Move fuel tank to inside rail along driveshaft?

[MrBeast]

Originally Posted by JohnC

The down side to that is, towing a good sized trailer the mpg drops to 5-6 MPG, so you would be looking at 330 miles @5.5 mpg.

Now when I switch out to the Cummins that in the 93 dodge with the same rear end ratio weighing more than my 85, I was pulling 20 mpg average, if I get 20 mpg out of it again, that will mean a range of just under 1200 miles!

towing I figure I can get 12-15, if we call it 13.5 mpg that is just under 810 miles. Thus the 454 is finding a new home in my 72 4x4.

BTW, im also going to run saddle tanks on my 72, im building them out of 1/8th inch plate. Not because im so worried about being hit, but because im more worried about rocks.

On that note, in a collision a fuel tank being smashed is not going to cause an explosion, it may cause the tank to leak, but not to explode. For the fuel to catch fire, you need a good spark, and the fuel has to be vaporized.

Remember, you can throw a lit cigarette into a 5 gallon bucket full of gasoline and it wont explode.

The reason explosions in the movies (and well the Dateline NBC special for that matter) is because they put a tank full of gasoline in the vehicle (often times 55 gallon drums full) then they use an explosive charge to set them off.

The explosive charge creates first the source of ignition, but it also causes the airial dispersion of the gasoline into vapor, thus the huge fire ball.

To have that kind of energy in a motor vehicle accident you are going to be talking about a big truck verses pickup accident at highway speeds or above. And if that is the case, it would have to be the proper angle of attack for the impact, and everything would have to be timed extremly precicely so as that the vast majority of the energy was transfered to the tank, but if these events were to transpire, you have more issues than just your fuel tank IE the insane ammount of damage the physical impact is going to do to you.

Thus I have no problem stating that the saddle tanks are well with in a margin of safety that I am comfortable with.

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by Wincks2

What an excellent discussion forum! Real expertise right here!

...Regarding Mr. Seymore's second detailed post, supported by Drzronnie's most recent post: What are the odds of me, with my thumb, drill, and new ratchet set and having read that some have moved tanks within frames designing something as safe as Mr. Seymore with his engineering degree, years of industry practice, and teams of people with thousands of hours of expertise considering the questions and designing to meet federal safety standards. Man, optimism can be a dangerous thing. Thanks for the reality check. And thanks for saving me the time I now wont be spending moving a fuel tank. Although, my guess is my wife may now have me spend it looking for an 88 model on which the factory put the tank within the frame. The latter even though, with NHTSA saddlebag numbers as low as 1800 or in practice lower, there may not be any statistically reliable evidence that the factory move to within the frame reduced the risk of death by fire in identical situations.

I'm sensing perhaps a little sarcasm here, so let me make a couple clarifying comments:

a) I can assure you my intentions were totally pure; I wasn't trying to show how "smart" I am (...I'm not - I did pretty average in engineering school; I like to think my practical experiences surpass my academic aptitude). I was sincerely hoping to save you some time from moving a tank around if you really didn't want to and perhaps put this whole "safety" thing to bed, at least among us square body brethren.

b) I also sense I may have (unintentionally) insulted you, perhaps casting doubt on your mechanically abilities. I didn't mean to do that at all. If you had said you were moving the tank for some packaging reason, or for some performance advantage like better weight transfer on launch, then I'd say "go for it". I've been modifying production designs to enhance performance since I was eight years old (much to the chagrin of some of my professional engineering buddies; you should have heard the chassis guys howl when they heard I was lowering my truck LOL!). But - once you say it's for safety, then I think all of my above considerations apply.



Lastly I don't want you to think I was "unloading" on you with both barrels; I apologized in advance warning that this was a touchy subject for me personally and that's my own issue to deal with.

What made me think of this is that today I had to pull the five point harness out of my Chevelle to have it re-certified (...it's an NHRA requirement: every two years, whether it needs it or not ). I made little brackets for the lap portion and the shoulder harness attaches to the crossmember of the roll bar. How safe is that? I have no idea - but it follows the guidlines the NHRA wrote and I simply hope it will never get used for it's intended purpose....

Originally Posted by Wincks2

What Regarding Mr. Seymore's first detailed post: And as we currently have only a single tank on the driver's side, our risk is probably only about half of what your math has predicted. So our risk should actually be proportionally less than that of competing trucks brands that had the tanks within the frame by then (assuming, without evidence, their risk did in practice turn out to be lower due to having already moved the tanks within the frame).

...I don't think so. Since NHTSA used the same overall population (ie, some trucks with dual tanks, some with a single tank on the RH side and some with a single on the LH side) then I don't think the statistics are changed by your truck having a single tank.

FWIW -

K

[Wincks2]

Mr. Seymore, you ended your most recent post with FWIW, which I think means "For what its worth".

It is worth a lot because it confirms my suspicion, based on the tone of some of the subsequent messages thanking you for your contributions to the board, that I had expressed myself so poorly as to have been misunderstood. So let me eliminate the misunderstanding.

My post was entirely sincere. Absolutely no sarcasm was intended.

As soon as I read your posts I was thankful for having benefited from your experience. An opportunity to benefit from the experience of experts such as you is what folks as inexperienced me hope for when we join forums such as this.

Folks may have interpreted my post as insincere because they are used to hearing from other experienced people on this board. I should have, but failed to, anticipate that. Let me give a little background about myself to correct the record.

I am fifty years old with an academic and professional background that involves rights and duties, but absolutely no things.

Last year, frustrated at a dealership not being able to diagnose the difficulties on our fancy newer van (turns out the electrical had been damaged in Katrina) I decided to try an experiment and use only vehicles so old that no computers are involved. Attached is a photo of our 1960 Ford Frontenac car, our new 1985 GMC truck, and our 1978 Biggar fiberglass trailer (the truck to tow the trailer, I hope). The theory I am testing is that, because I can see the ground in both engine bays, these will be easier to maintain and keep on the road.

Also, my two sons are aged 10 and 12 and I think learning to repair and maintain these vehicles will be an excellent education in how systems work.

It had not occurred to me that some may have thought you cast doubt on my mechanical abilities. Maybe because I have none. Llast year, at age 49, I bought my first ratchet set. I am not kidding. Until last summer, I had never had grease under my fingernails.

My total accumulated experience working on vehicles involves changing a rear brake line on the 93 Chevy truck I bought last spring (now replaced by the 85 GMC). One friend suggested that me touching a truck's brake line was the most dangerous thing he had ever heard. On the other hand, after a couple of days effort I managed to get it changed and the master brake cylinder fluid seemed to stay put after that.

Earlier this week I managed to unscrew the 85's air conditioning compressor (its tubes had already been disconnected, and it had seized) and replace it with a by-pass pulley. (Actually, I am told the belt system is from an 92, the engine is a rebuilt 86 6.2 diesel with a banks sidewinder turbocharger, with a shift kit and torque converter - the original engine was a 5.7 gas engine.)

My truck needs some work before it can get licensed to be on the road in Manitoba. I plan to try to do some myself. The most daunting one at the moment is changing the tie rods. A quick change during a half-time break for most on this board. But a couple of days work for me and my boys.

I am absolutely awestruck at threads such as Mr. Beast's http://www.67-72chevytrucks.com/vboa...d.php?t=333836

My reference to my thumb, wrench and ratchet set was intended to be humorous, but partly because it is true. That is the level I am at. I don't even have air tools, but I am thinking about them .

So, notwithstanding my initial missteps on this board (yesterday I actually added a photo to the "photos of crew cabs" thread, before quickly deleting it when I realized it was a Ford), if you folks don't mind my hanging around, I hope to learn a lot. I will of course try to avoid being a participant who only shows up to take expertise from the board, but at this stage I don't know how much I will be able to contribute. I was thinking of starting section in the Rebuilds area with photos of my efforts. It may give some of you some comic relief.

Two warnings though, if you see a post by me:

1. be prepared to spend twice as long with it as you may find yourself reading it a second time to confirm that I actually posted such an uninformed question or comment.

2. for the same reason, avoid drinking a beverage while reading it.

So, thank you for all three of your detailed posts and I hope this post clears the air.

Absolutely no insult was taken from your very helpful posts. On the contrary, I was sincerely grateful for having received them. When I described your comments to my wife, she agreed that we should leave the tank right where it is.

Now, enough said, let's get out of here and work on our trucks! While you rebuild your engine, and in about the same length of time, I hope to successfully apply Armour All to all four of my tires

[Keith Seymore]

Excellent! I am happy to hear I may have been some help.


Actually - I was a little jealous to hear you got a new ratchet set. I haven't bought any new tools in quite a while.

In fact, here is a picture of my "roll around" tool box!





(...I'm serious...)

K

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has documented what they believe to be 1800 fire related fatalities in '73 - '91 C/K and R/V trucks, from 1973 through calendar year 2000.

...If you prefer a "straight up" numbers-to-numbers comparison, I found that there are roughly 12,000 deaths attributed to "slip and fall" incidents each year....

Incidently, I was showing this thread to my daughter, just to double check my logic, and she very astutely pointed out that based on the above you are safer riding in your truck than you are walking...



K