Don't forget the fact that it blew up in many rearenders due to fuel tank being behind the rear axis a mear 12 inches away from the rear bumper, a characteristic it did not share with any of its platform mates!

[post="23444"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I remember the Malibu law suits a few years ago... I wondered if that problem applied to all the other RWD A- and G- bodies from '78-88 or if only the Malibus were affected... (the '78-81 coupes were clean looking, but the '81-83 sedans were invisibly dull)..

I remember the Malibu law suits a few years ago... I wondered if that problem applied to all the other RWD A- and G- bodies from '78-88 or if only the Malibus were affected... (the '78-81 coupes were clean looking, but the '81-83 sedans were invisibly dull)..

[post="23446"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Malibu had a particularly unsafe fuel tank location, only 11 inches from rear bumper, well in the crush zone. The others on that platform had theirs forward a good deal. BTW--it was introduced for 1979.

Edited October 3, 200520 yr by Croc

forgettable RWDers: 
'80s Malibu sedan (beyond bland)
'80s Bonneville G (a LeMans in fancier clothes)
'80s Plymouth Fury and Dodge Diplomats (another that's beyond bland)
'70s Maverick, Comet

Keeper FWDers:
Buick Riviera '79-85, '94-97

[post="23418"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I disagree in every respect.

A/G GMs have a huge following, even the four-doors.
M-body Chryslers have a coolness about them to me for some reason.
And I love four-door Mavericks.

Early 80s E-bodies are just disgusting exteriorwise, and weren't trimmed much better inside. Let's not forget the scary handling (ever see that C&D picture of that 79 Eldo?)

I guess it's all subjective, but none of those would make my lists...

The E-bodys were some of my favorites of all times. Not great handlers, no, but awsome for a long highspeed cruise

What in the world are you talking about, Croc? <_<

What in the world are you talking about, Croc? <_<

[post="23495"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Do a google search for "malibu" and "fuel tanks" and you'll come across quite a few links regarding this well-publicized case.

The cars debuted in 1978.

The fuel tank location was shared among all divisions.

The fuel tank remained in the same place until production stopped on the A/G bodies in 1988.

The fuel filler was behind the license plate on coupes and sedans, on the quarter panel for El Camino and wagons.

Edited October 3, 200520 yr by ocnblu

No, the Malibu had a fuel tank located closer to the rear of the vehicle than the others. I do not know if this had to do with overhangs, but I know the Malibu's was closer than the rest. I distinctly remember reading this...I'm going to find the source. EDIT: I tried looking for it, but I cannot find it.

Edited October 4, 200520 yr by Croc

No, the Malibu had a fuel tank located closer to the rear of the vehicle than the others.  I do not know if this had to do with overhangs, but I know the Malibu's was closer than the rest.

I distinctly remember reading this...I'm going to find the source.
EDIT: I tried looking for it, but I cannot find it.

[post="23517"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Probably a shorter tank-to-bumper distance than the others since the Chevy was the shortest... I remember reading something about the bumper getting pushed into the tank..these car suffered from rusty rear frames as well...

Not that it's related, but I've always thought the fuel filler behind the license plate was a dumb, dumb idea... in a vulnerable location and too low to easily reach.

I disagree in every respect.

A/G GMs have a huge following, even the four-doors.
M-body Chryslers have a coolness about them to me for some reason.
And I love four-door Mavericks.

Early 80s E-bodies are just disgusting exteriorwise, and weren't trimmed much better inside.  Let's not forget the scary handling (ever see that C&D picture of that 79 Eldo?)

I guess it's all subjective, but none of those would make my lists...

Though I think the A/G body coupes definitely have some memorable models (Monte SS, Cutlass H/O and 442, GP 2+2, Regal GN, etc---- the sedans were all snoozers, IMHO... dull, dull, dull, except maybe for the '78-79 Grand Am sedan. The only interesting Mavericks and '70s Comets IMHO were the 2dr Grabbers and GTs...

I like the crisp lines of the '79-85 Eldos and the Rivs (without the stupid period padded tops), and the neat convertibles... the Toros less so.

Edited October 4, 200520 yr by moltar

Well, the fuel tanks on those cars were located under the trunk floor to the left of the spare tire well. The spare was stored kind of standing up on the right side of the trunk. The sources I went to with Croc's prodding mentioned some of the other A/G bodies briefly. The articles mostly indict all cars with fuel tanks located just ahead of the rear bumper, a standard location for decades. One of the lawyers in the Malibu case also represented plaintiffs in the Ford Pinto case.

I'd be interested in seeing some published dimensions of those GM cars. I wouldn't think there'd be that much of a difference in rear overhangs between a Malibu, and, say, a Century or Cutlass fastback or LeMans. I could maybe see a slight difference between a Malibu and a Monte Carlo or Grand Prix... not enough to keep the car from exploding after being hit at 50 mph by some drunk ass punk.

Not that it's related, but I've always thought the fuel filler behind the license plate was a dumb, dumb idea... in a vulnerable location and too low to easily reach.

[post="23527"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Not much worse than the floor button to turn the headlights on and off....

Well, the fuel tanks on those cars were located under the trunk floor to the left of the spare tire well.  The spare was stored kind of standing up on the right side of the trunk.  The sources I went to with Croc's prodding mentioned some of the other A/G bodies briefly.  The articles mostly indict all cars with fuel tanks located just ahead of the rear bumper, a standard location for decades.  One of the lawyers in the Malibu case also represented plaintiffs in the Ford Pinto case.

I'd be interested in seeing some published dimensions of those GM cars.  I wouldn't think there'd be that much of a difference in rear overhangs between a Malibu, and, say, a Century or Cutlass fastback or LeMans.  I could maybe see a slight difference between a Malibu and a Monte Carlo or Grand Prix... not enough to keep the car from exploding after being hit at 50 mph by some drunk ass punk.

Yeah, they were probably no worse that some of the incredibly stupid stuff Ford did like the drop-in gas tanks in '60s Mustangs and Cougars (the top of the gas tank is actually in the trunk!).

Probably a shorter tank-to-bumper distance than the others since the Chevy was the shortest... I remember reading something about the bumper getting pushed into the tank..these car suffered from rusty rear frames as well...

Not that it's related, but I've always thought the fuel filler behind the license plate was a dumb, dumb idea... in a vulnerable location and too low to easily reach.

[post="23527"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It really doesn't matter where the fuel filler is, it's where the gas tank is. Fuel doesn't stay in the fuel filler, it goes to the tank. I'm not a fan of this location for the filler either, but it isn't unsafe by any means.

Not much worse than the floor button to turn the headlights on and off....

[post="23548"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

What is annoying about that? It makes just as much sense as grouping it into the stalk... I'm on the fence and don;t hate or really prefer either but there's nothing wrong wiht ther floor switch. It's all about your frame of referance.

While we're bringing back dead topics, Tipper Gore.

While we're bringing back dead topics, Tipper Gore.

[post="65599"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Honda Civic and Ridgeline are keepers, by the way.

The Honda Civic and Ridgeline are keepers, by the way.

[post="65611"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah. I'll keep them with my recyclables.

I think I'm going to have to add that dead horse thing Brewswillis posted. :P