1992 Kansas Highway Patrol SSP - Page 11

ImEvil1 · #**101** 02-01-2012, 11:45 AM

Thanks for posting the pic. Unfortunately, I don't have any clear pics of the two '92s to see what's stamped on them (D or F). You can see by the build sheet above, though, that's it's marked D, but the cars definitely came with the regular, 4 cylinder LX seats.

BTW, Ford produced an SSP Taurus in '92, so that's probably what the article is referring to, and not an SHO (unless you have something else about it that you didn't post).

Glad you were able to identify your unit number.

1988Bullitt · #**102** 02-01-2012, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImEvil1

Thanks for posting the pic. Unfortunately, I don't have any clear pics of the two '92s to see what's stamped on them (D or F). You can see by the build sheet above, though, that's it's marked D, but the cars definitely came with the regular, 4 cylinder LX seats.

BTW, Ford produced an SSP Taurus in '92, so that's probably what the article is referring to, and not an SHO (unless you have something else about it that you didn't post).

Glad you were able to identify your unit number.

I meant SSP not SHO, sorry. I really don't see what the disagreement is about here, every picture I have seen and posted of the 7 two-tone Kansas SSPs have sport seats in them. I don't even have to go by the certification label or the buck tags (even though they show sport seats) because I have in-service pictures of MY car and others with these seats.

I understand your car was equipped differently, but possibly labeled the same as mine. However your cars were not Kansas cars and they were not on the same order. You also have to factor in that Ford may have put the wrong seats in cars or full orders of cars occasionally. Parts shortages, miscommunication, and human error does happen in plants. Or it may all be 100% correct, and that’s how everything was ordered.

All I am trying to do here is share information. I know you are trying to be a fact checker and I am fine with that but pictures don’t lie. The article had been posted a long time ago and I figured most had read it and seen the pictures so I figured it would be neat to see a clearer picture of the interior which also happened to show a clear shot of the seats. Since that was not enough, here is another “never before seen” picture of my car in service:

gixxer1 · #**103** 02-01-2012, 04:42 PM

All the Kansas mustangs in 92 had sport seats. I also have a 92 Khp and have spoken to a few Khp troopers and they all confirmed the same thing. I have numerous pics of these cars showing the seats clearly. This car still belongs to a Khp trooper that i can not name. He put his tag on for the pic which i blacked out.

gixxer1 · #**104** 02-01-2012, 04:50 PM

gixxer1 · #**105** 02-01-2012, 04:54 PM

I wish i had more than 5 minutes to edit.......

28HopUp · #**106** 02-01-2012, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gixxer1

I wish i had more than 5 minutes to edit.......

I gotcha fixed up!

gixxer1 · #**107** 02-01-2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 28HopUp

I gotcha fixed up!

Thank you buddy!

chp1982 · #**108** 02-01-2012, 05:31 PM

Nice in-service photos. With how much seat time these cars got, it's a little suprising to me that more of the 91-93 SSP's were not equipped with the more supportive sport seats.

gixxer1 · #**109** 02-01-2012, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chp1982

Nice in-service photos. With how much seat time these cars got, it's a little suprising to me that more of the 91-93 SSP's were not equipped with the more supportive sport seats.

I assume like every thing else it was all about the lowest bid/cost.

ImEvil1 · #**110** 02-01-2012, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1988Bullitt

I meant SSP not SHO, sorry. I really don't see what the disagreement is about here, every picture I have seen and posted of the 7 two-tone Kansas SSPs have sport seats in them. I don't even have to go by the certification label or the buck tags (even though they show sport seats) because I have in-service pictures of MY car and others with these seats.

I understand your car was equipped differently, but possibly labeled the same as mine. However your cars were not Kansas cars and they were not on the same order. You also have to factor in that Ford may have put the wrong seats in cars or full orders of cars occasionally. Parts shortages, miscommunication, and human error does happen in plants. Or it may all be 100% correct, and that’s how everything was ordered.

All I am trying to do here is share information. I know you are trying to be a fact checker and I am fine with that but pictures don’t lie. The article had been posted a long time ago and I figured most had read it and seen the pictures so I figured it would be neat to see a clearer picture of the interior which also happened to show a clear shot of the seats. Since that was not enough, here is another “never before seen” picture of my car in service:

Aaron,

There is no disagreement on my end....just a sharing of information (just like you mentioned). We are constantly learning more (and sometimes new) information about these cars and it's important to put that information out to everyone.

If you are upset with what we've talked about, shoot me a PM. I can tell you that I have no idea what pictures you have or haven't seen, but we strive to document these cars here as much as possible. I don't have a stack of "never before seen" photos sitting on my desk, either. I post what I come across, just like others do, for the betterment of everyone.