Why is the GTO's fuel tank relocated to the trunk between the rear wheels?

The current Mustang has it's tank located in the same place the Monaro does (behind the rear axle, under the trunk floor), but Holden moved it into the trunk.

This is because there is a new 50 mph rear crash standard coming for 2006 model year cars. If Holden hadn't moved the tank, the GTO would have been pulled less than 24 months from now. Ditto the Mustang if Ford hadn't redesigned it.

Although the 4th gen Camaro has it's fuel tank above and behind the rear axle (just like those Ford Crown Victorias), it's doubtful it would have passed the new rear collision standards either, without some serious reengineering work (that massive hatch opening made the F-body's rear section (behind the rear wheels) pretty weak as far as crash standards go.

These standards were made many years ago to give automakers plenty of time to make plans.

And, yes.....this means yet another piece of the "Why-did-they-kill-the-Camaro" mystery is solved.

 

interesting info GuionM, thanks... but let me ask ...

Couldn't GM let the 2004 GTO arrive to our shores without moving the tank and then later on for 2005-06 with the other modifications like the hood etc. include the gas tank change. That would be simpler because that would be one less gripe by the "experts" of what is otherwise an excellent car.

(PS went to check it out on Friday but the salesman was being really rude so I just left) but Guion you are right it does have "Presence. "

 

Thing is car makers work on cars 3 to 4 years into the future, at a minimum, and new federal standards are released (depending of what's involved) 5 years or more in advance.

Sure Pontiac could have skipped the fuel tank issue, and put the money towards the car's appearence instead.

BUT.... what would happen if someone got rearended and had a "Newer Crown Vic police car experience"? You are talking law suits from hell.

Just to show I'm not exagerating, in the 1980s, a new federal requirement stated that anchors for rear shoulder belts had to be installed on new cars. There was no requirement for the actual shoulder belts, but yet someone won a large settlement over injuries because the automaker knew rear shoulder belt standards were coming, but simply installed the structural anchors till the government mandate kicked in simply to save money. There's plenty other examples as well.

One can only imagine what would happen if a GTO blew up after being rear-ended by a Escalade or Hummer, killing 2 or more people, and burning someone to gruesome proportions, and in the courtroom it's discovered that the '06 rear crash standards were given to the industry in, say 1998, and yet GM chose to import a new car without meeting these new standards simply to add a hood scoop or ground effects to a car??

GTO "experts" don't win multi-millon dollar lawsuits (let alone, lose a life or incenerate people) because they don't like the way a car looks.

If little old me can figure that out, I'm sure GM's army of high powered lawyers who figure this kind of stuff out in their sleep also figured this out before it even poped up in our imagination.

 

Check out this story if you doubt Pontiacs wisdom on this.

http://www.cheersandgears.com/boards...TOPIC_ID=12729