld in the extension. This causes driveshafts to fail at a few thousand miles. I know of a junkyard in South LA that does driveshafts on limos as a sideline. First time I went there there was about 10 limos parked outside this scummy junkyard. I thought I was going to a mob meet.
None of those limos were burned.
In my career I have changed hundreds if not thousands of u-joints. I have changed joints that have been ground to rusty dust. I have seen joint freeze to the point that they caused the bellhousing to break.
I have never seen any evidence of overheating on a failed u-joint. So unless you have evidence that this occurs how about we drop u-joints.?
Amateur Barbarian, you make it sound like limo builders are actively setting out to build death traps!
Overall, I’d guess limos are about as safe as school buses.
In regards to flammable material, I saw that several of the nurses were on an exchange program from the Phillipines and one of my first questions was if they had brought finery with them to wear which wasn’t flame resistant.
At any rate it’s a horrible story to ponder. But in trying to find some early answers to how this could happen I bumped into a brief video taken by someone who was driving by as the car sat there in flames and found myself angry.
Here was this vehicle, flames roaring from the back, sitting on the bridge, people obviously inside, including the driver. He didn’t react very swiftly to what was happening. And a multitude of cars were slowly cruising past. None of those people passing had the slightest urge to get out and try to help?
I guess eventually a few citizens did, firemen among them, thank goodness. But apparently something in the vehicle was smoldering and when the door was opened the driver said the flames burst out. It was damned if you do; damned if you don’t at that point.
I seriously doubt that. Aftermarket limos (a car purchased from a manufacturer, and then modified) are not subject to the regulations for all cars. School buses must meet even higher standards. That’s not to say mechanical failures in school buses or limos are all that common though. The main problem I hear about limos is that they break down because the original car they are made from is overstressed from the heavier loads.
Excellent user name / post combo.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but front wheel drive cars have differentials. Otherwise the wheels would drag going around corners. There are additional gears involved transmitting this power versus a conventional rear wheel drive car. In addition to that they have constant velocity joints which are subject to failure when the boots around disintegrate.
The problem isn’t the fire wall, which this plate you described would be an engineered piece of. There isn’t going to be a blast furnace under you. Even though your example has nothing to do with the Lincoln car the resulting problem is going to be the same in both cars.
There’s going to be flames and smoke which make their way into the interior through the venting system. When the drive pulled over the smoke ceased moving with the air flow and proceeded to engulf the car. The women went from experiencing the smell of smoke to a vehicle engulfed in it. In literally a few seconds the women have to decide the best course of action before suffocating and passing out. The normal exit doors are in back and are now surrounded by flames. They are dealing with a passenger compartment filling with smoke at night.
This is what killed them.
What they brought with them from the Phillipines that was mostly harmful was a heavy accent. I saw one of them on TV and now understand why the driver did not understand their original conversation.
Do you have a cite for this? In my earlier cite of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards repeatedly refers to Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.)
Not just their accent, but an unfortunate choice of words: their first complaint to the driver was of “smoke, smoke, smoke,” and the driver thought they wanted to pull over so they could step out for a cigarette, and didn’t feel any urgency until they kept pounding and screaming. 
This post in the other threadhas the cite for the different standards for limos depending on how they are manufactured. I don’t recall details about school bus regulations, but there are some that only apply to school buses. However, I don’t know that those apply to the aspects of manufacture we are discussing here. Some are certainly additional safety features applicable only to school buses, and may vary by state.
One of the people whose video has been used on several news sources has repeatedly said that he has absolutely no idea that anyone was in the vehicle.
How were you able to see that people were inside through the blacked out windows and closed doors?
On the radio today (this happened not far from me) they said that there are aftermarket limo shops certified by the original manufacturer, but that there are some not certified which are of course cheaper. The limo was overloaded, but by only one person. There was some discussion about someone noticing sparks on the bottom as if the suspension got shot and the read started dragging. This depends also on where the women were sitting.
I don’t think they know who did the conversion yet.
I am unable to find the initial video I saw. And I certainly hadn’t planned to ever look at it again.
All of the versions I took time to look at had been edited for brevity. Perhaps you can find it. You can very clearly see the driver’s head in the first video. I’m just plain done watching that one more time.
And I did find one from a news broadcast where you can see a woman’s profile.
They have been copied and edited so there is a difference in the light quality in them. In some the windows just look dark.
It’s not surprising that the driver didn’t notice everything about the car. He was driving in bumper-to-bumper traffic and holding what must be a cell phone which, in the original I saw, he had to adjust to keep it pointed at the limo.
I’d prefer he had been dialing 911.
In the first report right after the accident the driver said he pulled more than one of the women from the limo and that turned out to be incorrect. People aren’t always trained to remember detail in emergencies.
The cars still have to meet the standards I cited. And as the article you cited states there are few companies that do this. It’s too expensive to have a car randomly chopped and stretched. by economic default it has to be done on a mass level.
One interesting note in the article and that was the last paragraph:
“There is nothing wrong with having these older models on the road. Many have low mileage and immaculate interiors because we take care of them. But when these cars start getting older and the rubber boots wear out, they start running hot,” Jacobs said. “The key is you have to keep doing all the right maintenance to make sure they’re running smoothly.”
They’re talking about the air ride system in the Lincolns. Rick might be able to add something to this.
