GM's Recall "Fix"

[FordeatinZ71]

well, the topic of the scandalous 73-87 (and 88-91 in the HD trucks) recall recently came up in another thread in the classic section, and a few of the classic guys didn't know about it. so i did some research and found more info on it and the scandal surrounding it.

at first, looking under my '83 Sierra, i didn't think it had the recall fix, so i said i didn't have it. i was under the impression it was a plastic cage that went around the tank (i didn't put much faith in that, but it's better than what i found out they actually use). well, just to be sure, i called my local GMC dealer today and had them run my VIN to see if it had, in fact, been done. to my amazement, it HAD. then i ask the dealer what it looked like...turns out it's just a small piece of metal bolted to the bedside!

now, lets look at this logically. in a side-impact, the fragile bedside is instantly crushed in pinching the fuel tank between the frame rail and the crumpling bedside...no doubt creating sparks as the metal rubs together. so logic would tell a person, that to stop fuel-related fires, you must prevent the fuel tank from being crushed...riiight? so, why would any manufacturer in their right mind bolt a piece of metal (supposedly there to protect the FILLER NECK) to a part that will just cave in on impact?

i was astonished to see that not only was the tank NOT protected AT ALL, but there was only a tiny section of thin metal there to protect a SMALL area of the filler neck.

i love my Sierra to death and this won't make me give 'er up, but i'll tell ya this...i pray i never get into a side impact collision...i put NO faith in that half-@$$ed repair. eventually when i have resources to do so, i will modify my truck and add either a K5 Blazer or a Suburban fuel tank.

the truly sad thing is that GM had the answer to this problem in 1964...before these trucks (or the trucks before them) were even produced. while these trucks were in development insiders at GM pointed this out as a potential problem...but higher-ups ignored them, because they wanted a bigger fuel tank as a "selling point". they had a perfect answer to this problem in 1978, when the Corvette had the same problem. they developed a fuel tank that had a HDPE (High Density Poly Ester) fuel tank liner and they put that "tank" within a steel tank...effectively making the world's safest fuel tank. because on the '78-'82 Corvettes, the fuel tank is directly in the crush zone, and with a regular tank, the '78 Corvette couldn't pass the crash test for minimum fuel leakage. GM engineers even tested C/K's with the HDPE tank...and even though it FIXED the problem...they didn't fix them...for cost reasons.

the more i dig into this scandal, the more sickened i really am. it's sad that GM puts such a low value on human life that they wouldn't incorporate a fix that would have cost a mere $23.00 per truck! anyhow, if you don't have the repair on your truck, PLEASE go get it. it's not much and i don't really put too much faith in it, but it's SOMETHING. the life you save might be your own...or someone elses. in a lot of these collisions the people killed aren't just the people in the C/K...but the people who hit the C/K.

here's a picture of the "shield" you need to look for. if you have this, sadly, that's all GM is gonna do for your safety.


to look for it, get under your truck, so you can look up along the bedside where the filler neck is...you should see it surrounding your filler neck...

[daleearnhardt01]

Dude you are entirely too worked up over this

Jesus Christ man

Like in the other post the media really made it look much worse than it really is...

[FordeatinZ71]

yes, the media had a frenzy over this...and most likely you'll never be in a wreck like this but you never know. i've got a 55 page report that was done by the NHTSA (NOT THE MEDIA) and they found that this was a SERIOUS problem. so no, i'm not too worked up over it, i just want to make sure all other classic owners get the info they need (most of them didn't even know there WAS a recall) to make sure their trucks are as safe as they possibly can be. there is nothing wrong with that...besides, your sig shows you have a '98 K1500...why are you even worried about something relating to a classic truck?

[87 Chevyrado]

There damn well should have been a media frenzy over it. They knew since the 60's but did nothin about it? I could handle it if GM closed it's doors forever. The only company worse to deal with than Chrysler, is GM. I'll never have a new GM vehicle just because of how they treat customers and react to problems. Every new vehicle I've had was a Ford, and I almost got a Dodge once. I love my old 77, 78, and 87, but I'll never have anything new from em.

Heres a couple a gas tank related links

http://consumerlawpage.com/article/g...k_safety.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0423-05.htm

[FordeatinZ71]

thank you! i fully agree. i mean, sure, the tests were rigged for the sake of drama and TV but what do you think the public's response would have been if Dateline would have done more digging and presented the facts to the public instead of the "rigged C/K"? i bet money it would have been the SAME D@MN THING. i don't know many people who would take something like this "in stride". especially knowing that GM knew about the issue before the truck's PREDECESSORS were produced. and to think that they did it just so a slightly bigger tank could be added...

its so stupid, if they would have just fixed it to begin with (by implementing a fuel tank with a bladder, putting the tank inside the frame rail, etc...) they would have saved so much money (and that's what it's all about right, the Almighty dollar?) and so many more people would be alive today...

[daleearnhardt01]

Originally Posted by FordeatinZ71

your sig shows you have a '98 K1500...why are you even worried about something relating to a classic truck?

Because maybe I have owned one in the past...

[FordeatinZ71]

Originally Posted by daleearnhardt01

Because maybe I have owned one in the past...

ok, fine, you owned one before. i understand that nothing happened to yours so you feel it's pointless to even give it a second thought, but looking into this more and more, i'm disgusted by GM's blatant covering up of this problem. and if i can't discuss it on then where can i? if you don't like what i'm posting, then simply hit your back button and don't give it a second thought...but it's here for the people who want the information...i haven't had one current 73-87 owner tell me i was overreacting to all this...most of them have had the same reactions finding out the things i've posted...and the ones who didn't know have thanked me. if you care to see anymore of what was said relating to this, check out the thread in the classic section titled "They don't make trucks like they use to, lol"

[87 Chevyrado]

I remember many news articles in GA where people were killed from post crash fires and people were winning $5-10 million dollar lawsuits. some with $50-75 million in punitive damages. My dad got the $1000 coupon towards a new GM truck if you trade your old one. He bought a ford. I love the part about "if you trade your old truck in" what, are they going to scrap it even though it's good? hell no, it'll be right back out on the lot or auctioned off to a used car lot. Also true to their style, with the recent "piston slap" recalls, instead of fixing it, they sent out a TSB that said it was normal(chrysler did too). and I think also now on the NBS something about loud brake squealing is normal too. I love my old truck, but I learned a long time ago GM is crappy to deal with when there's a problem.

[FordeatinZ71]

oh yea, they are the WORST about skating around fixing the problem. i was looking through some of that old documentation and in it there was an inter-corporation memo from Chrysler dated 1966 where they FLAT OUT REJECTED putting the fuel tank outside the rail on their trucks...deeming it way too unsafe...

[jrod77]

ive owned a few of these trucks and considering even after seeing that news report where they used model rocket engines to ignite the fuel

it would take one hell of a hit just right in that area to make it happen

and trust me we put the bodys threw hell and the 88 up trucks cant hold a candle to how tought the steel in the bodys are

poopsock

[retired wrench]

There was a time when to drive on the Alcan highway you had to drop the tank straps and put a truck mudflap in there to protect the tank. This might be something you could do to keep the sparks down in the event of a crash. RW

[FordeatinZ71]

Originally Posted by jrod77

ive owned a few of these trucks and considering even after seeing that news report where they used model rocket engines to ignite the fuel

it would take one hell of a hit just right in that area to make it happen

and trust me we put the bodys threw hell and the 88 up trucks cant hold a candle to how tought the steel in the bodys are

actually, before assuming that it would take a "one in a million" hit to make the fuel tanks leak you might wanna read over this link...be SURE to read over the attachments too...especially the one where GM did testing of their own in the early '80s...SOME of the C series trucks didn't leak upon impact but ALL the K series trucks tested did. they NEVER did a crash test with a K series in which the fuel tank didn't leak. and that was at varying speeds and angles...GM Side Saddle tank info<---click for the truth...

[zstine04]

i had no idea gm had a recall on these trucks. but i always thought it was stupid to put the gas tank on the outside of the frame. i was always afraid of a side impact. thanks for info fordeatin

oh yea i take my safety very seriously

[Bob T]

My Jeep CJ5 had the gas tank under the driver's seat. THAT motivates careful driving.

[FordeatinZ71]

Originally Posted by Bob T

My Jeep CJ5 had the gas tank under the driver's seat. THAT motivates careful driving.

LMAO, indeed it does!

[87 Chevyrado]

But all the careful driving in the world won't protect you from "the other motorists" Try to avoid every idiot throughout your day (driving or not) ya can't do it, nor can I..

[baddoggz71]

fuel cell, nuff said

Originally Posted by FordeatinZ71

actually, before assuming that it would take a "one in a million" hit to make the fuel tanks leak you might wanna read over this link...be SURE to read over the attachments too...especially the one where GM did testing of their own in the early '80s...SOME of the C series trucks didn't leak upon impact but ALL the K series trucks tested did. they NEVER did a crash test with a K series in which the fuel tank didn't leak. and that was at varying speeds and angles...GM Side Saddle tank info<---click for the truth...

lol

what makes K models any more susceptible?

stop your crying. you aren't dead yet. It's just like the air bags thing. For years and years, cars never had airbags. And, people still survived. Sure, airbags increase your chances of survival, but it isn't a guarantee.

The best safety system is the driver himself.

[83K1500]

Originally Posted by BigJohnson

lol

what makes K models any more susceptible?

They sit easily a 6-8" or so higher than the C series. You know back when you could tell that a truck was 4X4 even without the badging...
Higher tank, easier to hit.