Engine/Transmission (1998.5 - 2002) News Flash - Mopar Replaces Lp

[Sticks]

I apologize if this is a repeater. I do not have time to search through the threads to see if this has been posted.



Mopar has FINALLY come up with a replacement for the POS LP.



This is a new, in tank unit that replaces the current in tank fuel sending unit. Whether or not this is also a cure for the notorious fuel level issues is unknown.



I am currently installing one on a truck at work, and will have detailed installation instructions, part numbers, and PSI info this week. I would have had them this weekend, but I am waiting on approval for replacing a bracket for the VP44.



The truck being installed on is a 99 stock 2500 5spd.



The unit looks like a standard gasser sending unit with the pump in the center portion. Kit comes with sending unit, OEM LP replacement block, 4 banjo washers, and wire harness kit for 98. 5 - 99, and 00 - 02 to supply power to the OEM harness to the tank.



First impressions are a little sketchy. The pump is SMALL and I hope is a rotary, not a diaphram. There are concerns about flow rates, and whether or not the pump will be able to handle it.



I will answer questions when I can, I work full time and go to school full time, so I am out of the house from 7:00 am - 11:30 pm M-F.



TO BE CONTINUED... .

 

[jjordan1]

My dealer in Alton,IL did the same replacement for me a couple weeks ago. So for seems to be good. If problems come BACK UP i will post.

 

[Supermod56]

Yes, there are a lot of posts here and on other sites about this new pump, doesn't look too good to me, pressures are low, etc. I will stick with the RASP I just bought.



Tom

 

[mhenon]

Just took my '02 to the dealer today for a VP replacement. They told me if the LP is good. . they only replace the VP44. If Lp and VP are bad. . they do the in-tank installation. I didn't realy want the new in-tank pump. . but I know my LP is good.

So. . it's up to the individual. If you want the new type pump. . just leave the bad LP in place. If you don't want it. . change the LP before you go to the dealer.

The service department was pretty excited about this new installtion. They think it's the way to go and had done quite a few to date. The jury's still out in my opinion.

Mike

 

[Sticks]

Preliminary results are not good. Clean tank and lines, new fuel filter, new VP44 and return valve, and 10 gallons of fresh fuel.



System priming pressure, engine off, just running the pump... 7 psi



Idle psi 5. 5 psi



2k no load... 4. 5 psi



I did not get the approval to finish work until late yesterday, so all I could do is get it started. Today I will be taking the psi readings under load, and a flow test.



Personally, and I am not speaking for my place of employment ... The pump is too small for the needs of the engine. The flow outlet of the pump is significantly smaller than the original, and obviously the pressure is down, and I will bet so is the flow. Now the unit I have may be defective, and that will be annoying to pull the tank again, but even if I got the 12 psi that many others are getting, I would still not recommend going with this option as the sole pump. It may work great for a pusher pump for the original in stock applications, but the flow ability may still be in question.



Between the cost of the two units now, Fass, Rasp, or Air Dog would be the better option.



Sorry for the repeater of the subject guys and gals.

 

[Sticks]

Flow results

3398cc per minute, KOEO

54cc per minute @ 7psi. Connected fuel filter outlet to a vp44 return valve (regulated @ 15psi) to see what the flow is under pressure.



According to the TSB that was put out by DC about testing the original pumps, this is more than DOUBLE the required flow needed for the vp44.



Pressure tests on the test truck



7 psi KOEO

5. 5 psi idle

4. 5 psi 2k rpm no load

4 psi WOT no load



5 psi idle in first

4 psi moderate acceleration through the gears (1. 8k - 2. 4k rpm)

1 psi hard acceleration (1. 4k - 3k rpm WOT)

3 psi 45 - 75 mph WOT in 5th gear



My management is still pondering the company status on this pump. All of my education surrounding the VP44 (education being what I learned here on the TDR, and from other mechanics) surrounds the pressure theory and darn the flow rate with the OEM fuel lines. No less than 10 psi for the life support of the VP44. Talking to my boss, Cummins is the one that came out with the flow rates.



Now I am still a little concerned that the pump I installed is only putting out 7 psi KOEO and 5 at idle, whereas most of the other installations are reporting 12 psi idle.

 

[nps]

3398cc per minute, KOEO

54cc per minute @ 7psi. Connected fuel filter outlet to a vp44 return valve (regulated @ 15psi) to see what the flow is under pressure.



According to the TSB that was put out by DC about testing the original pumps, this is more than DOUBLE the required flow needed for the vp44.

The TSB specifies 45 ounces in 25 seconds, or 3,193cc/min. Your results are 3,398cc/min, or 47 ounces in 25 seconds. This isn't double the spec - this is MARGINALLY acceptable under the old diagnostics.



Most other installs of the new in-tank LP are reporting numbers similar to yours. Remember that this thing was designed for the CP on the common rail system - not to feed the VP44.

 

[Sticks]

The TSB specifies 45 ounces in 25 seconds, or 3,193cc/min. Your results are 3,398cc/min, or 47 ounces in 25 seconds. This isn't double the spec - this is MARGINALLY acceptable under the old diagnostics.



Most other installs of the new in-tank LP are reporting numbers similar to yours. Remember that this thing was designed for the CP on the common rail system - not to feed the VP44.

Oops, my bad, Lack of sleep and one too many hits to the head.



Thanks for correcting me.



I was basing the numbers that I got, against what was told to me when I asked what the TSB specs were. He just said 45oz, so I did the conversion from cc to oz, and got the double.



Either way, I personally do not recommend this new replacement. Stick with the original if you have to, relocated by the tank, use the in tank unit as a pusher if you have the money, or go aftermarket.

 

[mhenon]

Just took my '02 to the dealer today for a VP replacement. They told me if the LP is good. . they only replace the VP44. If Lp and VP are bad. . they do the in-tank installation. I didn't realy want the new in-tank pump. . but I know my LP is good.

So. . it's up to the individual. If you want the new type pump. . just leave the bad LP in place. If you don't want it. . change the LP before you go to the dealer.

The service department was pretty excited about this new installtion. They think it's the way to go and had done quite a few to date. The jury's still out in my opinion.

Mike

Well. . forget what I just said above. I just got my truck back from the dealer and have the new in-tank pump. The service department swears by this replacement.

When I got home I bumped the starter and cracked the drain valve on the fuel filter. Just wanted to see if it flowed like the old LP. Not even close. The OEM Lp would squirt fuel all over the place when I did this. This pump puts out a nice steady flow but no force or pressure behind it.

I guess not of this will matter if the thing just lasts. The VP44 needs fuel volume not fuel pressure so we'll have to see how this plays out.

I'm thinking of just putting the old LP back in place and let this one maintain head pressure.

Anyway, I have 28K mile 'till the warranty runs out. Have to wait and see if this new pumps holds up.

Mike

 

[Luke Warmwater]

Good info Sticks. I still don't understand why so many people make solving this problem so hard? It's either blow a crap load of money on a Fass type system or mechanical Rasp. One can pretty much solve their fueling problem for around $100 by using a pusher back by the tank. My 7psi Carter along with stock LP easily maintains FP at 20psi at idle and never less than 9psi wide open with 5x5 Comp and Mach6s. On top of that it lasts. What else do you want? Spend all your money on some overrated fuel pump or just do a little do it yourself work and solve the problem for ~$100...

 

[Sticks]

Good info Sticks. I still don't understand why so many people make solving this problem so hard? It's either blow a crap load of money on a Fass type system or mechanical Rasp.

People as a rule will be more than happy to show off a $1000 performance package to enhance a thing, but will gripe like he!! when they have to spend $100 on repairs because it was not a choice, it had to be done (I fall into that catagory btw )



At least now I have the skills and experience to fix a vehicle thing myself, my expense is just my time and parts. VP44 in 1. 5 hours, valve adjustment, injectors, turbo, clutch, brakes, axle seals... .



My work still has not made a policy regarding the new pumps, but since the service manager just retired, I doubt we will push it. Available for option if the customer requests, otherwise it will be an OEM replacement + a stanadyne pusher kit with filter.

 

[Silver_Ram]

2 Months Later &.......

Sticks,



Now that you've had the new pump on for a couple of months, what you think? Is it a joke? Any improvement?

 

[Learguy]

Here is one for all you "Anti-In-Tank" guys, (I am now one of them).



I have the In-Tank pump. Bought truck in 8/20/05 (123,598 miles). Had my LP die on me when I did my first oil/FF change on 9/13/05 (124,649 miles). At that time, had In-Tank LP installed under warranty. They said there was no IP codes at that time.



Went on a 400 mile road trip today (12/18/05). Stop to get fuel, (131,234 miles) Pulled out of truck stop, DEAD PEDAL with CEL. 1 Start cycle, throttle comes back. 3 start cycles, CEL goes out. Happened three different times on trip. Have P1693, 0121, and 0234 as codes on odometer.



Since they have installed this pump, I run 7 to 8 psi @ Idle, 4 to 5 psi @ Cruise, and down to 2 to 3 psi @ WOT.



Luckily, warranty is good until 138,598 miles.



This should be interesting... ... .



The Dealer denied warranty on the APPS????