TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 113092 / 1130200.000 next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 5.4 KB | 114 lines

<text id=92TT2633> <title> Nov. 30, 1992: Was GM Reckless? </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992 Nov. 30, 1992 Windsor: A House Dividing </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> BUSINESS, Page 61 Was GM Reckless? </hdr><body> 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. </body></article> </text>