• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

Thoughts On Fuel Pump Cavitation

  • Thread starter Thread starter FoxMustangLvr
  • Start date Start date Jan 23, 2018

FoxMustangLvr

I love my Pimp
SN Certified Technician
Oct 14, 2012
4,968
3,514
204
Spokane, Wa
Jan 23, 2018
#1
  • Jan 23, 2018
  • #1
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ium8jf4Jm04


IMO this video seems to exaggerate what really happens. Since when does 100% of the fuel get returned back to the tank? Has anyone with a 255lph fuel pump experienced unusually high pressure at the fuel rail caused by cavitation?
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,217
17,900
224
Massachusetts
Jan 23, 2018
#2
  • Jan 23, 2018
  • #2
I saw that video and wondered the same.

I don't think you'd get high pressure from cavitation. I think you'd have pressure fluctuations due to the amount of air bubbles in the fuel lines. I did notice when I upgraded my stock 88lph pump to a 190, I had to readjust my AFPR to lower pressure a bit as it was higher than previous.
 

Hoytster

I don't dare do that to my Knob
20+ Year Stangneter
Dec 30, 2002
1,069
700
164
Cornwall, PA
Jan 23, 2018
#3
  • Jan 23, 2018
  • #3
I ran a 255lph fuel pump for years on my 95' and never had an issue with high fuel pressure or fluctuations. The cavitation is not what causes the high pressure (in fact it should reduce pressure), but the restriction on the return line. But with that being said, I never had any issues with a completely stock tank and a Walbro 255lph.

The only time I would expect to see 100% return is when the engine isn't running and the fuel pump primes. At idle, there would be a large amount returning, but not 100%.
 

FoxMustangLvr

I love my Pimp
SN Certified Technician
Oct 14, 2012
4,968
3,514
204
Spokane, Wa
Jan 24, 2018
#4
  • Jan 24, 2018
  • #4
Hoytster said:
I ran a 255lph fuel pump for years on my 95' and never had an issue with high fuel pressure or fluctuations. The cavitation is not what causes the high pressure (in fact it should reduce pressure), but the restriction on the return line. But with that being said, I never had any issues with a completely stock tank and a Walbro 255lph.

The only time I would expect to see 100% return is when the engine isn't running and the fuel pump primes. At idle, there would be a large amount returning, but not 100%.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think this video greatly exaggerates what's going on. Fuel is consumed by the engine which mean a lot less will be returned, less fuel means less line pressure which equals less cavitation happening, if any. I can see the most fuel being returned while idling, but no where near 100% of it.

@jrichker , thoughts?
 

mikestang63

SN Certified Technician
Aug 27, 2012
11,606
8,859
214
In the garage
Jan 24, 2018
#5
  • Jan 24, 2018
  • #5
ask a barber if you need a haircut............
 
Reactions: Mustang5L5, Hoytster and FoxMustangLvr

90sickfox

Wasn't a pretty sight...and I've got big hands
SN Certified Technician
Mar 2, 2015
6,945
5,816
213
Jan 24, 2018
#6
  • Jan 24, 2018
  • #6
I think its more about the restriction than cavitation. I've seen that little rubber piece blown clean off a fuel return line numerous times with higher flow pumps.

A normal restriction won't cause the fpr pressure to jump, because the restriction amount stays the same. That rubber tip has a little slit in it that is supposed to help with drain back through the return back to the pump. The force of fuel opens and closes that flap causing the fpr pressure to bounce.

The small line causes the pressure to go up. The nipple causes it to bounce.

Cavitations causes issues....but why not make the return li e go to a different area inside the tank ? Its still circulating hot fuel. Thats why Ford made the return short. When fuel level is low the return sprays out of that tip dropping fuel temperature before it hits the rest of the fuel in the tank. It helps disperse some of the heat.

I'm no engineer....and could be wrong....but it sounds smart in my head.

That's my .02....not worth very much.
 
Reactions: General karthief

Gear grabber

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2016
283
152
63
Jan 24, 2018
#7
  • Jan 24, 2018
  • #7
It can happen,95 hat 340 pump,less then half a tank I had issues.
Extending the return (not as easy as it looks) helped.
Had no choice but to use a hood mounted f/p gauge to keep an
eye on things. Note I am regulated to 7 psi and returning a lot of
fuel. A pump change and I can hold a steady 7 down below a 1/4 tank.
 

jrichker

StangNet's favorite TOOL
In Remembrance. Thank you for your contributions
Mar 10, 2000
27,512
2,813
234
Dublin GA
Jan 24, 2018
#8
  • Jan 24, 2018
  • #8
The problem:

In the event of a collision the inertia switch is supposed to open circuit, depriving the fuel pump of power. This shuts off fuel flow that might feed a fire.
The rubber duck bill is simply a one way check valve when the car turns over in the event of a collision. It keeps the fuel from flowing out of the return line, thus preventing fuel from being added to any fire that started as the result of the collision. A secondary effect is that the returning fuel helps to cool the pump as it sprays over it.

The video is correct in that returned fuel sprays out the duck bill check valve in an aerated, fan shaped stream. As shown in the video, that is indeed a problem in a car modified with a high performance engine. Replacing the duck bill check valve with a piece of metal tubing that runs to the bottom of the tank solves that problem. However, it has introduced another problem: If the car turns over onto the passenger side as the result of the collision, there is nothing shown or described to prevent the flow out of the return line. Simply put, there is no check valve in this system.This presents a fire hazard and could possibly feed a fire that was the result of the collision.

The beauty of the rubber duck bill check valve is that it is inexpensive, reasonably reliable, has no moving parts and creates no measurable restriction when used with a stock engine and pump. All the external check valves that I have seen have a two piece housing that screws together, a spring and a check ball. The spring insures that the check ball seals against reverse flow in any mounting position. However, it has at least five problems:
1.) it is prone to wear and decreased sealing efficiency,
2.) It has a flow restriction at higher flow rates,
3.) It may fail to work if dirt or corrosion get between the ball check valve and the seat.
4.) The spring may fail or get weak and not develop sufficient pressure to keep the check ball seated.
5. You would never know that it was defective until it failed to work in the event of a collision where the car turned over and a fire started. Not good at all...

Ford understood the limitations of this type of fuel return system and engineered a returnless system in later models of high performance Mustangs. The computer has a sensor that measures the fuel pressure and increases and decreases the fuel pressure as needed.

Stuck with what we have got:
The only thing that I can come up with is a baffle that mounts just below the rubber duck bill check valve that directs the returned fuel to the area outside the baffle that surrounds the pump inlet. To perfect that option, you would need a test rig like the one shown in the video.
 
Reactions: FoxMustangLvr and 90sickfox

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,296
1,638
214
Acworth, GA
Jan 24, 2018
#9
  • Jan 24, 2018
  • #9
This actually the first I have ever heard of it. I have put a 255lph pump in many a Mustang, and never had a problem. I have a fuel pressure gauge on my A-pillar; never seen it fluctuate. I ran it with a 255lph in the tank alone, and with a Vortech T-Rex inline when I needed it for more nitrous. The only thing I upgraded was the pump and the injectors, everything else is stock. Never had so much as a fuel line leak, and I push the fuel pressure up over 100psi.

Kurt
 
Reactions: Hoytster

Gear grabber

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2016
283
152
63
Jan 24, 2018
#10
  • Jan 24, 2018
  • #10
Maybe because I am using larger lines,my return is 3/8''.
 

Hoytster

I don't dare do that to my Knob
20+ Year Stangneter
Dec 30, 2002
1,069
700
164
Cornwall, PA
Jan 25, 2018
#11
  • Jan 25, 2018
  • #11
Gear grabber said:
Maybe because I am using larger lines,my return is 3/8''.
Click to expand...

You also have a 340 which flows a lot more than a 255. I can see the stock design being an issue at that flow rate.
 

FoxMustangLvr

I love my Pimp
SN Certified Technician
Oct 14, 2012
4,968
3,514
204
Spokane, Wa
Jan 25, 2018
#12
  • Jan 25, 2018
  • #12
Hoytster said:
You also have a 340 which flows a lot more than a 255. I can see the stock design being an issue at that flow rate.
Click to expand...
Yep, 33% more!

Gear grabber said:
It can happen,95 hat 340 pump,less then half a tank I had issues.
Extending the return (not as easy as it looks) helped.
Had no choice but to use a hood mounted f/p gauge to keep an
eye on things. Note I am regulated to 7 psi and returning a lot of
fuel. A pump change and I can hold a steady 7 down below a 1/4 tank.
Click to expand...
I was just reading the Aeromotive 340 lph pump install instructions and they say it's compatible with the stock tank however....

 
Reactions: Hoytster

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,894
142
94
Apr 13, 2026
#13
  • Apr 13, 2026
  • #13
Gear grabber said:
It can happen,95 hat 340 pump,less then half a tank I had issues.
Extending the return (not as easy as it looks) helped.
Had no choice but to use a hood mounted f/p gauge to keep an
eye on things. Note I am regulated to 7 psi and returning a lot of
fuel. A pump change and I can hold a steady 7 down below a 1/4 tank.
Click to expand...
only 7 psi?
 

from6to8

There's suction so I used that end O_O
15 Year Member
Sep 2, 2012
1,894
142
94
Apr 13, 2026
#14
  • Apr 13, 2026
  • #14
Gear grabber said:
Maybe because I am using larger lines,my return is 3/8''.
Click to expand...
huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

New fuel pump relay
  • Scrapla347
  • Nov 3, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
12
Views
841
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Nov 8, 2025
Scrapla347
M
01 mustang 3.8 fuel pressure issue
  • Mhaley2006
  • May 29, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
87
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- May 29, 2026
Mhaley2006
M
H
Fuel starvation issues, 91 EFI to carb swap. Car dying after 1-3 gallons used. EFI tank, electric fuel pump, bypass regulator. Dual fed carb
  • hassler
  • Oct 11, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
8
Views
725
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 12, 2025
nickyb
D
Fuel Erratic Fuel Pressure 1985 GT
  • DienstXIV
  • Jan 14, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
16
Views
635
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jan 16, 2026
AeroCoupe
Zero fuel pressure @ Shrader, but over 100 PSI at filter
  • Stang337
  • Jul 5, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
5
Views
365
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Aug 10, 2025
JD1964
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?