Fuel Pump speed control
Discussion
Does anyone have info on available makes of Fuel Pump speed controllers?
I have seen the Aeromotive version ($337) but have had no sucess finding any other makers.
Also a version that provides more variation than just slow or fast would be good.
Not being an electronics expert I understand that it has to be PWM but don't know what data/signal these devices use to trigger them.
Thanks in advance.
Steve
I have seen the Aeromotive version ($337) but have had no sucess finding any other makers.
Also a version that provides more variation than just slow or fast would be good.
Not being an electronics expert I understand that it has to be PWM but don't know what data/signal these devices use to trigger them.
Thanks in advance.
Steve
stevieturbo said:
...I used the Aeromotive one for a while, the terminals are crap push on spades, which inevitably led to them overheating due to the high currents involved.
Wouldnt reccomend it.
But do you really need a controller ? How many pumps, or what size of pumps are you using ?
There looks to be a MkII version with screw terminals which may be to address the problems you had.Wouldnt reccomend it.
But do you really need a controller ? How many pumps, or what size of pumps are you using ?
I'm looking at this following a thread in the Ultima forum where some are experiencing fueling problems with temperature. The problem goes away for a while if you switch tanks (twin tank system) which leads me to think the fuel is getting hot in low demand situations. It is a return system so the tank of fuel is also heating up. As these engines are typically in the 600hp bracket with pump output at 200ish LPH a whole tank of fuel will pass through the fuel rail every 12 minutes.
Most, I believe, are running one pump probably the Bosch 044.
An added benefit would be reduced pump noise.
Steve
I started this so it goes without saying I'm keen to know what the cost would be.
I would think Superseal connectors would do the job. Expensive but not as expensive as military spec.
Ignore the price in that link as they can be bought for £1.42 or less with bulk (PoleVolt Ltd.).
Thank you for your efforts so far.
Steve
I would think Superseal connectors would do the job. Expensive but not as expensive as military spec.
Ignore the price in that link as they can be bought for £1.42 or less with bulk (PoleVolt Ltd.).
Thank you for your efforts so far.
Steve
stevieturbo said:
Steve_D said:
I started this so it goes without saying I'm keen to know what the cost would be.
I would think Superseal connectors would do the job. Expensive but not as expensive as military spec.
Ignore the price in that link as they can be bought for £1.42 or less with bulk (PoleVolt Ltd.).
Thank you for your efforts so far.
Steve
M-Cal sell the same connectors for around £2 for single units.I would think Superseal connectors would do the job. Expensive but not as expensive as military spec.
Ignore the price in that link as they can be bought for £1.42 or less with bulk (PoleVolt Ltd.).
Thank you for your efforts so far.
Steve
But that specific style is intended for use on wires. Not sure what sort of cost a PCM mount might be.
Then there is the current considerations, at least on the main pump outputs. Despite that link claiming 14A rating....I'd be dubious about running anything at that current for any duration with those connectors.
Although for wiring looms in general, yes they are great ! Much neater and more secure than crappy old spades, and from the right sources very cheap.
Edited by stevieturbo on Friday 14th January 23:46
Had not considered PCB mount as there would then be issues sealing the box. I had thought that MTs reason for considering mil spec was to use bulkhead fittings to seal the box. I expect most installations will be in a reasonably clean/dry position so a 200mm flying cable exiting through a slot in the box joint line would suffice when suitably sealed with mastic.
Steve
Max_Torque said:
I just had a thought, i wonder if the optimum control parameter (for non-pressure control version) is just to log fuel injector duty? Simply connecting to one of the fuel injector drivers, would allow the processor to simply generate a "injector on to off" ratio. Fuel flow is proportional to injector pulse width and engine rpm, which is exactly what injector duty is??
This would allow a really easily calibratable 2d table of injector duty vs pump duty ??
(and result in no requirment to input engine rpm and load (MAP etc), just one wire to an injector "switched" side ???)
Sounds good to me.This would allow a really easily calibratable 2d table of injector duty vs pump duty ??
(and result in no requirment to input engine rpm and load (MAP etc), just one wire to an injector "switched" side ???)
Would it need a table or would it be a linear tracking of the duty cycle plus a margin for good measure?
Steve
stevieturbo said:
MattYorke said:
A very interesting thread, although for me, exactly the opposite.
I'm building a boat with a big block in. I definately do want a return feed to cool the fuel since the enclosed engine compartment can get a bit warm, whereas the tank sits on the hull and therefore makes a nice heat sink, but at the same time I don't want to be running a huge pump at full power the whole time.
But what is the actual problem they claim to experience ? And at what fuel temperature ?I'm building a boat with a big block in. I definately do want a return feed to cool the fuel since the enclosed engine compartment can get a bit warm, whereas the tank sits on the hull and therefore makes a nice heat sink, but at the same time I don't want to be running a huge pump at full power the whole time.
Steve_D said:
I'm looking at this following a thread in the Ultima forum where some are experiencing fueling problems with temperature. The problem goes away for a while if you switch tanks (twin tank system) which leads me to think the fuel is getting hot in low demand situations. It is a return system so the tank of fuel is also heating up. As these engines are typically in the 600hp bracket with pump output at 200ish LPH a whole tank of fuel will pass through the fuel rail every 12 minutes.
Most, I believe, are running one pump probably the Bosch 044.
Most, I believe, are running one pump probably the Bosch 044.
Ive been running two 044's for several years. Ive driven non stop for 4+ hours with no problems ( yes, the pumps can get a little noisy, but they still perform, and fuel temperature during those conditions is never particularly warm.
Warmest Ive ever seen my fuel temps is about 50degC, but that was with it sitting stationary for a good while when queuing to race. Temp sensor mounted in a manifold in the engine compartment, that supplies fuel to the rails. Once the pumps are pumping, that soon drops, generally to around 20-35 degC, depending on ambient.
And that's at a fully tested miniumum flow level of 486 lph, but at 14v and idle fuel pressure that's probably a good bit over 500 litres per hour.
Steve
Max_Torque said:
.....I try to keep my pressure pump inlet at a slightly raised pressure to help prevent this, by having a restriction on my swirl pot return to the fuel tank. That way, the lift pump generates approx 5kPa of positive pressure on the inlet of the 044's.
Good call. As I'm converting from carb to EFI I already have a 6psi pressure regulator I can bring into play.Steve
stevieturbo said:
Still dont quite follow...or maybe I do.
If anything, using a pump controller will make the rail pressure easier to maintain, and give the FPR and easier life too.
As in an ideal world with a very well programmed controller, you could in theory have the FPR deal with a fixed return flow all the time. So the internal spring or whatever isnt really doing much work at all.
So surely it's all good ?
Run the pumps at a minimum work load to maintain your desired pressure at the rails. But this wouldnt necessarily require very technical controls ?
So the FPR return is always doing the least amount of work to maintain your pressure. The spring is never at one extreme or the other ?
You could say it's operating in the same way it would be at maximum engine effort.
First with the controller you would not need a mechanical reg but if you decided to leave it in then yes it should sit in about the same place through the whole power range.If anything, using a pump controller will make the rail pressure easier to maintain, and give the FPR and easier life too.
As in an ideal world with a very well programmed controller, you could in theory have the FPR deal with a fixed return flow all the time. So the internal spring or whatever isnt really doing much work at all.
So surely it's all good ?
Run the pumps at a minimum work load to maintain your desired pressure at the rails. But this wouldnt necessarily require very technical controls ?
So the FPR return is always doing the least amount of work to maintain your pressure. The spring is never at one extreme or the other ?
You could say it's operating in the same way it would be at maximum engine effort.
Second, as you say, the whole system is now running at a constant pressure despite flow rate. What Max is saying is that you have never had that constant rate before so your maps will have been unknowingly tweeked to compensate for the low fuel pressure at high demand.
Steve
stevieturbo said:
What do you need in order to make yours work better ?
ie where are the problems that a speed controller will rectify ?
In my case I have a pump large enough to support the 500hp engine which then is noisy when driving around town and puts so much fuel round the system that it very quickly gets too hot.ie where are the problems that a speed controller will rectify ?
Steve
stevieturbo said:
Steve_D said:
In my case I have a pump large enough to support the 500hp engine which then is noisy when driving around town and puts so much fuel round the system that it very quickly gets too hot.
Steve
What fuel temperatures are you seeing ?Steve
I've pumps running all the time enough to support 1500hp. I've never had an issue even driving for 250miles at a time ( need to refuel after that )
500hp pump isnt huge by any stretch and certainly the pump itself will add very little heat to the fuel.
How about this one Professional Prodcuts Fuel-On-Demand Fuel Pump Controller
Steve
Edited by Steve_D on Saturday 8th August 21:37
andygtt said:
Max_Torque said:
andygtt said:
seems you are again the only person out there that has built a proper solution... Was it effective?
My "multimap" system works beautifully! As of course it should as it measures the intake system pressure just prior to IVC, which is generally a pretty close approximation of chamber charge density!
Steve
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff