In-Cab tank safety???
 

I was just wondering how safe a gas tank in the cab actually is? I always hear these stories from people "That hear of lots of em blowing up" but I never really believe them. Had anyone ever heard any stories like this? I am just wondering whether or not I should relocate my tank. I'd like to leave it in the cab if possible.

if it don't leak, leave it alone.
Where would you mount it that is safer?
Where the spare tire goes? When you get rear ended, most small cars (mopst cars) will go directly underneath your truck and then your fuel tank will be sitting on there hood. Over the hot engine. Sparks from the crushed hood slappin the battery.
Out side the frame rail.... Remember the ppl who dies in side impact explosions...and GM weaseling there way out of a recall?

IMO, and I WILL get flamed for it, (guys, stop sending hate mail...got a problem, post it here) if your tank isn't leaking, then it is safe in the cab.
It'll take one hell of an impact to damage that thing.

yeh what he said,although there are alot of people that take them out and relocate them to the pinto type location

Like Longhorn stated, it would take quite an impact to damage the tank. I have seen cabs hit pretty hard in the cab corner but the tank did not rupture and I haven't seen any stories on ruptured tanks.

I think they are pretty safe where they are.


Jim

^ Totally agree with what Andy, cdowns, & jim said.

`72s are the newest and they`re now 33 years old.Never heard of one blowing-up.Never heard of one rusting-out either.Putting one in the spare tire location wouldn`t be as much a threat to you as the fool that rear-ends you.And`the problem w/Pintos was not enough beef behind the tank.Most cars had rear tanks that I`ve driven.The reasons I`d put one in the rear is to get storage behind the seat and speaker location.Subs/Panels/Blazers had them there.Do what you want.Just need to find a place for the spare.Wouldn`t want that wackin`yer head in an accident,either.

incab tanks are plenty safe IMO :cool:

Pinto's were a problem because the top of the tank WAS the inner rear floor of the car. If the tank ruptured it ruptured into the car. As said the vast majority of vehicles produced have the gas tank at the rear so it's certainly a safe alternative. As far as the existing in cab tanks being a safety hazard I've never heard of one being a collision issue. One of the things I hate about it is that it is so high that if the flex line to the fuel pump ever ruptures or burns through the entire tank will siphon dry. I've seen lots of these trucks burned up bad from exactly this issue.

Safety was never a reason the GM relocated the tanks.

Then only reason it was relocated in 73 was so they could build crew cabs, and later extended cabs. If you (you being a generality, not specific to any one poster) feel so compelled for safety reasons to move the tank, perhaps you'd be better off with an electric vehicle.

If you think about it, where else could you locate the tank that would be safer? With it in cab you're protected front and rear (most accidents are of this nature), and it's protected on the sides by the cab wall and pillar structures. If you're t-boned hard enough to rupture the tank and cause it to explode, you'll never know it anyway. ;)

If you want stowage space and/or speaker space, or more legroom, by all means move it.

Never thought twice about it being in the cab.

;) IN 1977 I WAS HIT BROADSIDE AT AN INTERSECTION BY A DRUNK DRIVER (I WAS DOING 55 OR 60) CAUSING ME TO ROLL END OVER END IN MY 72 3/4 TON FORD. AFTER ROLLING ABOUT 80 YARDS, I STOPPED WITH THE TRUCK UPSIDE DOWN WITH MY HEAD PINNED TO THE GROUND. IT STOPPED IN A LITTLE DEPRESSION IN THE GROUND, & EVERYTHING WAS FROZEN(IT WAS DEC. 23rd IN MICHIGAN). THE BEHIND THE SEAT TANK WAS JUST FILLED. IT SPLIT, & ALL OF THE GAS DUMPED OUT OVER ME, & ALMOST DROWED ME IN GASOLINE, AS MY HEAD WAS PINNED TO THE GROUND. I WAS PINNED IN THE WRECKAGE FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES, I HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO PONDER THE PLACEMENT OF SUCH A FUEL TANK. THE ONLY REASON IT DIDN'T CATCH FIRE WAS MY BATTERY WAS THROWN OUT DURING ONE OF THE ROLLS. LUCKY ME-- I GOT OUT OF IT WITH A BROKEN BACK, 14 BROKEN RIBS, A BROKEN COLLAR BONE & ABOUT 300 STITCHES ON MY MELLON. SO YA .... IT IS KINDA A SAFETY THING. I CONSIDER THESE TANKS A BIG BOMB BEHIND THE SEAT ALSO. THE REASON YOU DON'T HERE ABOUT ALOT OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THEM IS THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO EXPERIANCED PROBLEMS WITH THEM ARE DEAD. THIS WAS ALMOST 30 YEARS AGO, BUT I'M SURE GLAD THAT I'M HERE , & DIDN'T BURN TO DEATH OR BLOW UP. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED TO ME, NOT SOMETHING I HEARD OR THOUGHT OF OR DREAMED UP. JUST MY REAL WORLD EXPERIANCE , BUT FOR SOMEONE TO SAY THEY ARE PERFECTLY SAFE.....JUST MEANS THAT THEY HAVE NOT EXPERIANCED THE SAFTY ASPECT YET, SO THEIR COMMENTS ARE JUST OPINIONS. ;) ;) JOHN
CPNE.. I WOULD SURE LIKE TO SE SOME DOCUMENTATION FROM G.M. THAT SAYS THE ONLY REASON THEY MOVED IT WAS SO THEY COULD BUILD CREW CABS. OR IS THIS ANOTHER OF YOUR OPINIONS THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BLINDLY SHARE :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: . JOHN

Think about it a moment John. When did the 3+3 crew cabs appear? 1973. When was the tank moved. 1973.

When was the last time any major company redesigned something purely from a safety standpoint, unless forced by gov regulations (especially in the era we're talking about?). Airbags had been know for years to be life saving. They didn't appear until mandated. No John, safety was not the issue. You of all people shouldn't be deluded by this fallicy. As a matter of fact the location the tank was placed in 1973 became a saftey issue. :rolleyes:

As for your touching and dramatic example, I can see why you feel the way you do. I would too. But that is one isolated example of which there are an equal number of horror stories for other designs as well. Which makes it an opinion as well. As I alluded to, the relocation caused many deaths as well, and was the subject of many studies. Also if I'd been trapped in a vehicle under water and drowning I'd probably feel they should be made with breakaway glass, or escape hatches or such.

I don't think you can win this argument on your example. But I am glad you survived to share your opinion.

:lol: JUST AS I THOUGHT.... OPINIONS ARE NOT FACTS & FACTS ARE NOT OPINIONS. I REALLY DON'T CARE WHERE ANYONE ELSE PUTS THIER GAS TANKS, BUT TO SAY THAT BEHIND THE SEAT IS THE SAFEST PLACE IS PURE :crazy: . (&THAT IS AN OPINION) :lol: JOHN

It's called logic and extrapolation from the facts. This is a reasoning process that is performed all the time, in major studies, educational institutions, business, and goverment. It's the same logic that allows one to say if all Erts are Werts and some Zerts are Erts then some Zerts are Werts. Remember your SAT's? ;)

Perhaps you can provide evidence to refute my contention that safety was not the overriding concern when the tank was relocated in 1973. Or even an extrapolation of logic to contradict mine?

And yes, I think you'll find the overwhelming body of evidence regarding crashes resulting in ruptured tanks leading to bodily injury and/or death (as a percentage of production) will prove my opinion to be fact.

It's good to be back, right Liz? :drama:

IMO if impact is enough to rupture the tank inside the cab, that is one hell of a hit that no vehicle is designed to withstand.

I'm glad you're OK John :cool:

:lol: NICE AURGUMENT :lol: BUT THE FACT IS THAT ALL MANUFACTURES QUIT PUTTING TANKS BEHIND THE SEATS OVER 30 YEARS AGO FOR WHATEVER REASON. I GUESS YOU ARE SAYING THAT WAS A BIG MISTAKE?? I'M JUST ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T GET THAT WARM & FUZZY FEELING BY HAVING 20 GALLONS OF GAS WITHIN INCHES OF MY BODY & DON'T APRECIATE SMELLING IT AS I DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD EITHER. BUT THATS JUST ME. :hm: JOHN

Glad your OK too John, I don't worry about my tank a bit. If I relocated it would be only for the extra space.

More fuel for the fire
 

Here is an article you should read John. It should dispell your belief that the 73 tank relocation was safety related.

Link

For those not willing to read the entire article, I found this of particular interest:

GM TRUCK FIRE DEATHS AND INJURIES ARE AVOIDABLE

The tragedy of the GM Truck fire deaths and injuries could have been avoided and can still be reduced. Known technology exists in safer tank locations, breakaway fuel lines and safety valves, fuel cells and bladders and better packaging to prevent all fire deaths and injuries in crashes. In 1973, GM Engineers internally recommended to top management a level of performance for fuel systems in crashes such that "fuel leaks, should not occur in collisions which produce occupant impact forces below the threshold of fatality" -- i.e., if you survive the crash forces, you should not be burned by fires from fuel leaks.

This is the very principle which the US Army adopted in 1970 after suffering numerous burn casualties in helicopter accidents in Vietnam. In April 1970, Bell Helicopter changed production to use a crashworthy fuel system (CWFS) consisting of a fuel cells, breakaway fuel lines, and cutoff valves. "In the ensuing 39 months the Army experienced 702 accidents with CWFS-equipped helicopters with one very remarkable result - there wasn't a single fatality or injury due to thermal trauma." During the same period, helicopters without CWFS experienced 52 burn fatalities and 31 burn injuries in 895 accidents.

If GM Trucks had been built using design principles and technology known and available in 1973, then no one should have died from burn injuries in GM fire crashes. Due to heavy industry lobbying, NHTSA issued FMVSS 301 at levels far lower than what the auto makers could meet and what their own engineers said should be met. In a 1990 evaluation of FMVSS 301, NHTSA concluded that the standard had not reduced motor vehicle crash fire fatalities and injuries. FMVSS 301 should be amended to prevent fuel leaks and fires at crash speeds at which occupants survive as originally proposed by GM Engineers in 1973. Due to advances in crashworthiness since 1973, FMVSS 301 should be revised to preclude any fuel leakage in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes up to 55 mph front, rear and side impact.

GM Trucks were not even built to the same level of fuel system safety as that of their competitors. Both Ford and Chrysler installed the gas tanks inside the frame rail because of concerns over fuel leakage and fire in side crashes. As a result, the incidence of fatal injury in side impact fire crashes where death is caused by fire is 3.5 times higher for GM than Ford and 4.7 times higher than for Chrysler. Our analysis indicates that $465 to $910 million of the $2 billion cost of GM Truck fires to date is attributable to fuel tank location.

By recalling the 1973-87 GM Trucks with side saddle gas tanks to remedy just the fuel tank location, we could reduce the future crash fire costs of these trucks by up to $370 million. The repair remedy in the recall could be to move the tank inside the frame rail or install bladder lined tanks and protective cages outside the frame rail as GM proposed but never implemented for its 1983 Trucks.

It's interesting the "bladder lined tank" concept is afforded by simply placing the tank inside the cab structure. ;)

I haven't seen a suitable rebuttle from you other than this smiley --> :lol:

For whatever reason = crew cabs, extended cabs and the market share (profits) they bring. ;)

No, I'm not saying that. Read my original post. I'm saying moving the tank for safety reasons alone makes no sense...and if you do so, there is more to safety than location. Read the article I posted a link to.

If you're smelling gas fumes, your 30 year old system needs attention, they didn't come this way from the factory.

;) GM Trucks were not even built to the same level of fuel system safety as that of their competitors. Both Ford and Chrysler installed the gas tanks inside the frame rail because of concerns over fuel leakage and fire in side crashes. As a result, the incidence of fatal injury in side impact fire crashes where death is caused by fire is 3.5 times higher for GM than Ford and 4.7 times higher than for Chrysler. Our analysis indicates that $465 to $910 million of the $2 billion cost of GM Truck fires to date is attributable to fuel tank location.
WHEREVER SOMEONE PUTS THIER GAS TANK IS O-K WITH ME. BUT I DON'T THINK I WOULD LEAVE IT INSIDE THE CAB. JUST AN OPINION BASED ON MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIANCED. I THINK WE HAVE ALL LEARNED THAT SADDLE TANKS ARE NOT SO PRETTY GOOD EITHER. THAT KINDA LEAVES INSIDE THE FRAME RAILS AS THE NEXT BEST ALTERNATIVE. (AS THE ARTICLE STATES) :) I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHY G.M. MOVED THE TANK BACK IN 73 & SADDLE TANKS SURE WEREN'T A GOOD IDEA. I JUST THOUGHT YOU'RE STATEMENT...("QUOTE BY CPNE") Then only reason it was relocated in 73 was so they could build crew cabs, and later extended cabs. If you (you being a generality, not specific to any one poster) feel so compelled for safety reasons to move the tank, perhaps you'd be better off with an electric vehicle. WAS PRETTY SILLY CONSIDERING THIS POST WAS ABOUT MOVING THE GAS TANK WHILE REFURBISHING TRUCKS IN 2005, & NOT HOW G.M. DID IT IN 1972 OR 1973. (& THIS SMILEY :lol: MEANS THAT I FIND YOU'RE ANSWERS TO THIS POST EXTREEMLY FUNNY). IT'S KINDA CLOSED MINDED TO THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU'VE NEVER HAD ANY EXPERIANCE WITH A BEHIND THE SEAT GAS TANK FAILURE, THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS EITHER. EVEN IF THE ODDS ARE A SCRILLION TO ONE.... I DON'T THINK THATS A BET I'M WILLING TO TAKE. (& I DON'T THINK I NEED A ELECTRIC VEHICAL EITHER) JOHN :lol: :lol:

I would agree that the modern location of the inside frame rail tank coupled with the engineering and fire safety concerns mandated by today's standards does afford the best protection for surviving a crash and not being killed by an ensuing fire. However, my point still stands and as of yet still unrefuted ;) , that simply putting in a Blazer tank or fuel cell designed for the framerail position behind the axle does not make sense from a pure safety standpoint. If that is your only concern and you do nothing more than move the tank behind the axle, statistics prove the in-cab location to be safer overall. I think that was Muddpiles question IIRC.

I'm glad you read the article :D

I'd like to add one more comment.

JYJ, I'm not arguing that your reasons are wrong or that you're thinking is wrong. As with many things in life, the psychological advantage may override any physical advantage. Clearly that is the case here IMO and I fully understand why you make the argument you do.

On the contrary, my argument is purely logic, not emotion, and therefore has no bearing on reality for many.

As a final note, we should all do what's best for us as individuals and no man should judge another decision or reasoning "Lest he walk a mile in that man's shoes". I've seen too much of that lately on this board.

;) WAIT A MINUTE... ARE YOU REALLY SAYING (QUOTE) simply putting in a Blazer tank or fuel cell designed for the framerail position behind the axle does not make sense from a pure safety standpoint(QUOTE) A FUEL CELL, IN BETWEEN THE FRAME RAILS IS NOT SAFER THAN A GAS TANK BEHIND THE SEAT??? LOOK AT THE PICTURES THAT I POSTED ON MY ORIGINAL POST AGAIN, & THEN TELL ME HOW MUCH BETTER OFF I WAS BY HAVING THE TANK BEHIND THE SEAT. :lol: YOU'RE KNOWLEDGE IS AMAZING & THE LITTLE BIT THAT I HAVE IS BASED ON MY OWN EXPERIANCES. :lol: JOHN

Let's take that same impact and make it a rear-end impact, versus a t-bone, statistically a more likely occurence. In your specific accident a rearward based tank location would have been beneficial. My point is your accident is not what is typical. Again, your reference is an emotional response based on your experience and is valid in that context. Mine is merely factual extrapolations based upon published data and statistics.

Muddpiles question is simple: Is moving the tank going to make me safer? The answer is "probably not" and it has the potential of greater exposure to risk depending upon the engineering applied coupled with the t-bone vs. rear-ending accident ratio.

:hm: FACTUAL EXTRAPOLATIONS ?? HEY NO FAIR USING INSURANCE POLICY WORDING!! ;) WHERE DID THAT "ELECTRIC VEHICAL" COMMENT COME FROM THEN?? (THATS JUST INSULTING TO AN OLD TYPE GEARHEAD) :lol: JOHN