Ran across the Holley Hydra Mat, a flat mat that sits in the bottom of the tank and wicks fuel to the pickup. Pretty slick idea, available in a bunch of sizes and configurations. Should eliminate the need for a swirl pot or external tank.
https://www.holley.com/products/fuel_systems/hydramat/
Jim
Edit: This'd be the one for the stock tank. Not cheap, at $200 but then again, compared to the alternatives not so bad.
https://www.holley.com/products/fuel_systems/hydramat/hydramats/parts/16-102
If I'm reading this correctly, Holley's product is just a larger version of what OEMs have been installing for many years: wicking "pre-filters" that lie flat on the floor of the tank and help prevent air ingestion. I chose a Honda Civic version for its angled connector, which facilitated fitting a Walbro pump at a 45 degree angle within an MGB tank.
Not sure Curtis, but they have a patent pending on it so I think it might be a little more than that. Those socks drain pretty easy as I remember, if you pull them out of the fuel. Did you see the video where they only had one edge maybe 1/2" in the fuel and it still didn't suck bubbles? They had the pickup several inches above the fluid level. I thought that was pretty impressive.
Jim
I am at the fuel delivery system stage of my Rover V8 with EFI swap. Would the HydraMat allow me to run one High pressure pump mounted in the original pump location on my BGT? Seems like a simple solution provided you can get one to fit the MG tank easily. Am I missing something?
Thanks
Lorne
Lorne, that is exactly what I am thinking. The one I posted a link for above is probably going to be the best bet in terms of size, ability to fit through the sender opening, area of coverage, location of the fitting, and price point. They also have a magnet kit that attaches to the corners to stick it to the bottom of the tank. Might only want them on one or both of the long ends, or if you could see inside well enough to position it, maybe all four. I would use a 90 degree fitting pointed away from the sender hole and a relatively long flexible hose to come back to it if possible, and try to keep the fitting from flopping over on its side.
I would guess the novel feature is that the combination of wicking and surface tension allows the pad to selectively pick up fluid in preference to air and exclude bubbles as long as fluid is present. Being able to put one in the bottom of a fuel cell and then turn it up on end and still maintain 60 psi pressure was impressive, but not as impressive as the demo one they had in the clear box because in that one it had to maintain flow and you could see if any bubbles were being picked up.
Jim
Edit: If this pans out, I expect to move my Bosch 44 type pump out of the spare battery well and put it by the tank in the stock location and plumb it direct to the injector rails with no pre-filter. The return will simply go to the tank vent fitting.
Jim
Are the stock fuel supply and return lines large enough to maintain the right fuel pressure or are they too restrictive?
I have both a later chrome bumper tank and a RB tank. Would one be better than the other for this application?
This Holley product would sure make life easier putting my project together. Only needing one fuel pump is a benefit.
Lorne
My thoughts exactly. I'd love to reduce the complexity and get a dependable and reliable result.
Anyway, my thoughts on line size follow:
The stock fuel line is 5/16" and the return (original vent line) is 1/4. In the muscle car era, 5/16" line was used by all manufacturers to supply fuel to engines in the 300 hp range, using suction and a mechanical pump at the engine. That means the absolute maximum theoretical amount of pressure that could be applied across the line at any time was 15 psi (atmospheric) and the practical limit was probably closer to a third of that, although I have no way of confirming that theory. Most references only concern themselves with delivery pressure but it has no bearing on fuel line flow in this situation. I can only hope Graham may have some info on this.
So, the analysis is greatly dependent on whether we are considering a carbed or EFI application, also if carbed with a regulator in the engine compartment it would be more akin to the EFI install.
But if we take 300 hp at a 15 psi delivery pressure as the baseline it gives us some overhead. OTOH, this inevitably leads us to conclude that for a carbed electric pump installation with the pressure regulated at the pump and 300 hp the 5/16" line might be inadequate, and I don't honestly believe this to be the case. The truth will lie somewhere between the two.
Now, if you put your regulator in the engine compartment, the pump is free to deliver fuel based on it's pressure/flow curve. For EFI that is going to be at 39 psi or better, so roughly at least three times the vacuum that the mechanical pump can draw. In general, tripling the pressure should triple the fuel delivery so the same 5/16" line should be adequate for 900 hp or possibly more. Therefore in an EFI system it should be big enough. This also helps explain why we aren't seeing larger lines in modern cars.
The return is another question. At full power the fuel requirements of the engine are subtracted from the delivery volume and the remainder is returned to the tank. The 1/4" line is a restriction, but I have not found it to be a problem. Obviously any pump will be happier with less restriction and last longer and there is not much of a disadvantage in running larger lines, so above 300 hp it may be a good idea to enlarge both runs but below that I wouldn't bother. If however you fit a huge pump it will be working against this small line and that isn't a good thing.
As for the tanks, the best would be if you have a supply, a return, and a vent line. That way you can reduce fuel spillage and consider a charcoal canister to collect fuel vapors, or at least run a vent line up high (like across the top of the trunk) where cornering forces will not be able to push fuel out. I believe some of the later tanks had a supply line in the sender? So a careful choice of tank and sender can give you that. It's easier to cap an unused fitting than to add one.
I have a Bosch 44 clone in my spare battery box, you can get those for $30-50 on ebay and they are pretty good pumps, especially for the money. Suitable for EFI, so they need a regulator whether used for EFI or a carb. A return flow regulator would be best in this situation, I currently do not know how well one would work with a non-return regulator, but line pressure would be up around 100 psi.
Jim
Just a few comment on this.
How are you going to get the mat inside the tank without cutting it open? Great that the magnets are available but placing them through the sending unit hole is not very likely is it?
Who is volunteering to cut open an old tank? Yes it can be done safely but no thanks. Fill with water etc but then more rust will start. Then how do you fit a cover plate? More costs.
Or start with a new tank. Consider that most of our tanks are very old and how many are actual rusted this is the better way to go. I took mine out this weekend and even though I am in a dry climate, keep the tank full when stored, it had some internal rust at the inside top portion.
So if we price out a new Specter tank ($200+), Holley mat ($200), and then a pump ($50-150) are we not close to the tank from Todd, available through Brian? I bought mine years ago and have finally started my FI conversion so in it went. Hope it works well. No I don't get anything for recommending this tank I just think it solve the tank issue fairly easily.
Jim, the 5/16" delivery line was adequate to deliver fuel to my 5.0L ford (275 RWHP & 305 Torque). There was NO deviation in my A/F mixture across the RPM band. The Malibu GM pump provided fuel to the FPR on the rail set at 39 PSI. I fabbed a 5/16 return line to return to the pump canister. An inline GM threaded (std 98 Truck) fuel filter was used. It was surprising the V6 pump provided adequate fuel, but one cannot argue with the results. Info provided for use regarding OEM tanks and GM OEM fuel modules.
Mike, if you looked at the second link, the mat is formed in the shape of a cross so by folding it there should not be much trouble with fitting it through the sender bung, even with the magnets and fuel line attached. But since I haven't tried it yet I can't say for certain. Getting the fuel line hooked up to the inside of the outlet might be a bit more tricky, it might have to come out through the sender. I don't know why anyone would want to cut open their tank to do any of this though. I was thinking with a flashlight and a stick (and maybe a mirror) you should be able to position the mat.
Did Todd's tanks come with a fuel pump installed? I wasn't aware of that. Makes the price seem more reasonable at least.
In any case, the mat should benefit any tank, even Todd's I would think.
And the idea here was to eliminate most of the complexity and cost of going from a serviceable OEM tank to a usable EFI configuration since that's what most of us dealing with this issue are facing. If all you have to do is buy a $50 pump and add this $200 mat and everything works as normal I'd think a lot of people would consider that a win. Might even be able to do it without removing the tank from the car.
Jim
Cutting into an MGB fuel tank isn't a big deal. (It's very thin steel.) I drilled a small starter hole, used aviation snips to make it bigger, and used a Roper-Whitney hand punch for access plate holes. Photos in the gallery...
www.apeusa.com is a great source for pumps, submersible fuel line, submersible cable, and OEM style pre-filters. (I paid $6 for the Honda pre-filter, part number 400-846 as shown in "kit 2"). McMaster-Carr offers Buna-N gasket material in 12"x12" sheets, surprisingly cheap.
Sounds very interesting. It looks like amazing stuff. This article talks about actually installing it.
http://www.powerperformancenews.com/tech-articles/take-it-to-the-mat/
FYI, it would be VERY difficult if not impossible to position one of these in a stock tank that has baffles in it without cutting the tank. Not too many of those around anymore so it probably is a non issue.
Scott, do you have a photo, or can you make a sketch of the baffles and hoe they are positioned in the stock tank? I seem to recall something like a pair of vertical walls running front to back with cutouts in the bottom but I have never actually seen them. Mine is a 90's replacement btw.
Jim
Yeah, the earlier tanks are roughly divided into thirds with the baffles running front to back. Later ones had that inner vapor? tank in them and only one baffle but it is on the end with the sender/fill tube so your access is still restricted.
Google MGB tank baffles and you'll get the idea.
Quite interesting. But you could still put a mat in the chamber closest to the sender and that would probably work pretty well. Other than the big hole, there has to be some openings below the baffle to let fuel run through, so the small chamber on the right would act as a smaller tank in cornering. I think it'd work pretty well with a small rectangular pad in that area. You'd just need to figure out whether you had a baffle or not.
Jim
There is a gap where the floor of the tank curves upward on both the front and rear of the baffle that is about an 1/8" wide at the most and a couple of inches long. Other than that the baffle is spot welded to the floor and the front and rear vertical walls of the tank. There is about a 3/4" gap at the top.
I converted my carb/dizzy setup to EFi/direct fire during the long winter. This necessitated also a complete fuel system update. My car is not a MGB and has a tall tank in the trunk so my setup may not be of any reference to most of you. But, I also thought about using a Holley Hydramat when I first read about it. But the total price inc. shipping and local import fees was pretty bad. Also, my tank is stainless so magnets do not work too well for locating the mat.
So, plan B. I have a new Bosch 044 pump, generic filter sock for inlet, AN fittings, some stainless and this is what I ended with.
IMG_0991_small.jpg
IMG_1001_small.jpg
IMG_1131_small.jpg
I fabricated a round reservoir around the pump and routed the return line there. There are some hole in the bottom of the reservoir. I saw a similar factory setup of some LS-engined GM car (very late Pontiac perhaps ?).
I used to have a filler where the pump is now fitted so I had to cut new holes into the tank. I did wash the tank, let it sit empty outside for a couple of days to get rid of any vapors and even the I water filled it before cutting the holes :-)
As for lines, all are AN6 hoses and hard lines. Overkill most likely but I wanted hard lines underneath the car and -6 size was the smallest diameter that was easily available. I welded a AN6 bung to the factory fuel rail to connect the hose.
The business end is Rover V8 with factory EFi setup (almost stock...).
IMG_1157_small.jpg
The later RB tank I have only has a round tank like structure hanging from the top. The return line from the corner next to the fuel filler drops into the centre of it. No other baffles that I can feel with a long thin stick. Sounds like a good candidate to try the HydraMat. The tank is almost new and very clean inside and out. The sender hole is 2.5 diameter. According to the Holley literature a 3 x 8 mat will fit through a 2.15 " hole.
Can't see why I shouldn't try this out as long as the later style tank will fit in my 73 BGT.
Now to price out the mat and magnets delivered to Toronto.
One step closer
Lorne
Like this?
<img width="800" src="http://wdmgc.com/joomla/images/tech_tips/fuel_tank_baffle/fuel_tank_baffle_01.jpg"/ >
Yes
just like that.
Lorne,
What do you have planned for the supply and return lines? Interested in seeing what you come up with.
Scott
Edit: corrected spelling
Scott
After reading and digesting Jim's excellent tutorial on fuel lines, pressures and horsepower(thanks Jim) I am going to try and use the existing supply and return lines with an inline Bosch 44 type pump. My Rover V8 is as yet not rebuilt, just a runner from a 95 Disco. When I get around to rebuilding it I may change the lines but for now I want to see how plug and play I can make the project. So far so good.
Stay tuned
Thanks
Lorne
The sender opening in the MGB tank is 1.8" diameter, I just measured it on my car. (aftermarket tank, either from VB or Moss, about '93-'94. No baffles. Bottom flat measurements are 20" wide by 18" long.
That 15 x 8 cross is probably the best bet for this tank. Need to get a late sender with the pickup tube.
Jim
OK, so I ordered the mat for my car, plus a late sender, a brass float, and 25 ft each of 5/16" and 3/8" nicopp tubing, and pulled the Bosch 44 clone pump out of the battery well and stripped the old lines, canister filter and inertia switch. Pulled the old sender out and the tank is very clean and rust free from what I've seen so far. (E10 is great for drying the tank).
The mat and mounting magnets have come in. I ordered the magnets with the #6 studs, the #4 ones would probably be easier to position though.
I'm going to use 3/8" for the supply line, 5/16" for the return, and probably 1/2" for the suction. I am also mounting the MGB charcoal canister in the trunk (with the 5/8" vent line going through the floor). The tank vent fitting will be used, routed through the stock vapor separator, into the canister, and from there to the engine compartment using 1/4" nicopp (I really like that stuff for ease of use and good appearance at a fair price). There it will need something like a solenoid valve, EGR control valve or some such to vent it to the engine at speeds above idle. The return will be to the original pickup fitting.
The suction line may be a interesting. Originally the plan was to simply cut off the inside pickup tube and attach a hose to the mat. Still a reasonable plan but to reduce the chances of cavitation, a bulkhead fitting there would be a much happier solution with a 3/8" hose internally and a 1/2" hard line outside. Or some variation thereof, maybe even 1/2" hose inside. Ideally the bung would be at the low point. But, I believe the sender is attached to the internal tube, so it isn't just a matter of cutting off the tube, enlarging the hole, and installing a bulkhead fitting. It'll require some thought once more parts show up.
Now in my system that isn't the whole story because the EFI return supplies the working fluid for the intercooler. Most of that system is now plumbed, using 1/2" anodized aluminum fuel line and JIC fittings. Interestingly, the tube and 0-ring fittings used on the condenser can be converted to 45* taper fittings with a small insert. These are not directly compatible with JIC, but can be used under some conditions (not recommended with tubing connections though), so I can enlarge the lines on the suction side of the circulation pump.
Jim
Where did you order the brass float from, Jim?
Same place I got the sender...Here it is, EnglishParts.com, Kalamazoo, MI.
1 FLOAT, Fuel Tank Sending Unit, Brass. JLM772B $11.69
1 SENDING UNIT, FUEL TANK WITH FUEL PICKUP, 1977-1980 ADU3218 $22.31
Jim
Jim,
Have you thought of getting a newer style Charcoal canister. Ones off the late 90's LR are sealed with three fittings, Tank, Air in and Purge line. Gets rid of any fumes coming out of the MG 5/8 line.
Ever considered the new Nylon fuel lines? Easy to run and every car today runs them as they don't deteriorate from modern fuels. No tools needed if you use the connectors made by S.U.R & R. available at:
https://www.jbtoolsales.com/fuel-system/#/?_=1&filter.categories_hierarchy=Shop%20Supplies%20%26%20Consumables%2FFuel%20System%2FFuel%20Line%20Tools&page=1
Just redid all my lines and it is so nice not having to worry about kinking a line etc when fitting them.
Mike, when it comes to tubing lines of any sort I feel a lot more comfortable with metal. I have found JIC fittings to be a very good balance between cost, complexity, and most importantly, reliability. I tried plastic lines for awhile, for air lines. And while the trucking industry relies heavily on them, I never achieved complete freedom from leaks until I went to metal. Lines suitable for hydraulic service are overkill for low pressure systems, sure, but for reliable plumbing it's hard to beat. Nicopp tubing makes running lines easy enough to make it worthwhile. Good luck finding 1/2" of course, and though aluminum is easy to run it also kinks very easily. So that's a limitation. But still, I feel much more comfortable than with plastic. Just me I guess.
I had the charcoal canister at hand and it is a small part, easy to find room in the trunk for it. A sealed unit probably has merit, but if the charcoal is still good and the car doesn't sit for long periods I suppose it'll work. If not, it shouldn't be hard to change to a different canister. There is a question about theory of operation of course. Does it pressurize the tank? Apply a vacuum to it? Without a vent both of those are possibilities.
Jim
I ran aluminum fuel line in my Camaro & the Roadmaster.
Sender came in, that will be interesting.
Purchased this inline check valve, for $22.50:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/131493328130?ul_noapp=true
Seems high but I saw the assembly photo and it is a high flow piece and should offer little restriction. Best price I could get. Not needed for a carb btw, and I will have a spare if someone wants one.
Getting the fuel out of the tank is the challenge. More on that as I get this sorted out.
I will also be fitting a Bosch 44 clone pump to the Roadmaster, and I think the Holley FPR can be converted to a return regulator just by adding a fitting for the return line (yes, no?) If yes, then I will just have to add the return line to make that work. (No Holley pickup mat in that one, it has a carb. Also doesn't need the check valve.)
Question: Will the late sender assembly physically fit in the early style tank with the baffles? It looks pretty long.
Jim
QuoteQuestion: Will the late sender assembly physically fit in the early style tank with the baffles? It looks pretty long.
No, it won't fit without cutting it down quite a bit That was the first thing I tried back in 03 when I went to FI.
Thanks, I suspected as much. So that method will not get a return for the Roadmaster as it has the baffled tank, and no other fittings. But maybe I could install a fitting on the old style sender.
Jim
Speaking of tank baffles...
http://www.streetmusclemag.com/tech-stories/fuel-cooling-ignition-tech/ricks-hot-rod-shop-explains-important-baffled/
http://documents.holley.com/how_to_choose_a_hydramat.pdf
The mat you selected calls for a 3.15" tank opening and the mgb tank is only 1.8"
Have you tried fitting it in the tank yet?
Yeah, it'll go in. Now if the fitting was in the center it might be a problem but out towards the end it won't be. I don't think fitting the arms will be a problem either, though the mat is kinda stiff and bulky.
Right now I'm waiting on an internal hose, the check valves and some fittings. I'm prepping the stuff for the RM at the same time but no tank mat for that.
The Bosch 44 pump has an 18 x 1.5 mm inlet. I decided to go with 1/2" line and JIC fittings on the suction side. This means a #8 bulkhead fitting in the tank side wall, I've decided on the lower front corner soon as it gets flat, then a 90 and aluminum line from there to the pump. The check valve has a #6 JIC outlet which matches the 3/8" supply line. Return is 5/16" and will use the old tank suction fitting which is the same size. It uses an oddball nut and flare and I haven't sorted that part out yet. Worst case I'll use a #5 JIC union to mate the lines but a tubing sleeve and bubble flare might work. I will retain the existing sender but substitute a brass float.
On the RM I added a common parts store high flow filter with 16 x 1.5 mm fittings. On the outlet side it matches the 1/2" line into the pump but on the inlet side it will mate to the 5/16" suction line from the tank using several fittings to match it all up. The return will be 5/16" line and will mate to the tube in the new late model sender I just bought, using a compression union. (Well that was a pretty fair plan until I just remembered it's a baffled tank. Back to the drawing board. May have to install a #5 bulkhead connector in the sender plate for the short sender instead.)
Now that bulkhead deserves more description. It is a #8 which means a 3/4" hole in the tank. The bulkhead fitting itself has an integral hex flange with a slight shoulder on the long side and an o-ring groove, so the idea is to attach the internal hose (This is presumably before the mat is in. The hose is Parker 1/2" marine grade fuel hose with female JIC-8 ends, costs about $40.) by first fishing a wire in the bulkhead and out the sender hole, then use that to pull the bulkhead through from the inside with the hose attached. Then center it in the hole, install the o-ring, and cinch down the locking nut, sealing the joint. Since it is kinda important both to tighten the nut adequately and to be able to tighten the connecting 90 without turning the bulkhead fitting, I expect to cut a pair of flats in the shank of the bulkhead fitting in between the lock nut and the 90 nut. Then it is a matter of inserting the mat and getting it into position where it will not interfere with the sender float. The short sender helps. I'll probably use a holesaw to cut the hole. Since they always cut oversize I will have to see if I can get an 11/16" and test it on some scrap. Might end up having to finish it with the die grinder, I have a carbide burr that ejects the shavings back towards the grinder and can use the shop vac to add some suction. Anything that gets past that won't get past the mat.
So. The late model sender was a miscue in either case, but would work with a stock size suction line and an unbaffled tank. I never cared for the lack of a grounding lug anyway, and it's nice to keep the sender purely OEM. Except for the float on mine and the #5 fitting on the RM that is.
I had some tubing come in yesterday so I'll be doing tubing runs while I wait, got all the fittings sorted out today finally (which tends towards confusion and the purchase of unnecessary and expensive hydraulic bits) so from here on it should be pretty straightforward.
If we have any more starvation issues with the RM after this it would not be too difficult to duplicate the pickup in my car in order to go to a 1/2" suction line, at a cost of around $275. With that, the 3/8" supply line and the FPR directly behind the carb, that only leaves a short piece of 5/16" line between the carb and FPR and that could be enlarged if needed. But really, I think this ought to do it.
Jim
One way to add a return:
IMG_0003.JPG
IMG_0005.JPG
A #5 bulkhead fitting was cut down, and a nut made out of a lug nut by turning off the flats to reduce the diameter, cutting down the length, drilling the end, and then pressing a T-50 Torque bit through the hole so it could be used as a driver to tighten the nut. The sender flange was drilled with a 1/2" hole, one flat of the hex on the bulkhead was ground down to clear the insulator and then the works assembled with an o-ring and tightened.
Jim
Nearing completion of the fuel system on my car, waiting on a hose and check valve to finish up. Here are a couple of shots, one of the charcoal canister and one of the fuel, vent, and hydraulic lines going over the rear axle, still have to add the 1/2" suction line. I decided to tuck the canister up behind the rear wheelwell. The tank vent is taken off the filler neck and goes through the stock vapor separator before going through the bulkhead fitting in the floor of the trunk and to the canister. That only left the suction line to the engine. Because of the blower I will have to either include a check valve or some other means of keeping boost out of the vent line.
Jim
IMG_0006.JPG
IMG_0007.JPG
Jim
Did the HydraMat fit easily through the available hole in the fuel tank?
Haven't done that part yet, still waiting for the hose. Don't see it being a problem though.
Jim
Jim,
Are you adding a tube to your return fitting and aiming it at the supply line fitting on the mat or are you thinking that isn't necessary?
The return is plumbed to the original pickup tube, so with a stick I should be able to bend that to direct it wherever I'd like within reason. Pointing it towards the mat would probably be a good thing to do.
Jim
Oh, I'm getting mixed up I think. The fitting you put in the sending unit is for the Roadmaster I'll bet? 😊
Anxious to see your progress on this.
Ordinarily Scott, that should be correct. However, the BBB crowd assures me that a 5/16" line is inadequate for any section of fuel line for this engine, with this carb. Add to that the large size of the Bosch 44 pump inlet, and a new plan is needed.
Currently I intend to pop a hole in the bottom of the tank on the RM and install a #8 AN fitting with 1/2" line to the pump inlet. More details when I have more parts, but I'm leaning towards a #8 banjo fitting. Carl's 3/8" supply line will stay, the line from the FPR to the carb will be increased to 3/8" and a 5/16" return line will be added. (The pump dead-heads at over 70 psi so a return will be necessary.) Redundant filters will be removed, and line pressure will be increased to 7 psi.
It could be confusing because I'm doing both my '71 and the RM, nearly at the same time. The '71 gets the tank mat, an internal hose, and a bulkhead fitting on the side of the tank, whereas the RM will get a fitting on the tank bottom and an external pre-filter. Both with Bosch 44 clone fuel pumps. The tank mat is expected to allow the single external pump system to work with EFI.
I suspect the 15" x 15" cross tank mat (part #16-100) would be a good selection for an unbaffled tank with the drain coming through the bottom of the tank. It would take some special fittings to do it (probably custom made) but if that mat was flipped upside down and a banjo fitting used in the rear drain location, arms positioned in line with the car, that could give the best orientation for dealing with slosh. I sort of wish I'd used that one instead of the one I got.
Jim
Sounds good Jim. I wonder if there is an unbaffled tank without that big vapor canister thing that doesn't have the original supply line spot welded to the bottom center of the tank and uses the late sending unit with the built in supply line? If such a thing exists it would seem that would be the easiest tank to use for this.
I have an early tank with no baffles and no big canister thing in the middle either. I can't tell you if the pickup is spot welded to the bottom, but even if it is, just move the holley fuel mat off to the side so an inside corner of the cross is sitting right next to what will be the return fuel line. No, it won't be 1 inch away from the fuel pickup but it's still dumping out right onto the center of the mat.
I would attach a right angle fitting to the fuel mat then put a hose barb on it. I would attach an overly long rubber hose to that right angle fitting, and then zip tie/attach a magnet to the middle of that hose.
Slide the end of the mat with the fuel fitting in first and push it far back into the tank. Let the magnet attached to the hose attach to the tank towards the back (bumper) of the tank then slide the hose over the pickup in the late sender and hose clamp it on. The pickup attached to the late sender is facing down and towards the gauge float. Perhaps bend it so it's facing a little more towards the back of the car?
The magnet attached to the hose will keep the hose from moving around and messing with the fuel gauge sender.
Does it need to be harder than this?
That sounds pretty good. Your engine will determine if a 5/16" pickup line is adequate. In both cases I'm working on it is not. (Keep in mind when working with these lines that the area of the tube ID is quadrupled when you double the diameter.) The line needs to be bent so that the hose will not interfere with the float. I'm using a 30" internal hose which will essentially go from corner to corner. The magnet along the hose is a nice touch but I think the fitting to the mat should be kept as low as possible in order to keep the mat as flat against the bottom of the tank as possible. I've ordered a banjo fitting to do that, allowing the hose to come off directly above the mat fitting. Also, the bottom rib that runs between the two round drain locations is a perfect location for one of the mat arms, provided the old pickup does not interfere. I would try to center the 15x15 mat on the rear of those round spots.
I had not heard about the pickup tube being spot welded to the tank bottom but I will check that out a bit later, probably today. It should be possible to position the mat to avoid it.
Jim
So here we go with putting the tank mat in the tank. First a 3/8 x 1-1/2" pipe nipple drilled for a banjo fitting:
IMG_0014.JPG
Plus the banjo, copper washers and hex cap:
IMG_0015.JPG
Attached and ready to go in the tank, with the bulkhead fitting in position:
IMG_0016.JPG
And in place inside the tank after a good deal of pushing and pulling:
IMG_0019.JPG
Should have drilled the bulkhead for the banjo first, more on that next time.
Jim
Looks like you positioned the mat towards the back (bumper) end of the tank as opposed to the front (axle) end of the tank?
Correct. Fuel slosh will be towards the rear under acceleration. Note the location of the stock pickup, and one of the short arms going forward from that point about 3 inches. That is in the center channel and should pick up fuel at cruise better than the stock pickup. On cornering or acceleration it should be MUCH better than the stock pickup. But you can see why I felt the 15 x 15" "X" would be a better choice.
Finishing the install today, more photos to follow.
Jim
Would 15x15 even fit with the existing fuel pick up welded to the middle?
You could always put 2 of the crosses in and plumb them together. :)
QuoteFuel slosh will be towards the rear under acceleration.
So? If you are that low on fuel you shouldn't be accelerating, you should be light footin' it! ;)
So first I shoved a short piece of rubber tubing into the bulkhead, with a wire tie threaded through it so I could pull it back out. This was to keep chips out of the line. When I cross drilled the fitting the drill made short work of the wire tie:
IMG_0024.JPG
Here's how it looked just before deburring and clean-up.
IMG_0025.JPG
...but there was enough left that with a strong set of forceps and some WD40 I got the plug out.
IMG_0026.JPG
Finally, I was able to assemble the banjo and run the suction line to the pump.
IMG_0030.JPG
That left wiring the pump, for which I used a DelCity Deutsch compatible rough service 2 pin connector which worked very nicely. I recommend the DC service kit, it costs $100 but has a whole bunch of connectors. Dan bought one and this is the first time either of us had had occasion to use it, and it worked well.
I still have to relocate the inertia switch. I expect to reuse the Ford switch I have and put it in the trunk in easy reach.
Jim
I think if you are going to get to the gas station, you will have to accelerate. And probably go uphill too. Unless you can coast all the way, in which case, who needs gas?
So yeah, the stock pickup might be a problem for putting a hole right in that spot. But, you could go 1-1/2" forward of it and run the arms diagonally. I expect that could even work better.
Jim
Yeah, I like that idea!
The only problem with it is that then you don't have anything down in the little channel which runs from the front to the center of the tank where the stock pickup is attached. But if you are essentially covering the rest of the tank with the arms that only amounts to a couple of ounces of fuel.
This is not a cheap fix. The mat itself, in 15 x 15" costs $300. Plus another $20 for each banjo fitting if you go that way, $10-20 each for any hydraulic fittings, $60 for an assembled fuel rated hose with JIC ends, and so on. Counting the pump, tubing and check valve plus the special fitting for the pump inlet you could easily be approaching $500 before you are finished with it, plus the cost of a quality regulator. (but again, good clones are available at greatly reduced cost)
I still think it's an elegant solution, and with time hopefully the cost will come down a bit. But it is almost certain to be patented (has anybody checked?) so maybe not all that much or that fast.
Jim
I think it's great. I am more interested in a decently baffled tank, for now.
Did anyone have a picture of the stock tank with the round baffle taken from the top?
I'd like to know where the round baffle is in relation to the center rib in the bottom of the tank. I now have all the fittings to do the Roadmaster.
Incidentally, for anyone using a Bosch44 pump and keeping the check valve that comes with it, to do that you need a banjo fitting (12mm to 6an for a 3/8" fuel line, I think you can get that from Techna-fit.com) plus you need an acorn nut to seal off the top of the banjo. It's 12mm x 1.5 and oddly enough lug nuts are available in that size and will work.
Jim
I think Keith Tanner's HIWD includes that photo...
Good catch Curtis. That helps some, but he's done some modifications and I think he's moved things around a bit. Anyone else?
Jim
http://www.mgexp.com/phorum/read.php?1,2199740
Perfect. Thanks Scott.
Based on that, I should move 3 inches forwards of the rear end of the rib to avoid the tube end bracket.
Jim
Update: There has been a failure of the fuel pump which I've traced back to most probably air entering the system. The fuel pump has an internal component that looks like a wire wound choke, possibly put there for electrical noise suppression or to reduce brush arcing and this component was obviously overloaded and burned up, which indicates either an overload or an air pocket inside the pump. Considering no fuel drained out when I disconnected the lines the latter is indicated.
All components are acceptable back as far as the pickup mat, except that some swelling of the internal hose's jacket was observed. Internally it was unobstructed. The hose position was as installed so there was no indication of siphon issues. The tank had about 9 gallons of fuel when the lines were disconnected, about 3 gallons at failure.
It is possible, since the pump was installed near vertical with the inlet on top that air was in the pump and was never removed, however the lack of any fuel in the feed line would indicate other issues.
One possibility is that the membrane of the pickup was damaged upon installation. Since it had to be stuffed through the sender hole and it is a relatively tight fit this seem the most probable cause.
I have removed the Holley tank mat and installed a #8-AN bottom drain. But since the tank has no baffles I'm working on a low mounted gravity fed canister type filter to feed the pump which I will try to mount horizontally. My current thinking is that a horizontally mounted spin-on canister type filter can use a top bleed with a light check valve to return air to the tank and provide an uninterrupted supply. Fitting it in properly is the challenge.
Jim
I've been very happy with my Tanks Inc. in-tank fuel pump. Is your injection a return style?
Yes it is.
Eventually I plan to build a tank and some sort of in-tank pump will be a part of that effort I'm sure. But for now this will do. It does look a bit odd. I mounted the filter behind and below the inner fender skirt and there's a 1/2" line that loops around to the pump which is horizontal and just below the bottom of the tank. With the car on the ground you can see the filter, the line and the pump.
But, the supply side is gravity fed and there is no need for a lift pump. I also installed a bleed line on the filter back to the top of the tank and put a ball-check in that line. That will let the air or vapor out and help keep the filter full.
Less than perfect, but an effective stop-gap solution until I can get the new tank made. Fuel pressure is steady and I can get back to tuning the engine.
Which pump did you use Jim? The PA-4 or the PA-6? I watched their video and it looks like a good system. Probably makes sense to use that.
Jim
Not particularly fuel tank pick up related, but has there been much experience with fuel line (stainless braid covered) degradation with return
type fuel injection installations? I may have experienced my problem due to the original tank being cleaned out by E10 fuel, but then again, maybe my fuel lines are affected? I have in the neighborhood of 1000 miles on my project, and ran into a loss of power issue. Investigation (and screaming from the pump)
led me to a clogged 40 micron after pump filter. The clog was a dark gray to black jelly-like. Articles I have read refer to oxidation of the oxygenated fuel
by the action of the fuel circulation in a return system. I have returned to straight gasoline, but that is becoming unavailable in some locations.
Dennis
I have the PA-4, the PA-6 wasn't available when I bought mine. I asked them if I needed to upgrade to the higher capacity pump and they said that the -4 would be plenty for what I have. If I ever put a 383 in it I may do the upgrade but that won't happen unless the pistons go south in the current engine.
I originally had used AN hoses in the fuel system but I switched over to SAE 30R9 fuel injection specific hose to avoid the deterioration issue.
Lots of ethanol-free gas in Corn Country. ;)
https://www.pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=IA
I went to metal lines. No degradation there. The only issue is movement of the engine which has to be accommodated some way. Teflon lined hoses are a safe solution. Putting loops in the line also works.
Jim
Carl is correct, so far there are plain gas sellers here in corn cob country. I want to travel to Minnesota and Michigan, states that don't appear to have a regulation regarding posting of ethanol content. I recall when this blend hit the market in the late 70's or so, and lots of trouble then. Maybe I'm overreacting-nah, couldn't be! I have steel (had aluminum for ease of bending, read article on E10 attacking aluminum, and tore it out) fuel lines except for sections just off the fuel tank to the T-shirt area, and again from the chassis rail just under the firewall to the fuel rail and the same for the return. Well, just something to chat about, now on to
driving when the temp goes down some. I will investigate the teflon, but the fittings are different I think. I sure would hate to replace all those pretty
AN fittings!
Dennis
Teflon hose should use AN fittings. Same as JIC.
Jim
It has been a couple of years since you did this Jim, are you still using the Hydramat? If so, are you happy? Would you do anything different if you had to do it again?
My post of July, '17 stated that I had removed the hydramat, I think I stated the reasons there.
Overall I was not that impressed with it, it really seems more like a gimmick when considering street use. Off road or racing may be different. I actually had better results by just positioning the tank pickup as a drain in the lowest point of the tank. I don't consider it to be worth the expense and certainly not worth the the trouble of stuffing it through the OEM sender hole without risking a puncture.
Jim