whits link fixed he had the smilie too close

Drive for 100 yards, die with codes.

Crank and crank till it starts.

Drive for 200 yards, die with codes.

Crank and crank till it starts.

Drive for 50 yards, die with codes.


If you want to consider that "running" then you got me there. When the pump siezes and dies at road speed the engine just shuts off and you muscle it to a stop, then tell me about the "running" aspect.

You want to start one up, idle it for a bit, idle up and down the drive way and call that proof, you go right ahead.

Dodge engineers piont blank stated reliability and cooling in the tank is the MAIN reason for going to that pump design.

Guess and assign all the other things you want but practical application paints a different picture. The failure rate of the cannister mounts due to vibration and harsh condtions was still a motivating factor in the change.

You neglected to mention how much fuel was in the tank. They will run and drive fine with minimal throttle down to about a half a tank.
Took a real genius to figure that one out I guess! What about the fuel filter? They'll do that with a good LP if the filter's bad enough.

Not exactly my idea of testing and troubleshooting and not enough information there to really make a good diagnosis. Hope you didn't hoof the CP3 in the process. :w2:

I would never put an "in tank" on any truck.

Get an air dog, FASS, Mitusa pump, or a fuel boss.

I take it you have little familiarity with systems engineering then either? Let me give you little lesson, then...

"Motivating factor" (as you put it), established a need, requirements are identifed and best possible solutions within the time, technical and budget constraints are identified, tested and eventually approved for production and deployment. One of the primary requirements established pursuant to the investigation process in establishing requirements was a flow through design to mitigate commonly encountered secondary destruction of the injection pumps. Of course enhanced reliability was the overall goal. If that isn't obvious to anyone who knows anything about the issues I don't know what is.

Let me know after you validate that with your "Dodge Engineers." :lol88:

I guess those "Dodge engineers" Cerberus was talking about wouldn't agree with you.

But then again, I imagine they are working within much more constrained budgetary limitations, guessing about impractical applications [sic].

From the work Ive seen the "Dodge Engineers" do on the second gen trucks - their engineering skills arent worth :edit:!! JMO, of course

Some will, some won't. It all depends on how long the CP3 can maintain a siphon and whether the pump has completely siezed. Depends on how good the gear rotor pump is, how fast it will cavitate and loose prime, how warm the fuel, how good the filter, etc, etc.

Point is, if ONE truck shuts off when the LP dies completely, looses ability to maintian pressure, or siezes, the statement "they will pull thru the pump" is invalid. Period. Bad info bad advice, spin it however you like. For every truck that managed to limp in with no power and codes there are 5 more that went in on a roll back. Just the way it is.

Both Dodge and Cummins Replied to an email from me stating that a 24V Cummins does not have any fuel supply issues and that the use of an after market pump is not required.

A year later my VP44 And LP died .....

I have the emails to confirm it.

When they leave the factory they don't and I'm sure that is all they were referring to. It is unfortunate you were bit by the design flaw of the filter-mounted LP. This is as Cerberus might opine "just the way it is." Fortunately they finally got around to correcting it. A fuel pressure gauge is a wonderful thing on one of these trucks.

The current fuel "system" design is good. The in-tank pump works great and has plenty of capacity for up to around 400HP. Deny it all you want, but I have proven this myself on my own '07.

It would be nice if they included a fuel pressure gauge all along or at least an idiot light, right back from the beginning in 1989. That's all I have to offer in this thread.

for warranty work, you might as well go with the in-tank, but if you want durability, then spend the money on an aftermarket solution, the in-tank is slightly better than the canister mount, but still very unreliable.