Sssnake

Hmmmm. I wonder what is in the boxes?

philistine

iTrader: (2)

I know what that is! Congrats!

LS BRAVADA

iTrader: (4)

8.8 parts

BudRacing

iTrader: (3)

Sssnake

^
|
|

Pretty good

The 8.8", fuel system, and new HU install are tops on the priority list but I am tweaking a few things as well. The fuel system will be a new approach. I was knee deep in planning a return style system when I looked at other options, again. It looks like I will be going with an aftermarket PWM based system from VaporWorx. To me it provides the best of all worlds: manifold referenced, easier on the electrical system and should keep the fuel cooler than a return style setup. Once I get it in place I will let everyone know how well it works out.

Aaron Thomas

iTrader: (1)

All I ever find in sonotube is concrete... Let see some pictures of the shiny new parts!

philistine

iTrader: (2)

Sounds interesting, look forward to installation notes and results!

compton-z28

any pictures of the actual parts?

Sssnake

Sure.

Gratuitous butt photo (better than Kim K?!?).



Pic of the new DS adaptor (installed).




Comparison of the 8.8" CS supplied axles compared to the Hendricks 1000hp axles.




Things went pretty smoothly except for the DS install. I didn't receive instructions so I was winging it. For me to install the DS I had to tip the front of the rear down a bit then once the DS was in the adaptor I rotated the rear back into place. Without this extra bit of clearance I couldn't get the DS in. I will call Max today and provide some feedback and see what he thinks Like I said all in all this was pretty easy. Except for the added time on the DS, the instal took just over 4 hours and I was hardly hurrying.

VaporWorx should have the new fuel control system designed, tested, and ready for shipment this week. I may go ahead and move up to a two FP system depending upon the feedback received from VW.

DMM

Congrats, Charles! I like the drive shaft adapter, wish that had been available when I did mine. I got your PM about the fuel system, been pretty busy cramming two weeks of work so I can take A/L...'tis the season.

I tried working with Carl a while back, right up until I confirmed the V2 fuel module wouldn't fit in a V1 tank. There was a pretty decent thread where Carl contributed explaining the benefits of PWM, then lost interest when the basis of his system (the V2 module) was incompatible.

I am still considering the PWM route using Professional Products Fuel on Demand system. It is a feature packed stand alone PWM system that is hard to beat for the price. I really like the fact that you can can program and log the fuel system with its own software. If you'd like to take a look at it...

Manual: http://www.professional-products.com...structions.pdf

For sale: http://www.jegs.com/i/Professional+P...FUEV7AodZE4Avg

Sssnake

Thanks! Definitely a good alternative. However, I have most of that logging capability already so not a huge plus for me but for most it would definitely be hard to beat. The hesitation I have on this system is that it indicates that "*Carbureted mode operates with or without a return line." This leads me to believe that with and EFI system it may not execute its control loop at high enough frequency to support returnless EFI applications. The other area of concern to me is in the electrical output capacity. I am not sure this system has the ability to drive two FPs (the vaporworx system should - Carl is testing now).

I did read through your thread with Carl and understood about the V2 bucket size issue. Carl is working on a system for me that would utilize DW300s (1 or 2) in our bucket. His system is also compatible with a BAP (which I have). I am not sure the professional products system can do this. I haven't reviewed the Professional Products information as thoroughly and haven't talked to one of their engineers so I am likely missing something.

Carl seems very willing and eager to going on this project. Customer support like this goes a long way in my book.

DMM

Glad Carl decided to jump back on that horse, I had inquired about the same (dual DW300's) and he immediately shot it down.

The Fuel on Demand system has several configurations, the return less is for EFI or carb, although it notes it's not the best idea for a carb'd system due to vapor lock. Another thing I like is the system is designed to have the fuel pressure sensor at the rail on the EFI setup, where the Vaporworx system requires the sensor to be placed far away near to the pump, which is not as accurate IMO.

I would like to know what the limits of the fuel on demand system are as well although from some of the forums I've seen it looks as if others have used multiple pumps without issue. I'd use something smaller than the DW300, the V2 uses dual 190lph pumps.

I am looking forward to what Carl is engineering as a solution to one of he greatest weaknesses of the V1 although I may end up going my own route. You know me, that's half the fun.

joe_shmoe

I wanted to tell you guys how much I appreciate you sharing the drive shaft adapter with the community and working with vendors to develop new products and applications in the fuel system. PWM and/or a drop-in solution for the fuel would be excellent for the V1.

Both of these are issues that anyone making a high HP V1 will have to deal with.

Sssnake

Hmmm, missed that point and it is significant. My sensor is currently mounted on the firewall near the rail. I would prefer to retain it. If push comes to shove I will discuss it with Carl as I can't see why that would be an issue (unless he is not using a driver for the sensor and if that is the case I can build one easily).

On the dual DWs - Carl is doing a flow analysis of our bucket with the DWs in place (both single and dual I believe) so unless I have to go to duals I will stay with a single. If I have to go to duals (not expected if I use the BAP but likely if I don't) I will use matching DWs because: I have one already, I wouldn't want to troubleshoot the system with two different capacity pumps, and so they can be easily swapped in case of failure (if the DW 300 goes but whatever smaller pump is still working I would likely still be unable to drive the car).

On the different route, no issues there. Your "different route" has helped me greatly in the past.

Joe - Thanks. My goal is for at least SOME of my posts to be helpful

Everybody else - MERRY CHRISTMAS! The fat man is almost here

Nickmoore240sx

That's decent hey!

DMM

When I was working with Carl, he said his system was so sensitive it would respond to the injectors firing, which is why the sensor had to be placed remotely. Hopefully there is a way to decrease sensitivity to the degree where it's not chasing the injectors firing yet maintain the proper fuel pressure.

I didn't know Carl was going through flow testing the modules...that may have just won me over. Someone who goes through that amount of R&D deserves some of my money.

Keep me updated if you can.

Sssnake

No problem on that one.

He did ask where the controller would be mounted in relation to the battery because he was worried about EFI. He didn't go into details and maybe I should have pressed. I just can't see the fuel pressure sensor being a huge noise source. It is pretty easy to do a differential input sensor driver with an op amp and ditch most of the EFI coming in from a sensor line... Also he is planning on using the existing MAP sensor to support the manifold reference function and that line will obviously have to come from the front of the car/engine bay.

Carl has been very open and willing to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of his approach. In point of fact I was willing to just plop down my money and see what I ended up with but he wanted to build and utilize a test rig first so that he could insure there would be no issues. Like I said customer service goes a long way with me and he definitely has gone above and beyond so far (particularly when I haven't paid him a nickle yet).

Stay tuned.

Tmac11

Tell Carl he has another buyer here if he comes up with a viable twin pump pwm set up.

DMM

My recollection of the theory of operation is that his system has such a fast sampling rate the controller would act on every injector pulse, as there is a minute pressure drop every time an injector fires. From what I remember, Carl stated placing the pressure sensor too close to the injectors would have the effect of chasing the injector pulses and lead to erratic fuel pressures. I don't believe EMI/RFI was a concern for the sensor, just the controller.

Again, this was however long ago, he may have reengineered the system since then. It just didn't make a whole lot of sense to me when we spoke about it. I would rather have a bit slower sampling rate to mitigate erratic operation and have the sensor at the rails where the pressure matters, not at the tank.

Sssnake

Hell that is even easier to fix. Low pass filter the pressure signal. I would be willing to bet 5 hz would be plenty and that would be well below injector firings. If the LP doesn't work well enough use a digital average of the samples (same thing as analog low pass but you can get much steeper slopes).