PDA

View Full Version : 2.6 SU fuel pump



georgeclark
12-23-2009, 03:30 AM
let me say I looking for originality.
I have a 2.6 l with the double ended SU fuel pump.
The original pump was previously replaced with a tiny pump from poland.....
All the original fuel connections are gone.....I just have the pump.

So with only one fuel line from the tank, and 2 inlets on the pump, is only one end of the pump hooked up at a time and the other used for reserve just in case? If one side stops pumping ...just swap the power wire and hose to the other side and it acts as a spare or what was the original intent?

This '73 rover has only 12,000 miles and is totally original....except for the pump being yanked to get it going and sell it ....

Richard
12-28-2009, 01:33 AM
On the NADA 109s there is a tee fitting in the fuel line to provide fuel feeds to both ends of the dual pump.

georgeclark
12-28-2009, 03:41 AM
so both ends of the pump have a wire for power and run at the same time?

Richard
12-29-2009, 02:11 AM
Correct.

Terrys
12-29-2009, 06:12 AM
You're a day late and a dollar short. I just sold a Brand new, in the box, dual solenoid Lucas pump on ebay. They were used in old British race cars and other high fuel demand vehicles, but in my mind, they are twice the PITA that the single solenoid pumps were: Two sets of points to continually quit working.
MG-TDs, used in racing and rallying, would often have two single-solenoid pumps plumbed (and wired) in parallel, one above the other. I would always replace them with a Bendix type pump. They are far more reliable.

georgeclark
12-30-2009, 01:29 AM
I guess you did not quite get the question.....
It was one of originality and how the pump was originally installed.
Not what was better...


Also maybe you are missing out as the SU pump is now made as original but, electronic and without points. so no points freezing problem.
The day late dollar short are the ones who bought your old pump on ebay when they could have gotten the electronic version for reliability.
unless they need precise originality.

Anyway...as I said all of this misses the point of the original question.

georgeclark
12-30-2009, 01:30 AM
thanks richard for the info!