i ordered a new tank for my 1966 mustang. the company i ordered from(sacramento mustang) sent me a tank for 1969. the 69 tank is a 20 gal. and the 66 is a 16 gal. the parts from my '66 don't sync-up with the taller tank. any suggestions?
send it back. if it is their screwup i would think they pay shipping for the return and new item
the lip where the filler hose connects is just at the wrong angle. It can be bent to work, without damaging the tank. I know of people who used '70 tanks, which are 22 gallons, used in the 65-6's.
Have them ship you a sending unit for the 69 stang and a filler neck for a
70 stang. then everything should work right. and having the extra 80 mile range is a good thing
yes my 65 289 2-v got 21 miles average a little better on long trips
The tank will fit fine but will be about an inch higher than the stock tank. If you put a 1970 22-gallon tank in, it will sit 2 inches higher. That's what I did with my 68 fastback. Be sure to use the correct fuel sending unit for the tank size and you may have to tweak the filler neck a bit to line up. Other than that, no problem and you're better off with the larger tank.
--------- Laurie S. Thunder Snake #7
The tank will fit fine but will be about an inch higher than the stock tank. If you put a 1970 22-gallon tank in, it will sit 2 inches higher. That's what I did with my 68 fastback. Be sure to use the correct fuel sending unit for the tank size and you may have to tweak the filler neck a bit to line up. Other than that, no problem and you're better off with the larger tank.
--------- Laurie S. Thunder Snake #7
meggers, i never said my mustang gets 20mpg. i said that the '69 holds 20 gallons. i don't know how you drive but mine get 15-18 mpg easy.
That swap is a common one, and highly recommended unless you're going concours.
My 65 FB (that I had in 1970) was a 289 2V C4 which readily hit
21-23mpg unless I was hotrod ding it. On interstate travel there were times when I hit as much as 26mpg.My present 65 was a 289 4V Cruise-o-matic, and is now a 302 4V. I am hoping that I can get around 16 or better.
I have yet to come up with an explanation for this other than the fact that gas now sucks in comparison to gas then (which folks here have said is not responsible) but my first car was a 68 galaxy w/a 302 2 bbl carb. That car, in 1975, got a constant mileage in california of 15/18.
My lighter, more aerodynamic 68 cougar w/302 4 bbl gets about 12/14 in
2006, and I don't think the 4 bbl carb is responsible since others here have reported similar mileage, or barely better, w/their 2 bbls.If it's not the difference in gas, i don't know what it is...
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.