Yep, I just break them off and then the tool works once the pump is out of the way.  You have to modify the hose removal tool to work on these pumps.



 

Only problem though is to be gravity fed it needs to be below the bottom of the tank...I my case that would be below the frame rails.  Not good.



 

I'm not apologizing for anything, if the way you would do it was worth it, it would be done.  It's not, so it's not.





Between actual performance and reducing failure points, as well as reducing production costs the way it is, is for a reason.
Your "upgrade" wouldn't really upgrade much.



 

To apologize means to defend, in this case defending the status quo.

From Merriam Webster Online:

apologist

noun; apol·o·gist \?-'pä-l?-jist\ : a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people




What would be upgraded is the maintainability.  It seems that this is of little importance to you, hence, your responses.  The idea that the consumer may have to pay $1k to have a faulty fuel pump replaced seems to fit into the "not worth it" category for you.  I suspect a similar attitude exists back in "Detroit" which is how we got into this situation in the first place.

Seriously?

I had a 2007 GMC truck that I replaced the fuel pump at about 170k, but only because the auto body guys had the bed off because some chick ran into me.  They said they'd replace the fuel pump for just the cost of the part.  I figured it was cheap insurance and replaced it.  Ran another 100k before an employee ran it into a wall and I ended up selling it for a bit above scrap.

That '06 had the transmission go bad at about 260k which was disappointing, since the '07 was just fine at 275k.

My '11 GMC has about 110k now.  I'd be pretty upset if the fuel pump went bad before 200k.  I guess I'm having good luck with these.  A lot of the driving is highway miles, so maybe that helps.

The posts are a discussion of how it should be/could be designed for improved maintainability.  You should not read that discussion as suggestions for anything you'd want to consider as a retrofit/redo.  

I deal with this kind of crap all the time.  Maintainability is seemingly the lowest of all priorities with the auto makers.  After all, they need their dealerships to have something to do.

Or, you know...





Work smarter.




 

I did the same thing on my old suburban.

How does dropping the tank constitute "working smarter"?  Never mind, it was a rhetorical question.  

I've done the same work on a leaking evaporator core in the same car and MY.  By the book the steering column has to be dropped,  all the air bags removed, and wiring harness pulled.  Both the evaporator and heater core are molded into the heater box so you have to cut an access hole in the top and epoxy it back together after replacement.

By using a simple process to replace components that typically last a very long time, it's smarter than introducing a huge amount of failure points and inefficiencies to address a percived need of "easy maintenance".  





The best part is, that by using an external pump for ease of maintenance, you'll actually induce the need to change it more often...  which is kind of funny.  



Then there's fun aspects of external pumps like losing prime/ fuel starvation (which of course would accelerate wear).  



Of course as mentioned, a huge benefit of an in-tank pump is cooling. Fuel circulates through the system and comes back into the tank via the return line.  





Having an external pump means it won't have than benefit and stopped and at low speed won't benefit much from air cooling.  I mean, you don't run your cars cooling system on air do you?  Liquid is MUCH more effective.
Well, I guess if you like the idea of an external pump for "ease of maintenance" at least you'll get satisfaction from it, since you'll be inducing more.



 

The EFI 6.5l diesels had framerail-mounted electric fuel pumps, and while those engines had their share of problems, fuel pump failures weren't on the list. If your fuel pump runs so hot that the fuel flowing through it is insufficient for cooling purposes, and instead it has to be IMMERSED in the fuel in order to be cooled adequately, then I'd say you've done something wrong.

The huge differance is that they were specced for that from the beginning.   Which, is not what we're talking about.



 

No, what we're talking about is stupid engineering intended to turn what should be routine repairs into money-making trips to the dealership, and people's methods of putting things back the way they should have been all along. About 10X as much fuel as is actually injected gets pumped to the injector pump, with the rest being used to cool the injector pump and flowing back to the  tank, so you know the pump has the capability to pump enough fuel to cool itself. And we might as well stick with this vehicle for more examples of engineering stupidity - the heat-retaining "TURBO POWER" cover over the engine, and the "Pump Mounted" portion of the "Pump Mounted Driver." I can just imagine the conversation: "Where's the best place to put a heat-sensitive electronic module that's necessary for the engine to run? I know! Right on the injector pump, where it not only has no airflow over it even with the engine cover removed, but which will add its own heat to the generated by the PMD!" Someone with a lot more sense than those engineers came up with an extension cable that allows you to remote mount the PMD, saving owners from having to replace the expensive PMD.

I could go on & on about stupid engineering practices designed to reduce the operator's ability to service and repair equipment. The Ingersoll-Rand VR636 forklift required removal of the sliding engine cover to replace the air filter, as it didn't slide forward far enough to allow the filter housing cap to come off. Marklift CH-series & Terex TB-series boomlifts put the hydraulic tank in the way of the access hole for the main boom lift cylinder's lower mounting pin, meaning the tank had to be drained & removed when the cylinder had to come out for resealing. Certain Hyster forklift models (H120XM & larger, IIRC, it's been 10 years) had the fan buried under the counterweight and driven by a shaft off the crank pulley, so the counterweight had to come off in order to remove the shaft so the serpentine belt could be changed. Or how about the way so many vehicles have their only fuel filter inside the tank? Yeah, nothing bad can come of that. Fuel filters aren't something that should be replaced on a regular basis, after all.

Yea, I don't have a clue where you're going with all that...  



 

Precisely so.





Actually, that is exactly what we were discussing - the way it should be designed.

Those dirty engineers making designs so the stealership can make more money on repairs!



It of course has nothing to do with being cheap and effective.  It's all a dirty dirty scam!   LOL

Right, because putting the fuel pump on the framerail and just having a pickup tube w/sock inside the tank will cost so much more than designing a fuel pump assembly that goes in the tank. The '99 Sub fuel pump I bought was $20, the OEM-style fuel pump assembly was $200. I guess it's possible that putting 2 quick-connects in the fuel line and mounting a fuel pump on the framerail would add more than $200 to the price of the vehicle, making it more economical to put the pump in the tank. These are days of trucks being designed so the cab has to come off to do certain engine repairs, and you're trying to convince people that vehicles aren't engineered so they have to be taken to the dealership for more and more repairs? Mid-90s Cavaliers that required one side of the engine be lifted to replace the water pump, and Chrysler minivans that needed the intake manifold removed to get to the rear spark plugs. Nope, those are both good engineering practices designed to improve serviceability. Have you ever asked dealership mechanics what they think of these things? I'll give you a hint - they'd not fond of the extra work either.

So, discounting all of the unrelated stuff, it looks like you've agreed with me.
 

I've cut holes in lots of beds/floor pans. Never had any issues other than not fighting with a full tank of fuel being held in by rusted bolts.

The holier than thou attitude of the haters is quite amusing.

Ford ran a frame mounted high pressure pump along with an in tank low pressure pump back in the 90s. The frame mounted pump had lots of failures.

No, just letting you show with your own words how little you know about what you're talking about. We're laughing AT you, not with you, you know.

The failures aren't the problem. In-tank pumps fail all the time, too, but the framerail-mounted pumps don't require the unnecessary work of dropping the tank to replace. The fact that you CAN mount the fuel pump on the frame makes the idea of mounting it in the tank with no access from above just plain stupid. One brand had unnecessary work designed right into it, the other was designed so that as little work as possible was needed to make the repair.

Another example of the trend: GM/Detroit Diesel and Ford/Navistar both used the Stanadyne DB2 injector pump on their 6.2l & 6.5l diesels (GM) and 6.9l & 7.3l diesels (Ford), but the GM diesels were designed in such a way that in order to remove the pump you had to remove the intake manifold first. Navistar set the intake manifold plenum back so it wasn't over the pump. On the GM diesels the injectors are mounted where spark plugs would be on gasoline engines and the injector lines run over the valve covers, requiring intake manifold & injector pump removal in order to seal leaky valve covers. Navistar put the injectors at the tops of the heads with the injector lines routed in front of & outside of the intake manifold and inboard of the valve covers, unlike the GM in which the lines run under the manifold and up between the runners before crossing over the valve covers. The injector pumps fail at the same rate, but on a Navistar engine you can replace the pump on the side of the road in about 45 minutes, while replacing the pump on a GM diesel will take a minimum of 2 hours for an experienced mechanic and cost you a set of intake manifold gaskets as well as the pump-to-flange gasket. One brand had unnecessary work designed right into it, the other was designed so that as little work as possible was needed to make the repair. If I was to get some hardened steel tubing and fabricate longer injector lines to give myself room to sneak the valve covers out from underneath them, it would be an engineering improvement making for easier repairs, and not "ghetto."

I doubt that pump was delphi or delco...



 

I understand that, but like I pointed out on most vehicles now you can't do what you just suggested.  The best solution is to put and easy access port to the in tank pump.



 

Yep.



I just updated the wiring with this install as the old wire had issues that shortened the life of the old ones.



You had a newer and updated pump.   These high pressure in tank pumps didn't start until 96 in the suburban with the vortec engines.



 

I spent a long time working with fluid pumps, and pumping systems.  You can laugh all you want, but at the end of the day if what you two think worked better, it would be common not the exception.



Notice that in the professional automotive world high end custom cars rarely use external pumps, and when they do it's for cars that are FAR from average?  



Normal people with normal cars just don't need an external pump for the zero to one time they'll experience a pump failure.  



Especially if they sell or trade in vehicles at a normal rate.  
So tell me again, what are the design benefits of an external pump?  It's hotter, less reliable, introduces more failure points, does not have the superior cooling, adds cost, adds risk of fuels starvation, and so on and so forth.  



Vs dropping a tank or cutting a inspection panel to change an in tank pump 0-1 times over the course of 2-300k miles?
 

Ah, so if people would only get rid of their perfectly functional vehicles before a minor but essential part that's unnecessarily buried in the fuel tank fails, they'd be golden.

The in-tank fuel pump for a '99 Suburban w/5.7l retails for $412 at the NAPA we deal with at work. It's a Delphi pump. The in-line pump for a '95 Suburban w/6.5l diesel retails for $136, and is also a Delphi. So you're looking at 1/3 the cost and 15 minutes at most to replace the inline pump, as opposed to the much higher price and the couple of hours (at least) you'll spend dropping the fuel tank to replace an in-tank pump. The only ones who make out that way are the shops that are getting up to a grand from you to do what should take 15 minutes in the comfort of your own garage or driveway. Even if the inline pumps fail 4X as often I'm still WAY ahead money- and time-wise compared to dropping the tank or taking it to a dealership.

Why aren't hydraulic pumps located in the tank? If it's such a superior location you'd think Hyster & Clark would put them there. I've never seen a swimming pool pump located in the pool, either. Electric water pumps for race cars aren't stuck in the bottom tank of the radiator. Why do you think that is? Surely it can't be because the pump works just as well in an external location and maintenance is much easier.

Putting fuel pumps in the tank is a stupid idea, plain and simple, and forces people to waste a lot more time & money for a performance or reliability gain that's not commensurate with the cost & labor involved.

Nope, they were both the least expensive ones I could find because that's what the friend whose Sub it was wanted. Though on a Sunday afternoon in NH you don't have many auto parts stores to choose from. I could have gotten a Delphi (probably Delco at the time) pump at dealer cost from our NAPA if I'd broken the old one on a weekday, though. The $20 pump came from eBay.

You know most commercial airliners utilize in tank pumps for the same reasons cars do right?









You should send them an email and tell them they shouldn't use in tank pumps, and switch them to external for easier maintenance.



 

This thread has officially gone full-retard (outlived its usefulness).  I am so out of here!  Take care, guys.

Those cheap pumps usually don't last 3 months. Airtex has a horrible rep. I was surprised thy were using on on a car show I watch, but I guess they were a sponsor.

 

This has been some damn fun reading!

I have a 2000 Suburban and a 2001 Tahoe...The Suburban, I dropped the tank to replace the fuel pump. There was around 36 gallons in the tank as I recall. Oh yeah, I had the truck on a lift. (Guess how I make my living) It was still a filthy whore of a job, even with a modified transmission jack.

I will have no issue at all making an access hole in the Tahoe when the time comes for that one.

As far as the engineering issues? For starters, automotive engineers should have a prerequisite of a master technician certification. Hmmm, let's see, Mercedes-Benz does that, or did anyway. Ever worked on one of those? They're nice to work on in my opinion.

Now before we burn all the engineers down, look at the bigger picture. The engineers are in a tough spot mostly because of the EPA and CARB, that's what started all this shit in the first place. Evaporative Emissions Systems. With all the emissions bullshit, the fuel systems are designed with evap purge solenoids, vents, valves and pressure sensors (yeah, over simplified) The way that is accomplished is by using the fuel tank as a pressure vessel. In order to do that economically (not for the consumer, naturally) the fuel tank is used as the baseline for the emissions system. Along with the cooling effect, that's why the fuel pump is in the tank.

Efficiency. Except for the labor part, of course

Dropping the tank takes 30min at most.

Horse shit

It takes half an hour to get a suburban jacked up  and supported high enough to drop the tank without a lift. Assuming the 40 GALLON tank is damn near empty

At 6.3 lbs per gallon that means this tank has the potential to weigh over 250lbs

What an access panel is more than anything is insurance against a repeat failure which given the sorry state of chi com manufactured parts today is all too likely

With the proper tools and lift maybe, but with that math it should be a hour and 1/4 job,  but it isn't it's a 3 + hour book job.   With a floor jack it's a bitch with one person.  And if it slips off the jack and breaks some wiring harnesses on fuel lines...



 

LOL, did the EXACT same thing w/ my wife's 2000!

Made an access hatch?  If so, nice.



 

There is a fuel pump access port in my 350Z in the compartment behind the driver's seat. I could have the pump out in around 15 minutes.

Unless there's a major difference between the GMT-4's fuel setup and the later ones, you can accomplish that with a floor jack, a sturdy board, and some gentle application of either fuel line disconnect tools, and/or small channel locks.

My dad keeps buying shit fuel pumps and we've replaced the FP in his Silverado 4 times in the last 4 months.

ETA: Shave some time off of book because his truck's on 35's and lifted, I can sit underneath it and wrench on it without having to jack it up.

Easier to tilt the bed.



 

It would be a lot easier on you in the long run if you simply shelled out the cash for a good pump, and did the job once...

I make a living as an automotive and heavy duty truck technician. For the last 25 years, over half my life. (It's close though)

If they were a half hour, and you charged another say .3 for dropping the pump in, AND they could be done that fast in the real world, everyday, I'd have them lined up down the street.

Hell, you could even charge people full retail for Delphi pumps at that labor rate. The masses would smile like a motherfucker when they paid you to put a fuel pump in a 2000-up Tahoe,  Suburban or pickup.

But they don't, because it doesn't take 30 minutes.

Or maybe I'm not very good at what I do for a living.

Pay once, cry once, install once...



 

Yep. My F150 has 2 tanks so I pulled the bed completely off and replaced both pumps. To hell with that dropping tank nonsense.