Fuel system replacement - 71 Mach 1

[Stanglover]

I decided to replace the entire fuel system on my 71 Mach 1. Not that it was too bad, but because I hate ethanol laced fuel and the damage it can do. Besides, the old 46 year old rubber hoses off the tank were in definite need for new.

As apparently stainless steel tanks are not available for our years, I went with a Spectra Premium tank as it is Ni-Tern coated and resistant to up to 20% ethanol. I also bought the Spectra sending unit and a Delphi fuel pump as it too is made for alcohol fuels at the same time, from RockAuto. Here's the twist, the tank is made in Quebec. I can buy it here, but it was way cheaper for me to buy it in the US and ship it in! Huh! More on the sending unit later.

I am getting stainless 3/8 fuel lines and will be using high pressure fuel injector rubber hose for the soft connections as it too is made for alcohol fuels. Not cheap stuff, but worth it to me.

Now for the installation, not yet done, but in process. I put the car up on jackstands and dropped the tank. Now you guys who totally rebuild your cars from rust are going to hate this, but the under trunk floor was as good as new and so was the tank top. Not even surface rust! There was no material between the two and there are signs of some rubbing. I've seen where some use tar paper between the tank and trunk, but I'm going with thin rubber pads where rub is evident. That will allow air to circulate to eliminate moisture. ( not that that has been a problem over 46 years!) I thought there was a chance the tank had been replaced at some point as there was no Ford number that I could find, just an ink stamp form the manufacturer, Wheeling Pitsburg and the number 3238 (I think). Can anyone comment? Anyway, the tank was rust free and pretty much spotless inside, so if anyone wants free tank, pm me.

The Spectra tank looks to be an exact fit as the original straps are still in great condition and fit the tank shape exactly. Just a coat of semi-gloss black and they're as good as new.

Now, back to the sending unit and here's the problem. RockAuto have it listed as FG87A, Ford # D1ZZ9275A for the 351C 5.8 L. This is NOT correct for the 351 cars. Our number should be D1ZF9275AB. When I tried to install it in the tank, the outlet tube was facing the wrong direction, toward the rear. I contacted Spectra and finally got to the bottom of the issue.

They only have the one sending unit, D1ZZ9275A and THAT is for the 429 cars and I think apparently fits on the RIGHT hand side of the car, not the left as on the 351's. How weird is that! At least the tank I bought was correct, R/A # F32A. Perhaps Pastel Blue can confirm the tank and sending unit orientation as he has a concours worthy 429 car.

Anyway, after a bit of fighting, Rock Auto have agreed to refund my money upon confirmation from Spectra as they gave incorrect information to R/A. The 30 days had elapsed, so a normal return and refund was out of the question.

I need the car back on the road soon, so I guess I'll look at one NPD sell, not cheap, but looks to be a good part, or I'll have to re-order from R/A and get the Dorman 692232, which has a brass float and may be the same one NPD sells.

I thought I would put this out there, not to bash Rock Auto, but more to make others aware that not everything is "as listed" and to refer to Ford numbers where possible. Manufactures need to do a better job making sure vendors sell us the correct parts, period.

Okay, that's my rant for the day,

Geoff.

 

[iceberg65]

Great topic to touch on; It's gotten to the point where almost all stations have up to 10% ethanol in their fuel these days and these old cars will get all kinds of issues from that if it's not addressed. I'm re-vamping my fuel system as well for an efi system and making sure I chose lines that are resistant to it was an important consideration. I'm willing to bet that more and more ethanol is going to find its way into everyday fuels, hopefully the market for getting these old cars up to snuff to handle it comes into place as well.

 

[Don C]

You're not the first one that has gotten a sending unit with the tube pointing in the wrong direction.

Ford only had one style of fuel tank for our cars, no matter which engine, they all have the sending unit on the driver's side.

One of NPD's sending units also has the tube pointing in the wrong direction, but they say it is in their description.

 

[Stanglover]

You're not the first one that has gotten a sending unit with the tube pointing in the wrong direction.

Ford only had one style of fuel tank for our cars, no matter which engine, they all have the sending unit on the driver's side.

One of NPD's sending units also has the tube pointing in the wrong direction, but they say it is in their description.

 Don. On the tank, yes I see no reason either why it would be different. They should ALL be the same no matter the engine. So why on earth do these  remanufacturers get it wrong?

I'm actually going to NPD in Canton tomorrow to get the fuel line and I'm also taking my old sending unit to compare the two before I buy it. If it is wrong or just looks like crap, I'll order the Dorman from R/A as the picture is correct.

What a PITA!!

 

[Stanglover]

Great topic to touch on; It's gotten to the point where almost all stations have up to 10% ethanol in their fuel these days and these old cars will get all kinds of issues from that if it's not addressed. I'm re-vamping my fuel system as well for an efi system and making sure I chose lines that are resistant to it was an important consideration. I'm willing to bet that more and more ethanol is going to find its way into everyday fuels, hopefully the market for getting these old cars up to snuff to handle it comes into place as well.

 Yes, true. What next will they find to ruin our gas!! EFI is a great way to go, but out of my budget, so I'll do the best I can with a good carb. Good luck with yours.

 

[secluff]

Geoff, the problem with the orientation of the metal line on the fuel senders seem to be a reoccurring  problem the venders don't seem to be willing to fix! The D1ZZ-9275-A (ID# D1ZF-AA,AB,AC) is the correct PN for 250, 302, 351, and 429SCJ. The D1ZZ-9275-B (D1ZF-BA) is for the 429CJ which will have a 3/16" fuel return tube. Don C is correct that Ford only utilized one tank for all 71-73 model Mustang production. I still don't understand why these venders still cannot take a OEM part as a sample/pattern and make their overpriced crap so that it will fit!

Good luck with your parts "Chasing" Geoff, I know it's aggravating when you have your car torn down and everything comes to a screeching halt because once again your dealing with "Sure It'll Fit" parts!

 

[Stanglover]

Geoff, the problem with the orientation of the metal line on the fuel senders seem to be a reoccurring  problem the venders don't seem to be willing to fix! The D1ZZ-9275-A (ID# D1ZF-AA,AB,AC) is the correct PN for 250, 302, 351, and 429SCJ. The D1ZZ-9275-B (D1ZF-BA) is for the 429CJ which will have a 3/16" fuel return tube. Don C is correct that Ford only utilized one tank for all 71-73 model Mustang production. I still don't understand why these venders still cannot take a OEM part as a sample/pattern and make their overpriced crap so that it will fit!

Good luck with your parts "Chasing" Geoff, I know it's aggravating when you have your car torn down and everything comes to a screeching halt because once again your dealing with "Sure It'll Fit" parts!

Steve, thanks for digging up those numbers. It's coming down to as I thought, it makes absolutely NO sense that anything be different on these models regardless of what engine is under the hood. The car is basically the same.

My thinking on this "wrong" sending unit is simply someone has misread the drawings at Spectra, or wherever and the result is the tube is out by 90 degrees. I see no reason why it would be any difference, it makes no sense as I said. I have not found a listing for anything other than a 3/8 tank to pump fuel line, but as you say, the 429 had a 3/16 return whereas the there is also a listing for a 5/16 return for 71 as well. Mine has a 5/16 for sure, but I'm not replacing it, no reason to, it's only for venting.

The picture you show of the D1ZZ-A is the same as my D1ZF-AB, except the electrical plug is in a slightly different orientation.

If I can prove that this Spectra part has been made incorrectly, I will bring it to there attention for sure. I already know they're looking at it in their "development" dept.

 

[secluff]

Geoff, I sent the info you requested through my regular E-Mail to yours. I could not get the picture to attach using the PM here. Would you please let me know if you got it ok.

 

[Stanglover]

Geoff, I sent the info you requested through my regular E-Mail to yours. I could not get the picture to attach using the PM here. Would you please let me know if you got it ok.

 Got it and I sent a reply.

Thanks to all for great feedback. We learn every day.

Geoff.

 

[Don C]

Steve, thanks for affirming what I suspected on the 429 (with emission controls) sending unit, the return line. Too bad nobody has a repop of them, it would sure make it easier when upgrading to fuel injection systems that require a return line.

Don

 

[Stanglover]

Just for sh*ts and giggles, here is a couple of picture of the trunk underfloor and tank. Don't beat me up too bad, I just got very lucky when I found this car.

The question is: what do I do with it, repaint it slop grey, undercoat it or leave it alone as is? I am going to refinish the rest of the underside shortly, but I'm starting to think I should just basically wash it and leave it. Any suggestions?

 

[secluff]

Don C, as you well know we are not part of the 65-70 Club, so we don't show up on the repo manufactures radar very often. It is getting better but still has along way to go. The problem of availability with the "B" sending unit is the one year application with a low number of CJ engines actually installed in the 71 Mustang/Cougar vs the two run in the Torino/Cyclone line. Those vehicles used a sender unique to the Torino line. The fuel pump on the Rochester equipped 429 CJ had a third port which was for the fuel return line back to the sender. Yes, those sure would be great for the guys installing EFI on their cars.

....Maybe one day!

 

[Stanglover]

Don C, as you well know we are not part of the 65-70 Club, so we don't show up on the repo manufactures radar very often. It is getting better but still has along way to go. The problem of availability with the "B" sending unit is the one year application with a low number of CJ engines actually installed the 71 Mustang/Cougar vs the two run in the Torino/Cyclone line. Those vehicles used a sender unique to the Torino line. The fuel pump on the Rochester equipped 429 CJ had a third port which was for the fuel return line back to the sender. Yes, those sure would be great for the guys installing EFI on their cars.

....Maybe one day!

 I'm starting to get a clear picture of the different sending units. However the one I have with the tube facing the opposite direction, can't be right for any Mustang even though it is supposed to be a reman of D1ZZ-A. Could it be that the tanks on say, a Torino, had the sender on the right side, making this one I have correct for that application?

What I'm getting at is to find a reason WHY this unit has the tube facing right instead of left so to speak. I plan on getting back to Spectra after Easter with solid information so in future perhaps parts for OUR cars will be correct.

Again thanks to all for this very interesting discussion.

Geoff.

 

[Pastel Blue]

The only picture I have of my cleaned and ready to be reinstalled sender. I reused all fuel lines (save for the pump to carb which was missing as the Rochester had been swapped out previously), the original sender and fuel tank...

 

[Stanglover]

The only picture I have of my cleaned and ready to be reinstalled sender. I reused all fuel lines (save for the pump to carb which was missing as the Rochester had been swapped out previously), the original sender and fuel tank...

 Very interesting. Your sender has the 3/16 return line I see, but other than that, it's the same as mine. It is very obvious now that Spectra (and maybe other manufactures) got it wrong. It looks like some can't read a drawing!! The part is just plain wrong. Thanks for posting the picture Ken.

 As for the wrong sender I bought, Rock Auto have somewhat changed their tune and will now replace it with the Dorman one which looks more like the factory sending unit, rather than a refund. Not too happy about that, but at least it is something.

For now, I'm going to reuse the original if I can find a way to replace the filter which I just bought at NPD. It looks like it is a new one in the picture, so I guess it can be done.

 Now for the installation of the new tank, lines and other goodies to get this thing back on the road again. Summers coming boys!!

What is the Ford number on your part?

 

[secluff]

Geoff, I believe it is as you have surmised, Spectra just had their head up their A$$ES on this one. Without an engineering number it is hard to ID a 70-71 Torino sender. There were seven different senders and nine fuel tanks. Wagons, Ranchero's, and the remaining body styles made it a part man's nightmare. So would be really hard to tell if they had the tube turned Torino style. I owned a 70 Torino GT many years ago, but I believe the sender is in front center of the tank but turned to the left since the fuel lines ran the same as the Mustang.    

The filter (D1AZ-9A011-A) is replaceable and is common to the entire Ford line that used the sender with the 3/8" tube. It is still available from Ford, but is stated to be discontinued so the price has gone through the ceiling as Ford typically does just before they drop the hammer. Should be something that can be sourced from your favorite Mustang vendor or a parts house. Now would be a good time to look at your sender float to make sure it is in good shape if your are thinking of reusing your original unit for now. A lot of Mustang vendors specify that the one they sell is a genuine Ford part (COAZ-9202-B). There is a Chinese made one, but I have heard that the brass is paper thin, the soldering is poor, and it leaks?! (Imagine that )!

 

[Stanglover]

Geoff, I believe it is as you have surmised, Spectra just had their head up their A$$ES on this one. Without an engineering number it is hard to ID a 70-71 Torino sender. There were seven different senders and nine fuel tanks. Wagons, Ranchero's, and the remaining body styles made it a part man's nightmare. So would be really hard to tell if they had the tube turned Torino style. I owned a 70 Torino GT many years ago, but I believe the sender is in front center of the tank but turned to the left since the fuel lines ran the same as the Mustang.    

The filter (D1AZ-9A011-A) is replaceable and is common to the entire Ford line that used the sender with the 3/8" tube. It is still available from Ford, but is stated to be discontinued so the price has gone through the ceiling as Ford typically does just before they drop the hammer. Should be something that can be sourced from your favorite Mustang vendor or a parts house. Now would be a good time to look at your sender float to make sure it is in good shape if your are thinking of reusing your original unit for now. A lot of Mustang vendors specify that the one they sell is a genuine Ford part (COAZ-9202-B). There is a Chinese made one, but I have heard that the brass is paper thin, the soldering is poor, and it leaks?! (Imagine that )!

 Steve, again many thanks for your time and expertise. As far as I know most if not all Ford have the fuel supply on the left. That being the case, then there is no way a sender unit would have a tube facing right. I am absolutely convinced that the Spectra one is totally wrong and they are going to hear about it!! They do say it is a Mustang reproduction when all said and done.

As for the filter, I just got back from NPD in Detroit where I bought one. I cut the old one off, it mostly fell apart in my hand anyway, found rust underneath and in the tube. so I had to clean all that up. The new filter was a bit lose, but a small flare on the end fixed that issue, looks good to go. The float looks to be good also. I'm going to use it for now until I get the Dorman one and I have no idea how good that will be, but that is what I'm stuck with. I can always change the float if needs be.

So now it's go time, get it all in and get it running, can't wait as the sun is finally shining!

 

[Stanglover]

Finally got back to working on the Mustang today after 2 days of trimming and cutting down some trees. That's too much like hard work at my young age of 70. Crawling around under the car isn't much easier either!!

Just to update on progress, I installed the new Delphi fuel pump and the new SS front section of line.......... with a bit of tweaking and it looks like the main section will also need some work. Can't ANYBODY make parts that fit!!! Comparing the old and new, close but no cigar! These are US made parts or supposed to be. No worries, I'll make 'em fit.

Time for a beer, tomorrow's another day. It's going to rain anyway so no biggy if I don't get it completed.

 More to come,

Geoff.

 

[Stanglover]

Today's update; Spent 4 hours, yes 4 hours, fitting the main fuel line. While it didn't look too far off at the front section, it just needed a bit of massaging, the tank end was a different story. It kinda headed in the right direction, but that was about all. The end that connects to the tank was facing outward. It needed a lot of adjustment and small changes either way, made it either close or way off. What makes this harder is that the car is not up high, just on jack stands, which is not easy on the old guy. Oh to be 50 again!!!!

So now that part is in. Tomorrow I'll get the tank in and prime the lines. I've read where some have had issues with getting correct readings on the fuel gauge. Well here's my thought on that. I'll set the car as level as I can, add 5 US gallons and see where the gauge reads. It's a 20 gallon tank, so 5 g = 1/4 tank. If it reads 1/4, then that's all I really care about. It's the bottom end of a tankful that determines when you run out. To adjust it, I'm confident that if I jack up the left side high enough, I should be able to remove the sender without having to drain the gas down. I could also be wrong on that theory, we'll see I guess.

More later, stay tuned!