home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Time - Man of the Year
/
Time_Man_of_the_Year_Compact_Publishing_3YX-Disc-1_Compact_Publishing_1993.iso
/
moy
/
113092
/
1130200.000
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-04-08
|
5KB
|
112 lines
BUSINESS, Page 61Was GM Reckless?
The troubled automaker is accused of ignoring an unsafe gas-tank
design
By THOMAS MCCARROLL - With reporting by William McWhirter and
Joseph R. Szczesny/Detroit
On a sunny afternoon last November, Walter Krug was
cruising along in his 1988 four-door Chevy pickup truck on I-20
near Stanton, Texas, when suddenly another pickup blew a tire,
veered into Krug's lane and broadsided him. The violent impact
ruptured the gas tank of Krug's truck, spewing fuel that
exploded into a fireball. Unable to free himself, Krug, 37, was
burned to death. His family puts the blame on the truck's
design. "Krug would have survived the crash if not for the fire.
But there shouldn't have been a fire," says Mick McBee, the
attorney representing the family. After the Krugs threatened to
sue General Motors, the pickup's manufacturer, the company
settled out of court.
Krug, a former oil-company foreman, was one of more than
300 people killed since 1973 in collisions involving burning
gas tanks in GM pickups, according to the Center for Auto
Safety. While the company denies that the trucks are prone to
catch fire and accuses plaintiffs' lawyers of sensationalizing
the accidents, GM documents released last week suggest that the
automaker recognized as long ago as 1983 that the fuel tanks
could be made much less vulnerable to side-impact collisions. GM
has already been hit with more than 100 product-liability
lawsuits in connection with the gas tanks. The company has
settled some suits, but it could face another wave of litigation
as a result of the new disclosures. Consumer groups are
pressing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) to order a recall of the 5 million pickups still on the
road.
"It's the Ford Pinto all over again, only worse," claims
Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the CAS, referring to the
1970s-era compact car whose allegedly flawed gas-tank design led
to the death of 27 motorists.
The fuel-tank controversy may worsen the woes of the
world's largest company. In the past few weeks GM has reshuffled
its top management, accelerated plans to lay off tens of
thousands of workers, and reported a third-quarter loss of $753
million. Analysts estimate that the gas-tank problem could
eventually cost GM as much as $700 million in legal fees and
damages. So far, the company has paid out more than $200 million
in settlements, according to the CAS. What remains incalculable
is the effect on GM's image at a time when the company is
struggling to regain its reputation for quality.
GM's pickups, sold under the Chevrolet and GMC nameplates,
are commonly used as recreation vehicles and as workhorses in
fields like construction and farming. As in Ford and Chrysler
pickups, the gas tank in GM trucks was mounted inside the cab,
behind the seats, until federal regulations in 1973 forced the
companies to relocate the tank. Ford and Chrysler placed it
underneath the vehicle's chassis, inside a set of heavy-steel
frame rails. In GM models made between 1973 and 1987, however,
the gas tank was mounted like a saddlebag, outside the frame.
This configuration made the tank more vulnerable to side-impact
collisions, critics say. GM changed the design in some models
beginning in 1988, placing the tank inside the frame.
GM maintains that the older design is safe, but its own
engineers seem to have raised questions about the outboard
location as far back as 1970. GM submitted 70,000 pages of
internal documents to the NHTSA last week as part of the
agency's review of pickup-truck safety. In a memo dated Sept.
7, 1970, safety engineer George Carvil warned of possible fuel
leaks in side collisions. "Moving these side tanks inboard," he
wrote, "might eliminate most of these potential leakers." An
internal memo dated Dec. 15, 1983, by product analyst Richard
Monkaba, discussed the company's plan to change the gas tank's
position with its 1987 models. "The fuel tank will be relocated
inside the frame rails," wrote Monkaba, "a much less vulnerable
location than today's tanks."
GM contends that the memos are being taken out of context
and that the pre-1988 trucks meet, if not surpass, federal
safety standards. For example, GM notes that the trucks passed
the traffic-safety administration's 20-m.p.h. side-impact crash
tests. In 1980 GM began conducting its own 50-m.p.h. crash
tests, even though they are not required by law. Explaining why
the tanks were mounted outboard for so long, a high-ranking GM
executive points out that exhaust pipes and other mechanisms
usually crowd the center of the chassis, leaving little room for
a large gas container. Says the executive: "The perfect place
for a fuel tank hasn't been invented yet." GM is resisting
efforts to recall the pickups, a process that would involve
installing a protective lining in the fuel tank and cost the
automaker an estimated $50 million. The NHTSA, which could order
a recall, is expected to decide by mid-December whether to do
so.