Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] MY MAIN TANK WON'T WORK
| [GMCnet] MY MAIN TANK WON'T WORK [message #185265] |
Fri, 21 September 2012 09:36  |
Mr ERFisher
Messages: 7117
Registered: August 2005
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
-AUX tank works fine
- main tank - pressure goes down, tank reads 1/2 full, motor quits
- cannot be the tank selector valve, changed it last year
- oh well have to drop the tanks any way
guess what?
draining the tanks I found the main tank had only a couple of gallons in
it, even tho the tank read 1/2 full
so
think ,
- the main tank sender is broken, the hoses are soooo bad, changing them
all to Poly Armor, to stop the leaks when
filling the coach.
- the pickup tube must be very high, will lower it.
found the senders were not leaking, all the leaks were the rubber hoses
arggggg
gene
--
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MY MAIN TANK WON'T WORK [message #185271 is a reply to message #185265] |
Fri, 21 September 2012 10:23  |
roy1
Messages: 2126
Registered: July 2004
Location: Minden nevada
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Mr ERFisher wrote on Fri, 21 September 2012 07:36 |
-AUX tank works fine
- main tank - pressure goes down, tank reads 1/2 full, motor quits
- cannot be the tank selector valve, changed it last year
- oh well have to drop the tanks any way
guess what?
draining the tanks I found the main tank had only a couple of gallons in
it, even tho the tank read 1/2 full
so
think ,
- the main tank sender is broken, the hoses are soooo bad, changing them
all to Poly Armor, to stop the leaks when
filling the coach.
- the pickup tube must be very high, will lower it.
found the senders were not leaking, all the leaks were the rubber hoses
arggggg
gene
--
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
I have only checked the main tank so far and I found after the sock was removed the pick up was 1" or more up from the bottom and positioned mostly in a horizontial position . I sweat a copper elbow on it to get it lower. I also pressure tested the tank with my shop vacuum and found the sender was leaking out of the electrical connector. Tank leak epoxy fixed that but I had to use a different type connector after the fix. I'm also thinking the hard lines that I added to the top of the tank will need to be suported to keep them from putting pressure on the sender.
Roy Keen
Minden,NV
76 X Glenbrook
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MY MAIN TANK WON'T WORK [message #185272 is a reply to message #185269] |
Fri, 21 September 2012 10:28 |
roy1
Messages: 2126
Registered: July 2004
Location: Minden nevada
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Gary Berry wrote on Fri, 21 September 2012 08:13 |
Hey Gene;
Are you going to tie the two tanks together with one pickup and no
selector valve?
Gary and Diana Berry
73 CL Stretch in Wa.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
After all the work required to change to hard lines and all it would be worth going the extra mile and doing the 2 pumps outside the rail like Chuck did so long ago.
Roy Keen
Minden,NV
76 X Glenbrook
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MY MAIN TANK WON'T WORK [message #185344 is a reply to message #185273] |
Fri, 21 September 2012 22:33 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I wish someone would explain to me why anyone would combine the tanks.
With fuel gauges as unreliable as most I've heard of, I'd think everyone
would want to preserve the reserve feature offered by the original design.
It's reassuring for me to know that I always have at least some fuel left
after the engine starves (the first time).
Ken H.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM, gene Fisher wrote:
> >
> >
> > Are you going to tie the two tanks together with one pickup
>
> YES
> this has convinced me
>
>
>
> > and no
> > selector valve?
> >
> > I am going to leave them in (just lazy) and see how I like it.
>
> JimB has done this and I would like to see pictures of what he has done
> KenH has his efi pressure return going in the drain hole, so I will do some
> thing like his , but connect the 2 tanks
> http://goo.gl/PsClD
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MY MAIN TANK WON'T WORK [message #185349 is a reply to message #185344] |
Fri, 21 September 2012 22:52 |
Mr ERFisher
Messages: 7117
Registered: August 2005
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I guess it was something like this note from KenH
------------------
The only mystery right now is why the Aux tank + accumulator only carried
me 10 miles after I selected the Aux. The terrain was basically level for
the final 100 miles of the trip, and since all return fuel goes into the
Aux tank, it should have held about 6 gallons upon selection. The only
change of any significance to the plumbing during this exercise was that I
found the fuel fill tube rotated so that the Aux nipple sloped slightly
upward toward the tank. I made it level, but that should not have affected
the reserve capacity by even one gallon.
-----------------------
I guess the reserve often, does not work, is not reliable when it depends
upon
- bad senders
- settings of nipples
- lots, of wiring
you still have the low fuel warning, which should be enough?
Will have to ask JimB how his systems are working
and
always run on the top of the tank;>)
gene
and this is why a single tank might help
gene
> I wish someone would explain to me why anyone would combine the tanks.
> With fuel gauges as unreliable as most I've heard of, I'd think everyone
> would want to preserve the reserve feature offered by the original design.
> It's reassuring for me to know that I always have at least some fuel left
> after the engine starves (the first time).
>
>
--
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MY MAIN TANK WON'T WORK [message #185354 is a reply to message #185349] |
Fri, 21 September 2012 23:07 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
At least I now know that I have to get to a gas station within 10 miles.
Not as good as the 30 miles I had before tampering with the tanks, but
lots better than 0, as I'd have with combined tanks. The OEM reserve
system has NO wiring nor senders
The low fuel warning is 100% dependent on the fuel gauge senders and is
therefore essentially worthless, IMHO. Which is why I didn't bother to
include it on my new dash.
I'll be VERY interested to hear how one can combine the tanks with plumbing
that runs on the top of the tanks (without pumps).
Ken H.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:52 PM, gene Fisher wrote:
> I guess it was something like this note from KenH
> ------------------
> The only mystery right now is why the Aux tank + accumulator only carried
> me 10 miles after I selected the Aux. The terrain was basically level for
> the final 100 miles of the trip, and since all return fuel goes into the
> Aux tank, it should have held about 6 gallons upon selection. The only
> change of any significance to the plumbing during this exercise was that I
> found the fuel fill tube rotated so that the Aux nipple sloped slightly
> upward toward the tank. I made it level, but that should not have affected
> the reserve capacity by even one gallon.
> -----------------------
> I guess the reserve often, does not work, is not reliable when it depends
> upon
> - bad senders
> - settings of nipples
> - lots, of wiring
>
> you still have the low fuel warning, which should be enough?
>
> Will have to ask JimB how his systems are working
> and
> always run on the top of the tank;>)
>
> gene
> and this is why a single tank might help
>
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MY MAIN TANK WON'T WORK [message #185372 is a reply to message #185356] |
Sat, 22 September 2012 03:15 |
Mr ERFisher
Messages: 7117
Registered: August 2005
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
nope , I hope not.
been here once before, on the 23,
going to be holes in the floor, so I don't come this way again
http://goo.gl/kgnrX
will mark the spot from the bottom, and cut the holes after the tank is
back in.
sender repair
http://goo.gl/U6Tdb
going to JimK's for parts ASAP
trying not to do this again
gene
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Dan Gregg <gregg_dan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Need senders? I got two on Jim's table here.
> dan
> --
> Dan & Teri Gregg
>
>
> http://danandteri.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
--
Gene Fisher -- 74-23,77PB/ore/ca
“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today --- give him a URL and
-------
http://gmcmotorhome.info/
Alternator Protection Cable
http://gmcmotorhome.info/APC.html
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MY MAIN TANK WON'T WORK [message #185381 is a reply to message #185344] |
Sat, 22 September 2012 10:08 |
Carl S.
Messages: 4186
Registered: January 2009
Location: Tucson, AZ.
Karma: 13
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Ken Henderson wrote on Fri, 21 September 2012 20:33 |
I wish someone would explain to me why anyone would combine the tanks.
With fuel gauges as unreliable as most I've heard of, I'd think everyone
would want to preserve the reserve feature offered by the original design.
It's reassuring for me to know that I always have at least some fuel left
after the engine starves (the first time).
Ken H.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM, gene Fisher wrote:
> >
> >
> > Are you going to tie the two tanks together with one pickup
>
> YES
> this has convinced me
>
>
>
> > and no
> > selector valve?
> >
> > I am going to leave them in (just lazy) and see how I like it.
>
> JimB has done this and I would like to see pictures of what he has done
> KenH has his efi pressure return going in the drain hole, so I will do some
> thing like his , but connect the 2 tanks
> http://goo.gl/PsClD
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
I totally agree on this, Ken. But, then again, my fuel system works as designed. Even if it didn't, and I only had one working sender, I would put it on the main tank, knowing they would both read the same until getting below the fill ports, and still be confident that I have 7-8 gallons in reserve. I personally like this feature and would not change it.
Carl Stouffer
'75 ex Palm Beach
Tucson, AZ.
Chuck Aulgur Reaction Arm Disc Brakes, Quadrabags, 3.70 LSD final drive, Lenzi knuckles/hubs, Dodge Truck 16" X 8" front wheels, Rear American Eagles, Solar battery charging. GMCSJ and GMCMI member
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MY MAIN TANK WON'T WORK [message #185420 is a reply to message #185418] |
Sat, 22 September 2012 17:00 |
GMC_LES
Messages: 569
Registered: October 2009
Location: Montreal
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It may against federal regulations for current models, but there were older vehicles that had bottom connections. I owned several Audi 4000s that had a factory tank in the trunk with a bottom feed to the fuel pump which was under the car.
Les Burt
Montreal
On 2012-09-22, at 5:35 PM, Frank Condos <fcondos@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Re Bottom tank fuel connection
> Didja know that it is against Federal Code of Regulations? I haven't had time to research but saw the notice on this tank makers web site. www.tanksinc.com/ Look under universal poly tanks.
> I'm just saying
> Frank Condos
> Ahwahnee, CA
> on the way to GMCWS in UT
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Les Burt
Montreal
1975 Eleganza 26ft
A work in Progress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] MY MAIN TANK WON'T WORK [message #185506 is a reply to message #185481] |
Sun, 23 September 2012 19:07 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Interestingly enough, the designer of the ford pinto's gas tanks father was
burned to death in a crash of a model A ford with a cowl mounted fuel tank.
He designed the rear mounted fuel tank in the back of the pinto that could
be punctured by a mounting fastener in a rear end crash. The pinto was
involved in a huge recall, and a lawsuit that cost FoMoCo over
$75,000,000.00 He wanted to locate the fuel tank as far from the passenger
location as possible. The fuel filler was even with the window, and when
the tank was crushed, the cap would be expelled, and the fuel would splash
down the side of the car. There is no perfect place for a gasoline tank in
a motor vehicle.
I read about this in an old Motor News, which was a tech bulletin for
independent automotive repair shops. I would call it a fairly reliable
source, but I do not have first hand knowledge that it is the truth.
Jim Hupy
Salem, OR
78 GMC Royale 403
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:26 PM, James Thompson <tjamessherry@bellsouth.net
> wrote:
>
>
> Older guys might remember that model A Ford's had gas tank at top of
> engine and over dash area and used gravity to feed to carb. It was
> advertised as an advantage because of less componets to go bad and was easy
> to fill. However it was a potential danger when in a crash that damaged
> either the welded tank or the plumbing under which would allow raw gasoline
> to flow down on hot engine. This is why regulations got written to reduce
> these situations.
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Sep 24 00:19:31 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01600 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
