bugzilla's 71 510 4 door V8 conversion project pics added

[okayfine]

I hope you don't let your kids ride in the back of any none caged car then since I think it's alot safe with a cage than without.

The passenger compartment may be safer with a cage than without. Thing about a crash is that body parts get flung around. Arms/legs contacting metal bars under 50g conditions is bad, heads contacting said metal bars is much, much, much worse. That's the problem with cages and rear-seat passengers, kids or otherwise.

[62 bugzilla]

I hope you don't let your kids ride in the back of any none caged car then since I think it's alot safe with a cage than without.

The passenger compartment may be safer with a cage than without. Thing about a crash is that body parts get flung around. Arms/legs contacting metal bars under 50g conditions is bad, heads contacting said metal bars is much, much, much worse. That's the problem with cages and rear-seat passengers, kids or otherwise.

When there harnessed in they won't be able to touch any bars except the center down bars would hit there foot/ankle so I guess I agree and disagree too.

[62 bugzilla]

Worked on 510 today and got alot done with the trunk area and mounting the fuel tank. Finished welding the 1" square tube and almost finished the sheetmetal around outside to seal off area from outside elements. In the end I will mount the tank using butyl tape to seal off. The overall trunk will be all finished in wood (masonite type) covered in black carpet to give it a nice finished look. The battery is going on passanger side behind boxed in panel and amp will go on back of sub box centered like fuel tank and flush mounted with the same black carpet. I'm thinking about making a boxed in area on drivers side like passanger side (where the battery will be) and flush mounting a small drawer/toolbox for the just in case/ tuning tools. I'm also thinking about either having a panel raise up by using cabinet door springs to expose the fuel tank hinged from the front under the amp and come down to just clear the fuel line/ gas cap or make a 3 or 4 panel accordian type panel using piano hinges that could fold out of the way onto the front area of fuel tank. Both of these ideas are to make the trunk area usable to haul whatever and not have to worry about the fuel tank getting scratched or damaged in process. Both of these ideas would be supported all the way around by small 1" ish step sticking out on the three sides.

Will finish metal work on trunk and seam sealer next thursday and work on battery mount and disconnect switch. Also will start plumbing fuel system. Heres a couple pics of were I finished up.


Hole for fuel tank



fuel tank sitting in hole

[Sleepys-14]

Nice and clean!

[62 bugzilla]

Nice and clean!

Thanks Sleepy it's coming slowly but surely and been doing tons of internet research.

[62 bugzilla]

Just allittle update. Finished the trunk welding and smoothing and other screw holes aswell the old gas line holes that are now under my speaker box. Trunk is ready for seam sealer and allittle detail work on bottom. Next will weld in bracket for fuel pump/filter and a seat brace for top of rear seat mount and some tabs for rear window package tray area. Then should be able to mount speaker box and fule tank and start plumbing fuel system. At work I'm making the wood for the trunk panels and flush mount for amp. I also picked up a msd 6al and blaster 2 coil to add to my engine stuff. Little stuff but the main thing is moving forward. Pics next thursday.

[blueridgespeed]

Most cars have a tank in the same location as mine so I think I'll wing it even though I changed it from a stock 510.

Most cars that have the tank in the same location you put it in were designed (re: crash structure) with that in mind. You've mounted it right in the 510's crush zone.

smash.jpg

Jay, I agree that the crash structure of production cars accounts for fuel tank location. It seems it's done in different ways. While I see the OP's point that an ultimately "stronger" structure can, with appropriate belting of occupants, be safer (as has been shown by many "caged" single-seat race versions of production cars- ITS or Vintage..) -your concern about fuel tank protection and what I will call "crumple zones" is very valid.

For the 510 discussion, it might be worth looking at the structure of the wagons, and for that matter 240z's of the same era, which have more rearward located tanks. The 510 sedan pictured probably would not have breached the fuel tank even with the damage extending to the rear axle midline. The same couldn't be said for a 510 wagon or a Z, yet they don't share the "Ford Pinto" reputation for ill-designed rear-impact protection.

"Crumple zones" -as I call them, are a design feature that seem to have been improved, significantly and incrementally, in production cars over the 4+ decades since our beloved 510's were designed. I think we all share the same interest: what makes our cars "safer" for the intended use.

I have a current (tube-frame) 510 project that I believe will be measurably "stronger" than the original design..even in case of a crash...but I'm giving up passenger space for the tubes that are incorporated..and I'll plan on wearing a rigid harness and helmet to realize the safety potential. IN the years ( really!) that I've beendesinging and building it..safety is one of my major concerns. It's only fun if you're not going to die!

For my daily driver and my family convenance, I tend to bet on "modern technology" ie: crumple zones, abs, airbags, and high-strength steel perimeter frames --- such as they are!

There are many 510 (sedan) race-cars with a rearward/trunk mounted tank, and a fuel cell seems to be used in these race applications. Cells do mitigate the tank rupture concerns...and absent a fire..then next concern would be occupant protection. On the subject of safety, we can't worry about spending too much time with our "due diligence" - and mine, Jay's, and everyone's own- best ideas should be considered whenever we elect to modify..and push the performance evelope of- our cars.

[Sleepys-14]

I have my fuel cell mounted in the same spot. I know that I should have a fuel cell with a plastic bladder as to prevent a fuel burst in a crash. I however do not right now. It is on my list of things to do for next season. And I know, it would be safer to run a $1000 fuel cell and a $1000 fire system, but damn! Its getting expensive in here. I really want to do those to my car, but they are going to have to wait till next year. We ALL know of ways to make our cars safer, but if my goal was to be 100% safe, I would just buy a new Volvo and not a datsun.

[okayfine]

but if my goal was to be 100% safe, I would just buy a new Volvo and not a datsun.

We take risks owning and driving 510s, we all know this. There is a vast yawning chasm between accepting those risks and removing a safety system (the position of the 510 fuel tank) for convenience.

[Sleepys-14]

but if my goal was to be 100% safe, I would just buy a new Volvo and not a datsun.

We take risks owning and driving 510s, we all know this. There is a vast yawning chasm between accepting those risks and removing a safety system (the position of the 510 fuel tank) for convenience.

Totally agree. It is not safe in a rear end collision with the tank back that far. Ideally having the tank mounted above the rear diff and lower than the factory tank would be perfect.