C3 spare=C5?
02-16-2003, 04:20 PM
#1
Team Owner
Thread Starter
C3 spare=C5?
OK, so we ditch the spare, fine, NOW the question is...how easy/hard is it really to fab a SAFE fuel tank and bracket assy to give say 35 gallons of gas...and say a 30?? mph rear end burst spec??? no guarantees of course, just a guesstimate....and of course maybe convert something from the spare carrier into a water tite luggage container...or maybe put a hatch up top like the C5?? move the tank down lower??? I see all that extra room there that a typical car of years ago used for gasoline...below the trunk space...
with extra bracing fabbed in place, could it be done??? anyone with any thoughts???
GENE
with extra bracing fabbed in place, could it be done??? anyone with any thoughts???
GENE
02-16-2003, 07:37 PM
#2
Drifting
Member Since: Feb 2002
Location: Manchester, Dead Center in the Middle of TN 25 miles to Jack Daniels,10 miles to Geo Dickle, and .8 mile from the Liquor Store at I-24 Exit 114
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05
Re: C3 spare=C5? (mrvette)
Gene, Clutchdust and I were talking the other day about this and we were thinking of using a Fuel Cell mounted in the area of the old spare tire rack. I wanted to mount the top of the fuel cell level with the top of the rear frame rail. Dirt track Cars have been doing this for years and with little consequence.
Our reasoning was to lower the center of gravity and in turn lower the roll angle of the car by moving the weight of the tank and 20 gal of gas about 20 inches lower than stock. At 6.17 lbs per gallon this moves close to 125 pounds down about 20 inches. Our thinking was that the fuel and tank were the heaviest things above the top of the rear frame rail or engine.
If you draw a line from front to rear of the car from the top of the engine across the top of the rear frame rail you will see that there is not a lot weight sticking up above this line. That is with the exception of the fuel tank and we felt it was possible to move this weight down to a more desirable location.
The only safety concerns I had was the half shafts and I am going to use a Safety Fuel Cell and I was planning on using a set of half shaft loops anyway. The fuel cell should be much safer than the OEM tank. Even though the OEM is located higher from the ground, I see no protection for its location. If it was deemed necessary you could always place a small tube truss across the rear of the frame to protect from rear a collision.
As far as a trunk, I have a Jeep Cherokee with more than enough rear cargo space. I'll leave the Vette at home when it's time to go get the groceries. JIM
Our reasoning was to lower the center of gravity and in turn lower the roll angle of the car by moving the weight of the tank and 20 gal of gas about 20 inches lower than stock. At 6.17 lbs per gallon this moves close to 125 pounds down about 20 inches. Our thinking was that the fuel and tank were the heaviest things above the top of the rear frame rail or engine.
If you draw a line from front to rear of the car from the top of the engine across the top of the rear frame rail you will see that there is not a lot weight sticking up above this line. That is with the exception of the fuel tank and we felt it was possible to move this weight down to a more desirable location.
The only safety concerns I had was the half shafts and I am going to use a Safety Fuel Cell and I was planning on using a set of half shaft loops anyway. The fuel cell should be much safer than the OEM tank. Even though the OEM is located higher from the ground, I see no protection for its location. If it was deemed necessary you could always place a small tube truss across the rear of the frame to protect from rear a collision.
As far as a trunk, I have a Jeep Cherokee with more than enough rear cargo space. I'll leave the Vette at home when it's time to go get the groceries. JIM