Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Repairs/Mods
  sealing Outrage 22 fuel line fittings

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   sealing Outrage 22 fuel line fittings
andygere posted 01-20-2003 12:16 PM ET (US)   Profile for andygere   Send Email to andygere  
I took apart the brass/bronze fuel line fittings on my '89 Outrage 22 (the ones that come through the teak cover in the starboard stern corner) and noticed the threads were not sealed with teflon tape. I assume these are tapered fittings and don't need any thread sealant. Am I correct? There is no sign of leakage.
reelescape1 posted 01-20-2003 12:32 PM ET (US)     Profile for reelescape1  Send Email to reelescape1     
I'm sealing mine with teflon tape.
PFSQUAN posted 01-20-2003 12:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for PFSQUAN  Send Email to PFSQUAN     
I use PermaTex for longevity. The tape should work, too. When I use to run fuel flow equipment to test marine engines, gas, diesel and OBs, I never used anything. But I always made sure the fittings were clean (i.e. threads)and reasonably new.
lhg posted 01-20-2003 01:42 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
I have never been able to figure why BW used the starboard sump cover to plumb the fuel lines on the 20 & 22 Outrages. This is not done on either the 18 or 25 Outrages, both of which have fittings up under the gunwale to accomplish this.

I know that JimH eliminated those fittings on his 20 Revenge, for a much cleaner installation.

Tom W Clark posted 01-20-2003 02:11 PM ET (US)     Profile for Tom W Clark  Send Email to Tom W Clark     
Andy,

First, let me just answer your question. Yes, you should seal the connections. I use Permatex "Pipe Joint Compound". This stuff is black and gooey, and unaffected by gasoline. There are probably other products that will work too.

There are really two reasons to use a sealant. One is that it will help form a seal by filling any minute voids between the threads. The other reason is that it serves as a lubricant that will allow the threads to go together more easily and help prevent galling of either of the parts.

Now having said all that I would go on to say that I agree with Larry. Having connections at the sump cover is lame. It looks bad and is another connection to fail. I think the origin of this detail is that fact that the first V-hulled Whalers, the V-22 and V-20 actually had brass or copper fuel lines coming off the fuel tank. A connection needed to be made to the flexible fuel hose for the motors.

I think a far superior arrangement is to install all new fuel lines from the tank all the way to the fuel filter/water separator. On your boat updating the fuel lines is probably a good thing to do anyway just as a preventative measure. Just eliminate those dumb brass fittings and build a nice new sump cover.

John from Madison CT posted 01-20-2003 04:59 PM ET (US)     Profile for John from Madison CT  Send Email to John from Madison CT     
I too don't like those fitting where they are. So close to the saltwater !!

Anyone see any downside to running the 3/8" tubing (thick walled kind that can turn a corner well) from the tank, all the way to my fuel filter?

Interested in your thoughts.

John from Madison

lhg posted 01-20-2003 05:24 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
Since the Classic Outrages were not pre-rigged, and all were capable of twin engine installations, BW rigged them all for possible twin engines, not knowing what the Dealer would install.

The 18 Outrage only has one fuel withdrawl hose out of the tank, while the others have two. On the 18, the fuel tank hose comes out of the floor sump area and up to the gunwale, where it is converted into a copper fuel manifold system, with two withdrawls if needed. On the 25 Outrages, there are two tank withdrawl hoses, and they also come up from the sump well and into the transom area, where they terminate in a fitting for picking up the outboard fuel lines to the filters. I see no reason why this couldn't be done on a 20-22, with the tank withdrawl hoses going directly into the fuel filter(s). Even with a single engine, most filters will accept two "in" lines, and one or two "out" lines. Unless you're running twin V-6's, one fuel filter will suffice, even for twins. Most have a 60 GPH flow rate.

andygere posted 01-20-2003 11:29 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Thanks for all the replies. I agree that the mess of brass gingerbread is a less than elegant solution. Since my fuel lines are in good shape, it will go back together for now, with some sealant on the threads. Perhaps next year I'll redo the fuel lines and run a pair all the way from the tank to the filter.

While working on the boat today, I discovered another unusual little mystery. I always wondered why there were fuel vents on both sides of the the hull. Today I removed the starboard plastic cover to find the fuel vent on that side plumbed to nothing. Whaler went through a lot of trouble to cut away the foam to install it, but why? The boat has the 77 gallon tank, and aft livewell.

fester posted 01-21-2003 01:09 AM ET (US)     Profile for fester  Send Email to fester     
I seem to recall hearing that teflon tape is not that resistant to fuel. Thus, pipe joint compound such as Tom recommends is the way to go.
Jeff
lhg posted 01-21-2003 05:47 PM ET (US)     Profile for lhg    
I too have never heard of that, or have seen such a detail. The BW rigging and parts drawings don't show it either. It must have been done by somebody after the boat left the factory. But why? Maybe an additional permanently installed deck tank was in the boat, and they took it out before selling it.

Even the first year 25's, actually called 24's, which had two tanks, had the two vents side by side.

andygere posted 01-21-2003 07:43 PM ET (US)     Profile for andygere  Send Email to andygere     
Larry,
I wonder if a temporary tank was installed on the cuddy floor? It would be easy to plumb a vent line through the same chase that services the forward bilge sump. I think I will fill in the foam and seal the area somehow. It is hidden, but I know that it's there...
reelescape1 posted 01-21-2003 09:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for reelescape1  Send Email to reelescape1     
Teflon is impervious to any hydrocarbon I know of....most acids too. You dont want "chunks" of any sealer going into the system, so carefully install it. As a previous poster mentioned, it also acts as a thread lubricant and a sealer. I just removed these same fittings from my 22' OR while (right in the thick of :)) re-finishing the wood. I've had the boat 4 years and these fittings look great except for the usual discoloration.
reelescape1 posted 01-21-2003 09:54 PM ET (US)     Profile for reelescape1  Send Email to reelescape1     
whoops...I meant to mention to one poster above...there is a different specification for fuel lines run below deck...they are much thicker wall.
Drisney posted 01-22-2003 01:04 AM ET (US)     Profile for Drisney  Send Email to Drisney     
The Racor fuel filter that I added to my V-22 Revenge said not to use Teflon tape. The Flo-Scan I am putting in said the same thing. I wonder if the reason is that it is easy to get tape in the system if you aren't careful? I carefully used Teflon paste. And Andy; my boat does not have the rear corner fittings you refer to. It was a dual engine installation prior to my purchase; the fuel line simply comes from the tank pick-up into hose to the Racor filter. You are welcome to come see it. Dave

Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:


Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.