[steak_knife]

lump_a_charcoal wrote:

stockman wrote:

Why not pull it out and carry a 25l jerry can or two.
I'm sure for the majority of your driving you wouldn't need a long range tank.

A LRT is safer than jerry cans in a car.

X287552172454245123764123754.1

[stockman]

lump_a_charcoal wrote:

stockman wrote:

Why not pull it out and carry a 25l jerry can or two.
I'm sure for the majority of your driving you wouldn't need a long range tank.

A LRT is safer than jerry cans in a car.

I understand that. But I'd rather carry a jerry then have that so called long range conversion.

[SierraDan]

The issue isn't the tank though. It's the lines running past that particular spot.

[skyman]

True, but he's got both tanks and the hardware why not use it?

Moving all the switching to the back and minimizing the lines as /\ /\ /\ those guys mentioned will work just fine, keep his capacity,and be safe.

[stockman]

I'd hate to see what the underside looks like.
At the end of the day it should be getting 300-400k's out of a standard tank and unless your in the middle of no where the only benefit of a long range tank it a bit of fill up time and a possible saving when fuel is cheap.

I would pull it all out and run a jerry for the longer trips if you need one.

or

Pull it out, put in a proper long range tank and run the standard lines.

But each to there own.

I can understand running dual tanks under a larger car, but two under a Sierra would be a squeeze.

[skyman]

Oh that;s right you guys have long range tanks available. We don't have those here. The most we get is 4 extra gallons from a petroworks tank, but those things hang lower than the stock unit and are bigger=

[BlueSuzy]

More room in a lwb for dual tanks, with stockish suspension.

[Fatzook]

BlueSuzy wrote:

More room in a lwb for dual tanks, with stockish suspension.

More room in a trayback sierra. 85L and I could still squeeze in a stocko 42L if I needed it

[SuziBlu]

Id love an 85l tank in my maruti, big time.