'67 fuel tank sending unit...

[Ronald L.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

Tim,
Alcohol disolves epoxies when un cured so probably not a good idea. Solder a good probability.

[Peter J.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

Tim,
My sending unit finish is identical to Chris's after getting it back from John Wolf. As for the sock filter I was planning on using JB Weld when I decided to just give it a slight whack with a punch and hammer. The fit was just a little loose, enough to always have in the back of your mind that it could slip off in the future. When It gave it a tap it distorted the tube just enough to make a good interference fit now without any visible damage at all. And I don't have to worry about an epoxy being dissolved by any additives in future gasoline purchases.

[Gary B.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

Peter,

I'm going to purchase the GM sock and then give the pick-up tube on the sender a measured whack as you've done.

Thanks,

Gary

[Gary B.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

...
#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?

Ron,

Thanks for your agreement. I don't think I'm being that anal in my expectations of vendor-to-customer communications.

Gary

[Paul J.]

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

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.

Gary

Gary, thanks for mentioning that the float is "Nitrophyl", not styrofoam. Nitrophyl is rubber. We all know what happens to styrofoam when it comes into contact with gasoline.

Paul

[Jim R.]

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.

I guess I must be lucky the one I bought (fargo) works very accurate, also I will get my original restored sometime.

[Timothy B.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

Ronald,

I bet that J&B Weld will be fine in alcohol. I am talking after cured like a day later.

Gary,

If you ordered the GM sock the interference fit may be .002+- so no need to distort the tube, try it first.

[Ken A.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

Peter,

I'm going to purchase the GM sock and then give the pick-up tube on the sender a measured whack as you've done.

Thanks,

Gary

Just FYI, it's made in China.
As are all current GM senders.
That's mainland China, not Taipei, where the bad stuff is made.

[Patrick H.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

That's mainland China, not Taipei, where the bad stuff is made.

Bad stuff is made everywhere. The company in the US got exactly what they ordered, but the problem is that someone on this end screwed up on specs and thought some things were "good enough." Obviously they weren't.

Don't get me wrong - there are some things that the Chinese have not yet mastered. However, when bad parts show up here the blame should go to the company on this end that specs them and then doesn't follow through with samples and prototypes.

My Dad is in this business and I evaluate and test several products that come through, but in a different industry. So, I know a bit about this.

(Off soapbox. )

Patrick

[Ken A.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

Bad stuff is made everywhere. The company in the US got exactly what they ordered, but the problem is that someone on this end screwed up on specs and thought some things were "good enough." Obviously they weren't.

Don't get me wrong - there are some things that the Chinese have not yet mastered. However, when bad parts show up here the blame should go to the company on this end that specs them and then doesn't follow through with samples and prototypes.

My Dad is in this business and I evaluate and test several products that come through, but in a different industry. So, I know a bit about this.

(Off soapbox. )

Patrick

I'm not sure I understand you. My point was that ALL current production GM/AC Delco/Delphi fuel senders are now made in mainland China - and they're great parts made to GM's specs. They're some cheapo senders also made, but not by a GM vendor. New senders MUST be ethanol compliant. So the new socks and film resistors are spec'd purposefully. GM has a history of lawsuits (as do other cos) over fuel system failures. You can bet the old wire wound resistor and nitrophyl floats and old socks/strainers are not up to current standards, or they would still be in use. If it were my car, I wouldn't chance a fuel system failure using old parts & technology.

[Gary B.]

Nitrophyl is still used today

... You can bet the old wire wound resistor and nitrophyl floats and old socks/strainers are not up to current standards, or they would still be in use. ...

Ken,

It's my understanding that Nitrophyl is still widely used for floats in carbs, so I assume it does meet current standards. I don't know, however, if the Nitrophyl of the 1960s is identical to Nitrophyl of 2011.

Gary

[Patrick H.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

I'm not sure I understand you. My point was that ALL current production GM/AC Delco/Delphi fuel senders are now made in mainland China - and they're great parts made to GM's specs. They're some cheapo senders also made, but not by a GM vendor. New senders MUST be ethanol compliant. So the new socks and film resistors are spec'd purposefully. GM has a history of lawsuits (as do other cos) over fuel system failures. You can bet the old wire wound resistor and nitrophyl floats and old socks/strainers are not up to current standards, or they would still be in use. If it were my car, I wouldn't chance a fuel system failure using old parts & technology.

I was commenting on your sentence which can be interpreted as "That's mainland China ... where the bad stuff is made" (which is I believe how it is currently punctuated) or as "... not Taipei where the bad stuff is made" as in "the bad stuff is made in Taipei"

In either case my point is that no country holds a "lock" on bad stuff. I know of excellent quality goods from both sources as well as poor quality ones.

[Patrick T.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

If you look at the eBay link below, there must be dozen's of Corvette sending units for sale. I presume they are all of foreign manufacture. Looks like they can't give them away, judging from the low prices. After reading the comments here about foreign parts, that would imply to me that they simply aren't worth a crap.

So would one venture to guess that all of these sending units are of one design or does each have it's own unique design? Seems to me that if they all followed the original GM design and manufacturing processes, there wouldn't be any problems with performance, BWTFDIK.

http://motors.shop.ebay.com/i.html?_trkparms=65%253A12%257C39%253A1%257C72%253A5051&rt=nc&_nkw=1967+corvette+fuel+sending+units&_dmpt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&_sticky=1&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_sop=3&_sc=1

[John H.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

So would one venture to guess that all of these sending units are of one design or does each have it's own unique design? Seems to me that if they all followed the original GM design and manufacturing processes, there wouldn't be any problems with performance, BWTFDIK.

http://motors.shop.ebay.com/i.html?_...5&_sop=3&_sc=1

Pat -

The issue isn't the original GM design - it's how the offshore manufacturers choose to replicate it, depending on what material and technology they happen to have available to them, how they choose to control the manufacturing and assembly processes, and how they verify the finished product. Unless the company that wants the product made for them supplies specifications, process requirements and a quality plan (and follows up on-site to ensure the requirements are met), chances of getting a quality product when it come out of the shipping container are slim.

[Ken A.]

Re: '67 fuel tank sending unit...

If you look at the eBay link below, there must be dozen's of Corvette sending units for sale. I presume they are all of foreign manufacture. Looks like they can't give them away, judging from the low prices. After reading the comments here about foreign parts, that would imply to me that they simply aren't worth a crap.

So would one venture to guess that all of these sending units are of one design or does each have it's own unique design? Seems to me that if they all followed the original GM design and manufacturing processes, there wouldn't be any problems with performance, BWTFDIK.

http://motors.shop.ebay.com/i.html?_...5&_sop=3&_sc=1

None of these are the current GM sender. L I Corvette & Paragon both sell the current GM sender.