#1  
Old 03-08-2023, 07:04 PM
Gator67's Avatar
Gator67 Gator67 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Scottsdale
Posts: 1,640
Default Fuel line and system suggestions

My son and I are working on his 79 TA (it's a painted shell being reassembled) and need to install fuel lines (and brake lines as well) prior to installing the rear suspension (Ridetech 4 link). We'd like to use factory lines and clips for a neat install, but wondering if we'll run into problems with the factory layout and line sizes (originally a 403 car).

The feed line (3/8) and brake line are on the LH side, and the return (1/4) and vent line (5/16) are on the RH side. My thought is we could jettison the factory return line and use the larger vent line as a return. But will 3/8 feed and 5/16 return be enough? Car will be LS powered (408), Terminator X, about 500hp or so. Also wondering whether having the feed line on the LH side and return on the RH side will create difficulties when it comes time to tying into the fuel rails?

Haven't decided on a fuel system yet, so may not need a return, but it would nice to have it in case I end up there. On my Formula I went with a Rick's tank, ZLI fuel module, Vaporworx controller (and bent my own lines), but looking for something less expensive for this car if possible. Suggestions would be very welcome.

__________________
"If the best Mustang is the Camaro, the best Camaro is actually the Firebird" David Zenlea
  #2  
Old 03-08-2023, 09:04 PM
Scott65's Avatar
Scott65 Scott65 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,991
Default

Does the TerminatorX have the ability to do PWM control? I'm working on getting set up to test a Vaporworx controller to PWM a Walbro pump in a tank's inc tank. Might be an option. I highly recommend Carl @ Vaporworx. He tailored one of his units for this application and is just super to work with. I think at 500 crank horsepower on gasoline you'd have no issue with 3/8 feed and 5/16 return. Not sure if attempt the 1/4 return.

__________________
'65 Tempest 467 3650# 11.30@120.31
  #3  
Old 03-09-2023, 11:25 AM
Gator67's Avatar
Gator67 Gator67 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Scottsdale
Posts: 1,640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott65 View Post
Does the TerminatorX have the ability to do PWM control? I'm working on getting set up to test a Vaporworx controller to PWM a Walbro pump in a tank's inc tank. Might be an option. I highly recommend Carl @ Vaporworx. He tailored one of his units for this application and is just super to work with. I think at 500 crank horsepower on gasoline you'd have no issue with 3/8 feed and 5/16 return. Not sure if attempt the 1/4 return.
Carl helped me a ton with my Formula, and the system seems to work really well, but wanted to explore a less expensive option than a custom/Rick's tank and an OEM fuel module for the TA. I didn't even think to ask Carl if his controllers could work with non-OEM fuel module.

I have considered a Tanks Inc tank with a high flow GPA series Walbro pump. Looking closer now, the website does say that this pump can be controlled by PWM. Is this what you're using?

How will your system be setup with the VaporWorx controller?

I wonder if these Walbro pumps can be set up returnless style (cap off the return on the pump) where the Vaporworx controls fuel pressure and pump speed using input from a fuel pressure sensor? This is how my Formula was originally set-up (albeit used a GM fuel module so no return to cap off). Also, may be possible to set-up as a return system with fp regulator (C5 style?) to control pressure, but using input from a MAP sensor to control pump speed. This is where I ended up with my Formula (modified the fuel module to internal return style).

The least expensive in-tank option seems to be a Holley muscle car/sniper Fuel Tank Module and one of their tanks. The module is internally regulated, integrated sensor, etc., but don't know how well these modules work. I don't believe they can be controlled with PWM but it seems to be an attractive option.

__________________
"If the best Mustang is the Camaro, the best Camaro is actually the Firebird" David Zenlea
  #4  
Old 03-09-2023, 12:16 PM
Scott65's Avatar
Scott65 Scott65 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,991
Default

Mine has a tank's inc tank and a Walbro 450 pump.(for e85 compatibility) Carl devised a way to use one of his controllers triggered by my ECU(MS3 Pro Ultimate) I will be using the open loop PWM strategy of my ECU to pump through my existing return regulator. You could also use the Corvette style and have a short return line. You cannot deadhead any fuel pump. You can run a single line forward to the engine, but somewhere the pump has to be able to bypass. It could be with a Corvette style regulator and short return, or even a regular regulator and short return. It could be done internally in the tank(bleed orifice on the pump, or siphon jets etc) But no fuel pump I'm aware of can be truly deadheaded. I am unfamiliar on how/if the Holley does PWM, so I'll be no help there...

__________________
'65 Tempest 467 3650# 11.30@120.31
  #5  
Old 03-09-2023, 10:17 PM
Red Box Rebel Red Box Rebel is offline
Senior Chief
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Republic of Texas, San Antonio
Posts: 287
Default

I am running an Edelbrock ProFlo4 SEFI system in a 1968 GTO 400 4 speed. Using original fuel and vapor return lines are problematic with modern fuel. The lines must be shielded from all heat especially heat from the exhaust manifolds or headers.
The Edelbrock requires significant constant fuel pressure in excess of 55 psi for the horse power you are seeking.
(1) You can use 3/8 lines for main line and for the return. They must be adequately shielded from all heat sources or you will be vapor locked or flow restricted and your system will not have enough fuel under high rpm/torque demand
(2) Standard fuel gauge sending units normally have the "Vapor Return" line as a smaller size line and it is INADEQUATE to allow fuel to flow back to the tank and will cause a back up and prevent fuel getting to the injectors or throttle body. You will have to increase the size of the return opening on the sending unit;
(3) Holly makes a very good "In Tank Pump" that doubles as a fuel gauge sending unit and DOES NOT REQUIRE a return line. It has a built in means of keeping unneeded fuel from being sent to the fuel rails or throttle body depending on your type of EFI.

After experimenting with an external pump and fuel pressure regulator system using a return line, I found the Holly internal tank fuel pump to work best and cured all fuel delivery problems. No external regulator is needed and no return line is needed.

  #6  
Old 03-11-2023, 12:34 PM
Gator67's Avatar
Gator67 Gator67 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Scottsdale
Posts: 1,640
Default

After doing more research, and emailing back and forth with Carl, I'm leaning towards 340lph Walbro high flow GPA in-tank pump in a Tanks Inc tank, C5 regulator, VaporWorx ReturnX PWM controller, and new factory 3/8 line to the front.

In total, should be about $1600 less than running a Rick's tank and VaporWorx controlled OEM fuel module type set-up (the system in my 70 Formula).

I was concerned that a 340lph pump would overwhelm the C5 regulator, but Carl said the controller slows down the pump speed enough to prevent any overpressure scenario. He said he tested the C5 regulator with a 525lph pump and it maintained good pressure control with the controller. The smaller 255lph pump would be plenty to support the engine, and would work perfectly with the C5 regulator, but it doesn't work with PWM so couldn't run the ReturnX controller (which I like because it keeps the fuel cooler and increases pump lifespan).

It wouldn't be too much more work at this point to run an additional line to the front so I could use an adjustable regulator, but I'm not sure the additional line and the clutter on the firewall is necessary.

The only extra piece on the firewall on this set-up would be an external MAP sensor for the controller. For some reason, the Holley ECUs don't output MAP sensor voltage. Here's a photo of one on my Formula.

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_5951.jpg
Views:	264
Size:	84.2 KB
ID:	608689  

__________________
"If the best Mustang is the Camaro, the best Camaro is actually the Firebird" David Zenlea
  #7  
Old 03-11-2023, 04:18 PM
FrankieT/A's Avatar
FrankieT/A FrankieT/A is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,556
Default

'71 Trans Am
6.0 LS

I'm using a Tanks Inc. tank (2 extra gallons) with 340 Walbro with an Aeromotive regulator w/ return at the tank. Victor Jr. intake w/Edelbrock fuel rails and Accufab 1200cfm TB. I have consistent 60psi at the rail.

I do have 1/2" fuel line from pump to rail, but that was from the 455 Poncho set up. I feel the 3/8" line would work just fine.

If you go with the Tanks Inc. set up use their floatless fuel sender, their universal one with the adjustable float is lets just say,... not good.

Walbro says right on their site NOT to use PWM with their pumps.

__________________
1978 Black & Gold T/A [complete 70 Ram Air III (carb to pan) PQ and 12 bolt], fully loaded, deluxe, WS6, T-Top car - 1972 Formula 455HO Ram Air numbers matching Julep Green - 1971 T/A 455, 320 CFM Eheads, RP cam, Doug's headers, Fuel injection, TKX 5 Spd. 12 Bolt 3.73, 4 wheel disc. All A/C cars
  #8  
Old 03-11-2023, 04:22 PM
Scott65's Avatar
Scott65 Scott65 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,991
Default

Some of their pumps. The turbine pumps are ok. Not sure about the the 340 or 400, but the 450 and 525/hellcat are routinely used with PWM.

__________________
'65 Tempest 467 3650# 11.30@120.31
  #9  
Old 03-11-2023, 07:42 PM
Gator67's Avatar
Gator67 Gator67 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Scottsdale
Posts: 1,640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankieT/A View Post
'71 Trans Am
6.0 LS

I'm using a Tanks Inc. tank (2 extra gallons) with 340 Walbro with an Aeromotive regulator w/ return at the tank. Victor Jr. intake w/Edelbrock fuel rails and Accufab 1200cfm TB. I have consistent 60psi at the rail.

I do have 1/2" fuel line from pump to rail, but that was from the 455 Poncho set up. I feel the 3/8" line would work just fine.

If you go with the Tanks Inc. set up use their floatless fuel sender, their universal one with the adjustable float is lets just say,... not good.

Walbro says right on their site NOT to use PWM with their pumps.
Thanks for the recommendation regarding which fuel sender to use.

There is a 340lph DCSS 39/50 turbine pump which they say is fine with PWM. The older gerotor style pumps are a no go.

__________________
"If the best Mustang is the Camaro, the best Camaro is actually the Firebird" David Zenlea
  #10  
Old 03-11-2023, 11:16 PM
R 70 Judge's Avatar
R 70 Judge R 70 Judge is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,691
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gator67 View Post
Thanks for the recommendation regarding which fuel sender to use.

There is a 340lph DCSS 39/50 turbine pump which they say is fine with PWM. The older gerotor style pumps are a no go.
I’m using a Tanks Inc. 20.5 gallon tank with their floatless sender. I initially purchased their 450lph “hellcat” pump set-up to use but I switched to the Holley dual 450lph pump set-up as I plan on running turbos in the future.

At any rate, the 450lph “hellcat” GPA-9 pump I have says it is compatible with pulse width modulation. It’s brand new in the box if your son wants to save some $ and buy mine. If he plans on using E85 the extra capacity may be a good idea.

The Terminator X is great. You add a couple wires from the sending unit to the Terminator X and it will give you the option for a fuel level gauge. My Terminator X will be getting wired up in the next week or two. Will your son be running the digital dash? I have the 6.86” pro dash going in mine.

Fwiw I’m running a 1/2” hardline/ Fragola PTFE -10 AN lines on the feed and PTFE -8 AN for the return. Aeromotive 13134 regulator and high flow Motion Raceworks E85 block with a GM sensor. Holley VR series 460gph 10 micron filter. It may sound excessive but if your son adds a turbo later he’ll need a fuel system like mine.

__________________
James
1970 Trans Am

Spotts Built 484" IA2, Highports, EFI Northwind
Terminator X sequential EFI fabrication and suspension by
https://www.funkhouserracecars.com/

Last edited by R 70 Judge; 03-11-2023 at 11:38 PM.
  #11  
Old 07-17-2023, 07:26 AM
HWYSTR455's Avatar
HWYSTR455 HWYSTR455 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Manassas, VA
Posts: 14,658
Default

Holley now makes a LIDR fuel level reader, and believe that is the best option. The floatless ones Tanks Inc have are not very accurate, especially below a 1/4 tank. I've tried several floatless senders with spotty results.

I run 1/2" lines for delivery & return, it ensures proper operation, period. (bypass regulator).

I'm tempted to run a fuel mat on the pickup of my pump in the Tanks Inc efi tank for added insurance.


.

__________________
.

1970 GTO Judge Tribute Pro-Tour Project 535 IA2
http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=760624
1971 Trans Am 463, 315cfm E-head Sniper XFlow EFI, TKO600 extreme, 9", GW suspension, Baer brakes, pro tour car
https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...ght=procharger
Theme Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zKAS...ature=youtu.be
  #12  
Old 07-17-2023, 03:57 PM
65madgoat's Avatar
65madgoat 65madgoat is offline
Senior Chief
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 366
Default

That new laser holley fuel level sender -- can't be used with stock gauges

  #13  
Old 07-17-2023, 04:19 PM
HWYSTR455's Avatar
HWYSTR455 HWYSTR455 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Manassas, VA
Posts: 14,658
Default

True, the LiDAR unit can't use ohm-only gauges, but if you don't need that you're good.

https://www.holley.com/products/gaug...s/parts/19-250

There are a few marine senders that work well, I was looking at those too, but never used them. Most are 240-33 ohm though.

Most of the floatless ones are 240-33 ohm, but there are some reed type that are 0-90. The Classic Instruments ones come in 0-90, pretty sure that's what Tanks Inc sells. You have to buy them in a fixed length, and, they are calibrated to the specific length. So if you're an inch or more off the bottom, that will be your empty reading, at the bottom of the length of sender.

Tanks Inc stopped selling them because they were/are problematic, and not very accurate.

Here's a reed type that's 0-90, but looks like they only come in 6", 8", and 11":

https://www.amazon.com/Gauge-Display...0C5QLJPHD?th=1

Here's the VDO ones:

https://www.vdo-instruments.com/prod...r/reed-switch/

Good luck. I fought with senders for a while, and got frustrated. When I feel like doing a few more R&Rs, I will go to the LiDAR.


.

__________________
.

1970 GTO Judge Tribute Pro-Tour Project 535 IA2
http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=760624
1971 Trans Am 463, 315cfm E-head Sniper XFlow EFI, TKO600 extreme, 9", GW suspension, Baer brakes, pro tour car
https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...ght=procharger
Theme Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zKAS...ature=youtu.be
  #14  
Old 07-17-2023, 04:28 PM
JLMounce JLMounce is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Greeley, Colorado
Posts: 3,679
Send a message via AIM to JLMounce
Default

Correct, as mentioned, the Tanks Inc floatless senders do not fit directly to the bottom of the tank. In a 67-69 F-Body tank, there is about half an inch from the bottom of the sender. I believe this is the case for most of their units, when fit to a Tanks Inc tank.

This gives you a margin of error of around half a gallon of fuel, plus whatever is still in your sump. Not as accurate as modern stuff, but even with vintage gauges, you're still in better shape than with a factory style sender in a tank that has no internal sump and no baffling that allows fuel to run away from the pickup.

I typically fill up at an 1/8th tank and when I do so I usually fill a little more than 14 gallons, which would be accurate for an 1/8th tank with about half to a full gallon of "reserve."

__________________
-Jason
1969 Pontiac Firebird
  #15  
Old 07-17-2023, 06:47 PM
HWYSTR455's Avatar
HWYSTR455 HWYSTR455 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Manassas, VA
Posts: 14,658
Default

So the depth of my A body EFI tank is 5 3/4", and I got the 5" floatless sender. Once it gets down to about a 1/4 + an 1/8, it's a crap shoot what's in there. It will slosh and cut out, and no matter what, gauge wont really go below about a 1/4 and a hair below. I've run out with it, and that's not good. And I've played with the calibration many times.

The float style that I got when I bought the tank was a joke, but it would go below a 1/4 reading.

On the 442, has the same issue, started with the float type, then went to the floatless.

The Speedhut gauge in the GTO allows to calibrate by E, 1/4, 1/2, and full. I went gallon by gallon on it at one point, and that was the best I could get it. I even bought a cheap gauge as a test, it's not the gauge.

Like I mentioned, I haven't tried the reed type, but probably will use one in the 442 as a test. But pretty sure I will do the LiDAR on the GTO.

I'd be curious to hear others' experiences, but doubt I'm doing anything wrong.


.

__________________
.

1970 GTO Judge Tribute Pro-Tour Project 535 IA2
http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=760624
1971 Trans Am 463, 315cfm E-head Sniper XFlow EFI, TKO600 extreme, 9", GW suspension, Baer brakes, pro tour car
https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...ght=procharger
Theme Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zKAS...ature=youtu.be
  #16  
Old 07-18-2023, 09:50 AM
JLMounce JLMounce is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Greeley, Colorado
Posts: 3,679
Send a message via AIM to JLMounce
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HWYSTR455 View Post
So the depth of my A body EFI tank is 5 3/4", and I got the 5" floatless sender. Once it gets down to about a 1/4 + an 1/8, it's a crap shoot what's in there. It will slosh and cut out, and no matter what, gauge wont really go below about a 1/4 and a hair below. I've run out with it, and that's not good. And I've played with the calibration many times.

The float style that I got when I bought the tank was a joke, but it would go below a 1/4 reading.

On the 442, has the same issue, started with the float type, then went to the floatless.

The Speedhut gauge in the GTO allows to calibrate by E, 1/4, 1/2, and full. I went gallon by gallon on it at one point, and that was the best I could get it. I even bought a cheap gauge as a test, it's not the gauge.

Like I mentioned, I haven't tried the reed type, but probably will use one in the 442 as a test. But pretty sure I will do the LiDAR on the GTO.

I'd be curious to hear others' experiences, but doubt I'm doing anything wrong.


.
I wonder if there's some inherent issue with the shorter tube in the floatless sender. Less granularity or something? Considering the A body tanks aren't as deep as other GM offerings.

__________________
-Jason
1969 Pontiac Firebird
  #17  
Old 07-19-2023, 07:28 AM
Formulajones's Avatar
Formulajones Formulajones is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,794
Default

I use the floatless tube from tanks inc in both EFI cars and installing another in a current build. Been using them in all installs for several years now.

My experience with them has been ok. Way better than the stick and ball setup. I have to admit though I've never been in the habit of running any car much below a 1/4 tank anyway so Ive never experienced fuel delivery issues when way down on an 1/8 tank or less.

I do however test accuracy when the tank and float are first installed on every car with a stupid simple method. I get exactly 5 gallons in a can and dump that in a completely empty tank, make sure car is level and turn the key on and check the gauge. In all the 20 gallon tanks I've checked the gauge always settles in at 1/4 or very close to it give or take a smidge. I call that accurate enough and make a mental note when the gauge in that car reaches that point I have 5 gallons left and I start looking for a gas station.

__________________
2019 Pontiac Heaven class winner

https://youtu.be/XqEydRRRwqE

Last edited by Formulajones; 07-19-2023 at 07:34 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Formulajones For This Useful Post:
  #18  
Old 07-19-2023, 07:44 AM
HWYSTR455's Avatar
HWYSTR455 HWYSTR455 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Manassas, VA
Posts: 14,658
Default

One thing on the ball float type is, the arm has to be so short, there's no granularity. Like from 1/2 to 1/4 tank, it drops all at once, and happens fast. It hovers at full for a while, then can drop to under 3/4.

On the floatless it's kind of the same from full to 3/4 or so, then it drops at a faster rate to 1/2 and 1/4.

You can start driving with a full tank, occasionally glance at the gauge, and get an idea of the rate of burn. So you relax about watching it, the next time you look at it, it's at a 1/4 and panic sets in.


.

__________________
.

1970 GTO Judge Tribute Pro-Tour Project 535 IA2
http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=760624
1971 Trans Am 463, 315cfm E-head Sniper XFlow EFI, TKO600 extreme, 9", GW suspension, Baer brakes, pro tour car
https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...ght=procharger
Theme Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zKAS...ature=youtu.be
  #19  
Old 07-19-2023, 07:56 AM
Formulajones's Avatar
Formulajones Formulajones is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,794
Default

Yeah has me wondering if that's a result of the efi tank design?

I've noticed the EFI tanks put the sump and sender in the deepest part of the tank, for obvious reasons, and they tend to have the deeper part of the tank towards the front.
So as fuel is used the tank isnt emptying in a granular fashion or a level fashion because it's at an angle.
I don't know if I'm explaining that well enough to make sense but that's what I've noticed.
On a regular stock tank the sender is closer to the middle of the tank and therefore gives a more accurate representation as fuel drains.

__________________
2019 Pontiac Heaven class winner

https://youtu.be/XqEydRRRwqE
  #20  
Old 07-19-2023, 08:27 AM
Formulajones's Avatar
Formulajones Formulajones is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 10,794
Default

Since this thread is about fuel system setup, I'll explain how I always do them and why.

If I'm doing an electric pump setup there is only one way I'll do these fuel systems now, and set them up a specific way. I refuse to deviate when people come to me with other cheaper ideas because that has usually resulted in problems later down the road.

Electric pumps, always go in the tank, no exceptions. Tanks Inc makes this so easy now and affordable as far as baffled electric pump tanks go, it's just a no brainer.

I always run 1/2" feed and return lines. I don't dink around anymore with trying to reuse the stock lines. I just don't do it. Doesn't matter to me what HP the engine is making, I always do 1/2" so I know the engine, what ever engine may end up in there in the future, has an ample supply of fuel and also the return is big enough so that if a bigger pump is needed in the future it has ample room for return without having to revisit that deal again.

I also always run a full length return. Always. I'm not worried about trying to save $50 by not running a return line. I want the fuel to constantly circulate the entire length of the car so I know the carb or EFI is getting cool fuel that isn't sitting stagnant at idle and low rpm situations. Especially since I live in a hot part of the country (Arizona) As a result I always put the regulator as close to the fuel mixer as possible, whether it's a carb or EFI, and the return line starts from there and runs the length of the car back to the tank. I will not put a return at the tank or run a returnless system just to save a few bucks on some fuel line. Not worth it to me, I just won't do it.

I also make sure I'm running a pump in the tank that more than covers the HP the engine is making. I like to have a cushion of a couple hundred HP so there is no question later about delivery and has some room to grow if needed.

I've found that by sticking to a setup like this I've had absolutely ZERO issues in all aspects of driving, whether it's daily or at the dragstrip, with carbs or EFI, and in 110+ degree heat. I refuse to setup cars any other way these days when people come to me with their EFI setups and want the cheapest fuel system they can get away with. That almost always results in a problem down the road and since I'm the guy that built it, that's usually where the blame goes. So I just don't do it anymore. I just tell people up front, this is how I do it, I have 100% success with it, and it's going to run about $1000 for all the parts to get it done. If that doesn't interest you, I'm not your guy.

__________________
2019 Pontiac Heaven class winner

https://youtu.be/XqEydRRRwqE
The Following User Says Thank You to Formulajones For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:36 PM.

 

About Us

The PY Online Forums is the largest online gathering of Pontiac enthusiasts anywhere in the world. Founded in 1991, it was also the first online forum for people to gather and talk about their Pontiacs. Since then, it has become the mecca of Pontiac technical data and knowledge that no other place can surpass.

 




Copyright © 2017