I agree with Stewart and Rich on this one. If someone is going to be that concerned I can not figure out why they are here because their truck should be completely stock and only touched by a Ford Stealership mechanic. Otherwise any mod would put it outside what the Ford engineers and the government had wanted built into the truck and that could cause the death of some butterfly or something.

 

I've always filled my tank until I could see clear green fuel in the top of the neck. Never had an issue with expansion causing an overflow condition doing so. Since doing the mod about 6 months ago, I just don't have to milk it as long to get it full. Its a real time saver at the pump.

 

I couldn't count how many truck drivers or steering wheel holders I have seen at truck stops forget to put their fuel caps back on and take off and spill diesel everywhere.

 

Everyone is entitled to post an opinion and/or an observation.

If someone has a problem with a post, just move along to the next one where you can maybe help someone out.

Eye poking and bashing a members statement is as useful as the presidential campaign.

We're a brotherhood of people with problems and it should be a fragile thought to ponder and not one to showboat. (we have our share of those)

If you can help or have a resolution, hat's off to you. If your just airing out your ego......there's a few other forums for people like that.

I have the H@H mod but he made a very interesting point. Like it or not.

Denny

 

Denny, I am not bashing anybody and agree we are here to help each other (my record reflects that I am here to help) but this is also not the place to play the what if game. If you don't agree with a mod don't do it to your truck. To speculate that it could cause harm to others and therefore should not done is beyond the scope of this forum, IMHO. To me, and apparently others, that would be similar to saying that putting programs in our trucks that produce more power leads to speeding and reckless driving. I know, not quite the same, but the principle is the solid. I think it was the way it was presented.

If Boots don't like the mod don't do it. I respect his choice to do what he wants to his truck. I sure as heck don't do half the stuff on here for various reasons but I don't try to explain to everyone why I chose not to do a mod.

I am now off my soap box. Sorry if I pissed anybody off so I am done commenting on this topic.

 

Heck, Up here it never gets hot enough, for long enough, to worry about expansion. I worry about contraction, then I'm losing fuel!

 

To an extent, yes, that is why FTE is here. This especially true for the tech forums, where people ask for help, will post possible solutions to problems, and most times will include their thoughts and opinions.

Sorry, you cannot make that stipulation and expect it to be a rule.

We aren't all gonna agree with each other. How we disagree is what sets FTE apart from another forum that might "enjoy" or allow a more aggressive and in-your-face type of posting.

If you think anyone (especially my post, which I think was the most expressive when I basically said, "Nah, I think that's a buncha malarkey.") involved any eye poking or bashing, I would ask you to re-read it in a different tone (you know, that voice in your head when you read a post) and instead think of it like a buncha buddies sitting around a card table or a camp fire, enjoying a beverage of their choice, chopping it up and having fun, telling stories and talking trucks when one of the men shares his thoughts about a modification, and one of the other men basically say's, "No, I disagree with you" when the guy is finished talking.

It aint nothing but a thing. Just a disagreement with someone's opinion on a subject.

Not really. Not here at FTE.

Most showboaters (if I read that to mean problem-children who cause drama) don't last long here and usually find themselves either looking elsewhere because we're "no fun", or they burn bridges and leave.

I don't see anyone airing any ego, just some guys who don't agree with you or the OP's thoughts and opinion on the mod.

If you think or expect that only people who agree with a thread author's opinion are allowed to post, then you are mistaken, especially when the OP asks....
He's not looking ONLY for people who agree with him.

Denny, I neither like nor dislike his thinking point, I just disagree with the hypothetical conclusion that "we" (those that do the modification) create a situation making it easier to cause a fuel leak, nothing more, nothing less.

Stewart

 

Wow!!!
I didn't know I would cause such a disturbance. I don't see anywhere that I tell anyone not to make a mod. I do see in the last sentence that I say "WE should think".
I have seen tuners that say not for highway use or for off road use only. I often see members recommending that others make this mod.

This all started because I have been a structural engineer for 35 years and have worked on design teams in the construction of monumental buildings. Our goal was to design a building that would withstand the wind and dead loads which also includes equipment and people in these buildings with a safety factor of 4. Beside the considerations of loss of property we always considered life safety issues. In my world every action (motion) we make has a reaction (this also comes in motion).
I then ask why the engineers of Ford, who have for years have done a tremendous job ( there are exceptions, I will have to address why you have to remove the cab to pull the engine or trans on some of the newer trucks, but that is another issue) and the Federal Transportation folks went through all this trouble to make it where we could not fill our tanks. While I have not fully explored this, my money is going to be on several people have died because of overfilling a fuel tanks. I will get back to you on this. This Federal Safety Standard applies to all manufactures so WE Ford truck owners are not being singled out unfairly, this applies to ALL.
So in fairness to everyone on the site, if someone is to recommend a mod, maybe you should also do a disclaimer and state there are Federal Safety Standards in place requiring the manufacturer to make the fuel tanks that way. Then the person doing the mod can make a educated or maybe I should say informed decision on what he does. Bottom line ignorance is not accepted as an exception to the law. I find most laws dealing with safety are there for a reason.

One other thing, my truck is stock except for a inline filter and I learn from this site every day. That is why I like it. I learn from several of the commenters on this thread. And I thank you for your help. I take the parts I think are valid and the ones I don't I pass over.

 

Very true. My complaint is the reason for failure is sometimes unknown or wrongly assumed, but with a "need" to be "doing something" regulators will fashion rules that do nothing to address the actual danger but make life harder/more expensive with little to no benefit to the worker. This is a general gripe, not directed at anyone in particular. I see this happen in my line of work all the time.

The cool thing is this passes for a disturbance on FTE. Pretty civil place, the nutswingers move on to PSA or whatever.

But what the hey let's touch on the reason for this thread; thanks for checking on the thermal expansion rates gas vs diesel. I've heard they were different, did not know the difference was so slight. The other (apparently primary) reason for the hump with vent tube design is for vapor recovery. Gas vehicles have had vapor recovery systems for a long time and that vapor needs an airy place to go in the tank. Diesel does not need such a system since it does less evaporation. That's what I meant by "diesel just lays there".

I would be obliged if you'd google that, since I never have. Just seemed obvious so I never questioned it.

Wandering OT: Speaking of structural engineering; is Frank Lloyd Wright's "Illinois" tower possible yet?

 

Interesting thread. All ears here.

 

My .02 is, We create expansion space as we drive, about a gallons worth every 15 miles traveled. Most of the fuel I see on asphalt is at the filling stations.

 

Wandering OT: Speaking of structural engineering; is Frank Lloyd Wright's "Illinois" tower possible yet?[/QUOTE]

I am not familiar with the Illinois Tower. Wright only built one considered to be a skyscraper in his day and that was the Price Tower in Bartlesville, OK. I have visited it numerous times as well as Wayfarer Chapel in Palos Verde, CA.

If you had a typo and was intending to ask about the Illinois Tour I believe it was approved just yesterday which is designed to direct people to Wright's work through Northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin.

 

I would agree with Stewart that the conversation is just a bunch of guys sharing - but the tone in one's head while reading the text can completely change the dynamic. At no time did anybody say anything like "You're wrong", nor have any names been flung. An eyeroll was about as harsh as it got - by the moderator.

Maybe if the spine of the building was made out of titanium, The Ilinois might hold its own weight up without collapsing. I'm not a structural engineer, but that looks like a lot of mass to put atop the lower floors.

 

I started this thread because of the elusive mile per gallon, the lie-o-meter and my desire to know how well my truck performs economy wise.
In search for that answer I followed the suggestions of other members to fill the tank to the same point in the fill tube to ensure I have a consistent basis for my analysis. I even went to the extent of using the same station, same pump, and park facing the same direction. The over analytical devil working in my head was telling me that a slight incline will impact the amount of fuel because of the raised voids in the tank.
This process brought me to the question of why? Why do our vehicles cut off so quick when i can get another 4-5 gallons in the tank. My next thought was, this topic surely been discussed at length on this forum and I was being lazy so posed the conversation. I did this in large part because I always want to learn.
On another note: my truck being stock, my lie-o-meter is so close to the truth that I can live with the 17.7 mpg for a 99.5 crewcab, longbed, 4WD that it tells me.
And now you have the rest of the story. Not my quote.

 

Are you related to Rich?!!

Seriously though, you do bring up something that I certainly never thought about. And you back it up with good reasoning for sure. It's just that this modification has been done by many people for a lot of years, and according to everything I have read on here, and on other PSD forums, there has never been an issue of fuel leaking from a tank because of this modification.