Pulled the gas tank on the 2+2 last night. I found 40 years of crap in the tank along with the original sending unit. This explains why there were 2 in-line fuel filters that plugged up quickly! I will be changing the main fuel line too. Plugged in the new sending unit...gas gauge works now. The tank straps, however, are shot. Anybody know of anybody making straps for a '69? I've looked, but no luck. I see a used set on Ebay...would rather have new ones if possible.
Taylor55 said
Apr 9, 2010
Get rid of the plastic sock on the sending unit. Because of todays gas it will rot ,plug up and give you a lot of trouble. Find a brass fliter style instead. I think they are available on Ebay once in a while. We used the same style assy. that you show in the picture and nothing but fuel starvation. He eventually blew air in the gas tank and blew the sock off so the car would run.
Thanks Al
cdnpont said
Apr 9, 2010
Taylor55 wrote:
Get rid of the plastic sock on the sending unit. Because of todays gas it will rot ,plug up and give you a lot of trouble. Find a brass fliter style instead. I think they are available on Ebay once in a while. We used the same style assy. that you show in the picture and nothing but fuel starvation. He eventually blew air in the gas tank and blew the sock off so the car would run.
Thanks Al
Good info Al, thats the first I've heard that one.
I'm sure any to Impala parts house would likely have them.
gtodrive said
Apr 9, 2010
Thanks to both of you! Found the straps and found a metal sock. I never would have thought about the deterioration happening with a NEW part! Priceless information...cuz I don't want to be doing it again anytime in the near future!
My tank was alot worse ... I changed the tank, sender, straps, fuel pump, rebuilt the carb, and I'm putting on a vintage Carter glass-bowl fuel filter as well.
-- Edited by Pontiacanada on Friday 9th of April 2010 11:30:10 AM
seventy2plus2 said
Apr 9, 2010
is your new sending unit the dual line type? tough to tell in the photo's. I could use a dual line type.
gtodrive said
Apr 9, 2010
seventy2plus2 wrote:
is your new sending unit the dual line type? tough to tell in the photo's. I could use a dual line type.
Sorry, it's not a dual line unit.
4SPEED427 said
Apr 9, 2010
Taylor55 wrote:
Get rid of the plastic sock on the sending unit. Because of todays gas it will rot ,plug up and give you a lot of trouble. Find a brass fliter style instead. I think they are available on Ebay once in a while. We used the same style assy. that you show in the picture and nothing but fuel starvation. He eventually blew air in the gas tank and blew the sock off so the car would run.
Thanks Al
I'm glad I saw this too Al. New tank kit going on my Acadian next week.
cdnpont said
Apr 9, 2010
Carl Stevenson wrote:
Taylor55 wrote:
Get rid of the plastic sock on the sending unit. Because of todays gas it will rot ,plug up and give you a lot of trouble. Find a brass fliter style instead. I think they are available on Ebay once in a while. We used the same style assy. that you show in the picture and nothing but fuel starvation. He eventually blew air in the gas tank and blew the sock off so the car would run.
Thanks Al
I'm glad I saw this too Al. New tank kit going on my Acadian next week.
But when you think of it, why would they be producing a unit with a sock that disolves in todays gas? Were they produced long ago before ethanol, or did Al just end up with one that was?
You'd think anything produced today would meet the need, or is it a China disconnect again?
-- Edited by cdnpont on Friday 9th of April 2010 02:19:27 PM
Taylor55 said
Apr 9, 2010
Made In China. My friends 56 Nomad was the car we installed that type of unit on. He had trouble all the way to the Moncton Nationals last summer and it took a while to figure out what was wrong with the car. The original was brass with no fuel problems except for the guage connection was rotten. We now have to drop the tank again fish out the remains of the sock and install an original style one. Once the sock was blown off the assy. the car ran OK. Why the manufactures use the plastic is simply a cost factor. Plastic is cheaper than brass.
Al
cdnpont said
Apr 9, 2010
You probably can'teven get a new one that's made here anymore. Snag a ebay nos one. But good luck, rare as hens teeth.
My tank has to come down, and I need a new sender as well. So this is all great information.
I suppose with a newly cleaned out tank it shouldn't be a problem to remove the sock. I can Imagine what would happen if you put a new sender in a 43 year old tank without some kind of strainer on it. Kaos.
And where did you get your metal sock Rob?
gtodrive said
Apr 9, 2010
cdnpont wrote:And where did you get your metal sock Rob? We have an old auto parts store store with a old inventory of odds and ends, so I gave them a call. The guy said he has one, but he doesn't know what vehicle it is for. I will go over tomorrow and check it out...at this point I am not to optomistic. There has to be a reproduction unit that uses a qualitymaterial that would withstand todays fuel. They ALL aren't made in China...right? And depending on the company you buy from, they ALL look different!
427carl said
Apr 9, 2010
I didn't want to ask a stupid question, but, was this not a big big big dollar restoration? why would the tank not be all new??
Taylor55 said
Apr 10, 2010
Carl if you are talking about the Nomad, yes the tank was new. The problem was definately the sock deteroiating and plugging the inlet. It won't be too bad of a job to drop the tank as all the bolts straps etc are still like new.
Al
427carl said
Apr 10, 2010
Taylor55 wrote:
Carl if you are talking about the Nomad, yes the tank was new. The problem was definately the sock deteroiating and plugging the inlet. It won't be too bad of a job to drop the tank as all the bolts straps etc are still like new.
Al
no I am talking about the 69 I just thought it had been a restoration
Canadian Poncho said
Apr 10, 2010
My sending unit was GM nos. Should I be worried about the sock?
cdnpont said
Apr 10, 2010
69Laurentian wrote:
My sending unit was GM nos. Should I be worried about the sock?
I worry about my socks all the time because I can't get any made in NA. Seems Wall Mart and Zellers socks are all Chinese these days. I found some numbers matching NOS (new old sock) Haines but they're just too good to wear.
gtodrive said
Apr 10, 2010
427carl wrote:
I didn't want to ask a stupid question, but, was this not a big big big dollar restoration? why would the tank not be all new??
Not a stupid question Carl, you just misunderstood the auction description like I did. It was a big big big dollar rare car...period. Oh, and I misunderstood the seller when he said they dropped the tank and boiled it out. As I have found out, the money was obviously put into the body, paint, front suspension, and under the hood. I will have a few more thousand dollars into it to bring this car to the level that I think it deserves. It's a rare one and one that I have always wanted and am happy to own....40 year old rusty gas tank and all!
By the way Mark, the brass sock didn't pan out, so I will be returning the sending unit I have and getting one from a vendor that can give me some info on the sock problem. Like I said, there has to be a repo that actually works! Would love to hear from anyone who has purchased a repo and has been using it for a few years.
4SPEED427 said
Apr 10, 2010
cdnpont wrote:
69Laurentian wrote:
My sending unit was GM nos. Should I be worried about the sock?
I worry about my socks all the time because I can't get any made in NA. Seems Wall Mart and Zellers socks are all Chinese these days. I found some numbers matching NOS (new old sock) Haines but they're just too good to wear.
I would sure hate to wear a brass sock. Sounds itchy, worse than wool and I hate wool...
gtodrive said
Apr 11, 2010
Found these posts on a classic car forum:
Re: Fuel Tank Sock
The fuel pickup sock is more than just a strainer. The saran plastic it is made from acts as a molecular sieve and will not let water pass through it. If it is eliminated. the filter used to replace it has to have water separating capabilities. Otherwise, fuel system corrosion becomes a real problem, especially in areas with large swings in day and night temperature.
Re: Fuel Tank Sock A few years ago, I needed to replace the sock on the fuel sender of one of my Chevrolets of this vintage. Initially, I thought I would have to replace the entire sender unit, since the sock wasn't listed in the parts book separately. When I went to a large local AC-Delco supplier, he told me the fuel socks were almost all the same, except for fuel line diameter, and showed me that GM still made a brand new replacement sock that was identical to the one I needed. For my application, with a 5/16" fuel line on the sender, the sock was p/n 5651705. Only cost about $10. He also gave me the part number for the sock that's used with a sender that has a 3/8" fuel line: 5651702. (I have not verified this by purchasing one.) I'm just guessing, but there's a good chance the socks are the same as those used on a Buick. These socks rely on an interference fit on the fuel inlet pipe. Due to its delicate nature, you can't just "bang" it on. What I found worked good for temporarily reducing the tightness of the fit was to warm up the sock and place the sender in the freezer. Then, be prepared to push it all the way on in one attempt, as it ain't coming off!! An added bonus of using the "new" sock instead of a NOS sender unit is that the "new" sock uses upgraded materials that are resistant to the alcohols and other crap in today's fuels---the original socks of that vintage were not. Hope this helps.
I looked up the part numbers. They are for a Corvette. They look like this:
4SPEED427 said
Apr 11, 2010
That sock in the picture is for a new style unit with the electric pump in the tank though. It won't fit on the line. I am going to check out the numbers you have posted though, because I don't recognize them as being like the one in the picture.
Thanks for researching this. I have to replace mine next week and sure would like to have it right.
427carl said
Apr 11, 2010
this is a 5651705 GM filter
-- Edited by 427carl on Sunday 11th of April 2010 07:50:28 AM
Thanks Al
Try the paddock in Knightstown Indiana Rob
PN 589074
Link
I'm sure any to Impala parts house would likely have them.
PN 589074
Link
My tank was alot worse ... I changed the tank, sender, straps, fuel pump, rebuilt the carb, and I'm putting on a vintage Carter glass-bowl fuel filter as well.
-- Edited by Pontiacanada on Friday 9th of April 2010 11:30:10 AM
You'd think anything produced today would meet the need, or is it a China disconnect again?
-- Edited by cdnpont on Friday 9th of April 2010 02:19:27 PM
Al
Snag a ebay nos one. But good luck, rare as hens teeth.
My tank has to come down, and I need a new sender as well. So this is all great information.
I suppose with a newly cleaned out tank it shouldn't be a problem to remove the sock. I can Imagine what would happen if you put a new sender in a 43 year old tank without some kind of strainer on it. Kaos.
And where did you get your metal sock Rob?
Al
Re: Fuel Tank Sock
Re: Fuel Tank Sock
A few years ago, I needed to replace the sock on the fuel sender of one of my Chevrolets of this vintage. Initially, I thought I would have to replace the entire sender unit, since the sock wasn't listed in the parts book separately. When I went to a large local AC-Delco supplier, he told me the fuel socks were almost all the same, except for fuel line diameter, and showed me that GM still made a brand new replacement sock that was identical to the one I needed. For my application, with a 5/16" fuel line on the sender, the sock was p/n 5651705. Only cost about $10. He also gave me the part number for the sock that's used with a sender that has a 3/8" fuel line: 5651702. (I have not verified this by purchasing one.) I'm just guessing, but there's a good chance the socks are the same as those used on a Buick. These socks rely on an interference fit on the fuel inlet pipe. Due to its delicate nature, you can't just "bang" it on. What I found worked good for temporarily reducing the tightness of the fit was to warm up the sock and place the sender in the freezer. Then, be prepared to push it all the way on in one attempt, as it ain't coming off!! An added bonus of using the "new" sock instead of a NOS sender unit is that the "new" sock uses upgraded materials that are resistant to the alcohols and other crap in today's fuels---the original socks of that vintage were not. Hope this helps.
I looked up the part numbers. They are for a Corvette. They look like this:
-- Edited by 427carl on Sunday 11th of April 2010 07:50:28 AM