When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Hearing about Mike Simard's build in casual conversation is not the same as knowing about it. I said I am not familiar with his build, and I am not. If I find the time, I will read up.
Erik, you have a bad case of the "One Right Way", and as you know, I am an independent, maybe even a Maverick. Everybody doesn't have to use a Sharktuner, everybody doesn't have to do it the way you think, and there is always more than one right way.
Last edited by Carl Fausett; 09-21-2018 at 06:49 PM.
Thank you for the thought, but we are not stumped or puzzled.. I sized this fuel system to support 1000 HP in roughly 2010 for Bonneville and it fed a 900 to 950HP motor reliably since then with no fueling issues. But now that we are probably going to end up north of 1100HP we have outgrown this fuel system and there is no surprise to us that the system needs to be upgraded. The pickups, the lines, the filters, the fittings, the whole thing. I am working with Brett at Aeromotive and Ben Rogers at Fuel Safe and am quite comfortable with their competence. The fuel cell shipped out today for service and upgrades. I am going to try to have the car at a track day at Road America on Oct 24th if I can. That's the plan, anyway!
I have run two Bosch 044 pumps in parallel before in 2008 at Pikes Peak. It was not a bad setup. I prefer a single-pump solution and I have not given up on that yet, Less ampere draw, smaller alternator, less parasitic loss, less weight. If I cannot get it done with one pump, we will certainly go to two. With gasoline's higher BTU content, we think we can do it on one pump. On ethanol, I see why Todd would use two pumps to get the necessary flow.
A single Aeromotive pump isn’t going to get it done, in my opinion. This is not a carbureted normally aspirated engine, it’s a boosted fuel injected engine. The pump needs to be able to flow against very high pressure, higher the better. Fuel will atomize better higher the pressure, so I’d consider running higher than stock rail pressures.
If single pump isn’t going to do it, running two high-pressure pumps in parallel is superior to running two low-pressure pumps in series. The two high-pressure pumps in parallel with check valves can be turned one sequentially based on demand while always keeping the rail pressure high. My car has two Bosch 044s in parallel, the second pump turning in based on boost and rpm.
This weekend we pulled the whole fuel feed line from the fuel cell to the motor. Here it is - all 17 feet of the -8 line.
The surprise came at the fuel filter. We were still using the fuel filter for the 300HP K-Jet motor... a fuel filter that has worked fine until now. The flow and pressure of the Bosh 044 pumps is legendary, and we ran two of them in parallel in years past. So, we figured (long ago) that the fuel filter for the Bosch 044's was also a reasonable choice.
The surprise came at the fittings into and out of the fuel filter - where we had inserted our -8 AN adapters. The ID of the fitting on the filter end was only 7.5mm or .30" - and that certainly accounts for some of our problem fueling at our top end. I had long, long since forgotten about those fittings - I put them in there in about 2006 for our 2007 build.
Even so, I am replacing everything with new -10 line and fittings from back to front. Fuel Cell is at Fuel Safe now getting rebuilt/re-certified and a new pump too.
Corrosion on the fittings is from Bonneville. Its a nasty place for a car that you care about!
That fitting, although undesirable, does not generate a significant pressure drop. Your current 8AN fuel line is adequately sized for the max flow through your new injectors and then some.
If you want to install a new 10 AN line by all means do so but there is no real need or so my calcs suggest. All the indications are that your fuel pump was not delivering the requisite head/flow characteristic when running 18 psi of boost- that or the boost corrected regulator system was recycling too much flow when maxxed out - do not rule out that possibility.
I do not have time to guess - I am trying to get to Road America yet this year for a shake-down run and then to Daytona. Each time I guess means loading the car back up to go to the chassis dyno and see if the problem is indeed fixed or not, and if not (or we just find the next weak link) it means back to the shop to repeat it all again. RA is Oct 24th and time is short.
This, and the fact that our line and fittings are all beat up from Bonneville salt, and then there is the regular and expected deterioration that is common in fuel lines over time and these fuel lines were installed in 2006; all this mean that its really time for me to just replace everything. So I am.
Eliminate the high regulator bypass flow possibility by closing a (termporary) valve in the return line (only) as you roll to max power on the dyno. That way all your pumped fuel is going to the engine. If the fuel header pressure spikes up as you close the valve, you have your answer.
Eliminate the high regulator bypass flow possibility by closing a (termporary) valve in the return line (only) as you roll to max power on the dyno. That way all your pumped fuel is going to the engine. If the fuel header pressure spikes up as you close the valve, you have your answer.
A much safer (to the engine) way to do that is to run the fuel pressure regulator return line to a separate tank/canister and observe the flow rate.
I know AM says you can run without one if using their FPR but I think one might be beneficial - fuel "hammer" resonance can result in lean (and rich) conditions at certain RPMs.
Might not solve your fuel FLOW issue but might make the tune/running behavior more predictable/consistent.
That's a good point. I will watch for it - but have not had that happen as of yet. Most parts will arrive this week so I can start assembling, the fuel cell should be here 9/14 they tell me. Trying to get tot he Dyno 9/16. Track day 9/24.
best of luck, love all your projects.
RL has slowed down a lot in the last few years for interesting stuff going on, but 928MS keeps the lights on.
as for a damper, check out the unit used on 1998-2000 Ford Ranger 4.0 (Explorer, and the Mazda version too).
O-ring, vac reference, and those cars use a base fuel pressure of 65psi.
Dirt cheap and in stock at your auto store.
We do not. Just a pretty plane-jane 1:1 EFI bypass regulator. Aeromotive A1000
Those regulators also have issues in boosted cars. The issue is related to thermal expansion. I doubt it's an issue with a short run on an engine dyno, but if you have an Aeromotive FPR (or any aftermarket "billet" aluminum FPR), I'd most definitely run the following test: Measure the rail pressure while running the FPR return line to a separate fuel container. What you should see is constant fuel pressure in the rail (relative to boost, of course) as long as the return line flows out fuel. Then, the fuel pressure should only start dropping when the FPR return line flow has slowed into a trickle or even stopped. If you see this, then you know it's the fuel delivery to the rail. If you see something else, like fuel pressure dropping when the FPR return still flows a lot, it's a problem with the FPR.
09-21-2018, 06:01 PM
