Dual tank question

[Lt1Burb]

I have read that guys delete the front fuel tank and just run the rear one. Is this a thing and should I use this time to weld up the front gas door.

 

[AZ73]

They usually do it when they replace their rear one with a 23 gal aftermarket tank since that's more than the total of the old rear and front tanks combined. That being said, you have a 1977 and it's coveted for it's dual tank doors. I'd leave the front door even if I removed the front tank. People with earlier Broncos that don't have the door weld in the doors because they look good.

 

[Lt1Burb]

They usually do it when they replace their rear one with a 23 gal aftermarket tank since that's more than the total of the old rear and front tanks combined. That being said, you have a 1977 and it's coveted for it's dual tank doors. I'd leave the front door even if I removed the front tank. People with earlier Broncos that don't have the door weld in the doors because they look good.

Good to know, I am not a body mod guy anyways so I will at least leave the door there for future if someone wants it.

 

[SHX669]

There are some of us who leave the front tank even though we've replaced the rear with a larger capacity tank. I try to leave 3-5 gals in the front instead of carrying a " jerry can" .
Some remove the front tank because they're concerned about getting hit broadside on that side and possibly rupturing the tank and potentially dumping gas on the hot exhaust.

 

[56f100bbw]

I have dual tanks big one in back and have a fuel transfer pump to rear tank from the front incase I need awhile extra

 

[Broncobowsher]

FYI, the '77 factory single tank option still had both fuel doors. The front one was just bolted shut.

Personally I would keep it. Put something interesting behind it. Quick connect fitting for on board air? There are a lot of options, use your imagination.

The stock factory rear tank is pretty tiny. I had one once with just that. I hated it. Couldn't do 100 miles with confidence. My second Bronco the dual tanks was a must. Later I did a big single tank in the back and that was enough that I really quit using the front tank.

 

[sprdv1]

Personally I would keep it. Put something interesting behind it. Quick connect fitting for on board air? There are a lot of options, use your imagination.

This for sure if you don't plan to use the tank


"why not"

 

[blubuckaroo]

We still use our Bronco for deer hunts in remote locations. Our Bronco is used to tow a 12' camp trailer to a camp site, then it's driven daily to trail heads.
I've replaced both tanks with Aero tanks. It holds a total of 35 gallons. Still we carry a couple of 5 gallon gas cans so we can top off the Honda and Bronco in camp.

I'm thinking of adding one of the passenger side aux tanks that Aero makes.
47 gallons may sound like a lot, but that depends on how you use your car.

 

[70 sport WA]

I have dual tanks, both stock, and like ‘em. If they’re in good condition, I’d keep them. But it’s up to you and what you believe you prefer.

 

[1970 Palmer]

Some remove the front tank because they're concerned about getting hit broadside on that side and possibly rupturing the tank and potentially dumping gas on the hot exhaust.

It's a wife's tail, A hot exhaust will not ignite the fuel. You can boil it and it still will not ignite.

BUT, just add a little spark with some oxygen, and you have lift off. Ask any Pinto owner that got rear ended.

John

 

[clinem03]

It's a wife's tail, A hot exhaust will not ignite the fuel. You can boil it and it still will not ignite.

BUT, just add a little spark with some oxygen, and you have lift off. Ask any Pinto owner that got rear ended.

John

Has anyone ever heard of this actually happening?

 

[bronco loco]

Some front tanks are removed to make space for the amp research power steps, replacing te rear with a 23 gallon tank. My front cap still on, I like the look of 2 fuel tanks.

 

[Rustytruck]

oh the dreaded pinto mustangs and mavericks were far worse the issue with the pinto was the tank crushed and ripped on the shock mount and pressurized fuel from the crush shot the fuel up into the catalytic converter. yes the car could burst in flames but it was under the car. mavericks and mustangs would crush separating the fuel neck in the trunk and injecting the fuel up into the package tray and then into the cabin a far worse situation if there was an open ignition source. either way the pinto was a bomb waiting for an accident to happen as it had a readily available ignition source.