I believe that GM also had an issue back in the 70's with their pickup trucks being prone to explosion upon impact due to the gas tank being on the outside of the frame. Someone more "seasoned" around here may have more info on that
The tanks weren't safe as noted. In an indirect way NBC unintentionally benefited GM by trying to sex up an already very worthy news story that didnt need any props. If they had just curbed their enthusiasm an relied solely on good journalism they would have kept the focus on GM. They made themselves a big story instead.
In my opinion they unintentionally was GMs best friend, by handing them a free diversion when they were most unworthy of any sympathy
The link at the close the post is in reference to NBCs use of added sparking devices, to aid in demonstrating the dangers of GMs gas tanks.
The gas tanks just ruptured in the impact. With the Pinto, the tank was mounted in a frameless, unibody design that offered no real protection in the event of a rear-end collision.
I installed a 1970 Mustang fuel tank under the bed, behind the axle of my '72 Ford truck. The original fuel tank was in the cab, behind the seat
A couple of the guys from another truck website asked If I was concerned about rear-end collisions with the fuel tank back there. I am not concerned, because unlike the Pinto, the truck has a full frame surrounding the fuel tank. Really, the only reason I moved the tank was to put weight over the rear axle. Prior to the fuel tank install and the slicks and mini-tubbing of the rear wheel wells, traction was just a rumor that I heard about.
Here's a write-up on my tank swap...> http://www.fordification.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46022
Funny that you mention Ralph Nader. Just a couple of days ago a friend and I were having a discussion about the Corvair. We agreed that with today's technology, the Corvair might be worth re-visiting for an update of design. You know, something along the lines of today's GT 40.