healeys
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: fuel pump points

To: "'John Harper'" <AH@jharper.demon.co.uk>
Subject: RE: fuel pump points
From: "Simon Lachlan" <simon.lachlan@homecall.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:48:36 +0100
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-healeys@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-healeys@autox.team.net] On
Behalf Of John Harper
Sent: 12 October 2006 18:03
To: Simon Lachlan
Cc: 'healey list'
Subject: Re: fuel pump points

Simon

I don't think that this statement about throw over is at all 
meaningless. The reliable action of a pump depends entirely on the throw 
over being correctly set. The diaphragm has to be rotated until whilst 
pressing the centre the throw over fails. It then has to be turned back 
to allow for slack, wear, diaphragm stretch and expansion etc.

Early instructions I believe said 4 holes but this has now been 
increased in recent literature to 5 or 6. I know to my cost that the 
early procedure gave problems. I had a pump that worked fine on the 
bench but it would let me down when it got hot. I stripped it down three 
or four times to try and find what was wrong. I then built a test rig 
and pumped paraffin through at full flow rate for a long period. It took 
over an hour before it failed and then I could see that there was no 
throw over slack left. Then a colleague told me about the later 
information. I just set the pump up accordingly and it has never failed 
again after many hour of soak testing on the rig and road running over 
the last four years or so.

Regards

What I meant was that the term "throw-over" is not adequately descriptive.
If one hasn't laid eyes on set of pump points in over 25 years, one won't
know when they're "throwing over", certainly not when they are throwing over
as they should be. It's a terminological thing.




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>