I'm not an A&P and I'm sure there are differences at that level. However, looking at page 7-42 of the 182T POH and page 7-53 of the T206H POH shows exactly the same diagram for the fuel system. Perhaps instead of just saying someone is wrong you can offer the differences and more importantly how that will make a difference with regards to slipping.
It's not really something you'll need to worry about unless you're going to get checked out in a 205, 206, 207, or 210.
The most significant difference in the fuel system operationally, not to do with slipping, is the incorrect fuel flow fluctuation procedure spelled out in the Cessna AFM for the 200 series piston models. When large fuel flow fluctuations occur, Cessna would have you apply boost pressure to stabilize the flow, and this is more likely to cause an engine failure, often an unrecoverable one, than it is to fix the problem. Unless one understands the fuel system, one wouldn't understand why, and this could be a fatal misunderstanding.
One doesn't need to be an A&P: if one flies the airplane, one should understand the systems as well as any A&P. It may just save your life. I've always encouraged pilots to get the maintenance manual and study it, because it provides a lot more systems information understanding than the pilot operating handbook or aircraft flight manual.
The fact is that there are significant differences, and one shouldn't simply make the mistake of thinking that because both airplanes look roughly the same, they're alike. They're not.
Oh, and to the original topic, In that situaton I tend to crab on the approach and kick into a slip just before the flare. The time spent in the slip is relatively short.
This is somewhat mystifying. Poster after poster has talked about fuel flow, low fuel, and slipping, because of a crosswind. When one flies to the runway crabbed into the wind, the airplane has no idea whether it's pointed this way or that (the airplane has no idea of anything, of course, as it has no ideas). The fuel flow is unaffected. This is no different than flying cross-country, crabbed with a wind correction angle. The only difference is that during landing your immediate destination is a runway and you're descending toward the runway. Otherwise, the airplane might as well be sitting on the ramp, or at 10,000' in cruise. Fuel flow isn't affected, and flying in a crab toward the runway because of a crosswind doesn't cause any change in fuel position in the tanks.
We don't say we're slipping when we apply a wind correction angle in cruse. We're not doing anything different when applying a wind correction angle during the approach to land. If you fly the entire approach with a wing low, holding rudder to align the long axis of the airplane with the runway, then certainly the potential is there to have a problem, but why would anyone do that? It's foolish.
When we see someone flying landings like that at the airport, it's a sure sign that they're very inexperienced, that they don't fly much with passengers, and that they don't fly much at all. It's unnecessary. Instead, keep the wings level, fly to the runway using whatever crab is necessary, and you'll know well in advance about wind strength by observing the crab that's necessary.
You are landing RWY 5 and pick up the ATIS. Wind is 120@19G23. What do you figure the xwind is? What do you actually do in the airplane to figure it?
Why bother? It's a stiff right crosswind. Manageable. If you're not comfortable with 23 knots of gusty crosswind, then go somewhere else. If you are, then land, and know it's from the right. Fly the procedure crabbed into the wind. If it's a lot of crab, then you know it's a lot of wind. If it's a little bit of crab, you've got a little bit of wind. Done.
If you really need to know how much rudder you've got to kick out the crab, do it once during the approach and see. This may change, of course, because wind changes during the descend to lower altitude. Wind will usually be stronger at higher altitudes, excepting certain cases during inversions, meaning if you can align the airplane higher during the approach, then you can do it at the surface.
There are some locations that notoriously have significantly different winds on the surface from the approach. Kabul springs to mind, where a 30 knot difference and up to a 180 degree wind direction difference may exist in some cases. It's not uncommon to have a 30 knot tailwind during the approach but to have a 10 knot crosswind or headwind on the surface, due to an inversion. There, the issue is the windshear more than the issue of a crosswind, although a stiff crosswind is sometimes also the issue.
I've never taught a student to gauge the crosswind component. In fact, I do the opposite. Plan for the full value as a full crosswind. Anything less is gravy. If the wind is gusting 23 knots from the right, then it's 23 knots from the right. If you're not comfortable with that, look to plan B.