12 Guests, 0 Users

Author Topic: 78 2.3 fuel pump  (Read 2933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ToniJ1960

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • FeedBack: +13/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Poll Voter Fifth year Anniversary Windows User
78 2.3 fuel pump
« on: May 23, 2014, 05:50:44 PM »
 I think I need to replace my fuel pump. If the car sits a few days without starting it it wont start. I found I could pull the hose that goes from the pump to the filter at the carb, pour some gas in the hose so it drains down to the pump put the hose back on and it will start.

 Now I remember trying to change the fuel pump on my 79 wagon once some years ago, and it gave me a fit I had to get someone to help.

 If I remember right, theres an arm near the top of the pump that goes into the block, and I couldnt get the pump to lign up with the bolts because of the tension on the pump lever.

 What Im wondering is, is there a way to get it set up so nothing is pressing down on that lever and the pump will go on easy? Like turning the engine over without starting it.

 Is it safe to crank it with the pump pulled away?

Offline jeremysdad

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
  • FeedBack: +83/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Restoring a Daily Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User
Re: 78 2.3 fuel pump
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2014, 08:18:12 PM »
AutoZone used to sell a universal electric fuel pump. Really should be wired to an oil pressure  or inertia switch like a new car, but...would probably be easier in your situation.

I drove my first car (64 Falcon) for years with one wired straight to the ignition lead with no issues. :)

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 78 2.3 fuel pump
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2014, 02:52:04 AM »
' Is it safe to crank it with the pump pulled away?'

Yes and you are headed in the right direction. Make sure no live fuel around to ignite from spark.

'...is there a way to get it set up so nothing is pressing down on that lever and the pump will go on easy?'

Yes again, there is an eccentric that wobbles, the high point pumps the arm, the low point is pump off, crank motor till pump goes on easier. It will not be at full zero but close enough that you can get the bolts going. With eccentric at full lift you cannot get the pump bolts started.

One of the pump check valves that pump fuel is leaking to backflow, that empties the pump and line out to have to prime the whole thing before ever filling carb. New pump time. Ethanol in the fuel could be sticking a valve open as well, the residual sugar in it does it. Carbed cars that sit a lot absolutely hate ethanol. Only when you drive them every day does it not be a problem.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
  • FeedBack: +139/-0
  • Soylent Green

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: 78 2.3 fuel pump
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2014, 01:29:47 PM »
There is no actual sugar in ethyl alcohol by the time it gets distilled out for fuel. It causes sticking and deterioration by other means such as attacking soft parts directly or attracting moisture out of the air and causing corrosion that way. E10 gasoline also seems to go stale and develop gummy deposits much faster than non-alcohol fuel.

The universal pumps at Blotto Zone are overpriced for being a pulse pump, IMO. They have rubber bits that may or may not be resistance to ethanol and were $60 last time I noticed. I got a cheap Chinese rotary pump off eBay for $16 and change. Shipped.

It will be cheaper and easier to replace the mechanical one. Just rotate the engine until the pump arm is on the eccentric's lowest part and it will be easier to install.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline ToniJ1960

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 544
  • FeedBack: +13/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 5
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Poll Voter Fifth year Anniversary Windows User
Re: 78 2.3 fuel pump
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2014, 05:11:33 PM »
 Thank you everyone :) I remember trying it that one time and had a fit I knew there was something I was missing.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 78 2.3 fuel pump
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2014, 12:59:18 AM »
'There is no actual sugar in ethyl alcohol by the time it gets distilled out for fuel.'

Not sure I agree. Whatever it is will not hurt the part at all but sticks when it dries, water releases it instantly and part is unharmed. I have pure heck with it on bike needle/seats either rubber or steel to brass. Even simply touching a finger to part then knocks it loose and carb then quits flooding. I developed a procedure using air blown in the fuel line to pop them loose simply to avoid taking carbs apart every time I wanted to drive the bike. problem has been going on for a while, but no parts changed, they still work fine as long as knocked loose. I eventually started draining carb bank to stop it. Actually probably still does it, but the load when float is at bottom then pops it loose by itself. It really got old turning fuel on after two weeks sitting only to see all 4 carbs then overflow everywhere.

I also clean parts in fuel being it is the cheapest solvent, doing it always outside. Your fingers get a sticky feeling as well when they dry, leaving a white powderish substance in the skin grooves. Ethanol is an alcohol and should dry up about 100% with no deposit left. So something is being left there.

I do agree that left in a carb it dries like 10X faster than straight fuel did by itself. If you accidentally spill fuel say while filling mower up it's like a sci-fi special effect, how fast the puddle dries up.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 78 2.3 fuel pump
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2014, 01:12:10 AM »
Went looking for a second and found this out of a paper on fermentation QC testing of ethanol yields........ ......parts of it caught my eye.

'Optimized fermentation leads to increased ethanol yield and profitability of the biofuel facility. Residual sugars left unfermented lower ethanol concentrations, increase plant water usage and often require additional fermentation equipment cleaning and maintenance. Consequently, fuel ethanol producers continually look for more efficient processing techniques.'

See more at: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/technical-documents/articles/reporter-us/fuel-ethanol-fermentation.html#sthash.rLsjWYhq.dpuf

So better fermentation produces purer ethanol with less sugar left. You're asking me to believe they will spend ultimate money to get ultimate quality product and unfortunately since US business is involved I cannot go there. I still stand by the sugar statement. Chemical processes always can be improved but rarely do they detail refine down to converting absolute 100% perfect conversion of product.

If I'm looking at the chart correctly some of the sugars are left when ethanol is made (dextrin, maltose, maltriose, D-glucose, all are sugars), I'm assuming in varying quantities along with ethanol, the idea being to get as much ethanol out of that as possible. Residual saccharides= residual sugars. They are quantitatively measuring the sugar left over after the process.

Offline Clydesdale80

  • Pinto Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • FeedBack: +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Linux User Mobile User Windows User
Re: 78 2.3 fuel pump
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2014, 10:33:13 AM »
Inefficient  fermentation leads to more sugar left after fermentation but should not affect the purity of the final alcohol product after distillation.
Bought a 1978 hatchback to be my first car.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
  • FeedBack: +139/-0
  • Soylent Green

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: 78 2.3 fuel pump
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2014, 12:27:54 PM »
Fermentables don't make it into the distillate anyway. Distilled ethanol doesn't have sugar in it unless someone put it there. Put some denatured alcohol in a clear cup and let it evaporate. There won't be anything left behind.

I also clean parts in fuel being it is the cheapest solvent, doing it always outside. Your fingers get a sticky feeling as well when they dry, leaving a white powderish substance in the skin grooves. Ethanol is an alcohol and should dry up about 100% with no deposit left. So something is being left there.

That white powder isn't getting left behind by the fuel; it was already there. It is the layer of dead skin cells that is always present, only now they are visible and white because they have been stripped of all skin oil.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: 78 2.3 fuel pump
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2014, 12:31:26 AM »
Been using acetone on hands for years, someday I will be a cancer test case over it and xylene/MEK/ carbon tet exposure. That ethanol residue felt different. Death Valley bone dry from desiccated skin? Been there hundreds of times, even to hands splitting open to bleed in like 50 places. The heavier residue most definitely started about the time ethanol was introduced to our fuel here. It varied, sometimes worse and sometimes better. Now that I'm forced to think about it probably quite a bit better now. The skin on hands felt totally different in the two conditions. I washed printing press blankets bare handed for 35 years and never saw the heavy VOC drying agents there do that.

As well, the first year Foci cars went through a big recall where Ford yanked fuel pumps by the thousands for 'fuel additive issues', as close as they would go to blaming fuel makers. I have two of the cars. The earliest one clogged the pump inlet with a certain type of slimy gook that could be that residue in super heavy concentration, think pure white translucent snot by the scads. Whole bottom of the pump module was filled with it. No solvent of any type would touch it, but WATER cut and took it off instantly. Allowed to dry it was sticky. I simply cleaned the pump out after finding that out, reinstalled and pump runs to this day fine. The second car showed what appeared to be same problem years later but this time it was solid red rust deposits to again clog the pump screen, gobs of it. Recleaned again and car back up and running fine. I think the first issue was incomplete filtering (or possible distilling, now that it has come up) of ethanol that then was added to fuel, fuel issues at stations (Walmart/Murphy USA got dragged into it at one point) were showing up on TV news left and right around then. The fuel makers realized the fuel had to be cleaner and then took steps and why the white crap never showed up again. It may well be that the fuel is better quality now, I think so. No issues of late because I worked out how to deal with it anyway.

Maybe it was just early ethanol delivery quality control rather than ethanol production itself, the stuff itself MAY be clean, just keep other crap out of it.

Also, after more reading it seems apparent that distilling once does not guarantee 100% pure ethanol, it must be done more than once (3X suggested) to increase purity and every time you lose some of the ethanol doing it. I can see business procedures as skipping some of that.