John McGraw

For those of you using Russell quick disconnect fittings on your fuel rails and regulators, check the engagement of your fittings! I have been using these fittings for the last couple of years after using Swageloc fittings for several years, but I had 2 failures of these fittings recently and am lucky not to have lost my latest build in the process.

I had the fuel rail fitting come off at full throttle on the Chevelle a few weeks ago and hosed down the engine and headers with about a gallon of gasoline before I got it shut down. When I inserted the line back into the fitting and pulled on it, it pulled off again. After looking at the fitting, I realized that the locking clip was not fully engaging in the fitting because the clip was not springing out. As a matter of fact, the clip actually springs inward slightly when removed from the fitting. I pulled another brand-new fitting off the shelf and removed the clip from it and found it to have the same inward angle to the retaining clip.

If you install the fitting and then manually press outward on the ears of the clip, the fitting will lock and can not be removed. Unfortunately, even the slightest touch on either of the ears of the clip will make them disengage from the groove in the fitting! Clearly, the engine vibration was sufficient to make the clip disengage from the fitting and blow the line off.

I then went and looked at two other cars that I built recently, as 65 Corvette with a LS2 and a 59 Corvette with a LS1 and found that both these fuel rail fittings had disengaged, but luckily, both these engines had the a hard line clamped securely to the engine, so they did not blow completely off.

While awaiting a response from Edelbrock on a solution of the problem, I developed a quick solution to assure that these fittings will not disengage in the future and have included it in the following pics.

The first pic is of a retaining clip from a brand-new fitting off the shelf that had never been used. If you look, you will see that the clip does not spring outward, but rather springs slightly inward, which makes engagement in the locking groove of the fitting iffy at best.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...PIC02_0651.JPG


The next pic shows the fitting with the lock pressed fully into the fitting. As you see, one side of the locking clip is not engaging the locking groove in the fitting.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...PIC03_0656.JPG


In the next pic, you can see that after applying outward pressure on the ears of the lock tab, that it fully engages the groove. Unfortunately, even the slightest touch makes it disengage from the groove.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...PIC04_0654.JPG


Next is a pic of the fuel rail of the 65 Corvette that I built last year and you can see that both ears are disengaged and the fitting has moved about 1/4" off the line. Luckily, the line was clamped securely and it would not come completely off the fuel rail.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...PIC09_0663.JPG



Next two pics are of a solution that will keep the fittings from releasing under any circumstances. I took a short length of thick wall vinyl tubing that has a 3/8" i.d. and slit it lengthwise and slid it over the line and up inside the locking clip. after the tubing is in place, just take a tie-wrap and secure the tubing to the fuel rail to keep it from coming out of the locking clip.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...PIC06_0661.JPG

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...PIC07_0660.JPG

This is will absolutely prevent the clip from moving inward enough to disengage from the groove in the fitting unless the tubing is removed.

I contacted Ebelbrock technical support and asked for a permanent solution from them for the problem and was told that the fitting was fine and that it was clearly installation error. They also said that they had never had any complaints about the fittings disengaging before. Since that time, I have had many people relate to me that they have had the same problems and have just pulled the fittings off and discarded them.

I held off on posting anything until I had exhausted all efforts with Edelbrock, because I thought that they would eventually step up and do the right thing, but clearly after many weeks of back and forth with them, they are not going to.

They would only inspect the fittings if I pulled then all of them off and sent them to their engineers, leaving several cars out of service until they made a determination. They would not ship me new fittings to use while they inspected the ones that failed. I even offered to just send in a couple at a time so they did not have to ship me a a whole box of fittings, but they said no, that they wanted all the fittings back and were not going to send me any new ones until a determination had been made on the failure of the old fittings.

At this point, I told them to go screw themselves and I would just cut my looses and install new Stainless Swageloc fittings at all locations that I used the quick-disconnects at and throw their junk in the trash. I'll be damned if I will spend another dime buying fittings from them when the last ones failed! I will spend my money on new Swageloc fittings which I KNOW will not come off and cost no more than the Russell junk!

It is truly sad that after almost 40 of being an Edelbrock customer, they are willing to **** me away as a customer over such an insignificant issue. I will never buy another Edelbrock product again if there is an alternative from another vendor. I hope I see Vic Jr. at SEMA next year so I can tell him just what I think of his technical support and customer service.

I hope that all of you who have these fittings on your cars, inspect the fittings and install a fail-safe lock, similar to the one I made, on the fittings, as I would hate to hear that any of you lost your car to a fire due to a failure of this fitting.

Regards, John McGraw

bmf5150

So who makes a better fitting???

Tongboy

I've had the same problem happen with my quick connect russell fitting.

Glad the motor wasn't hot when it happened, the car would be done for by now!

i'm still using the same fitting but I used teh stock clip piece that came on the original fuel lines and some zip ties to prevent it from being able to wiggle out.

My intention moving forward is to always just spend the money and have an AN bung welded onto the fuel rail - cheaper than dousing a hot engine in fuel...

LSCha0s

iTrader: (4)

WOW!! thanks for the info Corvettes go up in flames fast.

Irish350

iTrader: (14)

i just had this issue with my build

russel fittings popped off repeatedly so i had to go back to the factory lines; now ive got a box full of stainless/anodized thats useless to me

bmf5150

Could u take a quick disconnect and just weld a AN fitting to it???rather than take the fuel rail off to weld up??

John McGraw

Here is the fitting I am going back to:

http://www.swagelok.com/search/find_...7-a5d3fd3672c3

These fittings are the industry standard in mission critical applications and are used everywhere from labs to nuclear plants. The tube end is a variation of a compression fitting, but way better sealing. The other end is a standard 37 degree AN. Most cities will have a distributor that sells Swageloc products and I usually only pay about $16 for them. Street and Performance sells them, but the really get in your pocket to the tune of about $30 each. I used these fittings for years and they are great!

Regards, John McGraw

John McGraw

Yep, that is what I hear everywhere I go. Almost every person I talk to that has used them has had one pop of at one time or another, yet Edelbrock says that they have never heard anybody complain!

I may never get satisfaction from them, but I will do everything I can to keep anybody else from getting ripped off!

I think I will hang on to them rather than throwing them away, I'll bet sooner or later some plaintiff's lawyer would love them as evidence in a product liability lawsuit.


Regards, John McGraw

S10xGN

iTrader: (11)

Hey John,

I had hell finding these for a decent price and none of the distributors who had a fair price had less than a $100 minimum order. I ended up using "Convert-A-Flare" nuts and sleeves with a standard JIC union for a whopping total of $3.84 per unit. You can find this stuff at Discount Hydraulic Hose, just look for #418, #419, and the JIC fitting of your choice. I googled around and found some instructions for assembling them, but the PDF is too large to post here...

bmf5150

Thanks john!!!

John McGraw

Hi Russ,

Yep, and the Parker line is also completely compatible with the Swageloc as well and is less expensive.

I really like the look of the Stainless Swageloc and I have a local distributor that will sell small quantities without an up charge.The stainless fitings polish up like chrome!

The Swageloc fittings are also available in brass as well at considerably less money.


Regards, John McGraw

bmf5150

Hey jon can u pm me your distributor???I'm Also searching the site for the 5/16 return fitting but I'm not having any luck

John McGraw

What I use for the 5/16 return is a SS-600-6-5 union. They will make a 5/16 x 3/8 male an fitting but the lead time is long. I just use the union since I pretty much use almost all stainless hard lines anyway, so this just avoids another flare anyway. Obviously, you substitute B for the SS if you want it in brass.

I use Arthur valve in Austin, Tex, but you should be able to find a online seller that has pretty good prices The Parker line is almost exactly the same as Swageloc and is more widely available as well as less expensive.

Regards, John McGraw

Tongboy

the easiest way to do it without welding would be to get an AN to steel compression line and bolt the compression line on instead of a quick disconnect

bczee

iTrader: (12)

Good information.. Good Tip. Going to check mine at the FPR under the car the next time (soon) i get under.

For my fuel rail.. I brazed a AN fitting on the inlet and know that is is much more secure !I have to question how offen to you really need to have a QD ? I've never removed it so far. I had always wonder how secure they would be over time.

I have made the recommendation of use in AN fitting by brazing, welding or whatever to the hard lines many before. But I don't think many have taken my advise.. at least up to now ! LOL



thanks again for your finding and comments.

BC

John McGraw

What truly amazes me is all the people who have had this exact same problem, yet Edelbrock still claims that they do not have a problem with these fittings! Their newest generation of fittings designed to attach to GM quick disconnects, have a captive retainer on the rear of the fitting that screws into the fitting, yet they do not have a problem. If not, then why did they not stay with the same design?
It is sad that Edelbrock is slowly becoming just like so many other companies and has lost sight of what made them what they are today, their customers! I have no doubt that this is due in no small part to the fact that they were bought up by a private equity group last year and now the only concern is the dollars and to hell with customer service.

Edelbrock has gotten my last dollar, as this has really left a bad taste in my mouth.


Regards, John McGraw

Pocket

iTrader: (22)

I had this problem once. After fiddling around I found that the plastic retainer must be inserted into the fitting prior to snapping it onto the rail. It will not lock properly if the plastic retainer is stuck on the fuel line. No issues with these otherwise

bmf5150

i bought mine here,not sure who made mine..
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Retro...Q5fAccessories


i tried to take mine off today,i cant get the damn things off,lol..i may just get some tubing like john suggest and a zip tie and leave them on..

Tongboy

that's the same russell line in blue

hs70ss

iTrader: (3)

Have you ever had problems with the return line or just at the fuel rail.