Click here to return to the home page.
Morgan 3 Wheeler
Who's Online Now
5 members (B3MOG, IcePack, Morganmike, CooperMan, piquet), 269 guests, and 40 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
+8Rich 91
Newest Members
Scot_SJI, Jimmers, Breen60, Davidmog, Stevecarr
9,596 Registered Users
Newest Topics
Renewing the twin aero horns
by Moggo - 27/08/26 05:24 PM
4-4 zetec Fuel filter
by Phil63 - 27/08/26 03:38 PM
CX Auto lock
by TeddyAds - 27/08/26 12:56 PM
3.7 Roadster Greasing Q
by ScottMellor - 26/08/26 05:31 PM
Goodbye Dolly
by Clipper - 25/08/26 09:57 PM
Hot start .... vapour lock
by Pittsartist - 25/08/26 08:00 PM
Immobiliser
by Clipper - 25/08/26 12:42 PM
Latest Photos
tow bar
tow bar
by G Walker, August 24
Prescott double anniversary
Prescott double anniversary
by CooperMan, August 18
Air Crash Sites: Cairngorms
Air Crash Sites: Cairngorms
by RedThree, August 13
Four-seater luggage rack
Four-seater luggage rack
by Soleng, August 9
New M3W orange 2012
New M3W orange 2012
by jejemek, August 7
Forum Statistics
Forums39
Topics49,841
Posts837,312
Members9,596
Most Online1,063
Jun 14th, 2026
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 17 of 28 1 2 15 16 17 18 19 27 28
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 8,657
Likes: 407
Needs to Get Out More!
OP Offline
Needs to Get Out More!
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 8,657
Likes: 407
Originally Posted By charlestkirby
Originally Posted By FlatCapRacing
I believe Charles has measured the resistance per unit length of both variants to confirm the assumption. I'm sure he will clarify.


Yes, both senders use the same wire gauge!

The resistance increases by 0.265 ohms per mm of float drop.

With a double loop configuration this means the resistivity of hte wire is
0.133 ohms per mm

This is
copper awg 26
or more likely
aluminium awg 24


I agree that the length of the sender is not optimal for the size of the tank. smile
However it is a red herring as far as improving the accuracy of the gauge.

As a brief recap:
As the float moves down the sender, the resistance of the sender increases and consequentialy the fuel gauge reading falls.

At some position (around half full) the resistance is sufficient to show empty reglardless of whether there is any more wire track left in the sender.

This position of showing empty must be the same for both senders as they both use the same wire gauge.

Fitting the longer sender is like replacing your 25 hour digital clock with a 26 hour digital clock and expecting it to be better at telling the time.

In order for the extra length of the longer sender to be usable, one must first solve the underlying calibration problems.

I did this, but then found other problems with the electronics of the car which were contributing to the fuel gauge's erratic behaviour.

It has taken a long time testing, programming and re-testing(with many further red herrings), but i am looking forward to finally having a working solution fitted to my car ready for grindelwald.

The optimal solution will be a 280mm sender with the other associated problems ironed out. However a 280mm sender by itself has absolutely no effect at all.


Many thanks Charles for your findings on the the two senders in question, the OE 250mm and optional 280mm one. I totally understand your reasoning that for any given actual fuel tank level they will theoretically offer the same indication as long as its above 0%, given the fixed calibration of the display system.

What I would like to know is why in reality this doesn't seem to be the case, with the 280mm one consistently giving a higher reading until 0% indication is reached and with a lesser reserve, albeit not commensurate with the extra length.

After much searching I found this data page on a VDO site giving the actual resistance range for each of the sender lengths they offer. Interesting that throughout the wide range the resistance appears to fall within 2.5 to 90 ohms.

Looking at the spec for the two senders in question the 250mm one has a max (empty) resistance of 72 ohms, with the 280mm one 75.5 ohms, not the 80.5 ohms I would have expected extrapolated from the extra 2 x 30mm length if the wire resistivity (not necessarily gauge) was the same.

Maybe I'm reading too much into all this but the facts can't be ignored.


Richard

2018 Roadster 3.7
1966 Land Rover S2a 88
2024 Royal Enfield Guerrilla 450
1945 Guzzi Airone
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 133
D
L - Learner Plates On
Offline
L - Learner Plates On
D
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 133
I do know that my old 250 mm gauge would show 0% with 5 gallons remaining in the tank and my new 280 mm gauge will show 0% with 2 gallons remaining in the tank.

Dolph

Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 245
Likes: 5
M
L - Learner Plates On
Offline
L - Learner Plates On
M
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 245
Likes: 5
Assuming your maths is correct - ie the short one is 72 Ohms, with the long one at 75 ohm, if you put a 1k8 resistor across the long sender then it should give you 72 ohms at the bottom - not 75. If this is the problem then the longer sender will give 72 ohms at the bottom of its longer travel the same as the shorter one.


Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 8,657
Likes: 407
Needs to Get Out More!
OP Offline
Needs to Get Out More!
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 8,657
Likes: 407
Originally Posted By Dolph
I do know that my old 250 mm gauge would show 0% with 5 gallons remaining in the tank and my new 280 mm gauge will show 0% with 2 gallons remaining in the tank.

Dolph


Whilst up to speed on this issue I worked back from the VDO resistance data to calculate the fuel level at which the gauge will indicate 0% with the 280mm sender. Although only 17mm lower than the OE, not the hoped for 30mm, it does tie in very well with my findings and close to yours. It equates to around 3 litres more indicated fuel.


Richard

2018 Roadster 3.7
1966 Land Rover S2a 88
2024 Royal Enfield Guerrilla 450
1945 Guzzi Airone
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 8,657
Likes: 407
Needs to Get Out More!
OP Offline
Needs to Get Out More!
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 8,657
Likes: 407
Originally Posted By MOG42
Assuming your maths is correct - ie the short one is 72 Ohms, with the long one at 75 ohm, if you put a 1k8 resistor across the long sender then it should give you 72 ohms at the bottom - not 75. If this is the problem then the longer sender will give 72 ohms at the bottom of its longer travel the same as the shorter one.



Not my maths in this case, the published VDO data. See above.

Good suggestion though - may try it once I have my rear mudguard fitted to stop all the crap falling on the connections wink

Will try a 1k6 shunt resistor as it needs to pull down from published 75.5 ohms for the 280mm sender.

Last edited by Richard Wood; 22/08/16 10:43 PM.

Richard

2018 Roadster 3.7
1966 Land Rover S2a 88
2024 Royal Enfield Guerrilla 450
1945 Guzzi Airone
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 522
Likes: 1
Talk Morgan Regular
Offline
Talk Morgan Regular
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 522
Likes: 1
Yes we tried to use parrallel resistors so as to 'scale down' the resistivity of the senders. It is theoretically valid that this analog approach to recalibration would improve the situation.

However you also need to account for the fact that the gauge reads 100% for an unacceptable amount of time.
This can be done with a series resistor


Unfortunately as i hinted in my previous post, there are other electrical problems that have to be addressed as well. Therefore this does not work on its own and i recommend that you do not bother.


If you are going to do this regardless i may as well tell you that the gauge reads:

<22 ohms
100% fuel

>66 ohms
0% fuel

You can then calculate the optimal series resistor (probably 16.8ohms and the optimal parallel resistor 140 ohms.
see my working attached:

Attached Images
WIN_20160823_12_12_56_Pro.jpg (98.6 KB, 277 downloads)
WIN_20160823_12_13_18_Pro.jpg (139.65 KB, 270 downloads)
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 2
Has a lot to Say!
Offline
Has a lot to Say!
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 2
Man Alive!

Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 14,976
Likes: 2
Member of the Inner Circle
Offline
Member of the Inner Circle
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 14,976
Likes: 2
Originally Posted By R1NGA
Man Alive!


Not seen a calc like that since my degree!


Richard
1976 4/4 4 Seater
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 8,657
Likes: 407
Needs to Get Out More!
OP Offline
Needs to Get Out More!
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 8,657
Likes: 407
Many thanks again Charles. I did consider the 100% fuel indication being compromised by a shunt resistor, but since it's sometimes difficult to achieve anyway after a fill up, thought this less important extreme of indication not worth the worry.

I'm very interested where the upper and lower display resistance values were obtained. Was it by testing your own cars system or from a manufacturers data sheet?


Richard

2018 Roadster 3.7
1966 Land Rover S2a 88
2024 Royal Enfield Guerrilla 450
1945 Guzzi Airone
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 522
Likes: 1
Talk Morgan Regular
Offline
Talk Morgan Regular
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 522
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By Richard Wood

I'm very interested where the upper and lower display resistance values were obtained. Was it by testing your own cars system or from a manufacturers data sheet?


testing our own cars.
Morgan has its own calibration and therefore to my knowledge this information is unobtainable from data sheets.

Page 17 of 28 1 2 15 16 17 18 19 27 28

Moderated by  TalkMorgan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5