Is the return fuel line a one piece line? Mine had a hose from the firewall almost up to the pump with a short, bent up piece of tubing on the crossmember.
Inline Tube's site makes it appear to be a one piece. Vicki's site shows what appears to be a one piece but the drawing looked to be for a 6 cylinder. (The routing across the crossmember was reversed. My return line was at the front, the drawing shows at the rear.)
If that's the case, it seems next to impossible to remove/install it! The main line on mine is connected by a hose at the firwall. Seems like the return would be the same.
I bought fuel lines from inline and I ended up cutting the return line where it comes in contact with the frame behind the passenger side suspension. The only way you could get it in there in one piece is when the suspension is all stripped from the frame. Looks fine as that is where the supply line has a 3" piece of rubber also.
The return line is one piece steel. The supply line is two piece steel.
It is difficult to install the return line with an empty engine bay. I cannot imagine trying to install when assembled. That crossover between the body and subframe is tight.
If you can lift the car sufficiently, and gently bend the line as you go, it may be possible. If not, I'd cut it in a safe and reasonably hidden spot.
Vikki 1969 Goldenrod Yellow / black 400 convertible numbers matching
quick question. why do some 69's have the return line and others not ? my fuel pump only has one inlet, i'm assuming that is the supply line coming from the tank. there is nothing else on that pump.
To oversimplify: Higher HP motors had a vapor return line.
2012 Mustang Boss 302 #1918, Competition Orange. FGF replacement 2006 Mustang V6 Pony, Vista Blue. Factory ordered. 2019 BMW X3 (Titled to the wife, but I'm always driving it for her. So I'm claiming it) Old projects, gone but not forgotten: 1967 FB 400, original CA car. After 22 years of work, trashed by the guy who was supposed to paint it. I had to sell it. 1980 Turbo Trans Am 1970 Mustang fastback, 351C 4Bbl, auto 1988 Mustang GT, 5 speed 1983 F-150 4x4, built 302 1994 Chevy K2500 HD 4x4, 454 TBI
2012 Mustang Boss 302 #1918, Competition Orange. FGF replacement 2006 Mustang V6 Pony, Vista Blue. Factory ordered. 2019 BMW X3 (Titled to the wife, but I'm always driving it for her. So I'm claiming it) Old projects, gone but not forgotten: 1967 FB 400, original CA car. After 22 years of work, trashed by the guy who was supposed to paint it. I had to sell it. 1980 Turbo Trans Am 1970 Mustang fastback, 351C 4Bbl, auto 1988 Mustang GT, 5 speed 1983 F-150 4x4, built 302 1994 Chevy K2500 HD 4x4, 454 TBI
I'm not sure it had as much to do with vapor lock as that the fuel pumps were made to pump more fuel to keep up and they needed to siphon off the unused portion when not needed. But no doubt the cars that had them had the tendency to run hotter because of HP or AC. I do know that I tried to run with my original 2bbl pump with no return line after I swapped out the motor to the 400 w/4bbl and the pump couldn't keep up. It was fine if you drove normal but when there was an extreme draw on the fuel system it wasn't up to it. I'm sure Pont engineers knew and made the design change for that reason at least and maybe others too.
good info... sorry to kinda hijack the thread... as a novice, i assume that if i do a WOT, and it stumbles that it could likely be starved of fuel due to not having the return line.. but i wouldn't know being a novice, unless i could be looking at the clear fuel filter in the line by the carb and see it starving.. i had also heard it is difficult to know if vacuum secondarys are opening because you can't see those as well (some breadtie method to wrap around the arm and see if it moves)... i guess i need a camera under the hood IF i have stumble issues (dont know yet, only have 0.5 miles on new engine
