Anyone have experience with Holley's returnless in-tank fuel pump + Sniper?

[JohnK]

I have a '67 Mustang with a 351W that will eventually get a full restoration (once I've finished the Roadster build). For now, I'm making some small tweaks to it to improve drivability and overall enjoyment. I'm thinking of doing a conversion to EFI with a Holley Sniper setup, and the "returnless" in-tank pump that Holley offers seems like a compelling option as it would avoid the need to run a new return line back to the tank. Basically it puts the pressure regulator in the tank with the pump and therefore only requires the one (existing) fuel line to the engine. Sounds great on paper, and the few reviews I've read seem to indicate that it works as advertised, but it almost sounds too good to be true.

https://www.holley.com/products/fuel_systems/fuel_pumps_regulators_and_filters/fuel_pumps/in-tank_retrofit_fuel_module/parts/12-131

This is going on an old, tired 351W which is probably only putting out ~300HP on it's best day, so I'm not looking for max HP, but rather easy starting and a reduction in gas smell which is really off-putting to the rest of the family and makes it so that they don't really like driving in the car. When I do the full restoration it'll get proper dual 3/8" lines (along with a new engine) but that will likely be a few years down the road. Thoughts?

[FF33rod]

Seems like a cool solution. I was going to say you need to think about the diameter of the existing fuel feed but for 300hp that perhaps isn't an issue. What about the capability of the current line to take 60psi?

Steve

[JohnK]

That's a good question regarding the current line. It's the OEM hard line, so I would *think* it can handle 60psi with new fittings on either end, but of course that's an assumption that would need to be validated. If it's currently leak-free with the current carb setup, and I replace the final sections on either end with AN fittings, is there a reason to suspect the overall integrity of the rest of the line?

[stack]

I bought the Aeromotive version for another project. I have not run it yet but hoping the 60psi will be ok on the coyote that uses 58psi.

stack

[FF33rod]

That's a good question regarding the current line. It's the OEM hard line, so I would *think* it can handle 60psi with new fittings on either end, but of course that's an assumption that would need to be validated. If it's currently leak-free with the current carb setup, and I replace the final sections on either end with AN fittings, is there a reason to suspect the overall integrity of the rest of the line?

If it's hard line I don't imagine it's a problem, I'd trace it and make sure there aren't any hose sections

[bobl]

The downside of running a remote regulator setup like this is there is no means to bleed air from the system once it leaves the tank. This opens the door for vapor lock, or when first installed, (or maybe you run out of gas) there will be air in the fuel line from the tank all the way to the fuel rails. The only way to get it out is to crank the engine until it's purged through the injectors or manually bleed it.

[Bob Cowan]

That's a good question regarding the current line. It's the OEM hard line, so I would *think* it can handle 60psi with new fittings on either end, but of course that's an assumption that would need to be validated. If it's currently leak-free with the current carb setup, and I replace the final sections on either end with AN fittings, is there a reason to suspect the overall integrity of the rest of the line?

It's a cheap mild steel line that's 60+ years old. I would replace it. Also, sometime in the future you'll be rebuilding the engine, and adding power. Probably somewhere around a 50% increase in power. Which means you're going to need more fuel. Do not confuse pressure with flow.

The point? I would replace the line with a new 3/8" - 1/2 line (depending on what your engine plans are).


The downside of running a remote regulator setup like this is there is no means to bleed air from the system once it leaves the tank. This opens the door for vapor lock, or when first installed, (or maybe you run out of gas) there will be air in the fuel line from the tank all the way to the fuel rails. The only way to get it out is to crank the engine until it's purged through the injectors or manually bleed it.

Although this is true, it is also rare. The boiling point of a fluid increases with pressure. One of the advantages of EFI is that vapor lock is almost unheard of. Stock fuel rails often have a Schrader valve at one end. I have not seen that on any aftermarket performance parts, but test/purge port could be easily added.

I think (but could be wrong) that some new vehicles have pump, regulator, and return all in one module inside the tank.

[bobl]

It's a cheap mild steel line that's 60+ years old. I would replace it. Also, sometime in the future you'll be rebuilding the engine, and adding power. Probably somewhere around a 50% increase in power. Which means you're going to need more fuel. Do not confuse pressure with flow.

The point? I would replace the line with a new 3/8" - 1/2 line (depending on what your engine plans are).



Although this is true, it is also rare. The boiling point of a fluid increases with pressure. One of the advantages of EFI is that vapor lock is almost unheard of. Stock fuel rails often have a Schrader valve at one end. I have not seen that on any aftermarket performance parts, but test/purge port could be easily added.

I think (but could be wrong) that some new vehicles have pump, regulator, and return all in one module inside the tank.

Coming from the marine industry, Mercury Marine used a similar arrangement in all of their early efi setups. There was a huge problem with vapor lock and getting air in the system. You are correct they had a schrader valve on the fuel rail. We had many cases where customers ran out of fuel and could not get the engine to start after adding fuel. We would have to bleed the schrader valve until all the air was out and then it would fire right up. They finally went to a fuel module system and that problem was eliminated. I don't doubt the automotive industry has come up with a way to resolve that issue, I've just not seen it.

Bob