Welcome to the UK Window Cleaning Forums

Starting or own a window cleaning business? We're a network of window cleaners sharing advice, tips & experience. Rounds for sale & more. Join us today!

Tank weight

Chris84

New member
Messages
25
Does anyone know the weight difference between a full 350 and 500l tank from xline systems..

And this may be a silly question as there are to many variables but roughly how many average size houses would each clean if just doing windows and frames?

 
I imagine X line know the answer to weightAnd your right the second question is unanswerable !
yeah i just thought i would ask and see if anyone knew tonight as i was looking to order some bits and bobs but worried about weight.

i have a 500l getting fitted by them but my payload is only 800.

lol i thought the second question would be a stupid one..

 
Ok well you'll have plenty of water

You don't have to fill it you could go to 400 if you have other gear ? Ladders ? Trolley ? Jetwash ?

 
As far as water goes, one ltr of water weighs a kilo, and the tank and bits may be anywhere up to 50kg at a conservative guess.

 
In our experience with 2 single operator vans we found that an average day out used between 350 and 400 liters of water. But there were those odd days and big commercial jobs where the full 500 liters were used.

You did right by going for the bigger tank as you will use more to begin with - first cleans and inexperience. Once you get over this normal learning phase which we all went through, you will use less water on maintenance (regular) cleans.

A smaller tank is fine during the winter, but if you want to work longer in the summer with longer daylight hours, then having a small tank can be a disadvantage.

I don't know what area you live in, but we live on the North East coast and there are times when we need to scrub and rinse a lot more.

We get a film of greasy muck on the windows which they say is from ships anchored in the Tees river mouth waiting for a berth in Tees dock. There has been as many as 15 ships anchored out in the bay that we have counted.

So it could be that we use a little more water than the average window cleaner.

The first van is an 800kg Peugeot Partner and the second a T220L Transit Connect. Both carried a couple of poles, a folding step ladder, hose reel, leisure battery, pump and small bits and bobs.

-

 
In our experience with 2 single operator vans we found that an average day out used between 350 and 400 liters of water. But there were those odd days and big commercial jobs where the full 500 liters were used.
You did right by going for the bigger tank as you will use more to begin with - first cleans and inexperience. Once you get over this normal learning phase which we all went through, you will use less water on maintenance (regular) cleans.

A smaller tank is fine during the winter, but if you want to work longer in the summer with longer daylight hours, then having a small tank can be a disadvantage.

I don't know what area you live in, but we live on the North East coast and there are times when we need to scrub and rinse a lot more.

We get a film of greasy muck on the windows which they say is from ships anchored in the Tees river mouth waiting for a berth in Tees dock. There has been as many as 15 ships anchored out in the bay that we have counted.

So it could be that we use a little more water than the average window cleaner.

The first van is an 800kg Peugeot Partner and the second a T220L Transit Connect. Both carried a couple of poles, a folding step ladder, hose reel, leisure battery, pump and small bits and bobs.

-
Cheers for the advice, i live in Bedfordshire so defiantly no ships around lol.. An 800k Peugeot partner is what i have..

 
Cheers for the advice, i live in Bedfordshire so defiantly no ships around lol.. An 800k Peugeot partner is what i have..
That will do you fine. I'm aware that if I get into the van as a passenger and the van has a full tank of fuel, then the van will probably be slightly over weight.

PSA did allow 70kgs as a drivers weight which is excluded from the payload, although I see the new vans have only a 50kg allowance.

There is a windie about 8 miles away that has a 600LX Berlingo with a 650 liter flat tank in it. He brims the tank every morning and doesn't care if he's over weight. He tells me he is ok once he's completed a couple of houses. :) (Not recommended.)

View attachment 8020

 
I use roughly 20l a house for a semi. I'd say that's quite high ive used as little as 10 when ive been runnimg low but generally I do like a lot of flow and my waters cheap enough so i do blast it about lol. you could get away with less.

 
That will do you fine. I'm aware that if I get into the van as a passenger and the van has a full tank of fuel, then the van will probably be slightly over weight.
PSA did allow 70kgs as a drivers weight which is excluded from the payload, although I see the new vans have only a 50kg allowance.

There is a windie about 8 miles away that has a 600LX Berlingo with a 650 liter flat tank in it. He brims the tank every morning and doesn't care if he's over weight. He tells me he is ok once he's completed a couple of houses. /emoticons/smile.png (Not recommended.)

View attachment 11334

I had a 600 citroen berlingo wit a 250 tank when starting out and even that felt a handful to control when you added all the gear in and myself. I found whilst it could carry the weight it just didn't seem to carry it well if you know what I mean.

I now have a 1000 scudo newer shape and its great with a 500 tank plus about another 300 in shite in it

 
My son has never complained about the handling of his van - he loves it. When you put weight in the van its inclined to look like it overloaded when it isn't.

My son in laws Connect did handle the weight slightly better tbh. If you look at the tyres PSA fitted to the 800, they are on the limit with regard to carrying capacity. If you looked at the tyres Ford fitted on the Connect, they were a much higher weight rated.

I would guess that the difference in tyres would make the difference. There again a replacement tyre was much less on the PSA van than the tyre on the Connect.

The softer suspension on the Peugeot won't help either.

When we fitted the tank in the Peugeot it is fitted side ways. So the 'baffle' will prevent side ways sloshing and improve road holding. On the Connect, SIL wanted the tank fitted length ways as he wanted a gap down the side. My sons van would rock when he stopped at traffic lights, whereas SIL's wouldn't.

Talking about suspension, I have a Citroen Relay SWB van. It has mono leaf spring on either side on the rear. One of them broke a few years ago.

The Citroen genuine replacement ones were prohibitively expensive so I replaced them both with a heavy duty set from a spring manufacturer Wolverhampton way. They fit them onto motor homes where they have to carry weight all the time.

Being much stiffer they changed the handling characteristics of the van dramatically. Filling up with 650 liters of water hardly makes an impression on the suspension and looks empty.

-

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I use roughly 20l a house for a semi. I'd say that's quite high ive used as little as 10 when ive been runnimg low but generally I do like a lot of flow and my waters cheap enough so i do blast it about lol. you could get away with less.
Its finding the balance between flow and water usage IMHO.

When we started wfp there were no controllers. The pumps ran flat out and it you wanted to reduce water flow to the brush head you had to have a bypass valve which bled 'excess' water back to the tank.

We had 3mm jets in the brush and delivery was with 1/2" garden hose. To reduce flow and save water I used a Shurflo 3.8 liter pump (we now use 5.2 lpm pumps) which I still have one working on the van.

Water was at a premium as I filtered water directly from the r/o into the tank on the trailer. The tanks on the trailer were 375 liters and I carried an extra 100 litres in the van. By 3pm I was out of water and no backup. Rinsing was great but I wasted so much water during the scrubbing phase of the clean. When Williamson pumps bought out the first analogue controllers I bought one. Just being able to reduce the flow meant I could work longer, do more houses and still not dip into my 100 liter reserve.

So for me and later my son, a low flow was best. It took a long time and much convincing to up the flow rate at bit, enabling me to work a bit faster.

On the digital Varistreams we now use I love the flow of 5 and occassionally 6 for rinsing, but 3 and 4 is better for the washing phase as overall I use less water. But that's me. I'm slower these days due to age, so water wise I'm better off at a slow flow rate.

-

 
My son has never complained about the handling of his van - he loves it. When you put weight in the van its inclined to look like it overloaded when it isn't.My son in laws Connect did handle the weight slightly better tbh. If you look at the tyres PSA fitted to the 800, they are on the limit with regard to carrying capacity. If you looked at the tyres Ford fitted on the Connect, they were a much higher weight rated.

I would guess that the difference in tyres would make the difference. There again a replacement tyre was much less on the PSA van than the tyre on the Connect.

The softer suspension on the Peugeot won't help either.

When we fitted the tank in the Peugeot it is fitted side ways. So the 'baffle' will prevent side ways sloshing and improve road holding. On the Connect, SIL wanted the tank fitted length ways as he wanted a gap down the side. My sons van would rock when he stopped at traffic lights, whereas SIL's wouldn't.

Talking about suspension, I have a Citroen Relay SWB van. It has mono leaf spring on either side on the rear. One of them broke a few years ago.

The Citroen genuine replacement ones were prohibitively expensive so I replaced them both with a heavy duty set from a spring manufacturer Wolverhampton way. They fit them onto motor homes where they have to carry weight all the time.

Being much stiffer they changed the handling characteristics of the van dramatically. Filling up with 650 liters of water hardly makes an impression on the suspension and looks empty.

-
I agree in that the berlingo looked "on its ****" so to speak with only half its payload onboard, where as my scudo looks pretty much the same even when close to max capacity. I got a lot of slosh in the berlingo, was like being n a ship when stopping at lights side to side roll even with a baffled tank. Not to mention it was drastically underpowered with the 1.9d

It could carry the load, just never really felt safe, great vans though, very reliable. Maybe my suspension was shot i dont know.

 
Its finding the balance between flow and water usage IMHO.
When we started wfp there were no controllers. The pumps ran flat out and it you wanted to reduce water flow to the brush head you had to have a bypass valve which bled 'excess' water back to the tank.

We had 3mm jets in the brush and delivery was with 1/2" garden hose. To reduce flow and save water I used a Shurflo 3.8 liter pump (we now use 5.2 lpm pumps) which I still have one working on the van.

Water was at a premium as I filtered water directly from the r/o into the tank on the trailer. The tanks on the trailer were 375 liters and I carried an extra 100 litres in the van. By 3pm I was out of water and no backup. Rinsing was great but I wasted so much water during the scrubbing phase of the clean. When Williamson pumps bought out the first analogue controllers I bought one. Just being able to reduce the flow meant I could work longer, do more houses and still not dip into my 100 liter reserve.

So for me and later my son, a low flow was best. It took a long time and much convincing to up the flow rate at bit, enabling me to work a bit faster.

On the digital Varistreams we now use I love the flow of 5 and occassionally 6 for rinsing, but 3 and 4 is better for the washing phase as overall I use less water. But that's me. I'm slower these days due to age, so water wise I'm better off at a slow flow rate.

-

Never had a controller, i will probably get one at somepoint but i find running my pump flat to be fine, i probably do waste too much but it doesnt really bother me, maybe when i get busier it will.

 
I agree in that the berlingo looked "on its ****" so to speak with only half its payload onboard, where as my scudo looks pretty much the same even when close to max capacity. I got a lot of slosh in the berlingo, was like being n a ship when stopping at lights side to side roll even with a baffled tank. Not to mention it was drastically underpowered with the 1.9d
It could carry the load, just never really felt safe, great vans though, very reliable. Maybe my suspension was shot i dont know.
The 1.9 is very slow by modern diesel standards. I remember back in 1999 when PSA replaced the 1.8 with the 1.9. People who owned Escort vans thought they were turbo charged because they had so much power.

Those vans had rear torsion bar suspension which was fitted across the range of Citroens and Peugeots. Although the idea was an interesting concept to make the suspension more compact, water ingress meant that the bearings were vunurable and quickly failed. This would have effected handling as the wheel would have excessive play. It wasn't quickly identified as a fault at MOT until it had got beyond the point of no return. It then became an expensive repair when done properly as it would mean replacing the inner stub pins the bearings rotate on.

-

 
Back
Top