Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why would Stude hang gas tank ('57 Hawk) from body on one side, frame on the other?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • (S)
    replied
    I also put a '57 Gas tank into a '53, they are not a bolt in, you have to fashion your own brackets......

    Leave a comment:


  • bensherb
    replied
    Originally posted by grobb284 View Post
    The 1953 model is slightly different, with different drivers side fuel tank brackets than the 1962. We came across this in looking at dual exhaust for the 1953. The fuel tank.is offset to the driver's side, which obstructs hanging dual exhausts. Desiring a more centered fuel tank, we thought what did Studebaker do when they went to duals? Looking at a Golden Hawk, the tank is more centered, so we obtained those brackets. Probably moved the tank approximately 1 1/2 inches to passenger side
    I meant the '53 and'62 were mounted in the same fashion. You are correct, the actual brackets are different. On our '53 we made spacers to extend the brackets in order to move the tank to the right for dual exhaust clearance.

    Leave a comment:


  • grobb284
    replied
    Originally posted by bensherb View Post

    As for fuel tank mounting; the tanks on both our early '53 starlite and '62 GT mount the same. I guess they thought it was a good way to do it.

    The 1953 model is slightly different, with different drivers side fuel tank brackets than the 1962. We came across this in looking at dual exhaust for the 1953. The fuel tank.is offset to the driver's side, which obstructs hanging dual exhausts. Desiring a more centered fuel tank, we thought what did Studebaker do when they went to duals? Looking at a Golden Hawk, the tank is more centered, so we obtained those brackets. Probably moved the tank approximately 1 1/2 inches to passenger side.

    As to what to do when working on the chassis build, we installed the later style brackets on the driver's side of the tank, and suspended the passengers wide with an industrial Tyrap around the rear frame rail and through the tank flange bolt hole. We need the tank in position for positioning the external fuel pump and the two filters, as well as the return line for the fuel injection.

    Leave a comment:


  • bsrosell
    replied
    Back to my "practical" questions: (very interesting comments, by the way! and I too protect my 60gal air compressor w/ 1" thick vibration dampers purchased with the compressor; leaving it ON the pallet was a good idea; would have solved the problem of "what do I do with this dang pallet, too good & heavy and occasionally useful to throw, but always in the way? :-)

    1. I got my '56-'58 Parts Catalog this morning and looked this up; the SPRING and 2" bolt is only specified (for gas tank to body standoff) for all cars sometime into 1956 ("Note 20"; various serial numbers for all 56 and 56J cars). After that only specifies a nut and bolt there. Still sounds to me like the SPRING on the gas tank body stanchion bolt is the BEST 'version'?. Can't see why that would be LESS GOOD: just a few cents cheaper for "planning how to go out of making cars" Stude :-( ??

    Out of curiousity, I'll have to thoroughly examine my left-over parts, see if the "original" '57 tank had the spring, or the bolt/nut only. (mine is an EARLY '57, made Oct '56 so COULD have been left over). Or if this changed again and the later (62 maybe?) tank I have again had the spring specified. Both of my gas tanks appeared to have or HAVE had what appear to be same material as body-shims under the tank on the chassis mounts but don't see that in the catalog. Not that I'm 100% positive I EVER find all the right lines in the catalog. :-)

    2. for those of you who have done 'frame-off' restorations, do you simply wait until the body is painted (underneath and firewall anyway) and installed on chassis before installing the gas tank? I can easily 'temporarily' support it to route/bend my new gas line, and then take it off again. Just had always figured I'd have that mounted before the body went on. Not a big deal, just curious. The frame-flex issue makes sense for the mounting design, though to me, as a NON-AUTOMOTIVE engineer, it does seem like you could put springs on all three bolts and mount to the frame, and have significant 'flex' too. BUT, I have no idea how much our frames actually DO twist, in INCHES perhaps, not thousands :-) So, will no longer disparage those thoughtful engineers protecting families (then and now) from gas tank leaks and subsequent explosions (two nice igniters called tail-pipes running on either side!)
    Last edited by bsrosell; 12-30-2017, 07:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeHall
    replied
    I understand why the gas tanks are mounted with a spring set-up on one side. But have strongly opined they shoulda used two mount points on that side, as they did on the frame mounted side. I developed that opinion after the spring mounted side gave way once on the 62GT, and allowed the gas tank to skid along the pavement a few hundred feet till I could get pulled over on the freeway. The pavement all but ground a hole in the skidding edge, and coulda killed everyone in the car if it had ignited the fuel in the tank.

    Leave a comment:


  • Buzzard
    replied
    Like Dwain in # 7 and John in #11 stated, it all adds to 150lbs of liquid being thrown around behind the rear axle. Somewhere I have a Studebaker official engineering publication which states that so much of their engineering was based on the fact that in 1950 over 85% of the roads in America were unpaved. I don't know how much was unpaved in 1957 but I'll bet it wasn't all that much less as the interstates were just getting started. In my post of early travels in British Columbia you can clearly see that even our Trans Canada Highway had unpaved sections in 1958. While cleaning off the previously untouched underneath of my '57 Clipper Wagon, it was real evident of the oiling procedure used on gravel and dirt roads in the day, but I guess it did help slow the corrosion.
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • studegary
    replied
    Originally posted by jclary View Post
    It is the same basic engineering principle that calls for flexing motor mounts. That's the reason for the spring included in in the gas tank mounting. It is like a shock absorber to compensate for all the sloshing and vibrating. In the same manner, folks familiar with proper Air Compressor use, know not to rigid bolt an air compressor to a concrete floor without some kind of shock absorber flex material. A large tank mounted reciprocating air compressor pump without some kind of shock mount is like creating an impending catastrophic explosive disaster with life threatening results. Even my small 5hp upright 60 gallon shop compressor was left on it's shipping pallet, and not bolted down.

    As for gas tanks...I don't know what the average tank weighs, but add a full tank of gasoline, and you have a relatively thin clam-shell crimped seam two piece tank with over a hundred pounds of sloshing explosive liquid. Think of some of the potholes you have encountered, and the potential "G" forces involved. Our Studebakers are over a half century old, I wonder how today's plastic fuel tanks will beholding up at that age?
    I have destroyed a steel tank by backing over something sharp. The only plastic tank that I have seen destroyed was on a car (not mine) where the exhaust had been pushed into the side of the tank and melted its way through.

    Leave a comment:


  • bezhawk
    replied
    Originally posted by JoeHall View Post
    Curiously, my 62GT had barrel nuts, but the 63GT had stamped sheet metal nuts, with large washers included in the stamping. The barrel nuts make it easy to install the moldings by pressing them into place. But you need to practice on something else, because you only get on shot at installing them on the car. If they barrels were not screwed on enough they'd still lock in place, but you'd have a floppy molding. In theory, I believe either are supposed to cave in and destroy themselves, in order to allow the molding its pried off. But years ago I all but destroyed the moldings on the 62GT, trying to pry them off. <br>
    <br>
    If I can find re-chromed moldings for the 63GT, I will remove the old ones the same way I have in the past: the nuts are removable from under the dash, but it takes several hours. Otherwise, they will just remain in place.<br>
    <br>
    Question Jerry: do you have those moldings available, re-chromed???<br>
    <br>
    Thanks,<br>
    Joe H
    I have a center section, that the chromers messed up. I should have them make it right, but it's been too long ago. Anyways, it's good enough for a driver, but it is wavy. You can have it for shipping. P.M. me
    Last edited by bezhawk; 12-30-2017, 06:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeHall
    replied
    Originally posted by Jerry Forrester View Post
    I thought that they went with barrel nuts at some point. Maybe one of our wise Studebaker gurus can tell us what year the engineers came to their senses. Rich???
    Curiously, my 62GT had barrel nuts, but the 63GT had stamped sheet metal nuts, with large washers included in the stamping. The barrel nuts make it easy to install the moldings by pressing them into place. But you need to practice on something else, because you only get one shot at installation on the car. If the barrels were not screwed on enough they'd still lock in place, but you'd have a floppy molding. In theory, I believe either are supposed to cave in and destroy themselves, in order to allow the molding to be pried off. But years ago I all but destroyed the moldings on the 62GT, trying to pry them off.

    If I can find re-chromed moldings for the 63GT, I will remove the old ones the same way I have in the past: the nuts are removable from under the dash, but it takes several hours. Otherwise, they will just remain in place.

    Question Jerry: do you have those moldings available, re-chromed???

    Thanks,
    Joe H
    Last edited by JoeHall; 12-30-2017, 06:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jclary
    replied
    Originally posted by Dwain G. View Post
    Fuel tanks were hung that way so they wouldn't absorb the frame flex on uneven road surfaces. It was thought if they were mounted rigidly it might split the seams.
    It is the same basic engineering principle that calls for flexing motor mounts. That's the reason for the spring included in in the gas tank mounting. It is like a shock absorber to compensate for all the sloshing and vibrating. In the same manner, folks familiar with proper Air Compressor use, know not to rigid bolt an air compressor to a concrete floor without some kind of shock absorber flex material. A large tank mounted reciprocating air compressor pump without some kind of shock mount is like creating an impending catastrophic explosive disaster with life threatening results. Even my small 5hp upright 60 gallon shop compressor was left on it's shipping pallet, and not bolted down.

    As for gas tanks...I don't know what the average tank weighs, but add a full tank of gasoline, and you have a relatively thin clam-shell crimped seam two piece tank with over a hundred pounds of sloshing explosive liquid. Think of some of the potholes you have encountered, and the potential "G" forces involved. Our Studebakers are over a half century old, I wonder how today's plastic fuel tanks will beholding up at that age?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerry Forrester
    replied
    Originally posted by JoeHall View Post
    Speaking of what were they thinking, how about those retainer nuts on the windshield cowl, on many 53-64 C/K bodies.
    I thought that they went with barrel nuts at some point. Maybe one of our wise Studebaker gurus can tell us what year the engineers came to their senses. Rich???

    Leave a comment:


  • bensherb
    replied
    Originally posted by JoeHall View Post
    Speaking of what were they thinking, how about those retainer nuts on the windshield cowl, on many 53-64 C/K bodies. The 3-piece that runs outboard of, and between the wipers. I saw a GT once that someone had cut a section, about 4" x 4", out of the roof of the glove compartment, and neatly patched it back up. I figured out why when I went to remove those cowl pieces from another GT. LOL
    Ok, I wondered why the top of my glove box had been cut away. Thanks, I hadn't thought of that.

    As for fuel tank mounting; the tanks on both our early '53 starlite and '62 GT mount the same. I guess they thought it was a good way to do it.

    Leave a comment:


  • bsrosell
    replied
    Originally posted by Dwain G. View Post
    Fuel tanks were hung that way so they wouldn't absorb the frame flex on uneven road surfaces. It was thought if they were mounted rigidly it might split the seams.
    Well there you go; some engineer DID have a reason for that 'strange' (and non-production line friendly?) design! Thanks Dwain!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Dwain G.
    replied
    Fuel tanks were hung that way so they wouldn't absorb the frame flex on uneven road surfaces. It was thought if they were mounted rigidly it might split the seams.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3rdGenStude
    replied
    I've lost a tank on a '62 AND a '64 Ford Galaxie in years past because the tank length steel mounting straps rusted through. I'm not so sure the Studebaker design is any worse.

    Paul

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X