death trap - The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network

3r!c84 · 01-05-2010, 05:32 PM

hey in automotive in school today we where all talking about theses years of gm trucks and having problems in side collisions with the gas tank on the outside of the frame rails. that it will catch on fire.and that gm was buying the trucks back(well kinda they where only giving 1000$ or somthing low ball like that)

can any one explane more

68Timber · 01-05-2010, 05:43 PM

It was a hoax. Was it NBC? - I don't recall for sure but seems like maybe it was Dateline NBC that did a story and staged a side-impact collision but used model rocket engines to ignite the tanks. It made for good footage until it was exposed. There were some actual fires, though. But it wasn't the what it was hyped to be.

68Timber · 01-05-2010, 05:49 PM

Google this - gm truck fire sue nbc

Here's just one hit: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...977814,00.html

chrismoore701 · 01-05-2010, 06:09 PM

I actually received a voucherr for my truck do to the lawsuit on side impacts and fires. I can't remember what it was for, but something along the lines of $100 cash or $500 or $1000 for trade in on a new gm. I used it back in about 2005 for my new Impala. So that portion was true. It was listed as like a class action lawsuit and all owners of this style truck should have received this voucher

chrismoore701 · 01-05-2010, 06:19 PM

check this out, it goes into the class action lawsuit

http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/122896/judge.htm

Chris

ToughBowtieTruck · 01-05-2010, 06:40 PM

Better than the tanks sitting behind the seat in the cab.

I have heard of a guy and his girl getting T-boned in an accident that ruptured the tank. Then NBC staged an accident as said.

JohnC · 01-05-2010, 07:34 PM

Yeah it was legit, but not as bad as the news story made it out to be. I also received a coupon as part of the class action lawsuit. Of course back then I couldn't afford a new GM product so in the trash it went.

Keith Seymore · 01-05-2010, 07:46 PM

I was working on these truck back then, as was my Dad. He made these tanks up at Chevrolet Flint Manufacturing, and took this whole "staged fire" thing pretty personally...

One of the things they used to do to demonstrate the integrity of the welds on the tank was to fill it with water and then throw it off the roof of the building (lol).

As for me, I was pretty doggone proud of Harry Pearce for sticking up for us and sticking it back to NBC. Our investigators actually found the small rocket engine (ignitors) in the junkyard with the burned up trucks. That's when it hit the fan.

From an engineering perspective, one problem with this whole litigous philosophy is that it leaves no room for "continuous improvement". As was mentioned, the previous generation truck gas tank was in the cab, behind the seat. Moving the tank to the frame rail intuitively would seem to be a big step in the right direction. But - according to the lawyers - any time you make a change you are implying "culpability" (ie, you are implying that there was a problem with the previous design). That's not necessarily the case. There are hundreds of non-safety related reasons for changing something, including availability of packaging space, commonization with other products or model types, cost, timing, material availability, advancement of new technology, elimination of archaic technology, etc.

Also - the number of Federally mandated tests and requirements that we must meet is staggering. We have whole staffs of people that crash things, burn things, and generally run them into the ground to insure that we comply with Federal safety and emission requirements. We can't (...not "won't" - but CAN'T...) sell a vehicle until we've passed all those tests. We can design a legally safe vehicle, and a safe vehicle from a practical standpoint, but we can't protect against rocket ignitors in the gas tank or people plowing at a high rate of speed into the back of a vehicle stopped at a toll booth.

I which you all could see how much time and money we spend (..."waste?") discussing the fact that this radius is .2mm and it is legally required to be .25mm, or that this "head impact number" is some increment above a legal requirement. It is hours and hours everyday. To suggest that we blithely design product and numbly pass them off to customers with known defects (...as some have suggested in the past...) shows a total lack of understanding and regard of the auto industry as a whole.

This single item (Federally required testing) is probably the biggest reason why it takes so long to design and release a new product into the market today.

My $.03 -

K

Chevy-Art · 01-05-2010, 07:52 PM

Hoax/staged like everyone else said. Anything to get the ratings up.

68Timber · 01-05-2010, 08:03 PM

The part of the story that was barely reported at the time was that Ford and Dodge trucks had tanks outside the frame-rails on their fullsize trucks during the 73-87 era, but not necessarily the whole time as 73-87 defines GM's run of that platform.

But I do recall the coverage at the time, NBC was dragged over the coals. The video they staged clearly showed the puff of the model rocket engines when the car that was to t-bone the truck was still a foot or two away.

Of course NBC wasn't playing those precious few staged seconds in frame by frame slow motion, but the other networks were happy to.

I do recall that one fireman on the scene to control the burn saw what they were doing with the model rocket engines and was heard to comment, "Well, there goes that theory."

tommys69/454 · 01-05-2010, 08:25 PM

thats why i keep my gas tank in the cab !!!!!!! where i know it's safe. lol

68Timber · 01-05-2010, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommys69/454

thats why i keep my gas tank in the cab !!!!!!! where i know it's safe. lol

I was a little dude when my grandpa had a red 67-72 long-bed, I don't know the year. Straight six and a column-shifted three-speed. I knew I heard sloshing behind the seat but was too young to know or care what it might be - just that it was all good to be hanging with Pa.

**old Rusty C10** · 01-05-2010, 09:46 PM

I was hit on the side in one of the tanks on my 86 and the only thing that it did was bend the tank and mounts... the tank never leaked, and it never worked right with the float after that but it was no problem

*78 Chevyrado* · 01-06-2010, 12:16 AM

GM just gave $1000 coupons towards new trucks. Basically at this point in time if your ride is older than say 2008, you're riding in a death trap...

87cdime · 01-06-2010, 12:20 AM

Well then I guess that makes us all screwed lol!!!!

*78 Chevyrado* · 01-06-2010, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 87cdime

Well then I guess that makes us all screwed lol!!!!

We're screwed by a factor of 20 at least...

87cdime · 01-06-2010, 12:26 AM

I'll roll my death trap till the day I die!!! Lol so I say

*78 Chevyrado* · 01-06-2010, 12:40 AM

Somehow mine kept me alive, with no damage other than scratches from the broken glass everywhere... So I'm happy with my old death trap. Though this one is heavier so the roof would be squased in farther...dang oh well I stand by my earlier comment!

gchemist · 01-06-2010, 04:03 AM

Yea, death trap to anyone you hit with a square body!! A square body will crumple cars and new trucks like a beer can.

andrewmp6 · 01-06-2010, 04:31 AM

Some people say a early mustang will fireball if its rear ended.But i have only seen one crash of a early mustang that had a fire from a busted gas tank.I rather have a big truck or a big car in a wreck.Look at a smart car they have a 5 star crash test rating but id never own one.

JohnC · 01-06-2010, 10:53 AM

To hit a vehicle hard enough to make an explosion really takes so many variables. Sure sometimes those variables come together, and it does happen. However, out of how many vehicles produced does it actually occur.

Keith - Thank you for your input from a GM engineers viewpoint. That is one of many great things about having you, and other GM employees as members here is that we can get insight from the other side of the table as well. Thanks again man!

Keith Seymore · 01-06-2010, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnC

To hit a vehicle hard enough to make an explosion really takes so many variables. Sure sometimes those variables come together, and it does happen. However, out of how many vehicles produced does it actually occur.

Good point -

Keep in mind there were (I'm guessing) maybe 15 million of these trucks produced; to hear about a handful of fires is statistically incredibly small.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnC

Keith - Thank you for your input from a GM engineers viewpoint. That is one of many great things about having you, and other GM employees as members here is that we can get insight from the other side of the table as well. Thanks again man!

Thank you -

I appreciate the input because I never really know what's going to be a "hit" or a "miss". So - I just keep swingin' away

K

01-05-2010, 05:32 PM	#1
3r!c84 Badass Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: lox. fl Posts: 4,586	death trap hey in automotive in school today we where all talking about theses years of gm trucks and having problems in side collisions with the gas tank on the outside of the frame rails. that it will catch on fire.and that gm was buying the trucks back(well kinda they where only giving 1000$ or somthing low ball like that) can any one explane more __________________ Think outside the box? -84c10 (1stcar)→My Build← -00 Saturn 5spd drop a gear and disappear! 1/4:13:90

01-05-2010, 05:43 PM	#2
68Timber I know the pieces fit Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: MONTGOMERY, AL Posts: 5,523	Re: death trap It was a hoax. Was it NBC? - I don't recall for sure but seems like maybe it was Dateline NBC that did a story and staged a side-impact collision but used model rocket engines to ignite the tanks. It made for good footage until it was exposed. There were some actual fires, though. But it wasn't the what it was hyped to be. __________________ John 79 2wd Blazer (Bruiser) 85 M1009 Blazer (Sarge) build 74 Honda Z50 build

01-05-2010, 05:49 PM	#3
68Timber I know the pieces fit Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: MONTGOMERY, AL Posts: 5,523	Re: death trap Google this - gm truck fire sue nbc Here's just one hit: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...977814,00.html __________________ John 79 2wd Blazer (Bruiser) 85 M1009 Blazer (Sarge) build 74 Honda Z50 build

01-05-2010, 06:09 PM	#4
chrismoore701 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Highland, IN Posts: 2,326	Re: death trap I actually received a voucherr for my truck do to the lawsuit on side impacts and fires. I can't remember what it was for, but something along the lines of $100 cash or $500 or $1000 for trade in on a new gm. I used it back in about 2005 for my new Impala. So that portion was true. It was listed as like a class action lawsuit and all owners of this style truck should have received this voucher

01-05-2010, 06:19 PM	#5
chrismoore701 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Highland, IN Posts: 2,326	Re: death trap check this out, it goes into the class action lawsuit http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/122896/judge.htm Chris

01-05-2010, 06:40 PM	#6
ToughBowtieTruck Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: MI Posts: 111	Re: death trap Better than the tanks sitting behind the seat in the cab. I have heard of a guy and his girl getting T-boned in an accident that ruptured the tank. Then NBC staged an accident as said. __________________ -Josh "Mr. Simpson, there are thousands of people like you with no discernible talent." Duff World Records Division "Yeah, they're called Congress!!" -Homer Simpson

01-05-2010, 07:34 PM	#7
JohnC Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 7,461	Re: death trap Yeah it was legit, but not as bad as the news story made it out to be. I also received a coupon as part of the class action lawsuit. Of course back then I couldn't afford a new GM product so in the trash it went.

01-05-2010, 07:46 PM	#8
Keith Seymore Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Location: Motor City Posts: 9,226	Re: death trap I was working on these truck back then, as was my Dad. He made these tanks up at Chevrolet Flint Manufacturing, and took this whole "staged fire" thing pretty personally... One of the things they used to do to demonstrate the integrity of the welds on the tank was to fill it with water and then throw it off the roof of the building (lol). As for me, I was pretty doggone proud of Harry Pearce for sticking up for us and sticking it back to NBC. Our investigators actually found the small rocket engine (ignitors) in the junkyard with the burned up trucks. That's when it hit the fan. From an engineering perspective, one problem with this whole litigous philosophy is that it leaves no room for "continuous improvement". As was mentioned, the previous generation truck gas tank was in the cab, behind the seat. Moving the tank to the frame rail intuitively would seem to be a big step in the right direction. But - according to the lawyers - any time you make a change you are implying "culpability" (ie, you are implying that there was a problem with the previous design). That's not necessarily the case. There are hundreds of non-safety related reasons for changing something, including availability of packaging space, commonization with other products or model types, cost, timing, material availability, advancement of new technology, elimination of archaic technology, etc. Also - the number of Federally mandated tests and requirements that we must meet is staggering. We have whole staffs of people that crash things, burn things, and generally run them into the ground to insure that we comply with Federal safety and emission requirements. We can't (...not "won't" - but CAN'T...) sell a vehicle until we've passed all those tests. We can design a legally safe vehicle, and a safe vehicle from a practical standpoint, but we can't protect against rocket ignitors in the gas tank or people plowing at a high rate of speed into the back of a vehicle stopped at a toll booth. I which you all could see how much time and money we spend (..."waste?") discussing the fact that this radius is .2mm and it is legally required to be .25mm, or that this "head impact number" is some increment above a legal requirement. It is hours and hours everyday. To suggest that we blithely design product and numbly pass them off to customers with known defects (...as some have suggested in the past...) shows a total lack of understanding and regard of the auto industry as a whole. This single item (Federally required testing) is probably the biggest reason why it takes so long to design and release a new product into the market today. My $.03 - K __________________ Chevrolet Flint Assembly 1979-1986 GM Full Size Truck Engineering 1986 - 2019 Intro from an Old Assembly Guy: http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=342926 My Pontiac story: http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=560524 Chevelle intro: http://www.superchevy.com/features/s...hevy-chevelle/ Last edited by Keith Seymore; 01-05-2010 at 08:00 PM.

01-05-2010, 07:52 PM	#9
Chevy-Art Registered User Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: San Antonio, Tx Posts: 99	Re: death trap Hoax/staged like everyone else said. Anything to get the ratings up. __________________ 1990 Chevrolet RCSB●LS1/4L60E Scrimpin Ain't Easy

01-05-2010, 08:03 PM	#10
68Timber I know the pieces fit Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: MONTGOMERY, AL Posts: 5,523	Re: death trap The part of the story that was barely reported at the time was that Ford and Dodge trucks had tanks outside the frame-rails on their fullsize trucks during the 73-87 era, but not necessarily the whole time as 73-87 defines GM's run of that platform. But I do recall the coverage at the time, NBC was dragged over the coals. The video they staged clearly showed the puff of the model rocket engines when the car that was to t-bone the truck was still a foot or two away. Of course NBC wasn't playing those precious few staged seconds in frame by frame slow motion, but the other networks were happy to. I do recall that one fireman on the scene to control the burn saw what they were doing with the model rocket engines and was heard to comment, "Well, there goes that theory." __________________ John 79 2wd Blazer (Bruiser) 85 M1009 Blazer (Sarge) build 74 Honda Z50 build

01-05-2010, 08:25 PM	#11
tommys69/454 1969 short box Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: waterloo,newyork Posts: 146	Re: death trap thats why i keep my gas tank in the cab !!!!!!! where i know it's safe. lol __________________ tommy morehouse

01-05-2010, 09:46 PM	#13
old Rusty C10 Robert Olson Transport Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: recent transplant to NC USA Posts: 20,310	Re: death trap I was hit on the side in one of the tanks on my 86 and the only thing that it did was bend the tank and mounts... the tank never leaked, and it never worked right with the float after that but it was no problem __________________ Bob 1951 International running on a squarebody chassis "If a man's worth is judged by the people he associates himself with, then i am the richest man in the world knowing some of the fine people of this board" http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/a...t.php?f=25&a=9 (you can review the site rules here!) PM Me for your vehicle/parts hauling needs in the North East US or see my Facebook page Robert Olson Transport Live each day to the fullest.. you never know when fate is going to pull the rug out from under you... I hate cancer!!

01-06-2010, 12:16 AM	#14
78 Chevyrado Account Suspended Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Unnapreciative, Trollville Posts: 2,079	Re: death trap GM just gave $1000 coupons towards new trucks. Basically at this point in time if your ride is older than say 2008, you're riding in a death trap...

01-06-2010, 12:20 AM	#15
87cdime Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Norman, ok Posts: 64	Re: death trap Well then I guess that makes us all screwed lol!!!!

01-06-2010, 12:26 AM	#17
87cdime Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Norman, ok Posts: 64	Re: death trap I'll roll my death trap till the day I die!!! Lol so I say



Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

01-06-2010, 12:40 AM	#18
78 Chevyrado Account Suspended Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Unnapreciative, Trollville Posts: 2,079	Re: death trap Somehow mine kept me alive, with no damage other than scratches from the broken glass everywhere... So I'm happy with my old death trap. Though this one is heavier so the roof would be squased in farther...dang oh well I stand by my earlier comment!

01-06-2010, 04:03 AM	#19
gchemist BAD BOW-Silverado XST Join Date: May 2000 Location: Senior Member from Austin, TX Posts: 6,431	Re: death trap Yea, death trap to anyone you hit with a square body!! A square body will crumple cars and new trucks like a beer can. __________________ Gerardo a.k.a. Mad Chemist Silverado XST videos

01-06-2010, 04:31 AM	#20
andrewmp6 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Louisville,Ky Posts: 5,811	Re: death trap Some people say a early mustang will fireball if its rear ended.But i have only seen one crash of a early mustang that had a fire from a busted gas tank.I rather have a big truck or a big car in a wreck.Look at a smart car they have a 5 star crash test rating but id never own one.

01-06-2010, 10:53 AM	#21
JohnC Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 7,461	Re: death trap To hit a vehicle hard enough to make an explosion really takes so many variables. Sure sometimes those variables come together, and it does happen. However, out of how many vehicles produced does it actually occur. Keith - Thank you for your input from a GM engineers viewpoint. That is one of many great things about having you, and other GM employees as members here is that we can get insight from the other side of the table as well. Thanks again man!

Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.