The traditional fabrication company that made the tanks suggested the mild steel, they made the tanks 100% accurately to the original, as are the fittings. Mild steel was cheaper and generally easier to work and weld. I spoke to a company about making them in stainless and their comment was that the tooling required and the work was substantially more (due to material work hardening and the post completion process to make the completed tank as hard as steel) to get the 100% accurate appearance. Seeing as nearly all the buyers of the tanks were primarily concerned with the cost, turning round and increasing it dramaitically didn't seem worth while. I'm no steel worker so I can only take their advice.
If someone wants to make themselves a stainless tank I'm happy to supply the fittings.
I can't imagine that anyone here will see their new steel tank dissolve away in front of them even if they're not treated. I've got an original one here that still holds fuel and its sat outside for 70+ years
There are also options of bladders to run inside or instead of the steel tank but again this is an added cost. I use them at work and they are manufactured locally by a company called ATL. The cost of one of their custom tanks would buy you a fairly substantial chunk of a carrier.
Kevin, if you weren't happy with the mild steel tanks you shouldn't have bought two, you could have had stainless ones made yourself!
We are (I think) trying to restore and preserve these vehicles for the future. In my opinion making them as close to the original (safely) as possible is the goal. Yes stainless tanks would be ultimately a better option but a more expensive one. I could have made them in aluminium, after painting you wouldn't have been able to tell either. Where do you draw the line?
Ben
|