Re: Fuel Senders

["Allan Weidenheimer" <allanw@domain.elided>]

>John Landry wrote:
>The closest is the Chrysler type.  My bench testing of the IH gauges would
>suggest 10 Ohms will get you a full or near full reading and 78 Ohms will
>net a reading of dead empty.

I believe John is correct, but would like to see if we can get this cleared
up so I can dump something into the FAQ.  My IH service manual 
(CTS-2303, for T-all/Pickups) identifies the sender as a
0 to 90 Ohm unit, with a resistance of 88-92 ohms in the 'FULL'
position, and having less than 1 ohm in the 'EMPTY' position.
Now the kicker:  While a GM sender is 0-90 ohm, I _THINK_
that they are backwards from the IH sender.  I don't have
a GM service manual (since I don't, and won't, own a GM
vehicle) but I will try to verify this tomorrow at a bookstore.
If someone else has a GM product service manual, please
post the resistance of the sender in the full and empty
positions.

If the GM sender is backwards, then yes, the Chrysler/Ford
style is the closest to the IH sender.  Unfortunately, since it
has a reduced range, your fuel guage may not reach 'full' 
(imagine that!) and it may also be above 'E' when you are
actually empty.  If that is the case, maybe we can figure out how to 
recalibrate the IH fuel guage to work with the Chrysler/Ford
senders.  

Allan Weidenheimer
72 1210 Pickup