Magnum 360 carb swap complete
Record Breaker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,130
Likes: 15
From: Somewhere in Kentucky
Ok, I'm posting the pictures for MCCART. Please direct questions to him. I hope I got the order of these pictures right. This looks like a pretty sweet setup though!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Champion
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,717
Likes: 10
From: N/A
External pump/internal pump that is no reason to drill a hole in the bottom side of the gas tank like that. There are many other SAFE ways that could have been done. There are smart people here on DF that could have suggested other ways this could have been done.
Whatever at least it's not on my roads/trails up here.
Edit: It's his rig and help/suggestions instead of criticism would have gone a long way.
Whatever at least it's not on my roads/trails up here.
Edit: It's his rig and help/suggestions instead of criticism would have gone a long way.
Last edited by merc225hp; Nov 1, 2014 at 12:28 PM.
Thread Starter
|
Veteran
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 369
Likes: 1
From: cedar hill mo
Sorry I was out of town and just got back today.
My motor is a stock rebuilt magnum engine with the conversion MOPAR m1 intake on it. Stock cam for now
Yes it's in the bottom of the tank. Drill a hole in the tank and put the AN bulkhead fitting in it, that's what they're made for, there's a nut on both sides that you tighten together and uses Teflon washers so it won't leak. Only reason for putting it in the tank is that most (this one particularly) fuel pumps are made to push not pull. Meaning that, yes they will suck fuel from the tank, but having a gravity feed helps them tremendously and that is how they are supposed to be ran, below a fuel cell with the pickup in the bottom. I don't see what's wrong with it? I kind of put it on the side of the tank to avoid ripping it out, I'm in the process of building tank shield/skid plate to completely avoid it. It runs great, and I won't be putting a fuel pump in it every month from burning the motors out of them. I've ran it like this for probably 200 miles now, don't see the issue with it?
Sorry about the wiring mess, I gotta do some more with it.
My motor is a stock rebuilt magnum engine with the conversion MOPAR m1 intake on it. Stock cam for now
Yes it's in the bottom of the tank. Drill a hole in the tank and put the AN bulkhead fitting in it, that's what they're made for, there's a nut on both sides that you tighten together and uses Teflon washers so it won't leak. Only reason for putting it in the tank is that most (this one particularly) fuel pumps are made to push not pull. Meaning that, yes they will suck fuel from the tank, but having a gravity feed helps them tremendously and that is how they are supposed to be ran, below a fuel cell with the pickup in the bottom. I don't see what's wrong with it? I kind of put it on the side of the tank to avoid ripping it out, I'm in the process of building tank shield/skid plate to completely avoid it. It runs great, and I won't be putting a fuel pump in it every month from burning the motors out of them. I've ran it like this for probably 200 miles now, don't see the issue with it?
Sorry about the wiring mess, I gotta do some more with it.
Last edited by mccart; Nov 4, 2014 at 12:13 AM.
Thread Starter
|
Veteran
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 369
Likes: 1
From: cedar hill mo
Also, to make it work with the factory sending unit, you'd have to figure out a way to pull fuel thru the factory "regulator" in the top of the tank too. Easier and easier on pumps the way I did it
Champion
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,891
Likes: 8
From: NorCal
My issue with the fuel suction location and orientation, it remains a risk for rupture. Regardless of pressure...that would still be a healthy leak. Do any vehicles from the factory have a fuel fitting exposed in similar? My inclination is no. All fuel lines are mounted on/within the frame rail or similar.
Having said that though, don't feel a need to take my input as credible. Instead, take it to your state inspections location and have it "approved". That would squash any concern of this application if indeed deemed acceptable or it's not. If it's acceptable then you have justification from credible agency. If it's not acceptable, then you'd be informed of (hopefully) possible alternatives to achieve the same functional needs.
You don't just do something to "make it work". Accidents are indeed accidents, however, doing a mod that "may" contribute to more severe outcome can be made liable (i.e,. beadlock wheels, full hydro steering, etc.).
If there is a pull pump that can be used, then don't you think the regulating agency would insist on it (assuming the application you have again was approved)?
Having said that though, don't feel a need to take my input as credible. Instead, take it to your state inspections location and have it "approved". That would squash any concern of this application if indeed deemed acceptable or it's not. If it's acceptable then you have justification from credible agency. If it's not acceptable, then you'd be informed of (hopefully) possible alternatives to achieve the same functional needs.
You don't just do something to "make it work". Accidents are indeed accidents, however, doing a mod that "may" contribute to more severe outcome can be made liable (i.e,. beadlock wheels, full hydro steering, etc.).
If there is a pull pump that can be used, then don't you think the regulating agency would insist on it (assuming the application you have again was approved)?
Administrator
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 87,461
Likes: 4,218
From: Clayton MI
My issue with the fuel suction location and orientation, it remains a risk for rupture. Regardless of pressure...that would still be a healthy leak. Do any vehicles from the factory have a fuel fitting exposed in similar? My inclination is no. All fuel lines are mounted on/within the frame rail or similar.
Having said that though, don't feel a need to take my input as credible. Instead, take it to your state inspections location and have it "approved". That would squash any concern of this application if indeed deemed acceptable or it's not. If it's acceptable then you have justification from credible agency. If it's not acceptable, then you'd be informed of (hopefully) possible alternatives to achieve the same functional needs.
You don't just do something to "make it work". Accidents are indeed accidents, however, doing a mod that "may" contribute to more severe outcome can be made liable (i.e,. beadlock wheels, full hydro steering, etc.).
If there is a pull pump that can be used, then don't you think the regulating agency would insist on it (assuming the application you have again was approved)?
Having said that though, don't feel a need to take my input as credible. Instead, take it to your state inspections location and have it "approved". That would squash any concern of this application if indeed deemed acceptable or it's not. If it's acceptable then you have justification from credible agency. If it's not acceptable, then you'd be informed of (hopefully) possible alternatives to achieve the same functional needs.
You don't just do something to "make it work". Accidents are indeed accidents, however, doing a mod that "may" contribute to more severe outcome can be made liable (i.e,. beadlock wheels, full hydro steering, etc.).
If there is a pull pump that can be used, then don't you think the regulating agency would insist on it (assuming the application you have again was approved)?