Car Carrier of the Day: Chevy Titan Hauling Chevy Police Cars
– Posted on September 2, 2020
-
-
-
American Brands: GM 
American Brands: Ford 
American Brands: Chrysler 
American Brands: AMC, Jeep and All Others 
Automotive Histories and Misc. 
Asian Brands 
UK Brands 
Australian Brands 
European Brands 
Cars Of A Lifetime & Auto-Biography 
Buses 
Trucks, Pickups and Vans 
Design 
Trains, Planes & Ships 
Motorcycles, Trikes, Bicycles 
Engines, Transmissions and other Tech 
Tractors, Lawn Mowers, Off-Road Equipment 
RVs, Motorhomes, Trailers, Campers
That truck looks like its headed for Pennsylvania. I probably saw more than one of those hiding along the Turnpike back in the early 90s.
I would assume that “stinger” rig is close to being worn out. Those are, at the oldest, 1987 Caprice Sedans. The Titan 90 saw its last model year in 1980; however, it’s sister truck the GMC Astro 95 soldiered on until 1987.
I agree that those 9C1 Caprices are 1987-1990 models. I was trying to pin down the year. I thought that the mirrors gave them away as 1987 9C1s, but then I realized that they had those mirrors until 1990. The retail versions of the Caprice had the more modern looking “bullet ” style mirrors. I guess the 9C1s held on to that mirror style until the bubble body Caprices came out in 1991.
The 1989-1990 9C1s got TBI fuel injection for their LO5 V8s and the 1990 9C1s got motorized seat belts. But of course there’s no way to tell from the picture.
You are bang on for most points, except for the motorized belts in 1990. The B-body went to door mounted belts in 1990. However, not all 9C1 cars got door belts. Some 9C1 cars still had the pillar mounted belts, so even that is not a dead giveaway. Also the “bullet mirrors” were first used in 1986 with the aero refresh. Regardless, these were one of my all time favourite cruisers. The Caprice 9C1 also became the clear leader in MSP tests after it was introduced in 1986 and remained so until 1996.
Oh, GM exempted (some) law enforcement officers from the pathetic safety performance of the door-mounted excuses for seat belts, eh? Interesting.
I see stand-up hood ornaments! I thought those went away in the ’86 face, um…”lift”.
Good ornaments were gone in ’86 but back in ’87 forward.
Sorry, I meant hood ornaments. LOL! Although I did prefer the hood ornaments on the 77-85, 87-90 Caprices over the 91-96 bowtie hood ornaments.
I checked into it for your Daniel. It looks like it was the Canadian market 9C1 cars and the 9C6 (taxis) that had the pillar mounted belts. I don’t believe Canada had the passive restraint requirement in 1990 like the US did. For whatever reason, the Canadian civilian cars had door belts.
Thanks for looking into it, Vince. This really is a messy question, about the late box B-body belts. Canada did not have a passive-restraint mandate, that’s true, and many of the US passive belt systems did not meet Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 208 (occupant protection), 209 (seat belt assemblies), and/or 210 (seat belt anchorages).
But the door-mounted belts in question aren’t passive restraints—not really. They’re just regular 3-point belts, only in the door so they can be left buckled while the door is open. Those belts were never left buckled. They were unbuckled in the showrooms (a violation of Federal law), and they were unbuckled every time an occupant left the car—despite the very important urgent warning never ever to unbuckle the belt except in an emergency (it was somewhere or other in the owner’s manual nobody ever read). This was another craven, cynical GM compliance job, but GM did have a way of getting what they wanted, regulatorily speaking, whether or not it was in accord with the letter or spirit of whatever reg was in question.
It’s scarcely conceivable (oh, wait, that’s not true: some Ferengi ghoul on the 14th Floor™ said “do it or you’ll be replaced”) how any legitimate engineer could possibly sleep at night after designing or approving the GM door-mounted belts (but then we’re talking about the company which for decades installed seatbelts with RCF-67 buckles that unfasten all by themselves).
My second-ever foray into the traffic safety realm was in high school; I wrote about passive and door-mounted seatbelts for a CP Writing “current public issue” research-and-report assignment. I still remember two of the money quotes I dug up. One was from someone at NHTSA: “We decided we were willing to degrade the protection, possibly degrade the protection, to get more people using belts”.
The other was a staggeringly unreal statement from someone at GM, in response to (valid) criticism that door-mounted belts mean zero protection when the door flies open in a crash: “[The door mounted belt system] provides excellent occupant protection. We don’t think doors really tend to open very often in crashes”. Perhaps he had crossies when he said it, or maybe it was Opposite Day, because that’s not how it was here in this universe.
I agree the door belts are not really a passive restraint, but some how it got passed the regulators. I am pretty sure no one kept the belts buckled all the time as GM instructed in their manuals. I owned two 1990 B-bodies with door belts and was quite flabbergasted when I read the owners manual and saw how the belts were “supposed” to be used. I tried it once and it was absolutely ridiculous to think anyone would actually follow those directions. If you ever watch the retro Motor Week episodes on YouTube it actually shows the door belts being used in this method on the old GM doorbelt cars.
Having owned two of these cars, I also noted that GM did add an extra striker on the upper door frame. It didn’t latch with a mechanical latch, it just hooked into a sort of cup to make the door frame less likely to fail in a crash. It also made the door close more securely than the older B-bodies I owned. That book you quoted makes some good points, although door belts were used on many GM cars besides the 1990 B-body. I also had shorter passengers complain about the angle of the belt cutting into their neck. It was never an issue for because of my height. I still preferred the pillar mounted belts, even though the door belts had improved retractors.
They didn’t have to get past the regulators, as such. US regs don’t work on a type-approval basis where the vehicle or equipment is submitted for scrutineering which it must pass before it can be offered for sale.
Instead, we have a self-certification system: the maker or importer, having satisfied themself that the vehicle or regulated item of vehicle equipment meets the regs, asserts that the vehicle or item complies with all applicable aspects of all applicable standards. You can see the whole-vehicle assertion on the Vehicle Safety Certification Label in the driver’s door/doorframe area. Certain parts such as headlamps have item-specific certification requirements (maker must indelibly mark the lens of a compliant headlamp “DOT”, which serves as the assertion of compliance; there are similar requirements for seat belts and windows).
But that’s it. If NHTSA comes to suspect there might be a noncompliance, they can test the vehicle or equipment, and if they determine there’s a noncompliance they can require the maker or importer to correct it (and they can levy civil penalties), but it is up to the maker or importer to determine and declare compliance—which includes interpreting the regulation—and NHTSA does not challenge such interpretations unless they are “clearly erroneous”.
So GM interpreted the passive-restraint requirement as allowing a manual belt attached to the door instead of the pillar so that it could be left buckled all the time, and NHTSA clearly didn’t regard that interpretation as “clearly erroneous”, so they didn’t challenge it.
Wow I didn’t know that about the seatbelts. Thanks! I’ve driven both the box body 9C1s and the later “whale” bodied 9C1s in LO5 and LT1 versions. The LT1 cars were certainly fast and pulled strongly, but I liked the simplicity and day to day handling of the box bodied Caprices.
Question: Do you know how the Australian Caprice PPVs did on the MSP tests? How did they do compared to the contemporary Crown Vic P71s, Taurus and Chargers?
Going by memory, the Caprice PPVs were slightly poorer performers than the Hemi Chargers and the Eco-Boost Taurus, but they were all pretty close. All of them were far better performers than the P71 CVPIs, which never were overly strong performers. You can look up the more recent MSP test results on the internet if you want to see the numbers.
Truckers back then were generally in much better physical shape back then. They had to be to get in and out of rigs like this one.
An OSHA inspector would have a heart attack if he ever witnessed the driver loading and unloading on of these rigs. Our head safety inspector was out on day checking out the new trucks and hit his head getting into a plow truck, guess he was checking clearances.
Day cab Chevy Titan, must have been able to tilt the overhead rack to get the cab tilted. Great truck.
These are newer, but they sure bring back memories of a ticket or two – and a somewhat dramatic rescue on the Turnpike in the mid 80s.