Moving the gas tank on a C3

[Twin_Turbo]

baby's got a big back... that's a lot of tank

I love the removal of the bumperettes - that looks really good

I was under the car last night, and calculated that I could build a tank 18x38x8 and have a net volume of 23.6 gallons. That would nestle it between the frame rails, and by being shallow, it'd be easy to baffle (although, I'm considering foam rather then baffles) - and still behind the bumper.

80-82 never had bumperettes


Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

 

[mrvette]

baby's got a big back... that's a lot of tank

I love the removal of the bumperettes - that looks really good

I was under the car last night, and calculated that I could build a tank 18x38x8 and have a net volume of 23.6 gallons. That would nestle it between the frame rails, and by being shallow, it'd be easy to baffle (although, I'm considering foam rather then baffles) - and still behind the bumper.

Seems to me that you only have to baffle maybe 1/2 way up the tank, and for a foot square or so, if that.....NO?? seems to me that fuel cells hold too little actual gallons for the volume required.....fine for a race car, but for a DD on the streets, not so much unless it's not driven much, like my car, on the way too and from work every day for !10+ miles one way.....

 

[SuperBuickGuy]

baby's got a big back... that's a lot of tank

I love the removal of the bumperettes - that looks really good

I was under the car last night, and calculated that I could build a tank 18x38x8 and have a net volume of 23.6 gallons. That would nestle it between the frame rails, and by being shallow, it'd be easy to baffle (although, I'm considering foam rather then baffles) - and still behind the bumper.

80-82 never had bumperettes


Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

I'm not a fan of the sloped window C3, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that I wouldn't pay attention to bumperettes - they also probably didn't come with cad plated tail lights

 

[MYBAD79]

is there any other issue with your tank? I'm asking because I know someone local who just installed a new repro tank on his '78. poor quality, uncoate, no bladder.... a real POS for $250 .....

my opinion: if you need a new tank anywys then definitely get a fuel cell and lower it while you're at it.....

I have quiet a few other projects so since my tank is perfectly ine it'll stay where it's at until it leaks..... lol

 

[SuperBuickGuy]

Did I ever mention that prior to my current white-collar occupation; I built and installed stainless steel kitchen equipment? I mention this because my dad still owns a shop in Oregon with the obligatory 200 ton press brake, and 10' 1/8" capacity shear :clap:

The reason for the dimensions listed above was so I could build a stainless tank... probably cost me $100 to build.....

 

[rtj]

by replacing the tank with a cell in the tire location, I expect it'll be as strong (if not stronger) then it would with the tire.... but none of those cars had a tire in them; so dunno - I'm pretty sure crash testing in the 70s didn't include rear ending.

You can see the containment cover/device in this photo. It's heavy.

 

[SuperBuickGuy]

by replacing the tank with a cell in the tire location, I expect it'll be as strong (if not stronger) then it would with the tire.... but none of those cars had a tire in them; so dunno - I'm pretty sure crash testing in the 70s didn't include rear ending.

You can see the containment cover/device in this photo. It's heavy.

Certainly a point to ponder, but I find myself disagreeing with the assertion - I removed mine and all it's bracketry. It's awkward, yes, but not that heavy. IIRC, metal ring with a plastic cover.

Funny, I just thought of something, if you were rear ended with the tire in place - the tire would drive the rear differential into the passenger compartment; so if anything, it's less safe. You want those rear frame horns to collapse and take the energy - so barring an engineering coming in here and saying I'm all wet - as compelling of an argument could be made against the tire being part of the crash package.

I would agree that the tire is part of the under car aero, and by removing it, I created a place for air to go up into my bumper.... which would be fixed by putting the tank between the rails....

 

[Twin_Turbo]

by replacing the tank with a cell in the tire location, I expect it'll be as strong (if not stronger) then it would with the tire.... but none of those cars had a tire in them; so dunno - I'm pretty sure crash testing in the 70s didn't include rear ending.

You can see the containment cover/device in this photo. It's heavy.

The cover over the tank? Later cars don't have it and it's only thin sheet metal.

If you mean the spare tire carrier, it's just a glass tub with some metal supports

 

[rtj]

by replacing the tank with a cell in the tire location, I expect it'll be as strong (if not stronger) then it would with the tire.... but none of those cars had a tire in them; so dunno - I'm pretty sure crash testing in the 70s didn't include rear ending.

You can see the containment cover/device in this photo. It's heavy.

The cover over the tank? Later cars don't have it and it's only thin sheet metal.

If you mean the spare tire carrier, it's just a glass tub with some metal supports

Yes, that steel cover over that tank you can see through the broken fiberglass. It was 10 years ago I took mine out, but it seemed pretty heavy. I could be wrong, but I'd be interested to hear the weight if anyone knows that. My 68 never had it, my 75 did. But, the 68 had been in a rear end accident.

 

[SuperBuickGuy]

tell me how this spare tire is crash protection?


Presuming that it gets hit, all it's doing is going under the rear differential (if you're lucky).