Why the opposition to the trunk mounted oil tank? Options

[terrybpp]

After searching through a few hundred posts I have seen that people would much rather pay $1000 for a original 914-6 fender mounted tank than $200 for a aluminum trunk mounted cell. Seems like an easy savings.

The only issue I can think of besides aesthetics is the aftermarket tank could use some windage/baffling.

I can understand if you are building a concourse car but not a auto-x or driver. I'd like to hear some feedback.

[John]

I have used and will continue using round purpose made dry sump tanks in my conversion cars.

I thought seriously about the fender mounted tank on my street car (latest conversion) but at the time they were unavailable (which has changed since then). I too believe in the internal baffling that works to separate the air bubbles from the oil as it returns to the tank.

Mine is a 3 gallon tank and my system holds 12 quarts (one quart more than a factory 911). My temps are cool.

While it does take up front trunk space, there is still the rear trunk, and if so desired, one could still load up the remainder of the front trunk.

My car is a toy. It is not intended to do heavy hauling, and since I have a family (more than just a wife) it is ridiculous to think it would be taken on trips.

I too drive mostly with the top off and there is a surprising amount of room in the rear trunk even with my spare in there (under the top).

And it moves some more weight toward the front of the vehicle.

I think when it comes down to price, once said and done, it is a wash (if both tank types are available).

I still vividly remember some defective aftermarket factory style tanks that were made a long time ago that caused 911 engines to come to an untimely death, and I don't want that to happen with my money........ Anyone else old enough to remember this? (I know you are out there)

Just my $0.02