• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fuel system replacement - 71 Mach 1
#1
I decided to replace the entire fuel system on my 71 Mach 1. Not that it was too bad, but because I hate ethanol laced fuel and the damage it can do. Besides, the old 46 year old rubber hoses off the tank were in definite need for new.
As apparently stainless steel tanks are not available for our years, I went with a Spectra Premium tank as it is Ni-Tern coated and resistant to up to 20% ethanol. I also bought the Spectra sending unit and a Delphi fuel pump as it too is made for alcohol fuels at the same time, from RockAuto. Here's the twist, the tank is made in Quebec. I can buy it here, but it was way cheaper for me to buy it in the US and ship it in! Huh! More on the sending unit later.
I am getting stainless 3/8 fuel lines and will be using high pressure fuel injector rubber hose for the soft connections as it too is made for alcohol fuels. Not cheap stuff, but worth it to me.
Now for the installation, not yet done, but in process. I put the car up on jackstands and dropped the tank. Now you guys who totally rebuild your cars from rust are going to hate this, but the under trunk floor was as good as new and so was the tank top. Not even surface rust! There was no material between the two and there are signs of some rubbing. I've seen where some use tar paper between the tank and trunk, but I'm going with thin rubber pads where rub is evident. That will allow air to circulate to eliminate moisture. ( not that that has been a problem over 46 years!) I thought there was a chance the tank had been replaced at some point as there was no Ford number that I could find, just an ink stamp form the manufacturer, Wheeling Pitsburg and the number 3238 (I think). Can anyone comment? Anyway, the tank was rust free and pretty much spotless inside, so if anyone wants free tank, pm me.
The Spectra tank looks to be an exact fit as the original straps are still in great condition and fit the tank shape exactly. Just a coat of semi-gloss black and they're as good as new.
Now, back to the sending unit and here's the problem. RockAuto have it listed as FG87A, Ford # D1ZZ9275A for the 351C 5.8 L. This is NOT correct for the 351 cars. Our number should be D1ZF9275AB. When I tried to install it in the tank, the outlet tube was facing the wrong direction, toward the rear. I contacted Spectra and finally got to the bottom of the issue.
They only have the one sending unit, D1ZZ9275A and THAT is for the 429 cars and I think apparently fits on the RIGHT hand side of the car, not the left as on the 351's. How weird is that! At least the tank I bought was correct, R/A # F32A. Perhaps Pastel Blue can confirm the tank and sending unit orientation as he has a concours worthy 429 car.
Anyway, after a bit of fighting, Rock Auto have agreed to refund my money upon confirmation from Spectra as they gave incorrect information to R/A. The 30 days had elapsed, so a normal return and refund was out of the question.
I need the car back on the road soon, so I guess I'll look at one NPD sell, not cheap, but looks to be a good part, or I'll have to re-order from R/A and get the Dorman 692232, which has a brass float and may be the same one NPD sells.
I thought I would put this out there, not to bash Rock Auto, but more to make others aware that not everything is "as listed" and to refer to Ford numbers where possible. Manufactures need to do a better job making sure vendors sell us the correct parts, period.
Okay, that's my rant for the day,
Geoff.
  Reply
#2
Great topic to touch on; It's gotten to the point where almost all stations have up to 10% ethanol in their fuel these days and these old cars will get all kinds of issues from that if it's not addressed. I'm re-vamping my fuel system as well for an efi system and making sure I chose lines that are resistant to it was an important consideration. I'm willing to bet that more and more ethanol is going to find its way into everyday fuels, hopefully the market for getting these old cars up to snuff to handle it comes into place as well.
  Reply
#3
You're not the first one that has gotten a sending unit with the tube pointing in the wrong direction.

Ford only had one style of fuel tank for our cars, no matter which engine, they all have the sending unit on the driver's side.

One of NPD's sending units also has the tube pointing in the wrong direction, but they say it is in their description.


“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”
--Albert Einstein
  Reply
#4
(04-14-2017, 12:01 PM)Don C Wrote: You're not the first one that has gotten a sending unit with the tube pointing in the wrong direction.

Ford only had one style of fuel tank for our cars, no matter which engine, they all have the sending unit on the driver's side.

One of NPD's sending units also has the tube pointing in the wrong direction, but they say it is in their description.

 Don. On the tank, yes I see no reason either why it would be different. They should ALL be the same no matter the engine. So why on earth do these  remanufacturers get it wrong?
I'm actually going to NPD in Canton tomorrow to get the fuel line and I'm also taking my old sending unit to compare the two before I buy it. If it is wrong or just looks like crap, I'll order the Dorman from R/A as the picture is correct.
What a PITA!!
  Reply
#5
(04-14-2017, 11:45 AM)iceberg65 Wrote: Great topic to touch on; It's gotten to the point where almost all stations have up to 10% ethanol in their fuel these days and these old cars will get all kinds of issues from that if it's not addressed. I'm re-vamping my fuel system as well for an efi system and making sure I chose lines that are resistant to it was an important consideration. I'm willing to bet that more and more ethanol is going to find its way into everyday fuels, hopefully the market for getting these old cars up to snuff to handle it comes into place as well.

 Yes, true. What next will they find to ruin our gas!! EFI is a great way to go, but out of my budget, so I'll do the best I can with a good carb. Good luck with yours.
  Reply
#6
Geoff, the problem with the orientation of the metal line on the fuel senders seem to be a reoccurring  problem the venders don't seem to be willing to fix! The D1ZZ-9275-A (ID# D1ZF-AA,AB,AC) is the correct PN for 250, 302, 351, and 429SCJ. The D1ZZ-9275-B (D1ZF-BA) is for the 429CJ which will have a 3/16" fuel return tube. Don C is correct that Ford only utilized one tank for all 71-73 model Mustang production. I still don't understand why these venders still cannot take a OEM part as a sample/pattern and make their overpriced crap so that it will fit!
Good luck with your parts "Chasing" Geoff, I know it's aggravating when you have your car torn down and everything comes to a screeching halt because once again your dealing with "Sure It'll Fit" parts!


Attached Files
.jpg   fuelgaugesender.jpg (Size: 39.53 KB / Downloads: 165)
Steve

No Officer...I really don't know how fast I was going, my speedometer stopped at 140!
  Reply
#7
(04-14-2017, 12:46 PM)secluff Wrote: Geoff, the problem with the orientation of the metal line on the fuel senders seem to be a reoccurring  problem the venders don't seem to be willing to fix! The D1ZZ-9275-A (ID# D1ZF-AA,AB,AC) is the correct PN for 250, 302, 351, and 429SCJ. The D1ZZ-9275-B (D1ZF-BA) is for the 429CJ which will have a 3/16" fuel return tube. Don C is correct that Ford only utilized one tank for all 71-73 model Mustang production. I still don't understand why these venders still cannot take a OEM part as a sample/pattern and make their overpriced crap so that it will fit!
Good luck with your parts "Chasing" Geoff, I know it's aggravating when you have your car torn down and everything comes to a screeching halt because once again your dealing with "Sure It'll Fit" parts!

Steve, thanks for digging up those numbers. It's coming down to as I thought, it makes absolutely NO sense that anything be different on these models regardless of what engine is under the hood. The car is basically the same.
My thinking on this "wrong" sending unit is simply someone has misread the drawings at Spectra, or wherever and the result is the tube is out by 90 degrees. I see no reason why it would be any difference, it makes no sense as I said. I have not found a listing for anything other than a 3/8 tank to pump fuel line, but as you say, the 429 had a 3/16 return whereas the there is also a listing for a 5/16 return for 71 as well. Mine has a 5/16 for sure, but I'm not replacing it, no reason to, it's only for venting.
The picture you show of the D1ZZ-A is the same as my D1ZF-AB, except the electrical plug is in a slightly different orientation.
If I can prove that this Spectra part has been made incorrectly, I will bring it to there attention for sure. I already know they're looking at it in their "development" dept.
  Reply
#8
Geoff, I sent the info you requested through my regular E-Mail to yours. I could not get the picture to attach using the PM here. Would you please let me know if you got it ok.
Steve

No Officer...I really don't know how fast I was going, my speedometer stopped at 140!
  Reply
#9
(04-14-2017, 03:30 PM)secluff Wrote: Geoff, I sent the info you requested through my regular E-Mail to yours. I could not get the picture to attach using the PM here. Would you please let me know if you got it ok.

 Got it and I sent a reply.
Thanks to all for great feedback. We learn every day.
Geoff.
  Reply
#10
Steve, thanks for affirming what I suspected on the 429 (with emission controls) sending unit, the return line. Too bad nobody has a repop of them, it would sure make it easier when upgrading to fuel injection systems that require a return line.

Don


“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”
--Albert Einstein
  Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Fuel vapor separator asusnz 12 1,167 10-13-2017, 05:23 PM
Last Post: erikroy57
  Fuel line question for 72 Q-code eventhorizon 5 281 10-06-2017, 08:30 AM
Last Post: Stanglover
  Fuel vapor canister hose clamp sdstang 4 254 09-16-2017, 05:49 PM
Last Post: sdstang
  Antenna replacement help needed please! griffbl 13 469 09-11-2017, 09:06 PM
Last Post: SVO2SCJ
  Has anyone replaced fuel lines w/o a lift eventhorizon 5 414 09-05-2017, 09:06 PM
Last Post: tony-muscle
  Fuel Tank Bondobax 6 368 08-11-2017, 06:17 PM
Last Post: NOT A T5
  Fuel Tank Filler Neck Gasket Help JD Wright 2 270 08-11-2017, 02:05 PM
Last Post: JD Wright
tach 71 Mach tach stopped working danoreilly 2 237 08-05-2017, 09:44 AM
Last Post: Steve73QMach1



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)