equalizing both tanks?

[88IDImattman]

i like the 38 gallon rear tank sounds great but do they make a larger front tank there is alot of room up there an even if they could make a front tank with 38 gallons that gives 76 gallons an just at say an average of 15 mpg that is a 1140 mile range yea it's gonna cost $280 ish bucs to fill up but thats a good ways before the next one ya know

 

[MIDNIGHT RIDER]

Like oldbull8 said,

if the tanks "equalize" themselves, fuel is always seeking the same level.

The fuel will over-fill the lower tank.

Even on big trucks that are set-up this way, there are cut-off valves at the outlet on each tank.

Whenever all the tanks are FULL, or close to FULL, the cut-off valves get closed to prevent the fuel from running out the vents on the down-hill tanks.

The fuel-gauge is watched and, when it gets below 1/4-tank, the valves get opened, the FULL tanks seek level with the gauge/draw tank, the gauge rises to compensate, and everyone rolls merrily along.

 

[MIDNIGHT RIDER]

I oft read of the 38-gallon "Bronco" rear tank, plus the aftermarket clones.

My concern with these would be ground clearance.

The bottom of the factory rear 20-gallon tank on my cab-chassis truck is below the center-line of the rear axle.

How much lower is this 38-gallon tank gonna be ??

I can't see anywhere for this near-double capacity to go but closer to the ground.

 

[Mulochico]

This is what I did and it has worked great. I fill up both tanks, use the front gauge (the switch still works for the gauge so I can read either ). It pulls from the front (lower) & returns to the rear.

Check it out and see if this is what you initially asked about.

http://www.oilburners.net/forums/showthread.php?t=34465

 

[freebird01]

I oft read of the 38-gallon "Bronco" rear tank, plus the aftermarket clones.

My concern with these would be ground clearance.

The bottom of the factory rear 20-gallon tank on my cab-chassis truck is below the center-line of the rear axle.

How much lower is this 38-gallon tank gonna be ??

I can't see anywhere for this near-double capacity to go but closer to the ground.

you loose the spare tire with the 38 gallon rear tank

 

[Diesel_brad]

i like the 38 gallon rear tank sounds great but do they make a larger front tank there is alot of room up there an even if they could make a front tank with 38 gallons that gives 76 gallons an just at say an average of 15 mpg that is a 1140 mile range yea it's gonna cost $280 ish bucs to fill up but thats a good ways before the next one ya know

Yes. Transferflow makes one http://www.transferflow.com/Ford_replacement_tank.html
But for $1400 i will keep using the 19 gallon stock one

I oft read of the 38-gallon "Bronco" rear tank, plus the aftermarket clones.

My concern with these would be ground clearance.

The bottom of the factory rear 20-gallon tank on my cab-chassis truck is below the center-line of the rear axle.

How much lower is this 38-gallon tank gonna be ??

I can't see anywhere for this near-double capacity to go but closer to the ground.

A cab and chassis rear tank is only 19 gal on a 161" wheel base and only 18.2 on a 137" wheel base. They are a totally different tank than a pickup or bronco tank because a cab-n-chassis frame is 4" narrower than a pick-up so the tank is made deeper than a pickup one. The bronco(30 gallon) tank is made shorter(from front to back) for clearance issues but it is deeper. The F26D tank I posted about before has the sam outside dementions as the original pickup tank but is approx 7" deeper

Here are some pics for comparion if they load
http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2671578720081788797WUzPmj
http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2520144500081788797bRcuFy
http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2876630690081788797nVIMBQ

 

[Agnem]

In all likelyhood, you could probably fit the 42 gallon Excursion fuel tank as well. The whole dual tank as one idea is a bad one using the factory tanks. Do you want more fuel capacity, or do you just want to get rid of the FSV? If it is the later, one option (which we excersized on the Night Moose) is to just rig everything up to run off of one tank, and then set up the second tank to re-fill the first one (using it's own fuel pump). We took the roll over valve out, and reworked it to accept a 3/8" fuel line from the other tank. When the main tank is just about empty, it's a simple matter of flipping a switch and watching the fuel gauge just go up magically as you drive down the road.

 

[gunz]

Both my tanks and the selector work , but i am planning on an in bed 80 gallon aluminum tank so i can pull from the bottom and have a sump for off camber driving. I am looking for a possible fuel sending unit for my gauge tho. My tank filler neck will be inside my locking tool box. thats the plan as it stand now.

 

[RANOVRU]

In all likelyhood, you could probably fit the 42 gallon Excursion fuel tank as well. The whole dual tank as one idea is a bad one using the factory tanks. Do you want more fuel capacity, or do you just want to get rid of the FSV? If it is the later, one option (which we excersized on the Night Moose) is to just rig everything up to run off of one tank, and then set up the second tank to re-fill the first one (using it's own fuel pump). We took the roll over valve out, and reworked it to accept a 3/8" fuel line from the other tank. When the main tank is just about empty, it's a simple matter of flipping a switch and watching the fuel gauge just go up magically as you drive down the road.

I like this idea the best. So if say, you had a bad sending unit on the front tank, and did what youre talking about, it would just read off the rear even when switched?

 

[Mulochico]

The whole dual tank as one idea is a bad one using the factory tanks.

Why? Semi-trucks have been doing this for decades. If it is well thought out and executed it is a safe simple solution. Mine is done so that I can isolate either tank easily and quickly when needed and don't have to deal with electronics, etc. going bad or shorting out.

Not wanting to cause a problem, it is just that calling it a bad idea is a rather strong statement when mine has been working for 2 years w/o a problem.

 

[gunz]

I dont see it as a bad idea either. removes the electronic failure from the system.

 

[Agnem]

When I say "bad idea with the factory tanks" I mean just that. Unless you can braze a flush mounted nipple on the outside of the tank, I do not see how you could get a fitting on it that would not pertrude inside the tank in such a way as to promote the accumulation of setiment, and prevent complete draining of the tank. Also as had been pointed out previously, the tanks are not at the same level. You would be better off with tanks that are next to each other, instead of tanks that are several feet in front or behind each other. I'm simply saying that the style and location of the tank will not yeild a "semi truck quality". There is nothing wrong with the way it is done on semi trucks, I'm just suggesting that you can not do it as well "with these factory tanks in their factory locations".

 

[Mulochico]

Unless you can braze a flush mounted nipple on the outside of the tank, I do not see how you could get a fitting on it that would not pertrude inside the tank in such a way as to promote the accumulation of setiment, and prevent complete draining of the tank. Also as had been pointed out previously, the tanks are not at the same level. You would be better off with tanks that are next to each other, instead of tanks that are several feet in front or behind each other. I'm simply saying that the style and location of the tank will not yeild a "semi truck quality". There is nothing wrong with the way it is done on semi trucks, I'm just suggesting that you can not do it as well "with these factory tanks in their factory locations".

While I agree that there is no way to get a "flush mounted nipple" you never get all the fuel out of any tank unless it has a drain at the lowest point coming out the bottom of the tank. My setup drains the rear tank (from the bottom ) into the front tank, thus flowing to the lowest point of the 2 tanks. It will only leave about 1/16th of an inch of fuel/sediment in the rear tank. Very inconsequential amount plus the sediment stays in the rear tank.

As far as the tanks being to far apart, I only have about 2 1/2 feet of line between the tanks. Semis have 3-5 feet between them as the tanks are at the outside of the frame. Actually the newer semi-trucks pull from both tanks and don't have a "crossover tube" (to complicated to copy for our use IMO). I am an "old school trucker".

Again, I am not trying to start an argument. I am just saying that if someone doesn't want to deal with the FSV, this is a safe, solid, proven alternative.

I did it because of cost (it was cheaper) and reliability. I thought it out for several months, considered all options and decided this was the best choice for me. If others want to replace the FSV, or use another option, do what is best for your situation. That is what I love about these trucks and this forum, we have options available and experience to draw from

 

[F-SERI-ouS]

i put a fuel aux. fuel tank in my 08, and i am going to try to put the stock tank in my '94 idi. the stock one has the skid plate rusted to it, and besides, after getting the 70 gal tank on my other truck, i hate fueling up at all, let alone more than once everytime i go on a long drive, az-tx everymonth. Ill let you know how the tank swap goes, and i will also try to do a stock suburban tank in the rear tank.

 

[hawaiian808]

i just want extended range lol 1100 odd miles i would still have to fill up, i might just go with the 38 gallon and then rig it up off the rear 38 gallons is more than other truck atm, maybe if i get my welding skill on i might one day make my own tank, if i can find a bed mounted tank that looks like a skinny tool box for cheap ill use that , i love my truck , i just dont trust it when it come to the switch, when i am so far away from everything at work, i rather not go thru that pain , thanks for the ideas i might have to look into that pump idea mel