Took the Bird on a half hour drive and noticed a puddle after I parked. Didn't think anything of it and went about having dinner and a few beers with Colorado68. I drove home and noticed a thick line of drops in the driveway where I pulled the car into the garage and see a puddle rapidly growing under the car. I pop the hood and there is gas pouring out of a short rubber hose on the bottom of the fuel pump. What the hell is going on here!!
Plugged vapor return line hose that became unplugged? Or functioning vapor return line hose that failed?
2 or 3 ports on the bottom of the pump?
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've had several fuel leaks like that over the years myself. It has always been caused by old, worn-out, cracking rubber lines. Once near the fuel tank connections, once where the fuel line passes under the motor, and once at the fuel pump connection.
'68 428 HO M3 Monster, 4-on-the-floor! Need I say more?
Just food for thought here (not saying that this is your issue), but with today's ethanol blended fuels, the rubber compounds within our fuel system (and any other vehicle built before ~2001) are not compatible and will break down and leak. Not to mention the issue of having steel lines and a steel gas tank. Also, not all states are required to tell you if there is ethanol in the fuel and in others they don't have to tell you how much.
I know that washing and waxing my car with the present condtion of my paint is like polishing a turd.....but it's my turd and I want it polished!
All that talk about ethanol causing break down and leaks is a bunch of internet hoey (BS). Somebody send me an article from a scientific lab proving this.
Just cause you see it in print on the Internet does not make it true.
Engine Test Stand Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwoxyUwptUcdqEb-o2ArqyiUaHW0G_C88 restoring my 1968 Firebird 400 HO convertible (Firedawg) 1965 Pontiac Catalina Safari Wagon 389 TriPower (Catwagon) 1999 JD AWS LX Lawn tractor 17hp (my daily driver) 2006 Sequoia 2017 Murano (wife's car) 202? Electric car 203? 68 Firebird /w electric engine 2007 Bayliner 175 runabout /w 3.0L Mercuiser__________________________________________________________
Sorry, my source isn't internet. I was a chassis/cooling engineer for Chrysler for over 10 years before leaving the Detroit area. When we needed to adapt to the blended fuels, we had to change our rubber compounds and go to stainless steel lines. We were already at plastic tanks by that time. Choose to listen, or not. That's your call, makes no difference to me. But I can assure you that automotive OEM's do not spend money to upgrade components unless it is absolutely needed.
The issue with the carbon steel lines and tanks is that ethanol absorbs moisture which obviously is an issue with plain steel. As for the rubber, this isn't new information. Racers have had to use differnt gaskets and accelerator pump materials when running alcohol. Its the same principle. We're just now talking ethanol instead of methanol.
So this isn't hear say. I'm just sharing my experiences with the group.
I know that washing and waxing my car with the present condtion of my paint is like polishing a turd.....but it's my turd and I want it polished!
Thanks for the help, I'll take a closer look tonight and see what I can do to fix it.
Gus, I can assure you that ethanol is horrible on engines. It destroyed all the gas lines on my boat. The marinas here only sell ethanol free gas due to how destructive it is.
Haggerty commissioned a study of E-10. After saying that it can be used without significant damage to classic cars, they go on to point out several issues from using it, including: - Will loosen deposits in tank - Fuel filters will clog - Jets may clog - Seals, gaskets and lines of older compounds will deteriorate - Soft parts may have a somewhat shorter life than expected - Some particulate build-up may occur
Source, Haggerty - Fall 2009 pages 34-37 "Safe at the Pump? E10 won’t stop you from using your collector vehicle, but you’ll have to be more vigilant about fuel system maintenance."
I just looked closer, and there are ports on the fuel pump. The one that leaks is on the front and has a short hose that is plugged. I see a trip to the auto parts store in my near future.
I've worked with 50-100% concentrations of ethanol with 100% higher flow rates thru rubber, plastic, steel, bronze, galvanized etc. without any corrosion issues in heating systems.
I realize you guys are just passing on what you have heard. But for people that have used chemicals like these before, it's hard not to laugh. To think the public is up in arms with 15% of their gasoline has ethanol in it.
Some may argue that the problem lies in the remaining 85%. More than a hundred years ago steam & electric engines were the most popular engines used for autos. I suspect misinformation by the oil lobby led to it's demise.
What fuel is available today in every city in the world that would increase engine component life by 300%, reduce pollution and can be produced naturally or refined from the same hydrocarbon material used to make gasoline?
Engine Test Stand Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwoxyUwptUcdqEb-o2ArqyiUaHW0G_C88 restoring my 1968 Firebird 400 HO convertible (Firedawg) 1965 Pontiac Catalina Safari Wagon 389 TriPower (Catwagon) 1999 JD AWS LX Lawn tractor 17hp (my daily driver) 2006 Sequoia 2017 Murano (wife's car) 202? Electric car 203? 68 Firebird /w electric engine 2007 Bayliner 175 runabout /w 3.0L Mercuiser__________________________________________________________
Well, I didn't want this to turn in to an anti or pro ethanol discussion, but it appears it has moved in that direction. Since Gus keeps qualifying my experience as a chassis engineer into "passing along things I have heard", let me please explain a few facts followed by what those mean to us.
Fact 1 - A gallon of gasoline has approx. 116,000 BTU of energy. A gallon of ethanol has approx. 76,000 BTU of energy. So ethanol has approx 2/3 the energy content of a gallon of gasoline.
Fact 2 - Both gasoline and ethanol are hygroscopic meaning they absorb water. Gasoline can disolve 150 ppm of water. A 10% enthanol blend can disolve 6000 ppm of water.
Fact 5 - Natural rubber compounds are permeable to ethanol.
What I have stated above isn't hearsay or internet BS. Its science. Hopefully you agree with me to this point. Now I will explain what this means in an automotive application.
1. Since ethanol has only 2/3 the energy content of gasoline, its only a suitable replacement (in terms of cost only) if the % of ethanol added results in a cost that is 2/3 of the gasoline that is replaced.
2. Since ethanol has a higer octane than gasoline, a lower octane gasoline can be used because (at least in the US) they use an average octane level when advertising at the pump. So to have say 87 octane gasoline with 10% ethanol, 84 octane base gasoline can be used. With higher % of ethanol, lower octane base fuel can be used. Now the reason this is important is with the higher hygroscopic quality of ehtanol, the gasoline gets dilluted with water which is 0 octane. This causes 2 things. It dillutes the octane of the overall fuel approx 1% for every %of moisture absorbed into the (in this case 10%) ethanol. This results in overall lower octane. Secondly, after the ethanol abosrbs approx 0.5% water, it starts to lose its ability to bond with the gasoline molecules. This is called phase seperation. If this happens, you end up with 3 independent fluids in your tank. A layer of ethanol on top (specific gravity is approx. 0.76), followed by a layer of gasoline (SG 0.78) then at the bottom is the water that has been absorbed (SG 1.0). (Think of how oil floats on top of water in a spill). Since the pickup in the fuel tank pulls from the bottom of the tank, it is pulling the pure water into the lines. This is what leads to the corrosion issues in the steel tank and lines. Not to mention what can happen if the engine tries to compress water. In a sever case, you can end up with a hydrolock engine (admittedly so, this would be a very severe case and not the majority).
3. The fact that nartural rubbers are permeable to ethanol means that ethanol molecules will migrate between the rubber molecules (in a natural rubber hose). This acts to age harden a hose leaving it dry and cracked. You will see charts that show that ethanol doesn't result in swelling of a natural rubber hose, that is because it is not being caught in its molecular structure, but actually passing through it.
So what it comes down to is application. Ethanol is just fine if the materials are selected appropriately. Nitrile rubber (NBR)has been the rubber compound of choice in the auto industry since the mid 80s. Fuel injection lines and marine application lines have different compounds. These make them compatible with the ethanol. Most new cars have plastic fuel tanks and all flex fuel lines will have stainless steel lines. If you continously use the ethanol, it doesn't have the chance to absorb the water and you don't have any issues with corrosion. But most of our cars aren't daily drivers. As far as your heating systems, think about the application. Was it an outdoor application like a car is? Does the ethanol sit for long periods of time (my car has the same fuel in the tank from 2 months ago). Also, what were the hoses made out of? There are thousands of discrete rubber compounds. Each one is tailored to a particular use. This isn't that far fetched. Think about it in other car terms. If you put Type F transfluid in a GM trans or P/S unit, you will most likely destroy the seals. Use the mineral oil from R-12 in a R-134a system that uses ester oil, and you will destroy the o-rings. That's becuase these rubber based components use compounds that are designed for it. I'm sure the hoses that are in your heating system are designed for alcohol use.
Again, my interpretation is based on the science I put forth in the "facts" above. If you dispute the facts, we will have to just agree to disagree. If you dispute my interpretation, we can discuss further.
I am not being led by the oil companies. I am using my experience as an former automotive engineer and my education with a master's in automotive engineering from the University of Michigan to explain my stance.
Ethanol is the devil....if used in the wrong application. Just like gasoline would be the devil if it was used in the wrong application. Or steam, etc. etc. This doens't make me pro or anti ethanol as a whole, but I am definatley anti ethanol in my Firebird. I use a blended fuel in my daily driver when the relative price makes it worth while. I hope I have been able to explain the facts and my interpretation based on those facts without making this into a political discussion.
I know that washing and waxing my car with the present condtion of my paint is like polishing a turd.....but it's my turd and I want it polished!
If your pump does not have a fuel return line and you don't intend to replace it, then it is better to simply run a pump that does not have the extra port, eliminating the need for hillbilly plugging and the extra potential for a leak. They are widely available, similar to this one: http://www.summitracing.com/parts/CRT-M4868/?rtype=10
Keep in mind that whether or not you have a fuel return line depends on whether or not your sending unit on your fuel tank can accept one. You claim to have a 400, and most of the 400's indeed came factory equipped with it. So if yours was so-equipped and now no longer has it, I'd be curious why it was plugged and/or removed.
You claim to have a 400, and most of the 400's indeed came factory equipped with it. So if yours was so-equipped and now no longer has it, I'd be curious why it was plugged and/or removed.
It was originally a 350 car, and the guy we bought it off put a Chevy 350 in. We put a 400 into it, so that's why there is no return line on the sending unit.
I suspected something like that. My 400 "clone" is similar, car started life as a 350 and therefore never had a return line. Just be aware that if/when you decide to replace your fuel pump, you can easily buy one that is designed for that sending unit you have, which eliminates this extra port entirely.
I think its good information from someone who is more than qualified to give it. Thanx Daryl.
Creekbob, your fuel pump likely came from a 400 car that had a return line. Its very common to just the extra line. As crazecars says you may as well replace it with a 2 port when the fuel pump finally fails. You could just tighten 'er up and run it and keep an eye on the "hillbilly plug", but I'd change it to a 2 port so there isn't puddles under the car again. Its a bit of a fire hazard. LOL !!!
That was excellent Daryl. You won me over. Very well presented. My intent was not political, I just use my personal experiences when judging whether or not an issue is BS or not (my own personal opinion).
I believe you have proven me wrong and I apologize to you and any others offended by my personal comments...
end of hi-jack
Engine Test Stand Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwoxyUwptUcdqEb-o2ArqyiUaHW0G_C88 restoring my 1968 Firebird 400 HO convertible (Firedawg) 1965 Pontiac Catalina Safari Wagon 389 TriPower (Catwagon) 1999 JD AWS LX Lawn tractor 17hp (my daily driver) 2006 Sequoia 2017 Murano (wife's car) 202? Electric car 203? 68 Firebird /w electric engine 2007 Bayliner 175 runabout /w 3.0L Mercuiser__________________________________________________________
and any others offended by my personal comments...
Not offended, just concerned. I used to run the mandated ethanol in all my engines. Water toys, 'bird, lawnmowers, cars, chain saw, etc. I constantly had problems with every one of them. Engine buddy suggested using only 100% gasoline. I switched from using 10% ethanol blend back to 100% gasoline about four or five years ago. Every single engine now runs perfect. Every mysterious issue I had is now gone. I had been running my GXP with ethanol blend for the past couple of years. I was getting 22 MPG highway. A month ago I switched to eliminate the blend, and boy did the POWER ever return! I am now getting almost 29 MPG for the same driving. At about 20 cents per gallon more, (go figure??) I am getting 31% better milage at 10% additional cost. Fortunatly I live in a rural area and "real" gasoline is readily available at the local stations. The station owners tell me they sell a ton of it, and with better margins than blended fuel, they are happy to look the other way when people fill up their modern cars and toys. I read that congress is considering dropping the mandate 'temporarily' due to the 2012 drought. I STRONGLY feel that the ethanol 'experiment' should be permanently ended and considered a total failure!
I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not sure. I feel like I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. 1968 400 convertible (Scarlet) 1976 T/A - 455 LE (No Burt) 1976 T/A New baby, starting full restoration. 1968 350 - 4 speed 'vert - 400 clone (the Beast!) 1968 350 convertible - Wife's car now- 400 clone (Aleutian Blue) (Blue Angel) 2008 Durango - DD 2008 GXP - New one from NH is AWESOME! 2017 Durango Citadel - Modern is nice! HEMI is amazing! 1998 Silverado Z71 - Father-daughter project 1968 400 coupe - R/A clone (Blue Pearl) (sold) 1967 326 convertible - Sold 1980 T/A SE Bandit - Sold
The only apology that is needed in this posting is my apology to Creekbob. Sorry this resulted in a hi-jack of your original post.
I learn a lot about these cars from this forum. I am glad to be able to help out when I have information that can help others out.
As far as the ethanol, the scary thing for me is that states have different rules in what they have to label at the pumps. I happen to now live in Wisconsin that has to label any ethanol at any percentage. I used to live in Michigan which is not required to label anything at all. Other states have to label it over a certain percentage.
In the link that follows, you will find a listing of states that require labels and for what percentage. This is not an advocate for anything else on the website, just useful for the chart. Maybe one of the moderators can take a snapshot of the chart and make it a sticky somewhere.
2. Since ethanol has a higer octane than gasoline, a lower octane gasoline can be used because (at least in the US) they use an average octane level when advertising at the pump. So to have say 87 octane gasoline with 10% ethanol, 84 octane base gasoline can be used. With higher % of ethanol, lower octane base fuel can be used. Now the reason this is important is with the higher hygroscopic quality of ehtanol, the gasoline gets dilluted with water which is 0 octane. This causes 2 things. It dillutes the octane of the overall fuel approx 1% for every %of moisture absorbed into the (in this case 10%) ethanol. This results in overall lower octane. Secondly, after the ethanol abosrbs approx 0.5% water, it starts to lose its ability to bond with the gasoline molecules. This is called phase seperation. If this happens, you end up with 3 independent fluids in your tank. A layer of ethanol on top (specific gravity is approx. 0.76), followed by a layer of gasoline (SG 0.78) then at the bottom is the water that has been absorbed (SG 1.0). (Think of how oil floats on top of water in a spill). Since the pickup in the fuel tank pulls from the bottom of the tank, it is pulling the pure water into the lines. This is what leads to the corrosion issues in the steel tank and lines. Not to mention what can happen if the engine tries to compress water. In a sever case, you can end up with a hydrolock engine (admittedly so, this would be a very severe case and not the majority).
Does the fuel stabilizer that you can buy prevent the phase separation? My Dad always strongly suggests I put stabilizer in anything that's not going to be run for a couple of months. I'd planned to dump some in the bird before I stored it for the winter anyway, but I'm just curious if it's a good solution to combat the issues caused by ethanol, or if I really need to try harder to completely avoid ethanol.
Does the fuel stabilizer that you can buy prevent the phase separation? or if I really need to try harder to completely avoid ethanol.
Some of them are supposed to, but I'd HIGHLY reccomend your second comment over anything else.
I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not sure. I feel like I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. 1968 400 convertible (Scarlet) 1976 T/A - 455 LE (No Burt) 1976 T/A New baby, starting full restoration. 1968 350 - 4 speed 'vert - 400 clone (the Beast!) 1968 350 convertible - Wife's car now- 400 clone (Aleutian Blue) (Blue Angel) 2008 Durango - DD 2008 GXP - New one from NH is AWESOME! 2017 Durango Citadel - Modern is nice! HEMI is amazing! 1998 Silverado Z71 - Father-daughter project 1968 400 coupe - R/A clone (Blue Pearl) (sold) 1967 326 convertible - Sold 1980 T/A SE Bandit - Sold
The reason we went with the fuel pump that is on now is all the others said they were only for 2bbl carbs.
That's because only the 2bbl carb'd cars came equipped without vapor return lines. But that has nothing to do with fuel flow capacity, or what type of carb or engine the fuel pump supports.
Basically saying Carter's regular 'ol stock replacement pumps will deliver enough fuel to satisfy most engines up to 450 hp. They all flow the same amount, with or without the 3rd port. And if you need one that delivers more fuel than the standard, they offer a competition series M6907, and it does NOT have a vapor diverter port. It just flows 3x more fuel to supply high HP/modified engines. Check out their part number chart at the end of the article.
As long as everyone else has drifted off topic, I might as well toss my 2 cents in:
Haven't purchased pure gasoline in nearly 20 years...it's simply not available in Indiana at the pump unless you're buying race gas. If it's for sale at a certain station somewhere I have NO idea where that is. So E-10 is all we get here, period. On the old cars I do occasionally replace a vintage brittle or cracked rubber part with a more modern alternative material, and I have retuned/rejetted some of my old stuff to get them to run at peak. That's all. It does NOT hurt steel tanks or lines. It DOES eat up some fiberglass tanks...big problems on some really old boats. It DOES eat up pre-1985-ish rubber fuel lines, which are 30+ years old now and LONNNNGGG overdue for replacement anyway, so I say so what?? It does not eat up modern ethanol-resistant, lined rubber fuel injection line, which is a stellar replacement for plain rubber, and looks like plain black rubber on the outside. It might hurt some carb floats, depending on material, and accellerator pumps and maybe a float bowl gasket. Again...if these parts are older than 1985-ish and they fail now in 2012, how can someone blame ethanol mix over normal aging for their failure? If those parts are post 1985-ish, you're pretty much good to go.
But I will say I personally have had no fuel related problems with E-10...boats, mowers, vintage cars, vintage tractors, new and vintage snowmobiles, motorcycles, 2 stroke injected and/or premix, etc. 20-ish years running.
I like Startron additive, they say it allows storage of E-10 up to a year...I put it in my boat/mowers/Fbird/etc for winter storage, and my snowmobiles for the summer storage. I have actually stored it up to 2 years and it burned it off perfectly fine with no ill effects: http://mystarbrite.com/startron/
Frankly I LIKE the fact that it keeps water in suspension and burns it off during use, unlike pure gasoline which will allow water to puddle at the bottom of the tank...particularly on snowmobiles...no more frozen gas lines, and no need for adding Heet to prevent it! So you won't catch me complaining about E-10.
I've never experienced phase separation.
I've found that with a few easy and minor maintenance mods and knowledgeable tuning, it works perfectly fine in everything...68 Firebird included. Just had to replace some rubbers and throw the factory jetting/timing specs in the trash and tune it for whatever fuel you want to run, that's about it.
[quote=creekbob] It DOES eat up pre-1985-ish rubber fuel lines, which are 30+ years old now and LONNNNGGG overdue for replacement anyway, so I say so what??
This was my orignal point in posting due to a complaint of fuel leak. Ethanol is not very compatible with the original rubber lines from our vehicles. Just about anything you will buy now at the parts store is fine.
I know that washing and waxing my car with the present condtion of my paint is like polishing a turd.....but it's my turd and I want it polished!
Frankly I LIKE the fact that it keeps water in suspension and burns it off during use, unlike pure gasoline which will allow water to puddle at the bottom of the tank...particularly on snowmobiles...no more frozen gas lines, and no need for adding Heet to prevent it! So you won't catch me complaining about E-10.
The issue is once the ethanol reaches a moisture content of approx. 0.5%, it no longer is able to keep the water in suspension. That is the phase seperation. The gasoline, ethanol, and water are no longer miscible (able to act as a single fluid dissolved in each other). That's what leads to the corrosion issues with steel tanks and line. Much the same way that brake fluid tends to corrode brake lines from the inside out. But the blended fuel doesn't absorb water immeditatley. It does so over time. So how long the fuel is in the tank is a direct contributor to the amount of moisture it absorbs. A daily driver would have no issues. As you mention, if you are storing your fuel for long periods of time, you add an additive. So you are taking the necessary precautions. Again to my point of being suited for the application.
Originally Posted By crazecars
I've found that with a few easy and minor maintenance mods and knowledgeable tuning, it works perfectly fine in everything...68 Firebird included. Just had to replace some rubbers and throw the factory jetting/timing specs in the trash and tune it for whatever fuel you want to run, that's about it.
This is what I was referring to about the application. If your materials are suited for the blended fuel, you will have no issues (except there is no overcoming the lower energy content).
So I am agreeing with what you are saying. Upgrade rubber components and don't let the blended fuel sit for long periods of time untreated, and those issues go away. Then it just comes down to a business case between does the cost savings offset the energy loss? I was just trying to alert people that may not have the experience that you and I have had and are wondering what may be an issue with some of their parts. Or in some cases, don't even realize they are buying blended fuels because of the inconsistent labeling laws from state to state.
I know that washing and waxing my car with the present condtion of my paint is like polishing a turd.....but it's my turd and I want it polished!