Cut out bottom

Status
Not open for further replies.
dynodave said:
Also
"THIS SEALER IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR USE IN PLASTIC TANKS.- IF
SEALER IS BEING USED IN A FIBREGLASS TANK, ALL OPEN EDGES OF TANK MUST
BE SEALED SO THAT FUEL CANNOT WICK ITS WAY THROUGH ANY OPEN EDGES- IF IN DOUBT, CALL US ON OUR TOLL FREE LINE. "

Dave, Could you clarify as to what this product site this statement was from?
As I could not find said statement on the Hirshauto.com site, I can only assume that it come from the "heinnie" site.

I have used the Hirsh product on both fiberglass and steel tank with awesome long term results. I do not and will not willie nillie offer up a suggested items without knowing how awesome it is by my own experience.

I have never heard of a failure have to do with the Hirsh product as with all other product mentioned in the forum.

I will say this, and this goes for all such products, prep is ultimately important.
And to add, nothing is perfect and nothing is infallible but this Hirsh stuff is damn close and will use it again and again before all others.

kommando,
What the hell does waterproofing have to do with gas tank sealers. The analogy is bull shit at best. Jesus!
 
What the hell does waterproofing have to do with gas tank sealers.

It relates due to the difference in meaning between proof and resistant, but there are no references directly on tank liners but plenty on difference between resistant and proof with water hence why I used water. There are lots of other references and they all show that waterproof is higher performing than water resistant, in the UK if you describe a product as X proof then you should expect it to perform better than a product described as x resistant regardless of what x is. You may not have the same legal protection of product descriptions in the US as the UK but the expectation of proof performing better than resistant must be similar.

In the UK, as dangerous chemicals do not travel well, we have different names for what must be the same products as Hirsch and Caswell, eg Flowliner and Slosh are 2 examples and there are others. They all describe themselves as being Ethanol resistant not Ethanol proof, Burton Bikes have Fibre Glass tanks for sale and these again described as Ethanol resistant not proof. I cannot find any tank liner described a Ethanol proof.

They must be choosing to use the word resistant over using proof for a reason, if they had real faith in their product and its ease of correct application for Joe Public then they would be using proof.
 
kommando said:
What the hell does waterproofing have to do with gas tank sealers.

It relates due to the difference in meaning between proof and resistant, but there are no references directly on tank liners but plenty on difference between resistant and proof with water hence why I used water. There are lots of other references and they all show that waterproof is higher performing than water resistant, in the UK if you describe a product as X proof then you should expect it to perform better than a product described as x resistant regardless of what x is. You may not have the same legal protection of product descriptions in the US as the UK but the expectation of proof performing better than resistant must be similar.

In the UK, as dangerous chemicals do not travel well, we have different names for what must be the same products as Hirsch and Caswell, eg Flowliner and Slosh are 2 examples and there are others. They all describe themselves as being Ethanol resistant not Ethanol proof, Burton Bikes have Fibre Glass tanks for sale and these again described as Ethanol resistant not proof. I cannot find any tank liner described a Ethanol proof.

They must be choosing to use the word resistant over using proof for a reason, if they had real faith in their product and its ease of correct application for Joe Public then they would be using proof.

My thoughts exactly!
 
+1 on E-10 proof... not resistant
This stuff is sold as it will work on E-10, E-85 up to 100% ethynol. This is direct from an email to me a year ago with the head chemist at the factory. I'm going to print it out and pin it up on the wall.
The correct use of this chemical/resin I would think is key to success. So I want to get the process down pat without "experimentation". I'm having a phone conference next week with the factories process engineers of my UL1316 E-10 PROOF resin. If they claimed "resistant", I would not gotten involved not one bit.
I've been working with conventional and vinylester resin fiberglass for over 30 years, but this stuff is new for me.
The test will be as I drive my reproduction new manufactured Dunstall Atlas tank on the road with E-10 pump gas. If it's not successful you definitely will hear it from me.
no hirsch
no caswell
 
Granted, there is a difference between "claims" of proof vs resistance.
However, as they say, the proof is in the pudding.
My experience dictates my opinion and is NOT based on assumption.
 
o0norton0o said:
I've done a lot of epoxy work on various kinds of things over the years. I gave up trying to seal my fiberglass tank more than 20 years ago, and I just bought a metal tank to replace it. In fact, I just ordered an interstate tank from ebay (unpainted metal) for $180. I'm sure you can get a metal roadster tank for around that price too. Switch your cap and petcocks over to the metal tank to make sure they fit. Then, paint it the same as you were going to have to do with the repaired fiberglass tank,....... only you don't have to waste money and time on glassing and repairing the tank...

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, because god knows I'm the first guy to try to rebuild everything rather than replace stuff with new. I've just been down that road and the cost and aggrevation of glass work will cost you more than a new unpainted metal tank, and in the end, you'll still have a repaired tank made of resin and fiber rather than metal... that's my $.02 worth

My story is the same, finally gave up about 15 years ago and went steel tank. The original fiberglass is hanging on the garage wall. From past strings on accessnorton, seems the best way to approach success is cutting out the bottom, sealing everything then re assemble. Pouring sealer in and swishing it around leaves pin holes and that ethanol likes to go right through. My last attempt was having Ken Armann use his secret ultra carsenogenic sealer. A few months later was getting gel coat blisters.
 
I have Caswell Dragons Blood which I am going to use on the replica tank that came with my 69 (got the original tank also) that leaked fron day one, sent it back to Burton Bike Bits for repair. Haven't used it but I am going to seal it , when I have my hot room/engine room built. Follow the instructions to the letter and if all goes well do my original tank the same way, if not give PeteV 's Hirsh Tank a shot. Here's hoping.



Cut out bottom


Might just leave all that tape on and forget the sealant.

Jg
 
gripper said:
I toyed with the idea of having a butyl rubber liner made and fitting it inside the gutted tank along the lines of some military aircraft, (mainly helicopters) should be able to get a collar bonded in to fit up through the filler and bonded tubes to feed via in line taps. Any thoughts on this?
Butyl rubber is not compatible with gasoline. You would want to use something like nitrile or viton.
 
pete.v said:
http://www.hirschauto.com/ALCOHOL-RESISTANT-GAS-TANK-SEALER/productinfo/GTS/


I got an Email fron Bill Hirsh or maybe it was somebody pretty old working there, cos he said he went out dancing at the Bobby Jones in Ayr in 66 when his brother was stationed at Prestwich in the Air Force, he's going to send me some gear and I'll give it a go.

Happy days for the swinging sixties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top