Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[05omegav6]

Under the boot floor and you get to keep the spare and the bootspace

[chrisgixer]

Install one of theses or similar...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200672663883

And lose the petrol tank completely

Now one of those with remote start...

[tunnie]

Rather have a small petrol tank, if forced to go that route. I popped half a tank of petrol in the 2.2 for my Austria trip, back in January.  Still using the same fuel  (almost 7k miles later)

[chrisgixer]

Not sure I'd be happy to loose petrol completely, tbh. 

[05omegav6]

Readily available at three + times the price plus a second battery so that the car actually starts

Should be easy enough to get a tank specialist to cut two thirds of the tank off and weld a new end to it (or cut a section from the centre of it, assuming a degree of symmetry) that would give you 25 litres of justincase fuel, so about 150 miles plus the gas range...
No plumbing issues either, as all the factory fittings could remain...

[D]

Having seen quite a few V6 installs, it's clear that a 3.2 would really need a 4 hole tank, even for me.

Why? I have a single hole 80L and have never had any issues with it. I average 14-16 mpg, so should give you an idea of how I drive. And this so called slosh effect is not something I have ever noticed. Of course if installed poorly then no amount of holes will help lpg flow.

The other reason why people claim to spend more on a 4 hole tank is faster fill rates. Having filled up at the same pump with a mates car (with a 4 hole cylinder) on the next pump, it was not any faster. I think the speed of the fill depends on the pump, which is the limiting factor.

Lastly 4 hole tanks are more work/piping/expense. So unless the kit you are using is poorly designed, I dont see the reason to spend extra on a 4 hole tank and ancillaries.

[tunnie]

Having seen quite a few V6 installs, it's clear that a 3.2 would really need a 4 hole tank, even for me.

Why? I have a single hole 80L and have never had any issues with it. I average 14-16 mpg, so should give you an idea of how I drive. And this so called slosh effect is not something I have ever noticed. Of course if installed poorly then no amount of holes will help lpg flow.

The other reason why people claim to spend more on a 4 hole tank is faster fill rates. Having filled up at the same pump with a mates car (with a 4 hole cylinder) on the next pump, it was not any faster. I think the speed of the fill depends on the pump, which is the limiting factor.

Lastly 4 hole tanks are more work/piping/expense. So unless the kit you are using is poorly designed, I dont see the reason to spend extra on a 4 hole tank and ancillaries.

Just going by experience here with the stag kit, 4 hole appeared the way to go, due to issues with single hole and performance issues.

That said 14mpg on gas? I'm averaging 25-27mpg on petrol, so not a lot of point in gassing it 

[D]

Having seen quite a few V6 installs, it's clear that a 3.2 would really need a 4 hole tank, even for me.

Why? I have a single hole 80L and have never had any issues with it. I average 14-16 mpg, so should give you an idea of how I drive. And this so called slosh effect is not something I have ever noticed. Of course if installed poorly then no amount of holes will help lpg flow.

The other reason why people claim to spend more on a 4 hole tank is faster fill rates. Having filled up at the same pump with a mates car (with a 4 hole cylinder) on the next pump, it was not any faster. I think the speed of the fill depends on the pump, which is the limiting factor.

Lastly 4 hole tanks are more work/piping/expense. So unless the kit you are using is poorly designed, I dont see the reason to spend extra on a 4 hole tank and ancillaries.

Just going by experience here with the stag kit, 4 hole appeared the way to go, due to issues with single hole and performance issues.

That said 14mpg on gas? I'm averaging 25-27mpg on petrol, so not a lot of point in gassing it 

Its 14-16mpg whether on gas or petrol. Its a defect with my right foot. Nothing I can do to correct it. In terms of relative mpg difference between the 2 fuels, there is less than a 10% difference. I would not go back to petrol if at all possible. Plus The Texaco near our house in Leeds does LPG at 59p/L.

[05omegav6]

Really can't grumble at that price

Having had a rummage, repairing/reshaping a plastic tank looks like a diy job tbh, but there are firms that do it...

http://www.hendersons.co.uk/mailer1.html to name but one

[chrisgixer]

4 holes are much easier to install, flow more gas, switch over reliably, don't switch back for no reason, and the float valve doesn't rattle against the side of the tank in corners. I especially like the inference that it depends, somehow, who fits it. Yeah, ok

I guess the 4 hole was invented for er, what reason? Oh I know, better safety, better reliability, and economics. All 4 components in one valve means a failure of one means replacement of all. A far more sturdy construction on the outside of the tank rather than the side of a pokey little hole in the middle that impossible to see into and around corners.

....Ahem, cough cough <sarcasm mode off>  Apologies, must be having a bad day.

[TheBoy]

A high flow multivalve should be OK. I use a BRC multivalve in my 3.0l, with no lean running worries.

[chrisgixer]

A high flow multivalve should be OK. I use a BRC multivalve in my 3.0l, with no lean running worries.

But yours isn't an upright toroidal

[TheBoy]

A high flow multivalve should be OK. I use a BRC multivalve in my 3.0l, with no lean running worries.

But yours isn't an upright toroidal

Aye, indeed, not sure if high flow multivavles are available for upright tanks, guess they are. TBH, the valve you had was almost good enough for flow IIRC?

[05omegav6]

How much boot space would actually be lost if the spare was removed and the tank mounted horizontally over the wheel well as tight to the wing/wheel arch as feasible

[D]

4 holes are much easier to install, flow more gas, switch over reliably, don't switch back for no reason, and the float valve doesn't rattle against the side of the tank in corners. I especially like the inference that it depends, somehow, who fits it. Yeah, ok

I guess the 4 hole was invented for er, what reason? Oh I know, better safety, better reliability, and economics. All 4 components in one valve means a failure of one means replacement of all. A far more sturdy construction on the outside of the tank rather than the side of a pokey little hole in the middle that impossible to see into and around corners.

....Ahem, cough cough <sarcasm mode off>  Apologies, must be having a bad day.

With a suitably designed multi valve, properly installed, I have had none of the issues you claim to plague single hole tanks. If I were installing a kit into a Vxr,then perhaps you need high end components. But for a run of the mill Omega it seems like overkill. Perhaps the stag kits are poorly designed? After all it is a budget kit. Personally I would put money into better quality injectors than a 4 hole tank, which by the way is significantly more expensive. Well at least the ones I looked at were.

Edited to add: This is on a standard cylinder. The toroidal tanks are too small to have any useful range on an Omega.