1979 Chevy Silverado K20 / GMC Pickup | Frontal Crash Test by NHTSA | CrashNet1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 сен 2024
- Chevrolet K20 Fleetside / GMC C/K Wideside
Impact speed 30mph
Head injury criteria(HIC):Driver-no data, Passenger-710
Thumbs up for the crash test dummies!
New crash test videos every week.
Subscribe to CrashNet1 for frequent video updates.
Subscribe: / crashnet1
FB: / crashnet1
G+: www.google.com/...
Twitter: / crashnet1
On the web: www.CrashNet1.com
man those old square bodies had a lot of class. They were sure some pretty looking trucks!
jewllake True
jewllake were? I drive one everyday
Brandon Williams hell yeah bröther I have three
Still want to restore a 74 3/4 ton Suburban in this body style, like my dad had in the 70s and 80s. It was a tough reliable truck.
@@bigian5656 I want one so badly
For a 79, it's not to bad. But I would kill today to have that beautiful machine
So who would you kill? Jk jk lol
It would be a lot better built than these pieces of junk they Make today with flimsy aluminum and plastic.
5 mph in a 2022 will total any car unlike good built cars of 70s
2 years ago I hit a tree at 40 mph dead on in the front in a 1987 Suburban, that poor truck saved my life. The tree is still there too. I don't to want hear anything about unsafe having walked away from that wreck.
Geico didn't want to insure my 83k20 in 2015 for cheap because they claimed it would inflict bodily harm on someone
Splimis Any injuries or scratch free?
Good thing you didn’t slide into it sideways, the gas tank probably would’ve popped and you would’ve died from a fire.
Good thing 73 to 91 suburbans mounted the gas tank in the rear instead of the outside frame rail like on the pickups,huh?
What you experienced is known as “survivors bias”. Nothing to do with the safety of the truck... it was sheer fvcking luck.
Truck did what it was designed to do. The front end crumpled and absorbed a lot if the impact. Although it looks like the seatbelt retractor failed. The padded dash pad did absorb a lot of blunt force and the steering column did calapse under impact. The seats and seat belts have what's called an inertia lock that do work pretty well, the hood buckled in it's designed crumple zone and didn't puncture the window with the revised rear hood pin safety feature. For hitting an unmovable object in 1979 in this test it wasn't to bad. Hitting a stationary car would yeild much less damage. Cause both absorb impact and can move. This is like hitting a stopped car at 50+ in this test. After 81 the design of these trucks was improved as well as the design and function if the safety features that gm first pioneered and standardized in the c-k line of trucks.
Nooo, not enough crumple. Most of the energy was transferred to the occupant
@@MrDarkLung tell us that when you are in the crash of a 1979 Chevrolet pickup.
Those retractable belts sucked ass. The earlier ones where lap and shoulder belts were separate and didnt expand and retract are alot safer than this crap but no one would ever wear the shoulder belt
@@WitchKing-Of-AngmarWouldn’t wanna risk it tbh.
good luck withyour takata air bag, meat face @@Frusie
I ran my 77 silverado into the rear of a parked semi and it did exactly what this one did -bent the steering wheel with my scull -etc -only diff was as i recall the engine ended up pushed through the firewall and into the passenger floor area,about enough as you could see the carburetor , However ,though it was foamed by the fire dept and had the positive cables to the battery cut ,when I went to look at it at the impound yard one turn of the key started it!
they aren’t safe but they’re reliable
I hit a tree head on in a 98 f1shitty and went through the windshield and the engine was in the passenger seat lol
@@hastyhillfarmand4x480 my still on payments 88 4x4 150 at age 4 with nothing but grey primer left on the hood slid off a driveway at 8 mph coming to rest on a 5 in wide oak "tree " i incurred a spilt coffee and laughed as i put it in rev ,only to realize the damage included was grill ,bumper hood core support ,rad,cond ,and so on ,what a year to buy my 1st new truck lol WAAAAAH!!WAHHHHH!!
Like a rock! For a 79 very impressed that there was no deformation of the cabin and very minimal dash or steering column movement. Would hurt like hell due to no airbags and no crumple zones but one of the best of the vintage truck crash tests
Should've been tested with another car, like a real wreck. Then there would probably be cab intrusion.
@@gabesmath105 likely not.... same impact hitting a vehicle vs stationary fixed object- some of the energy would have been absorbed by the other vehicles deformation and crumple areas....so it would most likely be better hitting a collapsable obect than a wall.
i am very impressed how well this truck held up. i want to get one of these.
I already got one :)
Got 3. They are amazing
Still not a safe as you'd like to think. It should've been tested with another vehicle.
@@gabesmath105 the Truck would win
Unless it hits a bigger truck, going 50mph or more. Then you wouldn't be so lucky.
A friend mine back when I was a teenager, was blinded by the sun and crashed his 73 Chevy pickup into the back of a stopped school bus without braking. The bus has crept forward a bit as the driver saw him coming. He was going 45mph. He was well banged up and spent a month recovering. The police investigating the crash determined that the completely rusted out floor board had saved his life.
Rusted floor board saved his life?? How??
@@gabesmath105 Better crumple zone
why couldn't they just get a fleet stripper model, instead they get a fully loaded silverado. what a waste of a beautiful truck.
In real crashes the truck would be fully loaded not stripped! Buddy
I'm guessing they wanted to get a truck that had dual tanks.
It's a mass produced truck that millions were made, you think they give a fuck about crash testing truck back when they were new and nothing special?!
A stripper model is lighter than a fully loaded model... weight matters in a crash.
I have a 1977 3/4 ton Silverado and I love it I would have taken that truck in a heartbeat and added it to my collection.
I have a 79 C10. Drive it every day and everywhere and absolutely love that truck. If I'd ever be in a head on collision like this and know it would destroy my truck I'd hope the crash would take me out too.
Facts
Feel the same way about my 78 Dodge
I had a 75 K20 and got in a head on collision with a Nissan Altima that was doing 105mph. I'm still here, but sadly my truck is gone. Like you, I thought I wouldn't want to live without the truck, but now I realize that it is replaceable. If I saved enough money to buy one once, I can do it again.
@@fubarmodelyard1392dodge and Chevy were beasts in the 70s and 80s, ford always has had terrible ifs and weak engine. Idk about crash durability, but I hit a tree going 45 in a 98 f150 and the engine was in the seat next to me and my head went through the windshield.. so I'd assume I'm safer in my 77 k5.
I owned an '86 Chevrolet square body for 16 years. I miss that truck.
Ive had my 85 c10 for about ten. Hopefully much much longer.
I own one of these and knowing it does this good makes me know I will be safe
No its not as safe as u wanna think. That truck should've been tested against another vehicle like a real life wreck, and it would likely have cab intrusion.
@@gabesmath105 I have first hand experience with the safety of these trucks. On my way to work earlier this year, a Nissan Altima doing 105mph came into my lane and hit me head on. I had major injuries that required close to two months of hospitalization, but I did survive, which is more than I can say for the person who hit me. They were driving an NHTSA rated, perfect 5 star frontal collision car. I was driving a 47 year old pickup truck that didn't have airbags or even shoulder belts. I think that these trucks are indeed pretty safe.
You shouldn’t feel safe. Real world crashed are never hitting a wall perfectly square like that. These trucks blow apart in crashes. Especially frontal offset crashes. There’s very little structure to the front clip if the crash doesn’t catch a frame rail.
not bad for a 79, it actually did pretty good!!!
that'll buff right out!
atleast there's no rust yet
I had '83 C20 2wd pick up truck and crashed down 75 feet deep ditch and in half way around 45 ft I was threw out like rag doll and saw my truck still running in sky so it was scary moments for me I thought it would slam on me...and I hit the hard spot and blackout...I woke up, get up and walked to witness my squarebody still fucking running!! My truck totally crumpled this far
i own one know and its the company i trust any chevy is good watch a video of what breaks on fords some chevys do have some bad parts but ford is the king of worst dependability
I think that title goes to DODGE.
If it had air bags it would be the safest truck in America by todays standards.
I wish mine had airbags. I lost most my teeth, hitting the steering wheel.
@@qwerty2008100 did you have the lap belt only ?
No for real though. They had crumple zones back in the day (common misconception about older vehicles) and they were really well designed… if only it had the same air bags, seat belts and side impact airbags that modern cars do. It would seriously be way safer especially at high speeds than litterally everything produced today
I really wanted to see a small overlap test
I think a lot of people in the comments seem to forget the cosmetic damage might not be as bad as a modern vehicle but if you look at the crash test dummy and you watch the transfer of energy it becomes clear that a modern vehicle is a lot safer
So
Doesn't look as cool lol
I would not be able to conduct these tests destroying these beautiful looking trucks! This new garbage today would have splintered into a million pieces
Took it well! Especially given that time-frame.
Being a little kid in the 70s, and my parents owning a 74 3/4 Suburban with a 454, I think the Ford pickup did better in the crash test. But the cabs in both makes held up quite well considering the year. The seat belts seem to be the problem. Good job Ford and Chevy, miss those old trucks.👍👍
Which ford? That you said did better in a test
@@gabesmath105 1979 Ford f350
It looked like those seatbelts were over the shoulder ones. And yet it looked like the dummy in the driver's seat still hit his head on the steering wheel and the other one still smacked his head on the dashboard. It seems that the whole purpose of the over the shoulder seat belts would be to restrain the upper part of the body as well so that it doesn't get thrown forward in an impact. Apparently, they didn't work in this test. BUT the rest of the test, no disappointments other than managing to waste a perfectly good '79 Chevy pick-up. I put over the shoulder seat belts in my '69 1/2-ton Chevy. Ordered them out of a catalog and installed the myself. They respond to just about any jerk forward and restrain someone. Obviously can't say they weren't aftermarket though. Well, the best way to survive an accident is not to get into one anyway.
After seeing that crash test I will not sell mine and it 's a 1977 Silverado.
The underpinning so clean and rust free, something I have never seen on those trucks as they were already rusting when I was born in 85.
You want to see something built like a rock you should watch the 79 F350 frontal crash test video. The body, frame, drivetrain, and axles are the same between most of the F250 and F350 trucks in 78/79 so essentially both the F250/350's were the same so they are in the same category as this K20. The Ford did much better in a crash test. The K20's entire body was shot and the frame buckled while the Ford only had front end damage. Built Ford tough.
Bust up a perfectly good K20 😭
Lol I saw a chevy ad before the video
The reason the k20 bent in the middle was because it was 4wd...the springs and solid axle make the front of the frame much stronger so the impact caused it to bend at its weakest point. The middle. The fords frame crumpled in the front more because it was a 2wd. See how the motor in the squarebody didnt come through the cab so badly. The cab remained intact. In that sense the k20 was much safer .The springs and axle make the frame quite stiff. You can literally see the springs and spring hangers pushing the frame back out on the squarebody. If 2wd chev were tested results would have been same as fords. Sorry guys no ford or chevy bragging rights here. Just 2 trucks we would sure like to have back gone
Who even wore seatbelts back then. That’s the scary thing.
At the age of 17, I did. Buckled up every time I got in a vehicle.
What if the chassis was strenthed and it had a Steel Bull-bar, would it come out a lot better?
It might. But thay are testing factory trucks.
Bullbars are for pushing things outta the way not reducing impact
Strengthening the chassis outside the passenger area would only cause you to take more G-force in a collision. The front end crumpling like that is exactly what you want to see in a crash. That adsorbs and dissipates the energy before it reaches the driver. The bull bar might absorb some of the impact, but the point of these tests is to compare stock vehicles.
Hell no. The frames on these trucks are wet noodles. They’re notorious for cracking where the steering box is just because of the steering torque.
Nothing like slamming your head on the back of a glass window during an accident.
How about teeth first into a steering wheel?
Massive indent in the dash where the dummies head hit...yet people still insist that this was a better outcome than if you were in a new car...
Head on between me in one of these vs a new car with 5 star safety rating. The person who hit me didn't make it. Their car was about half its original length, my truck had the passenger compartment still mostly intact. The dashboard on these was padded to protect the passengers. In my case I didn't hit the dash. I instead ate the steering wheel, knocking out most of my teeth.
You don't need a crumple zone :P the guy who hits you in his new age car has his entire car become your crumple zone when he hits you.
Not likely. Ladder frames are weak and the sheet metal is heavy but poorly engineered.
Not to mention this thing would probably flip upon hitting a small car and crush the occupants as its roof caved in.
That's a fact jack I've seen it happen new cars are designed to kill you old cars you get to hop out and beat the hell out of the dead guy in the other car
Seen a 91 92 Silverado hit a new car at a light low speed and demolished the car and the truck only had dink in the bumper and a busted out grill the lady in the car didnt get out even when help arrived dont think she could I think her legs were stuck under the dash
Rachel hen13, tell me what car models you're talking about
They can't make trucks today that look that good.
"wow these old trucks hold up better"
yeah but the dummies inside rarely do. Newer cars absorb and suffer from the crash more so you don't.
I don't care about me, but I do about ma' truck.
Yeah new shits so great... I was driving home a few years back and drove right past a wreck involving a truck about like this one and a little Toyota car and I found out later that the Toyota driver was killed and guess who was not... now I don't know any details on that accident and Mabey the guy in the Toyota wasn't wearing a seatbelt. ... that don't seem to go well with an airbag. .. but you don't always win with the new car is my point.
1974 F250 When you have a massive object moving at a small object, the small object is going to stop, whereas the big object will take less force because it’s heavy so it has more momentum. Moving doesn’t kill you, it’s when you suddenly stop moving that kills you. Also that truck is probably so heavy that it just kept moving into the car. Don’t give me this bullshit “old thing is better than new thing because i dont like new thing”
@@chikendagr8994 let me guess... You like new thing?
@@user-iw5dv3gw6b You are comparing apples and oranges. If a bus ran over a stop sign and none of the occupants on board got hurt, would you say the bus has the best safety systems in the world? Or would you agree that size, weight, speed, approach angle and loads of other factors played a role in why the stop sign was obliterated and the bus remained more or less fully intact? If you honestly believe you are more safe in a vehicle with no safety devices other than a seat belt, rather than one of the current model vehicles, I would venture to guess you're also still using an IBM computer from 1988 because "they just don't make them like they used to". Welcome to 2018, society has made some advancements.
I think it's funny how the frame bowed like a banana lol
I’m really impressed with the frontal crash test of this truck. But what they didn’t test is where it actually matters with these trucks, and it’s from the side. These trucks are extremely dangerous with side crashes because the fuel tanks are outside of the frame rails.
The hoods on these would fold in half by simply trying to shut them.
Your body would to
@@samuelf1311 My body would to? To what? To where? I have no idea what you're saying.
No cab deformation? LOL You can clearly see that the whole cab has been pushed back into the bed and bent to hell in some areas.
There would be cab deformation if it was tested against another truck or with an offset barrier.
I will tell you with all the bull crap they put on today's vehicles the one safety device that really came in handy was the air bags hands down
if the seatbelts did their job in this crash, airbag not necessary. Airbags were originally installed for unbelted passengers.
"If"
@@prmhighflr69 These passengers in this vehicle were belted but the seatbelts didn't do their job which they should have.
it dont do as bad as newer ones the front tire damn near comes in cab with you during a 40 mph impact
+michael brown
Newer ones are tested a lot more aggressively than this. Frontal collisions now only hit half of the truck, that's why you see firewall intrusion on some of them. 99-06 didn't fare too well. I'm sure this one would have folded like a pancake, just look at how the frame buckled between the cab and bed. These trucks had a full c channel frame, no boxing whatsoever. Thank God they don't build them like they used to.
+Dustin Mozader On Vehicles with C channel frame everything but the passanger resists, hahahaha.
99-06 safety is decent enough
Surprising. No airbags and no collapse of the structure column. Amazing.
Jeremy Good This is a '79. Of course there's no airbags, the damn things weren't invented yet!
Jeremy Good yeah and this truck don't have sat nav, seriously, of course airbags wasn't invented in 79
Yes I know that. My dad's 89 ranger doesn't have any of them!
My 92 jeep YJ didn't had any of them either, airbags are really recent
épic charley Well, yes. the chevy astro i think had the first ones. the second generation.
no ,this is true fact and the only thing i figure is the fd cut the wrong cable and left the positive intact -otherwise idk how it started.
LOL the dummys head😂😂2:48
Side fuel tanks then . Earlier had fuel tank in cab behind seats both dangerous.
Had same truck ran forver
Creepy, that is identical in every way to the one I have and drive daily.
Yup, I’m restoring my 65 k10, hoping I never wreck, probably not a good outcome
Surprisingly enough it seems these old trucks crumple as well as new trucks. Strange
+cjhawk67 Detroit Metal better believe it!
+cjhawk67 of course C channel frame resist high speed impacts, the problem is the impact suffer by passengers.
@jonny j Bullshit....
**watches dummy crush larynx on steering wheel**
Jonny j , that would've been different if you hit the pole right in front of where you were you were sitting, but it was obviously away from you .
Fortunately was never in a wreck in one of these trucks, even though driven many miles in a number of them. Was always nervous about the glass being so close to the back of my head. I'll stick with my late 90's or newer trucks for traveling any more.
The frame crunched up a lot more than the Ford's of the same year did on this test but the dash didn't get pushed into the cabin as much. Maybe the passengers knees will still be intact this time!
Floor got pushed up. Knees were pinned under the dash, breaking both legs in multiple places. I can still walk thanks to modern medicine. One of the joints in my left ankle had to be fused. Granted, my crash was a bit worse than this one, I think the safety of these trucks is more than adequate. most people aren't getting in 160mph combined speed head-ons. The one thing I'd change would be to add shoulder belts as they did in later years than mine. Maybe then, I'd still have my teeth.
Apparently you have no knowledge of trucks. I've been building classic 4wd's for almost four decades and can tell you without a question that not only do 3/4 and 1-ton Ford parts from 73-79 swap but 1/2 ton drivetrain parts are the same as 1-ton. You could find the same engine, transmission, and transfer case in both 1/2 and t-tons. Frames from many 3/4 tons were identical to 1 tons as well, 1/2 tons were different. Just face it, GM is weaker than Ford.
the ford did much better, but in reality the trucks today are made to have crumple zones in the frame to protect the passengers and sacrifice the truck, who cares how bad the truck looks as long as the passenger compartment is saved
NHTSA is basically WhistlingDiesel
+NathansBackwoods. The F350 used in the Ford crash test video did not have a chassis cab frame. I'm not a Chevy fan but at least I know about Chevy trucks. You Chevy guys trying to defend this K20 have no understanding of the old trucks, especially Ford trucks. If you knew anything you would realize that if the F350 had a chassis cab frame then it wouldn't have a bed on it because chassis cab trucks had narrower frames that DO NOT FIT PICKUP BEDS ON THEM. Also, chassis cab trucks are duallys. Do you see dual rear wheels on the Ford? I think not!!
The F350 in the video has the same thickness frame as an F250 which puts it in the same class as this K20 in the video which does poorly compared to the Ford. On top of that the F350 is a 2wd and the K20 is a 4x4. There is more up front on the Chevy to soften the blow. I know this info because I own 16 different F-series and Broncos from 67-96; mostly 78/79's. Only the Chassis cab F350 dually trucks had drastically different frames than the regular F250 and F350 trucks.
The gas tank locations were the Achilles heal of safety for these trucks, and GM paid a lot of money because of that design...
+Gold Rush That was actually disproven in 1993. The sidesaddle wasn't as bad as the news report that was biased against GM wanted everyone to think.
+Gold Rush Of course for your completly safety the gas tank were located in the back of the seat, very close, because you can easily check any leak in case of impact, HAHAHAHA.
+Cristian32arg hmm.. no. Square bodies (Third generation 1973-1987) have the gas tank below the bed. generations pior did have the gas tank in the back. this did not.
GM trucks from 73-87 (91) had fuel tanks on the side while blazers and suburbans had the tanks in the rear above the axle. The controversy over the fuel tanks was made up by nbc in the 90s, Do some research and try to be informed instead of just opinionated.
Old cars are best. They are made out of metal, not plastic.
Even with all the safety features used in today's cars, unless you're careful with your driving, you could still die in an accident.
that was the long wheel base f350 they used wich basically had a chassis cab frame....the regular f150-350s of that era had different frames...the 67-77 f250 4x4s had practically the same frame as the truck used in the crash test...really stout frames
Just like in BeamNG :D
Yo por eso tengo una chevy 1982.....es un verdadero vehículo, los de hoy valen un atado
Only bad about fords are i find the 90's fords to rust threw quickly on the spring mounts.
was a nice truck......
This video was probably made in 1979, they will have ordered it to crash it. It's not really another truck off the road, it's more like a truck that was never produced.
For not having any Airbags in the car, the dummy's did quite well. An airbag would do more damage
Dan, you said the truck you were driving was a Silverado.
Was it a 10, 20, or 30 truck?
I was 1yr old.
davidca96 I was 0
Native America The Unexplain yep lol
For 1979 Chevy k20 I would give that 8/10 that just proves that car/ trucks these day a just junk!!!
2:47
Thank you
In a modern vichicle, the whole vichicle including the driver will be crushed into 1/3 of it's length killing the drivers instantly.
🙄🙄🙄
Uncultured swine
You do realize that they do these tests on modern vehicles to right? 35-40mph is the typical speed of the test and the passengers have to survive. The car that hit me was reduced to half its length, but they were going over 100mph. That is far beyond what cars are designed to withstand. A modern car would have better survivability than this if subjected to the same test.
In comparison to 79 Ford crash test. ....This Chevy Truck isn't built as well as the Ford watch the bed and frame bend....watch the steering column move.... Fords frame/bed never even move.
nothing will ever compare to the good ole chevys. not ford. dodge . and dam sure not the rice burners
Not a '79. They had square headlamps. This is as '73 or '74, '75 at the latest
No, they had round ones.
Yeah dummy they did i got a 79
@@samuelf1311same dude '79 Sierra Grande
@@lathanstory880 nice man I got a 79 Cheyenne k20
@@samuelf1311 that's awesome 😎 I love the ol squarebodies
قوطي.. يازين السيارات التالية حديد
قوطي اشوى من الكرتون ولا التيس
Abdullah Nn
يمكن الرجال قد مات😂🙋🏻♂️.
😂😂
Knock it off with the rediculous gibberish
Looks like the passenger had a bad day..maybe his last?
Poor truck 😢
waste of a big block 4spd truck..
At 1:22 you can see the exhaust manifold/valve cover, it appears to be a small block. Regardless, definitely a waste of a damn nice truck.
Yeah, how dare people value safety when purchasing a new vehicle! Just buy the prettiest and most powerful and put your newborn inside of it and look cool!
Are you agitated?
safety is pointless in a chevy. even in a square.
Conner Pierrard Small block 4 speed. Prpbably a 350. Light duty K20, since it was a 79 with a catalytic converter.
That 79 ford did much better but that old chevy did good to
That poor truck
Parting out?
my dad had a 87 sliverado till someone wrecked it..
Go watch the Ford version of this 1979 the truck would have been still able to be repaired. This one everything got destroyed from one end to another
افتراس 😂
Looks as if the 79 Ford truck did better in this test
That is a sham to total out a perfectly good truck
ITS NOT 79 SILVERADO! ITS 1979 CHEYENNE!
Says Silverado right on the fenders.
no it's a Silverado. just look at the side fender at 5:32 to see for yourself
okay, didn't see that, honest mistake
Mountain Anderson there is literally no fucking difference except in the carpeting you jackass
😢😢😢😩so hard to watch
Poor Chevy
other proof of mythic quality fake chevrolet, although the quality is a relative concept
man i hate to see that... :/
k20 is a 3/4 ton f350 is a one ton apples and ornages in crash test cannot compare them and no f250 drive train parts will swap frams in a f250 and a f350 are way differant much thicker hence not stessing as easy as a 3/4 would under a crash.
wrong
Wrong
The 79 Ford faired a lot better
That was only for hitting a wall, if it hit another vehicle in a real wreck, the cab would probably warp and kill you.
و
هتلر آر كيف صحتك هههههههههههههههههههه
حديد مهوب السيارات الجديدة 2013
من المستقبل😂😂🙋🏻♂️.
حنا 2020
Knock it off with that gibberish.
Too many diffrent between f350 super duty and this junk..i mean sam model😀
thebestkid27 fords and chevys are very dependable i had a 99 f150 with 240k miles on the 4.2 v6 and only had to put a clutch in it. orignial everything and i took it mudding and such. they are both good trucks i now have a 88 s10 blazer and its a pain in the ass to work on it shitty designs but it has 220k 4.3 v6 and runs great every company has its problems. toyotas and dodge are shit
99 f150 is a death trap!!
Look at this ruclips.net/video/_i5EmJBaGeQ/видео.html
lol worse than the 79 ford crash test
They didn't exactly care about crash safety all that much back then. It doesn't really matter which truck you're in, you're fucked either way.
@jack begley, it does matter a little what truck you're in, cuz if you get t boned and you're not in that chevy, you don't have to get burned up by the side mount fuel tank.
Terrible!
Had to dislike video too many ads brah
this, is a lie.
هتلر آر كيف صحتك هههههههههههههههههههه