Gas tank in the cabin - safety

[Luke87gt]

Hi guys, when I was in college, I took an engineering ethics course where we did a case study on the Ford Pinto. The vehicle had a design flaw where two bolts would penetrate the tank if the vehicle was in a severe enough rear end collision.

When I saw that the gas tank in my c10 was directly behind the seat, it immediately made me think of that college case study lol

I wanted to check in with you guys on how much of a safety concern is the placement of the tank in our trucks? I know they do make relocation kids to get the tank out of the cabin but wonder what the general consensus is here with the oem tank placement.

Thank you!

[leddzepp]

Zero concern.

[Stocker]

Originally Posted by leddzepp

Zero concern.

This ^^^^^^^. I have owned my truck 47 years and for most of those, it was my daily driver. Had I been concerned, I might have relocated the tank -- or sold the truck. In fact, relocating it to the rear of the truck could have been a bad move, what with the odds of getting rearended. Which brings us back to your Pinto example.

[dmjlambert]

The cab is the safest place for the gas tank. If you're out doing truck stuff there's no chance of damaging the tank with rocks, debris, etc. Contrary to what makes exciting TV shows and movies, gas tanks rarely explode in accidents. I like driving around and hearing the gas slosh around in there. More concerned about lack of air bags (not suspension kind).

[purple gas]

When I was a young guy in small town Saskatchewan there was a body shop a couple blocks from my house.
Any vehicle that was in a crash would be hauled to the back lot until the insurance company dealt with the claim.
I saw some really badly messed up 67 -72s. Rollovers, head on collisions, T-bone collisions, you name it.

The only trucks I saw that had a fire were owned by guys who couldn't make the payments and burnt it for the insurance money.
Is it impossible the gastank might catch fire? No.
Highly unlikely.
If you're worried about safety, don't drive like an idiot and install 3 point seatbelts.
Or, buy Volvo.

[Luke87gt]

Great replies, thank you all!

I’ll retire any concerns I had ��

[HO455]

Not to be worried about. Pintos were not really a problem either. Only as seen on TV. My dad put his 72 HiBoy F250 through the backend of a Seventy something Pinto hatchback. The front bumper was against the front seat backs in the Pinto when everything stopped moving.

The Pinto guy was backing up on a snow covered two lane highway with 3 foot berms on each side, with oncoming traffic, in the dark, because "He slid past his mailbox." My dad was unhurt and was able to back the truck off of the Pinto and drive home. This occurred about 3 months before the whole Pinto fire thing blew up in the news.

The only car that I know of that is a concern is the 1992 to 1996 (I think) Ford Crown Vic police cars. Those cars did have a problem when getting hit in the rear. Several police officers died after crashes when their car caught fire and the officers were unable to get out. There were others who were badly injured as well. Fuel Safe in Bend, OR made thousands of fuel cells for police departments after the class action lawsuits started.

[Steeveedee]

It wasn't actually a design flaw with the Pinto. It was just easier to install the screws in the clamps that held the flex hose from the fill part with the cap to the tank. They were supposed to be installed pointing down, to avoid this very problem.

I worked for a couple of Chevrolet dealers right out of high school. We got service bulletins from all GM car lines. There was a recall on Opels because even in a low-speed collision the windshields would pop out. Turns out that the guys on the line were using grease to aid in installing the windshields, instead of the water-based lube, which would dry out and/or rinse off.

The real issue with fuel leaks was with saddle tanks on our trucks. That was also overblown. Yes, they could leak if hit. But they didn't burst into flame like that Pinto in the "Top Secret" movie.

[Rufas]

Back in the early 90's NBC faked a segment on exploding gas tanks in GM pickups involved in accidents.

Exploding Chevy Pickups And NBC Coverup

[Stocker]

Originally Posted by Rufas

Back in the early 90's NBC faked a segment on exploding gas tanks in GM pickups involved in accidents.

Exploding Chevy Pickups And NBC Coverup

Yep. I had forgotten about that. Thanks for the reminder. Fake (or at least altered) news has been around a long time.

[71CHEVYSHORTBED402]

If they're leaking vapor or worse it stinks, and I don't know that I'd smoke a cig under those conditions Other than that no concerns to speak of. I drive my truck so carefully anyway, enough I generally refuse the seatbelt, figuring if I mess up I'm going down with the

Originally Posted by Steeveedee

It wasn't actually a design flaw with the Pinto. It was just easier to install the screws in the clamps that held the flex hose from the fill part with the cap to the tank. They were supposed to be installed pointing down, to avoid this very problem.

I worked for a couple of Chevrolet dealers right out of high school. We got service bulletins from all GM car lines. There was a recall on Opels because even in a low-speed collision the windshields would pop out. Turns out that the guys on the line were using grease to aid in installing the windshields, instead of the water-based lube, which would dry out and/or rinse off.

The real issue with fuel leaks was with saddle tanks on our trucks. That was also overblown. Yes, they could leak if hit. But they didn't burst into flame like that Pinto in the "Top Secret" movie.

Interesting, not surprising.

[1970cstblazer]

Much rather have the in cab tank versus the vulnerable side saddle bombs on the 1973-91 GM trucks

[697498chevy]

Kinda off topic , but if IRR I got a $1,000 rebate on a new GM vehicle because I owned a 74 chevy truck with gas tank issues .

[54blackhornet]

Why not research how many people have died in these trucks before worrying about it ? You have a much better chance of dying walking across the street.

[desert-rat]

People smoked more too back when. I was going to relocate a new tank under the bed, but decided to keep the original in the cab. I have no worries.

[Richard]

Rolled a 72 when I was 16. Was knocked out cold being flung around the cab. Woke up hanging upside down suspended by the lap belt. Gas was dripping and puddling on the roof. Obviously nothing ignited it or I would be dead. Yes, I was young and driving recklessly. Want to test the suspension on current truck in Barstow to see how fast I can get up to trough the whoops. None the less I never want the possibility be in that situation again. I moved the tank in my current 72.

[1970 CST Short Wide]

I relocated my tank to the rear when I went LS. It was easer ,for me, to do the in tank pump that I wanted Plus more weight in the Rear. I’ve had this truck for 34 years, have Never been concerned about Safety when the tank Was in the Cab.
Now that this question Has come up I’m thinking it’s probably Safer in the Cab in a Rear end collision. I’m hoping I never find out

[67 twins]

Originally Posted by 1970cstblazer

Much rather have the in cab tank versus the vulnerable side saddle bombs on the 1973-91 GM trucks

As already noted above that **** was faked.

[67 twins]

Originally Posted by 697498chevy

Kinda off topic , but if IRR I got a $1,000 rebate on a new GM vehicle because I owned a 74 chevy truck with gas tank issues .

As I recall it was $1500 & utterly worthless to me. Couldn't afford a new truck & wouldn't have bought one if I could. As ALWAYS the lawyers were the only ones to get anything in the end.

[typerr]

The reason you no longer see fuel tanks mounted in the passenger compartment of vehicles is in the event the filler hose gets torn off in a crash you could have fuel released into the cabin. On our trucks it is certainly conceivable that if one were side swiped the filler could be ripped off. Whether or not that would start a fire is for Mythbusters.

[1970cstblazer]

Originally Posted by 67 twins

As already noted above that **** was faked.

Yes, the NBC Dateline episode was massaged to have a predictable outcome.

What hasn't been faked is that an estimate of around 800 individuals that have been purportedly killed in these trucks due to fire in a side impact collision since 1972. What also has not been faked is that over the years GM has paid out around 500 million dollars to the victims' families.

To blindly believe that the side saddle fuel tank design is even remotely safe is ridiculous.

[Accelo]

I always thought that if the truck rolled on the driver's side and slid down the highway, it would be disastrous. I have been driving the 1967-72 trucks since I received my license and never observed a fire in one.
That said, I moved my tank to the back for "safety", the weight transfer and I didn't want to listen to a noisy fuel pump with an LS conversion.
I weighed my axles and 2300 on the front and 1700 on the rear for a total of 4000 lbs with fuel and me in it.

[Getter-Done]

Originally Posted by Accelo

I weighed my axles and 2300 on the front and 1700 on the rear for a total of 4000 lbs. with fuel and me in it.

What time were you on the scales,

Before or after Lunch?.

That would make a Big difference with me.

[67 twins]

Originally Posted by 1970cstblazer

Yes, the NBC Dateline episode was massaged to have a predictable outcome.

What hasn't been faked is that an estimate of around 800 individuals that have been purportedly killed in these trucks due to fire in a side impact collision since 1972. What also has not been faked is that over the years GM has paid out around 500 million dollars to the victims' families.

To blindly believe that the side saddle fuel tank design is even remotely safe is ridiculous.

Yes they are in fact remotely safe. Although 800 deaths may be tragic contrast that against the millions of those truck sold, driven god knows how many billions, trillions? Of miles puts it in perspective. If they were anyway near as dangerous as you want to make them out to be the insurance industry would have made them prohibitively expensive to insure. That has never been the case. I'd be willing to bet the actual fire risk is about average. Anyway I know it is so damn low I'm not going to worry about it. I'm way more likely to die of something else.

[franken]

If we think about the 73-91 record of the squares we may want to think they were pretty safe. Similarly, gas tanks were in the cab for about 50 years until 72. Hmm.