which EFI fuel solution for dual tanks would you use?

[gramps77]

Currently, all I have left is fuel supply with my 77 dual tank Scottsdale. My dual tanks currently work and transfer great, no issues. Adding the EFI, of course, requires higher fuel pressure and draw.
Ive read that the stock transfer valve wont hold up to fuel draw of an EFI pump, so here's my question.

I have BOTH the MSD Atomic fuel pump system I could use with the new Pollack valve (from an 87 FI dual tank system) I have to replace the stock fuel transfer pump.......OR I also have the FI Tech Fuel Command center that feeds of the stock mechanical fuel pump.
I'll be using a return system for either fuel supply so that's a non issue.

Which way would you guys go?

[SunSoaked]

MSD. Then sell me your FiTech command center.

[sweetk30]

read up first on fitech fuel command centers . i have seen lots of people having problems with them .

high psi pumps for fuel always push better than suck and get cooled sitting in the fuel = why there in the tank .

i prefer the 87-91 efi tank/ sender / 96c3500 vortec 350 fuel pump thats a plug/play on a 87-91 efi sender. and you can get efi sender with out pump to save money .

[BamaDave]

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/edl-36032

[83GMCK2500]

Originally Posted by gramps77

Currently, all I have left is fuel supply with my 77 dual tank Scottsdale. My dual tanks currently work and transfer great, no issues. Adding the EFI, of course, requires higher fuel pressure and draw.
Ive read that the stock transfer valve wont hold up to fuel draw of an EFI pump, so here's my question.

I have BOTH the MSD Atomic fuel pump system I could use with the new Pollack valve (from an 87 FI dual tank system) I have to replace the stock fuel transfer pump.......OR I also have the FI Tech Fuel Command center that feeds of the stock mechanical fuel pump.
I'll be using a return system for either fuel supply so that's a non issue.

Which way would you guys go?

How many PSI are the new in-tank pumps? The Pollack valves (3-port & 6-port) are rated for 65 PSI & have 3/8" ports on the supply side.
http://products.pollakaftermarket.co...elector-valves

[Tom]

Originally Posted by gramps77

.
Ive read that the stock transfer valve wont hold up to fuel draw of an EFI pump, so here's my question.

So the fuel pump sucks fuel from the tanks threw the valve before pressurizing and sending it foward? That's a bit absurd and poorly designed. Pumps should push, not suck. Stock transfer valve should have fuel being forced threw it. Unless your saying the stock valve won't handle high fuel pressure?

[sweetk30]

Originally Posted by Tom

So the fuel pump sucks fuel from the tanks threw the valve before pressurizing and sending it foward? That's a bit absurd and poorly designed. Pumps should push, not suck. Stock transfer valve should have fuel being forced threw it. Unless your saying the stock valve won't handle high fuel pressure?

stock carb style older 86-back valve wont hold is what he is trying to say .

the vortec series pump lots are using in tank are 60-65 psi rated for there specific application .

fitech and snipper use 58-59 psi .

[gramps77]

Originally Posted by sweetk30

stock carb style older 86-back valve wont hold is what he is trying to say .

the vortec series pump lots are using in tank are 60-65 psi rated for there specific application .

fitech and snipper use 58-59 psi .

Yes, he's right. Apparently the valve won't hold up to the pump draw. I already have the FCC so I guess I'll try this route. I had thought about getting rid of one tank since I should have increased fuel mileage and also have the standard MSD pump, but like the extra 20 gallons.

[SunSoaked]

Originally Posted by sweetk30

read up first on fitech fuel command centers . i have seen lots of people having problems with them .

I'm in the process of installing the Edelbrock remote sump. I've done 3 FiTech command center installs. Regarding the "lots of people having problems", I see a common thread to the folks making this claim. It appears they don't know the difference between a return line ( related to pump bypass pressure) versus a vent line. If the pump is in the sump, why would you need a return line? On the other hand, a sump is a vessel, thus it needs to be vented, preferably back to the tank.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by gramps77

Yes, he's right. Apparently the valve won't hold up to the pump draw.

Thats where you confused me. A draw has always been a suction to me [the intake to the pump, not the pressurized output], you guys are referencing the pump output/pressure in the fuel lines. That's pushing not drawing.

[SunSoaked]

This thread has become waaaaay overcomplicated.