Yeah, that’s the reason. It would never be because of the significant extra cost to have something that is unnecessarily redundant.
3 Likes
But if I said the same thing, somehow I’m “wrong”.
Yeah, I get how this place works.
Naw, if you said the same thing you’d be just as wrong as George. I think the consensus is that it has nothing to do with safety.
2 Likes
Well, then the minority of us would be correct! As usual…
Cost might be the primary reason for only one fill location but safety and the additional potential for an evaporative emissions leak are others.
The fuel fill tube must be able to withstand an ordinary collision. There have been several vehicle recalls correcting fuel fill tube problems that can result in fire during a crash.
At 16 years old did not bother me having to squat down to insert the gas nozzle into the behind the license plate fill tube. What was annoying was some filler locations was difficult to get nozzle to remain in place while washing the windows and checking the oil. The owner of the station required us to wash all the windows on every gas purchase.
Stingrays, as I recall, had the filler under the rear deck logo.
Then there is the Model A Ford, see the gas cap?
1 Like
Yep, and their owners were VERY picky about any gas drips on the surrounding paint.
1 Like
+1
I was always a little nervous when I had to fill the tank on one of those Corvettes.
Then, there was the original VW Beetle, whose gas filler was inside the front trunk. Even a small spillage would result in a lot of gas fumes in the cabin, and the need to use the ventilation system on high speed. Oh, that’s right… there was no ventilation system on a VW Beetle… 
1 Like
This is the MAIN reason…COST. Manufacturers try to shave pennies off of manufacturing costs. Safety will ALWAYS take a back seat to cost. Many times manufacturers need to be FORCED to improve safety. It’s been shown that they’ll sacrifice safety for cost.
1 Like
Yep, in some movie the CEO of a car company told the engineers do not use a $5 fix that will cost us millions.
+1
The classic case is the Ford Pinto, and the cost to install a steel shield between the gas tank and the differential that lay directly in front of the tank was less than $5–on the assembly line. However, the design specs for the Pinto stated that it had to weigh less than 2,000 lbs, and that it couldn’t cost more than $2,000. So, even though crash testing at Ford–prior to production–revealed this serious safety problem, Ford management opted to not install that steel shield.
The proposed recall of these cars, in order for dealerships to install that steel shield, would have cost ~$11 per car, for a total cost of ~$120 million. Instead, Ford opted to save money by paying the families of the folks who died and were maimed when their Pintos were rear-ended, and that cost Ford only ~$50 million.
Cost is the major factor for manufacturers, and it is almost always considered to be more important than safety.
I think I remember that movie staring Rock Hudson as the CEO.
But in real life Ford knew the Pinto was UNSAFE before they put it on the road. It was their internal memo that really hurt them. In the memo they outlined how much the fix would cost and weighed it against how much they’d lose in wrongful death suits. The fix would cost them more, so they let the Pinto go as is. And based on the outcome of the lawsuits, Ford made the correct financial decision. They still made a profit.
What of the GM pickups with the tanks outside of the frame rails.
I don’t know what became of that, though a news network “helped” the truck catch fire.
Trying to think of what car I owned that did not have the tank in the back. It’s just not something I ever paid much attention to. And I think the pick up truck turned out to be more staged by the media than anything. Gotta wonder why Nader wouldn’t have spent as much effort informing owners of the proper corvair tire pressure only he knows. Media hype versus facts? I dunno. Kind of numb to it all.
Can’t even remember what the product was yesterday that had a warning label that it contained chemicals that could cause cancer in California and defects in infants. Decided to not get pregnant and stay out of California.
1 Like
Still waiting.
1 Like
Subcompact cars in the 1970’s were susceptible to fire during a rear collision, not only the Pinto.
There have been recalls for other vehicles because of fire risk during a rear collision. Vehicles with the fuel tank located between the rear axle and rear bumper have higher occurrences of fire during a collision.
2 Likes
Some of the worst were the early-mid '60s compact Fords, like the Falcon and the Mustang. Very light rear body, no separate frame, the gas tank formed the floor of the trunk, there was no sheet metal between the trunk and passenger compartment, and the gas filler was connected to the tank with a rubber hose. In a crash the hose would disconnect, gas would spray up into the trunk, ignite, and quickly spread to the passenger compartment.
1 Like
Yup!
I had a 1960 Falcon, a Grandma car that I bought when it was 17 years old, and it had less than 20k on the odometer. Since it was tortoise-slow, I’m really glad that I was never rear-ended in that car.
Yeah we had a 60 and a 62 falcon. Gee also had a corvair and a vw. I’m amazed I’m alive yet.
1 Like
My Mom, registered nurse in her white uniform, cruising to work in her new bought midnight blue '66 white ragtop!
1970 I came along, and by '72 Dad said I was “outta there”:
Out of Mom’s by then 6 year old Mustang with rust spots developing in that same location in your photo. And into a new '73 green Mercury Comet 2dr.
Mom was the rebellious type back then, no more than two passenger doors on anything she drove.