Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 06:28:43 -0300
Reply-To: Roy Nicholl <RNicholl@NBNET.NB.CA>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Roy Nicholl <RNicholl@NBNET.NB.CA>
Subject: Re: Replacement fuel tank question
In-Reply-To: <53CC74F5.60009@cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mark,
I have seen that in the manual and it would make perfect sense to take advantage of the existing path. My experience with my van, and the other EuroSpec models I inspected in the hunt for it, did not match that description and there was not heater line running to ductwork under the dash via the saddle over the fuel tank. Perhaps those lines had been removed? Were they prone to {premature} deterioration?
On 20-Jul-2014, at 23:03, mark drillock wrote:
> I think you need to take some closer looks under vans that came with
> that heating system. For those without that option they can look at the
> Bentley page 82.12 where the duct routing is illustrated. Big duct hose
> right through the valley of the tank to the front.
>
> That is not all that uses the valley either.
>
> Mark
>
> Roy Nicholl wrote:
>> James,
>>
>> I have one of those auxiliary heaters and have seen several others {diesel, petrol, and propane} on Jokers, Californias and Atlantics (1.6TD) and have not seen one that ran duct lines overtop of the fuel tank. They have all been ducted on the righthand side of the vehicle (under the sliding door) all had their ducts come out from under the rear bench or behind the passenger seat.
>>
>> I expect the certification is the biggest hurdle.
>>
>> I guess I am left with a few choices:
>>
>> 1) find an 85-litre SA tank;
>> 2) install a modified syncro tank, or cylindrical tank, over the tranny (one that would not require lowering the tranny and engine by 2");
>> 3) find an old Fox/Audi2 or Jetta tank that could be fit as an auxiliary tank the available space aft of the existing tank; or
>> 4) modify my own fuel tank to remove the saddle ... or use the tank to build a mould and produce my own tank.
>>
>> The first would be the easiest, but the the second or third would better fit my long-term need for separate diesel and WVO/SVO tanks.
>>
>> Roy
>>
>> On 20-Jul-2014, at 22:15, James wrote:
>>
>>> Oddly enough, this came up when I was having Frank Condelli service our '91 last month, and he mentioned that that the 'saddle' or cavity was not only needed for the heating ducts for the air cooled engines, but also for the gasoline or diesel powered auxiliary heaters that were often fitted to the Wasserboxer T3s in Europe. Since VW was trying to control costs, they wouldn't have wanted to have two different fuel tanks for the Wasserboxer - and I suppose the aftermarket suppliers would do the same (plus the NHTSA testing and liability issues mentioned by others).
>>>
>>> James
>>> '91 Westy Weekender
>>> Ottawa, ON
>>>
>>>> Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 21:19:33 -0300
>>>> From: RNicholl@NBNET.NB.CA
>>>> Subject: Re: Replacement fuel tank question
>>>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>
| 
