Fuel Tank static wire

[Mike5442]

Just a quick question regarding the Fuel static wire in the fuel tank,

I have finally got around to cleaning out the old gas and solids out of my fuel tank, but I ran into a problem with the copper static wire in the fuel tank. A spot on it corroded and about 1 foot broke off. Is this any cause for concern? Should I crimp the piece that broke off back on, or buy a new one (if available)? Or is it just fine being a little bit shorter? Thanks!

-Mike

[Ron]

I remember something odd about that but can't remember (sorry). ...seems it is actually a copper line with a very small hole running through it??
Hold off and call Dave at DMCMW if he hasn't answered by the time you read this. (And share the answer please ;-)

[NightFlyer]

Just a quick question regarding the Fuel static wire in the fuel tank,

I have finally got around to cleaning out the old gas and solids out of my fuel tank, but I ran into a problem with the copper static wire in the fuel tank. A spot on it corroded and about 1 foot broke off. Is this any cause for concern? Should I crimp the piece that broke off back on, or buy a new one (if available)? Or is it just fine being a little bit shorter? Thanks!

-Mike

Exact same thing happened to mine.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. I've been running for 2 years with a significantly shortened anti-static wire in the fuel tank and have experienced no ill effects from doing so.

In fact, I honestly don't see what harm would come from eliminating it all together.

[Patrick C]

In fact, I honestly don't see what harm would come from eliminating it all together.

Something minor like a spark, explosion, etc.

[NightFlyer]

Something minor like a spark, explosion, etc.

You have better odds of winning the lottery than experiencing a static electric discharge in your fuel tank that results in a catastrophe.

[DMCMW Dave]

Shorter is better than nothing. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Try to bend it so that the far end is closer to the bottom of the tank.

It is supposed to keep the (plastic) tank from building up a static electricity charge, which would then discharge as you hit the filler neck with the hose at the gas station. As long as it's in contact with the fuel the overall length shouldn't matter.

[Ron]

I don't understand why it wouldn't dissipate with fuel constantly circulating through the FD (grounded to the block) anyway, or the tank to frame for that matter.

And why the heck is it hollow???

[DMCMW Dave]

I don't understand why it wouldn't dissipate with fuel constantly circulating through the FD (grounded to the block) anyway, or the tank to frame for that matter.

And why the heck is it hollow???

Why doesn't it dissipate through the tires? Instead the charge builds up on the car and then grounds through your shoes - or the gas filler nozzle?

Static electricity is weird stuff.

I don't know why it's hollow.

[skill]

Why doesn't it dissipate through the tires? Instead the charge builds up on the car and then grounds through your shoes - or the gas filler nozzle?

Static electricity is weird stuff.

I don't know why it's hollow.

I think it's hollow because it allows for evaporation?

I recently bought one from DMCTX and installed it just fine. I pushed it out (w/ visegrips) from the inside out the top. Reverse process to install the new one. Mine was corroded and had blue barnacle patina all around it. It snapped easily when I started the tank cleanout. Peace of mind... replace it. It's not that expensive.

[Ron]

I recently bought one from DMCTX and installed it just fine. Exactly what do they actually call it?

[skill]

Vent tube part 106683

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

[Mike5442]

Sorry for a late response...
But to offer some conclusion I had an order of parts going already with DMC Texas so I just added a new one. Only another $30 so I figured play it safe... Thank you everyone for the input!

-Mike

[Dangermouse]

Thought this was interesting

http://www.shimadzu.com/an/hplc/support/lib/lctalk/14/14lab.html

interesting to note that the conductivity of gasoline is reduced when it is an ethanol blend, which may limit the need for the anti-static wire in certain ambient/humidity conditions. I would certainly keep it in, though.

[Mike5442]

Yes when it comes to gasoline and electricity I would rather play it safe.
My tube also had green pitting on it, plus the fact it snapped in half, so I figured $30 is worth the peace of mind

[Jonathan]

Vent tube part 106683

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Any chance someone has a picture of this thing installed?

http://store.delorean.com/p-6585-vent-tube.aspx

I have a feeling this might be another entry for my "some parts not included" list that came with my car when I got it.

[skill]

Any chance someone has a picture of this thing installed?

http://store.delorean.com/p-6585-vent-tube.aspx

I have a feeling this might be another entry for my "some parts not included" list that came with my car when I got it.

Hey Jonathan,

Sorry, I got no pic of my installation... I shoulda woulda coulda.. But I have this for any one who needs a quick tutorial... I just cooked this up for anyone doing this job on their DeLorean. Here you go;

30293

[NightFlyer]

Any chance someone has a picture of this thing installed?

Here's a pic of my existing (shortened) tube in the tank, if that helps any....

http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=30294&d=1409079001

[Jonathan]

I don't understand why it wouldn't dissipate with fuel constantly circulating through the FD (grounded to the block) anyway, or the tank to frame for that matter.

And why the heck is it hollow???

Is there any chance this "vent tube" isn't for static electricity build-up but it's actually for venting the tank to prevent it from collapsing in on itself?

Whether it would happen from temperature changes of the fuel or more fuel coming out than air replacing it, if the tank pulled a slight vacuum, it would collapse in on itself.

I've seen this happen with plastic or fiberglass tanks out on process equipment in industry where if you suck what's in it out quicker than you replace it with either more fluid or air, it will destroy the tank. Those tanks can handle a fair bit of outward overpressurization before they burst, but very little inward pressure from a vacuum getting pulled.

I look at the images on the parts diagram and nothing there says anything about it being a static wire. Just curious is all?

[NightFlyer]

Unless I'm missing something here, isn't the anti-static line in fact mounted in the vent tube's port (which connects to the filler tube and eventually terminates in the evaporative control system), thus it kinda has to be hollow in order to vent the tank, unless I'm missing something, right?

While the vent is absolutely necessary, the wire/tube itself running the length of the tank really isn't. After all, the 5 gallon or smaller plastic gas containers that you buy from the store are essentially the same as our fuel tanks, and yet, there's no anti-static wire in them, right? Why a concern over static electricity with 12 gallons of fuel, but not with 5 gallons? Probably because the chances of a problem occurring are in fact astronomically low.

http://store.delorean.com/images/Category/large/2-4-0.gif

[Jonathan]

You can clump this together with the air deflectors/TAB shields in the 'what's the exact purpose/function' folder of DMCL decision making mysteries :wink:

Paging Nick Sutton. Paging Nick Sutton. Nick, you're needed in the boardroom for questioning. Thank you.

[NightFlyer]

Paging Nick Sutton. Paging Nick Sutton. Nick, you're needed in the boardroom for questioning. Thank you.

Actually, after looking over the parts explod-a-view and comparing it to the photo of my line and to skill's how-to instructions, I changed my mind about my last comment and edited it before the expiration of my time to do so

I think I got it figured out now - re-read my previous comment and see if that makes sense :biggrin:

[Tillsy]

After all, the 5 gallon or smaller plastic gas containers that you buy from the store are essentially the same as our fuel tanks, and yet, there's no anti-static wire in them, right? Why a concern over static electricity with 12 gallons of fuel, but not with 5 gallons?

It's not very common to attach rubber wheels, metal, and electric systems to a 5 gallon container and drag it along bitumen for a few hundred miles... I get zapped by cars all the time, can't remember ever getting zapped by a jerry can ;)

Also bear in mind a jerry can is directly and repeatedly grounded by the sheer fact that you put it down - in fact it is strictly warned they must be on the ground when you go to fill it with fuel...

[NightFlyer]

It's not very common to attach rubber wheels, metal, and electric systems to a 5 gallon container and drag it along bitumen for a few hundred miles... I get zapped by cars all the time, can't remember ever getting zapped by a jerry can ;)

Also bear in mind a jerry can is directly and repeatedly grounded by the sheer fact that you put it down - in fact it is strictly warned they must be on the ground when you go to fill it with fuel...

Thermoplastics in general are non-conductive insulators, probably even more so with the exact type of thermoplastic that fuel tanks and containers are composed of. A static electric charge built up inside the container from the friction of the fuel moving against the walls of the tank/container isn't likely to pass through the insulating thermoplastic of the tank/container and discharge to ground that way. After all, if electricity moved that freely through such insulators, then just imagine how much stray voltage buried cables would constantly be emanating - it would be a miracle that enough electricity would be left in the line to power whatever might be drawing the load on the other end, right? But that's not how electricity works, fortunately.

Let's take a closer look at the car's anti-static line - essentially, to provide any protection against a static electric discharge inside the tank which could ignite the gaseous/vaporous fuel, the line would have to provide the electricity with a fairly unrestricted pathway to ground, right? After all, that's the theory behind putting the thermoplastic fuel containers on the ground when filling them with fuel - to provide any static electric build up with an 'easy' pathway to ground so that it doesn't spark, even though the theory tends to ignore the fact that the container itself is a fairly resilient insulator, right?

And yet, the metal tube is simply compression fitted to a plastic/rubber grommet that's press fitted into a thermoplastic bung/barb of the fuel tank, that the rubber vent hose attaches over and connects to the car's evaporative control systems, right? Thus, the pathway that the anti-static line provides for the static electricity is NOT to ground, but rather to a bunch of fairly resilient insulators - thermoplastic, plastic/rubber composite, and rubber. Thus, honestly, what's the point of the damned thing, other than to corrode and eventually clog up the pickup or fuel filters with the corroded particulate from such?

Again, I honestly believe that one could easily eliminate the anti-static line / vent tube entirely and not be in any more danger than they'd otherwise be in with the line/tube in place.

If I ever have reason to go back into my tank, which I hope I don't for a very long time, it will be eliminated completely from my car at such time, as it's essentially pointless.

If I have my electrical theory wrong in any way, then please correct me on such, but I think you'll find both the theory and the logic correct and sound.

[David T]

It's not very common to attach rubber wheels, metal, and electric systems to a 5 gallon container and drag it along bitumen for a few hundred miles... I get zapped by cars all the time, can't remember ever getting zapped by a jerry can ;)

Also bear in mind a jerry can is directly and repeatedly grounded by the sheer fact that you put it down - in fact it is strictly warned they must be on the ground when you go to fill it with fuel...

Under the right conditions, vapor concentration, temperature, and a spark, it doesn't take all that much to have car flambe. You can no longer fuel up plastic containers unless they are first placed on the ground. Too many times people filled them in a pick-up with a plastic liner and there was a static electric spark. Disconnect and remove whatever you wish, just understand what you are doing. In aircraft you MUST attach a grounding wire BEFORE coming near the plane with the fuel nozzle. Don't want to ground the plane with the nozzle!

[NightFlyer]

Disconnect and remove whatever you wish, just understand what you are doing.

Well, that's exactly what I'm attempting to do - understand.

Here's the question:

How does the car's anti-static line / vent tube provide a static electric build up within the tank with an unrestricted pathway to ground when it terminates in resilient insulators far away from any ground, such as it does - thermoplastic, plastic/rubber composite, and (possibly) rubber?

Insulators tend to contain an electric charge, as opposed to dissipating them, correct?

So, can you answer that question, as I'd really like to understand, and based on my current understanding, I don't see any harm in completely eliminating that line/tube, especially seeing as how it corrodes and is possibly contaminating other components of the fuel delivery system.

[Tillsy]

In my mind we have three completely different issues at hand.

Is there any static in the first place? Yes, static will build up when any two different substances are in contact and motion. The gushing of fuel into the plastic tank during the filling process, further aggravated by both air and the vapours from the fuel itself, leave me little doubt there is a static buildup.

Will there be a static spark? For this to occur via static you need two conductive materials and a gap for the charge to spark between - but there isn't anything in the tank that could facilitate that. So no, I don't see how this could occur.

Could there be any other source of spark? We do have the pump and sender submerged in there which are electrically driven, so they could produce their own spark if they went horrendously bad. But the more likely concern is likely stray current - combine the natural static buildup in the fuel with even the slightest current leak in the pump or sender and conductive materials be damned - you've got a spark on your hand.

So considering the latter my guess is the rod isn't trying to ground as such, but rather change the electrical differential of the fuel to match that which the pump/sender could in theory leak so that those two sources of static within the tank can't conflict and cause ignition?

Just another though :)

[NightFlyer]

For this to occur via static you need two conductive materials and a gap for the charge to spark between - but there isn't anything in the tank that could facilitate that. So no, I don't see how this could occur.

Actually, the anti-static line itself is conductive, right?

And there's definitely other conductive materials in the tank - the pump housing, the pump bracket, the hose clamps, etc.

Not to mention that static build up from friction is always going to be occurring from the mere act of driving the car, as the fuel tank isn't baffled at all to prevent the sloshing around of the fuel in a non completely filled tank - right?

Thus, the threat of a static electric spark is omnipresent and maybe even exacerbated by the presence of the anti-static line, as it could use the line/tube as a jump point for the spark.


but rather change the electrical differential of the fuel to match that which the pump/sender could in theory leak so that those two sources of static within the tank can't conflict and cause ignition?

Just another though :)

Not following how the presence of the anti-static line/tube would act to "change the electrical differential of the fuel," or even what that means. It almost sounds like you're suggesting that the purpose/function of the line/tube is to act as some sort of sacrificial anode to electrical charge, if I'm following you correctly. Not sure if that would even be possible, but my understanding of electrical theory is admittedly weak.

Maybe we can get Dave M to weigh in on the discussion taking place here :biggrin:

[Tillsy]

Not to mention that static build up from friction is always going to be occurring from the mere act of driving the car

My understanding is the petroleum industry doesn't consider sloshing of fuel within a tank to be a problem, it's the gushing of it into an existing pool in a tank that is when fuel builds up a charge. There are extremely strict protocols regarding how refuelling needs to work whether it be an aircraft, ship, card, or jerry can to avoid the fuel gaining a charge within it.



It almost sounds like you're suggesting that the purpose/function of the line/tube is to act as some sort of sacrificial anode to electrical charge:

No, other way around - I'm theorising it is to intentionally short it to the same source as the pump/sender, so that if there were any stray current from the pump and/or sender that it would match what the fuel is already charged at and nothing would happen.

Or, thinking more about the refuelling issue, it is shorting it to the same source as the fuel pump. Normally the nozzle of the fuel pump shorts to the pipe which shorts to the metal tank - without a metal tank the pipe is meant to extend right to the bottom of the fuel tank. In our case with both a rubber hose and plastic tank, perhaps the rod is trying to achieve that same purpose by extending a rod to the bottom that is shorted to our metal refuel port that is in direct contact with the fuel pump... This would avoid the problem of the fuel being a different charge to the pump which would be extremely dangerous... perhaps this is the far more likely reason...

[Jonathan]

Why is it the group here is referring to this vent tube as an anti-static wire? I see no reference in any of the documents to anti-static wires. Why do you think it has anything to do with static? It's labelled as a vent tube. A text search of the workshop manual, technical manual, bulletins manual and concours manual finds no references to static at any point in any of those documents. Not trying to be an ass, just trying to understand where this idea came from that it's related to static discharge.

[Ron]

Any chance someone has a picture of this thing installed? #74 (Looks like it goes to the top of the tank to me (http://store.delorean.com/c-274-2-1-0-tankhosespumpaccumulatoretc.aspx) and mine is staying there. lol ;-)

[Now the only thing bugging me is that it is supposed to be a closed, "pressurized", system...which is what I couldn't remember in my first post ]

[NightFlyer]

Why is it the group here is referring to this vent tube as an anti-static wire? I see no reference in any of the documents to anti-static wires. Why do you think it has anything to do with static? It's labelled as a vent tube. A text search of the workshop manual, technical manual, bulletins manual and concours manual finds no references to static at any point in any of those documents. Not trying to be an ass, just trying to understand where this idea came from that it's related to static discharge.

As I attempted to explain before, I think I understand the reason it's hollow and called a vent tube. If it wasn't hollow, then the vent bung/barb on the tank and vent hose connecting it to the evporative control system wouldn't actually be providing any venting what-so-ever, as the grommet which holds the line/tube in the vent bung/barb, in conjunction with a solid line/tube, would completely block off/seal such vent. Thus, the tube is in fact providing venting of the tank. But the tube itself isn't actually necessary to vent the tank - the hole in the top of the tank would be enough to accomplish such on it's own, just like the vent off the back of the old style gas cans (before big daddy government banned that style of gas can). Thus the tube's job as a vent is only a secondary function/purpose, and not the primary one - or at least, that's why people believe that there's an undisclosed primary function of the line/tube.

The theory advanced on these forums by respected authorities is that the primary function of the line/tube is as an anti-static line, but seeing as how it doesn't provide an unrestricted pathway to a reliable ground, I honestly don't see how that's feasible. Tillsy has advanced the idea that its purpose in such a capacity is to act as an electrical current neutralizer/balancer of some sort, if I'm understanding/following his recently advanced theory correctly. But again, my understanding of electrical theory is admittedly not that expansive, thus I honestly don't know about that.

What little I do understand of electrical theory is that you're not going to dissipate an electrical charge by channeling it into a bunch of resilient insulators, such as the line/tube does. Thus, if it's primary purpose is indeed as an anti-static device of some kind, it works in such way that's different than the traditional fuel tank grounding strap would.

Hope that helps :)

[NightFlyer]

#74 (Looks like it goes to the top of the tank to me (http://store.delorean.com/c-274-2-1-0-tankhosespumpaccumulatoretc.aspx) and mine is staying there. lol ;-)

[Now the only thing bugging me is that it is supposed to be a closed, "pressurized", system...which is what I couldn't remember in my first post ]

1) I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with leaving mine there if it wasn't for the fact that the damn thing corrodes and sends contaminates into other fuel delivery system components. And we all know that K-Jet doesn't like debris/contaminates in the fuel very much.

2) Technically, it is a closed pressurized system, as the vent runs into the evaporate control system, which ultimately terminates in the throttle side vacuum tapping of the air induction system, right? Of course, this assume a tight seal gas cap is being used that there aren't any leaks anywhere in the evaporative control or fuel delivery systems.

[Ron]

Normally the nozzle of the fuel pump shorts to the pipe which shorts to the metal tank.FWIW- Most of the tanks I have seen over the years have a rubber hose connected to a metal tube with the cap latching to the other end and a ground strap to the body/frame.
Wild stab in the dark- Maybe the small hole in the tube is a safety vent, yet so small it doesn't matter WRT "8. Positive pressure buildup in the fuel tank is normal for this system. " (WS, D:01:06, 8 )


Food for thought- The float is submerged in the fuel and has 12V running through bare wires.

[Ron]

1) I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with leaving mine there if it wasn't for the fact that the damn thing corrodes and sends contaminates into other fuel delivery system components. And we all know that K-Jet doesn't like debris/contaminates in the fuel very much.

2) Technically, it is a closed pressurized system, as the vent runs into the evaporate control system, which ultimately terminates in the throttle side vacuum tapping of the air induction system, right? Of course, this assume a tight seal gas cap is being used that there aren't any leaks anywhere in the evaporative control or fuel delivery systems.

1. +1, but that is where it is drawn in the exploded view and the way it is bent in the other view, as they appear to me. And unless you keep the tank slap full... Not to mention the hole in it must have a purpose ($ wise).

2. Yes. I'm guessing it might be there for when you shut the engine off hot, on a hot day, it lets off "excessive" pressure that can not be purged (with vapors) unless the engine is running... (That is a SMALL hole ;-)

[NightFlyer]

Food for thought- The float is submerged in the fuel and has 12V running through bare wires.

And it also contains a wire that actually does reach a ground :smile:

[Ron]

And it also contains a wire that actually does reach a ground :smile: ...else it couldn't have 12V running....:smile:

EDIT: There are two actually.


Scary when thinking about an fresh "empty" tank and sliding contacts,,,especially old dirty/corroded ones!

[NightFlyer]

...else it couldn't have 12V running....:smile:

But of course - I merely meant to infer that a static charge build up in the tank could easily follow the sender's ground to ground. Which would again negate the purpose of the anti-static line / vent tube, at least as far as it's anti-static purposes/function is concerned :smile:

Bottom line though is that I'm sticking to my guns in asserting that you could eliminate the anti-static line / vent tube without much (if any) consequence.

[Ron]

But of course - I merely meant to infer that a static charge build up in the tank could easily follow the sender's ground to ground. Which would again negate the purpose of the anti-static line / vent tube, at least as far as it's anti-static purposes/function is concerned :smile:

Bottom line though is that I'm sticking to my guns in asserting that you could eliminate the anti-static line / vent tube without much (if any) consequence.Ya took me wrong...I was with you.

As I said first post or so, the fuel is constantly running through the FD, I know it is grounded. lol Yet I can see how static can come out of that too...
Another thought is that as heat goes to pressure sitting, they might want to keep the pressure from damaging the valve controlled by the purger signal line??...beats me, but it's staying and on top, until I know better. They aren't going to spend the money on a copper tube, especially with a hole like that, for nothing. (I bet the EPA would jump up and down these days in any event.)
:hss:

[NightFlyer]

Ya took me wrong...I was with you.

As I said first post or so, the fuel is constantly running through the FD, I know it is grounded. lol Yet I can see how static can come out of that too...
Another thought is that as heat goes to pressure sitting, they might want to keep the pressure from damaging the valve controlled by the purger signal line??...beats me, but it's staying and on top, until I know better. They aren't going to spend the money on a copper tube, especially with a hole like that, for nothing.
:hss:

I know that you're mostly with me on this :biggrin:

I think that you'd definitely want to keep the holed grommet in the vent bung/barb no matter what, but I'm still not convinced that the copper tube serves any actual/consequential purpose, other than to mess up the fuel tank/system with corrosion.

There's maybe 1/4 of the total length remaining on my stock/OEM line/tube - haven't experienced any negatives over almost 2 years of running it like that.

[Ron]

....you are saying the vent sucks ( a contradiction... ;-)
:angel:

[NightFlyer]

....you are saying the vent sucks ( a contradiction... ;-)
:angel:

http://www.jcfacility.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/you-cant-handle-the-truth.jpg

[Bitsyncmaster]

I have not read this whole thread but saw some comments on the "static grounding wire".

When you fuel an aircraft, you always connect a ground clamp to the aircraft first. This is usually connected on the front gear strut since your filling the wing tanks right near that location. I think the idea is if the aircraft has a charge which it can because the tires insulate it from the ground, when you put the gas nozzle into the fill location it could make a spark.

I would think our fuel pump located inside the tank would ground the tank but if your really low on fuel that pump would not be immersed in fuel. Then you have the fuel level sender which also conducts to the ground of the car. So you have to decide if that ground wire is really needed.

[NightFlyer]

So you have to decide if that ground wire is really needed.

Agree with everything - especially the part about the fuel pump and the sender providing a sufficient path to ground for any built up static electric charge that may be present in the tank :thumbup:

The thing about the supposed ground wire though is that it doesn't actually provide a pathway to ground at all, as it terminates in a bunch of insulators - rubber/plastic composite (the grommet that holds the wire in the bung/barb), thermoplastic (the tank's bung/barb), and possible rubber (the vent hose that goes over the bung/barb). Given that the wire doesn't provide a pathway to ground at all, can it still be considered to be an anti-static device, and if so, what's the theory of operation behind it? :dunno:

That's the question that we're currently hung up on and I was looking for your input on. So, what do you think? :confused::confused2:

[FABombjoy]

it terminates in a bunch of insulators - rubber/plastic composite (the grommet that holds the wire in the bung/barb), thermoplastic (the tank's bung/barb), and possible rubber (the vent hose that goes over the bung/barb).
FWIW, static electricity has potentials at which none of those things are insulators. Even A/C line current will happily conduct through a foot of rubber at 1KV.

[Ron]

+1 Dave M

+1 FABomjoy ( yep, every thing has a conductive rate)

There is a lot of "current electricity" properties being applied to "static electricity" here...both "fruit, but apples and oranges".

$.02 FWIW- Like Dave S said, static is weird stuff. It don't care if a material is a conductor (in the "normal" sense)...a charge can be on the surface of, say, a plastic comb, or, one end of a rod but not the other with certain materials (for a relatively long while). No "conductors" are involved with a comb and hair, and, note both are equally charged +/- after combing.... Rubbing a metal rod instead will not result with the rod being charged, but if you use an insulating glove to hold the other end, it will...

======
Copper, with a hole.....hmmm.....maybe it is both??

[skill]

I know this is an old thread, but for anyone wondering what the tip of the vent tube head looks like, part# 106683, here's mine... I was doing some housekeeping and it finally surfaced. Note the eyelets around the top of the vent tube head and also the copper tube has a pin-size hole on the tale. Mine had snapped when I was doing a fuel tank clean-out and was replaced. To remove I used a need-nose pliers +wd-40 I pulled it out top of tank, upwards. The head sits on the tank; http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32302&stc=1http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32303&stc=1http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32304&stc=1http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32305&stc=1http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32306&stc=1http://dmctalk.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=32307&stc=1

[DMCMW Dave]

Here's what a new one looks like.

32310323113231232313

Yes the tube is hollow but just barely. The vent is the holes in the top.

[SpudMurphy]

A big thank you for this thread. I was referred to it from The Delorean Europe Forum.

I have just bought a project car in the UK. It was the last one made in the batch of 50 that was exported to the Middle East - highest vin number in that batch has only 4400 recorded kilometres.

My thread over there is .... http://www.deloreaneurotec.uk/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5502&sid=bc6a7d75d9c1ee828384dfe760d71a1c

so thanks again! I'll be sure to pop by for info/help as the car is in a few boxes and bags!!!

:offtopic2:Incidentally, I currently have a second query on the side louvres contained here
http://www.deloreaneurotec.uk/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=5503&sid=21fcb3597a68390473715bed1dc8896d

[DMCVegas]

I know this is an old thread, but for anyone wondering what the tip of the vent tube head looks like, part# 106683, here's mine... I was doing some housekeeping and it finally surfaced. Note the eyelets around the top of the vent tube head and also the copper tube has a pin-size hole on the tale. Mine had snapped when I was doing a fuel tank clean-out and was replaced. To remove I used a need-nose pliers +wd-40 I pulled it out top of tank, upwards. The head sits on the tank;

Out of curiosity, can you try shining a light through that and seeing if the vent holes have corroded shut, or are at least severely clogged? I just have a theory I'm wondering about...

[SpudMurphy]

Out of curiosity, can you try shining a light through that and seeing if the vent holes have corroded shut, or are at least severely clogged? I just have a theory I'm wondering about...

48568
FWIW here's a photo I have taken of the one I removed.