side saddle gas tank recall?

[Mikec10]

anyone know anything about the side saddle gas tank recall, my instructor today mentioned something about a side saddle gas tank recall due to side impact crashes causing dangerous conditions, anyone know anything about this?
http://www.rolanddarby.com/br_sidesaddle.html

If i push this issue at my local chevy dealer, think they'll replace my side saddle tank with a new in frame tank?

[GM72K10]

Here's a pretty good summary of the lawsuit
http://www.autosafety.org/history-gm...as-tank-defect

[88Jimmy4x4]

the purpose of this post is for all you 73-87 C/K owners to identify if your truck was repaired by the GM campaign to upgrade the fuel system integrity of the 73-87 C/K trucks (and certain 88-91 R/Vs as well)

Vehicles Affected:
All 1973-1987 Chevy/GMC C/K pickups, 10-3500 series, to include Chassis-Cab models
1988-1991 R/V Chassis Cab and Crew Cab models

to identify the repair, you will need to get under your truck and look up at the fuel filler neck. if the repair was completed, you will see a small piece of plastic like this...



if you look and it's not there, you can call your local Chevy/GMC dealer and they will ask for the last 8 digits of your VIN. if their computer shows that your vehicle hasn't been retrofitted, then you can schedule an appointment and they will install the shield free of charge.

note to all you dual tank guys...check BOTH sides of your truck. this shield prevents the fuel filler neck from being compromised in an accident, causing fuel spillage and potentially a fire.

[68GMCCustom]

As I recall......this came up many years ago...after/around the time the next new design trucks had come out ('89up)? When it was all said and done....GM was offering a certificate to the owners to go and buy...a new truck!

I had a 3rd hand '77 GMC Royal Sierra (wierd package...loaded to the hilt with a/c, dual tanks, tilt, cruise, tow package, HD 5/8 ton Heavy Half option, power everything, carpeted door bottoms, etc....and a metal? roof insert - instead of a headliner?) and didn't benefit 1 penny.

[esbstuff]

Wasn't this shield metal?

[BigBlocksRule]

I read an article a few years back that dispelled the myth.
The only trucks that ever exploded from a side impact were those used in testing, and those used pyrotechnics to blow the tanks, they NEVER exploded from impact alone.
Apparently someone thought they were dangerous and wanted to make sure their tests showed it.

[Keith Seymore]

There was some discussion about this topic previously in this thread:

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=388675

I commented with my opinion at that time. I will repeat it here, but want to soften my tone a bit.

I understand there is a member on this board who's relative was killed in an accident, so I want to proceed gently and respectfully. NHTSA indicates that there have been 1800 people killed as a result of fires in side impact crashes. I agree that each loss is a tragedy.

Nonetheless, there are risks in every aspect of life, and my comments below are an attempt to put a framework around those risks. I hope the reader will recognize that perspective, and that special interest groups are not always objective in the way they present their data and opinions.

K

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

Wincks -

You didn't ask for my opinion, but - because this is a topic I get somewhat emotional about (...I apologize in advance...) - I'm going to give it to you:

If your motivation in moving the tank is because of safety I think you are wasting your time.

It sounds like you may have done some reading, and so you may have already seen this thread, but I would ask you to read it again:

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=379580

My editorial comments are documented there, although perhaps not as eloquently as I would have liked.

Secondly, your comments re-piqued my curiosity about this topic, so I did some (hopefully detatched and unemotional) research:

I wondered "...how many deaths were there, really, as a result of this?". So I did a quick internet search.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has documented what they believe to be 1800 fire related fatalities in '73 - '91 C/K and R/V trucks, from 1973 through calendar year 2000.

First off, in looking at the data, from what I can tell they don't distinguish between pickup, Blazer and Suburban - the later two which would not have side saddle type tanks - so the actual number will be somewhat smaller than the 1800.

Secondly, if you read through the data, it does not distinguish between "fire" as the cause of death vs "fire as a result of side saddle tanks" as a cause of death. Many of the fatalities occurred as a result of single vehicle accidents where the truck struck a tree or a pole or a bridge abutment. One could assume that in those cases the vehicle was moving forward, likely longitudinally (and perhaps at a moderately high rate of speed), and the fact that the tank was mounted on the side of the vehicle would be moot. (That is, these were not situations where the victim vehicle was T boned in the side - specifically the side that the tank was on - resulting in fire). This would also reduce NHTSA's number of fatalities directly attributable to side saddle tanks.

Lastly, in reviewing their data, in some cases there were two, three or even four people involved some of the vehicle incidents. So - the number of vehicles impacted (ie, specific crash events) was something less than 1800, like 1200 or so.

However, for the purposes of this discussion, let's do some math and use their number of 1800:

NHTSA estimates there were roughly 10 million of these vehicles produced (Note: I think that's low, 15 plus model years many of which were more than 1 million per year - but again we'll use their number). If we assume each of those vehicles traveled 50,000 miles in their lifetime (again, I am choosing a low number on purpose, as mine has nearly 200,000 miles) then the number of miles traveled in these types of vehicles would be 500,000,000,000 - hopefully that's 5 with 11 zeros behind it, or 500 billion miles.

I am relating it to miles traveled because that's the factor that causes you to be "exposed" to something bad happening. Said differently, there's really no danger when the vehicle is just sitting in the driveway. 500 billion miles - that's a lot of "exposure".

Your odds of dying in a fiery death, then, according to NHTSA would be that number divided by 1800 or 1 in 277,000,000. One in 277 million.

Just to give this number some perspective, I did a quick check on some other comparable statistics: your odds of winning the lottery, according to one website, are one in 120 million. Your odds of being killed on a commercial airline flight are one in 19 million. Your odds of being struck by lightning, the standard of measure in this type of thing, are one in 750,000. If you prefer a "straight up" numbers-to-numbers comparison, I found that there are roughly 12,000 deaths attributed to "slip and fall" incidents each year.

So basically you are twice as likely to win the lottery, 14 times more likely to die in a plane crash and 370 times more likely to be hit by lightning than to be killed in one of these trucks as a result of fire, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

[Weasel Diesel]

I come at it from a different view... Drive your truck and enjoy it. NO vehicle is totally safe and cannot be expected to be. The brute force of a collision can do all sorts of stuff.

Recently this week, they started into the Jeep Liberty on this subject. Now my wife is paranoid to drive her Liberty that she loves so dearly. I am having a heck of a time re-assuring her that the minute chances are there, sure, but the odds way too high against that this exact incedent will happen.

Enjoy your ride, smile, and burn some rubber (makes me always feel better )

[68GMCCustom]

how much better was it with the tank behind the seat...like '60-72 models?..or below the seat as in even earlier models?

[flashed]

Does anyone make a poly tank that bolts in the same location on a 74 short stepside ,mine is rusty inside and needs replaced .Is there a steel replacement if not a poly one ? I am just getting into this barnfresh 74 ,Im more used to my 72.

[rwhit57]

I have to say that I think the saddle tanks outside the frame rails was not a great engineering design. Keith's passion for the trucks he built and our own biasness for these trucks doesn't change the facts that GM has paid out over a half a billion dollars in settlements and spent 100's of millions more defending it, and people have died as the result of fires. These trucks were built at a time when the Big 3 was concentrating on short term profits. Quality, safety, and workers rights were not a main priority. However the GM 73-87 trucks were probably the best thing out of Detroit in this era. How many 73-87 cars and trucks from the big 3 do you see on the road today? Like Keith posted though the chance of this scenario happening to one of us is unlikely and moving the tank or changing it for safety reasons is kind of crazy but I could see doing it for peace of mind. Just my rambling .02 worth.

[tucsonjwt]

GM issued $1000 certificates to owners of side saddle tank GM trucks as part of the lawsuit settlement. I had 2 squares at the time so I got two $1000 certificates. I used the certificates with other incentives and a GM employee discount to buy 2 new GM vehicles. The certificates had a time limit, and as I recall if you did not use them by a certain time the were only worth $500, then after another time had passed they were worthless. So, I think the time window for GM certificates has passed. I think those $1000 certificates were worth more than my 2 old squares at the time. So, I would say you cannot get anything from the settlement, but you can google "GM side saddle tank settlelment" and probably get the full details.
Interestingly, NBC did a phony crash test that they broadcasted on television where they secretly rigged up an old Chevy pickup with an explosive attached to the side saddle tank and tried to demonstrate that Chevy trucks were unsafe. They were eventually outed by someone knowledgeable about the "testing" methods and issued an apology. This makes me have very little regard for their "reporting" integrity.
While GM trucks now have their gas tanks inboard of the frame rails, relatively few trucks were set on fire because of side saddle tanks, so it was an inferior design but not a gigantic fire hazard.
I have been driving old squares as second vehicles or primary vehicles for the past 30 years and have not been set on fire yet - although they have fired up my irritation with them for their pesky other problems from time to time.

[Firebirdjones]

Originally Posted by BigBlocksRule

I read an article a few years back that dispelled the myth.
The only trucks that ever exploded from a side impact were those used in testing, and those used pyrotechnics to blow the tanks, they NEVER exploded from impact alone.
Apparently someone thought they were dangerous and wanted to make sure their tests showed it.

Yep, this is old news. It was shown as you mentioned, that the tests were rigged to sway public opinion.

Look at all the muscle cars made with tanks and (unprotected) filler necks in the rear of the car....I'd say on average there are just as many, if not more rearend impacts than anything else. How many people have complained about the 100's of millions of vehicles built like this? I feel it's just as easy (and more likely) to puncture a tank in the back of the car.
At one time the Pinto was brought into the spotlight about this, and then it faded away.

In the end, I don't worry about it. Drive the cars and trucks and enjoy, you can't control every aspect of life. Driving defensively is the best approach, be aware, and pay attention (stay off the cell phones)

[Weasel Diesel]

Reading these reminds me of a story a while back.... A guy went to South Carolina's South of the Border, and bought a boatload of fireworks to smuggle back north where they are illegal. He hit Richmond on I-95 in his Chevy pickup, flicked a cigarette butt out the window and it went into the bed. The 4th came early.... I know its not related, but the fireball thought did remind me of the story.

[Firebirdjones]

Now that would be a fire show, bet that got some looks

I just looked at mine because I couldn't remember, the GM campaign or recall was never done on my 79 with dual tanks.

[lap15]

You know, Dodge trucks in the 70's were the exact same way (side mounted tank outside the frame rail) why doesn't anyone ever hear a word about them? Ford was the only manufacturer to put the tanks inside the frame starting in 1973.

[BigBlocksRule]

My guess is that most of the Dodge trucks fell apart before they got hit.

[MalibuSSwagon]

Originally Posted by lap15

You know, Dodge trucks in the 70's were the exact same way (side mounted tank outside the frame rail) why doesn't anyone ever hear a word about them? Ford was the only manufacturer to put the tanks inside the frame starting in 1973.

Nobody bought Dodge trucks

[Rich84]

My Dad had a pinto in 1973, there was no place safe to put a gas tank in that thing..

[Firebirdjones]

Originally Posted by Rich84

My Dad had a pinto in 1973, there was no place safe to put a gas tank in that thing..

I know what you mean, I owned about 7-8 of a close cousin,,,the GM H-bodies, both Vega's and Monza's.

[tucsonjwt]

Many vehicles of the 50s and 60s had gas tanks in the rear of the vehicle under the trunk, with the filler neck behind the license plate. That configuration had a propensity to splash back fuel when you were refilling, and left fuel sloshing out of the filler neck if you over filled. I would imagine that any significant rear end collision would risk filler neck rupture, except for the massive bumpers made of real steel used in those days possibly protecting the filler neck.

[Firebirdjones]

Originally Posted by tucsonjwt

Many vehicles of the 50s and 60s had gas tanks in the rear of the vehicle under the trunk, with the filler neck behind the license plate. That configuration had a propensity to splash back fuel when you were refilling, and left fuel sloshing out of the filler neck if you over filled. I would imagine that any significant rear end collision would risk filler neck rupture, except for the massive bumpers made of real steel used in those days possibly protecting the filler neck.

Yep, that's what I was eluding to in my other post (#13). I have a collection of cars just like that out in the shop that I drive frequently. In my eyes they are just as prone as anything else, so why someone decided to pick on chevy trucks is anyones guess.

[smashingchuck]

Keith, its incredible to have you here....
Posted via Mobile Device

[tucsonjwt]

If you get rear ended and blowed up in Preskit I could probably see the flames down here in Tucson.

[lap15]

Originally Posted by bigblocksrule

my guess is that most of the dodge trucks fell apart before they got hit.

good point!!!!