'67 fuel tank sending unit...

[Scott S.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

Scott,

I don't know what John Wolf was thinking about the float and soak and frankly I consider that a communication problem on their behalf. I think they should have told me that the float and sock were not going to be replaced, on what I thought was going to be a total cosmetic and functional restoration. I'm sure most folks want a sending unit back from him that works as it come out of the box. Not one that I now have to find out if the float works or where I can find a repro sock. None of this was ever mentioned in my phone call to them prior to sending them the unit, so I'm a little miffed.

Gary

Hi Gary,

I understand your point. It would be better to cover all the bases, and be sure that the communication and services to be rendered were clear. I was just thinking that if a restorer had replaced the sock and the float, and did not return the originals, I suspect many people would be dissatisfied with that too.

[Gary B.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

... I was just thinking that if a restorer had replaced the sock and the float, and did not return the originals, I suspect many people would be dissatisfied with that too.

The solution is simple: good communication. Tell the customer what is done; what isn't done; and what happens to original parts. This isn't brain surgery.

Gary

[Jim R.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

In september of 09 I had issues with my sending unit and had a reply from john hinckley along with the 63 -67 fuel gauge diagnostics, after removing my original it turned out to be a broken ground strap, I still have my original but replaced mine with a unit from Fargo automotive It has been in my car since september of 09 the gauge is very accurate and have had no problems with it, I can't speak for china or other repos but this one has served me well.

[Gary B.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

... I still have my original but replaced mine with a unit from Fargo automotive It has been in my car since september of 09 the gauge is very accurate and have had no problems with it...

Jim,

How much did the sending unit from Fargo cost? Does Fargo have a website?

Gary

[Gary B.]

Fargo sending unit

Jim,

You can ignore my question. I found the following statement in an article written by John Hinckley, who gives a positive review of the Fargo unit:

"The Fargo Automotive reproduction sending unit is available from Corvette Central as their #362206 for $79.95"

Gary

[Jim R.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

Jim,

How much did the sending unit from Fargo cost? Does Fargo have a website?

Gary

Hi Gary, at the time, I purchased it from CC and remember asking there tech department I think it was Gus that I spoke with and this was the one that they were carrying at the time (Fargo Automotive) also in the 63-67 fuel gauge diagnostics this is the one they mention as being a real good replacement, and if I remember John H tested one side by side with an original and they were quite close , the cost then in 09 Gary was 79.95, maybe give cc a shout and see if they are still carrying the Fargo unit, I never tried to find the Fargo Automotive website but it would be worth a shot searching for it for some info on the unit. Looks like we posted at the same time Gary glad you found the article.

[Gary B.]

Sending unit Sock & Float; Need GM part # for sock

To close the loop on the restoration work done by John Wolf & Co on my fuel sending unit, I spoke with someone at JWC today, who could have been the owner based on his apparent knowledge. He said that he no longer replaces the sock (called a strainer by GM) because the socks he's been buying (from China he speculated) don't last, perhaps due to gasoline additives, such as ethanol. So, he recommends not using a sock and adding an inline fuel filter. I'm not sure I buy this explanation and I'm not going to add an inline filter.

Doesn't GM sell a strainer/sock? I've read on one of the forums that the part number is 5651702. Is that correct for C2 Corvette? That part is listed by gmpartsdirect.com at a GM list price of $18. For that price, I would hope it doesn't fall apart when sitting in modern gasoline formulations.

Regarding the float, original floats were made from "Nitrophyl", which is a trademarked name by Rogers Corp, which is still in business. The person from JWC said my original float was OK, so it was returned as it. I've read on the internet that Nitrophyl floats can go bad over time, so as this point I don't know if the float is good or not. JWC said they weighed the float to determine it's re-usability, but I suspect the weighing has to be done before and after some time of being exposed to liquid gasoline, to see if it absorbs any. I don't know if JWC did such a test.

I guess I'm not a perfectly satisfied customer of JWC.

Gary

[Jim D.]

Re: Sending unit Sock & Float; Need GM part # for sock

I guess I'm not a perfectly satisfied customer of JWC.
Gary

Oh well. That's ONE opinion. Everyone else has been satisfied with them. I just sent them mine saying "Do what's needed". As long as it works as it's supposed to, I seriously doubt I'll be whining about their service. You could have gone elsewhere.

Jim

[Gary B.]

Re: Sending unit Sock & Float; Need GM part # for sock

Oh well. That's ONE opinion. Everyone else has been satisfied with them. I just sent them mine saying "Do what's needed". As long as it works as it's supposed to, I seriously doubt I'll be whining about their service. You could have gone elsewhere.

Jim

Jim,

Likewise rolleyes on our different opinion about what good service should be.

Gary

[Gerard F.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

Gary,

Just for information, I bought one of those replacement socks (not the GM one), and I found that it didn't fit the tube on the original sender. It was too loose.

So, I put the original tattered sock back on my original, with the thought that the filter on the carb bowl would catch the debris in the fuel. Has worked just fine over the last few years.

I am also on my original sender float.

And still having fun

[Gary B.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

Gary,

Just for information, I bought one of those replacement socks (not the GM one), and I found that it didn't fit the tube on the original sender. It was too loose.

I think someone else on the DB has mentioned that same problem. I hope the GM one is a tighter fit. I suppose the female end could be crushed at bit to crimp on better if it is loose.

Gary

[Jim T.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

The fuel sock/strainer that came on my original owner 1970 came off the fuel pick up pipe many years ago. It is still in the tank. I do use a inline filter, not original equipment. I have always controlled what gets into the fuel tank and I am sure that pump gas is filtered before it exits the fuel nozzle. I don't know what the fuel strainer is going to keep out of the fuel line in the use of my 70.

[Peter J.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

Gary,
I got mine back from J Wolfe a week or so ago with a new replacement float and no filter, I took the sock filter of a new Fargo unit and it did not fit on my original sending unit, it (filter) was to large a diameter and after thinking of all kinds of solutions I lightly whacked the tube with a brass punch and small ball peen hammer and it has a perfect interference fit now.
I remeber Ron Lovelace warning me about the plating before I sent mine off to John but I was more concerned about corrsion than correctness since there isn't a correct repop available. He was right though it dosen't look at all like the original tin plating finish.

[Ronald L.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

I know first hand how hard it can be to search the DB, last year we went through this same exercise.

#1 - that fargo unit - forget it - lose the thought - its from China. I bought one, it tested 200 ohms in the full up position - ooops - the original is supposed to read 0 at MT and 90 at full.

What is 200ohms at full supposed to read at half a tank???? Or 1/4 tank, or 3/4 tank. Does that mean at a half tank of fuel my guage says full, and it stays full until I am less than half a tank? Or is it the reverse? or if you reverse these does it read MT when the tank is full and full when the tank is MT? Why am I even dealing with this when all I wanted was a gauge that sent a signal 0 resistance at MT, 90 ohms resistance at full???

So I sent it back at my expense - times two - once to get it here and the second time to analyze CC's POS. Sorry if your fellings are pinched, but they should not be selling a box full of problems, and then making me feel like a picky customer and it s my fault the sender does not read properly out of their box.



#2 So I repeat the experience. I buy another one, this time it measures 0 mt and only 150 in the full up position. I won't ask at what level of fuel it takes for this one to read full on the gauge.


I bother the folks up north with my multi meter saying I'm not buying anything that does not read... 0 at MT and 90 in the full up position.


#3 There was only one sender I found - that did that (0 at MT and 90 full up) and it was $300 - it was a Delphi (ex AC plant that made them in the first place).


It was TIN plated just like the original. It has a 'modern day resistor card' (you can see that card if you are really good at getting your neck into the fuel tank). Unfortunately - it does not have AC made in the USA .


FWIW - I know what I'm looking at when I see these 1990's technology resistor cards.

#4- We are restorers correct?

That means you "WANT" your flange to say A.C. Made in the U.S.A.

There is NOT a ONE of these China-made flimsy low grade stainless steel, improperly-calibrated senders that has the text that we need for our cars.

Don't think its visible??? Thing again, I can get my eyes up under there and see this very clearly, and I will be able to 10 years from now.


#5 Restoration of originals.

Gary - I'd expect full communication 100% You are spot on as we all are dealing with a hobby and these tasks are very personalized and people do not want surprises. Sure there are going to be the guys that deal with this as parts-for-points and don't care, just get it back to me for as little outlay as possible. So you get what you get. And an extra charge to get your left over parts back? As small as a float or sock can be?

I do not support the idea that the finish is not re-applied, if these are full disassembly and 'full' restoration of appearance and function.

Keep in mind - tin plate is functional, clear coat sticks for 5 minutes on bare steel, after that you can expect it just starts rusting all over again. Corrosion means conductivity issues and grounding issues meaning, you get to go diagnose the thing all over again a year from now.

I have a tin plating source - do we have 10 pounds of stripped bare fuel senders as 'trial only' volunteers?

Floats that don't float. The plastic has become degraded, whether it be the fuel or fuel additives and especially today's alcohol fuels that could have zapped the original float material. I personally have not tested one for the plastic type to have solid data on why these are going bad - remember there are two designs the black ones and the tan version.

Filter socks and fit. From the number of times it is coming up, its clear that the current supplier of these socks missed a critical dimension and these do not have the resistance fit so they don't fall off. Can they be slightly pinched in a vice so the opening is oval and its a tight fit?

Second - I would NOT rely on the inline filter to do the job of what this sock was intended to do. It stops the stray leaves and other large items from getting into the lines of the fuel system - in the first place. If as you are pouring gas into the tank, a chunk of rust or dirt is passed in, etc. That is why you can pull the send to flush the tank out.


The inline filter is designed to keep fine particulates from entering your carb and ruining same, not stopping errant chunks of stuff that could get into the fuel tank. And all this assumes you have a clean tank to start with.

[Timothy B.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

Would it be possible to solder the sock collar to the tube or even some JB Weld. I don't think ethonal will touch that stuff.

I thought the tin dip is the way to go and if I had a sender restored the finish that's in Chris's picture would suit me fine. No clear coat IMO..

You guys made me go find my original 63 sender to look for details..