Fuel pump choices?

-

71scamp78

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
1,355
Reaction score
343
Location
terre haute indiana
Looking for recommendations on an electric fuel. Street mostly 512 cubes to feed max rpm 6k . Never ran one before only mechanical. Any certain brand recommendations and are there any that are somewhat quite since it's not a drag car..in tank option isn't on the table. Thanks.
 
Stay away from a Holley or Carter pump. If you can afford a new Mallory 140 I’d use that. You can find them used on fleabag cheap sometimes.

Then I would suck it up and use the Mallory 29388 bypass regulator and run a return line. I don’t do any electric fuel pump systems anymore without a bypass.

The pump will live much longer. You will get cooler fuel to the carb. The fuel pressure will be much more stable. It costs a bit more because you have to run the return line and the regulator is a bit more expensive.

BTW, I wouldn’t buy a regulator with the Holley name on it either. When they acquired Mallory they should have killed that entire junk holley line and just used the Mallory stuff.
 
I just looked. Several nice Mallory 140’s used on fleabag right now. Make an offer on them. I usually don’t pay what they are asking for them unless it’s already a smoking deal.

And these pumps are fully and easily rebuildable.
 
Aeromotive has some nice choices as well.
 
Looking for recommendations on an electric fuel. Street mostly 512 cubes to feed max rpm 6k . Never ran one before only mechanical. Any certain brand recommendations and are there any that are somewhat quite since it's not a drag car..in tank option isn't on the table. Thanks.
I use Weldon......very high quality
 
Carter elec pumps, most reliable stand alone elec pump made. Am aware of a number of Mallory 140 pumps that have failed.
The Carter pump is unique in that the fuel circulates through the elec motor section. This does several positive things: lubes the brgs, cools the motor, eliminates the seal between electrical & mechanical section [ reason that most pumps fail ]. So one less seal, one less item to fail...
Design is unchanged since it's intro in 1969 because it was so good nothing needed changing...
The 4600 series is what you want, 100 gph, though at a 6k limit you could also use the 4594 which is 72 gph. That is free flow [ as they are all rated ]. 100 gph is enough to feed over 1000hp.
 
Carter elec pumps, most reliable stand alone elec pump made. Am aware of a number of Mallory 140 pumps that have failed.
The Carter pump is unique in that the fuel circulates through the elec motor section. This does several positive things: lubes the brgs, cools the motor, eliminates the seal between electrical & mechanical section [ reason that most pumps fail ]. So one less seal, one less item to fail...
Design is unchanged since it's intro in 1969 because it was so good nothing needed changing...
The 4600 series is what you want, 100 gph, though at a 6k limit you could also use the 4594 which is 72 gph. That is free flow [ as they are all rated ]. 100 gph is enough to feed over 1000hp.


And I’ve seen almost as many failed Carter pumps as I have Holley pumps. The Carter pump never produces the GPM they say it does.

It’s a step up pump at best.
 
Scamp,
Trust me the Carter is THE best for what you want. Absolute nonsense from Rat Bastid.
Firstly, all the gph numbers quoted from pump mfrs are free flow, so they ALL produce a little less when you add lines, filter, regulator, etc.
Secondly, search the web & see how many failures of the above mentioned electric pumps you can find. I know of one & am not convinced it was the pump's fault, as details were vague; if you run the pump without fuel long enough, of course it will fail. I know of a 4594 that was on a daily driver for 19 yrs [ yes, 19!!!! ]. It was replaced; not because it failed, because the owner thought it had earned it's 'retirement'. I have the 4600 on my car, been on 17 yrs, driven weekly. A previous car I owned had the 4594, had been on over 10 yrs when I sold it. It had, for awhile, been driven daily for work.
Thirdly, you can buy a pump like the Edel, looks nice with the billet plate/housing, but it will not anything better or more reliably than the Carter, but it WILL lighten your wallet.
 
Well damn hmm..not really sure what to get.


Buy the used Mallory. Skip the Carter pump. Bewy is a loud mouthed troll.

Or spend the money on an Aeromotive or the Weldon. But the Carter is just a waste of money and the Holley is unreliable.
 
Watermen Cable driven fuel pump. Not sure how they are set up but I have seen more than a few on some nice cars
 
Last edited:
I run a solo Carter P4594 (USA made version) there’s obviously better quality and higher output pumps, it’s not fancy, trick or really race or competition spec, but I run it low and close to the tank, with an NOS Fram canister filter and 3/8” hardline up to the carb no issues with delivery to my strip/street stroker setup. It is properly grounded and wired with relay, fuse and proper gauge wire for full voltage etc. It is audible. I like hearing it as there’s a lot of noise in my van. Whatever pump you go with, install it properly with proper wire, relay, fuse etc.and it’ll live a long life
 
Last edited:
Good advice from 12many.

Disagree that there are better quality pumps. That thinking might come from the fact the Carter elec pumps are cheaper than most others. They are cheap because the design is incredibly simple, self aligning brgs, only two seals, & they are cheap to make.

512 ci @ 6000 rpm requires about 42 gph [ assuming 80% VE at 6k, & 80% is being generous ] with correct A/F ratio.

The Carter 4600 series are rated at 100 gph, so this would supply more than enough fuel with a very healthy safety margin. You could probably also use the 4594, 72 gph, with free flowing lines & filter.

It makes NO sense using a pump that is larger than needed because the pump just works harder dead-heading against the regulator....& wears out quicker.
 
Good advice from 12many.

Disagree that there are better quality pumps. That thinking might come from the fact the Carter elec pumps are cheaper than most others. They are cheap because the design is incredibly simple, self aligning brgs, only two seals, & they are cheap to make.

512 ci @ 6000 rpm requires about 42 gph [ assuming 80% VE at 6k, & 80% is being generous ] with correct A/F ratio.

The Carter 4600 series are rated at 100 gph, so this would supply more than enough fuel with a very healthy safety margin. You could probably also use the 4594, 72 gph, with free flowing lines & filter.

It makes NO sense using a pump that is larger than needed because the pump just works harder dead-heading against the regulator....& wears out quicker.


Who said dead head a bigger pump? Only you. I won’t dead head ANY pump. It’s a bad policy.

I can tell you that the Carter pump is rated higher than it flows. And your numbers may look good on paper, but in the real world don’t mean a lot.

You have to compensate for plumbing losses, G forces, voltage drops and other things that are real world.

When Steve Morris, who has more Bona Fides in his drawers than you will ever have says you can’t have pushrods too big, too much ignition or a fuel pump that’s too big...well what he says and my experience shows means you are wrong. Again.

BTW, what does cubic inches have to do with your math? more bullshit you post to make yourself look smart.

Does 512 inches at 6000 need more or less fuel than 400 inches at 7500? Answer: displacement doesn’t mean a thing. It’s horsepower that matters. It takes roughly .45 pound of fuel per horsepower per hour. I didn’t see displacement in that equation. That is Brake Specific Fuel Consumption and it’s a measure of how well (or not) an internal combustion engine uses fuel on a dyno. Hence the term BRAKE. It’s measured on a water brake.

That’s why a dyno can easily run an engine making well north of 1000 hp with a relatively small fuel pump. That same fuel pump in the car would be as useless as much of what you post.

You can’t have too much fuel pump.
Dont dead head ANY electric pump.
You can’t get the pump feed or return lines too big, with very few exceptions. One BG pump I know of being an exception.

Simple rules to follow. And I know there are guys running low 10’s on mechanical pumps. That doesn’t make it right. And I’d say it’s wrong.
 
Last edited:
RB,
Yes you have to allow for pumping losses etc. Did you read [ can you read? ] post # 13.

And apparently you are not aware that there are 'real world' methods to calculate the amount of the fuel the engine will require [ post #17 ]. You cannot make the engine use more than it needs....
I have great respect for Steve Morris. I'm sure when he burns out his first pump because it can supply 10 times the amount of fuel his engine needs....he will modify his statement.
 
Good advice from 12many.

Disagree that there are better quality pumps. That thinking might come from the fact the Carter elec pumps are cheaper than most others. They are cheap because the design is incredibly simple, self aligning brgs, only two seals, & they are cheap to make.

512 ci @ 6000 rpm requires about 42 gph [ assuming 80% VE at 6k, & 80% is being generous ] with correct A/F ratio.

The Carter 4600 series are rated at 100 gph, so this would supply more than enough fuel with a very healthy safety margin. You could probably also use the 4594, 72 gph, with free flowing lines & filter.

It makes NO sense using a pump that is larger than needed because the pump just works harder dead-heading against the regulator....& wears out quicker.
When I refer to the likely quality of others I’m referring to, for example: a stamping(s) vs. billet, and possible closer tolerances (an assumption that no, I’ve never verified) the fittings etc, along with the differences in output. The thinking is not based on pricing alone, which is something I learned long ago. I’m just glad a $60 bland old school electric pump suffices for my mid/low 11 second 114+Mph hot rod. I know that there are many that have had issues with electric pumps (not to mention other electrical components) due to being improperly wired/installed just as there are many who exceed and require “more” for their application.
 
RB,
Yes you have to allow for pumping losses etc. Did you read [ can you read? ] post # 13.

And apparently you are not aware that there are 'real world' methods to calculate the amount of the fuel the engine will require [ post #17 ]. You cannot make the engine use more than it needs....
I have great respect for Steve Morris. I'm sure when he burns out his first pump because it can supply 10 times the amount of fuel his engine needs....he will modify his statement.


I can read find. Displacement and fuel consumption are NOT related fool.

I’ll be sure to forward your advice to Steve. That way he can see how stupid you think he is.
 
Dope,
Displacement & fuel consumption ARE related for NA engines subject to VE, which is what we have here. Just showing your ignorance again.

So Steve would use 1.5" diam prods? Or bigger? Or an ign system that would electrocute a person if a lead came off [ such a system was developed ]? Those are his literal statements.
Obviously his statements were phrased for those who used some common sense in interpreting their meaning.
 
Dope,
Displacement & fuel consumption ARE related for NA engines subject to VE, which is what we have here. Just showing your ignorance again.

So Steve would use 1.5" diam prods? Or bigger? Or an ign system that would electrocute a person if a lead came off [ such a system was developed ]? Those are his literal statements.
Obviously his statements were phrased for those who used some common sense in interpreting their meaning.


It must be a down under thing. Displacement and fuel consumption are not related, except maybe in Australia.

A 1975 454 with maybe what? 300 hp won’t burn as much fuel as a 408 SBM making 500 you ignorant dolt.

Now piss off.
 
-
Back
Top