Please elaborate...

The GTO is crash-tested at 70mph from the rear?!?!
By a steel lance like a 94 F-car?
or an 8000# F-Superduty?

BIZZARE things happen on the road, dude. No engineer can design a car to withstand every possible contingency.

 

Why was it cancled?!? I was looking forward to reading reviews on it in the near future.

 

The Crown Vic is a body-on-frame car. Anyone who's ever seen a rear-ended vehicle with this construction knows where the frame collapses - right where the rails arch up over the axle. This is where the tank is mounted on the CV, and that's why it has the problem. The tank on a GM B-body is mounted further back, but it's contained in the much-stronger section of frame formed by the straight rails that run under the trunk.

Given that the GTO is a unibody design, which can be designed to crush much more effectively than body-on-frame designs, one could expect it to do just fine in a rear-end impact that would cause problems for a body-on-frame vehicle of similar size.

Plus, GM doesn't seem to compromise their own corporate specs or falsify test data, as Ford was accused of doing on the Mustang

 

Ford skimps on sheet metal on thier cars. If you ever compare a Ford to Chevy the thickness and redundency of the metal is all ways less in the Ford. I am reminded of Guion's post about how much more stout an F-body chassis is compared to a Mustang. Also of note the B-body was much heavier than the Crown Vic in the rear, so much so that when the local PD here went to Crown Vics from Caprices they had to do a 2 two day driving clinic because the driving dynamics were so effected by the light rear.


Look at the GTO's underside...that's some serious bracing.

What's scarier is the Mustang...you can see it's gas tank hanging out the back

 

Look at the GTO's underside...that's some serious bracing.


I still dont see why they cant run the dual pipes out the back like most folks want em...one per side.???
What am I overlooking?

 

Read this thread for all info about that.

 

Hey guys this is my first post in over a month, I haven’t had a lot of time to check out the board lately. My summer has been super busy. Sounds like a lot of cool stuff is happening.

This is a little off topic but has to do with the rear the axle mounted gas tank. After looking at that pic of the GTO's underside I’m kind of bothered. Proud pony is right weird stuff does happen on the road. IF your hit by a huge truck from behind that tank looks very exposed to danger if even some of you say its protected. I realize technology has come a long since 1965. But the GTOs tank looks father mounted back than my 1965 Stang. There is no way I'm driving around in my stang in a few months with its stock tank. I've already removed it. I plan to weld in a sheet of steel and mount a plastic and foam incased fuel cell instead. I wonder how much testing and reengineering was actually done when this car was decided to be rushed over here.

 

There are hundreds of thousands of the sedan variants of the GTO running arround over here, and I've never ever heard of one rupturing a fuel tank in a rear collision.

 

And there are way over a million Panther-bodied cars running around on the US roads too - have been for years. Yet the Crown Vic is still being scrutinized because of the flame/tank issue. C'mon - 12 deaths since 1996, and from thousands of LEA persuit-involved wrecks... gimme a break. Probably 10-fold more people have died from bizarre air-bag deployments in the same style car and in lesser violent accidents, yet the air-bag system is getting no scrutiny at all.

So that's exactly my point. Thanks Decromin.

I'm not bashing the GTO design - that's not my intent here. I was trying to make you guys (all of us) see that the tank position is a tough call to make for a manufacturer, and there is NO WAY that any engineer can design the tank or put it in a place where it's guaranteed not to rupture in some freakish accident. For Crissake, even fuel cells in NASCAR and NHRA rupture in rare cases these days, so you can't think an unbladdered production unit is going to be failsafe?!?!

My original post was also intended to be most sarcastic towards letigious parties and the press, who will cry foul when the first person dies in a crash where the tank leaked.

As for the Vics, I totally think Ford should actively persue relocating the bolts and rivets that are known to be the cause of tank punctures in these SEVERE rear-end collisions. NO DOUBT THEY SHOULD. But let's all be realistic here too, just how many 70+ mph rear-end collisions do YOU expect to survive?

Spare me the Pinto thing, a bad decision, 1 year and hyperactive press (much like the Vic thing today IMO), and the SN95 Mustang thing as well. Again, it's hard to design a bomb into a vehicle safely for anybody. As for those of you who think GM can do no wrong, all the extra metal in the cab and bed did no good for the C/K series when they put the tank OUTSIDE the frame rails, did it? And the Fiero... no comment, just go to your local junkyard and look at the number of them that are burnt and where the fire started. This is a problem that ALL CARMAKERS HAVE, it's just how the media plays it and for how long that makes the problem seem blatant.

So please understand my sarcasm was not directed solely at the GTO, but aimed at the press, lawyers, and do-gooders who will be waiting in the wings for the first GTO fatality.

 

The problem on the Vic is that the tank is potentially penetrated by a series of fasteners that are used to attach the exhaust hangers, the tank retention bands, and rear-end support framework to the frame itself in certain impacts. The tank does not "burst" between the rearend and the body, or some such action. If the penetration occurs over the exhaust system, then the fuel leaks directly onto very hot surfaces... go figure the rest. Otherwise there is sparking required from metal/metal or metal/street to ignite the fuel.

Honestly, it has far less to do with the placement of the tank relative to the frame as opposed to the environment around it which contains multiple penetrating devices. In fact, Ford's first "quick-fix" was simply to put a blunt steel cap on all of the bolts around the tank. They elaborated into "shields" that would prevent bolt heads and sharp corners from penetrating the tank itself. Here's a great article by the Detroit Free Press that has an illustration showing the "shields" and what they cover.

Having said all the above, I respectfully disagree with your comment that "one could expect {a unibody} to do just fine in a rear-end impact that would cause problems for a body-on-frame vehicle of similar size."

While I totally agree that todays unibodies are superior at controlling energy dissipation through controlled collapse and deformation, I challenge you to show me where a unibody can protect a fuel cell more safely than a rigid frame when your impact speeds are 70 mph or above.
There's No Way. Todays cars are designed to withstand @35mph impacts - meaning that the crush zones are nearing full-crush at those speeds. Hit it at 70 and you will be into the passenger compartment structure big time, and the fuel tank will be going in there too. FYI - the current Federal guidline is 30mph impact for fuel leakage, and Ford tested the Vics at 50 mph repeatedly with no failures.

For the occupant, dissipating the energy is key to reducing the violence of the crash, so unibodies have their advantages there - no doubt. But we're talking about the TANK here, not the driver, right?

I see where you are coming from with the unibody argument, and I agree that uni's and spaceframes afford much improved designability of crush zones and energy dissipation than a hard ol' piece of steel channel, but let's not forget what the speed limitations are for those magic "crumple zones"... and it ain't 70+ mph.

I'd love to see some test results for other vehicles that have had vehicle-to-vehicle impacts at 70mph closing speeds... not homogenious brick walls or geometrically stable 2"-thick steel plates on a test sled - but vehicle to vehicle impacts, where steel crinckles and makes sharp-edged creases, nuts and bolts peel through and become cutting tools, etc.

Like stars1010 eluded to earlier, there is NO WAY to predict every possible scenario of what could happen on the real streets. Suppose you magically know I'm going to hit you in the rear, slightly off-center, running 60mph in my 7000-pound F-250 Superduty with a gooseneck and 15,000 pounds on it this afternoon... you have 2 choices - ya wanna be in a new Crown Vic or in this new GTO?

 

You're killin' me dude!
That ain't bracing... it's a plastic skuff guard!
You can't see any structural protection or bracing around the tank (especially the rear of it) in this pic!

Nice pic though. Photoshop and 3D-modellers are cool, ain't they?

 

Say what you want, but I am willing to bet two things...

#1 the GTO is much less likely thean a Mustang or Crown Vic to suffer a gas tank rupture because of better design and a stouter frame.

#2 90% of Ford's problems with this issue are because they went through a huge mess with the Pinto 25 years ago. It is a shock to the public that the Crown Vic and Mustang have not been fixed in that time frame and that this is even an issue.

It looks bad on Ford when GM can reengineer the limited edition GTO and move the gas tank to a safer place, yet Ford has been lying for20 years to avoid doing it.

 

Honestly, I agree - it's purely speculation on both our parts at this point, but likely at least because it's a newer car from the ground-up than either the Vic or Stang - but still purely speculation at this point.

That's just your opinion Branden, no supporting facts whatsoever.

Look, I'm not going to defend Ford's position regarding these gas tanks. It's not my place. But let's be honest... EVERY CARMAKER HAS THEIR PROBLEMS. GM is just as guilty of design flaws as Ford. How many people died in those C/K pickups? Vegas with aluminum blocks that caught fire? Corvairs that caught fire AND ran off the road to boot? We could do the same thing with Mopar products too.

And I don't see how GM's moving the tank makes Ford look bad myself. We haven't crash-tested the GTO at 50 mph yet I don't beleive? Much less 70 mph? And you ASSUME it to be moved to a safer place at this point... let's see how it pans out in the real world. If the truth was known, the decision on location probably had equal weight placed on cost, access, mountability, and function as it did on "safety" in a 30 mph crash. Beleive it or not, there are numerous places on about any car where a tank can survive a 30 mph hit - after that, the safety criteria is considered "satisfied" by design standards and test standards.

And in-step with your tactic of often citing Ford's myriad of recalls and product problems... allow me to stoop down low and post one for you.
Here's an interesting article I just read 2 days ago...
GM's Saturn to recall 254,000 vehicles for fire risk
To their credit, there have been no fatalities yet, despite 7 fires. I guess it's easier to get out of the car with a faulty ignition switch than to get out of one after a 70 mph collision, huh?

Now, do you want me to go back and research GM's history on aluminum blocks, magnesium wheels, tank placements, and ignition systems as they have related to fires? I'd be happy to, and we can compare them to Ford's horrible problems you are keen to point out.

FWIW, the attitude you have about Ford (to quote you,"...Ford has been lying for 20 years... ") is EXACTLY the kind of sarcastic mentality that I was trying to mock sarcastically about the GTO article. GM and Holden have likely done a great job with the GTO package and have as safe a car as can be, but if one or two bizzarre accidents result in deaths (out of 18,000 cars no less), and the media can link them to a design issue, justified or not, it will be a fiasco. And that's wrong IMO, I don't care if it's Ford, GM, or Mattel. So please, spare me the "all Ford's suck" routine - they are typically equal to anything else on the road overall - GM included.

People should realize that we all assume a certain level of risk when we get on the road in a car - there is no guarantee we will make it back home.

 

I didn't mean to imply that the tank "bursts", but rather that it's in an area that sees high displacement during accidents. If there's no displacement, then there's very little chance for tank damage.

And in beating this dead horse once again, I think that Ford's biggest mistake in this ordeal was P.R.-related, and not a design issue. I don't think that the CV is a firebomb waiting to happen, but I do think that police officers need a level of protection above and beyond the average consumer. Ford could have entered into a contract with a fuel cell vendor and offered up replacement tanks very inexpensively (if I can buy a fuel cell for my car for $250, Ford can buy one for less). I don't see where this would have exposed them to any liability (but I know there's slimeball lawyers who'd jump all over this), and they would have looked very good to the officers using their equipment and the public at large.

Mercedes, Volvo, and Saab all employ unibody designs, and are arguably among the safest vehicles on the road in real-world accidents (I've personally experienced an extremely high-speed collision between a tree and a Saab and was quite pleased with the outcome).

Unibody designs offer the designer much more flexibility in determining where the crash energy should be directed and absorbed, so a properly-implimented unibody structure is likely to provide better crash protection for a given vehicle weight. I'm all about body-on-frame design for certain types of vehicle, and I'm certainly not trying to imply that it's an unsafe construction method - it's just not the most-efficient way to protect the occupants when you're dealing with a fixed amount of material.

Brandon needs to stop playing engineer - this sandbox is a bit too deep There's a lot more to safety than sheetmetal thickness, or at least I hope so after putting a couple dents in my car with my elbows

 

Very, very few cars of any design since WWII have burned because of gas tank ruptures. The first Pinto case, Which I studied in school, involved folks who parked the car and were rear ended by someone going highway speeds--60 or 70 mph. Let me tell you--if you are sitting still and get hit by a 3800 pound vehicle going 70 mph, sh*t will happen. The gas tank issue all revolves around industry norms and statisical probabilities.

In the first Pinto case, the court analyzed the 4 other cars in the Pinto's class--Vega, Hornet, B210, and Corolla. Real world statistics showed that the Pinto burned more often in rear-enders than the Vega and Hornet, and less often than the B210 and Corolla, which were smaller and lighter. Ford was still nailed for civil liability because of the design that permitted bolts from the bumper assembly to in certain situations pierce the gas tank, even though in the real world, based upon these comparisons, it was not unsafe at all (it fell right in the middle) and the bolt "design flaw" did not render it less safe than the two Japanese offerings. Frankly, the Pinto was fine--a jury just figured someone should pay, and Ford was it.

Cars are build based upon cost-benefit analysis, and no car is, therefore, perfect. The Crown Vic is fine. One's odds of getting hit by lightning and killed are probably greater than the odds of burning up in a Crown Vic after a rear-ender.

When are the first GTOs to be delivered?