Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
742 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm installing a 22 gal fuel tank in my '68.
I am considering adding this product: Tank Armor

Has anyone install TankArmor and can provide any feedback. Anyone think it's necessary or helpful?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
281 Posts
CJM,
I installed the “Tank Armor” in my 67 Fastback. I did not install a new 22 gallon tank, but did install a new standard tank with drain. The Tank Armor (TA) installed very easily and was spot on with exact centering of the bolt holes (Identical with the stock holes). I did the install, mostly with added safety in mind, as the gas tank top is the floor of the trunk, and any rear end collision of some force could rupture the tank and engulf the trunk area and everything forward of it with gas. The TA, in effect, places the gas tank external to the interior and predominantly under the car after installation. The unit is well made and probably gives additional rigidity to the rear end of the car. The company advertises that they fired a 9mm into it and it didn’t penetrate the TA (I didn’t try that however!). I would rate the addition of the cover a plus, and assume it might give a bit more weight over the rear wheels for traction, albeit minimal-along with the mentioned safety factor. I hope this helps!
Picture of the installed TA - trunk not yet final painted at the time:
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
CJM,
I installed the “Tank Armor” in my 67 Fastback. I did not install a new 22 gallon tank, but did install a new standard tank with drain. The Tank Armor (TA) installed very easily and was spot on with exact centering of the bolt holes (Identical with the stock holes). I did the install, mostly with added safety in mind, as the gas tank top is the floor of the trunk, and any rear end collision of some force could rupture the tank and engulf the trunk area and everything forward of it with gas. The TA, in effect, places the gas tank external to the interior and predominantly under the car after installation. The unit is well made and probably gives additional rigidity to the rear end of the car. The company advertises that they fired a 9mm into it and it didn’t penetrate the TA (I didn’t try that however!). I would rate the addition of the cover a plus, and assume it might give a bit more weight over the rear wheels for traction, albeit minimal-along with the mentioned safety factor. I hope this helps!
Picture of the installed TA - trunk not yet final painted at the time:

This pretty much mirrors my opinion and experience. Primarily done for safety.


<style></style>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
121 Posts
I also installed the Tank Armor after a rear end collision which split open my old tank. I installed the Tank Armor over the 22 gallon tank and had no problems. Gave me a great deal of comfort knowing that if I ever got hit in the rear again, the tank was not in my back seat!!!

Highly recommend it.

Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
So, this brings up a question I've had about this product. What exactly does it do that improves safety ?

The problem as I understood it, was the tank in our cars (and the Pinto), was drop-in mounted. A safer way is to mount underneath with straps and a full floor separating the tank from the passenger compartment.

The Tank Armour certainly protects the top of the tank from damage, but attaches to the tank and it is still a drop-in.

How does it help in collision ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
703 Posts
So, this brings up a question I've had about this product. What exactly does it do that improves safety ?

The problem as I understood it, was the tank in our cars (and the Pinto), was drop-in mounted. A safer way is to mount underneath with straps and a full floor separating the tank from the passenger compartment.

The Tank Armour certainly protects the top of the tank from damage, but attaches to the tank and it is still a drop-in.

How does it help in collision ?
I would like to know this as well. But, just from reading their website. I guess it adds structural support. If you get hit in the rear, the tank might get crushed or split. With Tank Armor installed this is less likely to happen. Or if the tank does split it would mostly empty out from the bottom of the car and not inside the trunk.

I would like the same thing built but replaces the cardboard behind the rear seat. This would really section off the trunk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,501 Posts
Provides some impact resistances and helps block up splash in the case of split tank. Definitely provides some separation of the tank from the rest of the car. If you search around, there are some horrifying videos of some rear impact tests where fuel splattered forward into the passenger compartment. Ford paid out dearly to settle some lawsuits where people were very badly scarred or died from fire. Not Fords finest design.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
281 Posts
So, this brings up a question I've had about this product. What exactly does it do that improves safety ?
The problem as I understood it, was the tank in our cars (and the Pinto), was drop-in mounted. A safer way is to mount underneath with straps and a full floor separating the tank from the passenger compartment.
The Tank Armour certainly protects the top of the tank from damage, but attaches to the tank and it is still a drop-in.
How does it help in collision ?
The Tank Armor does become "a full floor separating the tank from the passenger compartment". The TA bolts to the same frame area that the gas tank does-it is a strong steel barrier that is bolted to the framing of the car completely covering the gas tank and seals the gas tank from the inside of the car. The improvement of safety is that it minimizes the chance of occupants inside the car from being covered in gasoline in the event of a very high energy rear impact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,269 Posts
The improvement of safety is that it minimizes the chance of occupants inside the car from being covered in gasoline in the event of a very high energy rear impact.
To be killed by the spear-o-matic steering column after breaking their necks from the whip lash.

Lol...seriously their are many safety problems in an early Mustang. Fixing one is like the Dutch boy putting his finger in one leak of the dike :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
997 Posts
I have TankArmor and I believe it does help otherwise I wouldn't have installed it. However the area where the hose connects to the tank is still unprotected. Hopefully if you're hit and the tank gets smashed then the hose will stay connected and push any gas out the cap rather than into your trunk.

david
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,403 Posts
I got hit in the left rear corner in 1992 and my exhaust punctured the corner of my tank. Considering the Tank Armor AND a steel trunk divider, along with shoulder belts and headrests for my son's 66. How about collapsible steering column like a 68? Or a two-piece shaft? . . .What if the Tank Armor were bolted on top and the flange of the tank were bolted up from underneath? Or how about a safety fuel cell instead of the steel tank? Or a puncture resistant bladder for the stock tank? It could be done... I could be driving more dangerous OR less dangerous vehicles. Metal dash with knee-killing knobs, no face-fluffing airbags, elbow-shredding door and window handles, a giant cast metal brain-bashing glove box door, a huge gut-goring shift handle, no spleen-saving beams in the doors? I accept certain risks. If I go out in some violent, fiery, metal-twisting Mustang crash, I'm an organ donor and the kids would part-out my ride. Win-win I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
I look at it more like increasing your odds of survival for a reasonable price. Plenty of things on this car can kill you in an accident. When I was discussing this project with my mother and step-father they had a list of safety things they wanted like power disc brakes, better power steering, better suspension, along with any reasonable safety improvements. They were still concerned about driving a car that old and the safety standards at the time. I explained to them that they could spent a ton of money to make it as safe as they wanted but what were the odds they ever got in a serious accident in it. Neither of them had been involved in a serious accident their whole lives. Not to say it won't happen but I would say the risk is low.


Having said that, I have watched the videos of older cars and newer cars in crashes. I figure if I ever get in a bad wreck in the Mustang I will just kiss my butt goodbye :)

<style></style>
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,951 Posts
From an engineering standpoint, Tank Armor would serve as a splash shield so a rupturing gas tank's gasoline would tend to get splashed down under the car instead of into the trunk.

I think the same thing could be accomplished with a neoprene shield for a lot less $. That being said, I wouldn't hang my name on it and take the liability to sell them to the public.

I used to jump in on threads on the forum where someone wanted to buy a classic mustang as their kids first car with smart-alec comment like "Why? Do you hate them?" and then go through all the things an old mustang lacks in the safety department. Seems like the prices may have run some of that crowd off, as I haven't seen a post like that in a while.

Personally, I haven't done the tank armor, or installed a neoprene shield. I have added seat belts, head rests, disk brakes in front, and several other features that should help some....but the car still doesn't have a modern (stiff) chassis, proper crumple zones, ABS, air bags, etc., etc., etc.,

Cars have gotten so much safer over the years. Yet, over 37,000 people were killed in the U.S. in car crashes in 2017 alone. Point being? Cars need to continue to get safer. The safest car ever built will be built next year. And the one built the year after that will be even safer.

Point 2 being...yeah Tank Armor probably helps by some infinitesimal amount. But if you really want a safer Mustang...buy a new one. That's my opinion anyway.

Phil
 

·
Hi, how ya doin
Joined
·
2,061 Posts
That they have:

https://www.npdlink.com/product/divider-rear-seat-and-trunk-steel-for-improved/152145

Most vendors sell it.
But with screw attachment, I am wondering about the benefit. Now if it was welded in and sealed that may work.
But they still don't have something for fastbacks.
I installed the steel trunk divider in my 69 Coupe, but instead of using the self tapping screws they provided I bolted mine in. I will be adding the trunk armor over my 22 gal tank before driving it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
742 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
From an engineering standpoint, Tank Armor would serve as a splash shield so a rupturing gas tank's gasoline would tend to get splashed down under the car instead of into the trunk.

I think the same thing could be accomplished with a neoprene shield for a lot less $. That being said, I wouldn't hang my name on it and take the liability to sell them to the public.

I used to jump in on threads on the forum where someone wanted to buy a classic mustang as their kids first car with smart-alec comment like "Why? Do you hate them?" and then go through all the things an old mustang lacks in the safety department. Seems like the prices may have run some of that crowd off, as I haven't seen a post like that in a while.

Personally, I haven't done the tank armor, or installed a neoprene shield. I have added seat belts, head rests, disk brakes in front, and several other features that should help some....but the car still doesn't have a modern (stiff) chassis, proper crumple zones, ABS, air bags, etc., etc., etc.,

Cars have gotten so much safer over the years. Yet, over 37,000 people were killed in the U.S. in car crashes in 2017 alone. Point being? Cars need to continue to get safer. The safest car ever built will be built next year. And the one built the year after that will be even safer.

Point 2 being...yeah Tank Armor probably helps by some infinitesimal amount. But if you really want a safer Mustang...buy a new one. That's my opinion anyway.

Phil
All true. My first car was a 68 Volvo with 4 wheel disc brakes (!) when my mom's Oldsmobile had a monster engine (455 I think) with drum brakes behind 14" wheels and only lap belts. We survived. Some argue that the cars have become so "safe" that drivers are paying less attention which results in more accidents and resulting deaths. Who knows.
I'm adding headrests and 3-point belts because they will help immensely in minor accidents. My concern is more along the lines of how hard does the Mustang have to be hit in the rear for the tank to split and spill into the trunk. With a fastback that is real concern. So considering the potential harm I think the cost (both in $$ and weight) is acceptable.
Oh, and a new Mustang would certainly have been safer than my '68, with way more comfort and greater reliability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,518 Posts
I installed the steel trunk divider in my 69 Coupe, but instead of using the self tapping screws they provided I bolted mine in. I will be adding the trunk armor over my 22 gal tank before driving it.
How thick is that trunk divider panel?

I don't think a 11 gauge steel panel is needed for the gas tank, they claim it will stop a 9mm but IMO, that is just hype. If I needed a piece of steel to stop a 9mm, it would be placed in the doors. A much lighter and less costly option would be a piece of 18 gauge steel with beads rolled into it and some rectangular steel bracing hidden underneath. A 36"X36" sheet of 18 gauge annealed 4130 is about $85 on the 'net. It just so happens that is the size you would need to form your own gas tank shield/bulkhead.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top