If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Power Wagon T-Shirts are now available for purchase on-line through the Store.
They are only $15.00 each plus shipping.
Shirts are available in sizes from Small thru 4X and are Sand in color.
Design/Logo is printed on the back of the shirts and the front is free of any designs.
It seems like there are two different fuel pump rocker arms on the 6 Cyl Dodge fuel pumps I've come across. I will try and attach two photos. I am wondering if one of them runs against the side of the cam and the other runs against the bottom? Are they interchangeable?
The upper photo is a KEM 4895 Fuel Pump for Dodge Trk 1958-60. Presumably a 251?. The Lower is from a 1953 M37 230. The question is: will the former work with the latter and vice verse?
Hello Friends,
Any fresh comments on this subject? I am working on a '63 M37. My old fuel pump looks like top picture, replacement looks like bottom picture. Thanks for any experience you might share.
phil
I'm doubtful that they will interchange, but it's hard to say for sure. Are both pumps oriented the same way in the two photos? (Meaning both are right side up, or both being upside down?)
Hi Guys,
I have concluded that the two different style fuel pumps are interchangable. I installed new pump. I was hesitant at first, then thought what-the-****, worst it could do is ruin the new pump or break the cam. It works like a champ. Thanks for the input,
phil
Both pumps pictured by Bruce look like they are single action. M37's had double action pumps to provide vacuum for the wipers.
So did many cars back then. I first drove flat head MOPARs in 1956. Through the years I found that pumps with the same part number on the boxes had the levers riding on different positions on the cam. The only thing I paid special attention to was being careful that the gasket was properly aligned since the lever riding position meant that the lever required different angles for insertion when mounting the pumps.
I am amazed that as a group we can't resolve this! Seems to me that the 230 pump has the actuator rubbing on the side of the cam, diaphragm goes down to suck fuel in. 251 acutator rubs on bottom of cam, diaphragm goes up to suck fuel in. 230 valves are on top of the pump...251 valves are on the bottom of pump.
I guess my real concern is: are they interchangeable?
I've pulled 251 pumps off 230s and seen bad scoring on the actuator where it contacts the cam. Worrisome!
Since I started building high performance versions of the 230, I have stopped using mechanical fuel pumps altogether, and switched to gear-driven electrical units, mounted back near the fuel tank, just ahead of an in-line fuel filter. The main issue was too little clearance behind the forward exhaust header.
I have also replaced the mechanical pump in stock applications, eliminating vapor lock issues that can plague these pumps. I keep a spare pump on board, but have had no failures to date. Very clean installation, and replaceable in the field without messing with gaskets or working in hard to reach, hot locations.
This modification may not be desirable for those M-series applications that use the mechanical fuel pump to generate vacuum.
My M37 quit this afternoon driving up a road. It would not start. I called AAA thinking I was out of Fuel (The Fuel Gage never gets off 1/4 tank). AAA came with 2 gallons. It still would not start. AAA called for a tow truck. I tried for 45 minutes to start it. No luck. The tow truck came, hauled it back to my house. The M37 started right up. I drove to the Gas station and put in 20 gallons. If it has a 28 gallon tank, it had 5 gallons when it quit. Was this a classic case of vapor lock? I'm reading about electric fuel pumps. I've see retro fit kits. Is this the way to go?
Comment