How to identify if your 73-87 was repaired by GM's fuel tank recall

[FordeatinZ71]

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.

[GreaseDog]

it was proven many years ago that NBC(?) used an outside ignition source to ignite the tanks in these trucks. this isnt a "life or death" situation.

[FordeatinZ71]

dude, not on the sticky. if you wanna "argue" that this isn't necessary then find my other thread where everything got completely out of hand and we'll debate it until the cows come home (or my truck explodes) there, but not here. this thread was intended just to serve as information to those who WANT to know if there truck has the shield.

actually, you don't even have to look, here's the thread. just please don't stir the stuff in this thread...leave it clean for people just to read the info provided...
http://www.fullsizechevy.com/forums/...ecall-fix.html

[GreaseDog]

not trying to muddy up the thread, just stating facts. its nothing to worry about really. the way your post makes it sound, one little fender bender and you're done. this is simply not the case. we play with derby trucks with stock saddle tanks in them all the time. havent had one blow up yet.

[FordeatinZ71]

i get what you are saying, but at the same time, there WAS a danger...believe it or not. yea, NBC got in trouble, but even GM in their own reports stated that there WAS a danger, and a pretty significant one. but you're right, a minor fender bender won't do it.

and honestly, even according to GM's records of crash tests, the C-series isn't so much at risk, the K-series is the highest risk of the fuel leakage because of it's higher ride height and lack of frame flex...

[GreaseDog]

and in a major side impact accident, the fuel tank is the least of your worries.

do you have links to GM's records stating that this is a severe problem? i'm calling BS on the K series truck's "lack of frame flex", because i have seen the part numbers, and the rails between a C truck and a K truck (of equal rating, C10/C20 to K10/K20, and C30 to K30) carry exactly the same part number. there are no extra crossmembers in a K truck to make the frame flex less.

i build and wreck these trucks on a regular basis, probably 15 or so a year, so i've got a little background in this area.

Originally Posted by GreaseDog

and in a major side impact accident, the fuel tank is the least of your worries.

do you have links to GM's records stating that this is a severe problem? i'm calling BS on the K series truck's "lack of frame flex", because i have seen the part numbers, and the rails between a C truck and a K truck (of equal rating, C10/C20 to K10/K20, and C30 to K30) carry exactly the same part number. there are no extra crossmembers in a K truck to make the frame flex less.

i build and wreck these trucks on a regular basis, probably 15 or so a year, so i've got a little background in this area.

lol
thats what i've been saying. its the same frame.

[GreaseDog]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/nbc.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6151727AA6Ddil

GOT my NUT.

[FordeatinZ71]

why do ya'll do this? i asked not to have this thread littered. you guys believe what you wanna believe, i got other proof (that i've tried to show in my other thread but i guess no one wants to read because ya'll have it all figured out) that convinces me otherwise. GM wouldn't have recalled them if there wasn't a significant problem.

ok, i didn't wanna do this here, but i'll repost my proof, this time i'll break it down more and explain what it is. please read it at least halfway thoroughly before making another response to this thread. i'm not saying that a kid kicking the fender is gonna make you go up in flames. i'm not saying a bus hitting you at 50 is gonna make you go up in flames...the problem is that in a side-impact of moderate severity there is a MUCH higher risk for fuel LEAKAGE than in a safer vehicle, which leads to a higher risk of fire. there were over 1,800 people killed due to fires in C/K crashes from 1973 to 2000, tell their families there was no defect...you're liable to get smacked.

ok, talk is cheap, here's the proof i've dug up. if after reading through this you don't believe it still, then fine, don't. but please don't criticize me and just let this thread be. have enough respect for me as another forum member trying to help my fellow classic truck owners to just leave this be and not to talk trash on me for trying to inform people of a defect. oh, and the reason we have access to this is that GM (after one of many of it's lawsuits) was forced to make this formerly-insider info public as part of the judgement. if all this had been available when NBC made their false report then they wouldn't have needed to do that crap to scare the public.

first is a FARS (Fatal Accident Reporting System) report listing all the fire-related fatal C/K crashes (crashes where, by investigation, fire was determined to be the fatality) from 1993-2002. there is 15 pages.
http://autosafety.org/uploads/FARS.pdf

second is a 55-page engineering report issued by transportation secretary Federico Pena outlining WHY these trucks have a defect. this explains a lot of things i never knew...
http://autosafety.org/GMAttC.pdf

this was an inside memo dated 1978 that, again, informed GM that this was a problem and that "moving the tanks inboard the frame might eliminate some of these potential leakers"
http://autosafety.org/GMAttI.pdf

here's another inside memo that shows GM engineers exploring different fuel tank locations and fuel tank shields
http://autosafety.org/GMAttJ.pdf

here is the study that says (according to GM) that the K-series trucks performed worse in the crash tests. they are the ones that come up with the frame flex theory, hell, they even moved crossmembers in 1984-later K-series trucks to increase flex, it says it all in there, just read. this test is from 1984 and was a summary of all the crash tests ran BY GM from 1981-83.
http://autosafety.org/GMAttL.pdf

this was a sketch by Vice President Alex Mair recommending what could be an "easy fix". it would have cost GM $23 a truck to do...but it was ignored.
http://autosafety.org/GMAttM.pdf

this is the study where GM concluded that it wasn't "cost effective" to spend over $2.20 per vehicle to prevent fuel-fed fires in crashes...
http://autosafety.org/GMAttN.pdf

this is Ed Ivey's 1994 deposition. read the outlined part...he is asked if there is a more dangerous place GM could have put the fuel tank...
http://autosafety.org/GMAttO.pdf

there is more proof that is on this page http://autosafety.org/article.php?scid=94&did=504 but i posted what i feel is the most pertinent. read over it and come to your own conclusion. yes, NBC got in trouble for creating the explosions, but that doesn't mean that there WASN'T a problem...

oh, and about the frame thing. there IS a difference. this is all the proof i've found so far but i do plan to keep looking. i didn't get a "part number" persay, but i did find a website (GM Parts Direct). i looked up a 1985 Chevy C-10 frame and then a 1985 Chevy K-10 frame. the C-series frame has a price, the K-series frame isn't available. here's the link, look for yourself. if you can find me a GM manual that states part numbers or a statement otherwise that the K-series frame is EXACTLY the same as the C-series frame, i'll eat crow...until then i'm sticking to my guns.
http://www.trademotion.com/partlocat...85&catalogid=2

edit, here's a frame specs sheet from ChucksChevyTruckPages...
http://www.chuckschevytruckpages.com/framespecs.html

[GreaseDog]

this is a discussion forum, and you started a topic of discussion. now we're discussing it. that's kinda why i frequent these pages.

good reads there, but im still taking all of that plastic crap off of my tanks on both trucks.

[FordeatinZ71]

Originally Posted by GreaseDog

this is a discussion forum, and you started a topic of discussion. now we're discussing it. that's kinda why i frequent these pages.

good reads there, but im still taking all of that plastic crap off of my tanks on both trucks.

i hear ya man, i shouldn't have generalized those first statements, i was more angry that BigJohnson was showing off the fact that he's immature, by littering the thread with useless statements such as GOT my NUT...he did this $h!t in the other thread i had made about this and now he's determined to screw with this thread too. young people who act like he does give people like SilveradoNolan and Chevyman247 (who are younger than him but act much older judging by their responses to things online...after all thats all i have to judge by...)a really bad rap. because people see him carrying on like a and then they generalize it as "oh, he's just young and young people just have to be stupid/idiotic"...it's not fair to the more mature members such as the one's i've mentioned (and there are plenty more like 'em, just thought of those two right off...)


anyway, you are actually smart to take off the plastic crap. that shield that goes around the tank isn't gonna save you from any accident impact (heck, the recall fix probably isn't either) and that plastic shield is known to trap in rocks/mud against the tank causing it to rust. if mine had the plastic shield around it i would remove it too. mine just has the tiny plastic (err metal, not really sure what it is to be honest...) shield between the filler neck and the bedside. i don't put a whole lot of faith in it myself, but at least it's something. the only reason for making this thread was to inform John Q. Public that the fix is available and this is what it looks like, so they can figure out if they need it...in case they want it.

BTW, here's another link to a website made by a victim's family...www.nocrash-noburn.com. it hasn't been updated in a LONG time but there's still some info there...

frame prices for the K's arent listed... because its the same part.

i got a few crows sittin' out on the telephone line. you want one?

[FordeatinZ71]

Originally Posted by BigJohnson

frame prices for the K's arent listed... because its the same part.

i got a few crows sittin' out on the telephone line. you want one?

err, no, it says NOT AVAILABLE. or don't you read well? i can do this all day, dude.

[GreaseDog]

as far as the frame assembly, you are right, they are different. the spring mounts are different, as are the body mounts on the front, and the obvious lack of leaf spring mounts on the front of a 2wd truck.

when it comes to the breakdown, the rail itself, not the perches and mounts attached to it are 100% identical. this is why converting a 2wd truck to 4wd is so easy, the holes are already there. i have been trying for years to get ahold of a GM Parts catalog, but they are nearly impossible to find.

exactly! one flexes just the same as the other.

[GreaseDog]

Originally Posted by FordeatinZ71

oh, and about the frame thing. there IS a difference. this is all the proof i've found so far but i do plan to keep looking. i didn't get a "part number" persay, but i did find a website (GM Parts Direct). i looked up a 1985 Chevy C-10 frame and then a 1985 Chevy K-10 frame. the C-series frame has a price, the K-series frame isn't available. here's the link, look for yourself. if you can find me a GM manual that states part numbers or a statement otherwise that the K-series frame is EXACTLY the same as the C-series frame, i'll eat crow...until then i'm sticking to my guns.
http://www.trademotion.com/partlocat...85&catalogid=2

interesting... check out www.trademotion.com and you'll see this on the main page...

This site does not sell car parts. This is a DEMO site for Dealerships. Please do not attempt to purchase or ask for parts on this site...

its a demo for a parts cataloging
system, not a place to look up parts and part numbers.

Originally Posted by GreaseDog

interesting... check out www.trademotion.com and you'll see this on the main page...
its a demo for a parts cataloging
system, not a place to look up parts and part numbers.

pwn3d!

[FordeatinZ71]

alright, fair enough, you got me there...but read over this (you obviously didn't read as thoroughly as i asked you too...and i was so nice about it...) and GM will tell you the reason the K-series are different...

"In August 1983, the GM engineer in charge of the tests posed the question, "Why is the C and not the K passing the test?" and "Why does the tank crush differently front to rear on the K-truck?" To answer these questions GM conducted additional testing that established that both the increased truck ride height and frame stiffness were subjecting the fuel tank in the K-series truck to different forces than those experienced in the C-series truck."

i didn't make this $h!t up...if you look on this attachment http://autosafety.org/GMAttL.pdf on page 5 and read, you will see EXACTLY what i typed. still wanna tell me its the same frame? the basic frame MIGHT be the same (it is about the same thickness c-channel, i'll give you that) but the crossmember position and other subtle things ARE different.

if you don't believe that, don't even bother posting in here, write yourself a letter to GM and you argue with THEM that the frames are the same. you convince THEM and $h!t, i'll believe ya too and even buy you a beer.

alright, im gonna call the general on wednesday.