Something no one has noticed about the GTO...
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 669
From: Arcadia, OK
Um, guys, did I miss something or didn't GM have to MOVE the gas tank (from it's original position in the Monaro) to MEET crash standards? And, BTW, where do you think the gas tank is in all third and forth gen F-bodies?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally posted by quick
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?
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?
Nothing else to say there.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally posted by Eric Bryant
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 
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
I agree with you on the Uni's and spaceframes (I think I even said so above), but I wanted to point out to others reading that a Uni is not the cure-all/save-all when it comes to accidents - especially high speed ones. Tanks, engines, and sometimes even the passenger's cage are defeated by shear mass and/or momentum in a bizarre road accident. There are actually times when a body-on-frame can be a savior too, but you'll never see the media or law-leaches out praising a Vic because it SAVED a trooper...
... you get my drift.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 599
From: Inland Empire, CA
Re: Something no one has noticed about the GTO...
Originally posted by formula79
http://gtoaa.org/monaro.htm
Is it more or is that a really small trunk for a car that size? The Corvette probaly has a bigger one..
http://gtoaa.org/monaro.htm
Is it more or is that a really small trunk for a car that size? The Corvette probaly has a bigger one..
MFR Cargo Volume:
2003 Infiniti G35 Coupe: 7.8 cu. ft.
2003 BMW 330Ci: 9.5 cu. ft.
2003 Mercedes C230 Sports Coupe: 9.9cu. ft.
2003 Lexus IS300: 10.1 cu.ft.
2002 Ford Mustang GT: 10.9 cu. ft.
2003 BMW 540i: 11.1 cu. ft.
2003 Mercedes C32 AMG: 12.2cu. ft
2003 Cadillac CTS: 12.8 cu.ft
2002 Camaro Z28: 12.9 cu. ft.
2003 Chevy Cavalier Coupe: 13.2 cu. ft.
2003 Corvette Z06: 13.3cu. ft.
2003 Infiniti G35 Sedan: 14.5 cu. ft.
2003 Ford Focus ZX3: 18.5 cu. ft.
2003 Ford Crown Victoria: 20.6 cu. ft.
2003 Corvette Coupe: 24.8 cu.ft (!!! )
So, it's not really all that low compared to other cars in it's class. I couldn't find a car that had a higher cargo volume than the Corvette.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,472
From: South Bend, Indiana
Re: Re: Something no one has noticed about the GTO...
Originally posted by MunchE
2003 Corvette Coupe: 24.8 cu.ft (!!! )
So, it's not really all that low compared to other cars in it's class. I couldn't find a car that had a higher cargo volume than the Corvette.
2003 Corvette Coupe: 24.8 cu.ft (!!! )
So, it's not really all that low compared to other cars in it's class. I couldn't find a car that had a higher cargo volume than the Corvette.
I didn't even think it was bigger than a Camaro's...I ussually use the back seat of Camaro's as storage space too though, I guess thats why...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post