Fuel pump replacement guide within! :) [Archive]

RamAir95TA

10-03-2002, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by TCAL95Z
Those pics look good except that you did almost die which is why I wouldn't use a dremel. I'm guessing as soon as someone blows them self up no one else will try it. How did the other guy cut the hole? It looked like he made much smaller cuts and used tin snips???? your hole & cuts look much better

I've got to put a new pump in. I might make the hole after I take out the tank or if I could use tin snips instead I would do it.

Did the pump come out of the tank pretty easy? It looks like the lines are still long enough to get in the way.
I like the idea I just helped someone do theirs about a month ago and i'm not looking forward to doing mine.

I really didn't almost die...:)

I nicked the convoluted tubing. There's a good 3/4" of space between the metal and the lines. I nicked the convoluted tubing for the fuel sending unit, but didn't touch anything underneath (wires, lines, etc.). The Dremel cutoff wheel isn't even 1/2" wide on one half, so I was fine. :) I'm going to measure the area needed to be cut, so other people won't need to cut, remove, cut remove. All they'll need to do (you included) is make four cuts, steering clear of the lines altogether.

As per the other person, he used a Dremel as well. I haven't removed the pump yet, because my Racetronix pump has not arrived (hopefully within a day or so). I'll keep you updated.

TCAL95Z

10-03-2002, 01:02 AM

I guess I'm a wimp. How dangerous is doing that really? The sparks make me nervous too. I'm not sure I want to do that yet.

Did the pump come out of the tank easy?

Thanks
Tom

zhevy-1

10-03-2002, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by TCAL95Z
I guess I'm a wimp. How dangerous is doing that really? The sparks make me nervous too. I'm not sure I want to do that yet.

Did the pump come out of the tank easy?

Thanks
Tom
You want to completely empty the tank before you do that. :)

allmotorta

10-03-2002, 02:20 AM

Awesome! Thanks for the guide:) Can't wait to see the finished product!

magicvega

10-03-2002, 02:25 AM

Hey joe thanks for the write up.I always thought about doing this and when i do my pump i will surely do it this way!
BTW it's me from PSR with the blue z28.

shoebox

10-03-2002, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by zhevy-1
You want to completely empty the tank before you do that. :)

Actually, unless you can remove all traces of fumes, the danger of explosion is still there. It is the fumes that ignite. :eek:

Ken95Z28

10-03-2002, 09:58 AM

You talking about being nervous try welding some cage bars in the back of the car. You are really close to the filler neck for the tank.

The best caution is to make sure you have no signs of fuel smell anywhere.

I know if I ever had to replace the pump I would just pull the tank down from below. Since I added the dual exhaust I have no muffler to contend with in the rear of the car. Another advantage of the dual exhuast system.... :D

Fastbird93

10-03-2002, 10:03 AM

Joe, outstanding job!!! I may be doing that too. My car doesn't like to start good if it's sat for a few days, and I think it may be the fuel pump.

96Z28SilverStreak

10-03-2002, 10:32 AM

shoebox is correct, i am am a welder and i have repaired fuel tanks before. a full tank is better than an empty tank. i know it sounds crazy but the fumes is what is explosive, gasoline alone will just burn. take for example if you have a puddle of gas and threw a match in it, it will not all just explode, it will just ignite and burn(rapid) but it will not explode. what about taking the gas cap off for a while before you start to let some fumes excape then when you are ready to start recap it. also a fan for ventalation will help.
Just pay attention to what you are doing and be very cautious. if you are un sure of yourself with powertools use a pair of tin snips or find someone who can help you. i think this is a great idea because this sounds much easier then dropping the tank. plus it give us an access later on for future use. just my .02

TCAL95Z

10-03-2002, 10:42 AM

with the tank closed up are there any fumes?
Would tin snips work pretty well?
Is there enough padding under the carpet to go over the plate and screw heads?

How long did it take you? This must save quite a bit of time?

Dan95TA

10-03-2002, 11:03 AM

Please post some pics of the racetronix install, they seem like great drop in systems. I would like to see how much better they are than my universal walbro was.

And how much time did you save cutting the hole? It only took me about 4 hours to get to my pump by dropping the tank. I didn't want to deal with cutting a hole in my car, and found that droping the tank is quite easy, just a lot of **** to unbolt.

Dan

funina91ss

10-03-2002, 01:15 PM

I will try agian:) Do you have to cut the fuel lines or just lift it up and remove the with what room you have???

RamAir95TA

10-03-2002, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by TCAL95Z
with the tank closed up are there any fumes?
Would tin snips work pretty well?
Is there enough padding under the carpet to go over the plate and screw heads?

How long did it take you? This must save quite a bit of time?

I would image tin snips would be ok, since the metal is less that (I'd guess) 1mm thick. It bends pretty easily, but you'd need a nice set. :) Like I said in the install, there will be no sparks if you use the Dremel on speed 3 and take your time. I started hacking away at 30,000rpm and sparks were flying, and realized that wasn't a good idea. :)

From start to finish, it took all of about 30 minutes using my Dremel.

The padding under the carpet is a good 3/8" thick, and if you use a thin enough cover plate, you won't even notice it being there. (Padding + carpet on top of that, so it'll be invisible practically.)

Cutting of the fuel lines is not necessary (that would be bad...:alert:). The extra room toward the rear seats to the edge of the hump is to allow clearance to remove the pump from the tank. It's a cumbersome assembly, but there will be room.

My Racetronix pump JUST got shipped out today, so I'll need a few more days, unfortunately...:(

And when you reinstall the cover plate, don't forget a cute little message on it. I've chosen "Alligators Below." :D :D

simple

10-04-2002, 03:23 PM

you guys ever heard of a RotoZip, it uses a drillbit instead of a cutting wheel
i used to use one when i hung drywall you use it to cut out electrical boxes in the wallboard
just make a few inscissions and than use snipps to keep your safety stand piont high
i'm gonna be doing this on my brothers TA sjortly so i can use all the directions i can get

BTW both of those writeups are vrey nice and extremely helpful keep up the good work guys

bigde4u

10-04-2002, 03:46 PM

do you have any measurements on where to start the cuts at. i would like something to get me in the area pretty close.

RamAir95TA

10-04-2002, 05:38 PM

Be right back...I'll go make some measurements...;)

RamAir95TA

10-04-2002, 05:54 PM

http://www.worldisround.com/ophotos/260/359.jpg

There ya go. :)

TCAL95Z

10-05-2002, 12:24 AM

I use a RotoZip a lot. I have the attachment for the
cut off wheel and sander. I like the idea of making some pilot holes and then using the Tin Snips.

Those measurements are GREAT!!

How long did it take to get your Racetronix pump?
I didn't get it ordered today so I guess I won't be able to now till Monday

Racetronix

10-05-2002, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by TCAL95Z
I use a RotoZip a lot. I have the attachment for the
cut off wheel and sander. I like the idea of making some pilot holes and then using the Tin Snips.

Those measurements are GREAT!!

How long did it take to get your Racetronix pump?
I didn't get it ordered today so I guess I won't be able to now till Monday

Shipments typically take 3-5 work days to arrive once we ship. We ship usually within the same or next business day once payment clears.

Jack :cool:
Racetronix

dabear95

10-05-2002, 08:52 AM

I'm not to sure about this one guys. I think I will take the time to drop the gas tank. I do not like the idea of cutting a hole in my car and having to fabricate a cover in the future. Nevermind the idea about blowing myself up!!:eek:

grendal

10-05-2002, 10:08 AM

I have no problem with the idea of cutting the hole. With a thick plate, sealant and screws, it will be stronger than it was before you cut it.

As a side note, I might consider using some POR-15 on those exposed metal edges.... will prevent it from ever rusting.

-Michael

bigde4u

10-05-2002, 12:17 PM

ramair95ta: thanks for the measurements. how are you going to mount the cover? i was wondering if you was going to use sheetmetal screws or what. when i change my fuel pump i'm going to cut the hole, i have no problem with doing that but just to be safe i think i'm going to cut some pilot holes and use the tin snips then smoothe it out on the edges.

ramair95ta: when you get the pump in let us know the measurements of the cover and how you installed it, if you would.:D

RamAir95TA

10-05-2002, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by bigde4u
ramair95ta: thanks for the measurements. how are you going to mount the cover? i was wondering if you was going to use sheetmetal screws or what. when i change my fuel pump i'm going to cut the hole, i have no problem with doing that but just to be safe i think i'm going to cut some pilot holes and use the tin snips then smoothe it out on the edges.

ramair95ta: when you get the pump in let us know the measurements of the cover and how you installed it, if you would.:D

I'm probably just going to use a 1/8" piece of steel or aluminum, or whatever I can come across in my basement actually. :) Using POR-15 is a good idea, and I think I'll take advantage of that! I'll use some short (very short...;))sheet-metal screws, most likely.

funina91ss

10-05-2002, 08:54 PM

The meserments were right on.. I used a 3/8 drill bit and drilled a whole and used tin snips no sparks at all .. I am like you waiting a the fuel pump so I havent taken it out yet still have a full bottle of N20 to run out :D That is if the guy who owns the car dont care.. I am putting in a grantell 255lph pump for a 150 shot on a stock motor :eek:

dave1w41

10-05-2002, 10:57 PM

Best looking hack job I have ever seen. Looks good but unless you are going to do it right don't bother. If I were buying a used car I would not even consider one with this "modification".

If you need to know why this is a bad idea, maybe you should just e-mail me. I don't need to go into the discussion yet again. All I can say is that from the opinion of a Service Engineer do not do this. Do it the right way or hire someone to do it the right way. The best mods are ones that don't result in :dead: .

MACGI 98 Z28

10-05-2002, 11:33 PM

The only proper way to change out the fuel pump is to drop the tank in accordance (or close to it) with GM service procedures found in the helms manual. Chopping a hole in the floorpan is HACKING and it is a bad idea.

RamAir95TA

10-05-2002, 11:54 PM

Why does it appear to be 'hacking'? I think the cuts looks professional.

And why is it a bad idea? :confused:

Taking the proper precautions, taking your time, and doing it right, and it's plenty better than dropping the tank, personally.

funina91ss

10-06-2002, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by MACGI 98 Z28
The only proper way to change out the fuel pump is to drop the tank in accordance (or close to it) with GM service procedures found in the helms manual. Chopping a hole in the floorpan is HACKING and it is a bad idea. Then maybey everyone should keep there cars stock I dont see gm serivce man. foor roll cages,subframe ties,SUMP TANK,and the list will go on if you are worried about strucal integ if you screw a plate back on it will not hurt any at all that stuff is already thin and it is not really a high stress point of the car Just be smart like you would doing any other mod to your car and to the post about used car If I was selling a car I would just not tell :p

shoebox

10-06-2002, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by RamAir95TA
...

And why is it a bad idea? :confused:

...

More than likely, because it compromises the unibody integrity. One purpose of it being to protect the occupants from the contents of the gas tank in the event of a crash induced rupture. I am surprised this has not been brought up sooner in the thread. I guess because it has been already in so many others.
In a crash, there could be great stress put on the fasteners that are used to hold the panel on. I would imagine if the occupants happened to die in a fiery crash and insurance investigation found the access hole, they would not be likely to pay out any death benefit. Just a thought.

grendal

10-06-2002, 12:47 AM

On MOST cars, the fuel pump/sender unit is bolted in directly into the passenger compartment, usually in the forward area of the trunk and/or hatch.... Doing this mod actually just makes the 4th gen more modern..... As in one example, using a panel, sealant and screws actually puts you a step ahead of most cars in safety.

I'd do it... and probably will....

If your reason for saying this is so bad is so right, how about you just go ahead and tell us....

-Michael

shoebox

10-06-2002, 09:31 AM

Dan95TA

10-06-2002, 11:38 AM

I think the big apeal to this install is that it sounds very easy. And dropping the rear end sounds hard. When my pump was going out I thought about doing it this way too. I decided to do it the right way because I did not like the idea of cutting a hole in my car and risk hitting the fuel lines. After doing it the right way I would never even consider doing it this way because I learned dropping the tank is so easy.

Dropping the tank cons
taking off the exhaust could possibly be a pain, and dropping the tank is a little tricky but if you're small like me you can just angle it to get to the pump assembly without even taking the tank completely out. Oh and a bunch of bolts.

Trap door cons
Risk of hitting a fuel line while cutting and possibly causing injury, compromising the structual integrety of the the car, possibly inviting rust, and possibly spilling gas from the assembly inside the car. Also like shoebox said that I hadn't even thought of, about getting in an accident.

The only good thing about the trap door is that it might make it easier to get to the pump if you somehow mess up the install. So if you drop the tank just don't mess up :D

Originally posted by grendal
As in one example, using a panel, sealant and screws actually puts you a step ahead of most cars in safety.

:confused: how is this safer than having a SOLID sheet of un cut metal:confused:

I would be mad as hell if I bought a car with this mod done to it and wasn't told especially if it was rusting.

Now I am not trying to tell anyone how to work on their car, do whatever you want, I am just posting my experiences.

grendal

10-06-2002, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by shoebox
You lost me, dude. :confused: What "most" cars are you talking about? I have never seen any car that had the fuel pump in the passenger compartment. (guess that doesn't mean there aren't some) Plus the gauge sending unit/float arm would have to be installed in the tank.

If a car is designed with an access panel that is one thing. When one is added, well, that is another. Cutting a hole does compromise the original intended design. Whether it is safe or not, I am sure will be determined sometime in the future.

Now, what is it you want me to "tell you"? :confused:

No, what I mean is in MOST CARS if you pull up the carpet, there's ALREADY AN ACCESS HOLE TO THE TANK/SENDING UNIT. In fact, THIS IS THE NORMAL WAY TO CHANGE IT.

Some examples that I've seen with my own eyes? 1998 VW Passat, 1988 VW Golf, 1990 Toyota Corolla, 1989 Toyota Camry, etc.... When you pull back the carpet, you unscrew the round access panel and pull back the sealant, when you lift up, you pull out the entire sending unit/pump assembly... right in the cabin of the car.... then you replace it the same way, re-seal it and screw it back in.... this is NORMAL PROCEDURE for most other cars. It is BAD DESIGN that you have to drop the tank to do it on the f-body...

NOW WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME WHY YOU THINK IT IS SO DANGEROUS AND/OR BAD TO DO IT BY CUTTING AN ACCESS HOLE? Mr. smarty pants :)

YOU are the one who says you have some really detailed reason that you don't want to go into... well, go into it... tell us why.

Fire Risk? How so... compared to most other cars, you still have double protection.... the sealed tank itself AND a sealed metal panel... vs. most cars just having the sealed tank entry point in their trunk/hatch. Besides, if your tank ruptures in an accident , you have much bigger problems.

"Hack Job" on the body? Pure opinion, and not a really educated one. As you can see from the pics and the discussion, they are not cutting through the structural part of the body. In fact, if you look at the reinforcement "ribs" that are molded into the body panel there, you'll notice that CONVENIENTLY GM actually stopped the reinforcement rib in just a perfect position so that a hole could be cut there.... coincidence? Or maybe completely on purpose... Why wouldn't that center "rib" go all the way up? Why does it conveniently stop right where you need to begin cutting? Furthermore, if this metal in this area is so thin that you can cut it with TIN SNIPS, it is ignorant to believe that it would be any weaker with a thick metal panel screwed in its place.... If anything, with a thick panel screwed down with 10+ screws, this area is at least "as-strong" as before, if not stronger. And if sealant is used, as suggested, it also eliminates any concern of fumes.

So, please. Please tell us your reasoning for this being such a bad idea.

-Michael

shoebox

10-06-2002, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by grendal
No, what I mean is in MOST CARS if you pull up the carpet, there's ALREADY AN ACCESS HOLE TO THE TANK/SENDING UNIT. In fact, THIS IS THE NORMAL WAY TO CHANGE IT.

Some examples that I've seen with my own eyes? 1998 VW Passat, 1988 VW Golf, 1990 Toyota Corolla, 1989 Toyota Camry, etc.... When you pull back the carpet, you unscrew the round access panel and pull back the sealant, when you lift up, you pull out the entire sending unit/pump assembly... right in the cabin of the car.... then you replace it the same way, re-seal it and screw it back in.... this is NORMAL PROCEDURE for most other cars. It is BAD DESIGN that you have to drop the tank to do it on the f-body...

NOW WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME WHY YOU THINK IT IS SO DANGEROUS AND/OR BAD TO DO IT BY CUTTING AN ACCESS HOLE? Mr. smarty pants :)

YOU are the one who says you have some really detailed reason that you don't want to go into... well, go into it... tell us why.

Fire Risk? How so... compared to most other cars, you still have double protection.... the sealed tank itself AND a sealed metal panel... vs. most cars just having the sealed tank entry point in their trunk/hatch. Besides, if your tank ruptures in an accident , you have much bigger problems.

"Hack Job" on the body? Pure opinion, and not a really educated one. As you can see from the pics and the discussion, they are not cutting through the structural part of the body. In fact, if you look at the reinforcement "ribs" that are molded into the body panel there, you'll notice that CONVENIENTLY GM actually stopped the reinforcement rib in just a perfect position so that a hole could be cut there.... coincidence? Or maybe completely on purpose... Why wouldn't that center "rib" go all the way up? Why does it conveniently stop right where you need to begin cutting? Furthermore, if this metal in this area is so thin that you can cut it with TIN SNIPS, it is ignorant to believe that it would be any weaker with a thick metal panel screwed in its place.... If anything, with a thick panel screwed down with 10+ screws, this area is at least "as-strong" as before, if not stronger. And if sealant is used, as suggested, it also eliminates any concern of fumes.

So, please. Please tell us your reasoning for this being such a bad idea.

-Michael

I already said that cars designed with access are one thing. The key element in my mind is designed with it. If you have to cut a hole, it is not part of the design, even if it appears a convenient spot was left to do so. The way I understand a unibody car is that the whole structure is designed to work together. Removing what appears to be an inconsequential piece of metal may have unwanted consequences in certain circumstances. Panels can be made thin because of the way they are designed to work with the whole. I am no structional engineer, therefore I choose to err on the side of caution.

As I see it, if the metal around that area is deformed in a crash, that panel is apt to come off. If it was secured with a good grade bolt and nut, that could make a difference (of course, getting a nut under there would require removal of the tank ;) ). A sheet metal screw is not much to hold it in that situation.

Sure, you will have big problems if your tank ruptures, but even bigger problems if that gas is inside the car with you. :eek:

Like I said, no engineer, just MHO. If anyone thinks this is a concern then don't cut. If you think it is safe, go ahead.

funina91ss

10-06-2002, 01:53 PM

Here is the way I see it if you hurt your car that bad to smash the floor in it you are pretty much a goner anyway and stiffing of the f-bodys is a popaular mod and also affect strucal integ. gm did not crash test F bodys with subframe conn. and roll cages so what is the diffrence in cuting little hole :rolleyes: just use a drill bit with a stop on it so it wont go down to far and tin snips and you have no sparks to set a flame and if you ever have a porblem with the pump or want to upgrade it will only take 30 min to change :bow: No dirty hands either:D but to each his own I guss!!!!

MACGI 98 Z28

10-07-2002, 01:43 AM

Fire Risk? How so... compared to most other cars, you still have double protection.... the sealed tank itself AND a sealed metal panel... vs. most cars just having the sealed tank entry point in their trunk/hatch. Besides, if your tank ruptures in an accident , you have much bigger problems.

IF the tank ruptures, do you think a couple of screws and some sealer is going to keep you from becoming a human torch? I would rather have the floor there even if it buys me only a fraction of a second. That tank is really not that far away and if the hit blows out the "panel" the contents of the tank will be INSIDE THE VEHICLE.

Hack Job" on the body? Pure opinion, and not a really educated one. As you can see from the pics and the discussion, they are not cutting through the structural part of the body. In fact, if you look at the reinforcement "ribs" that are molded into the body panel there, you'll notice that CONVENIENTLY GM actually stopped the reinforcement rib in just a perfect position so that a hole could be cut there.... coincidence? Or maybe completely on purpose... Why wouldn't that center "rib" go all the way up? Why does it conveniently stop right where you need to begin cutting?

Who has the "opinion" here? Are you an engineer? How do YOU know what is and is not structurally critical? What are your qualifications in this regard? If GM "conveniently" made it for cutting, why does the service manual not have the hack procedure instead of the one that shows you how to drop the tank? Do you think maybe they have a good reason? I am betting on "coincidence" here.

iniviate

10-07-2002, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by grendal

"Hack Job" on the body? Pure opinion, and not a really educated one. As you can see from the pics and the discussion, they are not cutting through the structural part of the body. In fact, if you look at the reinforcement "ribs" that are molded into the body panel there, you'll notice that CONVENIENTLY GM actually stopped the reinforcement rib in just a perfect position so that a hole could be cut there.... coincidence? Or maybe completely on purpose... Why wouldn't that center "rib" go all the way up? Why does it conveniently stop right where you need to begin cutting?

the rib is removed to make room for the fuel lines that come out of the tank.

i dont think there is really a valid argument to cut the tank on most cars.... other than it saves time, especially if it fails again.

with that being said, i cut mine.

dave1w41

10-07-2002, 12:28 PM

Some examples that I've seen with my own eyes? 1998 VW Passat, 1988 VW Golf, 1990 Toyota Corolla, 1989 Toyota Camry, etc.... When you pull back the carpet, you unscrew the round access panel and pull back the sealant, when you lift up, you pull out the entire sending unit/pump assembly... right in the cabin of the car.... then you replace it the same way, re-seal it and screw it back in.... this is NORMAL PROCEDURE for most other cars. It is BAD DESIGN that you have to drop the tank to do it on the f-body...

Just because VW and Toyota did it does not make it good practice. GM has an access panel on a few cars but they are designed into the structure. The floor panel is thicker, the cover is held on with weld studs coming up and nuts that thread down over them (not just some sheet metal screws). The panel openings in all of your examples have rounded corners and rolled edges that add structural integrity.

A square hole is the worst one to have in a structural panel because it deforms at the corners. It may not even take an accident to deform this type of opening (square or rectangle with 90-degree corners) in a thin piece of sheetmetal. Over time cracks may begin to form at the corners of the opening because someone made 4 perfect stress risers in an otherwise undamaged floor panel.

Take a look at all of the other openings in the floor panel. The shifter hole, the body drain holes in the footwells and trunk well, how many of them are square with square corners? They aren't because openings like that are bad news in a sheetmetal panel unless the panel is over-designed to make that opening possible.

It may deform enough in normal driving to allow carbon monoxide to enter the car. It is risky all around and the reason that there isn't an access panel is because it was determined that there should not be one. Saying that piece of metal isn't structural is just an opinion from an uninformed source. An informed source (like myself - an automotive engineer) will tell you that there ins't a single square inch of metal that you can identify in a car as "not structural" without having actually engineered it yourself. Very, very, rarely is any part of the floorpan of a car not imperative to the performance of the car in crash and high-load situations. Get under the car and take a look at what is attached to the rails near that new opening. The rear axle and the panhard bar attachements. What kind of loads do you think are spread through that useless floor when you are cornering at 1.0G's and the panhard bar is absorbing 80% of that load? Not structural? http://www.worldisround.com/articles/12533/photo11.html
Take a good look, those formed areas of the floorpan, they aren't there by accident. Those are like the corrigations on a tin trash can or a metal silo on a farm. They add structure to the thin sheetmetal and lo and behold, someone has just ground a hole through that structure in this picture. If you look more closely you can see rows of spot welds attaching some structural braces from underneath. What are those for? What kind of loads might be passed through those structural braces that are now located near this hole? Bueller? Bueller? Maybe you don't know because, well, you don't know and, well, maybe cutting is a bad idea?
If you didn't know better the siren song of "easy fuel pump replacement" might be sounding pretty good right about now.

Removing the rear axle sounds like a huge job but really isn't. Cutting holes in the floor IMHO is just chicken****ting out of taking on the real job. If you can't handle the work, don't modify the car. BTW, this does not qualify as a "mod" that would show up in a signature. Modifications are by definition to improve the performance of the vehicle. Cutting a hole in the floor of a car does not qualify as a "mod" because it will only degrade the performance of the vehicle in one way or another.

RamAir95TA

10-07-2002, 07:05 PM

Thanks for your opinion.

grendal

10-07-2002, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by dave1w41
Just because VW and Toyota did it does not make it good practice.

I'll take a little issue with this, with Volkswagen specifically. If you do a little research, you'll find that VW's are considerably better "crashers" than nearly every car on the road. GM doesn't even come close on this one.... I'd rather be strapped into my '98 Passat in a crash than my current '98 Chevy Z71 truck or my '95 Z28. Let's put it this way -- you don't need to put "subframe connectors" on a late-model VW, because the chassis doesn't flex enough to need such a thing.

GM has an access panel on a few cars but they are designed into the structure. The floor panel is thicker, the cover is held on with weld studs coming up and nuts that thread down over them (not just some sheet metal screws). The panel openings in all of your examples have rounded corners and rolled edges that add structural integrity.

Points well taken....

Removing the rear axle sounds like a huge job but really isn't.

Hmm, I dunno about that. Heh... Most of us don't have access to a lift, 9 different types of jacks, air tools, etc. For me, I don't even know how I would get the car high enough to drop the axle in my garage. Whereas with my Dremel rotary and some cut-off wheels I could have this hole done on 15 minutes.... so you can see where the attraction to this idea comes :)

If you can't handle the work, don't modify the car. BTW, this does not qualify as a "mod" that would show up in a signature. Modifications are by definition to improve the performance of the vehicle. Cutting a hole in the floor of a car does not qualify as a "mod" because it will only degrade the performance of the vehicle in one way or another.

Who's talking about mods? heh. I think most of us are just taling about replacing the piece of sh*t fuel pumps that GM put in our cars that fail prematurely... and what about thos genius engineers at GM now? Heh... their sh*tty pumps fail regularly, and yet you have to disassemble the entire rear suspension, brakes and drivetrain parts and drop the tank to get to it?.... Come on, just plain bad design..... I don't necessarily think the GM engineers on the f-car project were your braintrusts... I can't blame them entirely, I mean they were actually just given a low budget and told to modify the 3rd gen chassis to come up with something, so really we're dealing with early 80's tech, which is why it doesn't have things that are now the norm... such as access panels to the fuel sender/pump. In fact, I dare you to find ANY modern car that DOESN'T have such a panel. You have to exclude such old-designs such as the SN95 Mustang (which dates to 1979 or earlier), but anything desinged in the past 10 years or so... most definitely. The main reason I knew for sure about the Passat having the access panel is because I had to change the sender on it, and I was impressed at how easy it was.

Anywho... thanks for the info... it doesn't mean I'm not still gonna cut it :) I really don't know... What I do know is my fuel pump is noisy and won't last forever.... not looking forward to the idea of disassembling the entire rear of the car to get to a part that only takes 5 minutes to change.

Thanks for nothing idiots at GM :)

-Michael

dave1w41

10-07-2002, 11:39 PM

Grendal,
The standard is not an access panel, I don't know how you got that idea but it just isn't the case. The cars that still have them are kind of oddball. For awhile there were lots of cars with them mostly european, or Japanese. When it comes to these access holes, typically they are seen as a liability due to fuel and fire issues. Most cars in the future won't have them GM is not by any means the only one that does not have them in most of their cars. In the future no one will have them because the fuel pumps rarely fail and there is liability cost associated with a hole that big near the fuel tank. Pumps that fail are usually killed by debris or being run dry. If you gave me a Jetta or Passat and a one-gallon can of gas, I could have the pump killed in about an hour. I would just give it enough gas to run and then run it out a couple of times. Viola! dead pump.

I don't know about VW crash testing results but all cars have to meet requirements set by the government. No one sells cars that don't meet those requirements. Subframe connectors and unibody stiffness have NOTHING to do with crash results. VW also does not make any RWD cars other than the Phaeton and that car is new. I don't know of any FWD GM cars that need "subframe connectors" because they have flimsy bodies. In fact, if there is anything that has been said about the N, W, and G body FWD GM cars, it is that they are solid.
In reality the F-Car in stock form is a car that performs very high in crash tests and is probably as safe as any car on the road from that perspective.

It makes almost no difference what brand of car you are driving when you get in a wreck. If your car is bigger and you are wearing your seatbelt, your chances of injury drop dramatically. If the car is equipped with airbags both front and side, that helps about an additional 10%. The brand on the car does not mean much if it is hit by something that has three times the mass. The smaller car always loses. Being that VW products are smaller on average than most cars in their respective classes I would bet that in the real world they don't perform as well as you think.

Don't get me wrong, VW makes some really fine and very sophisticated products. But I have seen the access hole in a Passat, Jetta, and Beetle (same as the Jetta) and they look nothing like what I see in the pictures associated with the original post. One would wonder that if they have such a high failure rate that they need a hole to lower their warranty costs, maybe they need to work on pump quality? I don't think you are working from a position of strong data but more of an opinion that VW makes great cars, and they do, but so does everyone else. I also think that you might have a perspective that GM makes cars that are of poor quality. In the past that may have been true but today GM's quality is equal or better than their competition with the exception of Honda and Toyota.

Vader

10-08-2002, 12:09 AM

I don't know yet what I will do when my in-tank pump fails. Maybe I will cut the hole. Maybe not.

What I do know is that many cars use an access panel. Volvo uses one in the trunk, square with rounded corners, held on by two sheet metal screws. The fuel tank is over the axle, which is the best place to protect it in a crash, and GM began doing that about a decade later when their engineers figured it out. I mean these are the SAME engineers that put the pickup fuel tank on the outside of the frame so it could be squished easily and immolate the occupants. So much for the rocket scientists working at GM.

As far as the "structural integrity" issue is concerned, it is not like we are talking about an aircraft. The factor of safety applied to the torsional rigidity of the unit body is not going to be compromised by a small hatch, and certainly not when it is on the centerline of that structure.

In engineering when crack analysis is first understood, it appears that by scratching the surface of a bridge with a scriber, that it must eventually propagate a crack and collapse. Of course that isn't true - metals like mild steel have a "high work of fracture", unlike glass. A small hatch will not cause failure of the cars unitbody.

Any accident where the tank is flattened is probably not survivable, regardless of whether a hatch is cut or not. I worry more about the laughable weakness of the coupe (let alone the t-top or convertibles) in a roll-over. Not survivable. So to whine about a little hatch, when these cars can't survive a roll-over (thanks again to the overly lauded GM Rocket Scientists) is ridiculous.

iniviate

10-08-2002, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Vader
As far as the "structural integrity" issue is concerned, it is not like we are talking about an aircraft. The factor of safety applied to the torsional rigidity of the unit body is not going to be compromised by a small hatch, and certainly not when it is on the centerline of that structure..

i disagree with this...

i have a friend with a 93 z28. the last time we were replacing his clutch, we noticed stress cracks developing from the corners of the shift boot hole.

that's right along the "centerline" too...

that's a hole that was designed to be there, yet it's cracking. it's stupid to think that there are NO stresses put on any part of a unibody car.... even flat thin pieces of metal.

DWoodAudio

10-08-2002, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by grendal
On MOST cars, the fuel pump/sender unit is bolted in directly into the passenger compartment, usually in the forward area of the trunk and/or hatch.... Doing this mod actually just makes the 4th gen more modern..... As in one example, using a panel, sealant and screws actually puts you a step ahead of most cars in safety.

I'd do it... and probably will....

If your reason for saying this is so bad is so right, how about you just go ahead and tell us....

-Michael

Name two please, I can't recall EVER seeing a car, foregin or domestic that has its fuel pump in the passenger compartment, and without putting the entire fuel tank in the same passenger compartment it would be impossible to mount the "sender" in there. Thats about the most idiotic statement I've read in this thread so far, and a ridiculous way of justifying doing a cheap and dirty repair hack because you're either too lazy or too uninformed about the right way to do it. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you're going to work on these cars bite the bullet, spend the money and buy the FACTORY service manuals for the car from Helm. Yes, they cost around $100 but they will tell you every *proper* service procedure for the car, including some very detailed troubleshooting guides.
I look at it this way: If you want to cut holes in your cars, go right ahead. Would I do it that way? Definitely NO. I'm not going to debate the structural integrity issues with you, but cutting holes like that and patching them with screwed in sheet metal cannot possibly increase the strentgh of the panel.
I've done my fuel pump, and it does NOT require taking the rear end out of the car, it isnt as hard as everyone is whining about it being, and its a damn sight safer than poking around just an inch or two away from fuel and electrical lines with saws and rotary cutters that all produce some degree of sparks when cutting through metal.
Seems like everyone is only concerned with doing things the cheap and easy way, sometimes doing things the right way means a little more effort, and in this case its actually cheaper to do it the "right" way. It costs you nothing additional in sheet metal, screws, sealer, paint, or in repairing damaged fuel or electrical lines that you might have "found" the hard way while cutting your floor.
Just one man's opinion................:D

DWoodAudio

10-08-2002, 03:50 AM

A postscript to my previous rant: :rolleyes:

In regards to the rear end issue, it is NOT necessary to completely remove it to drop the tank. You do have to get it as low as you possibly can by disconnecting the sway bar, shocks, and brake line (yes, it means you have to bleed the rear brakes, boo hoo.....terribly hard job that took me all of 10 minutes).
You also do not need a lift in your garage (I'll admit it would be nice to have one sometimes) I did all of this with the entire car raised up on 4 jack stands, set fairly high to give me room to work. I do have air tools, can't imagine working on a car without 'em but it wouldn't be impossible to do without them, as long as you had a good long 1/2" breaker bar for things like the shock bolts. The exhaust is probably the biggest PITA, but I lucked out in having the MAC catback system, which is held together with ball flanges and bolts, it came right apart in no time.
Enough is enough. Personally I think this thread should be closed because little else can be learned from it. The people who are bound and determined to cut up their floors are not going to listen to any reasoning that suggests that it might not be the wisest method of accomplishing their repair job, and the people who are already convinced that it isnt the right way to do the job will never change their minds. It's just turning into a p*ssing match to see who can come up with the best reason for justifying their belief.

Racetronix

10-08-2002, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by DWoodAudio Seems like everyone is only concerned with doing things the cheap and easy way, sometimes doing things the right way means a little more effort, and in this case its actually cheaper to do it the "right" way. It costs you nothing additional in sheet metal, screws, sealer, paint, or in repairing damaged fuel or electrical lines that you might have "found" the hard way while cutting your floor.
Just one man's opinion................:D

Just for the record Racetronix and its dealers do not recommend/condone cutting the floor pan of the car to install our kits or any fuel pump for that matter. This is for many good reasons most of which have already been covered in this thread. Many of these reasons are valid for street driven cars with external pumps and sumped tanks as well.

I know of two dealers this year who took in cars that had serious fire damage due to work that was being done around the gas tank opening. All it takes is a small spark! One car had some cutting being done for what was to be a couple hundred dollar job. Once they were finished the car needed a new fuel tank, sending unit, rear main wiring harness and bulkhead connectors, carpet, moldings, glass and paint just to name a few items. Total bill was over $3500.00 once done. The tech doing the work had no eyelashes, second degree burns and was off work for quite some time.

:alert: If someone still has the balls to cut the floor consider using a fan blowing up under the tank to help evacuate any volatile fumes that may be trapped in pockets. Always disconnect the negative terminal of the car battery. Pray you do not cut into the wiring harness or the feed lines.

Jack :cool:
Racetronix

grendal

10-08-2002, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by dave1w41

It makes almost no difference what brand of car you are driving when you get in a wreck. If your car is bigger and you are wearing your seatbelt, your chances of injury drop dramatically. If the car is equipped with airbags both front and side, that helps about an additional 10%. The brand on the car does not mean much if it is hit by something that has three times the mass. The smaller car always loses. Being that VW products are smaller on average than most cars in their respective classes I would bet that in the real world they don't perform as well as you think.

The "bigger cars crash better" idea is ignorant and untrue. You need to look at some ACTUAL crash test results. You will notice that the VW New Beetle actually outcrashes almost every car in the Mid-size class, yet it is a compact... how so? It has nothing to do with the vehicle's size.... If anything you're safer crashing in a light-weight car that has been designed properly. You're more likely to sustain an injury in a big stiff-frame truck than you are in a mid-size VW Passat or a mid-size Volvo S60, because they're just designed better. Period. If you've ever looked closely at these cars, driven them, and had a good look at the NHTSA's crash ratings, you'd understand this.

People that believe bigger cars are safer are the same ignorant soccer mom's driving the Navigator/Expedition death-traps with one-hand, a cell phone in the other, while sticking in a new DVD in the player for the kid's in the back seat, risking the lives of everyone on the road.

That said, I think you're also incorrect about the access panel. Yes true, they are NOT like the ones you'd have to cut in an f-body. They ARE integrated into the body, which is probably why they are perfectly safe. The Passat that I had which had this panel was a 1998 model, which was at that time a brand spanking new ground-up redesign with no parts shared by any previous model. In fact, it is mostly engineered by Audi.

Furthermore, as to FWD vs. RWD, the Passat shares an Audi platform which uses a longitudinally mounted engine, which puts the same twisting force on the car as if it were RWD... in fact, Passats come in FWD or AWD.... ever look under the hood of one? It's not mounted sideways like a Toyota. You can jack up the car by one corner and not affect the alignment of the doors... can you do that on an f-body? Heh.... I dare say no :)

L8r,

Michael

DWoodAudio

10-08-2002, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by grendal
The "bigger cars crash better" idea is ignorant and untrue. You need to look at some ACTUAL crash test results. You will notice that the VW New Beetle actually outcrashes almost every car in the Mid-size class, yet it is a compact... how so? It has nothing to do with the vehicle's size.... If anything you're safer crashing in a light-weight car that has been designed properly. You're more likely to sustain an injury in a big stiff-frame truck than you are in a mid-size VW Passat or a mid-size Volvo S60, because they're just designed better. Period. If you've ever looked closely at these cars, driven them, and had a good look at the NHTSA's crash ratings, you'd understand this.

People that believe bigger cars are safer are the same ignorant soccer mom's driving the Navigator/Expedition death-traps with one-hand, a cell phone in the other, while sticking in a new DVD in the player for the kid's in the back seat, risking the lives of everyone on the road.

All of that is only partially true. New vehicles, be they large Navigators or VW Beetles are designed with more crush structure to protect the occupants in an accident. The REAL danger, and one that is rarely made mention of by the NHTSA or NTSB is disparity in vehicle sizes in a collision. Let that dim-bumb distracted mother in the Navigator run into that crashworthy VW and I pity the occupants of the Beetle. With more and more people mindlessly flocking to the current craze of behemoth SUV's and trucks, and most of them woefully unskilled drivers to begin with, we're going to be seeing more and more catastrophic crashes where people get seriously injured because their small car gets run over by either Soccer Mom or Uncle Bubba in his off road monster. Crashworthiness, crush zones, front and side airbags and 5-15 mph bumpers are all pretty useless when you have a 5 foot tall tire sitting on top of your roof.
I sort of realize how it got here, but boy did THIS subject get off topic..!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

DWoodAudio

10-08-2002, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Racetronix
Just for the record Racetronix and its dealers do not recommend/condone cutting the floor pan of the car to install our kits or any fuel pump for that matter. This is for many good reasons most of which have already been covered in this thread. Many of these reasons are valid for street driven cars with external pumps and sumped tanks as well.

I know of two dealers this year who took in cars that had serious fire damage due to work that was being done around the gas tank opening. All it takes is a small spark! One car had some cutting being done for what was to be a couple hundred dollar job. Once they were finished the car needed a new fuel tank, sending unit, rear main wiring harness and bulkhead connectors, carpet, moldings, glass and paint just to name a few items. Total bill was over $3500.00 once done. The tech doing the work had no eyelashes, second degree burns and was off work for quite some time.

:alert: If someone still has the balls to cut the floor consider using a fan blowing up under the tank to help evacuate any volatile fumes that may be trapped in pockets. Always disconnect the negative terminal of the car battery. Pray you do not cut into the wiring harness or the feed lines.

Jack :cool:
Racetronix

My comments definitely weren't directed towards the Racetronix guys, and if anyone needs more evidence why its a dim-bulb idea to be doing anything that has even the remotest possibility of making a spark so dangerously close to the fuel tank, the above accounts of actual things that happened during similar "repair" work should drive the point home. :death:
My only gripe with you guys at Racetronix is that you showed up here about 2 months too late, I had already just replaced my pump with another OEM unit, but my motor is mostly stock so it delivers adaquate fuel for its needs. When the day comes that it needs more, I'll be looking you up :D

dave1w41

10-08-2002, 01:59 PM

The "bigger cars crash better" idea is ignorant and untrue. You need to look at some ACTUAL crash test results. You will notice that the VW New Beetle actually outcrashes almost every car in the Mid-size class, yet it is a compact... how so? It has nothing to do with the vehicle's size.... If anything you're safer crashing in a light-weight car that has been designed properly. You're more likely to sustain an injury in a big stiff-frame truck than you are in a mid-size VW Passat or a mid-size Volvo S60, because they're just designed better. Period. If you've ever looked closely at these cars, driven them, and had a good look at the NHTSA's crash ratings, you'd understand this

We really need to start another thread for this discussion but I digress.

NHTSA tests are barrier tests designed to measure one car against another in a given scenario. They are decent measure of crash performance and are considered valid tests. All GM cars pass them easily and so do the ones from Ford, Honda, Toyota, and VW. In the real world, crashes are often between a Lincoln Navigator and a VW Passat. Or, for the sake of argument a Chevrolet Tahoe and a VW Beetle. I for one will take the larger vehicle every time, in the real world, the larger car always wins you can't suspend the laws of physics.

The only test that NHTSA uses to rate cars against one another is the NCAP test and in that test if you compare the Passat to the Impala they perform the same. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2002MidS.html
The Impala and Passat both outperform the Volvo S60. In frontal crashes a Saturn L-Series outperforms your beloved Beetle. In fact, most GM cars do. I don't know where you are getting your data but the NHTSA data isn't supporting your argument in the slightest.
In most of these ratings GM is probably filling out the average as well they should, they have more platforms and make more cars than anyone else. VW only has about 4 platforms so they should all be absolutely optimized.

I have seen all of these cars that you are talking about and when you boil it right down, they are just cars. VW is a big conglomerate just like GM and Ford and they don't have a monopoly on brains. If you think they make better cars than GM does, go ahead and drive one for 200,000 miles and let me know how much money you spent on repairs during that time. I think you will probably find it isn't better than an average car and probably cost you more.
There are plenty of cars that you can jack up by the corner and affect the alignment of the doors. That isn't a measure of crash safety. It is a very weak measure of structural stiffness and to that I say, so what?

RamAir95TA

10-08-2002, 08:03 PM

Soooooo...

I still have my hole in my trunk. And it's fine with me. All buttoned up, can't tell it's even there.

Now if my fuel pump takes a crap on me any time in the future, it's just a few screws away.

Thumbs up in my book. If anyone else doesn't like it, that's fine as well.

There's no more need to argue this point any fiurther as far as I'm concerned. Choose your poison. I don't see the harm either way. :)

AlexA

11-09-2002, 05:26 PM

I wanted to reopen this with a couple of comments as I'm going to do an intake fuel pump soon. I was talking with my mechanic (40+ years in the industry, pro-mod IHRA car, blah, blah) and I told him I wanted to put an in-tank pump in. After he was done cringing, I asked him what the deal was. He said he did a pump in a '97 TA and had a bear of a time getting the tank out. He said the filler neck is the biggest problem as it cannot be detached from the tank. I asked him what he did, he said he cut the filler tube (OUTTER tube) to give him the flexibilty he needed to get the tank down. He used some sort of slip fit ring designed for filler tubes to repair the cut. I asked about metal shards, said he used some sort of chain tube cutter, so it was completely clean cut.

ANYWAY, I told him about the access panel people were making. He liked the idea, but mentioned the car is a uni-body. He said he could design a plate to cover the hole (mentioned a lip all the way around and machine pop rivets). He was confident it would be just as sturdy. I asked him if it was dangerous, he said it can be if you don't use the right tools. My car was on the lift, and I suggested that the tank can be dropped maybe 1-3 inches by just letting the tanks straps loose (2 bolts). After looking at it, he said that would be a very good idea to give more clearance for cutting.

To reduce the chance of cutting the tank, lines, or wires, lowering the tank a couple inches would help. It looked like just jacking up the rear body (to take weight off the axle) and undoing the tank straps to let the tank down would give enough clearance (along with the fact that we now have pictures of where to cut) to safely cut the access panel. Once it was cut and there was no more fear of sparks, the system could be vented and the pump replaced.

Comments?

-Alex

shoebox

11-09-2002, 05:38 PM

Just as a side note and FWIW, the 1999 and up tank (the different and larger one) uses a detachable two piece filler neck. I am guessing it would be a lot easier to drop the tank this way.
I have seen plenty of rubber collars that secure the filler neck to the tank on other cars.

RacinLT1

11-09-2002, 05:48 PM

I couldnt bear to read the entire thread...but hasnt ANYONE used an air hammer with a sheet metal cutting bit? or an air nibbler?
When i was upgrading my fuel pump,i was NOT about to try and drop the monstrous 9" and fight the Borla etc to get the tank out.
We have done the hole in the floor mod on quite a few cars,and this was over 4-5 years ago. No problems with structural integrity etc.

x7x7

11-09-2002, 05:49 PM

I recently cut an access hole, pics here:

http://members.shaw.ca/nrfarley/pics/fuel%20pump%20hatch/

grendal

11-09-2002, 06:08 PM

RacinLT1

11-09-2002, 06:30 PM

The hole is smooth,but i used the air chisel which is a little cleaner than a nibbler.
Just fabbed up a plate to cover the hole and screwed it down,i really should get some self adhesive weather stripping to seal it off 100%

simple

11-09-2002, 07:23 PM

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45659

any of you guys have any ideas on my problem in that link?
i also did the trap door and i'm stuck
all help is greatly appreciated!!!!!:bow:

magius231

11-10-2002, 01:35 AM

my $.02

Here is a link to a detailed fuel pump replacement guide where you drop the tank:

http://www.bfranker.badz28.com/fbody/fuelpump.htm

when I did this install on my 96, I did this in my apartment complex parking lot with 2 jackstands, 2 $20 Autozone floorjacls, RV wheel chocks ($3) and a set of hand tools...no air tools, no breaker bars (would probably help though) no torches, etc. I was able to do the shocks at the same time because they were already halfway out, and I could have done springs too. I seriously debated doing the access panel method but decided to go this route, and I am glad I did. If I ever have to do it again I will do it the same way.

And for the guy that doesn't believe a VW could run for 200,000 miles, my family had an 85 Audi 4000S that ran for 217,000 miles before we finally got rid of it...it was by far the best car we've ever owned and still ran great when we sold it. If Audi's and VW's weren't far outside of my price range I would probably own another one (family car)....JMO :)

Joe Brodman

11-10-2002, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by RacinLT1
I couldnt bear to read the entire thread...but hasnt ANYONE used an air hammer with a sheet metal cutting bit? or an air nibbler?
When i was upgrading my fuel pump,i was NOT about to try and drop the monstrous 9" and fight the Borla etc to get the tank out.
We have done the hole in the floor mod on quite a few cars,and this was over 4-5 years ago. No problems with structural integrity etc.
Yup, I used an air hammer w/ a chissle bit. The bit can't go down deep enough to touch the tank, and no sparks. I also used a die grinder w/ a cutting wheel to score the cutting line, but didn't go through the metal with it.

As for the anit-cutting the hole arguments.....I'm staying out this time; it gets ugly. I've seen too many people do this, racing cars for a long time and racing them HARD w/ out structural problems for me to worry about this. But, that's just me; if someone wants to drop their tank, by all means, drop it. I'll happily cruise in my "death trap." :)

stevil

11-10-2002, 04:21 AM

I'm still not sure which way I'll choose when I do my pump.

I do know that the corners of the hole make excellent shear points, I imagine in a wreck that section back there is more likely to get torn apart, rather than crumple or whatever. Screwing a plate down isn't going to do jack in that respect.

A 15 minute fuel pump job does sound tempting though.

TCAL95Z

11-10-2002, 10:24 AM

Well,

I went ahead and dropped my tank but 'm starting to wish I hadn't. I had just done this for a guy with a Iroc about 2 months ago and had no problem getting his tank out. I have a 95Z and I couldn't get the tank all the way out.

Then the pump I put in didn't work so I had to drop the tank back down. I was glad I tested it before I put the rear end back in.

I now have the 2nd pump in and it works but when I started the car the fuel guage went past full. I'm assuming that the float is stuck but I allready had my exhaust welded back on so I cannot really cut it back off again

I may have to cut the hole after all

AlexA

11-10-2002, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by magius231
when I did this install on my 96, I did this in my apartment complex parking lot with 2 jackstands, 2 $20 Autozone floorjacls, RV wheel chocks ($3) and a set of hand tools...no air tools, no breaker bars (would probably help though) no torches, etc.

How long did it take you? My mechanic says it took him 6 hours to do everything - lift and all the fancy tools.

-Alex

magius231

11-11-2002, 08:22 AM

mine was kinda a special situation, the guy that owned the car before me hammered the wee out of it and must have been doing Dukes of Hazzard style jumps. The exhaust system was frozen/smashed solid and WOULD NOT come undone (even with the bolts out) and most of the really important bolts (I.E shocks) were bent all to hell and had to be cut off...so it took me a weekend of working on it to get it done. I also did shocks while I was under there. After all that though, I would say I could do it again in less than 5 hours. There really wasn't that much to unbolt, and the biggest pain in the ass was getting the tank out (make sure you jack the thing up as high as you can) but most of that for me was the fact that I couldn't get the exhaust I-pipe off so it was in the way all the time.

grendal

11-11-2002, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by magius231
mine was kinda a special situation, the guy that owned the car before me hammered the wee out of it and must have been doing Dukes of Hazzard style jumps.

LMAO!!!! :D :D

drop top steve

11-11-2002, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Joe Brodman
Yup, I used an air hammer w/ a chissle bit. The bit can't go down deep enough to touch the tank, and no sparks. I also used a die grinder w/ a cutting wheel to score the cutting line, but didn't go through the metal with it.

As for the anit-cutting the hole arguments.....I'm staying out this time; it gets ugly. I've seen too many people do this, racing cars for a long time and racing them HARD w/ out structural problems for me to worry about this. But, that's just me; if someone wants to drop their tank, by all means, drop it. I'll happily cruise in my "death trap." :)
Best post in the thread, to each his own. I'm a trap door man.:D

Chris'SS #2152

11-11-2002, 11:54 AM

Man, cutting up the car to install a fuel pump sounds crazy to me. I just replaced mine a few weeks ago and it wasn't that bad to drop the tank. I did have to cut a small little bit in the inner finder well but no big deal. I just think cutting a hole for a pump is stupid.

DWoodAudio

11-11-2002, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by TCAL95Z
Well,

I went ahead and dropped my tank but 'm starting to wish I hadn't. I had just done this for a guy with a Iroc about 2 months ago and had no problem getting his tank out. I have a 95Z and I couldn't get the tank all the way out.

Then the pump I put in didn't work so I had to drop the tank back down. I was glad I tested it before I put the rear end back in.

I now have the 2nd pump in and it works but when I started the car the fuel guage went past full. I'm assuming that the float is stuck but I allready had my exhaust welded back on so I cannot really cut it back off again

I may have to cut the hole after all

There are two "tricks" to this tank-droping process that nobody has mentioned yet:
First, when you get the tank almost all the way out, you'll be faced with the dilemma of the filler neck getting hung up in the ridiculously small opening in the inner fender well. The easiest way to combat this is to *GENTLY* pull down on the other end (pass. side) of the tank. This will slightly bend the filler neck enough for the tank to slide out.
Second part of this is while the tank is out, get yourself an air nibbler or a small cutter wheel and enlarge the bottom side of this opening. You can get about an additional 1/2" or so before you get to the double thickness metal of the inner fender. This is enough to make getting the tank in and out *much* easier. And before someone starts screaming about unibody strength, you're not cutting anything structural there. If you start hacking any farther down you will be, but that lip that the filler neck hangs up on doesn't do anything structural.
Finally, when you put the tank back in, the filler neck is going to be way out of line. After you have the tank mounted securely and the straps tightened, get a 2 foot or so piece of 2x4 and a floor jack, this will let you (once again, *GENTLY*) push the neck back in position. Just keep adjusting until the neck lines up properly with the plastic fuel door insert. Move slowly with any bending, the metal of the neck is soft and will bend easily but you don't want to be distorting the tank itself or breaking the seal where the neck is attached to the tank itself.
I learned this trick from a dealership mechanic that I trust as knowing his stuff, and it worked quite well for my tank R&R.
I'd love to know how they put the damn tanks in the car when they built them. :rolleyes:
And the obvious suggestion would be to test any new parts you're about to install especially if they're in such a difficult place to get to. The gauge problem sounds like you might have gotten it hung up or jammed when you were putting the sender unit back i. It *IS* a pain because the opening is so small and you're manipulating the pickup sock back in that baffle, but i did manage to give the float lever a small wiggle just before it went all the way in to assure myself that it wasn't hung up on anything.

AlexA

11-11-2002, 03:33 PM

Nice writeup, DWoodAudio...looks like some very useful info. The hangup you speak of with the filler neck was exactly what my mechanic was talking about.

-Alex

DWoodAudio

11-11-2002, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by AlexA
Nice writeup, DWoodAudio...looks like some very useful info. The hangup you speak of with the filler neck was exactly what my mechanic was talking about.

-Alex

Glad to help....i still wonder what rocket scientist designer was responsible for that one.... :rolleyes:

Srper

01-29-2003, 06:27 PM

Both ways seem "not so perfect" to me. The choice is to:

1. Cut an access panel in top, or...

2. Cut the "ridiculously small opening in the inner fender well" and make it larger AND bend the filler neck.

Umm, I'll take choice 3. Wait, there is no choice 3. Lol.

RamAir95TA

01-29-2003, 08:40 PM

For the record...I did the fix several months ago, and it's holding up fine. No problems. :)

AlexA

01-29-2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Srper
Both ways seem "not so perfect" to me. The choice is to:

1. Cut an access panel in top, or...

2. Cut the "ridiculously small opening in the inner fender well" and make it larger AND bend the filler neck.

Umm, I'll take choice 3. Wait, there is no choice 3. Lol.

I don't think you have to cut the inner fender well opening...it's just done so the tank is easier to put back in and take back out in the future.

You HAVE to cut an access panel to pull the pump without dropping the tank. :D

-Alex

Smokn '94 Z

01-29-2003, 10:40 PM

I like this Idea & will make an access port for my Z when I do a fuel pump. So many people have given their opinions & engineering expertise but no one seems to realize that there are a lot of other things that we do to our cars that is defying the engineering that went into these cars. I hardly see this as something more detrimental to the engineering that went into the car then say sub frame connectors. Almost all of us has them. This mod completely defies the engineering that went into the unibody. I will take note on the 90 degree corners & will use 90 degree curved edges to help maintain some of the regidity. I fabricate a lot in my job & do see different things that have been done with 90 degree cuts start to crack. (Very rare though)

As far a saftey, if the tank that is enclosed is emitting fumes then you better get a new tank. They are sealed & a fume should not be an issue. (However always use extreme caution & take nothing for granted) You have a better chance of having an explosion at a gas pump caused by a static charge emitted from your body then this procedure.. Just my opionion.... :)

And to cover my comments, (A$$) :D this is all my opinion..... Nothing factual!!!

;)

Good thread. I wish I wasn't months late.....:o