so as we all know when riding in our trucks that the gas tank is right under us, which freaks me out. so im going to be putting a tank in the rear of the bed, but then i realized i might connect the two so i will have dual tanks for those long trips... good idea?

 

I think it's a great idea, but then again I'm not freaked out by the in-cab tank. I was rear-ended in my '48 and the in-cab tank never leaked a drop.

You'd still have it behind you and an empty tank is more dangerous(?) than a full one imho (fire vs. explosion)

Just install a brass ball valve on at least one of the lines. You might want an electric pump for the rear tank - that's a long way for a stock pump to pull gas.

 

i got a high flow fuel pump on my 400, but i am still considering an electric fuel pump... i guess it really depends on how empty the tank is... i mean if there is a little left then you have more fumes.. but ive just hear stoires (80's chevy c10) getting hit in the cab and catching fire.

 

Those Chevy fireballs were from tanks mounted outside the frame rails if I remember right. Accident waiting to happen - and it often did.

 

If you think about it you are not gaining anything but range. If you are really wanting to move the tank because of safety then you need to remove the behind the seat tank. An empty tank will go off quicker than a full one because only fumes burn not the liquid. So for my .02 worth I would remove the behind seat and go aft with the tank, I did it on mine. The real bonus other than safety is the room you gain in the cab.


Jet Jock
"I drive a 'girly' 302 because, when I want to go fast, I go to work"

 

The whole debate over full versis almost empty is funny. Even if the tank is full when it is ruptured, the spilling gas puts of a lot of fumes which puts you back to the same situation you would have had inside the semi empty tank. Don't worry about the tank under the cab. I hear some people worrying about it but have never heard of one actually blowing up. Kind of like Ralph Nader and his book UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED. If you are going to have two tanks, will there be two seperate fuel pumps and fuel lines that connect forward of the front tank? I guess you would need some sort of tank switch over assembly? John

 

actually i was going to have two line join with a valve and from there to the one pump on the motor. was also debating about mounting the valve in the cab so i can just swap without stopping or anything, but that goes back to having gas in the cab

 

Jag
I agree with you on that point once ruptured you have the same problem, the bonus for doing the aft tank is room in the cab ( not to mention that little bit of gas smell in the cab). We re-did my F1 floor and firewall and removed the tank at the same time. I now have a very small tranny hump and flat floor all the way to the firewall. The last 10" no longer goes up to the firewall, and I have behind the seat storage. Double bonus!

Jet Jock
"I drive a 'girly' 302 because, when I want to go fast, I go to work"

 

More Crack? Myths? Crack Myths? WOW!

Seriuosly, the safest place for the tanks are where they are at originally! All this nonsense about this safe, that's safe, is all total hearsay, OTHERS read off of another thread and just repeating it here....

Sheeple People, I cant even find any good ideas about dual saddle tanks because EVERONES AFRWAID OF THE BOOGEYMAN GAS TANKS LIES!

 

Johnny, you did open up a thread that hasn't had replies since 2004, just so you know. Although I do agree with your observation that the stock location in most trucks is safest. Someone said that 80's GM trucks were unsafe with their side saddle gas tanks. While that was definitely the bold front page headline in the news at the time, because of the poor fellow who got t-boned and his truck blew up and his family was trying to sue for millions or whatever it was, anyone who followed the story to the end found out the guy who got hit was hit by some kid they figured had to be going about 100 mph (If I recall correctly) based on how bent up the frame was. Then there was the video of a third party "test" or something like that that showed an 80s GM truck getting t-boned at low speed catching on fire, another item that had everyone raving about how unsafe these trucks were, etc. etc. Then, upon further analysis, they found out that there was sparks before the other vehicle even hit the truck, pyrotechnics were used to start the fire. I remember reading that GM spent a lot of time and money trying to get these gas tanks safer, knowing that being outside the frame rails was not as safe as inside. Here's the Wikipedia section on the controversy, basically stating most of what I have just said here. Chevrolet C/K - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I understand this is a FORD truck board and a lot of the people on here don't like GM products but spreading misinformation doesn't help anyone. Sorry if I insulted anyone here and I hope we can all still be friends

 

I'm not insulted. I enjoy accuracy, facts, and the truth.