one fuel tank

[Dsl_Dog_Treat]

i am not comfortable modding something that important... i would rather just buy a new sending unit that would fiot it... if that exists

The kit came with the necessary extensions.

http://www.oilburners.net/forums/sh...apacity-and-Quick-Fill-Necks&highlight=Bronco

 

[058hammer]

I ran an in bed tank and didn't have any trouble.

 

[The Warden]

thanks no sprk... but will it fit my 86?

It should physically fit...IIRC there were some differences in the venting or something like that between '80-'86 and '87-'97 trucks, but they should fit in the same spots.

 

[nitroguy]

Question on this, somewhat related.

What is the advantage of two separate tanks and a switch between them? And instead of replacing two separate tanks with one big one, couldn't you just plumb the two together with a really big, nonrestrictive hose? I'm thinking 2", or something that would be sure to absolutely not hinder flow, but joins the two together, then you only ever draw from one of the tanks but it ultimately pulls from both. Make sense? Am I missing a critical part of something?

 

[madpogue]

The big advantage of separate tanks is fault tolerance. Yes, the tank switch can fail, and either sender can fail. But a failed sender does not leave you stranded. And more likely than a failed switch is a tank leak, esp. with Ford's design of using the skid plates as rear tank supports. This creates a perfect place for road crud to build up and rust the rear tank, right on the bottom. So when it rusts through, you retain NO fuel. If you had just one large rear tank, and this happened, (1) you'd lose more fuel, and (2) you'd have no backup.

 

[swervyjoe]

is that a bronco tank?

No, its just an aftermarket 38 gallon tank. Its supposed to be a straight swap, but I haven't done it yet.

 

[PackRat239]

If you have only one tank, what will you do when you get some contaminated fuel in it? A large balance tube is just a great place for the leak that empties both tanks and leaves you stranded.