'94 Adventure fuel tank capacity

R

RI Adventure

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2022
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Age
64
Model
Adventure
I am looking to learn the fuel tank capacity in my new-to-me '94 Adventure 208. The gallons portion of the (original) tank label is worn off.
Thanks all for a great forum!
 
Welcome aboard!

Go to GW's site and try looking in past brochures. I'm sure you'll find it there. Of course, this assumes the tank hasn't been replaced.
 
It continues to amaze me how “veteran” forum members will take more time responding to a brand new members question by sending them elsewhere when it would take them less time to just give them the answer/information they’re looking for. Perhaps the OP didn’t realize the answer or previous models/years of brochures could be found on the GW website, hence why he asked the question? I admittedly didn’t realize that either when I first joined the forum here, as I’m guessing most probably don’t. To RI Adventure, the answer to your question is that the original fuel tank had a capacity of 82 gallons, per the GW website. Welcome aboard, ask as many questions as you’d like since we don’t have a ton of traffic on here or anything, a whopping 10 posts spanning 6 threads for the entirety of the day yesterday in the “General Discussion” part of the forum… if my math is correct.

 
Last edited:
Interesting but the brochure does not list the capacity, neither does the owners manual.
I did find a spec in liters of 373 which equates to 98 gallons.
My 2001 has an 82 gallon tank and it is poly, not aluminum.
 
Dang.. I read that doc and didn't see the capacity:)
So 82 is the same capacity as my 2001.
Is the tank poly?
 
Thanks for the info, guys. The tank is aluminum with the mfg. date 11/93 still legible, so it's likely the original.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mustang65fbk
seasick said:
Interesting but the brochure does not list the capacity, neither does the owners manual.
I did find a spec in liters of 373 which equates to 98 gallons.
My 2001 has an 82 gallon tank and it is poly, not aluminum.
Click to expand...
The brochure very much does list the fuel capacity, it's just not in the typical upper section with the other specs like most of the newer brochures, and you've got to actually read through it a little bit more. Go to page 10 in the above link that I provided where it talks about the 208 Adventure, scroll down to the "Standard Features" section, then look under "Cockpit & Deck" and you'll see the line of "Fuel capacity - 82 gallons".
 
Last edited:
Mustang65fbk said:
It continues to amaze me how “veteran” forum members will take more time responding to a brand new members question by sending them elsewhere when it would take them less time to just give them the answer/information they’re looking for. Perhaps the OP didn’t realize the answer or previous models/years of brochures could be found on the GW website, hence why he asked the question? I admittedly didn’t realize that either when I first joined the forum here, as I’m guessing most probably don’t. To RI Adventure, the answer to your question is that the original fuel tank had a capacity of 82 gallons, per the GW website. Welcome aboard, ask as many questions as you’d like since we don’t have a ton of traffic on here or anything, a whopping 10 posts spanning 6 threads for the entirety of the day yesterday in the “General Discussion” part of the forum… if my math is correct.

Click to expand...
Think before you write. You're making assumptions. First, it is NOT quicker (at least for me) to go to GW's site to look up the info, however that's inconsequential as it's not the reason I wrote what I did. Second, by YOUR OWN ADMISSION, "perhaps the OP didn't realize the answer... could be found on GW's website" --- that is EXACTLY why I gave him the ammunition to find the answer - so he could ALSO reference it in the future.

Isn't teaching a man to fish better than giving a man a fish? I welcomed him to the forum and also provided a solution. Where is the issue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: magicalbill
DennisG01 said:
Think before you write. You're making assumptions. First, it is NOT quicker (at least for me) to go to GW's site to look up the info, however that's inconsequential as it's not the reason I wrote what I did. Second, by YOUR OWN ADMISSION, "perhaps the OP didn't realize the answer... could be found on GW's website" --- that is EXACTLY why I gave him the ammunition to find the answer - so he could ALSO reference it in the future.

Isn't teaching a man to fish better than giving a man a fish? I welcomed him to the forum and also provided a solution. Where is the issue?
Click to expand...
I actually thought quite a bit about what I was typing up before I typed it and pressed the reply button. With regards to looking up archived brochures on the Grady White website... it just took me less than 45 seconds to pull up a separate web browser tab, navigate to the GW website, download the brochure, find the information, copy and paste the link to a reply on here as well as even add a mock scenario message of "82 gallons, welcome to the forum" to the OP. If Google is correct and the average person types 40 wpm then it took me less time to do that than your first reply, so yes it quite literally would've taken less time to do what I suggested.

Regardless... people come to a forum to feel like they're part of a community or group, even if the questions that they ask have already been answered dozens of times before. Sure we could tell them, or any forum member for that matter, to check out the GW website, Google or to call their dealer but there isn't much of a sense of community in doing that and the likelihood of them coming back afterward would probably be quite low. Which also doesn't help out the longevity of the GG forum. Just like with other forums, I highly doubt there is much that hasn't been discussed over the last 20+ years or so, with the exception of brand new products that have just come out or are about to. And I think the best course of action imo would've been to do what I did in that you actually answer the OP's question, send the link and explain about how there is a ton of information on the GW website in their archived brochures section. Good day.
 
Last edited:
No need to get all wound up:)
I understand both sides of the discussion and to be honest, if the OP listened to my response, he would probably have bad info. I admit that I missed the spec in the user manual which I did load and scan but in all fairness, the 98 gal number I quoted was from a UK based boat discussion group and I converted their spec of 373 liters to gallons ( hmmm, may be there is some error due to Imperial vs whatever systems).
As you probably have noticed, I often (very often) provide links in my posts with the intent that the OP will learn where to go for specific information.

All that said, the only 100% sure way to determine a tank's capacity that has no sticker is to empty the tank and then fill it. This is especially true for older hulls since it is more likely that the tank may have been replaced and the replacement tank could be a different size.
On a more serious topic, is it time to haul my boats for the winter? Since they are in two different states, I think the Jersey shore one should come out next week and do the critical winterizing.
 
And on anther note. The tank is 28 years old. Might want to get it pressure checked while you're messin with it.
 
Grady changed from aluminum to plastic fuel tanks for the 208 in 1997 and kept the listed capacity at 82 gallons.
 
Mustang65fbk said:
And I think the best course of action imo would've been to do what I did in that you actually answer the OP's question, send the link and explain about how there is a ton of information on the GW website in their archived brochures section. !
Click to expand...
Well, your opinion IS one that matters.

I could care less how anyone else types - I told you how it would be FOR ME... and also that it is a moot point - not sure why you harped on it.

Why you feel the need to put someone else down for a difference in opinion is beyond me. I wasn't mean or disrespectful - I offered information that would help him. That's all I did - nothing more, nothing less.

I'm done. I'm out. I don't have time for this childish behavior.
 
DennisG01 said:
Well, your opinion IS one that matters.

I could care less how anyone else types - I told you how it would be FOR ME... and also that it is a moot point - not sure why you harped on it.

Why you feel the need to put someone else down for a difference in opinion is beyond me. I wasn't mean or disrespectful - I offered information that would help him. That's all I did - nothing more, nothing less.

I'm done. I'm out. I don't have time for this childish behavior.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that I'm putting anyone down or anything close to it. Having been on here myself for only 2 years now I'm simply trying to help with not potentially deterring new people from coming back. Had I gotten a response of essentially "go elsewhere and find the information yourself" on my first post here then it likely would've left me questioning whether I wanted to come back or not. Good day.
 
OK, so I'd rather clear this up in a positive way than let it just hang out there.

Look at your first line in your first post. That has a negative conotation to it and yes, I found it offensive. The real question, especially after I explained my intent, is whether RI Adventure found my post helpful or offensive. Quite honestly, your opinion DOES NOT matter here - RI's does.

As far as my post, you PERCEIVED it to be negative/unhelpful. But I flat out told you it was not meant that way. That should have been the end of it right there saying, for example: "Oh, OK, I read what you wrote differently in my head".

I'll repeat this again... unless someone just wants someone else to do the work for them and GIVE them the answer, which I guess is the way with a lot of the younger generation... kindly showing someone how to find the information for themselves is a good thing as it also informs them of a future resource.

There's nothing wrong with someone just giving someone the answer. There's nothing wrong with providing the answer and also giving the link/resource. There's nothing wrong with simply providing the resource.

Why is providing a resource a bad thing? Does that not help them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: magicalbill
Just an extra piece of info I dug up relating to my original response about the 98 gallon possibility based on a British forum
The forum stated the tank as being 373 liters. 373 liters in US measurement system works out to 82 gallons but 373 liters in Imperial measurement system equals about 98 gallons.I didn't know it before but an imperial liter is larger than a non-imperial liter. Does all this extra info help? Nah but I though we an alternative direction to ponder in this thread:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: enfish
DennisG01 said:
As far as my post, you PERCEIVED it to be negative/unhelpful. But I flat out told you it was not meant that way. That should have been the end of it right there saying, for example: "Oh, OK, I read what you wrote differently in my head".
Click to expand...
It feels as though you did the same thing in that you PERCEIVED my post to be negative/unhelpful as well. Which wasn't my intention either. I guess I wouldn't have even bothered responding, if all I was going to do was to tell them to go elsewhere, especially with a brand new member, as that just feels rather chintzy. If it takes a few extra seconds out of my day to help out said new member, gives them some reason to come back, maybe recommend the site to one of their friend's, etc... then it's no skin off my back. Even if it wasn't a newer member and they still had questions that could be found elsewhere, I'd still likely take the extra few seconds to answer their question and link to where I found it, or just not respond at all. I do the same thing with the Wanted/For Sale section of the forum where people are looking for boats and I take a couple minutes to find a few that might help them out. Either way, I've said my piece and there's no use in further derailing a thread, good day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.