Engine/Transmission (1998.5 - 2002) new tank mounted pump good or bad ????

[.44 mag]

Got the truck to the dealer today and they verified the need for a new VP44 under warrenty. The question I need a quick answer on is wether or not to let them retrofit the truck for the tank mounted lift pump??



This is Dodge's new "fix" for the common pump failures and it sounds like a good idea at first. Can someone knowledgeable on this give me some quick advice?



Thanks!

 

[nps]

Jury is out (and will be until some more miles are on them).



Consensus is that it should be an improvement (because it puts the pump at the fuel and makes it a pusher, it is how all other applications are built, etc. ) but a PIA to change if it goes out.



I'd take one if offered. I'd keep my old one in the factory location, or at least get a spare. I'd hope that if the tank pump fails it allows the factory location pump to suck through it, as the current LP does - then I'd connect the factory location back up. Above all, I'd keep watching my FP gauge.



Honestly, if you get the VP44 changed under warranty, do you have a choice to make? Seems they would insist on putting in the LP and not do the VP44 without it.

 

[.44 mag]

I had recently changed out the lift pump myself with one purchased from Cummins. I generally do all my own service and repair; but, looking at the overall cost of a VP44 going bad I decided to let the dealer look at it and try to cover it under the warranty.



Since the LP was new and funtioning fine, they were not going to change that. I'm the one who brought up the question about the "in tank" retrofit. Basicly, the dealer said that I was correct in saying this was the new procedure for LP replacement. He said if I brought in the old LP I had changed out, he would do the retrofit and send that pump in for warranty coverage.



It sounds like this is the same pump set-up that they are using on the new trucks. Other than it being in a location that is harder to change out, I can't see much negitive about it. There seems to be some chatter on the forum about it producing less "pressure" than we are use to with the current style LP; but, with reliability the main issue, this seems like an improvement.



Does it sound like I'm on the right track?



Thanks!

 

[Joe Mc]

I'd give them the old LP. Tell them to leave new one you installed in place and if they must by-pass it, instruct that they make it easy to reconnect if new in tank fails while you are in the middle of nowhere. Man are you luck to still be within warranty and getting a VP for free!

 

[Texas Diesel]

I'd give them the old LP. Tell them to leave new one you installed in place and if they must by-pass it, instruct that they make it easy to reconnect if new in tank fails while you are in the middle of nowhere. Man are you luck to still be within warranty and getting a VP for free!

*IF* the new in-tank pump fails are you SURE that you can pull fuel through a stalled in-tank pump?



Just a thought.



From what I have read so far the in-tank pumps deliver about 5-6PSI idle and 1-3PSI WOT. Still waiting for others to weigh in with their PSI readings. Given Chrysler's bouts of blatant stupidity I will wait and see before letting them screw it up any more. The in-tank pumps were designed for the common rail system and this may be a band aid approach for the VP-44 equipped trucks.