Anyone use Edelbrock's Universal EFI Sump system?

[joeydurango]

Looking at running this in our LS swap. Not much info out there... anyone have info? Good, bad, whatever. Looks like a clean system... we're wanting to use the stock tank and so on, so could work nicely.

Check it:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/edl-3605/overview/

[ls1nova71]

So its a small fuel tank that you mount remotely? It says you need a low pressure pump to supply it, so you'd have two pumps? I guess maybe it works, but for almost $550, I think there are better and more cost effective solutions.

[softballnrd27]

That's a lot of money for a very small fuel tank that puts 1 more area to troubleshoot if a problem arises. You could build an entire fuel system for that price.

[joeydurango]

A little expensive, agreed, although not that bad once you start to add up the costs associated with modifying the stock tank, plus an external pump. I liked the idea for two main reasons:

1. No return to the tank. I figure this would majorly decrease the likelihood of gas fumes in the cab, since it seems like once you begin to pressurize the tank with any sort of return, most people have fumes issues.

2. No fuel starvation issues at low fuel levels, under hard cornering, etc., without a baffled or sumped tank. Also, it seems like a lot of folks using in-line pumps with the stock supply line burn through pumps since they have to pull fuel up, over, and out - and the only way to solve this with the stock tank is to modify it for a bottom feed. Or, go for a system like this Edelbrock one.

I know those things can be solved by moving the tank to the rear, but that's just not an option right now...

Open to other suggestions or critiques, although I've researched a whole ton of ways other folks have done it. I'd really love it if someone had used the system, but it seems as if it's a pretty new product.

[ls1nova71]

You would still be pulling the fuel up and over the tank to get the fuel to the edelbrock pump. Also, it doesn't seem big enough to me, seeems like you could suck all the fuel out of it pretty quickly. Its also rated for 49-60 psi, at which you wiuld need almost the max out of it since you need 58 psi. If you properly vent your gas tank in the cab you won't have any fuel smell. I never smell gas in my truck.

[joeydurango]

Right, the fuel route would be the same, just the high-pressure pump wouldn't be pulling it - the first pump would be pulling at lower PSI and feeding it to the HP pump. But point taken.

They make two versions - a 49PSI version and a 60PSI version.

Good to know you don't have any fumes problems... are you using an EEC tank and venting via the original EEC plumbing, or venting some other way? Your builds are always sweet - was admiring your custom sump, and also your modified sender. Nice work!

[crazy longhorn]

It looks like a universal PROBLEM to me? Cough 2 times & pass

[akdg87]

We removed the stock tank put a 10 an bung in the the lowest part and gravity fed to a bosch 044 inline pump on the frame rail, works flawless. don't forget a filter before the pump to catch sediment. Plumbed the return line to the stock feed line back to tank.

[ls1nova71]

Originally Posted by joeydurango

Right, the fuel route would be the same, just the high-pressure pump wouldn't be pulling it - the first pump would be pulling at lower PSI and feeding it to the HP pump. But point taken.

They make two versions - a 49PSI version and a 60PSI version.

Good to know you don't have any fumes problems... are you using an EEC tank and venting via the original EEC plumbing, or venting some other way? Your builds are always sweet - was admiring your custom sump, and also your modified sender. Nice work!

I would think any problems you would have having the high pressure pump pull the fuel out of the tank, you would have with the low pressure pump. It seems to me that it wouldn't be able to keep up with the high pressure pump, but maybe not though.

I have the EEC tank and its all plumbed like factory all the way back to the charcoal cannister. The only difference is there's no vacuum to it. I was going to try to usr the purge solenoid, but wasn't sure it would work without the tank pressure sensor. The charcoal cannister is basically a vent and it keeps the fuel smell away when you park the truck inside. I do have all new hoses for the EEC part of the tank in the cab. But there are no rubber hoses on the actual fuel lines in the cab, that seemed like a bad idea to me, so its all hard line..

I've had set ups where the high pressure pumps pull the fuel out of the tank, and while not optimal, it will work. Just make sure you have a pre-pump filter and its not too restrictive.

[truckdude239]

Ive only have 300 dollars in my rear subuan tank and stainless steel lines

[joeydurango]

Originally Posted by akdg87

We removed the stock tank put a 10 an bung in the the lowest part and gravity fed to a bosch 044 inline pump on the frame rail, works flawless. don't forget a filter before the pump to catch sediment. Plumbed the return line to the stock feed line back to tank.

Was thinking about this as another option. The tank is non-EEC, and I've not heard great things about the quality of repro tanks. So, if I went this route, would venting be as simple as having the radiator shop add both a bung on the bottom for fuel delivery AND a bung on the top passenger side for venting purposes? We could run a "high loop" of hose up the cab pillar and then out to the frame behind the cab, or look into an aftermarket canister. More worried about fumes in the cab while driving than smelling the truck while parked. Or, is there a better way to vent a non-EEC tank that I'm not thinking of?