Is It Just Me..
 

...or does anyone else have to remove the front bench seat in order to remove the high hump trans tunnel?

I find that to be very trite and should be completely unnecessary. Maybe my circumstance is different than others but having to completely unbolt the front seat for access to my trans top cover is ridiculous waste of time and effort.

Sometimes I have to wonder what the GM engineers were smoking when they designed some things. And though I love my 70 dually there are just some things that leave alotta room for improvement.

I am considering making my trans high hump tunnel a 2 piece, which is a shame because I have many other things going on which will have to wait while I resolve the situation of a P.I.T.A. which otherwise should not occur.

end of rant

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

What do you need to remove the tunnel for :confused:
I only removed mine for restoration, then it was put back and hasn’t moved since. It’s not a part that needs to be removed routinely. I have no idea what the engineers were smoking, but it’s pretty obvious what the assembly line was smoking when these trucks were put together :lol:

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

Well it's true that one might not need to remove the tunnel frequently but I am working on a speedometer gear set for an NV4500 which requires I access it regularly as I work on it. Also, it very convenient to be able to remove the fill plug from above and fill the trans through the shifter hole while watching the level at the plug. Then there's access to the front u-joint through the tunnel cover also and including the top cover of the trans, that's a lot of things which could or should be easily accessible. Working on any of those things, should not also require working on the front seat.:smoke:

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

Need a manhole !

Engineers knew carpet goin in so didn't figure needed an access panel .

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

Look at the bright side... Sounds like you don’t have carpet.

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

Yes - I think it is just you.

K

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

:lol: So you think the engineers were smoking something because they failed to leave you even more convenient access than already provided to the transmission hump so 45 years later you can do your modification more conveniently?

I think these trucks are some of the best engineered and easy to work on vehicles made. I think the seat is ridiculously simple to remove and so is the transmission tunnel. How would you remove the tunnel without removing the carpet and how can you remove carpet that is under a seat without removing the seat? You do like having a full floor covering, don't you? How else could it be done? They didn't build these trucks for us to play with and nobody said working on vehicles, let alone old ones...restoring them and modifying...was easy

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

yeah

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

:lol: Plenty of good points! No, I suppose the engineers didn't build these trucks such that we could access the nooks and crannies 45 years later. And yes, it's a good thing I don't have carpet yet. Ha! I'd bet that could make it a real pain to access the top cover.

I'm an engineer...degreed but not working in the field. So I suppose that as I work on vehicles, I'm sorta predisposed to look for ways to simplify access to components.

Take an in-tank fuel pump for example: I have only upon rare occasion seen one where there was access to the pump through a body panel. Many require dropping the fuel tank to access the pump. Never understood that.

A girl once called me and asked if I could change the turn signal bulb in her Pontiac Sunbird. I said yeah, bring the car over. I though it would be a matter of two screws holding the lens in place...a couple minutes and done.
But as it turned out, it was necessary to remove the bumper to change the signal bulb. Wow.

The high hump tunnel is a massive access to some components that greatly simplify some things. Clutch and trans work become much more easily done as even the BH bolts are accessible through that passage.

From my own perspective, when I look at the high hump, I see a nice service access panel that was almost convenient, had the designers just gone one step further. One step.

Yes, carpeting may be a bit different but since I like the outlines of our vehicles features, I wouldn't be bothered by a carpeted access panel (perhaps with a well designed trim piece), that delineates the feature.

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

It's real simple. Unbolt and remove the seat and do what you need to do. When finished, put the seat back in but don't bolt it down. That makes it so much easier to remove when you need to access something underneath it.

You need a different hobby because this one has lots of challenges.

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

I understand how easy it is to remove the seat. Just as any windshield technician understands how easy it is to remove a windshield. But the windshield tech would certainly scratch his head if he had to remove a windshield to change wiper blades. I'd bet he could devise a simpler solution. My hobby suits me fine.

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

I agree at some point engineers said "screw them" when it comes to servicing some things. It's a very obvious fact when you have to lift the cab on an F250 to access head bolts. We could go on all day long about ridiculous no access parts replacement. But these trucks were built years prior to that BS. These trucks are very serviceable and I feel their good engineering is one big reason so many exist today and why they never seemed to become outdated..

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

both points of view have merit. they should have made an access panel....accessable. while on the other hand the drive train was certainly bullet proof enough to presume it would last at least as long as the warrenty.

My own feeling is that the access panel should be funtional. Of couse I'm bias have been 8 years a mechnic in the army.

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

It's fully accessible from underneath :rolleyes: :lol:

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

In no way do I doubt the integrity of our truck designs. It is indeed true that that many of them would not be around today had they not been constructed with longevity in mind. And I (by far) prefer my 70 over anything built today.

On more recent vehicles I have struggled to access a single bolt on the back of a head when it would have been a simple matter to put a hole and a plug in the firewall at that particular location for ease of access from under the dash. Had it been my own vehicle, regardless of how infrequently I may have to R&R that bolt in the back of the head, there would be direct access.

Years ago I had to R&R a heater core in my Jeep. I could look under the dash and see the core but to replace it, the dash had to come out. To get the dash out, the steering wheel and air bag had to come out.

There is a sophistication in simplicity. When I design parts for my truck, one of the foremost considerations is access to fasteners and not blocking access to others. Since I'm no vehicle design engineer, I sort of expect those who are to consider such things. The high hump is an example where it looks like they did, but then dropped the ball. I mean, if they felt it prudent to put the access in anyway, why not give and extra 1% and make it directly accessible.

I cut mine yesterday. When I installed it, it was so much quicker and I will be needing access frequently. The cut is barely noticeable but when I'm finished it wont be noticeable at all. I'm not modifying my truck, I'm finishing the engineers job.

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

Oh good grief.

Maybe it’s simply a closeout and was never intended to provided access underneath.

Maybe the underbody structure is common across all models and the cover is what accommodates the uniqueness for your combination.

Maybe the engineer’s design was done and he “nailed it”, and then the studio came along and made a change to the seat that “they” (the Studio) wanted to fall on their sword over.

Maybe the engineer made a design change he liked and Flint Assembly agreed with it but the other six full size truck assembly plants couldn’t reach concensus.

Maybe the engineer made a design change that would work but it added one more bolt and the UAW wrote a grievance because the assembler complained he had to “work harder”.

Maybe the engineer had a requirement that the floor had to remain “backwards and forwards compatible”, meaning that he couldn’t make a change that did not allow the cover to be common across all model years.

Maybe the engineer wanted to make a change but his management would not allow it, because they thought it was not a priority or because it fell in the model year “red zone” where only the most critical changes associated with new product launch were allowed.

Maybe the engineer wanted to make a change but it would have added a penny or two per vehicle, resulting in additional cost of several hundred thousand dollars over the model year and the increase could not be justified.

Maybe the change would have resulted in additional tooling, causing several hundred thousand dollars of tooling charges for dubious benefit.

Maybe the same blank is used to create multiple detail part numbers and making a change would wipe out one or more of those subsequent detail parts.

Maybe a change to the cover drove a coordinated change to the floor pan, which is manufactured by MFD (Metal Fabricating Division). MFD cannot do rolling changes, since they are using the tool to run production, so in order to validate a change they have to create prototype tools to support preproduction builds, or part trials. The production tool is then taken down at the annual model change to finalize the design for production. Maybe management did not want to pay for a separate set of preproduction tools, or to entertain the change risk.

Maybe the engineer had bigger fish to fry, like working on wind noise, door fitment or durablity issues (cracks and breakage, or corrosion).

Maybe the engineer wrote the change documentation and the change got hung up in the implementation process and was never completed, and no one noticed it never popped out the other end of the system.

Maybe it was as you have modified it but it had to be changed back, because it cracked/leaked at 150,000 miles or couldn't be built that way at line rate (one completed vehicle per minute).

Maybe in addition to supporting the 1970 model year, plus current product support on the ’67, ’68 and ’69 models, maybe he was designing what would become the ’73 squarebody underbody structure (originally slated for 1972 model year) and simply didn’t have time to give it the attention it deserved.

Maybe the engineer wasn't even home, because he was supporting the '72 pre-pilot build in Fremont and the '71 pilot build in St Louis, and the 1970 model year ship had sailed.

Or, maybe as Tim suggested, it did not occur to anyone that 50 years thence one guy was going to complain on something called "the internet" about his inability to remove the cover seven or eight times in one day without having to undo 4 or 8 additional seat bolts.

My point is this: maybe the original engineer had a few more constraints to comprehend than you do.

K

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

I have found when I need to access something important time and time again, the sawzall makes it happen.

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

This thread cracks me up- very entertaining! I've only owned (2) trucks with the high hump- it's never occurred to me that I could/should remove them for servicing. Don't they seam seal them at the factory? Here's a idea to make life easier- buy a set of factory buckets so you don't have deal with that crazy bench seat

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

Have to agree with Tim, I am scratching my head as to why it's so difficult to just crawl under the truck...
I had never even thought of a hi-hump as an access panel. Until now, that is. Thanks a lot.

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

It isn't difficult to "crawl under the truck", any more than it's a simple matter to unbolt the seat. In fact, my truck has plenty of clearance. Nor is it especially difficult to drop a fuel tank when changing the pump or sending unit. But it by far a simpler matter when there is access to the fuel pump through a body panel and very easy to create one.

I am tuning my carb, setting my timing and working on the speedometer and rear housing extension.. If I adjust my carb while the tunnel is off and want to test drive, I put the tunnel back, replace the seat, so there is no exhaust fumes from other cars, road noise, sand/gravel coming through the hole, then pull the seat and tunnel again.

None of this especially difficult but since the seat has nothing to do with tuning, speedo calibration, or trans adaption, it becomes (quickly) annoying to continually R&R the seat much as if one were testing various fuel sending units or pumps having to drop the tank each time.

One might be surprised how much can be accessed through that tunnel. Granted one could slide under there on the cold concrete driveway when it 4 degrees outside or after it has rained, but why?

It's a simple matter to R&R a fender also but if removing it was necessary to change the spark plugs, one could rightfully say, "what were they thinking?"

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

With all due respect: not the best example.

A better analogy would be: "...I want to remove the fender inner to access the #8 spark plug. Why did those dumb engineers make it so hard to remove the fender inner?"

K

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

The engineers could give a crap if it can be accessed easily,If they made it all-accessible it would be big as a hummer !

Re: Is It Just Me..
 

If it's that the seat and cover have to come out repeated times to get something adjusted, fitted, or whatever, why not leave the seat out until you have it? If it needs to be operated each time, set something in there to sit on that is easy to get in and out. If the seat is needed for fitment, take measurements of where it is and go by that till final fitment.