Discussion
We can't stop fiddling can we! Well, I can't anyway! My setup used pretty-much the std pollock-valve system with reg before rails. But then I got to thinking (bad news!), and decided to change the circuit so that the feed from the swirl-pot/HP pump goes direct to the rails and then to the reg, then back to the top of the swirl-pot, then back to the tanks via the pollock-valves.
Since the std rails do not have a normal -6 second port, only a shrader valve, I did wonder if using this (with the valve inner removed)would result in too much of a restricted flow? can the whole valve body be removed and replaced, or is this necessary?
cheers
Since the std rails do not have a normal -6 second port, only a shrader valve, I did wonder if using this (with the valve inner removed)would result in too much of a restricted flow? can the whole valve body be removed and replaced, or is this necessary?
cheers
you are thinking of plumbing it the way that I have. I do not recommend it! It will heat the fuel even more I think. Keep all swirl pots and pumps and regs as low as possible in the engine bay to keep cool. only send fuel to the fuel rails that is going to be used ie keep reg as is. Throw away crap pollack valve and buy 2 proper solenoid changeover valves. Fuel pump speed control will also help if anybody can produce a working system.
Mark,
What problems were you having? I understood that having fuel flowing through and back to the tank was better than the other way? And even Aeromotive themselves seem to suggest that is the best way with their regs!
DW
The horse has already bolted!
Like many of us, as we build, we try to navigate our way around the many opinions here to try to arrive at the best (optimum) solution offered at the time, and I, like many have installed the factory valve (but a bigger swirl-pot) etc, so money already spent, and engine/gbox and everyting in place! Would hate to have to remove that lot unless I have to.
What is the problem with the factory valves?
What problems were you having? I understood that having fuel flowing through and back to the tank was better than the other way? And even Aeromotive themselves seem to suggest that is the best way with their regs!
DW
The horse has already bolted!
Like many of us, as we build, we try to navigate our way around the many opinions here to try to arrive at the best (optimum) solution offered at the time, and I, like many have installed the factory valve (but a bigger swirl-pot) etc, so money already spent, and engine/gbox and everyting in place! Would hate to have to remove that lot unless I have to.
What is the problem with the factory valves?
MarkWebb said:
738 Proper controller? I am not aware of an aftermarket one as yet. Only devices that have two speeds and very basic control ie a switch which can be triggered by ecu. Please enlighten me if you know differently.
Several options Mark, easiest I came up with for a stock motor was a low mounted header tank,say 2-3 ltrs, gravity fed, probably in the lower left engine bay and drop in the lingenfelter camaro pump/controller combo unit. Good for up to 900 HP at 13V and programmable/tunable with a GM ecu.
..... is this not much simpler than yards of braided fuel hose, connectors, valves ...potential leaks...headaches ?
There are several simple methods out there to overcome the twin tank fuel hurdle.
The other common problem seen with installations/ running problems.....fuel pressure .
Some seem to think that setting the regulated pressure at idle is the way to go.... stick it on the dyno or rollers and watch what happens... insufficeint pressure and hence volume, under load. Have even seen experienced roller owner 'experts ' compensate a tune for this simple problem.. and charge big money for it!
Heat in the fuel system is the other culprit... when you combine insufficient volume/low pressure (and those LS's need plenty of both) with slowly building fuel temps a tune will go off very quickly.
So most manufacturers..... fuel on demand,, forget about returning hot fuel anywhere, if fact many monitor fuel rail temp and adjust the tune/delivery accordingly to suit density/pressure change.
More to success than plug n play..... if you want great results.
Edited by 738 driver on Wednesday 24th August 11:29
738 driver said:
Several options Mark, easiest I came up with for a stock motor was a low mounted header tank,
say 2-3 ltrs, gravity fed, probably in the lower left engine bay and drop in the lingenfelter camaro pump/controller combo unit. Good for up to 900 HP at 13V and programmable/tunable with a GM ecu.
..... is this not much simpler than yards of braided fuel hose, connectors, valves ...potential leaks...headaches ?
There are several simple methods out there to overcome the twin tank fuel hurdle.
Sounds great! So why haven't many other adopted this, including the factory?say 2-3 ltrs, gravity fed, probably in the lower left engine bay and drop in the lingenfelter camaro pump/controller combo unit. Good for up to 900 HP at 13V and programmable/tunable with a GM ecu.
..... is this not much simpler than yards of braided fuel hose, connectors, valves ...potential leaks...headaches ?
There are several simple methods out there to overcome the twin tank fuel hurdle.
738 driver said:
Must be thinking outside the norm again....apologies Keith.
I certainly did not intend to cast doubt on your suggestion if your thinking this..so apologies...It does sound very effective, and certainly if no real down-sides, I would have thought it would catch-on. I definately agree that the factory system seems awfully complicated, very expensive, and if a better, more simple system is out there that really worked, I would go for it!
BUT - there has been masses of threads on here in the past, with loads of differing opinions and solutions, which only serves to totally confuse all but the experts IMO.
I don't like my existing complicated setup, I have had problems already, and I have not found the culprit yet...and my build is not even complete/ on the road!
However, the thought of ripping everything out now... the engine, gbox, and all the plumbing is in place, fills me with absolute horror and dread and could cost me another few months of delay (and money of course)!
My original question was surrounding the use of 'through flow' in the rails rather than the 'returnless' setup, the latter which appears to be less favored by Aeromotive themselves in an email to me.
Making things worse....there seems to be a big conflict of opinion on here regarding the efficacy of either system when combating the potential for 'hot fuel syndrome'!
...so I am more confused now that I ever was!
The simplest solution is to fit a bigger tank in the left hand sidepod. Do away with the pollack valve and hey presto. Obviously you lose a bit of storage space, but if you remove the right hand tank you have a big chunk of space available for whatever you like (you could extend the LH storage bin backwards, for example.)
Jonny
Jonny
Keith as with many issues.. plenty of ways to skin ze cat.
Fuel companies like to sell fuel components... naturally.
Other suppliers like to sell their products including factories.... very normal
Large Motor Manufacurers like to sell cars that people will buy, meet regulation, performance expectation and not be back every five mins for warranty work. If you are in the business of selling 500-650 HP everyday runners (GM USA) you will have done some homework to meet the above.
IE keep it simple and reliable...
If you want to be different and sell lots of your products, dont follow GM's route.
MAC G's a great idea for a track car but most of my mates are not getting any lighter with age...listing down the road two up didnt appeal.
Fuel companies like to sell fuel components... naturally.
Other suppliers like to sell their products including factories.... very normal
Large Motor Manufacurers like to sell cars that people will buy, meet regulation, performance expectation and not be back every five mins for warranty work. If you are in the business of selling 500-650 HP everyday runners (GM USA) you will have done some homework to meet the above.
IE keep it simple and reliable...
If you want to be different and sell lots of your products, dont follow GM's route.
MAC G's a great idea for a track car but most of my mates are not getting any lighter with age...listing down the road two up didnt appeal.
Edited by 738 driver on Wednesday 24th August 12:34
Jonny,
Do you have any pics of your setup?
I'm with Keith on this, I think the factory setup us overly complicated and there is a simpler way to do it. Reading everyones opinions has confused me further though.
I like the idea of intank pumps, but not the amount of bespoke fabrication needed. I wouldn't know where to start or who to startwith.
Do you have any pics of your setup?
I'm with Keith on this, I think the factory setup us overly complicated and there is a simpler way to do it. Reading everyones opinions has confused me further though.
I like the idea of intank pumps, but not the amount of bespoke fabrication needed. I wouldn't know where to start or who to startwith.
Jonny,
Do you have any pics of your setup?
I'm with Keith on this, I think the factory setup us overly complicated and there is a simpler way to do it. Reading everyones opinions has confused me further though.
I like the idea of intank pumps, but not the amount of bespoke fabrication needed. I wouldn't know where to start or who to startwith.
Do you have any pics of your setup?
I'm with Keith on this, I think the factory setup us overly complicated and there is a simpler way to do it. Reading everyones opinions has confused me further though.
I like the idea of intank pumps, but not the amount of bespoke fabrication needed. I wouldn't know where to start or who to startwith.
deadscoob said:
Jonny,
Do you have any pics of your setup?
I'm with Keith on this, I think the factory setup us overly complicated and there is a simpler way to do it. Reading everyones opinions has confused me further though.
I like the idea of intank pumps, but not the amount of bespoke fabrication needed. I wouldn't know where to start or who to startwith.
he love his response soooo much...he did it TWICE! Do you have any pics of your setup?
I'm with Keith on this, I think the factory setup us overly complicated and there is a simpler way to do it. Reading everyones opinions has confused me further though.
I like the idea of intank pumps, but not the amount of bespoke fabrication needed. I wouldn't know where to start or who to startwith.
deadscoob said:
Jonny,
Do you have any pics of your setup?
I'm with Keith on this, I think the factory setup us overly complicated and there is a simpler way to do it. Reading everyones opinions has confused me further though.
I like the idea of intank pumps, but not the amount of bespoke fabrication needed. I wouldn't know where to start or who to startwith.
I don't have any pictures, however I can describe briefly what we did.Do you have any pics of your setup?
I'm with Keith on this, I think the factory setup us overly complicated and there is a simpler way to do it. Reading everyones opinions has confused me further though.
I like the idea of intank pumps, but not the amount of bespoke fabrication needed. I wouldn't know where to start or who to startwith.
We needed a larger capacity tank that we could refuel quickly, whilst ideally removing as many components as possible for the sake of reliability (mainly the pollack).
We had a tank custom made that is essentially an extension of the non-driver side tank (LH in our case), and this was plumbed in in the usual way - we had an extra filler/vent put at the front to be compliant with the regulations. Ralloy in North Yorkshire made our tank for us.
The pollack and associated hosing was removed, so the line ran from the tank straight to the pump, then up to the swirl pot etc.. The redundant tank (driver side) was also removed - this has helped with access to the engine bay no end and also improves airflow.
We spent a lot of time thinking about how to achieve what we wanted - we obviously had some further requirements (dry break refuelling, large capacity etc) to consider, and the only two downsides are the loss of storage space in the RH compartment and the fact that the coolant pipe runs close to the tank. However this is heavily lagged and the tank is heat shielded so should not have too much of an effect.
Unfortunately I do not have a GM ecu to work with the Lingenfelter controller and cannot fit one to my old school small block.
Fuelabs who make the prodigy fuel pump range which has a PWM input are building a regulator which electrically senses pressure and controls the fuel pump.
This seems to be the best bet for a stand alone solution to cure overheating fuel.
Fuelabs who make the prodigy fuel pump range which has a PWM input are building a regulator which electrically senses pressure and controls the fuel pump.
This seems to be the best bet for a stand alone solution to cure overheating fuel.
deadscoob said:
Jonny,
Do you have any pics of your setup?
I'm with Keith on this, I think the factory setup us overly complicated and there is a simpler way to do it. Reading everyones opinions has confused me further though.
I like the idea of intank pumps, but not the amount of bespoke fabrication needed. I wouldn't know where to start or who to startwith.
Hi Craig no mods are required, it really is as straight forward as 738 says, he doesnt like wasting money so comes up with some very simple solutions to save him opening his wallet.Do you have any pics of your setup?
I'm with Keith on this, I think the factory setup us overly complicated and there is a simpler way to do it. Reading everyones opinions has confused me further though.
I like the idea of intank pumps, but not the amount of bespoke fabrication needed. I wouldn't know where to start or who to startwith.
Have you got your tanks yet? A big link pipe is a must and saves a lot of plumbing
Gassing Station | Ultima | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff