In short, no you can't do it. Fuel rail is in the head.

Starvation is from the crap fuel bowl design and the pumps always failing because China.

Properly modifying and maintaining your truck will make everything work as it should.

 

Not sure what you've been reading, but it might be the information was referring to the 99+ fuel system where the system was "deadheaded" causing the infamous "cackle" problem. The 94-97 Powerstrokes used a regulated return system so I don't think the last in line would be starved for fuel (JMO though). Cheers!

 

JMO: I think the cackle problem was caused by the injectors ingesting air that was trapped in the fuel rails on the deadheaded systems -- The later system (6.0) used the HFCM and air bleed in the upper filter housing -- along with the membrane on the outside of the filters to help eliminate entrained air from the fuel -- tiny bubbles would congregate on the membrane and be eliminated by return fuel thru the air bleed -- air is mixed with the fuel by the sloshing in the fuel tank

 

Ok so I'm just making sure I understand, the 94-98 7.3 has the fuel rail mounted so close to the valves and injectors that doing any sort of modifying or customizing of it would be fruitless and a nightmare cob job because the system is really good...?

I read another article that said upgrading the size of the fuel lines from the tank and eliminating the switching valve could increase horsepower by 17 and torque by 30. I can't remember if it included adding an electric pump and deleting the fuel bowl or not.

 

Fuel rail is a drilled passage in the head (from front to rear), so no easy way to make any modifications there

Adding a "pusher" pump near the tank will benefit more than upgrading the fuel lines -- or if you have dual tanks, just in front of the switching valve

17 and 30 is, ...snake oil

 

Your truck only has 90cc injectors, so they typically are not going to starve unless you have a restriction somewhere. The 98-03 trucks are known for the cackle due to larger 130-140cc injectors and because the number 6&8 pistons fire extremely close to each other. Hence the AE long lead injector to help with that.



Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

 

Those numbers can be misleading (90, 130-140) -- the actual fuel injected is typically less than 0.5 ml or cc per injection cycle -- depending on the desired RPM of the engine

I am unsure what the 90cc and 130-140cc numbers represent

Not the fuel capacity of the injector or the oil capacity -- per injection cycle -- so something else I'm sure -- the injector is not physically large enough to hold either volume

Flow rate over a time period ?
EDIT: found it - 1000 strokes for a minute -- @ full capacity
so basically 0.016 cc per injection x 4 (cause that is how many fire per revolution)
the math gets situational the farther down the line you go
@15 mpg or 3.8 gallon per hour ish
I see a rabbit hole ...

 

So a pusher pump would just be a low psi inline electric pump? I wish my truck would get 15 lol. Having problems with it but that's for another thread.

I pretty much already bypassed my tank switch. Maybe I can get a t valve and hook it up to the pusher pump so I can still switch tanks. I'd need two though unless I just return it all to the rear tank lol.

 

If you need a pusher pump to the mechanical pump then you have bigger issues.