1956 12 volt Fuel Sender?

[55 Fargo]

Hey, does anyone know, where I may be able to buy a universal 12 volt fuel sender unit, that would work in my 56 Dodge/Fargo pickup.

I have the twist in type, that does not have the typical 5 machine screws.

I am thinking of going with a universal type, if possible and a universal gauge, something that might fit in the oem bezel....thanx

[HanksB3B]

I'm sure JC Whitney would carry that.

http://www.jcwhitney.com

Hank

[55 Fargo]

THanx, but don't think so, JC Whitney has the types, that require machine screw fastening, would those work on my application?

[TodFitch]

THanx, but don't think so, JC Whitney has the types, that require machine screw fastening, would those work on my application?

See http://www.ply33.com/Repair/fuelsender.html for a way to put the guts of a new universal sender onto the mounting flange of your older application.

[55 Fargo]

See http://www.ply33.com/Repair/fuelsender.html for a way to put the guts of a new universal sender onto the mounting flange of your older application.

THanx Tod, never saw that tutorial before, got me thinkin/plannin

[55 Fargo]

Pulled an old sender from parts truck, ohm reading at full showing 50, not reading well, all over.

I hooked it up to my gauge in truck with jumper wires, at full level float arm up, no reading, at empty down, pins gauge. This sender must be toast. The sender in truck, just moves gauge a bit, even with 20 bucks of gas, so not working either, all wiring is new, and all grounds and connections tight and clean,back to the drawing board....

[55 Fargo]

Pics of the inside of the sender, no wonder could not get an Ohm reading ora bench test with gauge too work.

It will now be used to modify a universal sender as Bob Amos instructs..

[55 Fargo]

Okay, still have not bought a 12 volt universal sender to create a sender for my 55 Fargo. However today, I was able to test the gas gauge with of all things a 0-90 ohm fuel sender froma 1966 Nova. Yesterday pulled the gas tank from the 66, its being replaced with a brand new tank, so also removed the sender to test my gauge, and the sender itself.

My fuel gauge of course read empty when the GM sender was in the near full position, being an opposite resistance of what i need for the Mopar gauge being 78-10 ohms.

The nice thing, is this, the sender is in good working order, and so is my fuel gauge, now I need to get busy with it......

[55 Fargo]

Well close to a year later. I ordered a mopar 73-10 ohm range fuel sender from Tanks.nc, made  by Classic Instruments on the tag.

I did undo the top plate and fit on the stock sender cap, have not cut sender float arm, or anything else, untill I drop the tank and see what I need to do.

I did test the gauge however, it works well, had to tweak the sender arm range to get the gauge to go to empty and full, but no big deal

I did all this on 12 volts with no issues with the gauge, maybe it will be fine without a voltage dropper, but will order something just in case.

 

[55 Fargo]

Sidenote, are these universal sender s safe to use in this application, as stock senders the rheostat is up close the mounting flange, and does not get submerged in gasoline, as the universal type do....

[MBF]

The sender is just a rheostat reading a progressive ground within a specified range.  The guage is what is voltage sensitive. 

[55 Fargo]

The sender is just a rheostat reading a progressive ground within a specified range.  The guage is what is voltage sensitive. 

Hi Mike yes I concur, my thoughts were this, would the rheostat crate any arc in the gas tank, which is not likely.

My gauge functioned fine while testing with 12 volts, it is from a 6 volt set-up, wonder if I really need a voltage dropper for it.

[Plymouthy Adams]

_{I recently have seen two in tank resistor packs  that were burnt and charred beyond recognition...why there was not  an explosion is a mystery to me....even the owner is in awe of the fact it did not go boom..}

[55 Fargo]

_{I recently have seen two in tank resistor packs  that were burnt and charred beyond recognition...why there was not  an explosion is a mystery to me....even the owner is in awe of the fact it did not go boom..}

I have thought about this potential scenario, this must be quite rare. i was going to go with a stock repop before going with this idea, would they be any safer?

[Plymouthy Adams]

Fred...I cannot comment one way or the other...I have no control of the workmanship of the part or the install in the vehicle..have no first hand knowledge of if the car is wired right...(real problem with the two wire unit) or if the connections are secure and not jiggling and arcing anywhere within the circuit...just too many variables....too many unknowns..too many working without consulting the manual and properly ringing out their wiring..

[TodFitch]

_{I recently have seen two in tank resistor packs  that were burnt and charred beyond recognition...why there was not  an explosion is a mystery to me....even the owner is in awe of the fact it did not go boom..}

I suspect that the mixture was overly rich to ignite. But I've often wondered if that were really the case or just dumb luck.

 

The fact that electrical devices have been in fuel tanks for over 80 years now and they've taken to putting electrical fuel pumps inside the tanks in the last 20 years without a huge number of cars exploding indicates that it is reasonably safe.

[Plymouthy Adams]

yes..as engineered..but say someone makes a boo boo on the install or wiring...outside the intentions of the manufacturer...could be a recipe for disaster...it is enough to make you nervous..you should have seen that molten mess that once was a wire wound resistor...

[Don Coatney]

_{I recently have seen two in tank resistor packs  that were burnt and charred beyond recognition...why there was not  an explosion is a mystery to me....even the owner is in awe of the fact it did not go boom..}

I also have recently seen two resistor packs that went up in smoke and I agree the owner is in awe.

 

And as Tod said the mixture was too rich in addition to minimal oxygen inside the tank.

[wallytoo]

no "boom" in the tank because of the extremely rich fuel vapor in the tank.

same reason it is difficult to start with a flooded carb - gas, in liquid form, is difficult to ignite. and, with liquid present in the manifold, from flooding, the vapor is much too rich. the volume of "air" vs the volume of fuel being fed to a carb is very high (or injectors). also, it seems the gas available today is less easy to ignite than gas available 15 or more years ago - that may or may not be the case, but it sure seems that way.