Moving on to other issues with my LaSalle...
At some point a previous owner decided to remove the mechanical fuel pump and run an electric one instead. Not only did they remove and dispose of the pump, but all the associated lines which connect to it, except they left the vacuum line which runs from the pump to the wipers in place (albeit disconnected).
I have now purchased the correct AC 480 pump (properly rebuilt of course), 25' of nickle/copper 3/8" fuel line, and a Weatherhead 11076 flex line to connect the fuel line to the pump. I also have yet to get some 1/4" tubing to redo the vacuum lines.
Through hours of searching around, I have pretty much come up with how everything should be routed so I should be set with that.
What I am lacking is data on, is what size and type of compression fittings I should be using on everything, and where should I get them? From what I can tell the threads on the fuel pump connections and carburetor are 7/16-24...does that sound correct? I stopped by the local auto parts store was less than impressed. Any suggestions would be appreciated because I would love to get my car back to running primarily off a mechanical pump.
Never seen any compression fittings on the fuel pump. They always have a fitting which then takes flares on the tube.
In most cases the fitting size corresponds with the size of the tubing, inverted flare as Steve points out. A couple of suggestions, before you flare the gas line you may want to put a period looking cover or loom on to deflect heat. Also try and keep the gas line as far away from the exhaust manifold as possible.
Harry
Sorry about the terminology. I should have said flared fitting.
I've already got the insulation aspect covered. I ran across somewhere around here that the asphalt covered wire looming is what to use.
I'm still having trouble with all the fittings though. Should ALL my tubing coming from the fuel pump be 1/4"? So far as I can tell, every port on the pump and carburetor has 7/16-24 threading.
Not a problem with the vacuum lines, but it has me worried about the fuel lines. Since I'm running 3/8" line from the gas tank/electric fuel pump to the mechanical pump...won't I lose any advantage of the larger diameter line? Even if I were to use 5/16" line instead, I'd still have to have an adapter to choke it down to the 7/16-24 threaded 1/4" fitting. Or am I supposed to be running 1/4" line from the gas tank to the fuel pump? That doesn't sound right.
On top of that, I had presumed that since I was running 3/8" line into the mechanical fuel pump, I should be running 3/8" out to the carburetor to keep the flow rate the same. Am I wrong? Should I be using 1/4" line for that instead? The fitting on the carburetor is also 7/16-24 which offhand would imply that it should be 1/4" line. Any way I add it up from what I can see, if I'm running anything but 1/4" lines it will require adapters to narrow it down to that 7/16-24 fitting.
Right now I am so confused I can't see straight, and cussing whatever idiot yanked out all the original tubing and pump to begin with.
my 37 has 5/16 line from the tank to the pump,seems to work fine,it has a piece of rubber line from the frame to the pump,it has the fittings already on it,all the fittings you need should be easily found,try and find a "old time " parts store,they should have lots of fittings you will need.is a pretty basic setup,it is the tubing for the wipers that is a bit complicated,at least on my car it was. Harvey
3/8"line from the tank to the fuel pump. 5/16" line out of the pump to the carb. The threads in the pump are 1/8" NPT so need adapters to get to the flared fittings. All this from memory and don't have the car right here to double check but 3/8" to the tank for sure.
Jon,
Here's a couple of pictures that might be helpful for you. Brad gave you some good info regarding pipe size. These photos show what you can use for fittings on the pump as well as at the end of the fuel pipe.
The last photo shows a rough idea of where/how to route your gas pipe from pump to carb and the routing of the vacuum pipe to the pump.
Wes in VT
Here is some further info on the hose the connects the 3/8" line to the fuel pump suction. See attached picture. The line on the left is an actual hose off of a 40 Cadillac as delivered from the factory. Next to that is what I make up to closely approximate it. The next is a period replacement hose. It has a corrugated brass flex in the hose but I still would not trust it since formed brass can age crack. The next picture is the fittings I use to make up the hose. I take these fittings to an industrial hose shop and they put the hose on and crimp the sleeves on. At the place I use this is a real loser for them since they just charge for the hose. They make their money on the big industrial hoses. The hose is 1/4" which closely approximates the 5/16" tubing ID on the discharge side. For the tank line Cadillac transitioned to 5/16" inch line from the 3/8" line at some point and for sure by 1949. They used a really odd flare fitting then on the tank which has a standard 3/8" hex flare nut and threads but is drilled for the 5/16" line. The other problem with these sizes is you cannot buy a 3/8" female flare fitting with a 1/4" hose fitting on the end. I make one by using a 3/8" female and a 1/4" hose fitting and silver soldering them together. If you have a sufficient order to offset the shipping charge a good place to buy these fittings is: FittingsandAdapters.com
Thanks for all the photos and suggestions guys. I might have a handle on it now. As I mentioned I am running 3/8" line from the tank (I put in a new Tanks Inc. tank as the one I had was shot and wasn't original to the car anyway), through my Airtex pump which is located by the tank, all the way to the engine bay. I am also encasing it all in a gravel guard spring type wrapping.
It's really great the picture that Brad provided of an original flex hose, and the one he has made looks really nice. My Weatherhead flex hose that I ordered the other day hasn't arrived yet so I'll check those fittings when it gets here. I may end up having to get some other adapter fittings to make that work.
I'm running 1/4" lines for the vacuum system, and as Brad suggested, a 5/16" line from the pump to the carburetor which will be covered with asphalt coated looming material. I took my pump into a local Advance Auto Parts of all places, and surprisingly to me, we think we got all the fittings situated. It took an hour of trying this and that, but I think we finally got it.
Today I mounted the pump onto the block, which slipped right in with no troubles. I'm hoping I've got the arm inserted correctly. Then I put the lines into place by hand, bent the tubing to match the factory drawings, and marked the proper lengths to cut the tubing in preparation for reflaring the ends.
With any luck, I'll have it all put back together and running by Monday or Tuesday. Thanks again everyone, you've been an immense help, and I'll report back how it all comes out.
BTW is there anything I should worry about because my fuel pump went on so easily? I know the cam should be positioned to its lowest point with the arm riding on top of it. I decided to try putting the pump in to see if it would fit before I got into rotating anything, and to my surprise it slid right in. I didn't even have to use longer bolts as some have suggested, just positioned it and alternated tightening the bolts. Is this pretty much a go/no go type situation...either it fits right in or it doesn't? I just don't want to get in the situation of having the arm in the wrong place and turning the engine over only to bend or break it.
You might want to give that another look. The fuel pump arm can easily slide in just to the rear of the lobe on the cam shaft. It will look like it is just a little out of line and pull up with the bolts. It is easy to break the shaft the arm rides on. Don't ask how I know this, I just do. To properly install the pump you need to rotate the engine and look through the fuel pump mounting hole to see when the lobe is at it's lowest point the hold the fuel pump square to the mounting or just a little toward the front of the engine to insure good contact. It should give you resistance most of the way. If you have not turned the motor over you might be lucky and the fuel pump may not be damaged.
Good luck
Fred, thanks for the words of caution. I was sufficiently spooked that I pulled the pump before turning the engine over to try and make sure as much as I could that everything was good to go. So far as I can tell, it is. After considerable cussing over getting the vacuum line to the wipers attached, the pump is now on my car.
I'm now waiting for two more fittings to arrive at my parts store this morning so I can complete the installation and see if it all runs correctly.
About the only problem I now have is the connection of the fuel line to the carburetor. Currently there is a barb fitting on there, and the parts store can't seem to match the threading. I don't know if someone has fouled the threads on the carburetor or what's going on, but it looks like I might have to use a 2" or so section of rubber tubing to connect the two. Not what I ideally want, but it may just have to suffice for the time being.
Can anyone confirm for me if that threading is supposed to be a standard 1/2-20 (5/16"), 7/16-24 (1/4"), or something else? I may end up having to tap it out (which I'd rather not do) to get a complete hard line connection.
The pipe attaches to an adapter at the carb. I believe it is 1/8 NPT thread into the carb. A good ole-time parts store should have these adapters in stock.
If the adapter bottoms out in the carb you can find or make a gasket to go between the nut and the carb to keep it from leaking. Don't use pipe tape.
Once the adapter is in place you can use steel pipe from the pump to the carb without any rubber.
The second photo shows how it will look except your fuel pipe will go to the front of the carb if you are using the original Carter WD0. The engine in the photo is Cadillac, they used a Stromberg AAV or a Carter WCD.
Wes in VT
The fitting at the fuel pump outlet should also be NPT. If I'm understanding this correctly the need is for two brass 90* NPT male fittings that accept the fuel line with 5/16 inverted flare connections. You should be able to find those fittings at Ace Hdw or a local parts store. Good Luck, Harry
Quote from: tripwire on August 28, 2018, 11:10:10 AM
The pipe attaches to an adapter at the carb. I believe it is 1/8 NPT thread into the carb. A good ole-time parts store should have these adapters in stock.
If the adapter bottoms out in the carb you can find or make a gasket to go between the nut and the carb to keep it from leaking. Don't use pipe tape.
Once the adapter is in place you can use steel pipe from the pump to the carb without any rubber.
The second photo shows how it will look except your fuel pipe will go to the front of the carb if you are using the original Carter WD0. The engine in the photo is Cadillac, they used a Stromberg AAV or a Carter WCD.
Wes in VT
Thanks Wes, that helped quite a bit. I am running the Carter WD0, no teflon tape. Even though I've tried to not be a pain about it all, I think I've about worn out my welcome at the local auto parts store with all these crazy fittings. After getting all the other fittings we tried matching up, they claimed to not have the adapter to the 1/8 NPT from a 5/16 flare (I suspect they were tired of fooling with me and didn't bother even trying), so I found an online vendor who has them. I'll go on using the rubber tube temporarily until that arrives and see what happens.
Quote from: harry s on August 28, 2018, 01:48:12 PM
The fitting at the fuel pump outlet should also be NPT. If I'm understanding this correctly the need is for two brass 90* NPT male fittings that accept the fuel line with 5/16 inverted flare connections. You should be able to find those fittings at Ace Hdw or a local parts store. Good Luck, Harry
I've already got the two 90* fittings so I should be good to go on that.
Hopefully in the next hour I'll have it all plumbed up and see how it all works. Will report back later.
First of all, I want to thank everyone for their comments, suggestions, and photos. They were an immense help. I am very pleased to report that after much wrangling and cussing I have finally gotten my fuel pump hard lined and working correctly.
I did however have a bit of a problem at first. After getting things hooked up I started having trouble with the engine stuttering and stalling. Fortunately, I had my electric pump installed with a switch so I could keep it running. The symptoms pointed to an obvious fuel starvation problem which could be vapor lock...or very much like the problem I had when I put in the electric pump a few months ago. At that time I was using the replacement lines which came with the car. Different sizes were mixed in from tank to carburetor. So what I did yesterday was get two barb fittings to connect a 3/8 hose from fuel line to the mechanical pump. Problem seems solved. So for future reference to anyone who uses the Weatherhead tube, I recommend against it. It is only 1/4" diameter and seems to have been the problem causing fuel starvation.
Here we go again....
I "thought" everything was going well, and it does...until the engine has been running for a while on the 90+ degree days we've been having around these parts. Now I'm back to it bucking and jumping, stalling and/or the engine dying on me while driving down the road. Until I kick in the electric pump to get it going again and then it runs fine until a minute or so after I switch it back off.
I've been going through threads and confess the subtleties of "vapor lock" vs. "percolation" are somewhat elusive to me, but I'm thinking it is something along that vein which is my problem. I've read all the suggestions on how to prevent vapor lock from using insulation to running only non-ethanol gas, so no need to dredge all of those points back up that have been covered so thoroughly before.
Before I get to spending money on state of the art fuel line insulation, trying to locate 100% gas, adding kerosene to my fuel mix, or having the carburetor rebuilt (which is on my laundry list for the near future) I have a simple question.
With my current setup of having the electric fuel pump in series with the mechanical pump, is there any problem with running the electric pump full time (at least for now)? Will the electric being on all the time over pressurize the fuel? Will it damage the diaphragm in the mechanical pump?
I don't mind running the electric pump full time until it cools off a bit and I can see if that cures my problem. If that will work without causing any damage, so be it, I'll just run the car that way.
If it could cause problems running through the mechanical pump, I don't even mind temporarily running directly from my tank to the carburetor until cooler days prevail. But both of those options I would only consider a temporary fix. After spending a few hundred dollars to get the mechanical fuel pump in service only to not be able to use it is a finality I am not willing to accept. If after it cools off, and I still am having these problems, I will go to the next phase and seek modern insulation solutions or the other "cures" I have seen mentioned. Keep in mind, I am trying to keep my car as original looking as I can.
Do you know what pressure your electric pump puts out? If it is in the 6 PSI or lower range I doubt it will cause any harm. Electric pumps for fuel injected cars run in the 40 PSI range and that would over power the float valve in the carb and cause flooding.
I am running an Airtex E8902 which is rated at 4-4.5 pounds (w/o regulator), so it's not an exceptionally high pressure pump. I'm wondering if anyone else has any experience with this setup and has any long term problem with the mechanical fuel pump being over pressurized. I would just as soon not ruin the internals of a newly rebuilt fuel pump within a short time of having it.
Drove mine quite a bit yesterday with the pump on and pushing through the mechanical. Car ran fine with no stalling or cutting out. However I am smelling gas when I am running it. To the point where it causes a slight burning in my eyes over time. This would imply to me that it is all pushing too much gas into the carb which isn't burning off. It doesn't do that when I am running strictly on mechanical, nor did observe it when I only had an electrical pump before a couple of weeks ago. This would also suggest to me that it isn't any of my new fuel line connections leaking (and I have been looking).
For the record, I have felt for a long while now (even before I reinstalled a mechanical) that I was running too rich. Slightly sooty plugs, bit of soot out the tail pipe on ground at idle, getting about 5-6 mpg from what I can assess. I have adjusted the carburetor with the two adjusting screws on the front of the base and haven't seen it make a lot of difference other than the expected run rougher/run smoother differences. I have not adjusted the float basically because I don't know how and haven't yet studied up on that yet to feel confident poking around in there. This is why I am plotting to have the carburetor rebuilt as I suspect it has never been worked over, or at least hasn't in a long time. Plus, I think it would benefit from having any ethanol resistant parts installed.
I think your pump is overpowering the float needle. The two screws you mention are only idle adjusters and will not affect fast running.
USNTar,
Probably of no help but my 40 LaSalle behaves much as yours except I have no fuel smell or over rich indications. I have a rebuilt manual fuel pump backed up by an AirTEX electric. During moderate or cool temps the car will run for many miles using only the manual pump. Longest non stop trip using only manual has been 65 miles. On hot days it will usually run on manual for 20 or 30 miles then begin to vapor lock. I turn the electric pump on for a few seconds and then back manual. It will run on manual again for 1 to several miles before requiring the use of the electric. If it gets real bad I will just run the electric.
I drove the car many miles this summer at temps of 95 degrees and above. Usually my drives one way are under 30 miles. No problems with damage to the manual pump or other issues. After more than 3,000 miles using this technique. I have decided to just live with it as is. But I hate running the electric.
By the way I have tried many fuels from 100 octane low lead aviation fuel to 87 octane regular. Settled on 91 octane non- ethonol. She starts instantly, runs well on non-ethonol and averages 11 miles per gallon cruising about 50 mph.
Best Wishes,
Bob
Quote from: Steve Passmore on September 06, 2018, 02:15:37 PM
I think your pump is overpowering the float needle. The two screws you mention are only idle adjusters and will not affect fast running.
Distinct possibility. I'm back to maybe a carb rebuild is the solution here unless there's something else I should try first.
Quote from: z3skybolt on September 06, 2018, 11:15:18 PM
USNTar,
Probably of no help but my 40 LaSalle behaves much as yours except I have no fuel smell or over rich indications. I have a rebuilt manual fuel pump backed up by an AirTEX electric. During moderate or cool temps the car will run for many miles using only the manual pump. Longest non stop trip using only manual has been 65 miles. On hot days it will usually run on manual for 20 or 30 miles then begin to vapor lock. I turn the electric pump on for a few seconds and then back manual. It will run on manual again for 1 to several miles before requiring the use of the electric. If it gets real bad I will just run the electric.
I drove the car many miles this summer at temps of 95 degrees and above. Usually my drives one way are under 30 miles. No problems with damage to the manual pump or other issues. After more than 3,000 miles using this technique. I have decided to just live with it as is. But I hate running the electric.
By the way I have tried many fuels from 100 octane low lead aviation fuel to 87 octane regular. Settled on 91 octane non- ethonol. She starts instantly, runs well on non-ethonol and averages 11 miles per gallon cruising about 50 mph.
Best Wishes,
Bob
Thanks Bob, but quite the contrary...that is EXACTLY the kind of first hand experience I am looking for. Your situation is virtually identical to the trouble I'm having. I too hate relying on the electric pump, but I may just have to live with it for now. I think one thing I am going to do is give this stuff a spin:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002UPMU60/?coliid=I3L6W90NKD2J95&colid=YF559K95UCQH&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
It's not period accurate by any means, but doesn't look too offensive from what I can tell. I think I'll run it from tank to pump, and even from pump to carb (putting the asphalt covered insulation over the top) and see if that helps any. If it doesn't, at least I'm only out $30 for trying something that may work great.
I may also start experimenting with fuels, but as we all know, that isn't always feasible. May be a pipe dream, but I'd like to get it as reliable as possible with what is commonly available but that 11 mpg you're getting sure sounds appealing to me!
You need to make up a new fuel line that runs from the mechanical fuel pump to the carburetor and put a T-fitting somewhere in the line that you can mount a pressure gauge. Somewhere that will be visible while running the engine. Something like a 0 - 15 psi pressure gauge would do the trick. Then you can determine exactly what pressure the mechanical pump, the electric pump and the combination are putting out. If the maximum pressure you measure is something like 5 - 5 1/2 psi then you should be ok, if not, you probably have to do some fixing. Those pressure gauges are not all that expensive you should be able to find one for under $15.
Tom Beaver
Quote from: Tom Beaver on September 09, 2018, 01:52:17 AM
You need to make up a new fuel line that runs from the mechanical fuel pump to the carburetor and put a T-fitting somewhere in the line that you can mount a pressure gauge. Somewhere that will be visible while running the engine. Something like a 0 - 15 psi pressure gauge would do the trick. Then you can determine exactly what pressure the mechanical pump, the electric pump and the combination are putting out. If the maximum pressure you measure is something like 5 - 5 1/2 psi then you should be ok, if not, you probably have to do some fixing. Those pressure gauges are not all that expensive you should be able to find one for under $15.
Tom Beaver
Good suggestion. I have a pressure gauge that I can test with, so I think I'll rig something up to see what it's putting out. Thanks.
If you are using a Carter rotary vane type electric pump in series with the engine pump, the occasional "vapor lock" symptoms are quite possibly the result of the periodic inability of the engine pump to suck through the resistance of the Carter electric. I had the exact same symptoms on my 41 for several years. Jack Hoffman engineered a solution, using a Carter flow valve(basically a check valve) piped in parallel with the electric pump. After installation, the fuel starvation symptom never again recurred in about 20,000 miles of driving.
The Carter part number is 169-1002, was available at NAPA stores, but now may be hard to find.
Quote from: Bob Schuman on September 09, 2018, 04:24:08 PM
If you are using a Carter rotary vane type electric pump in series with the engine pump, the occasional "vapor lock" symptoms are quite possibly the result of the periodic inability of the engine pump to suck through the resistance of the Carter electric. I had the exact same symptoms on my 41 for several years. Jack Hoffman engineered a solution, using a Carter flow valve(basically a check valve) piped in parallel with the electric pump. After installation, the fuel starvation symptom never again recurred in about 20,000 miles of driving.
The Carter part number is 169-1002, was available at NAPA stores, but now may be hard to find.
See above, I'm not running a Carter pump. That's what came with my car and I didn't like it so I replaced it with an Airtex months ago.
The good news is that the temperature finally broke around here and today was only about 75 degrees out. With no further modifications such as additional insulation on the fuel lines, running standard 87 octane 10% ethanol I was continuously on the road for around 5 hours today! This is by far the furthest I have driven the car in one shot. To date, I had only gone about 40 miles at most. Drove 200 miles total and other than stop and go traffic in the city and when I restarted after filling up, I had zero vapor lock issues while running purely on the mechanical pump! The couple of occasions when it did happen, I fired up the electric pump for a couple of minutes until back up to speed, then turned it off and kept on going. This has been a major leap forward in my book. Best of all, I now seem to be averaging around 11 mpg at 55 mph on back roads. I couldn't be any happier with the results of today's shakedown cruise. When I get the insulation installed on my fuel lines I'll report back my findings. The manufacturer claims that it will reduce radiant heat by 60% but I'd be shocked if it comes remotely close to that. Then again, a 20 or even 10% reduction will be better than nothing. As someone who drives it 2-3 times per week here in the South, I have no intention of being sidelined just because the temperature goes over 90 degrees ;D
Jon,
The cooler weather is your friend.
Gasohol tends to vaporize at temps near mid 90s depending on the blend the particular fuel company uses. In the winter they make it more volatile so cars start better in the cold, maybe not so much down south but up here it's a real thing. In the summer they adjust the mix for slightly less volatility.
Insulating the fuel pipe from the pump to the carburetor was done by the factory back when, with a cloth type material and now folks can use better stuff like fire-sleeve, etc.
You can also insulate the fuel hose from the frame to the pump but I don't see any point in insulating the entire length of pipe back to the tank. Remember, the fuel in the tank is going to be at ambient temperature anyway, maybe a few degrees cooler.
One of the reasons people add an electric pump is to pressurize the system which will increase, by a few degrees at most, the vaporization point. Just like what adding pressurization does to a car's cooling system (fluids under pressure have a higher boiling point, approx. 2 degrees per pound of pressure). I couldn't find a document to tell me how much the 3 or 4 lbs of pressure in your fuel system increases the boiling point but I doubt it makes a huge difference. But, as you've already seen, any little bit helps.
Back in my race car days, it was very common to add a "cool can" to the fuel system to reduce the fuel temperatures and help it stay liquid and dense. I'm not sure there are any systems out there to do this sort of thing for long drives. Typically, we'd have to refill the cooler with ice or dry ice after every run down the 1/4 mile but that's a different animal. I have seen fuel line coolers that look like little radiators but I have doubts about their effectiveness, blowing warm air over something the same temperature isn't going to cool anything.
I don't know the extent of all of your vapor-lock reduction techniques but there are many and all make a bit of a contribution to this very common situation on these flat-head Cadillac engines. There is no, "oh just do this and you're good to go solution." What works for someone else might not work for your situation.
Have you read any of the other postings on this subject? There are many threads here and on other old car forums discussing this issue. Many makes, years and models are affected. Flathead Fords because the fuel pump is on top of the engine behind everything, some straight 6 & 8 cylinder engines because the fuel pump is near the exhaust manifold, even newer cars in the post-war era.
On my car, I have the same electric pump as you do, I have an insulator under the carb., insulated fuel hose to the pump, insulated pipe from pump to carb., an insulator between the fuel pump and engine block, a 6 blade radiator fan, Heat Wrap on the exhaust manifolds and crossover pipe. At some point in the near future, probably this winter, I'll be making and installing the Mud Pan Shield that is missing from my car. See http://forums.cadillaclasalleclub.org/index.php?topic=150458.0 (http://forums.cadillaclasalleclub.org/index.php?topic=150458.0) I'm told this will help to keep the air flowing over the front of the engine rather than down and away. I have also been experimenting with adding a small amount of kerosene to the non-ethanol gas I buy when I tank up. This reduces the octane of the fuel, which these cars don't need but they do like gasoline rather than gasohol. It also increases the vaporization point of the fuel by a small amount. Thickens the soup if you will.
Other people have had luck with: adding a heat shield behind the carburetor to deflect heat from the crossover pipe, and others have blocked the exhaust passages under the intake to keep the carburetor cool and I'm sure there are other techniques I failed to mention but they're out there.
I think you are going to have to come to accept the fact that these cars were built for a different world than the one we live in and making some small changes to have it continue to function in our current reality is a simple fact of life.
Additional Reading: I typed "Vapor lock" in the search box at the top of the page and got back 16 pages of discussion on the subject.
On the AACA forum I got 57 pages on the subject.
I googled, "vapor lock" and got about 18,400,000 results
Good luck.
Wes in VT
Quote from: tripwire on September 12, 2018, 12:15:02 PM
Have you read any of the other postings on this subject? There are many threads here and on other old car forums discussing this issue. Many makes, years and models are affected. Flathead Fords because the fuel pump is on top of the engine behind everything, some straight 6 & 8 cylinder engines because the fuel pump is near the exhaust manifold, even newer cars in the post-war era.
Oh yeah...definitely have studied up on the topic here. I always try to search around before I post anything. This circumstance I couldn't find the exact scenario I was having, but did find similar variations of a theme. While I suspected that was potentially the problem, I had so many other things going on that I couldn't be sure until now.
Quote from: tripwire on September 12, 2018, 12:15:02 PM
I think you are going to have to come to accept the fact that these cars were built for a different world than the one we live in and making some small changes to have it continue to function in our current reality is a simple fact of life.
This I think really hits the nail on the head. That is why I have decided to try using a modern insulating material to see what it yields. This isn't a points car, but I do try to walk the straight and narrow, making/keeping it as authentic to factory spec as possible. I think in this case it is a sacrifice I am willing to make in order to keep it driving which is what I do.
Quote from: tripwire on September 12, 2018, 12:15:02 PM
You can also insulate the fuel hose from the frame to the pump but I don't see any point in insulating the entire length of pipe back to the tank. Remember, the fuel in the tank is going to be at ambient temperature anyway, maybe a few degrees cooler.
My thinking on this, though I'll admit it may be faulty, is that there is a LOT of heat that comes up off the pavement here in the South. We don't measure temperatures by a day or two here and there in the 90+ degree range...we have weeks of such temperatures on end with many days in the 100+ range. That's a lot of continuous sun beating down on asphalt which stores that heat well into the night or even next day. I have to believe that heat can radiate into the small surface area of the fuel line in a quick fashion and contribute to my problem. Either way, it shouldn't take long to run that insulation along the length, and I already have it in hand so why not give it a try? Thanks for the comments, and I'll be sure to report back what my findings are.
Jon,
You may be on to something with the radiant heat off the road surface thing. If that is a real thing, I doubt the radiant heat is concentrated on that tiny 3/8" pipe next to your frame rail, I would think it would be affecting the big flat surface you have on the bottom of your gas tank. Maybe that's where you would think about putting a layer of heat insulating material. Like this stuff: https://www.heatshieldproducts.com/automotive/heat-shield-and-thermal-barriers (https://www.heatshieldproducts.com/automotive/heat-shield-and-thermal-barriers) If you shop around somewhat you'll find lots of products like that one and there may be something more suited to what you are attempting to accomplish.
Good Luck.
Let us know if your theory proves to be sound. I'm sure we'd all like to find a final solution to this concern.
Wes in VT.
Wes,
Are you looking for the pan that has four bolts that mounts on the frame just under / behind the radiator? If so I have one for you.
Dave
Dave,
Pm sent.
Wes in VT
Well, after running with my new setup for 2-3 weeks I am saddened to report that I can't tell if installing HeatShield insulation on my fuel lines has had any effect at all. Of course all of these things can be highly subjective, and while it may have helped things slightly, it certainly falls short of what I would expect to be a 60% drop in radiant heat which they advertise. Admittedly, I haven't taken an actual temperature reading, just basing it on "feel."
Ditto for their HeatShield Stealth fabric which I have inserted underneath the passenger matting to cut down on exhaust heat. It may help a bit, but nothing dramatic to the point I would jump up and down to sing their praises. I had already cut down a lot of heat with the use of the fake asbestos wrap around the exhaust pipe which works pretty good and made a noticeable difference. But the missus reports not much of a change with the installation of HeatShield Stealth.
Have you tried advancing the timing very slightly? Worked for me on a 36 that created massive engine compartment heat.
Quote from: Steve Passmore on October 02, 2018, 03:15:58 PM
Have you tried advancing the timing very slightly? Worked for me on a 36 that created massive engine compartment heat.
Definitely did that a couple of months ago when I did a complete lube and timing job on the car. As a rule my gauge pegs itself just above the halfway point...even on very hot days. At least until you sit and idle for a few minutes. Amazing how the gauge can take a while to go from "C" to the halfway mark, and take mere seconds to go from the halfway mark to "H". But no, I'm not especially having any overheating issues, though I definitely keep an eye out for it.
I'm just trying to reduce the bake oven effect inside the passenger compartment as much as possible. It's definitely not as excruciating as it was, but could stand some improvement. Definitely wrapping the exhaust with the fake asbestos insulation helped immensely. To be honest, I may have the whole thing as insulated as well as it can be (which is tolerable for now), and will just have to learn to live with it as is.
Jon,
It sounds like you are working on two different problems. Cabin heat and vapor lock.
I'm not sure what you were expecting the fuel pipe insulation to do for you regarding cabin heat. I thought that was for your vapor lock problem.
If you are trying to reduce cabin temperature this is a different problem.
If you only added insulation on the passenger side of the car you aren't going to see much reduction in heat transfer. Heat moves like sound. If you only close a door half way the noise you are trying to get away from still comes in. The door has to be closed entirely to be effective.
Are all of the holes in your firewall closed with either grommets around wires/cables etc.? If not seal them up.
Get some more of the heat shield material and cover the entire floor starting as high on the firewall as you can. Take the seats out and go all the way to the back of the passenger compartment.
You might also consider adding exhaust wrap to your exhaust manifolds and crossover.
http://designengineering.com/titanium-exhaust-wrap/ (http://designengineering.com/titanium-exhaust-wrap/)
Edit: I added a photo to show the exhaust wrap I used on my car. It seems to heat somewhat on getting the heat out of the engine compartment and consequently out of the passenger compartment.
I'm also wondering if you use the cowl vent. I've noticed a significant reduction in heat in the passenger compartment with that vent open even just a little. My wife, who hates drafts of any kind, even prefers to have it open rather than closed.
Please clarify so we can better assist you.
Wes in VT
Quote from: tripwire on October 03, 2018, 09:16:03 AM
Jon,
It sounds like you are working on two different problems. Cabin heat and vapor lock.
I'm not sure what you were expecting the fuel pipe insulation to do for you regarding cabin heat. I thought that was for your vapor lock problem.
If you are trying to reduce cabin temperature this is a different problem.
Oh, this is definitely two different issues. This whole thread was dedicated to my fuel pump issues, my resolution of such, and eventually my attempts to defeat vapor lock. I was just following through with my report on using HeatShield fuel line insulation and what results I got from it. I've noticed most times people start threads and never follow through to completion. Many promise to report back what results they came up with, but never do and leave others with a cliffhanger that never gets resolved. I don't want to be "that guy."
So far as vapor lock, I've pretty well got a handle on it. I just run my electric pump when it's very hot out, or if I'm going to be in stop and go traffic and want that extra insurance that it won't crap out on me. The HeatShield product...meh...it might help a little, but I see no real noticeable difference. I'm not going to tear it out or anything now that I've got it installed, but I'm not overly impressed with it. Might save somebody down the road from buying a product that doesn't live up to it's advertising hype.
I only brought up the cabin temperature issue because I also bought some HeatShield stealth insulation at the same time to put in the floor pan with the hopes it would bring the temperature down inside. Directly over the exhaust, on the passenger side it seems to make no noticeable difference according to my s/o. Again, I would have to observe that the HeatShield product doesn't come close to living up to it's own advertising of "reducing residual heat up to 60%". That's all I was getting at.
Keep in mind, I've been driving this car 2-3 days a week all this summer with temps in the high 90's (and high humidity) and it hasn't smoked us out yet! Just experimenting with stuff to see if we can bring the discomfort level down a bit. Standard practice is to open the side and cowl vents ALL the way before we even leave the driveway. :D
I'm back to, the best thing I did was wrap the entire exhaust pipe from manifold to muffler with this product:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008HQ78Z4/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Which, from what I can tell, is the exact same stuff that our old car vendors are selling for over 4x the money as an exhaust wrap. For $50 I got enough product to cut in half, and cover the whole pipe rather than just a 24" section. When I put that on, the comfort level changed immediately from positively hellish to uncomfortably bearable.
Forgive me for bringing up something so simple if you have already done it. Is the coolant flow through the heater (if you have one) turned off? Harry
Quote from: harry s on October 03, 2018, 11:03:29 AM
Forgive me for bringing up something so simple if you have already done it. Is the coolant flow through the heater (if you have one) turned off? Harry
I do have one, but I removed it this past spring for restoration. Will be reinstalling it soon.