I haven't tested it myself yet - still gathering the pieces for a conversion from pipe to hose - but I know there is a heatshield called Thermo-Flex for hoses and cables, comes in different colors. It withstands temperatures up to 750°F.
Maker claim a 90% deflection of radiant engine bay heat away from plug wires with built-in grommets to center plug wires to prevent contact with shield, so I guess the same principle should apply to a fuel hose.
Sounds cool...

Take a look here and here.

_________________
Aspenized

I've been looking for the dorman or everbrass inlets to do my mod but can't find them anywhere locally. Rockauto has them but you have to by a box of 5 and with shipping that's 30 bucks. Does anyone have two left over from their mod they would like to sell? Iam sure throwing two in an envelope would be far less than 10 buck to ship.

Dan....your close you have a source?

Brent
Brantford

_________________
Arizona Duster in Canada

How is the vent return installed into the fuel tank. My tank has no previsions for a vent/return. Or is it T'ed at the fuel outlet of the tank? Pictures would be nice.

On my '66 Dart the vent tube is T'ed off the fuel filler tube inside the trunk of the car. It runs toward the rear seats and down somewhere outside the car. So its not actually part of the tank, but rather the filler tube. I'd post pictures but its dark out and I'm lazy. So I hope that helps.

_________________
'66 Dodge Dart

I think I know what tube your talking about. My 70 swinger has it. Right now I am working on my 65 coronet, and it doesn't have a vent tube.

I'd like to perform this mod as my car has hot start issues.

First question: I have an electric pump, mounted back by the gas tank. The pump feeds into a rubber line which then feeds into a steel line, which runs up front and follows traditional routing, around the front of the block, then back into a soft line up to the carb inlet.

Could I just cut the line off where it enters the engine bay and starts upwards and route the FI line from there? Any caveats to doing it that way? I would need to flare the line i suppose. Would there be any advantage to running FI line all the way from the pump up to the engine bay, then re-route it's path via some sort of mount on the fender?

Second question, for Ted, what kind of water/fuel separator did you install? Does it serve basically as an straight up filter, or is it electronically powered? What does it do with the purged water, retain it or expell it? I googled it but couldn't find a definitive answer, and I'd imagine there are different types.
It seems like a good idea, living in the northeast where weather conditions can change from rainy, to muggy, to rainy to snowy, back to muggy in the course of 5 minutes.

Thanks!

ted, never mind, I just looked at the pics enlarged and saw it's a perma-cool...will do some research...

It drains the water out the bottom like a airplane, boat or 18 wheeler. It filters down to 2 microns and has a cartridge style filter. The fuel pump pumps through it just fine. My fuel pressure gauge reads 6 pounds. Bought it from Summit for about $30.00. It sure keeps the carburetor clean!

_________________
Aggressive Ted

http://cid-32f1e50ddb40a03c.photos.live ... %20Swinger


74 Swinger, 9.5 comp 254/.435 lift cam, 904, ram air, electric fans, 2.5" HP2 & FM70 ex, 1920 Holley#56jet, 2.76 8 3/4 Sure-Grip, 26" tires, 25+MPG

Cool! (pun intended)...so fuel runs from tank to pump to filter to carb, correct? Basically, it's your own version of the fuel line mod, just different in that the filter is a little more elaborate than a standard fuel filter and is mounted back near the firewall. How often do you find you need to change the filter?

If I was going to do this, it would probably be better to put a mechanical fuel pump in, than the electric one that was in there when I bought it...that's one of many projects for warm weather...new fuel tank (or at least clean old one), sending unit, pump and all lines...i'm just trying to plan it out now and start collecting parts....i like the idea of the water seperator....

Yes, that's "Be-Cool...."
I installed these for years on 20' boats with inboards and yachts up to 100'.

On the Dart I installed a in-line fuel pressure gauge on it's output line to the carb. I had run several types of in-line filters and kept getting some debris from time to time depending on where I refueled. This filter is very good and has stopped all debris and water from entering the carb. It is very nice to just barely turn the key and have the engine start immediately with out cranking.

_________________
Aggressive Ted



http://cid-32f1e50ddb40a03c.photos.live ... %20Swinger





74 Swinger, 9.5 comp 254/.435 lift cam, 904, ram air, electric fans, 2.5" HP2 & FM70 ex, 1920 Holley#56jet, 2.76 8 3/4 Sure-Grip, 26" tires, 25+MPG

I don't think Summit carries them anymore...in fact, I'm hard-pressed to find them anywhere online. Even their website requires that you go through a dealer.

I remove my posts in this thread, for the only reason that they only seem to invoke reactions, followed by stupid discussions that move the focus away from the purpose of the thread.

Olaf.

_________________
Aspenized

I have a large qualm about using a marine water separator like this in a roadgoing car. Not because I think it wouldn't work (they work fine), but because of the safety issues involved. Boats don't need to worry much about fuel system integrity from a crashworthiness standpoint. Cars do.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

I remove my posts in this thread, for the only reason that they only seem to invoke reactions, followed by stupid discussions that move the focus away from the purpose of the thread.

Olaf.

_________________
Aspenized

No, Olaf, those are remarks coming from my spending a great deal of time sifting through detailed traffic crash data as part of my work. When I comment on these kinds of matters professionally, it's important that I get it right. If I get it wrong, I quickly stop being able to afford to do neat things like buy food and sleep under a roof, so I go to great effort to get it right. I don't switch that off just because I'm not commenting here professionally.



Products made for a particular application are made according to the needs and requirements for that particular application. Boat parts are not required to conform to automotive safety standards. Their compliance with whatever marine fuel system safety standards may exist does not imply suitability for on-road use. Boat parts need to withstand the kinds of forces that can happen in a boating accident; car parts need to withstand the kinds of forces that can happen in a car crash. There's probably some overlap, but not as much as you might think. Tiny, seemingly insignificant changes in the design or placement of car parts cause enormous differences in the crash safety performance of the car. You're smart enough to understand this; it's unfortunate you're choosing not to. Please try to keep in mind that a phenomenon does not stop being real simply because you don't understand it.



Good, but this is irrelevant to crashworthiness.



Good, but irrelevant to crashworthiness.



Spectacular, but irrelevant to traffic crashes.



I'm talking about crashworthiness in cars. And that, Olaf, I do have a great deal of knowledge about. Probably more than you.



Citation needed. In reality, both factors are probably of roughly equal importance.



It certainly could be; you've got a container holding several cups of gasoline that could easily be dislodged and ruptured in a crash. That could easily cause a great deal more of a gasoline spray than could the measly 4 pounds' pressure and small volume from the fuel pump when the engine's running. Taking a broader look, we're talking about having a fairly large amount of gasoline in a place near the passenger compartment where it could see very large forces in a crash. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a terrible idea that shouldn't be done, but it does mean your ignorant, dismissive attitude towards the safety issue is not thoughtful or appropriate.



Perhaps. Citation needed. If it's true, that argues for my point -- not yours. Fortunately for all of us, relatively few people die in car fires; it's not one of the major causes of traffic-related injury and death. That doesn't mean it's wise to make changes to a car that could reasonably be foreseen to worsen the fire danger in a crash, though; too many people do get badly injured or killed by car fires.



More support for my position -- not yours.



Use the board's search function. You're certainly right that our old cars are not safe. That, however, is a really lame justification for making them less safe.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.