Pate Plastics Fuel Tank Still Functioning - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Pate Plastics Fuel Tank Still Functioning

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Pate Plastics Fuel Tank Still Functioning

boatdryver posted 02-24-2014 10:11 AM ET (US)
Yesterday I assisted a friend in buying a very, very, nice 1986 Montauk. The test ride went well, despite the presence of a white Pate Plastics fuel tank under the RPS. The seller has been hand-carrying fuel purchased at local gas stations for years. You can be sure the fuel contains ethanol. We are in a cool climate.
Does anyone know of a Pate Plastics fiberglass fuel tank that has been immune to the problems which drove Pate Plastics out of business?
JimL

jcdawg83 posted 02-24-2014 02:13 PM ET (US)
Maybe the previous owner hasn't run enough fuel through the tank for it to have done any damage. I would change it immediately. A Montauk owner I know had to replace two fuel pumps and the fuel tank because of ethanol damage.
jimh posted 02-24-2014 05:39 PM ET (US)
Your friend should analyze the continued use of the Pate Plastics fuel tank on a risk:reward basis. There is significant risk in continued use. The reward for continued use is to save perhaps $250 on a new fuel tank. The cost of repairs from damage caused by fuel contamination in the fiberglass fuel tank is likely to exceed $250. On that basis there seems to little reward for continued use and high risk associated with continued use.
Chuck Tribolet posted 02-24-2014 07:22 PM ET (US)
What color was the "window" in the side of the Pate that lets
you see the fuel level? Colorless? Yellowed? Amber?
Chuck
Tom C posted 02-24-2014 08:01 PM ET (US)
I have been trying to decide if I should use a Pate tank that came with a 1988 BW I recently purchased. The tank is red and has a warning label on it about ethanol gas. When did ethanol first appear and when did Pate realize they had a problem? How old would this tank be? Don't mean to hijack this post but would like input from others as would boatdryver.
frontier posted 02-24-2014 08:30 PM ET (US)
Throw it away. I had to do that with a brand new looking Pate red tank in my Montauk a few years ago.
As you watch a $500.00 tank go out the window, thank the environmental wack-o's who gave us "Politicians Gas".
Our cars and trucks get 10% LESS mileage, it damages marine engines and it takes much needed food out of the system and makes food prices higher.
Way to go big government.
Tom W Clark posted 02-24-2014 08:54 PM ET (US)
Jim -- It is entirely possible that Pate tank is fine and will continue to be so. Back in 2006 Pate changed the resins they used specifically to resist alcohol (of any type) in fuel. They even put label on these tanks saying they were essentially 100 ethanol-proof.
Here is a thread with some detailed information from Rob Schmidt on this change:
http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/012667.html
That said, there may still have been some vulnerability with these new tanks. The anecdotal evidence is mixed.
It is important to remember that Pate's demise was not entirely about the problems with ethanol, though that may have been chief among them. The Pate manufacturing facility suffered some damage as I recall, a fire maybe, after which they decided to just close their doors.
The boating public by this time had concluded that any fiberglass tank was bad news and even if Pate were offering a bullet-proof tank, you still need customers to buy the product and that was just not happening.
And that phycology is still in play today. jimh makes a very cogent point: The cost of replacing the tank is low, the cost of engine damage is high. People are willing pay for peace of mind, that is what keeps the insurance industry in business. A new tank is cheap insurance.
contender posted 02-24-2014 09:14 PM ET (US)
You have no business putting gas in that old of a plastic/fiberglass tank. As frontier stated this was one of the governments biggest joke that was protraded on the American Public...Crap Gas...do yourself a favor and have a custom alum. fuel tank built for your boat....
jimh posted 02-24-2014 11:14 PM ET (US)
Let me offer your friend more advice: if the fuel system on the 1986 Boston Whaler consists of original 1986 components, it is time for an overhaul. Get new hoses, new primer bulb, new clamps, and new connectors.
Ethanol-gasoline blended fuel at a 1:9 ratio, often called E10, has been in wide use in the Midwest for over a decade. It is so prevalent that it is no longer even labeled clearly--you just assume all the fuel you buy on the highway is an ethanol-gasoline blend in many States. But c.1986 is the epoch when ethanol-resistant rubber hoses came into use. That's why on a 1986 boat you should probably overhaul the fuel system. Most fuel hose has a date on the identification label on the hose. A 1986 hose is now 28-years-old. It is time for new hoses.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Pate Plastics Fuel Tank Still Functioning
boatdryver	posted 02-24-2014 10:11 AM ET (US) Yesterday I assisted a friend in buying a very, very, nice 1986 Montauk. The test ride went well, despite the presence of a white Pate Plastics fuel tank under the RPS. The seller has been hand-carrying fuel purchased at local gas stations for years. You can be sure the fuel contains ethanol. We are in a cool climate. Does anyone know of a Pate Plastics fiberglass fuel tank that has been immune to the problems which drove Pate Plastics out of business? JimL
jcdawg83	posted 02-24-2014 02:13 PM ET (US) Maybe the previous owner hasn't run enough fuel through the tank for it to have done any damage. I would change it immediately. A Montauk owner I know had to replace two fuel pumps and the fuel tank because of ethanol damage.
jimh	posted 02-24-2014 05:39 PM ET (US) Your friend should analyze the continued use of the Pate Plastics fuel tank on a risk:reward basis. There is significant risk in continued use. The reward for continued use is to save perhaps $250 on a new fuel tank. The cost of repairs from damage caused by fuel contamination in the fiberglass fuel tank is likely to exceed $250. On that basis there seems to little reward for continued use and high risk associated with continued use.
Chuck Tribolet	posted 02-24-2014 07:22 PM ET (US) What color was the "window" in the side of the Pate that lets you see the fuel level? Colorless? Yellowed? Amber? Chuck
Tom C	posted 02-24-2014 08:01 PM ET (US) I have been trying to decide if I should use a Pate tank that came with a 1988 BW I recently purchased. The tank is red and has a warning label on it about ethanol gas. When did ethanol first appear and when did Pate realize they had a problem? How old would this tank be? Don't mean to hijack this post but would like input from others as would boatdryver.
frontier	posted 02-24-2014 08:30 PM ET (US) Throw it away. I had to do that with a brand new looking Pate red tank in my Montauk a few years ago. As you watch a $500.00 tank go out the window, thank the environmental wack-o's who gave us "Politicians Gas". Our cars and trucks get 10% LESS mileage, it damages marine engines and it takes much needed food out of the system and makes food prices higher. Way to go big government.
Tom W Clark	posted 02-24-2014 08:54 PM ET (US) Jim -- It is entirely possible that Pate tank is fine and will continue to be so. Back in 2006 Pate changed the resins they used specifically to resist alcohol (of any type) in fuel. They even put label on these tanks saying they were essentially 100 ethanol-proof. Here is a thread with some detailed information from Rob Schmidt on this change: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/012667.html That said, there may still have been some vulnerability with these new tanks. The anecdotal evidence is mixed. It is important to remember that Pate's demise was not entirely about the problems with ethanol, though that may have been chief among them. The Pate manufacturing facility suffered some damage as I recall, a fire maybe, after which they decided to just close their doors. The boating public by this time had concluded that any fiberglass tank was bad news and even if Pate were offering a bullet-proof tank, you still need customers to buy the product and that was just not happening. And that phycology is still in play today. jimh makes a very cogent point: The cost of replacing the tank is low, the cost of engine damage is high. People are willing pay for peace of mind, that is what keeps the insurance industry in business. A new tank is cheap insurance.
contender	posted 02-24-2014 09:14 PM ET (US) You have no business putting gas in that old of a plastic/fiberglass tank. As frontier stated this was one of the governments biggest joke that was protraded on the American Public...Crap Gas...do yourself a favor and have a custom alum. fuel tank built for your boat....
jimh	posted 02-24-2014 11:14 PM ET (US) Let me offer your friend more advice: if the fuel system on the 1986 Boston Whaler consists of original 1986 components, it is time for an overhaul. Get new hoses, new primer bulb, new clamps, and new connectors. Ethanol-gasoline blended fuel at a 1:9 ratio, often called E10, has been in wide use in the Midwest for over a decade. It is so prevalent that it is no longer even labeled clearly--you just assume all the fuel you buy on the highway is an ethanol-gasoline blend in many States. But c.1986 is the epoch when ethanol-resistant rubber hoses came into use. That's why on a 1986 boat you should probably overhaul the fuel system. Most fuel hose has a date on the identification label on the hose. A 1986 hose is now 28-years-old. It is time for new hoses.