Ifitaintbroke Posted March 29 Author Share Posted March 29 I'm not sure where you expected Ford to put a single tank and a spare tire, but I like the fact that I have a completely separate 'reserve' tank if the other gets a hole (or pump goes bad) if you have electric in-tank pumps. They boxed the frame by then. And all those frames rot in half like some damned Taco. I've done away with the plastic 'nose cone' on my midship tank. It only traps salt and muck, causing rot. I'm sure 12v is causing arcing of the resistor board of the sender. Have you considered 6v (ICVR) to the senders and using one of those, to make your cluster read correctly? 💡 My instrument won't read at all with the Meter Match, so I'm ready to eliminate it and go back to my needle moving up to 5/8 as empty. Maybe we can make a deal? Meter Match? Isn't that a sending unit "adapter". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArdWrknTrk Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Meter Match? Isn't that a sending unit "adapter". Yes. Gary has one to use '96 FDM's for his EFI 460 in an '85, and I've been trying (for 2 years!) to use '86 senders with an '87 cluster. So, I'm about to get rid of it. I have the manual, and the little screwdriver it comes with. Look at their site. (I think they're like $70 now) but if you think it would work for your problem send me an email (click my username) and give me an address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85pig Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Supposedly the 1973 Bronco came with a 6 port manual valve. Those are unicorns. If I ever come across one.. man that would be cool. Probably looked like this https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00YMZ3YZM/?coliid=I2K7E4NJF0IPS6&colid=3IGQF00LDI4AO&psc=1&ref_=cm_sw_r_cp_ud_lstpd_41T6E65369DQB9Q9W4Y2 Else this would be what I would use next time https://shop.broncograveyard.com/1966-1977-Ford-Bronco-Mechanical-Tank-Switching-Valve/productinfo/10260/ Jim talks highly about the Pollak valve. I will also definitely consider that.. but something about manual makes it sound dead reliable. Which it is. Since I went manual on big blue 2wd, it has been peace of mind. Early Broncos with dual tanks used a manual valve; a poster here put up a pic of his in another thread. I had a 72 with one, and that setup inspired me to go manual valve on my 85. I have the valve and a new rear tank, it's just a matter of having the time to pull the bed, re-plumb all of the lines, and install the valve. I'm pretty sure you can get the Bronco ones from one of the Bronco parts places (Jeffs, Duffs, BC, etc.). Getting senders to work will be my only hurdle. These threads help influence my decision. Seems like the tank valves (and senders) are a chronic problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viven44 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 I'm not sure where you expected Ford to put a single tank and a spare tire, but I like the fact that I have a completely separate 'reserve' tank if the other gets a hole (or pump goes bad) if you have electric in-tank pumps. They boxed the frame by then. And all those frames rot in half like some damned Taco. I've done away with the plastic 'nose cone' on my midship tank. It only traps salt and muck, causing rot. I'm sure 12v is causing arcing of the resistor board of the sender. Have you considered 6v (ICVR) to the senders and using one of those, to make your cluster read correctly? 💡 My instrument won't read at all with the Meter Match, so I'm ready to eliminate it and go back to my needle moving up to 5/8 as empty. Maybe we can make a deal? Agreed that was a challenge on those trucks with having room for the spare tire, but It was harder for me to drop and mount that spare tire with all that long rusty bolt/hardware... it was easier to drop even the fuel tank I sure am glad they figured out a way to have a single fuel tank in later models and have a spare tire system an average man or woman could use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArdWrknTrk Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Early Broncos with dual tanks used a manual valve. Seems like the tank valves (and senders) are a chronic problem. My personal experience is that my 6-port has never had a hiccup. But obviously anyone reading these threads has a problem with theirs. That's the ONLY reason I know Hot Fuel Handling (because other people have issues) My truck is mechanical pump, but I enjoy problem solving and know I'm better with schematics than most, and memorize part numbers, so I can be helpful.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viven44 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Early Broncos with dual tanks used a manual valve; a poster here put up a pic of his in another thread. I had a 72 with one, and that setup inspired me to go manual valve on my 85. I have the valve and a new rear tank, it's just a matter of having the time to pull the bed, re-plumb all of the lines, and install the valve. I'm pretty sure you can get the Bronco ones from one of the Bronco parts places (Jeffs, Duffs, BC, etc.). Getting senders to work will be my only hurdle. These threads help influence my decision. Seems like the tank valves (and senders) are a chronic problem. On mine, I just use a simple 3 way switch that ties into the fuel selector valve harness to switch manually between front and rear senders. When I manually switch the tank valves, I also switch the senders. "Works for Me!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viven44 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Early Broncos with dual tanks used a manual valve. Seems like the tank valves (and senders) are a chronic problem. My personal experience is that my 6-port has never had a hiccup. But obviously anyone reading these threads has a problem with theirs. That's the ONLY reason I know Hot Fuel Handling (because other people have issues) My truck is mechanical pump, but I enjoy problem solving and know I'm better with schematics than most, and memorize part numbers, so I can be helpful.... I had just about memorized this schematic in this thread below when I was solving my woes with the Ford factory fuel selector valve. After I realized that system had a chance to fail I could not trust it anymore. https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1183355-84-ford-f250-w-460-and-dual-tank-issues-with-fuel-system.html If that fuel selector valve was in the wrong internal position I saw the following problems - if any of the fuel pump supply lines were blocked (happened to me), the pump would have a painful death over a small period of time - if one tank overflows into another (happened to me), thats clearly an issue I had drawn up an "FMEA" in my mind (an objective method to predict problems). Even though the 'occurrence' of these scenarios may be low, the 'severity' of all these scenarios was high i.e. being stranded on the road, dropping tanks (which I had already been through once). So I decided "Never again" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArdWrknTrk Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 I had just about memorized this schematic in this thread below when I was solving my woes with the Ford factory fuel selector valve. After I realized that system had a chance to fail I could not trust it anymore. https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/1183355-84-ford-f250-w-460-and-dual-tank-issues-with-fuel-system.html If that fuel selector valve was in the wrong internal position I saw the following problems - if any of the fuel pump supply lines were blocked (happened to me), the pump would have a painful death over a small period of time - if one tank overflows into another (happened to me), thats clearly an issue I had drawn up an "FMEA" in my mind (an objective method to predict problems). Even though the 'occurrence' of these scenarios may be low, the 'severity' of all these scenarios was high i.e. being stranded on the road, dropping tanks (which I had already been through once). So I decided "Never again" I congratulate you for including the mandated safety switches. 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viven44 Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 I congratulate you for including the mandated safety switches. 👍 I don't know if you are being sarcastic or for real. If sarcastic, can you please point on what safety is bypassed ? I do want to know. You have to dumb it down for me As far as I know, all the safeties are still in place. Oil pressure switch, inertia switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArdWrknTrk Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 I don't know if you are being sarcastic or for real. If sarcastic, can you please point on what safety is bypassed ? I do want to know. You have to dumb it down for me As far as I know, all the safeties are still in place. Oil pressure switch, inertia switch. I'm serious. You have the impact (inertia) and oil pressure cut-off switches in your schematic. I can't tell you how many morons would eliminate them. (I get to see the results of "die in a fire", it is something I never even want to think about) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts