Do you really need to move the gas tank for safety?

[zeldman]

Originally Posted by Jimjific

As a firefighter (We cover a part of the NYS Thruway) I've been to my share of car fires. Not one has ever been caused by an accident and not one has ever exploded. We had one where the fuel line under a BMW broke and kept reigniting. I finally went underneath and bent the line to stop it from leaking and lighting. Hollywood depicts car fires falsely like they do many things.
Jim

What...cars that drive off a cliff don't really explode in mid air..???

[imjeff]

The car fires from accidents I've responded to in the last thirty years have been from gas leaks in the engine compartment ignited by the battery shorting, usually because it's not attached. Never seen one explode. Very rare event. IIRC, most car fires are a result of backfires without air cleaners.

Jeff

[BlackedOut67shorty]

The only reason id really consider putting the tank behind the bed would be if id went efi, even still id make every effort to keep my stock tank. Just another opinion though.

[franken]

Pretty much all conventional cab trucks had the tank in the cab from the time they were invented until the early 70s. Some were on the floor, some behind the seat.

So 1920-1970 in round numbers. GM, Ford, Dodge, International, ad infinitum all made a lot of trucks in 50 years. Can we assume tens of millions? The only news story that can be dredged up is about 73+ trucks w/ side tanks, and that test was rigged.

Put the baby to bed...

[In The Ten Ring]

Originally Posted by franken

Pretty much all conventional cab trucks had the tank in the cab from the time they were invented until the early 70s. Some were on the floor, some behind the seat.

So 1920-1970 in round numbers. GM, Ford, Dodge, International, ad infinitum all made a lot of trucks in 50 years. Can we assume tens of millions? The only news story that can be dredged up is about 73+ trucks w/ side tanks, and that test was rigged.

Put the baby to bed...

Oh ya! I remember that rigged test. They used model rocket engines to ignite the burst saddle tanks.

[Orange Crate]

I agree with Mr. Turp McSpray, stop driving your exploding fire bomb and sell that death trap to me.....

[Fitz]

Originally Posted by cdowns

monkey see monkey do describes the gas tank non issue

Not if you don't like the smell.

[Fitz]

Originally Posted by zeldman

What...cars that drive off a cliff don't really explode in mid air..???

Only in Hollywierd.

[Fitz]

Originally Posted by zeldman

What...cars that drive off a cliff don't really explode in mid air..???

Only in Hollyweird.

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by BlackedOut67shorty

The only reason id really consider putting the tank behind the bed would be if id went efi, even still id make every effort to keep my stock tank. Just another opinion though.

I was thinking that this would be one instance where an in-line pump might work pretty well being below the tank. I know in-tank always best, but it should work OK.

[jjzepplin]

Originally Posted by Fitz

Not if you don't like the smell.

Did someone just call me a monkey? BWAH haha!
I don't think GM would rig a test-catch there own truck on fire on purpose so they could spend millions of dollars on a recall campaign. Unless they needed to spend millions of left over money.
Maybe they had the data to prove it could catch fire but they couldn't get it to in lab tests so they rigged it to catch to prove it to the masses.
I googled it and found this.
http://www.autosafety.org/history-gm...as-tank-defect

[dirtyjim]

i'll be replacing my rusted tank with a rear mounted tank but I plan on trying to keep the stock filler location. if my tank wasn't rusty I would just leave it behind the seat till I upgraded to fuel injection.
if you like the tank in the stock location cool leave it there.
some of us actually like to put stuff besides gasoline behind the seat so we move it.

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by jjzepplin

Did someone just call me a monkey? BWAH haha!
I don't think GM would rig a test-catch there own truck on fire on purpose so they could spend millions of dollars on a recall campaign. Unless they needed to spend millions of left over money.
Maybe they had the data to prove it could catch fire but they couldn't get it to in lab tests so they rigged it to catch to prove it to the masses.
I googled it and found this.
http://www.autosafety.org/history-gm...as-tank-defect

The squarebody trucks passed all of the Federally mandated safety tests at the time of their design. Otherwise we would not have been allowed to sell a single truck.

NBC rigged the tests to add to the drama and because they couldn't get it to catch fire otherwise.

K

[xRAY76]

besides wanting to move the tank because of the fumes...which i am

will this make any more room to move the seat back a little bit? or will it sit up to straight or pushed forward

[leddzepp]

The seat is already angled back against the cab. Removing the tank makes no difference in leg room. It is good for putting a speaker box or tossing other stuff there, that's about it.

[57larry]

Originally Posted by RManson

It's an interesting argument to say the least. I always figured that if I was in an accident that was destructive enough to puncture the gas tank in the cab, I'd probably already be dead. But, I do like the idea of separating myself from said tank.

On the other hand, I used a '69 Camaro tank and mounted it behind the rear bumper with the license plate fill and there's nothing really protecting it from a rearend collision other than the flimsy bumper. That worries me a bit more than when the tank was in the cab, but again, I take a little comfort knowing I'm not in the content's direct path, so to speak.

That said, when's the last time you saw a new car with a gas tank in the passenger compartment? There's probably a good reason why you haven't...

I like the idea of using a Camaro tank, seams like it would be cheaper than an aftermart tank. Was there much fab work?

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by RManson

That said, when's the last time you saw a new car with a gas tank in the passenger compartment? There's probably a good reason why you haven't...

OK I know it's been a couple months almost since you asked the question, but being subscribed to the thread it came up today and I have an answer.

I've never seen a gas tank in the passenger compartment of a car, just pickups/trucks. Nowadays....
" For safety considerations, in modern cars the fuel tank is usually located ahead of the rear axle, out of the crumple zones of the car".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tank

This would indeed place the fuel tank much closer to the passenger compartment if not right up against it.

Pickups have traditionally used ladder style frames so IMO for safety reasons, put the tank in the cab. Cars in the old days mostly put the tanks behind the differential between the frame rails. The design of the car's trunk allowed it to be tucked up and behind the bumper but I think we will all agree that's a dangerous design historically.

Now the answer to your question, pickup-wise: We now have perimeter frame design that allows the gas tank to be protected somewhat by the frame.

[special-K]

There were a few reasons for moving the tank from the cab in '73 that I can think of. More cab room, dual tanks, GM started offering Crew Cabs, and they shared body components with Suburbans. It was a good time to reconsider gas tank location. There were never any safety concerns over tanks in cabs. Light trucks just took a turn in a new direction.

[benner]

Originally Posted by special-K

There were a few reasons for moving the tank from the cab in '73 that I can think of. More cab room, dual tanks, GM started offering Crew Cabs, and they shared body components with Suburbans. It was a good time to reconsider gas tank location. There were never any safety concerns over tanks in cabs. Light trucks just took a turn in a new direction.

Looks to me like the originator of this thread now has enough info...Agreed? I think the thread can die with me, or move to a new location outside the cab to? Scary. My tank will remain as it came in '70... LMAO

[67ChevyRedneck]

I always find these threads funny. You're much "safer" in a 2014 small car than a 67 C10 anyway, yet you can die in accidents in either. Some of the same guys worrying about fuel tanks are still only running lap belts, or don't wear one at all. You're much more likely to die or be injured from a hard impact with a tree or another vehicle than the truck ever catching fire or exploding.

There's also nothing wrong with putting it under the bed at the back of the frame. That's where they were from the factory on panels/burbs/blazers. I don't recall them erupting into balls of fire either?

That said, driving any vehicle always has risks. I do what I can to reduce mine in my old toys. Disc brakes, 3 point belts, and I pay attention.

From a design stand point, the fuel tank in my C10 (in either location) is A LOT safer than the one in my 65 mustang, or even 67 firebird, yet I don't recall those having huge issues either.

[Fitz]

Originally Posted by GASoline71

It is not. The only "safety" thing I could think of is fumes. And that is only after making a right hand turn with a full tank.

Gary

While smoking.

[Don Quixote]

I still run my tank in the cab. I still smoke in the truck as well. I don't think the tank is big enough so I am installing another one in the back. I think my class IV hitch provides enough protection for it. I am not that worried. There's enough to worry about in this world like someone stealing my truck.