Go Back   TeamTalk > Maintenance Tips, How-tos and Refurbishing Topics > General / Other

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-12-2018, 07:30 PM
lake weir skier lake weir skier is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Boat: 1994 MasterCraft ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 427
Fuel anti-syphon and shut-off valves

On a 94 PS 190, I have two basic questions about fuel shutoff valves and anti-siphon valves. How did Mastercraft ship it out the door in 1994, supposedly, and what do you think of the setup suggested today by the tank manufacturer – Moeller?

I've only owned my 94 since 13. Don't know the history before 13 and always wonder if I'm looking at original parts as originally assembled. I replaced the fuel cluster plate in 2014. Below is a photo I took in 2014 of the aluminum fuel line fittings removed from the top of the tank where the cluster plate is located. Two elbows, a straight hose barb, and a shut-off valve. The handle is broken off of the shut-off valve and not pictured. I have before and after photos of the assembled cluster plate with fittings.

I endeavored to re-assemble things as I found them and believe I did. I have the shut-off valve over the fuel pickup on the supply line and the straight hose barb on the return line. Both screwed into elbows that screw into the cluster plate. When I open the fuel shut-off valve, I see clear through it. I don't see an anti-siphon valve built into the fuel shut-off valve or anywhere else in the cluster plate area.

Is this how Mastercraft would have sent it out the door in 1994?

Recently, I wanted to replace the discontinued fuel shut off valve because of the broken handle. I also started looking at anti-siphon valves.

I looked online and found people retailing Moeller anti-siphon valves with two calibrations -- one for 200 HP and below and one for above 200 HP. I didn't see anybody else doing this calibration distinction or any information about the calibration on anti-siphon valves from other manufacturers (I later learned Moeller outsources the manufacture of their anti-siphon valves to somewhere in Taiwan).

After I learned Moeller customer service didn't really understand this calibration business, they had an engineer call me today. He suggested I keep using a straight hose barb on the elbow for the return line. On the supply line, he suggested a shut-off valve screwed into the elbow and a 15 CAL anti-siphon valve screwed into the shut-off valve. This is because he couldn't find an aluminum shut-off valve with anti-siphon integrated. He agrees I should not mix aluminum and brass parts because of the potential for galvanic corrosion.

Their engineer says the CAL refers to inches of mercury required to open the valve. 15 inches for above 200 HP and 30 inches for below 200 HP. Interestingly, there is a Correct Craft Fan forum post from 2014 that says Moeller said those numbers are inches of water, but regardless of the unit of measure, there is agreement the lower number of 15 is for the higher horsepower and the higher number of 30 is for the lower horsepower range.

When I asked why the distinction, I didn't totally follow the answer but it had to do with both horsepower and the assumed size of a tank. My engine is rated for 275 HP. Telling him I had a 30 gallon tank cemented the recommendation for 15.

What do you think of this proposed change in the setup? I want it safe ,and I want it to run well.


Name:  Fuel line connection fittings.jpg
Views: 178
Size:  157.1 KB
__________________
1994 ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1

Last edited by lake weir skier; 09-13-2018 at 02:49 AM. Reason: Previous misidentification of straight hose barb as anti-siphon valve
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-13-2018, 03:21 AM
lake weir skier lake weir skier is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Boat: 1994 MasterCraft ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 427
I started questioning my memory from 2014 and pulled the fittings at issue. What I remembered as an anti-siphon valve is actually just a straight hose barb. This is a photograph of the shut-off valve as I found it. Don't see any anti-siphon in there. At least I've determined I didn't have the valve partially closed and didn't have an obstruction in either compromising fuel delivery. I've adjusted the original post for the misidentification.

Name:  rsz_fuel_shut-off_valve_on_september_13_2018.jpg
Views: 155
Size:  125.1 KB
__________________
1994 ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:23 PM
lake weir skier lake weir skier is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Boat: 1994 MasterCraft ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 427
After being diverted to some family issues for a number of months, I'm back to my boat. My original post has drawn no response. Anybody got any info about what I asked about in the original post? Anybody have direct knowledge of what fittings were originally on the top of the fuel tank on a circa 94 ProStar?
__________________
1994 ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:50 PM
lake weir skier lake weir skier is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Boat: 1994 MasterCraft ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 427
Below is what was presented on a Correct Craft forum post as coming from Moeller in response to an inquiry. If so many of us have boats with aluminum fittings and engines rated over 200 HP, and if combining brass and aluminum fittings is ill-advised from a galvanic corrosion standpoint, I wonder why it is so hard to find an aluminum anti-siphon valve rated for 15 CAL. And I wonder if this CAL vs HP recommendation is an industry standard, why I can't find any manufacturer other than Moeller quoting CAL for an anti-siphon valve. Currently, I have West Marine working is a special order of his part. I've found no other possibility and don't yet have confirmation they can get it. I also wonder what the harm would be in installing a more commonly available aluminum Moeller 30 CAL anti-siphon valve.


Posted Moeller response:

Thank you for your inquiry with Moeller Marine. The CAL is the calibration of the anti-siphon.
inch of water column (in WC) a traditional unit of pressure, used in plumbing to describe both water and gas pressures. The conventional equivalent of one inch of water is about 0.036127 pounds per square inch (psi) or about 0.073556 inches (1.868 32 millimeters) of mercury.

Thus a 15 (WC) calibrated ASV equals .541 PSI or 27.99 mm HG of mercury

30 (WC) calibrated ASV equals 1.083 PSI or 55.99 mm HG of mercury

Industry standard regarding use:

•    201 HP Engine and Higher = 15 calibrated ASV
•    200 HP Engine and Less = 30 calibrated ASV
__________________
1994 ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-12-2019, 09:26 AM
JimN's Avatar
JimN JimN is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 13,502
The boats shipped with the anti-siphon valve- it was required, apparently. I don't remember seeing all boats coming with it, but MC did. Some may have had the ball and spring punched out.

The valve can cause problems but I think it's mostly neglect that's behind it. Boat owners don't generally lube the Bendix, either, but it's an annual required step- why would this be different?

As much as I understand not wanting to pay a lot for general service, I also know that it's hard to find people to work on boats. I just talked to a shipyard owner yesterday and he said he just can't find people to work there.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-12-2019, 12:57 PM
lake weir skier lake weir skier is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Boat: 1994 MasterCraft ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 427
The attached 2011 document from the American Boat & Yacht Council synthesizes and interprets regulations from multiple agencies concerning marine fuel systems. The regulation relative to protection against siphoning of fuel resulting from failure of the fuel system lines and/or connections starts on Page 100 of the pdf (Page 93 as numbered in the document).
__________________
1994 ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-13-2019, 09:52 AM
JimN's Avatar
JimN JimN is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 13,502
"...resulting in multiple regulations for the same engine type but under different titles."- and they wonder why people hate to read this stuff.

The quoted part below should have been addressed- too many boats out there with the wrong anti-siphon valve if they were built without in-tank pump:

"2. Too high a cracking pressure may cause vapor lock. This has become an increasing
problem with reformulated gasoline (RFG). Be sure to select the correct cracking pressure."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:59 AM
lake weir skier lake weir skier is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Boat: 1994 MasterCraft ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimN View Post
"...resulting in multiple regulations for the same engine type but under different titles."- and they wonder why people hate to read this stuff.

The quoted part below should have been addressed- too many boats out there with the wrong anti-siphon valve if they were built without in-tank pump:

"2. Too high a cracking pressure may cause vapor lock. This has become an increasing
problem with reformulated gasoline (RFG). Be sure to select the correct cracking pressure."
I noticed that. I'm still not clear why Moeller relates the two cracking pressures it offers (15 CAL and 30 CAL) to horsepower and why they appear, so far in my research at least, to be the only anti-siphon valve manufacturer that offers two versions and publishes the calibration. I wonder how many owners of boats with more than 200 hp have installed anti-siphon valves with a 30 CAL anti-siphon valve (Moeller's 30 or some other manufacturer's 30 not labeled as such) that Moeller would say is not correct for above 200 hp.
__________________
1994 ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-14-2019, 11:08 PM
jayR's Avatar
jayR jayR is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Boat: 1988 prostar 190
Location: Boston
Posts: 187
moeller states a random horsepower but its vacuum pressure right ? / to overcome the spring that is holding back the check ball. doesn't it have more to do with the fuel pump and how much vacuum pressure that draws?

my guess you can you any cheap one you can find. its a ball and a spring. you could test them against a vacuum pump like those used for self bleeding brakes if you want to know how it specs out.

thanks for doing the deep research on this. I am curious how it turns out.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:27 PM
lake weir skier lake weir skier is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Boat: 1994 MasterCraft ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 427
Apparently, the all aluminum approach recommended to me by the Moeller engineer is not possible with Moeller parts currently offered by Moeller. He recommended a 15 CAL aluminum anti-siphon valve mated with an aluminum shut-off valve. However, West Marine special orders informs me the aluminum shut-off valve he recommended has been superseded by a shut-off valve I see is brass. I have not seen in the regulations where a shut-off valve is required if there is an anti-siphon valve where fuel exits the fuel tank. Why would you need a fuel shut-off valve in this situation unless the anti-siphon valve failed? Any comment?
__________________
1994 ProStar 190, 350 TBI, 1:1
Reply With Quote
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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:35 AM.


2018