• Welcome to ClassicBroncos! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all the site features, please take a moment to register. It's fast, simple and absolutely free. So please join our community today!
    If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.

Increased Aux Tank Capacity

Viperwolf1

Contributor
electron whisperer
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
24,312
Got my hands on a spare aux tank from a '73 and figured I'd fix it up to replace mine which leaks a little. First thing I did was measure the capacity. It holds almost 12 gallons when standing on end. I know the rated capacity of a '73 tank is 7.5 gallons but the early years (before venting) held about 11 gallons. So I get to looking inside and figure out why it's only rated at 7.5. It's because the filler vent (1/2" tube) is angled down and ends at about half the tank height. A "full" tank has 4.5 gallons of air trapped in it.

Now I know it needs some extra space for expansion but I figured I could cut this wasted space down by half and still be safe. So I took the vent tube out and drilled some extra holes in the flange to clock the end of the tube up to about 3/4 tank height. You can't simply rotate the tube 90 degrees because the screw holes are offset and it would put the vent at the very top of the tank. By the way the vent tube is sealed with an o-ring and the screws don't go through the inside of the tank. The pictures below show the vent after clocking.

I haven't re-measured yet but it looks like I should be able to get about 9.5 gallons in it now. Not a big difference but it may save me 20-30 miles of walking during my Pony Express trail trip. I still need to modify the float arm to take advantage of the increased capacity.
 

Attachments

  • Bronco 480.jpg
    Bronco 480.jpg
    68.5 KB · Views: 238
  • Bronco 482.jpg
    Bronco 482.jpg
    34.4 KB · Views: 214

broncnaz

Bronco Guru
Joined
May 22, 2003
Messages
24,341
The early non vented tank I have on my 73 holds about 10 gallons upon refill. I have a spare tank with the vent tube as well that I plan on replacing the unvented one for easier fill ups good idea. I may be doing the same mod soon. I may have to do my 71 was well.
 

73azbronco

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
7,791
There's a reason for that open space, a crush zone for side impact. This allows the tank to deform before rupturing and hopefully with the steel plate, deflect fuel down and away from the cab. If the tank is full and it takes a hit, no room for deforming, it pops right then and plumes of fuel who knows where. I may be wrong...
 
OP
OP
Viperwolf1

Viperwolf1

Contributor
electron whisperer
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
24,312
There's a reason for that open space, a crush zone for side impact. This allows the tank to deform before rupturing and hopefully with the steel plate, deflect fuel down and away from the cab. If the tank is full and it takes a hit, no room for deforming, it pops right then and plumes of fuel who knows where. I may be wrong...

You may very well be right. The tank capacity was reduced back in the time of the Pinto fireballs. I'll take my chances with it though.

I did get to measure the modified capacity yesterday and it took just short 9.5 gallons until liquid started coming out of the vent tube.
 

76 bronco J

Bronco Guru
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
1,480
>>>> side fuel tanks outside the frame rails are a bad idea no matter how you look at it & the reason I just added a larger rear tank instead of going that route........ remember all the crap GM got into on the subject >>[youtube]<object width="660" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RqpOyiIx8n4&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RqpOyiIx8n4&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="525"></embed></object>[/youtube]
 

DirtDonk

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
47,275
Although I agree, do you remember how the video footage in the old news stories (not this one in the video) was rigged with movie incendiaries to achieve the "desired effect" though?
The reporters got called on that one when someone saw the initial flare (they used a small solid-fuel rocket motor if I remember) underneath the tank just before it erupted in flame.
The leak was there from the accident no doubt, but they just had to go and "fan the flames" so to speak, to get more spectacular air-time out of it. Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot to make the point that a gun can be dangerous in the wrong hands?

Not that anyone would do such a thing, of course...

Paul
 
OP
OP
Viperwolf1

Viperwolf1

Contributor
electron whisperer
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
24,312
I added a fuel return port to the tank sender. There are only a few places where the extra port can go due to the body brace blocking most of the sender face. The tube is soldered in securely but I'm going to add some epoxy for good measure. I still need to extend the float arm a few inches to make up for the increased capacity then I'll button it up, install it, and see if I can make it leak.
 

Attachments

  • Bronco 485.jpg
    Bronco 485.jpg
    38.2 KB · Views: 161
  • Bronco 486.jpg
    Bronco 486.jpg
    33.9 KB · Views: 166
  • Bronco 487.jpg
    Bronco 487.jpg
    40.2 KB · Views: 166
  • Bronco 488.jpg
    Bronco 488.jpg
    53.2 KB · Views: 170

phred

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
3,431
Loc.
Earth
As alway Viper, nice work. Looks like another mod I need to add to the list. this would make a good tech article.
 

broncnaz

Bronco Guru
Joined
May 22, 2003
Messages
24,341
>>>> side fuel tanks outside the frame rails are a bad idea no matter how you look at it & the reason I just added a larger rear tank instead of going that route........ remember all the crap GM got into on the subject

Sure lots of things are bad ideas broncos and most other trucks out there all have side tanks granted most are inside the frame now. But what happens when the driveshaft lets go? More recently crown vics had issues with there rear tank catching fire when a car would impact the rear of the parked crown vic while traveling 60 miles a hour.
There are lots of "bad" ideas lifts, big tires, poor brakes, speeding, overdriving your rig,

Accidents happen plain and simple some if not most are preventable just by driver awareness. My whole take on driving is not to get into a accident vehicle safety to me is it should be safe during normal driving once you get into a accident then anything can and will happen no matter what safety features are built in. If cars were 100% safe then nobody would ever die in a accident in todays cars.
 
OP
OP
Viperwolf1

Viperwolf1

Contributor
electron whisperer
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
24,312
I extended the float arm about 1.5" using 1/8" brass tubing from a hobby store. I expoxied the inside of the sender tubes and electrical connector in case of pinhole leaks in the solder. I also picked up a new gasket from the Ford dealer, C0AF-9276-A for $1.03.

I had to put a slight bend in the tube so the float wouldn't bottom out on the tank. I ran a piece of solder into the tube before bending so I wouldn't kink it. When the tank is full the float arm is now long enough to reach the fuel level. Now with a total of almost 33 gallons I should have a highway cruising range of about 500 miles.
 

Attachments

  • Bronco 489.jpg
    Bronco 489.jpg
    65.6 KB · Views: 105
  • Bronco 490.jpg
    Bronco 490.jpg
    41.9 KB · Views: 99

Rustytruck

Bronco Guru
Joined
Feb 24, 2002
Messages
10,875
Add some heavy wall sliders under the rockers and you now have inside the rails protection for side impact. people worry to much. reminds me of 100 ways to die in the west. Just stay out of the fair and you will be OK.
 

Broncobowsher

Total hack
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
34,821
11+ year old thread with the last post over 8 years ago...
Pulled from the archives, kicked back into life. Well not really, kicked back into recently read anyway.
Time for a nap, let it sleep for another decade, see who wakes it later.
 
Top