Replacing Outrage 22 fuel tank

[Spc337]

Sadly, I’ve confirm my recently purchased OUTRAGE 22 has a bad fuel tank despite being replace in 2007 with a Florida Marine Tanks (FMT) OEM tank.

Fig. 1

1a.jpg (26.33 KiB) Viewed 3723 times

Fig 2.

2a.jpg (33.36 KiB) Viewed 3723 times

Now I need to find a replacement tank. FMT quoted $1,300 plus $300 in shipping, and extra for epoxy coating--seems rather expensive. Researching plastic alternatives, no luck yet. Most others on this board haven’t had success either.

My project plan includes -

--Remove console and deck (derigging everything).
--Remove tank and surround foam using exsisting tank for measurements.
--Clean everything under the deck.
--Install method to drain fuel cavity (either with remote pump or installing drain tube to rear fish box with plug.
--Install new tank. If plastic, I’ll install some channels to move water to drain, foam in tank. If aluminum, look to build a cradle allow air flow and drainage to keep the tank dry; or worst case, foam in
--Seal deck plywood edges (still in very good shape but a few edges are exposed so fill with 5200 to bond and seal)
--Re-lay wires and spare pull strings.
--Move battery switch to console w/batteries.
--Replace deck and console
--Rewire fuse buss
--Caulk deck
--Have fun

Any other recommendations?

[jimh]

Don't use 3M5200 as a sealer. Use West System epoxy to seal the exposed wood grain.

[steelhead55]

As far as installing a pump in the tank cavity for removing water, the National Electric Code would require the pump and wiring to be explosion proof. (The NEC would consider this location to be a class I div 2 location). Now I do not believe the NEC has jurisdiction over boats, as it is a construction code for structures on land, but I personally would be hesitant to put any electric motor that was not explosion proof in the tank cavity, as a small fuel spill in this area could lead to an atmosphere within the combustible limits, owning to gasoline vapors heavier than air properties.

[jimh]

I believe that any concern about sparking from the electrical motor for a pump that lifted water or other liquid from the fuel tank cavity could be overcome by locating the pump itself outside the fuel tank cavity, and using a long input hose. Such a pump could not be one of the centrifugal pumps. A centrifugal pump typically cannot lift any water to its input. A diaphragm pump can typically lift water several feet on its input hose. A diaphragm pump could be mounted in a well-vented area, and its input hose connected to a pipe that was positioned to suction water from the deepest part of the fuel tank cavity.

A diaphragm pump could also be configured with a selector valve on its input, and two hoses could be connected. This would allow the pump to be used to lift water out of more than one sump area in the boat. You could de-water the fuel tank cavity and perhaps another sump, say a deep fish well, using the same pump. In this way you wouldn't have the expense of a pump dedicated just to very occasional use to de-water the fuel tank cavity.

If you have gasoline vapor in the vicinity of the fuel tank cavity, you might also have gasoline in the water in the fuel tank cavity. Pumping water and gasoline overboard would be an environmental regulation violation on many bodies of water, I suspect.

[Spc337]

I wouldn't install a pump in the cavity itself since these will need to be serviceable.. I would simply secure a hose to the stern end of the cavity and locate the pump either near the console or as Jim suggested use a selector to leverage an existing pump to handle both locations.

There is always a risk that if fuel is in the cavity it could be pumped overboard. However, if you don't install a pump and there is fuel there the risk is the same. Ultimately, it would reach the rear sump since there is a drain near the top of the cavity to the rear sump so it would still reach the water. If you are actively pumping, it would give the operator the ability to see/smell the fuel and stop rather than potentially allow this to happen over a longer period of time without knowing about it.

Plus, the risk of catastrophic fire would be higher and that would no doubt cause great pollution and harm. So on balance, I think the small risk of fuel getting into the water outweighs the risk of a far larger pollution incident.

Neither is good.. I wonder if there is a detection mechanism that can alarm if fuel is present.. That would be interesting but probably excessive in a '22 open boat.