In my search for getting the car as stiff as possible, especially with removing the shock towers, I came across Tank Armor. Haven't gotten to the point of this helping stiffen the car, although there are claims, the added benefit of safety seems like a great idea. Anyone using this?

http://www.tankarmor.com/

 

I'm not using that but liked their idea. I made a plate to cover the tank out of 14 ga steel. It doesn't sit down on the tank like theirs but makes the trunk flat. It provides a couple of inches of clearance over the tank (3 or 4 in the front), which I needed for my in-tank fuel pump fittings and lines.

I also used a 1" hole saw and drilled a number of holes around the tank (in the pans) to ventilate it. Essentially, the plate isolates the tank from the trunk and any spillage from a broken fuel line (or accident) should run out the holes and not into the trunk.

I don't know that it (or the Tank Armor) would make the car much stiffer but I'm more concerned about safety than rigidity.

 

I understand the concept, but I don't know how much it would actually help. It seems like the framerails would have to bend pretty good for the impact to come near the gastank. All-in-all I would say the 200 dollar price tag is cheap insurance.

 

I came across tank armor while reading a thread about improving torsional stiffness. There are claims that mounted properly, additional 1" x 1/8" steel welded around the gas tank opening then through bolting the tank armor with grade 8 bolts improved the overall torsional stiffness.
As anyone actually punctured a tank by dropping something in the trunk?

 

Just buy a replacement fuel tank with a rubberized liner and foam cell element. Cobra Automotive sells them iirc for guys that do vintage racing and need to run a stock or stock replacement fuel tank.

 

Pop 2 viagra with 100 octane fuel...

 

I have never heard of that before. I like the idea behind it though.

 

The primary benefit is the fire safety aspect. There will be some stiffening in the trunk region, but that isn't going to do anything to compensate for any loss of stiffness up forward of the windshield. That has to be fixed up front where the stiffness is otherwise being lost.

There will be some additional buckling resistance in the event of getting rear-ended. That's a good thing with respect to the known fuel tank issues. But maybe not such a good thing as far as seat mounting strength and mounting bolt/stud pullout resistance is concerned - the greater resistance will cause more rearward acceleration of the front seat passengers, which bends all four seat mounts and pulls up on the front ones. This can be addressed. Seat strength itself, against letting the seatback collapse over backwards is a separate matter.


Norm

 

i dont see it stiffing anything really i mean when i think about it ur just bolting it to the same holes as the gas tank. So you still have the thin metal of the trunk floors the go from where that bolts to where its spot welded to the frame rail. Might give a little safety but i dont hear of too many tanks blowing up. And 200 dollars for sheet metal idk that seems like alot to me. Just what i think tho

 

There are a number of recorded cases of early Mustangs and fire that was not contained outside the trunk volume. Maybe not too many, and publicity hasn't been what it was with the Pinto. But the "wrong" one only needs to be a problem once . . .

There is also a sheetmetal panel that can be fitted behind the rear seatback, which also adds some vehicle stiffness - and is probably better at increasing the general chassis torsional stiffness than the tankarmor piece is. Torsional stiffness goes toward being able to tune your handling, so there's some performance benefits to be had. You do give up any "pass-through" capability between the trunk and the passenger compartment. I don't know who makes it, or if it's even still available, but it shouldn't be a very tough DIY fabrication project if it came down to that.


Norm