Fuel Tank Capacity: 1988 Crown Victoria?

Page 2 of 2  


He was not at a fuel station, the nozzle would shut off. Fuel would also be flooding out the filler tube, not enough fuel would be allowed out and through the evap system to prevent the filler tube from filling up and over flowing. So you are not telling the truth. Why wont you let it go? You obviously know very little of which you want so desperately to argue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
pick one wrote:

So... what do you say is the "total capacity" of my 1997 Taurus Wagon tank, rated at 16 gallons in the owners manual (and no option available), but will take 20.2 gallons at a fill from empty?
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
pick one wrote:

So... what do you say is the "total capacity" of my 1997 Taurus Wagon tank, rated at 16 gallons in the owners manual (and no option available), but will take 20.2 gallons at a fill from empty?
Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hollander lists a 16gal. (F7DC-AA) and an 18gal. (F7DC-BA) for that model. I usually have the problem of getting my workers to empty the tanks, so I can't tell you how much you can overfill them.
Berkshire Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Didn't realize this was a 97. The old body style had the option. It was always a pain in the but to get a pump or sender because you had to give the parts guy the tank size 16 or 18. We measured both tanks, both measured the same height width length. Then we looked up the part numbers for the tanks, both the same. Then we checked the part numbers for the fill tubes, different. Did the same for fuel tanks on F series trucks, same result. If you want to know until the past 5 years all I have worked at is Ford Lincoln and Mercury dealerships going back 30 years. Which is why I was able to take the measurements, lots of Ford vehicles around. How much can it actually hold? Don't know, at least 5% more by regulations. It seams yours can hold more which is not uncommon, I would not be surprised if the tank is in reality the same as the tank on the old body style. The vent valve is most likely not working correctly though. The valve should hold pressure to about 1 psi over atmosphere. That is what prevents overfilling and allowing the fuel nozzle at the gas station to shut off to prevent overfilling.
It should seem pretty obvious that if the tank can be filled to it's total liquid capacity meaning there is no vapor space, you then take off onto the street and some one rear ends you. If the tank is in a area that is prone to be crushed by the impact.........remember liquid is considered non-compressible......well you get the point. To achieve the vapor space how do you think that happens if there is no valve to control internal tank pressure? If those vapors are allowed to escape you can not create a vapor space meaning you can fill to the total volume of the tank. A lot of the regulations were a direct result of the Pinto problems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:21:49 -0500, "pick one" <try again!> wrote:

Stop obsessing and replying to your own posts!!
Bottom line is - plain and simple - you're dead wrong.
Try again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Depends on the model. Some go quite far into the tank and bend, and yes they are a bitch to remove.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is close enough. Closed container with a valve that holds pressure in a designed high spot.............laws of physics come into play.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:38:42 -0500, "pick one" <try again!> wrote:

"designed high spot" ? "Laws of physics" ? Thanks or the laugh!
The entry point of the filler tube does not prevent further filling. Period.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark opined in

WRONG! Though the tank has a venting system in the emissions system, you cannot -in a practical sense- fill it past the top of the filler tube, which is also the fill vent. Otherwise there would be no point to the vapor recovery rig on gas pumps.
--
- Yes, I'm a crusty old geezer curmudgeon.. deal with it! -

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nice try, but you're welcome to guess again.
Here's an idea. Try actually filling your own tank rather than going to full serve.
Those vapor recovery systems are as good as the operator. Do you think most people take the time to make sure there is a full seal against the filler tube? Please.
It's not difficult to fill past the filler inlet at the tank. As a matter of fact it's more the norm than not.
You can keep playing theory all you want, but I'll just keep living the real world.
This horse is dead. Please stop beating it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark opined

Whatever!
I live in a "smogger zone" and work where vapor recovery isnt required and refill at both. I trust my nose.
Live on in your own little world where you can run gas right out the top of the tank or through the recovery canister.
HOw do you think the emissions system knows the gas cap is not on tight?
--
- Yes, I'm a crusty old geezer curmudgeon.. deal with it! -

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh yes it does. Just how do you think a container that by law can only hold 95% of it's total volume can do that? There's this thing called science, you should have had some of the very science that explains how this happens in grade school.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
X-No-archive:yes(please don't CCP) OK you guys,explain me this one.I filled up the stationwagon in Pomona Calif.and drove it to Studio City,a distance of 67 miles or so and stopped at a gas station to see how much it would take to top it off and thus get a MPG figure. When I removed the cap a stream of gas like a garden hose left the filler tube.I quickly replaced the cap and figured I had purchased the magical car that MAKES gas as you drive!!! Actually I hear that there is a "bladder" in the tank that prevents 100% fill-up. Well mine is "over-active" or something.Maybe the change in temperature from cool underground tank to hot summer day caused some kind of bladder malfuntion. But it's not as simple as some of these posts seem to paint it.Some days the tank just seems to hold a lot more than other days making it near immpossible to figure MPG. Best....Brian O.
********************
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Orion opined in

It's not a bladder.. just an vapor cushion.. ABOVE THE FILLER TUBE!!!!! :)
And you are right about that thermal expansion/warmer air and you proved our point.
The gas and vapor in the tank warmed/expanded during the trip... You filled the tank with the car slightly inclined one direction, then at the second stop, slightly the other. AT the second stop the gas level was above the filler as it sat, the vapor, expanded, now under pressure. That's why they used to put a label at the filler area to loosen slowly.
Try always refilling at the same location, car pointing same direction.
Also you should note that's ONE reason they say never to top off, let it stop and quit then. Before the "sealed" emission era, when caps were still vented, it wasnt unusual to see a guy start spewing gas on the street by the time he got a block away from the station.
--
- Yes, I'm a crusty old geezer curmudgeon.. deal with it! -

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Backyard is correct there is no bladder. But I suspect the evaporative emissions are not working correctly. There should be slight pressure in the tank not enough to do what you say happened, which when you think about it is pert near impossible. A vehicle that went 67 miles with a average fuel consumption of about 18 MPG will have burned off about 3 to 4 gallons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:14:51 -0500, "pick one" <try again!> wrote:

See my above post.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like I say, you need a study in basic science.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.