The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area General Truck Talk Sometimes its best to remove an option

When I got my 72 fleetside I noticed that it had auxilliary tanks on it that are fueled through doors on the sides of the bed. So I decided that would be kind of handy to have on a long trip, or as a reserve. As I slid the bed back to fix the cab corners I noticed they had that hard plastic line done with flare fittings. Now that plastic line was very brittle and just snapped in my hand. Nice fire hazard sez I. The tanks are nicely made, 14 gauge steel, plastic lined, and when I emptied out the varnish inside, only a bit of dirt came out.

I removed the tanks, which took a while because the long carriage bolts through them had rusted themselves together. The tanks had a 73 emissions sticker so were probably added as a result of the embargo. I then bought replacement fuel line and some barbed fittings to change to rubber fuel lines. I also noticed they were rusty on the outside, and I had some unused Zero Rust white, so I wire brused em, treated them with phosphoric acid (chem prime) and gave em a coat or two of white.

So now I am pretty pleased with how its going and I decide hmmm...they don't have senders, so why not rig them up with senders so I'll know how much fuel is in each. So I did a web search on 'Saddle Tanks' figuring that would point me in the right direction.

Boy...was that an eye opening search....

Turns out (which I did not know) there have been all kinds of law suits and court battles on the 73-87 GM trucks with saddle tanks outside the frame. Turns out getting broadsided will probably rupture a tank, dump fuel all over the place, and be a quick ticket to the inferno.

So I'll take these nice tanks and leave them off and give them to my cuzin so he can make use of them as auxillary (stationary) tanks out at the horse ranch. They snake up around the bed and I don't think they'll fit in the frame.

Oh well. Learn and live in this case. I'll just use the old interior fire bomb instead. I might swap to a tank out back depending on how things shape up. At least I already have the fuel fill doors for it if I do.

Guess you didn't see the 60 Minutes show then??

I'd leave them, unless you are planning to be broad sided?!? Or you could find some skinnier saddle tanks that are fuel cells that will fit inside the frame. Or, find one big one to put between the axle and the tail end of the bed.

Like Mr. Smith said, that bad press was fabricated. I wouldn't worry about the tanks, there's millions of them like that out there. It would be just as dangerous to have them inside the frame and have a driveshaft break in my opinion,
Scott

It was Dateline, not 60 minutes. NBS was sued successfully by GM due to NBC rigging the tests with detonators to "enhance" the effect. Keep Googling.
From an article about Ken Auletta'
" A key decision-maker at NBC says that it was "outrageous" for Gartner to stonewall G.M. and to defend his own news staff even after he learned that someone had hidden miniature rockets on the truck and detonated them just before the collision. Even before Gartner resigned, on March 2nd, he was about to be fired. "He knew about this incident for several days," this man said. "He didn't investigate it in depth. He should have looked into it more, because he was aware that he was being sued before he issued a statement defending News."

But wasn't it 60 minutes that did the story about Dateline falsefying everything??

The real world isn't Hollyweird. Cars and trucks don't go "BOOM" and burst into flames in most accidents.

It would take an incredible side impact to rupture the tanks, then you would have to have an ignition source, then you would have to be incapacitated where you couldn't escape....

Not impossible, but unlikely. You could always put a cage of steel bars on the outside of the tanks for added protection.

For a comparison, look at all the Stovebolts with gas tanks inside the cabs that have had no problem.

Caveat: I personally know of a fatality in a F**d with an in-cab gas tank. Cap came off in a roll-over and a little girl died.

Nothing is fail-safe. Common sense precautions will protect you in 99% of wrecks.

Maybe, maybe not. Here are some of the sources I found:

This describes the issue.

http://www.autosafety.org/GM-CK/background.htm

This one is a bit more to the point. It starts out noting 1800 people have been killed, and about 30 a year are going according to them:

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=702


A letter about it:

http://consumerlawpage.com/article/gm-open-letter.shtml

The tanks are not critical to my enjoyment of the vehicle. If you read through all this stuff you'll see inboard tanks are safer. And Canyon, that cage was a suggested improvement.

actualy its not the tank being inside the cab thats unsafe, its the neck being outside. i run demolition derbys, and the tanks are mounted as close to center inside the car, and where the rear seat was. as long as its mounted good, it wont go anywhere when being hit, and its not likely that a car will get to the center of your car.inside the frame would be good also, baring something getting past the frame. my thinking about the outboard tanks, is dont be the one getting hit, do the hitting.

But the corvair is still safe at any speed right? lol :p

I remember when mercedes made a big deal about putting the fuel tank right behind the rear seat so it couldn't get smacked in an accident. I thought the cab location was probably not that bad. If its out back it can be got to, but on my truck, someone would have to go through 9 ft of flatbed, and if they could do that, well, I doubt I would know about it.

I drive a 79 chev as a daily driver. Never even knew that these trucks had a problem with "exploding" in an accident.I'am not going to get rid of the truck becuase of that. I would'nt trade for a new one. Best driving truck ever had.

I was just hit by a semi truck/trailer in my 64, then the truck rolled into the ditch. Full tank of fuel, the truck snatched the neck cap & door handle off(were found down the road)but no flame. truck pics but when I was sitting on the headliner amazed I was alive I heard the glug glug of 16 gallons of $2.29 fuel running out & I decided I should exit the truck. no two wrecks are the same, brian

i have heard mixed reports about this rumor. i think that it is a load of crap. on top of that those saddle tanks are really useful. my 72 had a 30 gallon stock tank, and two 30 gallon aux tanks (saddle bags). that is 90 gallons of fuel, it made for a great cruising range. mine all hooked up to the gas gauge, it read a different level for each tank. it was nice when i had to drive long distances.

autoazore;
The corvair was a poor handling car as released from the factory due to 2 things:1-the factory decided just before release that there were insurmountable problems in casting the individual cylinder aluminum heads the engine was designed for,so they designed a different,one piece casting and cast it in iron.
2-the factory had trouble getting the tires that were used on the prototypes so the 4 ply tires were replaced in production with 2 ply tires. They had enough flex in the sidewalls that,with the added weight of the iron heads and GM's low recommended tire pressure really did make it a scarey car to drive. I've owned 3 of 'em,and all it takes to make them really great handling cars is a good rear sway bar,good shocks,and beefier tires. (The engines were a whole different story though.)Yes,given these minor corrections,they really are safe at any speed they're capable of. (Personal best-136 mph top,131 mph ave. over 65 miles)
There's more than you ever wanted to know about Corvairs,right?
Speed

The links are there, the facts are there, draw your own conclussions. Maybe I'll put the tanks and the selector valve in the swap meet or on ebay.