The "Evil" Squarebody pardoned

[WyattTX]

This may be old news to some of you, but with this all this fuss about a "fake news" , I just saw an interesting video of NBC admitting to their exploding gas tank lie. You can look it up, if you do not believe me.

Now, who wants to bet Ford or Chrysler is involved in this fabrication?

[mongocanfly]

Yep..but that's about 25 yr old news though

[WyattTX]

Originally Posted by mongocanfly

Yep..but that's about 25 yr old news though

It may be old news, but I feel we must be reminded of it. So that way, we wont fall for that "You are driving a death trap" agian on an another vehicle

[El Dorado Jim]

60 minutes was caught years ago adding explosives to the square body trucks to make them explode when hit from the side....I don't believe anything on the news or 60 minutes

[andrewmp6]

Look at the older cars 70s back where the gas tank was right by the back bumper

[LT7A]

Link? Don't worry, googled it on my own. Handy just to be able to click tho.

This may not be old news for me. My insurance co wants to charge 50% more for my 82 C15 than my 93 Z71. 9 years older and a 2WD. Anybody else run into this?

Almost wonder if the underwriters are using that saddle tank business to leverage higher rates.

[Rubble]

Originally Posted by LT7A

Link? Don't worry, googled it on my own. Handy just to be able to click tho.

This may not be old news for me. My insurance co wants to charge 50% more for my 82 C15 than my 93 Z71. 9 years older and a 2WD. Anybody else run into this?

I'm betting that the underwriters are using that saddle tank business to leverage higher rates.

I'd look into a different insurance co. I've been running any number of 73-87 trucks since 81 & never had an issue about the fuel tanks....

[mongocanfly]

No issues with my insurance either on mine..

[Keith Seymore]

Some previous discussion:

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...ghlight=saddle

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...ghlight=saddle

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...ghlight=saddle

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...ghlight=saddle

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...ghlight=saddle

[WyattTX]

Wow Keith, you really know how to crush the hysteria. Thanks for the input.

[El Dorado Jim]

Originally Posted by LT7A

Link? Don't worry, googled it on my own. Handy just to be able to click tho.

This may not be old news for me. My insurance co wants to charge 50% more for my 82 C15 than my 93 Z71. 9 years older and a 2WD. Anybody else run into this?

Almost wonder if the underwriters are using that saddle tank business to leverage higher rates.

have never heard of insurance companies doing that....find a new insurance co....and I am not afraid of the saddle tanks...I removed my in the cab tank on my 72 and installed two saddle tanks ....a bunch of crap that they will blow up.....my insurance company never asks dumb questions about the gas tanks

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by LT7A

Almost wonder if the underwriters are using that saddle tank business to leverage higher rates.

Also, from the same article (written in 1993):

[andrewmp6]

Probably because your newer truck has a air bag while the older truck don't.

[PunishedC10]

Originally Posted by andrewmp6

Probably because your newer truck has a air bag while the older truck don't.

The '93 didn't have airbags either lol
Posted via Mobile Device

[WyattTX]

Airbags became mandatory for the 1995 and up years.

[LT7A]

Just to clarify, my insurance co didn't say anything about the tanks. I just can't see that the SquareBodies should be 50% more costly to insure than the OBSs. Usually a newer rig that is a 4x4 would be more expensive to insure than a truck that is 11 years older and 2wd. The only other thing that I can think of is that the '93 trucks have rear ABS. But 50%? That ain't gonna fly. My '82 C15 is not on the road right now, but when it's ready my insurance co may lose a customer.

[LT7A]

Interestingly, I looked into this a little more. NBC was certainly way out of line. And their actions seem to have taken much of the focus off of the issue and moved it onto the theatrics. There is a group, The Center for Auto Safety, who is not aligned with lawyers who would benefit of finding fault with GM but are a consumer advocate group. They also have their own agenda, make no mistake, but they present ongoing information as pertains to this issue and have some of the backup documents which are interesting. Here's the web address:

http://www.autosafety.org/history-gm...s-tank-defect/

Many of the links internal to this thread don't function and I began to doubt its veracity until I got to some links that worked and began to see a different, fuller picture. There is no comparison information on how other non-saddle-tank trucks performed in a side impact collision so it is difficult to say what the degree of risk is. But GM has paid out over $50 million because of these trucks for "safety programs" in a settlement with the DOT. And has paid out a total of at least $500 million to settle claims arising from this design.

I love my trucks and have grown up with/in cars made by the General. But this is worth reviewing for yourself and deciding what you think. It's not an issue of propaganda instigated by NBC. And it wasn't over when GM sued NBC and NBC apologized for their pyrotechnics.

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by LT7A

Interestingly, I looked into this a little more. NBC was certainly way out of line. And their actions seem to have taken much of the focus off of the issue and moved it onto the theatrics. There is a group, The Center for Auto Safety, who is not aligned with lawyers who would benefit of finding fault with GM but are a consumer advocate group. They also have their own agenda, make no mistake, but they present ongoing information as pertains to this issue and have some of the backup documents which are interesting. Here's the web address:

http://www.autosafety.org/history-gm...s-tank-defect/

Many of the links internal to this thread don't function and I began to doubt its veracity until I got to some links that worked and began to see a different, fuller picture. There is no comparison information on how other non-saddle-tank trucks performed in a side impact collision so it is difficult to say what the degree of risk is. But GM has paid out over $50 million because of these trucks for "safety programs" in a settlement with the DOT. And has paid out a total of at least $500 million to settle claims arising from this design.

I love my trucks and have grown up with/in cars made by the General. But this is worth reviewing for yourself and deciding what you think. It's not an issue of propaganda instigated by NBC. And it wasn't over when GM sued NBC and NBC apologized for their pyrotechnics.

Did you read any of the threads I referenced in post #9? Large payouts, especially with "villainous" major corporations (with deep pockets) do not equate to misdeeds.

I don't see anything new in the link you posted, except they claim the total number of deaths attributed to side saddle tanks was 2000 (as opposed to NHTSA's number of 1800).

I agree that each vehicle death is a tragedy, but the added tragedy is the priority placed on this. How many abortions are performed each year? Between 3/4 million to 1.5 million each year. How many die from alcohol or texting while driving each year? In terms of texting there are roughly 11 teen deaths per day. As my statistical analysis showed*: because there are roughly 12,000 "slip and fall" fatalities each year - you are safer riding in a square body than you are walking.

The odds are so low that I think it shows GM did a reasonable job in protecting their customers, and far exceeded the requirements of the Government mandated testing of the time.

K

*Reposting, in case you missed it. Please read this thoughtfully if you haven't already:

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.

[LT7A]

Hey Keith, I gave this awhile and thought I would see if anyone else commented. Interestingly, nobody did so I'll jump back in and reply to your comments as I go as noted by "LT7A:" in the blue section below.

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

Did you read any of the threads I referenced in post #9?
LT7A: This seems like an odd question since I wasn't researching your opinion but was looking up information to develop my own. After getting a pretty good handle on your perspective I continued on to other sources. Some of what I came across hadn't been previously mentioned so that's why I included it in my post above.

Large payouts, especially with "villainous" major corporations (with deep pockets) do not equate to misdeeds.
LT7A: This is true in theory but I don't think that this is a case of people taking advantage of the legal system against a large corporation. I assume that automakers have to settle some claims on every model and it is just the cost of doing business. However, I don't think over half a billion dollars in settlements falls into a reasonable "cost of doing business". If GM could have defended their position, they would have rather than continue to pay off claims in the millions. Half a bill plus doesn't pencil when a lawsuit to establish a precedent would probably just cost a few million (maybe tens? but not likely hundreds).

I don't see anything new in the link you posted, except they claim the total number of deaths attributed to side saddle tanks was 2000 (as opposed to NHTSA's number of 1800).
LT7A: There is quite a bit of new information there. It is where I got the information that goes beyond what had been discussed on this thread to date.

I agree that each vehicle death is a tragedy, but the added tragedy is the priority placed on this. How many abortions are performed each year? Between 3/4 million to 1.5 million each year. How many die from alcohol or texting while driving each year? In terms of texting there are roughly 11 teen deaths per day. As my statistical analysis showed*: because there are roughly 12,000 "slip and fall" fatalities each year - you are safer riding in a square body than you are walking.
LT7A: I don't find that comparative information relevant to my perspective since I'm not trying to justify or vilify anybody. The only comparison that I would be interested in would be truck to truck, inboard tank to outboard tank.

The odds are so low that I think it shows GM did a reasonable job in protecting their customers, and far exceeded the requirements of the Government mandated testing of the time.
LT7A: You seem compelled to drive to an opinion here and you're welcome to. My post above didn't state an opinion but mentioned that there was more to the story. If you are looking to convince me, I'm not interested in trying to be ok with what GM did or didn't do. What would interest me (as said previously) would be to assemble comparison figures from similar trucks that had the fuel tanks inside the frame. So far, I haven't seen that information compiled. If it was necessary to arrive at a final opinion, whether or not other automakers' rigs were safer would be what settles it for me. But I've not been engaged in this to state my opinion or try to refute someone else's. I just added info to the picture. You seemed to take issue with my information so I replied to your comments.

*Reposting, in case you missed it. Please read this thoughtfully if you haven't already:
LT7A: I read this before wrote my previous post and considered your perspective and as I developed my own.

Bottom line for me is that I grew up in these trucks and have always liked them whether they were the best design in every way or not. That is why I'm on this forum and enjoy the input, information and camaraderie of being here. Understanding the "how" and "why" on aspects of these rigs doesn't take anything away from that. This thread was about the NBC shenanigan and I took this opportunity to learn that there was more to the story and I wrote about it here. I find the background on the settlements etc. to be more enlightening than whether or not NBC dramatized their footage and lied about it. I wrote what I found out in case anybody was interested in it.

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by LT7A

This seems like an odd question since I wasn't researching your opinion but was looking up information to develop my own. After getting a pretty good handle on your perspective I continued on to other sources. Some of what I came across hadn't been previously mentioned so that's why I included it in my post above.

Originally Posted by LT7A

I don't find that comparative information relevant to my perspective since I'm not trying to justify or vilify anybody. The only comparison that I would be interested in would be truck to truck, inboard tank to outboard tank.

Originally Posted by LT7A

You seem compelled to drive to an opinion here and you're welcome to. My post above didn't state an opinion but mentioned that there was more to the story. If you are looking to convince me, I'm not interested in trying to be ok with what GM did or didn't do. What would interest me (as said previously) would be to assemble comparison figures from similar trucks that had the fuel tanks inside the frame. So far, I haven't seen that information compiled. If it was necessary to arrive at a final opinion, whether or not other automakers' rigs were safer would be what settles it for me. But I've not been engaged in this to state my opinion or try to refute someone else's. I just added info to the picture. You seemed to take issue with my information so I replied to your comments.

I’m sorry to unload on you. I will not deny I am passionate about this topic, and for that I do not apologize, because I lived through it. In addition to being an enthusiast (and growing up with these trucks) I have been designing and building Chevy pickups since 1979. My dad made and tested the fuel tanks at Chevrolet Flint Manufacturing, confirming they far exceeded the safety standards of the day. I worked with Ed Ivey. I remember when the storm clouds begin to gather. I remember when the NBC broadcast was run; I have copies of the memos GMC was circulating providing updates on the legal proceedings; I sat a couple rows over from Bill Kemp when he was gathering the background information; I remember the surge in morale when Harry Pearce took on the media and won.

I think our disconnect in this topic is that my preferred technique is to show that the vehicles were not statistically different than any other vehicles on the road, and you are looking for specific "A vs B" data on tank location within the same vehicle type. I don't believe you will find that data, because I don't think it exists. There was no room to move the tank inside the frame rail, because of the narrow arrangement, so those tests were probably not run on a C/K/R/V vehicle. The result could be emulated by adding a steel cage type shield to the outside of the tank, which did perform satisfactorily, and which was released as a service fix for pickups and as a production fix on chassis cab models.

I appreciate that you are reading, and learning, and speculating, and looking for test data, but implicit in all this is this fact: if a person is looking to NHTSA or Clarence Ditlow’s organization for clear and unbiased reporting and recording – they are not going to find it there. As soon as you see hyperbole like "rolling firebomb" and "immediate holocaust" it is a red flag that these are embelishments designed to prey on the (non technically inclined) public's emotions. It is akin to sincerely wanting to learn about the Corvair by reading Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at any Speed".

Relative to A vs B comparisons in general, as soon as the media colors public perception the engineer no longer has the opportunity for objective test data to stand on its own merits. The engineering team no longer has the ability to make incremental continuous improvements in design without ulterior motives being assigned, like "admitting the previous design was inferior" or "covering something up". It also punishes the design organization for not incorporating features or architectural changes not known to be available or significant until years later (like not putting air bags in a Model A Ford).

I was looking for something else and immediately stumbled upon this, expecting it to be another “inflammatory” article. It does do a good job (perhaps a better job) of summarizing my feelings about the statistical performance of the vehicle in the field, and if large payouts are an admission of culpability. In the absence of the data you are looking for I would suggest the statistical rankings will have to suffice.

http://walterolson.com/articles/gmtrucks.html/

K

[TKCR]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

Also, from the same article (written in 1993):

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

I’m sorry to unload on you. I will not deny I am passionate about this topic, and for that I do not apologize, because I lived through it. In addition to being an enthusiast (and growing up with these trucks) I have been designing and building Chevy pickups since 1979. My dad made and tested the fuel tanks at Chevrolet Flint Manufacturing, confirming they far exceeded the safety standards of the day. I worked with Ed Ivey. I remember when the storm clouds begin to gather. I remember when the NBC broadcast was run; I have copies of the memos GMC was circulating providing updates on the legal proceedings; I sat a couple rows over from Bill Porter when he was gathering the background information; I remember the surge in morale when Harry Pearce took on the media and won.

K

You have every right to be passionate about this topic. You were there, this was you job/career and reputation. We all know how the media can make a mountain out of a mole hill, just for the sake of it.
I would take the word of someone that was actually there, especially since you were/are an engineer. The first time I ever saw that news cast, years ago. I remember thinking then, "now that's just silly". Our family was/is GM. My Dad worked there also (retired now), and we have always owned Chevy Trucks. And not once did we ever fear for our safety, riding/driving them.