Fuso fuel sender

SkiFreak

Crazy Person
It boggles my mind as to why a company would not standardize common components, but as is very obvious with this example, they don't.
Maybe that explains why Fuso parts are so bloody expensive!
 

gait

Explorer
one set of figures to test the gauge (place known resistance across the gauge and check the needle position), the other set for the senders (move the float and measure the resistance).

Two different physical senders with the same resistance values.

Gauges where empty and full mean almost empty and a bit more than full.

The difference between a sender for a cylindrical tank and a square tank is in the spacing between successive loops of wire on the sender.
 

unkamonkey

Explorer
Yes, I have a sender for a cylindricial tank mounted on a rectangular tank. The readings are a bit strange at first but you get used to them. They drop slowly then drop like a stone. then slow again when below 1/3 of a tank.
 

pugslyyy

Expedition Vehicle Engineer Guy
Not 100% true, but definitely easier if you can do this.
The standard round 110L OEM tank is 400mm deep. If you have the same depth on a replacement tank that makes things much easier.
However... when I had custom stainless steel tanks made the depth was 500mm. Initially, I replaced the sender wire that holds the float with a length of stainless steel TIG welding rod. That worked okay, but I was never really happy with that solution. The final solution, which I am happy with, was to get a custom fuel sender manufactured that had the correct flange and ohm range.

As mentioned previously, the OEM sender and fuel gauge are calibrated for a round tank. If you want the gauge to read correctly at full, half and empty then you need to use the same ohm settings at those points. For a Fuso, those are zero ohms at full, 50 ohms at half and 150 ohms at empty. As should be obvious, this is not linear, but there is little you can do about that if you want to use the OEM fuel gauge in the dash.

The image below shows both of my senders.

View attachment 292173

Okay, sorry to reanimate a year old thread but seemed better than starting a new one. I'm curious - who did your custom senders? I did a search and google disappoints.
 

pugslyyy

Expedition Vehicle Engineer Guy
I got mine custom made in China.

It looks very nicely done. I like having the captive float on the shaft. How does the float interact with the coil - is it a magnetic or mechanical transfer?

I've sent a couple of emails off to some US companies, I'll see what I hear back. For now I'm just going to try and recondition mine.
 
Last edited:

SkiFreak

Crazy Person
There is no mechanical interaction between the float and the reed switches, which means there should be less wear. I am definitely a fan of this type of sender over the sweeping arm, OEM style.
As you would know, there is no "off the shelf" fuel sender alternative that is available (well, not that I found). There are two main issues: 1. The ohm range is not what could be called "standard" and 2. The mounting flange is not a standard SAE 5 hole fitting. It looks like one, but it's not; the PCD is 58mm.
 

pugslyyy

Expedition Vehicle Engineer Guy
There is no mechanical interaction between the float and the reed switches, which means there should be less wear. I am definitely a fan of this type of sender over the sweeping arm, OEM style.
As you would know, there is no "off the shelf" fuel sender alternative that is available (well, not that I found). There are two main issues: 1. The ohm range is not what could be called "standard" and 2. The mounting flange is not a standard SAE 5 hole fitting. It looks like one, but it's not; the PCD is 58mm.

Interesting, I was certainly fooled by the fitting - it sure looked like an SAE 5 hole fitting to me. I cleaned the rust and grunge off of mine and "calibrated" it for my 14.5" deep tank.

why in the heck is it such an oddball fitting, both in size and resistance?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
188,604
Messages
2,907,771
Members
230,758
Latest member
Tdavis8695
Top