Two more pictures. One shows a partial amount of all the junk that came out of the fuel pump inlet on the factory Ford design, and the other one, that compares the flow rate of the stock Ford pump vs the Bosch pump. Same time interval. Significantly different amounts of fuel delivered. I'll agree that the Ford pump was already strangled by whatever leftover debris may have been stuck inside the housing in that built in screen that they thought was a good idea to put in there.

 

Whoa, stop the bus. This guy here, the guy most likely to pull an engine for an oil change, but dropping a fuel tank on the road side and all the sudden we're on a midnight run to Walgreens for some man-pons for his man-gina? Come on, it's about the journey not the destination. (Friggin awesome band too btw) Dammit now I gotta go dig up some old Journey tunes or I'll be butchering song lyrics in my head for days.

 

Lol. No, I’m only pulling the engine (or fuel tank) ‘if I HAVE to’. (I did change a turbo on the side of the road once, but it was a lucky opportunity to self rescue because I happened to be rolling with a good turbo).

I will say the failure rate of fuel pumps on trucks I’ve done in/tank and pre-pump mods to is very, very low and filter change is rare. But, the ability to service these items easily is still important to me.

 

You might be the second most likely, but @KubotaOrange76 is THE most likely. I think I even said that to him via text a little while back.

Entertaining post either way, as usual.

 

Hey come on now

Enjoyed this thread....

 

All of this discussion has me wondering about the approach of deleting the stock fuel bowl, adding a (2) line fuel manifold block that collects the single supply line and splits it to the two front of head ports (Nothing feeding the back ports) Supply would come from an Air DogII5G. With this approach you keep the origional supply scheme at the heads, but get the added benefit of having a regulator at the Air Dog for pressure with the return of excess fuel right from the Air Dog back to the tank. (2 line regulated return). You also get the benefit of freeing up space in the engine valley by removing the fuel bowl and in my opinion filter changes are easier and you can get 2 Micron filtration vs the motorcraft 10 micron.

Thoughts?

 

 

Two actually, the front fuel rail port on the passenger head is a Mother Trucker, due to the hpop reservoir setting nearly on top of it. Second is the use of the front ports all together. Setting on relatively flat ground the driveline slopes slightly rearward, which would make the front ports somewhat of an air trap. Diesel fuel inherently forms tiny bubbles that travel along everywhere it goes. So every time the engine is shut down those bubbles will collect and leave an air pocket. With nowhere to go but forced through the injection system it will likely give some idle hiccups till worked through.

Side note: What is the obsession w/ ultra fine micron filter ratings? I understand we want clean fuel and all but seriously do we know how tiny even 10 micron is? It's 0.00039 of an inch. That is 10x smaller than a human hair, not 0.010, 10 times as in a whole decimal point. We're talking microscopic here. Is anything but the fuel pump really going to notice the difference between 10 micron and 2 micron filtered fuel?

 

Oem filter is 7 micron. Post pump the injectors can notice less chance of junk causing issue if the post pump filter is 2-3. There is no downside to the finer micron rating, as long as filters are changed when they should be so the pump can flow appropriate volume/psi without strain.

This whole “air in fuel” is way, way over dramatized and has been for 2 decades now. Basic in tank mods and healthy fuel lines/fittings is a good thing. There is zero issue from feeding from the front two ports, or the rear two, or the drivers front and passenger rear, or the passenger front and the drivers rear, or from all 4.

Then there is the whole regulated return from engine idea, stock regulates at filter housing, aftermarket regulates after it flows through the heads, which keeps psi a bit more steady, but sends warmer fuel back to the tank, which if anything could be argued to cause more in tank condensation issues in cold northern climates. The airdog returns fuel before it ever hits the engine and therefore helps alleviate the condensation issue of it exists at all.

All in all the stock fuel bowl/regulation system is actually one of the best and most reliable on the market. I myself only removed it to get a more open valley for lots of goofing around with different experiments.

 

Cold northern climates experience issues with fuel gelling in the lines. Warmed fuel returned to draw point in the tank was the OEM strategy to alleviate fuel gelling in the pickup line.

 

Here's my .02 on the Regulated Return. I have one of the first from ITP (and if I had to do it all over again I'd probably leave well enough alone.),

First, the RR creates many more possible leak points.
Second , and I think this is a real thing but I don't have the data to back up my hypothesis. When it is like 90 degrees out and you are lugging some 20k lbs gross combined down the interstate that the heat soak of the engine and fuel flowing thru the heads...and returning to the fuel tank....raises the in tank fuel temp higher than desired, and the heat is noticeable when you stop to fill when you are down to under a 1/4 tank. I can notice the heat from the tank when I spin the fuel cap off.

 

I still say putting the pump in the tank is the best solution. Pressurizes the entire system and completely eliminates any chance of air intrusion.

 

Yes, agreed. My airdog did gell on me last winter, but it was cold and I didnt have additive in fuel.

Regardless warmer fuel in tank is more prone to condensate and therefore more water in fuel is a likelihood. The oem setup regulates at the filer before fuel goes to heads so the fuel being warmed is minimal.

Whereas the “popular” aftermarket regulated return systems the fuel flows through the heads further increasing the fuel temperature rise over what the oem would.

Another aspect that had been argued on the said popular regulated returns would be in a performance aspect of fuel flowing through the heads could remain cooler as it may have less time to be heated before being injected. This in theory, could lead to an minimal decrease in fuel temp as it is injected, cooler fuel spray could combust more efficiently and lead to another %.0000000001 more horsepowers.

All in all, the engineers completed the design of this antiquated fuel system amazingly well, which is a big impressive deal considering the corporate and governmental restrictions, regulations, and nonsense they had to work under.

 

I find it interesting that this supposed issue only seems to be present in diesel fuel in the 7.3 tanks and systems and not in any other diesels. Healthy system connections in any system and air wont be an issue

 

It's ALWAYS easier to push a fluid than to pull it. I would go so far as to think that partially gelled fuel will be much more easily pushed than pulled. Even to the point of if it's jelled, it still has to resist 65psi to not get pumped. There's no getting around that law of nature. That's why I will always advocate a tank mounted fuel pump.