Underseat fuel tank rubber mounts

[JohnboyLandy]

Hi All, my ex-Army 1971 series 2a came with no rubber mounting for left or right under seat fuels tanks. I want to correct this, but my research on this so far has left me confused.

I see a single mounting kit seems to cost around $40, but it's not clear to me how many I need, are are they used for front / back or both ends mounting. I am pretty sure I have three mount holes at one end of the tank guard, but not sure about the other.

Any guidance / pics appreciated.

Cheers,
John

[gromit]

From memory there are 3 holes at the front and one at the rear. The rear one is rubber mounted the front three just bolt through the chassis outrigger.

Just looked at a picture of my IIa GS tank and it has 3 holes at the rear, I'll have to have a look at the second tank and see how it's fitted.

Fitting Kit for 552174 Fuel Tank - Paddock Spares (http://www.paddockspares.com/fitting-kit-for-552174-fuel-tank.html)

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/08/1033.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/WJyGqB)DSCN4222 (https://flic.kr/p/WJyGqB) by Colin Radley (https://www.flickr.com/photos/152321353@N07/), on Flickr


Colin

[gromit]

Just had a quick look and it's bolted in at front & back, no rubbers.

Colin

[whitehillbilly64]

Interesting thread.
I am having some repairs done on my 88 tank.
Was going to mount it with square rubbers made from immersion rubber, making it rubber mounted fitted with HT bolts and washers, with nyloc's.
Simular to the Manual fittings.

whitehillbilly
.

[JohnboyLandy]

Hey Whitehillbilly, I was thinking of something home made too. The standard mounting kit costs between $20 and $40, and I have two tanks. Both of my tanks have three holes at front and back, and I don't remember any rubber mountings when I removed the tanks early this year.

If you have a pic of your home made mounts, I'd love to see them.

Cheers,
john

[Chops]

A bit newer I know, but when I built a new tank for my S3, there were no rubbers at all on it.
And when I was cleaning my S2A a few weeks ago, I don't remember seeing any there either,, but having said that, they could still be hidden under some cow 🐮 **** that's still there [bighmmm] not letting me see.

[OneOff]

My S2 definitely had no rubber mount, 6 bolts straight to chassis.
I think if there's any chance of chassis flex though it's probably a good idea.
And in consideration of this thread I will be unbolting the three at the back and replacing with one central rubber mounted one.

[JDNSW]

I wonder if the difference reflects home vs Australian production?

[S3ute]

Hello from Brisbane.

My locally built S3 88" has the three rigid bolts at the front and single rubber bushed bolt at the rear on its primary tank.

Cheers,

Neil

[JDNSW]

I'm going to have to get motivated and check the 2as round here and one 3.

[whitehillbilly64]

Hi Neil.
I am thinking the single bolt rear, is a military design ????
mine had 3 hole front/rear.
My tank is at the local 'OLD' school Radiator shop.
Bob is going to remove all old solder, clean, and patch with brass patches if needed, pressure testing to 20 PSI.
Superfex two blobs to bracket and fix.
At least it can be prised apart if needed.
Rubber mounting Tank bracket Front/Rear.
NOT FITTED yet.

whitehillbilly

[grey_ghost]

I have a 60 & 61 Series II. Both are 3 bolts/nuts front and back, no rubber washers...

[Cannon]

i've only just found out about this myself.

i'm going to keep all of the front mountings & go a single bolt with rubber either side of the tank on the rear.

easier to get to.[thumbsupbig]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/08/1058.jpg

[Cannon]

I'm sure a suitable bolt & some round rubbery stuff from your local rubber shop could do the same thing at a fraction of the cost

[S3ute]

Hi Neil.
I am thinking the single bolt rear, is a military design ????
mine had 3 hole front/rear.

whitehillbilly

Hello again.

Not so sure about that.

My truck spent most of its life being bashed around a property out west and wouldn't recognise a salute to save its life. It is definitely a non-military model and was assembled in Sydney. The bolts and bushes are the same as advertised for UK trucks.

Cheers,

Neil

[gromit]

If the front is bolted firmly to the chassis and the rear is rubber mounted it makes you wonder why the front mounting bracket doesn't shear off over time as the back of the tank moves up & down on the rubber.
Mind you with a full tank is it going to move much on the rubbers anyway ??



Colin

[granny]

Hi Neil.
I am thinking the single bolt rear, is a military design ????
mine had 3 hole front/rear.
My tank is at the local 'OLD' school Radiator shop.
Bob is going to remove all old solder, clean, and patch with brass patches if needed, pressure testing to 20 PSI.
Superfex two blobs to bracket and fix.
At least it can be prised apart if needed.
Rubber mounting Tank bracket Front/Rear.
NOT FITTED yet.

whitehillbilly

Hey Mate, don't test your tank to 20 PSI, it will probably split. Only need to test to about 3 PSI. I have fabricated and repaired many tanks, chemical, petrol, diesel, water ETC and only test to 2-3 PSI and brush with soapy water. Have split poorly welded tanks at this and they will bulge out in the side panels

[whitehillbilly64]

Thanks Granny.
Think I put wrong PSI.
Bob has been working on Radiators and fuel Tanks for many many years.
He seems to work wonders with items, others would scrap.
Love seeing him drive around Murwillumbah,in his green, wooden wheel Dodge Truck/ute.
Never seen so many Lathe's, tooling machine and tools crammed into such a small workshop.

whitehillbilly

[whitehillbilly64]

Looking at the rubber mounted, single rear bolt, and a tank full of fuel
wouldn't you get a rocking action on that single bolt.
The twisting action being no different than bolting straight to the chassis ????

whitehillbilly

[JDNSW]

No, the tank is rigid enough that it won't twist - the issue is it twisting against this rgidity when the chassis twists.

I have just checked all the vehicles and chassis here - five Series 2a, one Series 3 (1981). The only one with the single point rubber buffered rear mounting is the Series 3. All the other ones, Series 2a, from Suffix B to suffix G have three bolt rigid rear mounting. Of these, one is home market (suffix C) and one is military (suffix G), the others civilian. Except for the home market, all are Australian built.

[JohnboyLandy]

So the verdict is ... rubber mount is optional ?

Thanks
John

[John H]

Ive just checked my 71 WKSP rover and both tanks have 3 holes front and rear and are bolted solidly too the frames whereas my 77 ser3 SWB has the front 3 bolts on each tank solidly mounted and 2 rear bolts on each tank(located approx 1" either side of centre)rubber mounted.

[67hardtop]

Ok, the single rear rubber mount on the fuel tanks is on s3 and later only because the clamshell chassis design of the s3 allows more chassis flex, and without the rubber mounting, the possibility is there for the fuel tank to flex too much and split. S2 s2a dont have the single rubber mount due to a hell of a lot less chassis flex due to the welded box section chassis design.

Simples....[emoji2] [emoji2] [emoji2]

Hope this clears it up for all of you...[emoji106]

Cheers Rod

[JDNSW]

Swb S3 also have a welded box section - so do those have the rubber mounts?

[ian4002000]

I have just reinstalled the fuel tank in my series 3 .
It has one bolt at the rear. The bolt has a shoulder to stop the rubber mount being overtightened.
The bolt is approx 5/16 shoulder with 1/4 thread about 1 1./4 long from memory.
I used two ford stabiliser rubber bushes Mackay part number A755 and cut them in half to make them the correct size for the bolt.
The A755 bushes have a step that matches up the larger hole in the fuel tank (Fuel tank hole approx 7/16 inch.)
Please ensure you use the special extra wide washer/spacer on top of the chassis bracket as this will even the load out on the chassis.

Ian
Bittern

[Dgd69]

My 109 which is ex government (telecom ) has the dual tanks drivers side is the large long range and is mounted with tree bolts across front and two rubbers at rear the aux tank is firmly mounted with three across front and rear

[S3ute]

Swb S3 also have a welded box section - so do those have the rubber mounts?

Hello again from Brisbane.

As noted before, mine does. Ditto the box chassis.

Cheers,

Neil

[Chops]

Ok, the single rear rubber mount on the fuel tanks is on s3 and later only because the clamshell chassis design of the s3 allows more chassis flex, and without the rubber mounting, the possibility is there for the fuel tank to flex too much and split. S2 s2a dont have the single rubber mount due to a hell of a lot less chassis flex due to the welded box section chassis design.

Simples....[emoji2] [emoji2] [emoji2]

Hope this clears it up for all of you...[emoji106]

Cheers Rod


Ahhh Rod,, I was with ya mate,, right up until John shot that theory down [bigsad]
I was working with it,, sounded most plausible [biggrin]

So on inspection of mine last night,, it has three bolts at both ends,, no rubbers that I could see at all.

[S3ute]

Hello again from Brisbane.

There may be an element of truth in all of the evolving theories.

One of the common criticisms of Series 3 vehicles was that their chassis were constructed of poorer quality steel than the preceding models. Supposedly due to some bean counting on the company's part and especially post the Leyland takeover.

The criticism is generally focussed on longevity, but the switch to the single rubber bushed rear bolt on the tanks might have been an engineering fix to flexing problems. Most design modifications have an engineering root and, more often than not, for good reasons.

Anyway, knowledge advances through challenge - so, that's all a hypothesis.

Pinch and a punch....

Cheers,

Neil

[Chops]

So as a thought,, is there any way of finding out "if" there was a design change/reason Neil?
Would records show this? I know in modern times, in R&D, we used to have to record everything.

[67hardtop]

Ok, the single rear rubber mount on the fuel tanks is on s3 and later only because the clamshell chassis design of the s3 allows more chassis flex, and without the rubber mounting, the possibility is there for the fuel tank to flex too much and split. S2 s2a dont have the single rubber mount due to a hell of a lot less chassis flex due to the welded box section chassis design.

Simples....[emoji2] [emoji2] [emoji2]

Hope this clears it up for all of you...[emoji106]

Cheers Rod
This only applies to 109 chassis not neccesarily 88. However for production commonality they may or may not have had the single bolt on 88.

Cheers Rod

[S3ute]

So as a thought,, is there any way of finding out "if" there was a design change/reason Neil?
Would records show this? I know in modern times, in R&D, we used to have to record everything.

Hello again from Brisbane.

A reasonable proposition I suppose. However, hard to know how to follow it up - if for no more human reason than a Company's likely reluctance to confess to the need to rectify some piece or other of poor initial design (apologies to the true believers).

My own thoughts are a bit mixed, especially after watching the last few episodes of the great bridges of Britain. Foremost, the railway bridge that Stephenson built to span the Menai Strait - a true marvel of Victorian engineering. The key to its success was the box section design of the main spans that gave great carrying capacity for a relatively light weight. This revolutionary design was based on plant stalks and continues to be used across the globe to the present day. Climbing down from the Pathe hyperbole, Series Land Rovers all (?) have a box section chassis, a key element of their toughness - so despite the use of thinner plate in the later chassis the question arises of whether there is enough flex to crack a rigidly mounted tank?

I retreat to my suggestion that some engineer likely took a look at the arrangement and decided that it might be timely to go for a single rubber bushed bolt for a change.

Cheers,

Neil

[JDNSW]

Possibly came to accompany a change in tank design, for example, a change in wall thickness, or a change in the type of solder used, for example, and like many changes to Series (and later) vehicles, may have only been documented as "alternatives", or not documented at all. The main reason for this is that Landrovers were at this time being built in a number of different places, and some of these, for example, Australia and Spain, were making a substantial proportion of the vehicle parts. This meant that they would be very resistant to change if it did not involve the parts they were importing from Solihull.