Doesn't your truck already have the 48 gallon tank? I thought all long beds, regardless of cab size had them.

 

Only crew cab long bed trucks get the 48 gal tank.

 

All righty then. Didn't know that.

 

That's what I think too.

The only difference between the 6.75 bed and the 8 foot bed is 1.25 feet right? Ford manages to squeeze 14 more gallons (48 vs 34) in that 1.25' of space.

 

29 Gallon (Diesel Engine) – 142"or 148” Wheelbase

34 Gallon (Diesel Engine) – 160" or 164" Wheelbase

34 Gallon (Gas Engine) – NA 176” Wheelbase

48 Gallon (Gas Engine) – 176” Wheelbase

48 Gallon (Diesel Engine) – 176" Wheelbase

 

Maybe I'm not paying attention enough but on my '18 Lariat SD with the 675 bed I can only ever put about 26 gallons in or just a bit more when the fuel gauge tells me less than 20 miles to empty...

 

On my CCLB the 48 gallon tank extends a very Long way under the cab.
I do not see how it would fit under a truck with a shorter cab.
I would measure it for you, but my truck is a frozen & muddy mess underneath at the moment, so I wont be attempting that before things dry up in the spring.

Good luck !

 

What about a gasoline rated transfer tank that sits in the bed?

 

Can be done, but you get into all manner of other topics like ....
- are you willing to stop and get out to transfer the fuel? Isn't that no better than just pulling over at a gas station? The goal of a larger tank is for more uninterrupted range, not to have to stop and fill up (regardless where the fuel comes from). This really isn't any better/easier than just carrying a few spare 5-gal jugs in the bed; you still have to pull over to "fill up"
- in-bed tanks take up bed space. Those of us with a LB generally have them because we want the full 8'. Those with short beds can't really afford to give up even more space.
- if you attempt to create some sort of a gravity fill from the in-bed to the main tank to allow filling during movement, there are legal issues, venting issues, rollover issues .... etc
- if you attempt to create some sort of forced fill from the in-bed to main tank to allow filling during movement, then see above ... etc

The crash standards testing is what takes all the interest away from aftermarket companies offering larger "gas" tanks; it is extremely involved and expensive. Diesel testing is much easier, and the market demand is there. However, as more and more gas trucks are being sold, the aftermarket (Titan, TransferFlow, others) might actually step up at some point, if the market demand is deemed strong enough. I, for one, would love to have another 10+ gallons in my SCLB configuration for gasoline.

 

 

I don't think it's determined by bed length, but by wheelbase.

 

I would recommend anyone interested in larger GAS tanks to email both TransferFlow and Titan and express your interest.
Market responses are driven by customer input. Or even potential customer input!
As gas engines are coming back in favor for towing big loads, the market will grow for these demands.

if they can find a way to combine two applications into one, there's likely good money in the venture. Both a CCSB and a SCLB have approximately the same wheelbase, and therefore likely about the same amount of available space to allow a larger gas tank. If they can find a way to make one tank fit both those applications, that would open up a LARGE market for them. One tank may take two different mount options, but if they can commonize the tank, it would simplify the development and reduce costs by spreading the product over multiple applications.

Seriously - send an email to those two companies! They will tell you "we don't offer a product for that application." OK - WHY NOT? If you state "Hey - there's more and more of these gas trucks. We want a tank option. Make one and I'll buy it!" they will eventually take notice.

 

I know manufacturers have used the same tank for both diesel and gasoline applications in years past. I would speculate (but cannot confirm) that the 48 gal Ford tank is likely the same tank in both fuel applications. If that's the case, there's likely no need for Titan (et al) to develop a new product, but merely seek DOT approval of their 55 gal replacement tank for use in gasoline applications. By most accounts, this is an expensive proposition for Titan and the customer demand needs to make it a financially feasible venture.

 

I must now eat my own words ...
I contacted both Titan and TransferFlow. While I await the TransferFlow reponse, the folks at Titan were very quick to respond.

They would love to market something for us. But it won't happen. Apparently the EPA has essentially locked down any type of emmissions tampering to a point where even changing a gas tank is out of the question. (I'm not talking about replacing with like-kind, but the "upgrade" we all seek). Today's vehicles have all manner of sensors and circuits to manage the evaporative conditions of gasoline, and changing out tanks to a larger one is a chore which presents more troubles than solutions. Could it be done? They said yes. But not without individual sensor tuning that would be unique for each situation, and then have to be certified by the EPA. The mountain is too big; they are unable to make the investment pay out. (sigh ........)

I would imagine that TransferFlow's response will be similar, if they get around to me.

About the only other route would be for Ford to work on it's end and make larger tanks for the gasoline applications. Seems far fetched, because they ultimately would have to double down on the investment to certify two tanks for each chassis configuration.

Right now, you want a larger tank? Go get a CCLB.

 

Well a guy from TransferFlow has contacted me and will actually be in Indy (my home area) next week for a trade show.
Hope to meet with him and find out the scoop from their perspective.
I will update once I get info.