No, all I supplied him with was a second hand filler neck and a pretty awful set of plans scrawled on a bit of cardboard.

Would you be terribly pissed off if I stole that idea for my own car?

i think its a genius idea! wouldnt be suprised if in a year every 2cv has one fitted

I'd be flattered! From what I've seen your welding is better than my pigeon sh1te. You'll be able to weld your own tank up. Bonus.

i think i mentioned ealier in the post that you could if your where a smartarse welder create one big tank in the back and the wheel to sit in the middle (sort of tank with like an O missin gout the middle, two tanks with a pipe connecting?

dunno but anythings possible!

Indeed, anything is possible.

It'd be an awful lot of fuel though and an awful amount of extra weight.

This relatively small tanks weighs enough when it's full. Ideally I'd have put it on the passenger side for better weight distribution (but it was simpler to put it on the drivers side as obviously that's where the filler neck is.)

yer true if your on a long trip and speed isnt everything then that doesnt matter to much !

Having been and looked at the bare chassis on the drive this morning, I'm wondering about fitting an extra standard tank behind the original one at 90 degrees to it so the filler neck exits through a hole in the same place on the other side. Is there likely to be any problems with fitting a T piece between the two tanks and simply filling them seperately? It'd double the range and although it'd mean remaking most of the bootfloor i can't see any reason why it wouldn't work. Would it draw fuel from both tanks at the same time? Or would I have to have some form of tap to swap between them?

Russell,
180 degrees, plus one of these?

< http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/LandRover-ffr-2-w ... 54ff227973 >

Independent filling of the tanks and using the original fuel pickups means less chance of losing rather a lot of fuel if one tank was damaged.

The fuel changeover switch can be mounted so it's accessible on the move, ditto for an electrical switch so that one fuel gauge can monitor each tank's contents independently...

ken.

My mind says this would work, both tanks would empty evenly up until the fuel level drops below one of the pick-ups, presumably the rear one, as I assume the rear tank would be sightly higher due to the angle of the chassis legs. This would leave a bit of inaccessible fuel in the front tank. The other potential disadvantage is that if one tank were holed the other would empty by being syphoned into the holed tank.

Ken's tap suggestion would be the superior solution