Another lift pump lets me down.

[IDIBRONCO]

I don't see why it would restrict the flow. There's no reason to restrict it. Are you sure that the IP returns to #1? All of the ones that I remember seeing return to the driver's side. That makes more sense than returning to #1. In order to get a return to #1, you'd have to go around the fast idle solenoid and the thermostat housing. Of course yours could be set up differently for some reason.

 

[Cant Write]

if #1 cylinder is RHS, yes, it drops below and winds around to #1. Then #7,8 tee together and return to tank.

#2 returns to fuel filter down on the transmission crossmember. (Relocated)

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Cant Write]

@IDIBRONCO i don’t know, after all I’ve been reading I was just thinking of separating the IP return from the injector returns.

All in hope to minimize pressure in the fuel injector return circuits.

Course if I “tee” the IP in at the back of the block, am I creating that pressure upstream anyways? I guess a pressure gauge will tell me.

 

[Cant Write]

You must be registered for see images attach

This photo shows the IP return in wire loom snaking over towards #1.

 

[IDIBRONCO]

@IDIBRONCO i don’t know, after all I’ve been reading I was just thinking of separating the IP return from the injector returns.

All in hope to minimize pressure in the fuel injector return circuits.

Course if I “tee” the IP in at the back of the block, am I creating that pressure upstream anyways? I guess a pressure gauge will tell me.

You have to remember that, in trucks anyway, the early style of return had a hard line coming off of the IP and running underneath the injector lines. Then the injector returns would T into it at the back of the engine like you're talking about doing. The later style of return has the IP return running into the injector return lines. I think you'll be doing some re-engineering for no gains. I don't think that either style creates much pressure in the return lines. If there was enough pressure to be a problem, I'm sure that the return lines would have been designed differently.

 

[Cant Write]

I think you'll be doing some re-engineering for no gains

How about a “warm-n-fuzzy” does that count for nothing

The hose was hard and brittle, so a small peace of mind.

 

[IDIBRONCO]

How about a “warm-n-fuzzy” does that count for nothing

The hose was hard and brittle, so a small peace of mind.

Just replacing the hose isn't re-engineering. Re-routing the whole system would be. Of course yours has already been so it's up to you. I don't see any performance benefit or draw back coming from re-engineering your return system. No more or less pressure in your return lines. I doubt that you have that problem anyway. If you feel like you do, you can run two separate return lines to the tank, one from the IP, and the other from the injectors.

 

[Cant Write]

I replaced the hose and just rerouted it downstream of the injectors. Tee’ing it in to the single 5/16ths return line to the tank.

Re-engineered nothing, just simply moved its connection point for peace of mind after reading others posts.

You are right in that I am sure there is no gain of any kind. But I was under there anyway and had the spare hose.

Based on the thread started by beanballs, those are the symptoms I’m having.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[IDIBRONCO]

Based on the thread started by beanballs, those are the symptoms I’m having.

I'm not 100% sure on that. You say that you have issues while pulling long grades, while it sounds like he has issues at cold idle and during a long downhill. Now I may be wrong since I'm trying to piece together two separate threads.

 

[Cant Write]

I'm not 100% sure on that. You say that you have issues while pulling long grades, while it sounds like he has issues at cold idle and during a long downhill. Now I may be wrong since I'm trying to piece together two separate threads.

Haha!! I realize I am all over the place. I’ll start another one.

 

[OlKoot]

You won't notice any difference, performance wise. But the idea behind volume flow in fuel return, is to keep the air out of the system, and to get the fuel temperature down. Less restriction better flow, so relocating the line to go back to the tee, cools the fuel out of the pump faster then connecting them together close to the pump and making the fuel stay hot until it gets back behind the engine.

 

[tbowker]

Okay, I'm going to add to the original topic of failing lift pumps. I have a 1986 F350 with a 7.3idi (originally came with the 6.9) and had the mechanical lift pump fail at 2300 miles. This engine is fresh from Jasper yet I'm certain the lift pump was a Chinese import. Despite the fact that it's still under warranty, I had no intention of having another mechanical lift pump installed when this one crapped the bed so soon out of the gate. I installed a duralift facet pump after reading many pros and cons about electric facet pumps. What I came away with is that the majority of reviews I read or you tube videos I saw, the failures involved people who either used cheap pumps from their local auto parts store, or installed the facet pump in the engine compartment. At the risk of getting my man card pulled, I read the manufacturers instructions which clearly stated that the pumps are designed to push, not pull. Despite the fact that it says it's good for 10' of lift, my front tank is further than that from the engine compartment, even further for the rear tank. I mounted it on the frame rail just north of the fuel tank selector valve. I only have about 1k miles on it since this modification but so far it's running smooth and I'm getting 16mpg city driving. I haven't felt the need to install a pressure regulator yet, but it's an option.
Long winded, I know.

 

[danda]

My original return line was leaking behind engine and turbo at or near the tee(s), so I deleted it and instead ran a hose from IP around the side of engine down to frame hard line. The front driver's side injector tees into this line.

Its maybe not optimal because return fuel from the passenger side must flow past the driver side injectors, but I don't notice any performance difference and I love that now I can easily inspect and fix the entire return line.

edit: It could easily be done without the double-flow, but I was trying to avoid changing return line caps as much as possible, so I just ran a line from rear passenger to rear driver side, which has two ports.

 

[franklin2]

The lift spec for the pump is vertical lift. You do not have 10ft vertical lift from the stock tank, even if you put the pump on top of the engine. We bought a 90 f350 chassis cab with a dump on it. Someone had put one of those little cheap square pumps that click on the pass side inner fender. We had several problems through the years with that truck, but never a problem with the pump or fuel delivery.

On my 89 f250, I bought the same type of pump and mounted it up front under the pass side of the radiator so it was close to the original mechanical pump. That made running the fuel lines easy. Works fine for me.

I have the same little square pump delivering fuel in my Bronco II. I had a terrible time with vapor lock on that vehicle with the mechanical pump, of course it's gasoline. So I did mount the little electric pump midway down the frame like the other poster mentioned. Fixed.