When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I admit I spaced out and broke my main rule of checking things before installing them. This was a particular stupid one as the sending unit test is a stupid simple 2 second test of the purple wire to the sender frame that was sitting on the bench right in front of me. I had appx 1/5th tank and after install my gauge cluster shows reserve on no bars. My old rusty OEM sender was accurate and ohms out between 7.6 3.0 to 104 ohms and the new LILAND GLOBAL SUCO10 is currently sitting at 4.1 ohms. I am assuming it isn't malfunctioning, I think I have seen others with accuracy problems after installing this new sender. Does anyone have experience with this sender and fuel level accuracy.
Thanks
Vets-Vet
.
measured 5 & 1/2 " of fuel in bottom of tank.
.
.
Thanks Dan, with the link to your thread I can fix it.
Donny, Don't get discouraged if you don't hit it perfectly the first time. I got lucky- not skill. I expected to have to tweek it 2-3 times. If when you fill up and do the math, as shown in my post, and your "range" as shown is within 10 miles of actual I would call that good. Dan
Thanks Dan,
I am actually thinking about just adding some resistance in series, will not be doing that, bending instead.. I have been wanting a decade box (resistance selector for testing) for a while and this might be the right time.
Donny
If Dan's thread is the one I'm thinking about, I was looking for that thread a week or so ago and couldn't find it.
The sender on my '90 is only a couple of years old and also has what I've always assumed was a calbration problem.
The fuel gauge always displays about a quarter tank less than the amount of fuel I actually have in the tank, whereas prior to replacing the unit, it read accurately. Was just old so that's why it got replaced.
I was thinking about uninstalling I and giving it a slight bend to see how close I could get it myself, but don't really trust that I'll get it right or maybe make the gauge read worse than it already does.
I have early 86 and I have the same problem, I bought a new sender unit from Rockauto and it shows the wrong reading.
Now when the gauge shows low lever, there is about 1/2 fuel left in the tank.
I don't know how to get the gauge to show the correct amount again like the original sender unit did when it was still working.
This is the problem I had with the assembly I got from RockAuto. As you can see the reach of the float arm wasn’t equal to the original. After pulling it and bending it a few times I was able to get it close.
This is the problem I had with the assembly I got from RockAuto. As you can see the reach of the float arm wasn’t equal to the original. After pulling it and bending it a few times I was able to get it close.
I don't know this for fact but I have always thought that the units sold for C4 use are really designed for another car but are sold because they "kinda" work. Why would someone build a sender for C4's and screw up the float and arm so bad. Dan
When I pull mine I will photograph it again. This was just a random shot for installation purposes. The length of the new float arm may be skewed by the angle. I tried installing a pulsator back on it but the fuel pump was loosy goosy and the distance the pulsator had to span made it feel loose as well. Also note this Liland global does not have a support bracket that hugs the fuel pump.
.
Oh dear. Additional resistors nor a signal modifier are going to fix that.
Along with straightening those minor bends in the rod, to gain some extra length(depth), you could also take that last 90-degree bend at the float itself away. Either way, it's a guessing game to get it close(r) to right.
One thing to note here, If you look at my original sender and you look at gtFOOTw's original sender you can see that his original float arm has been manipulated. It has been straightened out. It is probably longer than it should be. Also, I believe, these need to go down more than they need to get longer as that part of the sending unit is at an angle inside the tank. The arm is pointing as much forward as down. And to add to that, when mounted on my 87, it is tilted upward an additional appx 20° angle.
This may be a questionable comparison but by eyeball and measurement the original propped up on the spoiler (?) looks to be at the same angle as the sender in the tank. The float (first & second pic) are not touching the cloth and are resting on the stop.
.
.
And another question would be if mileage vs fuel level is used for consumption / miles remaining calculations, does bending the shaft to far eat into reserve distance and skew mileage?? And that shows just how much time a retired guy has on his hands to think of stupid stuff !!!!!!
From a full tank I can go about 300 miles before the reserve light comes on, at this point I can add 15 gallons to full. That’s 20 mpg which agrees with the car’s computer. This still leaves about 5 gallons in the tank I believe but any lower and I get fuel starvation problems when going around a corner quickly.
I don't know this for fact but I have always thought that the units sold for C4 use are really designed for another car but are sold because they "kinda" work. Why would someone build a sender for C4's and screw up the float and arm so bad. Dan
That's why when I mounted my 450 LPH pump to mine I pulled off the factory float and resistor and used one from an S10. It fit way better and the arm shape was a huge improvement. But you need a signal converter to do that because the ohms of the S10 sender are something like 40 to 235 and the factory gauge is looking for 0 to 90.
New fuel sender problem
