There is a reason the OEM'* install the strap bolts the way they do. The way you have it, the bolt is hanging down and could puncture the tank in a crash. Think Ford Pinto. If I am correct in my understanding, you should cut those bolts back as far as possible. Personally, I would put the proper fasteners in there.

DONE!

No leaks, starts like it should, 52PSI fuel pressure now that the leak is repaired..
I am a happy camper as long as the "Check Engine" light stays off. I had reset it.

Just a little more to add:

On the wiring harness for the pump and fuel level gauge:

Black with white stripe: Level sender ground and tank ground.
Purple (maybe pinkish) Fuel level sender signal line.
Black: Fuel pump negative (not connected to ground at the back of the car).
Gray: Fuel pump positive.

As for changing or cutting the bolts:

Now that everything is back together and working, I'm not going to change anything.

If the car gets hit hard enough to pass the welded on trailer hitch and force the tank into the bolts with enough force for a puncture, then I'll have a lot more to worry about than a punctured tank. For that to happen, the front of the car that hit me would be almost in the back seat. There is sufficient clearance so that daily use will not cause the bolts to even come close to touching the tank.

As for the reason the OEM does it the way they do, it may because it is faster and cheaper on the assembly line, rather than a true safety concern. IIRC, the Pinto issue had more to do with the owner stuffing a rag into the filler, instead of using a proper cap.

"Critics alleged that the vehicle'* lack of reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank meant the tank would be pushed forward and punctured by the protruding bolts of the differential — making the car less safe than its contemporaries."

I am only trying to look out for your best interests.

Well, the Pinto reference does not apply for several reasons:

1) The Bonneville does not have a differential in the back, much less bolts protruding from it. Plus for the Pinto'* tank to be forced into the differential, it would need to be very near the rear of the car. The Bonneville tank is in front of the rear axle, much further forward than the Pinto'*.

2) "Critics allege" means that it has not been proven, It is just alleged. Anybody can allege anything they want, proving it is a whole other matter.

3) It would take a much greater impact to cause a puncture from the bolts in the Bonneville than the Pinto. Long before that puncture occurred, the tank would be a crumpled mess, or the straps broken and the tank dropped out.

While I appreciate your looking out for me, it is misguided.

I sincerely hope you are correct.

Interesting article on the Pinto fuel tank design.

Ford Pinto > ENGINEERING.com

Still irrelevant. The design of the 1971 Pinto is not even close to the design of a '99 Bonneville. The differences in design make the issues with the Pinto not applicable to the Bonneville.

This whole end of this thread makes me glad that in my heart of hearts, I have always been and always shall be a Mopar guy. The only reason I have this Pontiac now is that I paid little more than dirt for it when I needed a car now.

My wife'* car is a '99 Dodge. Other than regular maintenance, all it has needed was a oil pressure sender (20 minute repair) and a MAP sensor (15 minute repair).

Thanks Brett. That is an interesting article. The thing that blew me away was Ford realized there was a problem and balanced the cost of expected lawsuits against the cost of correcting the problem, and decided to risk the lawsuits. If the individuals making these decisions were held criminally liable for their decisions, I wonder if they would have gone the other way.

Even worse than the Pinto fuel tank issues were the GM pickup truck fuel tank issues:

The side saddle fuel tank design installed in over 10 million trucks - all 1973-87 General Motors full-size pickups and cab-chassis trucks (pickups without beds) and some 1988-91 dual cab or RV chassis - is the worst auto crash fire defect in the history of the U.*. Department of Transportation. Based on data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (formerly known as the Fatal Accident Reporting System), over 2,000 people were killed in fire crashes involving these trucks from 1973 through 2009. (Attachment A is a list of fatal C/K fire crashes by state since 1993.) This is more than twenty times as many fatalities as in the infamous Ford Pinto. Despite a voluntary recall request from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in April 1993 (Attachment B) and an initial defect determination by Transportation Secretary Federico Pena in October 1994 (Attachment C), GM stubbornly refused to initiate a recall.

Read all about it here:

History of the GM Side Saddle Gas Tank Defect | The Center for Autosafety