2001 Explorer returnless fuel system with secondary pressure regulator, carburetor?? Doable??

[corerftech]

I would like to use my explorer 5.0, 2001, returnless fuel system in totality for a carburetor. Need (would like to) to add a NON-Bypass/deadhead regulator to the system for 7 psi.

Since return systems are there to protect the pump and this pump in tank has a bypass internally and is deadheading the injector rails (usually, at 60PSI), is there any consequence to adding a secondary deadhead regulator for a carburetor??

The pump should not even know the regulator is there nor should a carburetor be unhappy.

Anyone concur?

Thanks in advance.

 

[JoshT]

I would like to use my explorer 5.0, 2001, returnless fuel system in totality for a carburetor.

I can't help you, but have to ask. Why?

 

[superj]

The holley regulator for carbs works good with a dead head system. I did it for a year when i put a holley carb on my wrangler. I ended up going timo a return system later though because the pumps would go out.

I didnt use an explorer pump though

 

[scotts90ranger]

It would be WAY cheaper and simpler to just swap the in tank pump for a low pressure unit and bypass the stock regulator... the regulators are not there to protect the pump, they're there to supply constant pressure to the fuel injectors so the computer knows what is going on to calculate fuel supply to the engine. The whole reason they went to returnless was because of dumb evaporative emissions requirements from fuel permeating through fuel hose, less hose equals less permeating fuel... which also equals new dumb hydrolock issues that don't exist when you purge the fuel lines at the fuel rail on hot days with government subsidized ethanol gas that boils at 135F...

That said, why carburate an engine with a functioning fuel injection system? I have two clapped out V8 Explorers that at 250k still run fine even at near 2 stroke oil consumption rates... unless you are going for a lumpy cam and full race stuff, I'd go fuel injection ANY day, it just runs... I recently un-clapped one of the engines with a mild cam and stiffer valve springs with Amazon rebuild parts waiting on me to get a tuner to move the rev limit up, that refresh woke it up...

 

[corerftech]

The holley regulator for carbs works good with a dead head system. I did it for a year when i put a holley carb on my wrangler. I ended up going timo a return system later though because the pumps would go out.

I didnt use an explorer pump though

SuperJ:
Thank you for the direct answer and vote of confidence.
Explorer pump internally bypasses so it can run without harm, indefinitely.... well thats a stretch but also the truth.
I put a new pump in 2 years/10k miles ago (with the explorer in tank bypass regulator) and it works very well. I see no harm in doing so either.
Fuel volume will not change through the tank pump. It will be doing as it always has. Holding 60PSI on line and bypassing excess back to the tank. It will not run, draw power, generate heat or boil fuel any different that it has for the last 20+ years. Instead of a shower head, the fuel goes to a toilet bowl, same amount per hour, per mile, etc. Would you agree??

Again thanks for the direct answer.



Scott.... I never said the regulator is there to protect the pump.
I said the RETURN SYSTEM and BYPASS is there to protect the pump.
Read the OP again.

JoshT: I have a 2WD FrankenSploder from 2001, now 245k on clock. The PCM shit the bed, two coil drivers dropped out yesterday on a very hot humid Memphis afternoon. PCMs of this era are dropping like flies now. I have another 50k worth of life to extract from what is a near flawless drivetrain. For my wife that is another 5 years. I have $$ in the ride improvement work two years ago and I will get my ROI on that one way or the other. I wont buy another PCM used, its a dead man walking. I have an extra 2 MicroSq and a TCU harness, An Edelbrock AVS2 in box, an old holley manifold, all at no extra cost sitting on a shelf. My wife likes driving the car more than her "nice" Expedition and its fuel economy is better (on EFI to date). It is a waste of a squirt to replace the PCM but a distributor is cost effective. One Squirt TCU is a recoverable investment in 50k miles when the car dies and goes to heaven. A $100 Jegs HEI distributor, a few fuel system parts and the car is now PCM/Computer "shit the bed" proof. Im quite tired of vehicles that have tech in them. Ask new F150 owners about that. I will offer the entire top end for sale here, if not sold, off to Greedbay. I will recover most all of the cost with Air Box to injector rail package sold. You know everyone wants the GT40 stuff, woo hoo. My cost will be a loaner TCU and harness, an AVS2 I paid $300 new back when and a manifold that cost $75.

I do NOT have a good running EFI system, although until yesterday I had a flawless one.
Two new coils (NEW, quality Motorcraft) and a used "refurb" PCM will cost me $400-450 and the PCM is a non-returnable, warrantyless item.... as is typical. I see other than labor, its a financial push and I need not worry about a PCM that works today on the bench, taking a dump in 6 months.
Other options: Megasquirt with LS1 coils...... how much more money shall I piss away for 50k miles of serviceability. What is the intrinsic value of the car, not significant enough when weighed against the 50k miles of future use at low cost. Sale of the car is a catastrophic loss of investment considering the condition. Amortize the cost over 5 years of the conversion, maybe its $250 a year?? And I don't know, it might give me a bonus 10K miles/1 year. The entire car has been reconditioned and the drivetrain is magnificent. It is a joy to drive.

Had it thrown a rod, dropped a valve, that would be different.

Two MOSFETS otherwise buried the car yesterday.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Im all for carburation but...

Youre likely to run into a host of other issues. The PATS system (assuming its intact), your cluster, and probably numerous other things arent going to play nice without a functioning EEC system.

 

[corerftech]

Rusty:

1999 Helms/Ford EVTM. Cluster runs on 12v/gnd and an 8kPPM signal bussed from the ABS module, balance are DUMB analog gauges with independent senders, there is no CANBUS here. No SERVO motors. All devices, radio volume, etc all get the ABS pulse train, including the speedo, with no interaction from the PCM. Maybe the tach wont be happy.

Im just not seeing a complication. PDFs attached for your perusal. All those module connections are not DATA, they are idiot light drivers not stemming from PCM activity.




This has gone radically off topic. I refrain from corresponding here as much as possible as when a question is asked, assumptions are made by responders, alternatives and suggestions are given that are NOT on topic nor applicable. I didnt ask HOW, I asked if there was a hidden mystery regarding a Bypass FPR feeding a dead head FPR.

SuperJ replied on topic, specific......
And JoshT was wise enough to ASK WHY, not assume anything.

Kudos to both of you.

Sorry I asked a silly question about a bypass fuel pump and double regulation and a carburetor.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Rusty:

1999 Helms/Ford EVTM. Cluster runs on 12v/gnd and an 8kPPM signal bussed from the ABS module, balance are DUMB analog gauges with independent senders, there is no CANBUS here. No SERVO motors. All devices, radio volume, etc all get the ABS pulse train, including the speedo, with no interaction from the PCM. Maybe the tach wont be happy.

Im just not seeing a complication. PDFs attached for your perusal. All those module connections are not DATA, they are idiot light drivers not stemming from PCM activity.




This has gone radically off topic. I refrain from corresponding here as much as possible as when a question is asked, assumptions are made by responders, alternatives and suggestions are given that are NOT on topic nor applicable. I didnt ask HOW, I asked if there was a hidden mystery regarding a Bypass FPR feeding a dead head FPR.

SuperJ replied on topic, specific......
And JoshT was wise enough to ASK WHY, not assume anything.

Kudos to both of you.

Sorry I asked a silly question about a bypass fuel pump and double regulation and a carburetor.



View attachment 111457

View attachment 111458
View attachment 111459

My bad. I figured by 01 most that stuff was off the PCM. Im not well versed much past the early 90's lol.

Just was offering a friendly warning before you started chopping into shit and ran into alot of other issues besides what you planned on and complicated things past the point of plugging in another ECM and hauling ass.

But it looks like you did your homework.

So what ever you choose good luck

 

[scotts90ranger]

In my defense I didn't look at who posted and I apparently read it wrong... just assumed it was another post from someone that romanticizes carburetors, plus you didn't mention the stock system crapped out . All good, do what ya gotta do to fix broken stuff... honestly not sure how half of my junk still works, the main electrical problem on my '00 Explorer is the clock spring area has issues so I don't have cruise control or a horn...

 

[JoshT]

Rusty:

1999 Helms/Ford EVTM. Cluster runs on 12v/gnd and an 8kPPM signal bussed from the ABS module, balance are DUMB analog gauges with independent senders, there is no CANBUS here. No SERVO motors. All devices, radio volume, etc all get the ABS pulse train, including the speedo, with no interaction from the PCM. Maybe the tach wont be happy.

Im just not seeing a complication. PDFs attached for your perusal. All those module connections are not DATA, they are idiot light drivers not stemming from PCM activity.




This has gone radically off topic. I refrain from corresponding here as much as possible as when a question is asked, assumptions are made by responders, alternatives and suggestions are given that are NOT on topic nor applicable. I didnt ask HOW, I asked if there was a hidden mystery regarding a Bypass FPR feeding a dead head FPR.

Go easy on him. To someone that isn't familiar with it, the idea of working around PATS is offputting. To someone that is familiar with it, it can still be a PITA depending on the goals. Most people would think that the PATS system is a lot more integrated than it is, and on later models they would be correct. You are fortunate in that for these it is only integrated into the PCM which you are trying to delete. So it is a valid concern that could have thrown wrench in the works if the Explorer were newer.

Also, this is an open discussion forum, not private. Going off topic can and will happen. Usually assumptions are made due to lack of information provided by those asking the questions. The more that we know, the better we will be able to help adapt and overcome.

SuperJ replied on topic, specific......
And JoshT was wise enough to ASK WHY, not assume anything.

Kudos to both of you.

Sorry I asked a silly question about a bypass fuel pump and double regulation and a carburetor.

Wasn't a silly question, it's just better to provide more information. Again, the more information that you can provide, the better the answers that you will receive (usually).

I get what you are doing, but I don't know that I would do the same in your position.

I now understand what you were asking about deadheading the pump and it already having an internal bypass. I don't think you would have to worry much about burning up the pump from deadheading. As you said the Pump isn't going to know whether it is feeding the fuel rail or another regulator. Excess fuel beyond the 65 PSI is still going to be bypassed at the in tank regulator, assuming that it is capable of flowing enough. That said I think you would be better off with scott's low pressure pump suggestion due to the other end of the system.

Your bigger is the external regulator that you are planning to use. Most returnless (non-bypass) style regulators aren't designed to drop from 65 PSI down to ~6 PSI needed for a carburetor. The 65 PSI line pressure probably going to push fuel past the non-bypass regualtor and send way too much pressure to your carburetor. I'm honestly not certain if you can pull off that much pressure reduction without having a return. Even then you may need more than one. First to reduce pressure to low pressure pump levels, then a second to actually control the pressure for the carburetor. There are some 2-in-1 pressure regulators that are designed to drop from EFI pressures to carb pressures, but they seems to be up in the $300+ range and they use a fuel return.

You are ditching the emissions system anyway, so why not run a return? You can retain the stock fuel system for the supply side and add a port for the return. There appears to be plenty of space in the sending unit cap to add a return port.

I'll be honest here... I've been around these RBV forums for quite a while, but I haven't heard the issues you are claiming with ECUs failing. I don't think I'd be so quick to write it off, and instead would be investigating for potential causes of failure. Just my thought on that.

I recently did V8 swap on my 99 Ranger using a 2000 Explorer as the donor. Ranger was still running strong on it's stock 4.0L PCM after 220k miles. The donor appeared to still have the stock PCM at 180k miles and is doing good in my Ranger now. If something happened such that I could no longer use the stock Explorer PCM and EFI system, I'd be looking into Terminator Xmax or higher tier aftermerket EFI system. That said, I'm planning to still be driving this truck 50 years from now.

I care nothing about ROI and it has no bearing on why or how I own, maintain, and modify my vehicles. Sounds like you're more interested in getting through the next few years and replacing it. No offense intended here, just my opinion, if that is how you view this endeavor, it might be better to cut your losses and find something else for the wife to drive.