Fuel Tank Lock Ring Wrenches

[kishy]

Bringing this over from the Facebook group: I'm trying to get my hands on the proper lock ring wrenches for all of my cars.
Before you say it: yes, I have hammers and screwdrivers. Yes, they typically get the job done. I'd just prefer to have the proper tools.

This is kind of an information/research thread. There's a lot of cross-referencing going on to get to the answer about where to get these tools, so I might as well put this info somewhere that people can benefit from it, add to it, or correct it. I cannot guarantee anything here is correct until stuff gets test-fitted.

Following info from RockAuto:

79-89 (to 91 for wagons, and probably 351 also) fuel level sender
Lock ring: Spectra Premium LO03, Dorman 579003, Ford C0AZ9A307B
Diameter from Spectra: Inside 2.2", Outside 2.7"

83-89 (to 91 for wagons, and probably 351 also) fuel pump hanger
Lock ring: Spectra Premium LO04, Delphi FA10008, Airtex LR2001, Carter TLR2, Dorman 55811, Ford E6AZ9C385A
Diameter from Spectra: Inside 3.8", Outside 4.7"
Diameter from Delphi: Inside 3.75"
Diameter from Airtex: 4+ 45/64=0.703 = 4.7"
Diameter from Carter: Inside 3.75", Outside 4.75"
Added bonus...my Ranger uses this one too.

90-91 (sedans only)(also used on aeros up to 94 or 95) combo fuel pump + level sender
Lock ring: Spectra Premium LO13, Airtex LR2000, Carter TLR1, Delphi FA10007
Diameter from Spectra: Inside 4.9", Outside 5.7"
Diameter from Carter: Inside 4.875", Outside 5.625"
Diameter from Delphi: Inside 4.75"

So that means, for someone who has both pre- and post-90 boxes, there are 3 sending unit wrenches, for lock rings of inside diameters a) about 2.2", b) about 3.75", c) about 4.8". Give or take.

The 1983 Powertrain manual specifies using T74P-9275-A "Fuel Tank Sender Wrench" to remove the fuel pump. This is an OTC tool and can be found on eBay for too much money.
Problem: the eBay seller of one of them has a ruler in the picture. The ID of that tool is approximately 2". Therefore, this tool is not for the fuel pump hanger, but might be for the fuel level sender.
Since we can see the part number engraved on the tool, this means the Ford shop manual is wrong. You do not use this tool for the fuel pump, it's impossible.

The Body/Chassis/Electrical manual does not specify any tool for the fuel gauge sender...it just says to turn the lock ring. Great, thanks guys. Like we needed a shop manual for THAT.

The 1991 Body, Chassis, Electrical, Powertrain manual specifies (without saying what each is for exactly) T74P-9275-A, D84P-9275-A, and T86T-9275, all of which are fuel sender wrenches. Logically this makes sense. 90-91 would have the 2 lock ring setup of earlier years for wagons and 351 cars. 90-91 5.0 Sedans use the single combined sending unit.

D84P-9275-A, from Google, is also used on 94 Tempos. 94 Tempo uses LO04, the same lock ring as 83-89(91 wagons/351) for the fuel pump hanger.
T74P-9275-A, as figured out above, is probably for the 2" gauge sender despite the 83 book saying fuel pump.
T86T-9275, can't find any with dimensions, but by elimination above it sounds like this guy is the tool for the new lock ring introduced in 1990 for Panthers. The problem is that it looks kinda like the ones designed for the plastic screw-on lock rings, which are entirely different.

In the case of the D84P part, which I can't find any of online for sale or pics of it, I suspect that Performance Tool W80669 might be the equivalent. Pic attached. If it is the right tool, it is cheap and available lots of places.

Next step, I guess, is going to be to try to buy these and confirm from there. Thoughts or input are appreciated.

D84P and suspected equivalent W80669:


T74P:


T86T:

[gadget73]

Most of the tool numbers start with T, and the year it came out. I don't get anything for a T84P-9275-A though. I do see mentions of the D84P-9275A but no pics.

[kishy]

Most of the tool numbers start with T, and the year it came out. I don't get anything for a T84P-9275-A though. I do see mentions of the D84P-9275A but no pics.

Yes, that stood out to me also (T vs D). Given how sloppy the information is in the Ford manuals - and really, it is incredibly sloppy considering these are factory shop manuals which should be the indisputable bible of the car - I wouldn't be surprised if the T vs D part number thing started as a transposition error. When shuffling through a large amount of information and particularly when manually inputting data from a different written record it's easy to swap similar sounding things like D for T, or A for 8...

But that aside, if the Performance Tool item is its third party equivalent, that would be pretty cool. Amazon is full of reviews of people saying that wrench doesn't fit their vehicle, and nobody confirming what vehicle(s) it did work for. If even one person had confirmed that it did work for a particular vehicle that would provide a reference point.

[kishy]

Had an epiphany. I have a new wagon fuel tank in my garage with new lock rings.

Based on this it sure does look like the Performance Tool item will fit the LO04 lock rings for the early design fuel pump hanger. Not quite as certain, but similarly close, it looks like the T74P tool is the one for the gauge senders.

That leaves the 90+ combined sender as the unconfirmed/unknown one for now.

[gadget73]

having one of these probably does beat the hammer and brass punch method I usually use. Lately there have been a few specialty tools that I've bought or strongly thought about buying just because it would make life very much easier when you do happen to need one. Kinda burns a little to spend money on a tool that you know is going to be used very rarely though.

[kishy]

Well, the Performance Tool item and the OTC T74P tool are on their way to me.

I have 3 vehicles that can benefit from the T74P tool, and 3 vehicles that can benefit from the other one. Having the ability to remove lock rings without destroying them (as I often do when attempting removal "other ways") will be nice.

The 91 is the only one that I won't have the tool for, because at present it's still unclear for sure which tool that is...once it's identified for sure I'd like to get my hands on it also. But since it's only for one vehicle my price threshold will be much lower.

[gadget73]

I have at least 2 that would use those, not actually sure what the Continental uses. I'd be amazed if its not the same tank and retaining ring setup the EFI cars use though. I just don't want to mess with the fuel tank so my goal is to not buy that tool.

I do need to buy an AC clutch removal tool and the holder tool though. At some point the compressor on the Conti needs to be replaced because the one in there is jacked, and I may need to swap the clutch when that happens, depending if I manage to score the very reasonably priced old stock compressor I'm watching at the moment.

I bought a flare tool set when I did the oil heater plumbing, but I got one that also does double flares for brake line use. Bought a power steering pulley tool when I had to change mine and couldn't rent one that wasn't busted. Both were single use so far, but now I have one.

[kishy]

There's a threshold, I think, where paying for the proper tool vs just coming up with some functional but not ideal workaround makes sense.

It's like the bushing press tool to work around the upper control arm shaft. I completely resent the idea of paying $300 for the OTC tool for it when I can go out and buy ball joint presses of nearly identical construction (and ironically less metal, for the cross-shaft cutout gap) for under $100, even in Canadian. But that's yet another specialty tool on its way to me, because the threshold was met...$60 for the knockoff version via eBay, and I have 3 vehicles I plan to do that job on, so rather than paying a shop to press them out and in I come out ahead.

The T74P tool is 100% a match for the LO03 lock ring used for our fuel gauge senders. This also confirms for certain that the shop manuals are wrong; whoever wrote those sections was given bad/unclear info. By the look of things online, this tool was also known as OTC #310-002 when not being sold just for a Ford application (the same lock ring was used in other vehicles too).



The Performance Tool wrench is still in transit, but not expecting any issues there based on the measurements.

[kishy]

Annnnd we have confirmation that the Performance Tool W80669 wrench fits the LO04 lock ring! I used it today in a junkyard with success, although the fuel line fittings get in the way of the handle at some angles (not really a problem). It made quick, easy work of a lock ring that I believe had been attached since 1988.



You can get this thing for around 10 bucks, which makes it quite attractive...having now experienced the joy of using this tool vs the hammer and screwdriver approach, I really recommend using the right tool.

That leaves the one outstanding lock ring wrench for my "collection" as the one for the 90+ lock ring. There is a reference I found in an Amazon review of the Performance Tool item that "Ampro T7014" (seems to really be T70114) fits the "larger" rings and the tool measures 6" across which seems to sound like a match...might take a gamble on one of those, but there aren't a lot of places selling it (if any?). It also looks like an identical twin of the Performance Tool wrench in which case it's not the right tool at all.

[gadget73]

Having the proper tool for a job does make it much nicer to do.

[knucklehead0202]

Semi-related question: Could one potentially convert an earlier box to the '90-'91 fuel tank that doesn't have to be dropped to change a pump. I know it's not the biggest deal in the world but i hate dropping fuel tanks. Of course, I currently have a '90 so it doesn't matter, but someday....

[DerekTheGreat]

Good question for those of us who have the <90 tanks...

[kishy]

Semi-related question: Could one potentially convert an earlier box to the '90-'91 fuel tank that doesn't have to be dropped to change a pump. I know it's not the biggest deal in the world but i hate dropping fuel tanks. Of course, I currently have a '90 so it doesn't matter, but someday....

From my perspective...I think it can be done, but the questions to answer are:

1. Did the frame or front trunk wall change in any meaningful way as it relates to the size, shape, and placement of the fuel tank between 1989 and 1990?
I believe the answer is no.

2. Did the fuel tank straps change in a way that would cause the location of the top and bottom strap mount points to not fit between 1989 and 1990?
The straps did change, but it's unclear to me if there were any changes surrounding the mount point locations.

3. Can one retrofit the older style fuel gauge sender onto the 1990 fuel pump hanger/sending unit combo? (keeping in mind the resistance ranges are totally different)
I don't think it's impossible, but one would need to do some homework to figure out angles and levels for the sender float to accurately represent the fuel level, as well as a little bit of custom work around making things mount up.

I had asked a related question (97 vs 83) here, but the tank changed during the run of the aeros, IIRC: http://www.grandmarq.net/vb/showthread.php?54934

[knucklehead0202]

Good info Kishy. Also reckon the fuel lines and shit would be a little different owing to different locations and such, but that's probably small potatoes compared to the other issues you mention. Would be cool for those with earlier cars though. If i had another example i'd jack it up next to my '90 and look things over. Maybe i'll go buy that red '89...

[kishy]

Actually, about the lines, I was thinking it would not be an issue to just re-route the early car's lines. However thinking more about it, the early car pump hanger is offset to the driver side and the 90 I believe is more centre, so even though the lines from the frame rail to the tank are flexible making the front/back issue moot, they would not be long enough.

Still, since they detach at the frame rail from the hard lines, it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a solution for the lines.

Edit: I was thinking backwards. The lines come over from the passenger side frame rail, so there's more than enough line available to re-route them.