Does a mini tub require a narrower fuel tank?

[torvald68]

Does a mini tub require a narrower fuel tank? I was considering doing the DSE mini tub rear suspension. However I am now really leaning to the torq arm kit from BMR fabrication:
http://www.bmrfabrication.com/f1/f1ta.html

My main question is if I do the torq arm kit and weld in the DSE mini tubs:
http://www.detroitspeed.com/productpages/indproduct/bodyprod/camaro_tub_body_prod.htm

Do I still need a narrow fuel cell? I'm sure one of you guys has seen or heard of this combo any input is appreciated.

[rsk68]

Yes it does with leaf springs!

Not sure if you are not running leafs.

[MrQuick]

no, you should be good to go.

vince

[John Wright]

Does your exhaust go all the way to the rear of the car?...if so, don't forget to leave some room for the exhaust tubing to get through.

[ProdigyCustoms]

The BMR set up is not very tailpipes freindly. We helped Chad on the exhaust of the Freedom Bird, we are pretty crafty with tailpipes, but it was completely impossible on that one.

To get tailpipes on it you will need a REALLY notched tank. Maybe not narrowed side to side, but a big dog ear clip on the tank corners at minimum. If your OK with dumps, a stock tank will be OK.

[ITLBTU]

I'm drooling over the torque arm setup...

[silver69camaro]

Our rear clip allows the use of a stock fuel tank, DSE tubs for 335mm tires, and not having to do the silly frame notch to clear the tubs on stock rails. Something to look at anyway.

[BMR Tech]

You can run full length exhaust with tail pipes and with a stock width tank when using our torque arm. During the design stage this was definitely one of the more difficult road blocks we had to overcome but full length exhaust will easily fit, although it must be custom fabricated. While these pics are from a first gen car, the layout is identical in second gens. The car shown below is a '68 and has a stock width Ricks Stainless tank in it. In the problem areas the stainless tank is actually larger than the OE tank because the seams are squared off instead of rounded but we were still able to run 2.5" diameter exhaust with plenty of clearance. It looks like 3" is possible (no guarantees here) with the right radius elbows but I absolutely know 3" will work with a narrowed tank (it has already been done).

During the development process, every feature of this kit always had compatability and ease of installation in mind. There are a lot of kits out there that are great and perform great but they all require welding, cutting or fabricating. From day one it was decided that if we couldn't make this a true bolt-in, we would probably scrap the project. What I am getting at is it would have been ridiculous to spend all the effort making sure that the kit bolted in and fit within the confines of the OE sheet metal but didn't allow the use of a full exhaust. That would have contradicted the whole philosophy of the design.

My 70 Camaro was used for the development of the kit for the second generation cars. It is currently getting the mini-tub/sub-frame connector treatment but I have full intentions of running dual 3" on that car with our torque arm setup. I did some initial measurements and even held some 3" elbows up while it was still together and it looked possible with the stock width tank. I want to run the stock width tank if possible for the added fuel capacity but I am holding off ordering a tank until I know for sure. I do know that I want 3" pipes, so maybe I'll just have to stop at the gas stations more often. :)

Please disregard the underside of the car in the following pictures, it had just rolled in from Power Tour when we snapped the photos!
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

[ProdigyCustoms]

I stand corrected, it would be the 2nd gens I had experiance with. Looks like they snaked it through quite nicely on that first gen in the pics they posted.

[ITLBTU]

What kind of anti squat does that have?

[BMR Tech]

What kind of anti squat does that have?

There are a lot of variables that contribute to calculating A/S and everybody's car will be different but with the ride height we were at when developing the kit we were shooting for 50-60% for testing. We ended up right around 68% on our test car. Changing the rear control arm angles, adjusting ride height, or having a different CG height will all change this percentage....

[silver69camaro]

There are a lot of variables that contribute to calculating A/S and everybody's car will be different but with the ride height we were at when developing the kit we were shooting for 50-60% for testing. We ended up right around 68% on our test car. Changing the rear control arm angles, adjusting ride height, or having a different CG height will all change this percentage....

What CG height were you using for that anti number?

[BMR Tech]

Those numbers were using a 20" CG height. The main test car was kind of odd. It was a convertible LS1/6 speed car with a Magnuson and the car had a heavy speaker box in the rear. Not too far away from the typical customer but not the ideal "test car" either. To get 68% we were in the top holes on the control arm mounts. Lowering the control arms to the bottom hole put the AS to 112%, ideal for drag strip testing. We will be doing some drag racing tests (before and after installation) on our own project car ('69 Camaro hardtop) in the first quarter of 2010.