I think (guess) if all stayed the same and the pump could be supplied the PWR to do so ??

 

sucking water up a 1inch straw is harder than a 1/2 straw but if that straw is already filled with a hydraulic(fuel/water/oil/ect) media the work is already done your working on making it flow. the properties of sucking on a straw with air in it is different then sucking on a straw with a fluid media in it. Its mostly about density and once primed, gravity(9.8m/sec/sec or 32ft/sec/sec) is no longer a relative factor

 

OK the Engineer has got back to me and said
"only a bean counter would mount the L.P. out side a tank about 10 feet from it about 1.6 head HT
A larger straw would be a detriment to it"
end of quote
You guys do what you like
them is the facts

 

If all things are equal, true. However, compare two situations to a restrictive high vacuum stock system with a small diameter (3/8") to a low vacuum/ restriction larger diameter (1/2") draw tube.

It's all in the module restriction. Some have a lot, some have a little. Things like the fittings diameters, fuel level, length of chassis, module sock, ect, ect all have an effect on the inlet supply.

I don't know who engineered the Dodge fuel system, but I think it's widely agreed the electric pump mounted where the mechanical one was located was most likely a big goof. Now if they did it for servicing, ease of install on the production line, just because the 12V pump was there or whatever, we will never really know.

In our old race cars we always sumped the tank and set the inlet of the pump below the sump. We also looped the line up high to stop the siphon if we had an air leak. The pump was always mounted rear of the sump to take advantage of G's on acceleration. Now they are primarily in the tank. And large diameter lines were run all the way to the front with the regulator mounted forward of the carb. It's all about moving that column of weight around. Many of those old practices still apply to our modern fuel systems.

Are there better ways of doing it? In a word, yes! I have a prototype fuel module that would have eliminated all these issues. However, it would be prohibitively expensive to the average guy that can't justify the increase from a pump with a limited warranty to a lifetime warranty unit.

What's the point? We all do what we believe to be best and simple and at a reasonable cost. Is there compromise? Absolutely. The question is, where does lacking compromise and cost cross and will the market bear that cost? Until then, lots of products will hang on walls, run quietly in vehicles or be lost to obscurity. Not my rules.

Dave