Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:12:40 -0400
Reply-To: "kimbrennan@mac.com" <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: "kimbrennan@mac.com" <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
Subject: Re: Replacement fuel tank question
In-Reply-To: <083301cfa541$8f010620$ad031260$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
When I had a stock 2.1 waterboxer in my passenger syncro, I got 18 mpg. But that was on gasoline pre-alcohol. I figure now-a-days, you take a 10% hit on fuel economy due to the alcohol. If you can, hunt up a gas station with no-alcohol gas.
http://pure-gas.org/extensions/map.html
On Jul 21, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Stuart MacMillan wrote:
> Not quite, the tank is 15.6 gallons. I get 17 on the highway, 265 miles if
> I coast into the filling station.
>
> Stuart
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 3:46 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: Replacement fuel tank question
>
> My 87 Westy is getting 16mpg with a 14 gallon tank so I'm getting less range
> than you thought was ridiculous on your motor home!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 18:12, Dennis Haynes <d23haynes57@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> Not only the NHTSA but also EPA or other compliance issues. The
>> vehicle and the emission control system including the vapor recovery
>> is designed for that size tank. Back in 1998 I tried to upgrade the
>> tank on my 1992 Ford
>> E-350 based motorhome. It had a 35 gallon tank and at 7 to 7.5 mpg
>> gallon the range was ridiculous. A 55 gallon tank was an option from
>> the factory so I ordered the tank and related parts from the dealer.
>> When I went to pick the stuff up I had to provide the VIN. Sale denied!
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On
>> Behalf Of Stuart MacMillan
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 8:28 PM
>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>> Subject: Re: Replacement fuel tank question
>>
>> I suspect that fuel tanks have to pass NHTSA testing as done by the
>> manufacturer in their vehicle crash tests, which is why VW didn't
>> change the design two years into production. No aftermarket supplier
>> is going to take on this liability either.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roy Nicholl [mailto:RNicholl@NBNET.NB.CA]
>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 5:20 PM
>> To: Stuart MacMillan
>> Cc: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>> Subject: Re: Replacement fuel tank question
>>
>>
>> I find it strange that the aftermarket providers who continue to
>> manufacture fuel tanks for these vehicles continued to keep the "saddle"
> in their
>> construction. A few quick measurements of the tank dropped from the '88
>> indicates one could expect 14-18 additional litres of fuel if they
>> were not there and the tank would be simpler to manufacture.
>>
>>
>>> On 20-Jul-2014, at 20:50, Stuart MacMillan wrote:
>>>
>>> No, and blame Volkswagen for introducing the vanagon with the
>>> obsolete air cooled engine. Was not worth it for them to re-tool for
>>> a couple more gallons of gas.
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On
>>> Behalf Of Roy Nicholl
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 12:28 PM
>>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>>> Subject: Replacement fuel tank question
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Does anyone make a replacement fuel tank for the water-cooled Vanagon
>>> w/o the cavities/moulded passages for the air-cooled heater pipes.
>>> While I appreciate the needs of the air-heads, I would prefer the
>>> extra range this capacity could provide if that volume was on the
>>> inside
>> of the tank.
>>>
| 
