• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
electric fuel pumps
well i am getting ready for the big block and i need to put all pushlock connections so i can start my summit et racing series. and i want to install a electrical fuel pump and i can't see where to mount it.

the instruction says to install it below the fuel tank so it'll gravity flow to it cuz they can't really pull and all they can do is pull.

well the sending unit sits at the bottom of the tank and the nipple points towards the front of the car. now how do i make this thing gravity flow to the pump when the tank is realy low of the car? but at the same time, sometimes people say as long as its as close to the tank as possible it'll work.

pics and suggestions would be appreciated.

i don't know if i want to start going into a fuel cell into the trunk area!

I've been looking into the exact same issue for my 1973 mustang w/ 351C.

I found one company which says they offer a 22 gal tank with an internal sump. That is here:


I have yet to call them and get details.

I've seen photos of electric pumps mounted with a custom bracket, on the frame brace between the tank and the rear axle. This is close, but in-line with the midpoint of the tank.

I've been thinking about fabricating a bracket and baffle to internally mount a walboro fuel pump in my stock tank.

Also, Tanks, Inc. sells an internal pump kit that requires drilling into the tank.

Personally, I think the internal pump would provide the cleanest installation, but I really don't want to drill into the tank.

Let me know what you decide. I've done some research, but haven't done any work at all on this part of my resto-mod project.

Thanks for asking this, Olie. I have a Holley Black electric fuel pump I'm going to be installing on mine as well. I'll see what I can find out, and keep checking this thread for more information.


[Image: mach1sig2.gif]
I have run electric fuel pumps on other vehicles in the past and always just put them somewhere along the frame rail fairly close to the tank. I dont think it has to be way below the tank or anything like that. I never had any trouble with the ones i have used over the years. Not sure if this helps or not. But i would just find a decent spot and mount it.


1971 Mach 1
408C Stroker
C4 w/3,000 stall
8.8" Rear w/3.73's
Disc brakes all way around.

[Image: 28ivsix.png]

I have a fuel cell in the trunk, wasn't that hard to put in. I just made 4 little spacers to raise it up off the floor to clear the hump. Just an idea.

Got a holley red fuel pump mounted to the frame rail right beneath it, but I don't think it would make much of a difference as long as it is close to the tank.

[Image: 25rnz1y.jpg]

after looking at some other years doing a electrical fuel pump i've came to conclusion i should locate the electrical fuel pump infront of the tank and behind the axle tube.

this is easy done on the other years because they got the sending unit on the front side but our year cars have them on the driver side and right next to the. therefore, i spoke to the local radiator shop and i asked them if they can add/solder a nipple that will except a -8 AN fitting in front of the tank. however, the back of the tank seems to be the lowest part of the tank and its obvious because thats closer to where the sending unit is at. if i installed it infront of the tank then i may just have 1 maybe 2 galloons of un-usable fuel or the pump will have to start to suck it out.

i was thinking what i should do with the nipple on the sending unit and the guy at the radiator shop said that he can cut it off and close the whole. and now the sending unit is only checking fuel levels.

i also thought about putting an elbow at the bottom of the tank but then people would see it and maybe try to mess with it. i will look at it further to see if there is a spot a nipple can be added towards the front of the backside of the tank and still put the pump somewhere close.

alot of decisions to make tomorrow once i lift the car off the ground and onto jack stands.

all in all, the easiest thing to do is just put it infront of the tank and know that 1-2 galloons of gas is going to be un-usable (even with my needle was on E i still made 2 passes and enough gas to load/unload car, run car in garage for a little while and still have gas) so maybe i'll just have to pay more attention when the needle touches E more than i did in the past.

i hope i got enough gas storage for the gas in the tank. only got a 5 and a 2 gallon. tank is showing under 1/4 tank right now.
The biggest problem that I see with having it in the front is that every time you accelerate all of the gas goes to the back of the tank, leaving your nipple in the front of the tank high and dry.

“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”
--Albert Einstein
Don C;58918 Wrote:The biggest problem that I see with having it in the front is that every time you accelerate all of the gas goes to the back of the tank, leaving your nipple in the front of the tank high and dry.

i was considering after i posted my last reply was to maybe not cut off the nipple on the sending unit or install another nipple at the back of the tank on the side somewhere and have two lines going into the fuel pump.

so it'll suck from two different locations, but primarily from the front one. of course the tank will have to be at least 1/2 full. also need to make sure there is a 2 in and out out adapter as well.

decisions decision decision
looking at 64-70 mustant tanks, aren't the fuel sending units in the front as well?
With consideration that the manual pump (hanging off the engine) is able to suck fuel without being lower than the tank (because the sending unit location is the real deal here), why is it such a paramount to have an electric pump lower than the tank? A fuel pump is a fuel pump, after all - and if it sucks gas through the sending unit (and pre-filter 'sock,' etc.), why would electric be any different than a manual (from the tank's perspective)?
Another question: is putting a nipple at the absolute bottom of the tank really a good idea? What about sediment and other things that would collect in the bottom - are you sure you want that stuff getting sucked into the fuel pump directly?

The sending unit is designed the way it is for a reason, and seems to work just fine with manual pumps hanging off the engine... why would switching to an electric pump be so different - other than keeping it 'primed' before starting so it doesn't burn out prematurely?

I hope these aren't stupid questions - I honestly can't see the difference here. Of course, I haven't actually started researching this, either. So if anybody can offer answers, it would be greatly appreciated.


[Image: mach1sig2.gif]
Share Thread:  

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  No fuel can't start. mweeps 1 227 05-19-2018, 11:38 AM
Last Post: Don C
  fuel sending unit pedstagn71 1 158 05-13-2018, 04:44 PM
Last Post: Don C
runninpony Fuel Vapor Canister NOT A T5 3 296 04-01-2018, 06:11 AM
Last Post: NOT A T5
  '73 fuel tank removal scottyrocks 8 625 03-20-2018, 08:46 AM
Last Post: Stanglover
  Fuel vapor separator asusnz 12 2,292 10-13-2017, 05:23 PM
Last Post: erikroy57
  Fuel line question for 72 Q-code eventhorizon 5 762 10-06-2017, 08:30 AM
Last Post: Stanglover
  Fuel vapor canister hose clamp sdstang 4 775 09-16-2017, 05:49 PM
Last Post: sdstang
  Has anyone replaced fuel lines w/o a lift eventhorizon 5 904 09-05-2017, 09:06 PM
Last Post: tony-muscle

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)