200 electric fuel pump vs mechanical - 66 coupe
- Thread starter 60sMustang
- Start date
thesameguy
Famous Member
It's actually the red-labeled square in this one:
The Facet 40105 should be more than enough to run an I6 without any assistance - 30gph is plenty.
The Facet 40105 should be more than enough to run an I6 without any assistance - 30gph is plenty.
thesameguy
Famous Member
Also, Ford ran with that goofy low-pressure/high-pressure pump combo for a while. My '86 XR4Ti has the same setup. Long time ago I eliminated the under-belly high-pressure pump and replaced the in-tank low-pressure pump with a Walbro 255lph pump. Runs my XR at 20psi very nicely.
I never really understood that dual pump setup, but things like it were common on European cars of the time - Saab had a combo pump configuration up to 1987, although both pumps were mounted in the tank. I suspect they weren't confident in or motors weren't developed enough to perform both tasks (scavenging the tank and pressurizing the rail) reliably. Plenty of cars even had surge tanks ("fuel accumulators") and dampers in the system to ensure consistent pressure. By the late '80s or early '90s, most people abandoned both. This morning, in fact, I eliminated the dual pump and damper in my 1985 Saab and replaced it with a single in-tank pump.
I never really understood that dual pump setup, but things like it were common on European cars of the time - Saab had a combo pump configuration up to 1987, although both pumps were mounted in the tank. I suspect they weren't confident in or motors weren't developed enough to perform both tasks (scavenging the tank and pressurizing the rail) reliably. Plenty of cars even had surge tanks ("fuel accumulators") and dampers in the system to ensure consistent pressure. By the late '80s or early '90s, most people abandoned both. This morning, in fact, I eliminated the dual pump and damper in my 1985 Saab and replaced it with a single in-tank pump.
60sMustang
Well-known member
So after some more looking I'm leaning towards this pump and controller. The pump is a 35 gph pump that make 4-6 psi. Since I'm already regulating it down to 3 psi I'm thinking this should be about right for the amount of fuel I need. Also not wanting to run a return line.
Let me know opinions on this pump and controller combo. Its a mild build 200 with stock autolite 1100 carb. Although I may convert to a 2 barrel Weber at some point also.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/331128230073?_t ... EBIDX%3AIT
http://www.ebay.com/itm/3-Sec-Key-On-Pr ... FI&vxp=mtr
Let me know opinions on this pump and controller combo. Its a mild build 200 with stock autolite 1100 carb. Although I may convert to a 2 barrel Weber at some point also.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/331128230073?_t ... EBIDX%3AIT
http://www.ebay.com/itm/3-Sec-Key-On-Pr ... FI&vxp=mtr
thesameguy
Famous Member
Seems like a good setup - I really think a $90 pump is $50 more than it should be, but it'll definitely do the job.
60sMustang
Well-known member
I'm considering running a new fuel line while I'm making the switch over. Is a 6AN the right size for what I would need. I think that's equivalent to 3/8".
Yes a 3/8 inch fuel lines should be great. Good luck 
thesameguy
Famous Member
3/8 will work, but 5/16 is factory. If you go 3/8 you will need to adapt up from the fuel pump you chose and back down to the carb. Unless you plan on making big power, vinyl covered 5/16 steel tube for brake line is cheap and easy to work with and won't require any steps up or down. If you do plan on big increases in power, definitely do 3/8 line now. Don't run flexible AN hose under the car! Also, if you are running new line, you might consider going ahead and setting up a return system- it's definitely the preferable configuration.
thesameguy
Famous Member
Steel line exposed under the car will rust. The vinyl coating helps prevent that. You don't want a rust-induced leak in a fuel line.
60sMustang
Well-known member
thesameguy":3qjgp459 said:
Why not run the flex braided stainless line under the car? Just curious.
My original post may not have been clear about "new lines", I was actually talking about the small flexible pieces near the pump and under the hood from where the solid line ends. The solid line under the car is fairly new and looks good.
i only have 1 lill piece of rubber on the whole (under hood) line…between the on-carb metal filter and the delivery end of the line. It's may B, oh, 3 - 4 inches long, black spring clip either end…
along the chassy is all metal. Sure, the vinyl or another casing THERE would B nice for rust prevention…
How bout that new tri-metal brake line (?nickle, cooper?, brass? is it? Pretty expensive but malable, rust proof & avail in the needed dia.)?
along the chassy is all metal. Sure, the vinyl or another casing THERE would B nice for rust prevention…
How bout that new tri-metal brake line (?nickle, cooper?, brass? is it? Pretty expensive but malable, rust proof & avail in the needed dia.)?
60sMustang
Well-known member
chad":3gflgj8o said:
I currently have a rubber fuel line coming from near the brake master cylinder(where the solid line ends) going to the fuel pump, the same line from the fuel pump to the pressure regulator and a third piece from the regulator to the carb filter. I know what you mean though mine originally had the metal line from the pump to the carb, but when I added the regulator the rubber line was easier to route.
Also, Is there a reason I wouldn't want to run the 6An braided stainless line from the rear all the way up? I was thinking less connections that way and a brand new line the full length. I would route it along the same route as the metal line runs now. Just an idea I had and looking for good feedback on it.
thesameguy
Famous Member
Flexible lines under the car are subject to a lot of exposure and braided or no, it doesn't take a lot to damage a rubber line. Always use steel line in exposed areas. And don't use copper-nickel line either - it's fine for brake fluid but reacts to gasoline. Only steel fuel lines under the car.
For short jumps or coupling, rubber is of course fine - like between the tank and the steel line, or between the pump and the steel line. In the engine bay rubber is fine and maybe even preferable since it won't suffer fatigue or stress from vibration and won't heat soak.
For short jumps or coupling, rubber is of course fine - like between the tank and the steel line, or between the pump and the steel line. In the engine bay rubber is fine and maybe even preferable since it won't suffer fatigue or stress from vibration and won't heat soak.
Lookes like you guys are on the right track....
Since you guys here are mostly American, there is a gas station everywhere. So you've not dealt with net postive suction head related matters caused by a pump not being able to scavenge down to the same almost empty level as a mechanical fuel pump can. And that is a major issue, because, if your in Noo Zeeland where the relief is sharp, or on, say, the Yukno Trail in your EFI Jeep, its a major issue.
The Lo and Hi pressure pump was the solution by the Swedes and Australian Fords, which had shallow tanks to maximise trunk space.
The change has been the modern, all in one, in tank module mounted, prescreened, prepriming , integrated modern pumps with check valves. GM Opel and MB and BMW got it together first, but Ford Germany with its Capri RS 2600, Granada 2.8 Injection, Sierra XR4I 2.8, Merkur took a lot longer due to a lack of gas tank height. Uwe Bahnsen and Cortina/pinto designer Ray Brown Jr decided on the same shallow fuel tank design. GM's T car just had the ages old Vauxhall style behind the rear seat upright fuel tank, and by the time the V car arrived in 1978, the tank was set down in a deap trunk, offset to the side, similar to the MB W123 series.
Due to the shallow nature of the Mustang gas tank before 1979, its impossiable to easily fit such a system in tank, so Ford started out with a copy of the GM V car Opel Commodore/Senator/Monza style fuel tank pickup, but a LO/HI two pump system for reliablity of fuel flow right down to dead empty.
I had no problems with my Mustang in getting down to the last ounce of gas, I had to do the 15 US gallon load up everytime I go for a 600 mile day trip, as the 12.4 US gallon tank was too small.
but in my Explorer, it wouldn't start on a tail up incline when stopped with less than 1/4 of a tank. That is fatal in some circumstances in the steeper than San Fransisco Shakey isles.
See this 9 minute video. Yeah, it is Airtech, but covers off some of the issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbzEeWy1b3o
And understand the whole in tank module system assembly can fail
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a2 ... -cop-cars/
thesameguy":9l6pbpcl said:Also, Ford ran with that goofy low-pressure/high-pressure pump combo for a while. My '86 XR4Ti has the same setup. Long time ago I eliminated the under-belly high-pressure pump and replaced the in-tank low-pressure pump with a Walbro 255lph pump. Runs my XR at 20psi very nicely.
I never really understood that dual pump setup, but things like it were common on European cars of the time - Saab had a combo pump configuration up to 1987, although both pumps were mounted in the tank. I suspect they weren't confident in or motors weren't developed enough to perform both tasks (scavenging the tank and pressurizing the rail) reliably. Plenty of cars even had surge tanks ("fuel accumulators") and dampers in the system to ensure consistent pressure. By the late '80s or early '90s, most people abandoned both. This morning, in fact, I eliminated the dual pump and damper in my 1985 Saab and replaced it with a single in-tank pump.
Since you guys here are mostly American, there is a gas station everywhere. So you've not dealt with net postive suction head related matters caused by a pump not being able to scavenge down to the same almost empty level as a mechanical fuel pump can. And that is a major issue, because, if your in Noo Zeeland where the relief is sharp, or on, say, the Yukno Trail in your EFI Jeep, its a major issue.
The Lo and Hi pressure pump was the solution by the Swedes and Australian Fords, which had shallow tanks to maximise trunk space.
The change has been the modern, all in one, in tank module mounted, prescreened, prepriming , integrated modern pumps with check valves. GM Opel and MB and BMW got it together first, but Ford Germany with its Capri RS 2600, Granada 2.8 Injection, Sierra XR4I 2.8, Merkur took a lot longer due to a lack of gas tank height. Uwe Bahnsen and Cortina/pinto designer Ray Brown Jr decided on the same shallow fuel tank design. GM's T car just had the ages old Vauxhall style behind the rear seat upright fuel tank, and by the time the V car arrived in 1978, the tank was set down in a deap trunk, offset to the side, similar to the MB W123 series.
Due to the shallow nature of the Mustang gas tank before 1979, its impossiable to easily fit such a system in tank, so Ford started out with a copy of the GM V car Opel Commodore/Senator/Monza style fuel tank pickup, but a LO/HI two pump system for reliablity of fuel flow right down to dead empty.
I had no problems with my Mustang in getting down to the last ounce of gas, I had to do the 15 US gallon load up everytime I go for a 600 mile day trip, as the 12.4 US gallon tank was too small.
but in my Explorer, it wouldn't start on a tail up incline when stopped with less than 1/4 of a tank. That is fatal in some circumstances in the steeper than San Fransisco Shakey isles.
See this 9 minute video. Yeah, it is Airtech, but covers off some of the issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbzEeWy1b3o
And understand the whole in tank module system assembly can fail
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a2 ... -cop-cars/
thesameguy
Famous Member
xctasy":1k60fjx2 said:
I don't think they're referring to the in-tank pump, but rather the fuel pump module. It's a small computer-like thing that matches fuel pump output to engine requirements through PWM. It's an integral part of returnless fuel systems.
Of course in-tank pumps fail, but any pump will eventually fail. The fuel pump module failure is happening abnormally quickly.
1st X I've seen us mention no return line. I like that…
Now - may B we've got all the components except the 'collision shut off' (or whatever it's called. Are
they even still used?). Any way:
I think we may B gettin to the answ of this Q / post...
Can some one name all the prts in the system? I'm thinkin of 1 that can B added/swaped on our
older vehicles (so no in-tank pumps. That may be even more components than here). Thnx ~
Now - may B we've got all the components except the 'collision shut off' (or whatever it's called. Are
they even still used?). Any way:
I think we may B gettin to the answ of this Q / post...
Can some one name all the prts in the system? I'm thinkin of 1 that can B added/swaped on our
older vehicles (so no in-tank pumps. That may be even more components than here). Thnx ~
thesameguy
Famous Member
chad":166s4aam said:
Returnless EFI systems are not like returnless carb systems. I mean, except that they are both returnless.
On a carb system, which is a low-pressure system, the pump just blindly pumps fuel until it can't anymore, either because the regulator or the needle valve blocks fuel flow and the pump stops pumping. No smarts there. You add a return let the pump keep pumping, returning unneeded fuel to the tank. This helps keep the fuel cool, and in doing so also assists with hot starts where vapor lock can become a concern.
On a conventional EFI system, which is a high pressure system, the pump is always pumping a full capacity, and a fuel pressure regulator maintains proper pressure on one side, returning unused to the tank. This keeps the fuel cool for optimal performance.
Newer cars have implemented returnless EFI systems - they reduce complexity (thus weight and cost) and might incidentally improve fuel economy due to more precisely metered fuel control and pump life due to less waste. A returnless EFI system uses a pressure sensor in the fuel system coupled with a Fuel Pump Driver Module (FPDM, or "fuel pump module") to actually control the speed of the fuel pump and thus the pressure and volume in the system so it doesn't need a return, there is never excess fuel.
Ford (amongst others) has largely switched to returnless systems), but the latest Tauruses apparently have a problem with the FPDM which results in a hot restart problem, hence the recall.
Fuel pump shutoffs *generally* used to be "rollover" switches that were mercury-based - when upside down they would break contact and the fuel pump would stop pumping. Newer cars - since maybe the '80s - have inertia switches that work kind of like circuit breakers. An impact knocks them loose, breaking the connection to the fuel pump. You press a button to reset them. If you ever want to mess with a Focus-owning friend, kick the base of the a-pillar real hard while you're driving. Dumbass place for an inertia switch if you ask me.