|06-21-2013 11:52 PM|
My gripe of going back 20 years still stands.
But thanks for posting factual information.
|06-21-2013 08:51 PM|
I mentioned earlier, the 04-06 GTO had to move the tank from the behind-bumper location to inside the trunk, behind the rear seat, to meet US safety regulations. I forgot that the weirdest (but purportedly safest) was my old MR2, which had it nestled in the tunnel between the two seats. The center console was oddly high (that's my recollection of it anyway), because directly under it (well, under the sheet metal I should say) was the gas tank. The theory being it was in the center of the car and not vulnerable to any front, side, or rear impact, and it helped with weight distribution and so forth. Not really relevant to Jeeps, the topic just made me think of it.
|06-21-2013 03:23 PM|
NHTSA ID No.: 78V-143
Date of Company Notification: 6-15-78
Model Year: 1971-76
Model Year: 1975-76
Number of Vehicles: 1,400,000
Mfg. Campaign No. 293. Fuel/tank. Fuel tanks and filler necks installed on these vehicles are subject to failure when vehicles are struck from rear. Such failure can result in fuel leakage, which in presence of external ignition sources can result in fire, and "based on our investigation, it has been initially determined that defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in these 1971-1976 Ford Pintos and 1975-1976 Mercury Bobcats (except station wagons)." Correct by replacing existing fuel filler pipe and seal with longer pipe and improved seal. Also, install polyethylene shield on front of fuel tank.
This was the first example of the "plastic shield" that I was thinking of I could find in a quick search. I've seen versions of this on Mustangs, including a complete plastic cover on the bottom of one I replaced (rusted) for someone.
Don't know if it actually was a recall for the Mustangs, today's research makes me think that might be an urban legend. The "fix" was phased into production of Mustangs, recall or not. Only "proof" handy is to suggest looking under some (grin).
Gas tanks were often inside the passenger compartment as recently as the '60's - location, strength, security have been improving bit by bit ever since.
I think at one time that was actually considered a "safe" location, protected from damage & rusting, with the thought that any incident that damaged one to the point of leakage wasn't likely survivable anyways. Thoughts on this have obviously changed...
|06-21-2013 04:21 AM|
|Montag||Chrysler was happy to take the bailout money. Now those need to shut up and do what they're told.|
|06-20-2013 10:14 PM|
|06-20-2013 08:20 AM|
|06-20-2013 02:16 AM|
|TheGlassMaker||Back in high school my drunk buddy and I was out tinkering with a ranger we was taring apart for parts. He took the metal gas tank which had maybe a gallon of gas it drug it across the yard then tossed it into a bonfire we had going. He then grabbed his 1911 and shot a bullet into it. As we all screamed and ran for cover, nothing happend.|
|06-20-2013 01:58 AM|
|azdamay||What an odd solution to retrofit Jeeps with a trailer hitch. Hardly seems like effective protection for the gas tank... more like Chrysler figured the cheapest solution was to clear their unsold inventory of trailer hitches.|
|06-19-2013 08:25 PM|
Proof of this Mustang fix?
And I don't know of any MFG that has ever had to go back 20 years for a Gov't mandated recall. If you know of anything, provide proof.
That is the precedent I'm talking about (for the third time).
|06-19-2013 07:38 PM|
Mustang 'Fix" was a plastic cover for the tank, reduces chance of puncture or split such as when pushed into rear axle.
Jeep agreement is for a reduced # of vehicles, involves checking for a trailer hitch & adding one to vehicles without one.... more metal behind the tank for 'protection" is the theory.
"Better Ideas" come along regularly, "fixes" for existing vehicles have to fall into a practical range of what can be done. Free replacements for all older vehicles wouldn't exactly work, and next year you'd have to do it all over again for the next bright idea.
Defects are another separate issue, not working as designed is a separate subject from "you should have designed it different". 20/20 hindsight, and changing standards...
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|