Bronco 33gal Fuel Tank & Delivery for EFI Conversion

[JimJam300]

A while back I purchased a new 33gal fuel tank for my Bronco and I wasn't thinking about converting to EFI. So now I got a stock style tank with the narrow sending unit port and no baffles. Can I still make this work?

For sending units, it would be easiest to use the stock style I already have. There is a 2" sending unit for 85/86 on Bronco Graveyard but the resistance range is opposite for empty/full. So I guess the dilemma is whether I'm going with a fuel pump that I can mount to the sending unit in the tank, or an inline outside the tank. I'm not concerned about the noise issue with an external pump, it just needs to work without fuel starvation.

I already got the return line figured out, just need to drill a hole and mount stainless plumbing on the tank (yay scrap bin at work).

[Gary Lewis]

A 2" sending unit should have the Bullnose resistance range.  The range changed in '87 and I think by then all of the sending units were larger.  But if it really does have the wrong range you can fix that with a MeterMatch - both Jim and I are running those.

As for starvation, my '96 tank doesn't have baffles and I don't have any problems.  I wouldn't worry about it.  I think your 33 gallon tank will work fine with an external pump and plumbed-in return.

[Littlebeefy]

I used it for my EFI. I put in an Edelbrock Fuel Mat to avoid starving but that was probably overkill. If you use the pump hanger that looks like this, you can fit a Walbro 255 in there if you need the LPH (just need to pull out the included pump and trim some length of the connector that goes to the pump):

[ArdWrknTrk]

tcbaklash wrote

For sending units, it would be easiest to use the stock style I already have. There is a 2" sending unit for 85/86 on Bronco Graveyard but the resistance range is opposite for empty/full. So I guess the dilemma is whether I'm going with a fuel pump that I can mount to the sending unit in the tank, or an inline outside the tank. I'm not concerned about the noise issue with an external pump, it just needs to work without fuel starvation.

 The resistance range and sweep didn't change until 1987 when the bricknose trucks got a new style cluster.

[JimJam300]

So this is what JBG lists

Stock fuel sender
10 ohms full
90 ohms empty

85/86 sender/pump
70 ohms full
10 ohms empty

[Gary Lewis]

Their catalog is wrong.  They are right that the sending unit for the 85 & 86 EFI'd Broncos is E5TZ 9H307-A.  But they are wrong about the ohms range.  As Jim said, the change happened in '87 not '85.  All Bullnose trucks use the same fuel gauge, E0TZ 9280-A, so the resistance cannot have changed.

I don't know if JBG has the wrong part or just the wrong resistance, but I'm going to write them about their catalog and direct them to this post as their catalog is wrong in one way or another.

[Gary Lewis]

Oops!  I don't believe that unit has a 2" flange.  Ford went to the larger opening when the EFI systems came out in order to get the pumps through.  So I think their listing is messed up in yet another way.  

[ArdWrknTrk]

JBG is wrong on that count.
Fords specs are 10-73 ohms with an allowable deviation of 3.

Note the last paragraph in this page from the EVTM.


If there was a difference with the 85-86 sending units it is that is when Ford went to the larger tank bung to allow for in-tank pumps with the advent of 5.0 EFI.

So the pickup/sender units are different, but the range is the same.

[Littlebeefy]

I'm 95% certain that the 33 gallon tank had a 2" sender hole for a few years after EFI came out. I believe the sender in the picture that I shared is for a 2" hole. I think they stayed with the 2" hole through 89 MY.

[Gary Lewis]

Ok, I've written them the message below and marked up their catalog page as well.  We shall see what they say.

[ArdWrknTrk]

There's not a different FDM listed for the 85/86 Bronco in the MPC???
I can't even understand how someone could fit the pump through a 2" hole.  

They would certainly have a different sender in '87 on because the bricknose clusters read 16 ohms (E) and 153 ohms (F)
Backwards and over nearly double the range.

[Gary Lewis]

Chad - While the MPC doesn't give the size of the opening for the Broncos, something changed in 85 and it wasn't the tank size.  I think it was the opening size as you can see that the 85 pickups got a 4" opening.

[Gary Lewis]

Well, it looks like Chad is right.  

Here's the response from JBG.  And that should mean that you can use that sending unit/pump combo for an EFI system.

[ArdWrknTrk]

I stand corrected.  

So, explain the difference between E0TZ9002-G and E5TZ9002-B shown above for 'U' (Bronco models)

[Littlebeefy]

The sun even shines on a dog’s ass every now and then. For those keep track, that’s Chad:1 and Gary: 878,465. Smart money stays on Gary.

Jim: the difference is that in 80-84, there was no in-tank pump at all. It was just a tube with a cylindrical filter and a fuel level sender. The pump was a mechanical engine mount. In 85/86, they had an electric in-tank pump for EFI. The pump was also very weird in that the outlet was next to the inlet and not at the top of the pump, so there was a line that ran alongside the pump. In 1990 they went to the FPM which wouldn’t fit in a 2” opening so they had to widen it.

The hanger assembly easily fits in the 2” opening with the pump. It’s not like you have to wrestle it in. Like I said, I managed to get a Walbro and a Fuel Mat in there mounted to the stock hanger. It’s amazing what you can do with such a small hole (that’s what she said!).

[Gary Lewis]

LOL!  Let's not bet as Gary is frequently wrong.  

Interesting that the Broncos didn't get the large opening but the pickups did.  

[Gary Lewis]

ArdWrknTrk wrote

I stand corrected.  

So, explain the difference between E0TZ9002-G and E5TZ9002-B shown above for 'U' (Bronco models)

I can't.  Both are 32 gallons, not the 33 that is advertised, but there must be some other difference.  

[Littlebeefy]

Sorry, Jim. I thought you were asking about the hanger not the tank. Is it possible that the difference is the vent (or lack thereof)?

[ArdWrknTrk]

I'm not too well versed in Bronco, obviously....  

In my little mind anything is possible until it is disproved.

So, if the bung and mounting is the same it must be something like the rollover.

[JimJam300]

Well alrighty then. I'll get that 85/86 sender and pump and report back.