The gauge markings aren't linear because the sender characteristics are
not linear, despite the resistance wire former changing width at one
point i.e. the length of each turn and the windings changing from single
to double at another i.e doubling how much resistance is added/removed
for a given movement of the float. The result is that the gauge
markings are *about* right, although both of mine drop rather suddenly
towards one quarter shortly after they have passed half.
There were two tank necks, it is possible that one doesn't allow a
straight dipstick, but you could still use a weight on non absorbent
string to get an approximate depth for the purposes of seeing whether
the gauge is way out or not, which was the object of the exercise as
far as I can remember.
The gauge is only a reminder that it might be time to fill up on a long
run - it's not like a temp or oil gauge which might exhibit a sudden
change and be a harbinger of bad news - and each time you do it
shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to compare what the gauge said when
you stopped and if you brim it how much fuel went in.
Changing the sender willy-nilly when you have now idea what is wrong, or
indeed if anything *is* wrong, does not appeal to me at all.
PaulH.
On 06/01/2023 18:16, Max Heim wrote:
> I additionally wanted to point out why the dipstick method is
> practically useless. If you look at the fuel gauge markings on a Mk. I
> MGB, you will see that the scale does not consist of even increments â??
> each â??quarterâ?? is a different size â?? it is not remotely a linear
> scale. So any dipstick reading is no more than a wild guess. You could
> determine the difference between a mostly full tank, a partial tank,
> and a very low tank, but thatâ??s about it.
_______________________________________________
Mgs@autox.team.net
Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
Suggested annual donation $12.75
Archive: http://www.team.net/pipermail/mgs http://autox.team.net/archive
Unsubscribe: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/mgs/mharc@autox.team.net
|