The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network







Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Go Back   The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network > 47 - Current classic GM Trucks > The 1967 - 1972 Chevrolet & GMC Pickups Message Board

Web 67-72chevytrucks.com


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-21-2005, 12:59 PM   #26
CPNE
Resident Curmudgeon
 
CPNE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: NH
Posts: 6,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by junkyardjohn
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) JOHN
Factual extrapolation is what you do in the bathroom when you're 14. I has nothing to do with insurance.

It's well known electicity is safer than fossil fuels, unless you like to lick things.
__________________
Currently on or near the homestead:

67 Chevy SWB 2WD stepside 350/3 on tree (Pat's)
67 GMC SWB 2WD Fleet 402/auto (Brian's under construction)
67 Chevy 3/4 ton 2WD 402/auto (Business Hauler)
67 Chevy 1 ton dually 2WD 396/4 speed (Former business hauler, Needs TLC)
68 Chevy 1/2 ton Suburban 2WD 250 six/3 on tree (Brian's Needs TLC)
70 Chevy 3/4 ton 4WD 350/4 speed (Pat's - Disguised as a 68 GMC)
71 Chevy SWB stepside (Crushed by tree - parts donor)
72 Chevy 3/4 ton 4WD (Parts donor)
72 Chevy 3/4 ton 4WD Suburban (Parts Donor)
72 GMC 3/4 ton 4WD 292 six/4 speed (Mine - Disguised as a 67 GMC)
81 GMC 4WD Dually Dump Body 350/4 speed (Business Hauler)
82 Camaro Z/28 355/Super T-10 (Pat's toy)
93 Caprice 9C1 (Brian's Cop Car)
02 Toyota Camry (Reliable but a souless steel and plastic hulk)
2011 2SS RS Camaro M6 Factory Hurst Shifter

Maybe I need to sell some of this crap

Yet another Bozo with a sawz-all
CPNE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2005, 08:01 PM   #27
Longhorn Man
its all about the +6 inches
 
Longhorn Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Hilliard Ohio
Posts: 2,693
junk yard john, as has been mentioned here, and as I said the last time you spoke of your accident, extreme accidents are far and few, and not everyone will end up in one. The extreme nature of your accident...while horrific, kinda removes it from the question at hand being that it is not the common accident. Why do i say it is extreme? Personally, i have never known anyone...nor read about anyone, who had the cab of there truck ripped off anf thrown from the frame...let alone living to tell about it. (obviously with the exception of you) You were in a no win situation. If the fuel tank was not there, then there woulda been something else you woulda been complaining about as you laied in the mud and twisted metal...like the metal dash board that was pinching your legs (just guessing) Or the windows that didn't shatter into a million pieces, and instead had large sharp edges that probably accounted for some of the 300 stitches in your head.
If you, the truck owner, relocates the fuel tank, and never gets it certified, and sopme one else is injured or killed, in this day and age, you will be held responsible. We all know this to be true...like it or not, agree with it or not.
The side mounted fuel tanks was a bad idea...I think we can all agree with that...at least in the way it was done anyways. Under the bed, not really a good place. if it was a good place, then one of the truck builders woulda done it at one point or another. The only GOOD place is under the front of the bed...maybe under the cab, like just about every truck built in the last 20 years. However, most of us are not willing/able to do that.
So to answer the original question, if your tank does not leak, and you manage to stay out of an accident that will rip the body off the frame, then yes, inside the cab is the safest practicle location for your fuel tank.
Longhorn Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 01:44 AM   #28
muddpile
Registered User
 
muddpile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 1,371
Looks like my question sparked up one heck of a debate! That's alright, it answered a lot of questions. I think I'm going to leave the tank in the cab. It only smells like gas when I turn a sharp corner with a full tank (needs the little EEC hose or whateverr by the filler neck replaced, also the sender seal). I have no desire for more room, and was asking strictly as a safety concern. Thanks for the help everyone!
muddpile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 02:13 AM   #29
longhorn71
Senior Member
 
longhorn71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: CANADA
Posts: 1,681
the saddle tanks that are out side of the frame on 73-87 trucks are unsafe but the big trucks all run them and have for years with no safty concerns(even the gas powered ones).the rear frame rails are the worst spot for the tank I think.rear end crashes with a small car is the main reasaon.The in cab tanks are safer becsuse there in less chance of leaking.they are also have a better chance of not rusting out.But if you smoke in the cab there is the chance of fumes exploding even tho i have never seen or heard of this.I think there is not safe spot for a gas tank but we all need one.All fuel tank location have problems were the are mounted in diffrent crashes and such.Gas in a confind space is a more powerful bomb the dynamite. So that is why there is no way to make it 100% safe when the are mounted on a vehicle that is driven.This is MY opinion and may not be agreed to by all.Opinions are like noses everboby has one.

Last edited by longhorn71; 04-22-2005 at 02:18 AM.
longhorn71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 07:30 AM   #30
Joe67
67 is sold
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 6,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by muddpile
Looks like my question sparked up one heck of a debate! That's alright, it answered a lot of questions. I think I'm going to leave the tank in the cab. It only smells like gas when I turn a sharp corner with a full tank (needs the little EEC hose or whateverr by the filler neck replaced, also the sender seal). I have no desire for more room, and was asking strictly as a safety concern. Thanks for the help everyone!
If you are smelling it at all, start replacing some rings/seals, maybe check the cap (if you smell it with the windows down?). As previously posted, you shouldn't smell it at all.
__________________
Joe - Formerly 67c10step
-------------------------------
1967 Chevy Stepside - ECE 4/6, fuelcell, 5lug - SOLD

gr8lakes - My ebay auctions

Click here to order forum apparel :: Click here to become a subscribing member
Joe67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 09:43 AM   #31
gonebad2
Merciless Butcher
 
gonebad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: CC Nevada
Posts: 1,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingRay
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.
The other problem was that Ford installed a rear bumper made of flint on the rear of the pinto.
__________________
Your Bought And Sold....I Got Your Soul!
gonebad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 09:45 AM   #32
67ChevyRedneck
Hittin E-Z Street on Mud Tires
 
67ChevyRedneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 23,090
Does anyone remember the 1992 dateline where a chevy truck exploded on a side impact crash test? Turned out to be a complete fraud. The tank was rigged with explosives. I can't remember if it was an in-cab tank or a saddle tank.
__________________
Jesse James
1967 C10 SWB Stepside: 350/700R4/3.73
1965 Ford Mustang: 289/T5-5spd/3.25 Trac-Loc
1968 Pontiac Firebird: Project Fire Chicken!
2015 Silverado Double Cab 5.3L Z71
2001 Jeep Wrangler Sport 4.0L 5spd
2020 Chevrolet Equinox Premium 2.0L Turbo
2011 Mustang V6 ~ Wife's ride
American Born, Country by the Grace of God
1967 CST Shop Truck Rebuild!
My 1967 C-10 Build Thread
My Vintage Air A/C Install
Project "On a Dime"
Trying my hand at Home Renovation!
1965 Mustang Modifications!
67ChevyRedneck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 09:59 AM   #33
Joe67
67 is sold
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 6,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67ChevyRedneck
Does anyone remember the 1992 dateline where a chevy truck exploded on a side impact crash test? Turned out to be a complete fraud. The tank was rigged with explosives. I can't remember if it was an in-cab tank or a saddle tank.
Yes, that test was fradulant, but the saftey of the tanks out side of the frame rail is still unsafe IMO
__________________
Joe - Formerly 67c10step
-------------------------------
1967 Chevy Stepside - ECE 4/6, fuelcell, 5lug - SOLD

gr8lakes - My ebay auctions

Click here to order forum apparel :: Click here to become a subscribing member
Joe67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 10:41 AM   #34
Johnny05
Registered User
 
Johnny05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 73
I had an '87 Chevy truck with "saddle" tanks and never had a problem I still see quite a few of that model/design still on the road. As far as moving the in cab tank, I moved mine because I got tired of smelling gas and I didn't like the thought of it sitting out in a Texas summer with new door seals. I did replace EVERYTHING on it and it still smelled like gas everytime I opened the door. Now that it's moved the smell's gone AND I have added space behind the seat! As far as afety goes... If I ever get hit in the rear and they make it passed the BIG 'OL 1/4" steel bumper....
Johnny05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 11:27 AM   #35
jamis
F.A.S.T. president
 
jamis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,883
Here is some reaserch I did on the subject, I looked at about 5 articles from DOT and law sites on the subject they all have this information on the subject. I found some articles dating back as far back as the late 50s on the subject of tank location. And they all say inside the cab is unsafe. most of the reason given is the seperation of the filler neck from the fuel tank during impact not the actual tank rupturing. They also say the having the tank behind the rear axle(thats where mine is) is unsafe unless postioned above the axle. So after reading all this stuff I decided for my own use a fire 6' behind me is better then one 6" behind me. In the end no one can say which one of these two are "safer". Flip a coin because you dont know where your going to get hit.

The side saddle fuel tank design installed in over 10 million trucks - all 1973-87 General Motors full-size pickups and cab-chassis trucks (pickups without beds) and some 1988-91 dual cab or RV chassis - is the worst auto crash fire defect in the history of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Based on data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (formerly known as the Fatal Accident Reporting System), over 1,800 people were killed in fire crashes involving these trucks from 1973 through 2000. (Attachment A is a list of fatal C/K fire crashes by state since 1993.) This is more than twenty times as many fatalities as in the infamous Ford Pinto. Despite a voluntary recall request from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in April 1993 (Attachment B) and an initial defect determination by Transportation Secretary Federico Pena in October 1994 (Attachment C), GM stubbornly refused to initiate a recall.

Like Ford and Chrysler, GM made pickups with gas tanks inside the cab in the 1960's. Because of concerns about the safety of placing the gas tank inside the passenger cab, the Big Three auto makers all considered relocating the tank outside the passenger compartment in the early 1970's. Chrysler engineers specifically rejected placing the tank outside the frame because of safety concerns saying, "A frame mounted fuel tank mounted anywhere outside the frame rails would be in a very questionable area due to the new Federal Standards requiring 15 MPH side impacts for all vehicles. . . . Any side impact would automatically encroach on this area and the probability of tank leakage would be extremely high." (Attachment D.)

GM engineers reached a similar conclusion in their early assessments with Chevrolet engineer Alex Mair recommending in 1964 that the fuel tank of the next generation pickup Amust be mounted outside the cab and as near the center of the vehicle as practical. (Attachment E.) The safety concerns of GM engineers were overridden by management's sales concerns who wanted to install 40 gallon capacity to get a greater driving range, and used this as a selling point. The easiest way to achieve a 40 gallon capacity was to install two 20 gallon fuel tanks outside the frame rail where they were more vulnerable to rupture and puncture by sharp objects in crashes. In 1972, GM engineers recommended to the Vice President for Engineering that if occupants were not killed by crash forces, they "should be free from the hazards of post-collision fuel fires." (See Attachment F.) After GM management made the decision to place the tanks outside the frame, GM engineers recommended that shields be installed around the tanks to protect them. (Attachment G is an engineering diagram of one GM shield from 1972 while Attachment H is a GM crash test photo of another shield.)
GM's Knowledge of Defect
The problems with the tanks soon became apparent to GM. Within the first year of introduction, GM conducted a special accident study of 1973 compared to pre-1973 pickups which showed "the 1973 trucks had more fuel leaks from the fuel tank than did the pre-1973 pick-ups." A 1978 study by George Garvil concluded that both the rear located and inside the frame fuel tanks were superior to the outside-the-frame tanks. Using GM's insurance company Motors Insurance Corp. data, Garvil found "Approximately 40 of 212 or 19%, of the side impacts were judged to have had high fuel tank leakage potential for outboard side-located tanks. Moving these side tanks inboard might eliminate most of these potential leakers." (See Attachment I.)

After the fatal fire crashes begin mounting up in the mid-late 1970's, GM again studied alternative designs including moving the tanks inside the frame, installing a plastic liner or bladder, or using external shields to reduce the danger of tank rupture. (Attachment J is a GM memo considering these options for implementation in 1982 while Attachment K is chart of different inside the frame designs from this memo.) Crash tests of 22 GM pickups in 1981-83 to develop protective designs revealed that the tanks "split like melons." (Attachment L is a DOT summary description of the GM crash tests and performance objectives for fuel systems.) GM did develop a protective steel fuel tank cage which it installed on its 1978-83 cab chassis models (pickups without the bed). If these cages were modified to fit the C/K pickups it could have significantly enhanced the overall fuel system integrity of the vehicle. GM Vice President Alex Mair sketched a simple shield costing only $23 which was termed "a probable easy fix." (Attachment M.)

At the heart of GM's resistance to improving the safety of its fuel systems was a cost benefit analysis done by Edward Ivey which concluded that it was not cost effective for GM to spend more than $2.20 per vehicle to prevent a fire death. (Attachment N.) When deposed about his cost benefit analysis, Mr. Ivey was asked whether he could identify a more hazardous location for the fuel tank on a GM pickup than outside the frame. Mr. Ivey responded, "Well yes...You could put in on the front bumper." (Video: "Ed Ivey Deposition," Attachment O is a copy of this portion of the deposition.) GM was able to hide all this evidence and much more from the public until the early 1990's when leaks in GM's secrecy dam started and the Center for Auto Safety began to focus in on the defect.

DOT's Deadly Settlement

The battle over the recall of the pickup trucks began on August 14, 1992 when the Center for Auto Safety and Public Citizen filed a recall petition with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) detailing serious fire hazards to owners of the 1973-87 GM pickups. (Attachment P.) GM responded to a NHTSA inquiry prompted by the CAS petition with a 55-page letter and 80 boxes of documents that they argued proved the fuel tank was no danger. Although GM originally claimed confidentiality for this material, it dropped this claim after similar documents were released under the Texas "anti-secrecy" law 76A in Zelenuk v. GM. On December 8, 1992, the NHTSA announced that it would officially investigate the 1973-87 GM pickups.

On April 9, 1993, the NHTSA called on GM to voluntarily recall all of its over 6 million 1973-87 full-size C/K pickups with side saddle fuel tanks. (Attachment B.) In its official response to NHTSA's recall request, GM refused to comply with the government's voluntary recall and instead submitted a 50-page study supporting the safety of its trucks. NHTSA's recall letter stated, "GM's fuel tank system in the subject vehicles contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety and that GM should therefore initiate a recall of all full-size pick-up trucks and chassis cabs (through the 30/3500 series) sold with fuel tanks mounted outboard of the frame rails." In its response, GM wrote, "General Motors continues to believe that its 1973-87 C/K trucks are neither defective nor contribute to increased injuries or fatalities. Consequently no safety recall of them is necessary."

After July 1993, NHTSA continued to gather data with the biggest single revelation being that GM had withheld hundreds of accident reports on C/K gas tank fires until forced to finally disclose them in February 1994. Secretary Pena required NHTSA staff to give him two option papers, one for and one against a recall. NHTSA staff were split with the engineers conducting the investigation in favor of a recall and the higher level policy staff recommending against a recall. Because the NHTSA Administrator had recused himself for working as a consultant for GM, the decision fell to Transportation Secretary Federico Pena.

On October 1, 1994, Secretary Pena made an initial determination that the GM Pickups had a safety defect and that GM had known about the defect since the early 1970's and had not remedied the defect or warned the public. (Attachment C.) In an accompanying statement, Secretary Pena accused GM management of having "made a decision favoring sales over safety." (Attachment Q.) Just six weeks later on December 2, 1994, Secretary Pena reversed himself and signed an unprecedented agreement negotiated by high level Justice Department officials with GM to close the GM pickup investigation in exchange for an illusory commitment of $51 million by GM to safety programs.

During these six weeks, GM applied political pressure to force Secretary Pena to fold. On November 3, Rep. Bob Carr from Michigan ordered an investigation by the Inspector General of Pena's decision. On November 10, the Chief Executive Officers of Chrysler, Ford and General Motors wrote President Clinton seeking his intervention to "address the intolerable state of regulatory uncertainty that will otherwise result from Secretary Pena's decision." The Big Three CEO's stressed that Secretary Pena's decision would have an adverse financial impact on each of their companies and argued that DOT should be prohibited from doing defect recalls where there was an applicable safety standard that the vehicle met.

On November 17, GM filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Detroit, whose primary purpose was to open the backdoor to the Justice Department for negotiations to scuttle the investigation. The Justice Department attorney assigned to the case not only was a former associate from O'Melveny & Myers whose flagship client was Ford Motor Company, he also owned $4,000 of GM stock. More important than owning the GM stock was the fact that the Justice attorney had worked on defending Ford defects while in private practice and knew that the position taken by GM would benefit Ford, his former client, in defense of future cases.

The Deal

The settlement deal negotiated by the Justice Department was full of flaws and conditions that make it a deadly deal for the American public. The following are a few examples.
(1) The deal prevented DOT from going forward with a public hearing at which extensive new technical information on crash severity and defect failure modes, new accident data and analyzes showing a much higher death toll, a comprehensive analysis of all GM recalls to show unreasonable risk, new internal GM documents on prior knowledge and inexpensive fixes foregone, and new demonstrative physical evidence and computer simulations would have been presented to make an enforcement proceeding far easier. At a public hearing, DOT could have asked GM for the first time about its $23 "probable easy fix" from 1982; what happened to the 1973 safety shield that was used in the only successful 30-mph crash test for the new C/K pickup; and the ability of bladder liners to stop fuel tank ruptures.

(2) The deal purported to commit GM to spending $51 million on various alternative safety programs to save hundreds of lives. But no documentation showing that these programs had saved hundreds of lives was ever provided. GM did not even have to put up cash but was allowed to put up equivalent facilities, staff and salaries. Moreover, GM was free to spend the money where it wanted. If GM wanted to give public education money to the American Coalition for Traffic Safety, which lobbied to stop the C/K recall, it could do so.

(3) The deal was the very first defect settlement in which no remedy was offered to owners of the defective vehicle. At best, it could be said that some owners were asked to die so that others might live - but no one consulted the potential victims about whether they wanted to die.

Legal Action
Meanwhile, GM has had to deal with mounting lawsuits from deaths and injuries in fires in these pick-ups. On February 4, 1993 in the trial of Moseley v. GM, the court found General Motors liable and awarded $4.5 million in compensatory damages and $101 million in punitive damages. This decision, however, was reversed by the Georgia Court of Appeals primarily because the trial attorneys relied on GM testimony to support their claims of other similar incidents (OSI's) rather than demonstrative OSI evidence. Significantly, the Court went out of its way to say that the '101 million punitive damage award was not excessive given the circumstances. GM settled the Moseley suit rather than face a retrial. At the same time that GM settled Moseley, it settled at least 11 other C/K pickup cases scheduled to go to trial in 1995 for $100 million. The total amount in settlements paid out by GM in C/K pickup fire crashes is over $500 million.

General Motors was also confronted with numerous state class actions, which were consolidated into a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) in the Federal District Court in Philadelphia. The MDL involved 49 states, while a separate state class action continued in Texas. Both class actions were settled by offering $1,000 coupon good towards the purchase of a new GM truck or van to current owners of C/K pickups. The settlements were challenged by the Center for Auto Safety on behalf of individual objectors plus some state and local governments. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District of Texas on June 22, 1994 overturned the Texas class action settlement on 1973-87 GM pickups with side saddle gas tanks. Bloyed v. General Motors Corp., 881 S.W.2d 422 (Tex. App. 1994), aff'd, 916 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. 1996). The Court had words for both GM and the Plaintiff Attorneys who got nearly $10 million in hard cash for themselves and paper coupons for consumers. In its stern rebuke, the Court pointed out that the Plaintiffs "instituted this suit because of the hazard posed by the side-saddle gasoline tank, yet this issue is given scant attention in the settlement agreement."

Lawyers defending the identical settlement for the other 49 states underwent a harsh 4-hour grilling by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on August 11. Like the Texas Court, the Federal Court questioned the fairness of the national class action settlement and what it did for safety. The Court had serious questions about whether the settlement had any value for consumers, the amount of the attorney fees and the way they were negotiated without notice to the class. In April 1995, the Third Circuit reversed the trial court's approval of the coupon settlement in a scathing and lengthy page opinion rebuking the court, class counsel, and GM. In Re: General Motors Corp. Pickup Truck Fuel Tank Prod. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768 (1995, CA3 Pa), cert. den. GMC v. French, 64 USLW 3241 (Oct. 3, 1995). GM's attempt to obtain Supreme Court review of this decision was rejected in October of 1995. The case went back before the federal trial court for proceedings consistent with the Third Circuit's order.

On December 19, 1996, a state court judge in Louisiana approved a new class action settlement covering all GM truck owners. White, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al., No. 42,865 (Iberville Parish Dist. Ct., December 19, 1996). The settlement includes an improved economic element plus a provision that GM would contribute $4.1 million to a fuel safety research fund but which could not cover C/K pickups, and a stipulation under which the attorneys for the class set up a $1 million research fund to develop and implement a fix for the GM C/K fuel system hazards. Former NHTSA Associate Administrator for Research, Dr. Kennerly Digges, was appointed by the Court as the Independent Trustee for both research projects. On June 29, 1998, the Court of Appeals of the Louisiana First Circuit overturned the second settlement. White v. General Motors Corp., 718 So.2d 480 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1998). A third settlement was then reached which provided that up to $4 million would be added to the C/K research fund by having $5 from the sale of each of the first 800,000 coupons donated to ensure the manufacture and distribution of the pickup fuel system remedy. Dr. Digges formed the Automotive Safety Research Institute (ASRI) to carry out the research and has developed a retrofit inside the frame fuel tank that will successfully withstand a 50 mph side impact from a full size Chevrolet Caprice, a test used by NHTSA to determine the side saddle C/K pickup was defective. (Attachment R, Attachment S and Attachment T are ASRI reports relating to retrofit testing. Video: "NHTSA Crash Test" is the 50mph NHTSA crash test while Video: "40 MPH Crash Test" is the ASRI 40mph crash test of the retrofit tank. Video: "Fuel Tank Location" is a comparison of the ASRI retrofit inside the frame fuel tank compare to the original outside the frame fuel tank on a C/K pickup.)

Data updated through 1999 from NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), show that over 1,800 people have been killed in fire crashes in the U.S. in 1973-87 GM C/K pickups and cab-chassis trucks with the defective outside-the-frame-rail sidesaddle fuel tank design. Just since DOT's deadly deal with GM to drop its recall efforts in December 1994, over 330 people have died in C/K pickup fire crashes. The side saddle pickup design continues to claim more lives in 2001 than any other single defect.

To describe one example, on May 21, 1997, in Carson City, NV, an elderly married couple in a 1978 C/K pickup were both instantaneously immolated when they ran a stop sign at a city intersection and were struck just behind the passenger door by a crossing pickup truck. The fireball resulting from the exploding fuel tank engulfed the other truck as well, and while the 18-year-old driver of the second truck was still conscious when pulled from the burning cab by a witness to the crash, he was burned so severely that his young life ended in a Las Vegas hospital burn unit within the week. Witnesses at the scene recounted that he lay on the ground and was able to ask "Why?" three or four times. The answer to this question, of course, could be found not so much in a Nevada intersection as in Washington, DC and in GM's Michigan headquarters.
__________________
F.A.S.T. President and Founder
Fabricators for the Advancement of Sawsall Technology


"A fear of the Sawsall is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ~Sigmund Freud, "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis"

Last edited by jamis; 04-22-2005 at 12:16 PM.
jamis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 11:59 AM   #36
CPNE
Resident Curmudgeon
 
CPNE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: NH
Posts: 6,664
Thanks for posting that Jamis. More proof the tank was never relocated in 73 for the sake of safety. Marketing and sales and the ability to penetrate new markets was the overriding factor.

I think we can all agree inboard of the frame rails where the GM tanks are now located is best for safety's sake. Second best? Probably in-cab as engineered IMO. Again, I submit the facts most accidents are not side-impact and the upright and perpendicular placement of the tank to the frame makes the area of impact where rupture could occur very small. I'll take those odds.
__________________
Currently on or near the homestead:

67 Chevy SWB 2WD stepside 350/3 on tree (Pat's)
67 GMC SWB 2WD Fleet 402/auto (Brian's under construction)
67 Chevy 3/4 ton 2WD 402/auto (Business Hauler)
67 Chevy 1 ton dually 2WD 396/4 speed (Former business hauler, Needs TLC)
68 Chevy 1/2 ton Suburban 2WD 250 six/3 on tree (Brian's Needs TLC)
70 Chevy 3/4 ton 4WD 350/4 speed (Pat's - Disguised as a 68 GMC)
71 Chevy SWB stepside (Crushed by tree - parts donor)
72 Chevy 3/4 ton 4WD (Parts donor)
72 Chevy 3/4 ton 4WD Suburban (Parts Donor)
72 GMC 3/4 ton 4WD 292 six/4 speed (Mine - Disguised as a 67 GMC)
81 GMC 4WD Dually Dump Body 350/4 speed (Business Hauler)
82 Camaro Z/28 355/Super T-10 (Pat's toy)
93 Caprice 9C1 (Brian's Cop Car)
02 Toyota Camry (Reliable but a souless steel and plastic hulk)
2011 2SS RS Camaro M6 Factory Hurst Shifter

Maybe I need to sell some of this crap

Yet another Bozo with a sawz-all
CPNE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 12:29 PM   #37
jamis
F.A.S.T. president
 
jamis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,883
well they did mention inside the cab was unsafe for one reason....sorry but I had so many articles to look at. I coudnt get everything down at once. Read the first paragraph (I added) which is just my opinion after looking at all this info. Its just such a tough call when it will comes to deciding for our selfs what to do.
I was involved with the implemeting the ford recall of the crown vics fuel tanks because we have a several hundred in our fleet. There are a lot of recomendations out there to improve your chances of survival...like bladders and foam. In the end you need to get it in front of the rear axle between the frame rails and a fire barrior between the tank and the passenger compartment.
__________________
F.A.S.T. President and Founder
Fabricators for the Advancement of Sawsall Technology


"A fear of the Sawsall is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ~Sigmund Freud, "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis"
jamis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 12:42 PM   #38
CPNE
Resident Curmudgeon
 
CPNE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: NH
Posts: 6,664
Having the fuel neck filler seam separate doesn't in and of itself seem bad. All the fuel is below that point anyway unless you're upside down ala JYJ.

Now what about the new Hydrogen fuel powered vehicles? Don't they make bombs out of that stuff?

I think I'll ride my bike...on second thought might get hit by a bus.

Speaking of bikes, what about motorcycles? I'll take several gallons of gas sandwiched in my crotch between my legs please!

I'm going to my "safe room" now.
__________________
Currently on or near the homestead:

67 Chevy SWB 2WD stepside 350/3 on tree (Pat's)
67 GMC SWB 2WD Fleet 402/auto (Brian's under construction)
67 Chevy 3/4 ton 2WD 402/auto (Business Hauler)
67 Chevy 1 ton dually 2WD 396/4 speed (Former business hauler, Needs TLC)
68 Chevy 1/2 ton Suburban 2WD 250 six/3 on tree (Brian's Needs TLC)
70 Chevy 3/4 ton 4WD 350/4 speed (Pat's - Disguised as a 68 GMC)
71 Chevy SWB stepside (Crushed by tree - parts donor)
72 Chevy 3/4 ton 4WD (Parts donor)
72 Chevy 3/4 ton 4WD Suburban (Parts Donor)
72 GMC 3/4 ton 4WD 292 six/4 speed (Mine - Disguised as a 67 GMC)
81 GMC 4WD Dually Dump Body 350/4 speed (Business Hauler)
82 Camaro Z/28 355/Super T-10 (Pat's toy)
93 Caprice 9C1 (Brian's Cop Car)
02 Toyota Camry (Reliable but a souless steel and plastic hulk)
2011 2SS RS Camaro M6 Factory Hurst Shifter

Maybe I need to sell some of this crap

Yet another Bozo with a sawz-all
CPNE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 12:51 PM   #39
jamis
F.A.S.T. president
 
jamis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPNE
Speaking of bikes, what about motorcycles? I'll take several gallons of gas sandwiched in my crotch between my legs please!
ahhh come on....like my boss says you need to start thinking "outside the box".......just like airbags are deployed by an explosive charge, the reason for the tank between the legs is upon impact it acts like an ejection system and it explodes you to safe area away from the crash.
__________________
F.A.S.T. President and Founder
Fabricators for the Advancement of Sawsall Technology


"A fear of the Sawsall is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ~Sigmund Freud, "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis"
jamis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 05:44 PM   #40
junkyardjohn
Registered User
 
junkyardjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SOMERSET KY.
Posts: 6,427
(QUOTE) To describe one example, on May 21, 1997, in Carson City, NV, an elderly married couple in a 1978 C/K pickup were both instantaneously immolated when they ran a stop sign at a city intersection and were struck just behind the passenger door by a crossing pickup truck. The fireball resulting from the exploding fuel tank engulfed the other truck as well, and while the 18-year-old driver of the second truck was still conscious when pulled from the burning cab by a witness to the crash, he was burned so severely that his young life ended in a Las Vegas hospital burn unit within the week. Witnesses at the scene recounted that he lay on the ground and was able to ask "Why?" three or four times. The answer to this question, of course, could be found not so much in a Nevada intersection as in Washington, DC and in GM's Michigan headquarters.
THAT ACCIDENT WAS ABOUT 3 MILES FROM MY HOUSE. THE TELEPHONE POLE THAT THE KIDS TRUCK WAS PUSHED UP AGAINST IS STILL AT THAT INTERSECTION & IS BURNT 20 FEET HIGH. 8 YEARS LATER, THERE ARE STILL FLOWERS PLACED THERE CONSTANTLY. FUEL TANK PLACEMENT IS A CHOICE EVERYONE NEEDS TO MAKE FOR THERESELVES. I REALISE THAT MOVING IT OUT OF IT'S STOCK LOCATION IS NOT SOMTHING THAT SOMEONE WANTS TO DO IF THEY ARE GOING FOR A 1000% STOCK RESTORATION , BUT G.M. ENGINEERS WERE MORE INTERESTED IN SAVING $2.20 A VEHICAL, THAN THIER COSTOMERS LIVES. 40 YR. OLD TECHKNOWLEDGY IS JUST THAT. A GALLON OF GAS WAS 22 CENTS, A LOAF OF BREAD WAS A DIME, & A GALLON OF MILK WAS 30 CENTS. I JUST KNOW THAT I WANT MYSELF & MY FAMLY TO BE AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE GAS TANK.THANKS FOR GOING THRU ALL OF THE TROUBLE OF LISTING THIS JAMIS...... JOHN
__________________
junkyardjohn
69 1 TON TOW TRUCK //
84 4WD CUCV BLAZER// 85 1 TON 4WD STAKE TRUCK// 86 M1031 5/4 TON 4WD CUCV// ALOT OF OLD TRUCKS FOR ONE OLD MAN TO DRIVE. THERES ROOM FOR ALL OF GODS CREATURES RIGHT NEXT TO MY MASHED POTATOES//
LIFE MEMBER OF P.E.T.A (PEOPLE EATING TASTY ANIMALS)

DON'T RENT U-HAUL

ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH
IT WILL AMAZE PART OF THE PEOPLE & ASTONISH THE REST

Last edited by junkyardjohn; 04-22-2005 at 06:01 PM.
junkyardjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2005, 07:53 PM   #41
Longhorn Man
its all about the +6 inches
 
Longhorn Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Hilliard Ohio
Posts: 2,693
very good info... time to book mark this page.
Longhorn Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2005, 08:36 PM   #42
franko72
Franko72
 
franko72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cincinnati,Ohio
Posts: 471
lots of good info and comments, opinions.The reality is that any vehicle that sustains the damage that was in that pic., would result in a ruptured tank or damaged fuel system.In any statistic there seems to always be one exception to the rule.I get a little paranoid now and then about the tank in the cab,but the percentage of people dying from burns related to in cab tanks in trucks are probably lower than tanks located in the rear.Just my thoughts.No facts to back up my message,just my opinion. Man you are lucky to be alive after seeing that pic!
__________________

1972 C20 cheyenne Super 402 BB/400 turbo LWB A/C Tilt, Cruise Control, Saddle tanks, Tach
My Home Page
Better to burn out than it is to rust
franko72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2005, 09:06 PM   #43
cableguy0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Delta,Pa
Posts: 14,950
my truck was hit on my door square on with the cab it hit the edge of the bed up to the front wheel. the ford f150 that hit me was doing 50mph on impact the tank wasnt hurt doesnt leak and never had a problem. thanks to being in a real vehicle i walked away from that crash after i managed to kick open the passenger door and get out.that same gas tank is still in my truck now with a different cab and doesnt leak a drop of fuel. they seem safe enough to me. as for the bombs on the outside of the frame rail my truck had two of em dealer installed which i have removed.
__________________
Owner of North Point Car Care in Dundalk Md. We specialize in custom exhaust on both modern and classic vehicles. We are a full service auto shop from classics to modern vehicles. Feel free to contact me with questions. I will give a 10% discount to any board member.
cableguy0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1997-2022 67-72chevytrucks.com