DMM

Though I would post the last correspondence that I received:

Well, from your photos it looks like 1/2 the battle may already be won. It appears that the tank uses the standard cam locking ring for a fuel module with a 6" OD. If that's the case it just became a whole lot easier. If you can determine the OD of the module hat, not including the alignment tab, that would be helpful.

For the 2010 CTS-V fuel module to fit it needs to have a compressed height between 5.5 - 7" with 6-1/2" being the sweet spot. The bottom OD of the module is approximately 4-5/8" not including the crossover nipple. If the tank is reasonably flat on the bottom and has the right mounting height, it should be straight-forward to make it work.

I'm doing a similar retro-fit for Pontiac G8's. For this to work some module modifications are needed since the fuel level sensor signal needs to exit the fuel module hat. The 2010 CTS-V module uses all four electrical plug cavities for pump power so there is no standard provision for fuel level sensor. What I offer is to combine the two grounds and positives under the module hat using a PTFE wire and butt connector to tie them together. Then the other two electrical cavities can be used for fuel level sensing. Unless a BAP is used and drives the power over 25A it should be fine since the GT280 plug system is rated for 25A continuous. If someone has an engine that the will be needing 25A continuous then they will be going warp 9 since that is a serious amount of fuel. Here's a G8 thread that may help, and if you do a Vaporworx search there is more information on that forum http://forum.grrrr8.net/showthread.p...&highlight=zr1 There's a guy there that has run an 11.35 1/4-mile on 14psi boost at 15v input V2 CTS-V pump on street tires.

For the crossover tube that's an easy fix depending on the size of the current tube-to-module connection. The V2 uses a larger nipple than most, but there's a few things that can be easily done to make it work. I would not hesitate to trim the alignment tab off the module in order to get the internal crossover and fuel level sensor alignment correct. Once cinched down the modules are not going anywhere.

The concern with running just a second fuel module in your case would be how to determine which section of tank gets drawn down first, and/or how to determine that. With the OE venturi pump/crossover the remote pickup section of the tank always gets drawn down first, hence the fuel module pump has access to fuel until empty. With twin pumps which pump is going to run dry first? If both pumps are running full time, then one is going to be more efficient than the other and run that 1/2 of the tank dry before the other. If a Hobb's switch is used then the primary pump side of the tank could empty first. If a crossover system is used then the remote section could be empty when that pump is actuated. There's a lot of scenarios that come to mind that could be cured with a single V2 CTS-V module and PWM system.

As far as the fuel pressure sensor goes it does need to be mounted near the module outlet. Mounting it on or near the fuel rail has proven problematic in some cases. What happens is that my PWM system reacts so fast that it will chase the individual injector pulse. This will cause wild at-idle pressure fluctuations. I believe that this is the same reason that GM put their sensors by the tank as well. An extension line that attaches near the outlet and running to another part of the car to mount the sensor will also work, perhaps tying into one of the return lines would work. Basically the column of fuel between the engine fuel rails and the aft-mounted sensor acts as a pulse damper. There is another PWM kit out there but the reaction time is very slow (so the sensor can be mounted on the fuel rail), the power output design inefficient (21% pumping loss vs. mine at 16A output), and not rated to handle a V2 CTS-V or ZL1 pump at full power (18-20A).

The performance of the V2 module is about double what you have currently. Aftermarket pumps such as the Walbro 190 and 255 are rated at 50psi. At 50psi/13.5v the V2 module can deliver 465lph. At 60psi, the most common for us, it's 388lph.

If you are running a supercharger be sure to figure your BSFC at 0.6 and add the power to drive your supercharger to the FWHP goal. For example, a Magnuson TVS2300 requires about 120hp to drive, so if the FWHP goal is 700FWHP, the piston horsepower is 820PHP.

I hope this helps. If there is a website forum that you frequent that would help me learn more please point the way.

Regards,

Carl

Skidmarcx

I like where this is going... The quest for e85 may be easier with this option... Are you able to provide more dimensions for the guy?

DMM

I responded asking what exactly he would require if the V2 fuel module was physically compatible. I have to say, Carl has been a wealth of knowledge and I have hopes that his DIY solution can benefit the V1 community in the same manner that it has served the G8 community.

I will attempt to get him everything he requires to make this a reality, I have a lift at my home shop so its not costing me anything other than my own time to do this. I currently have my V in various states of disrepair at the moment since I have been trying to identify component locations and fabricating brackets for the E Force installation (hopefully getting installed this weekend!).

That said, I have the aftermarket HEX and coolant pump installed in their permanent locations and am waiting on a few additional parts to complete this. The HEX fits like it was made for our car...it fits like a damn condom, haha. It takes time to fab and document at the same time though.

Skidmarcx

I really appreciate this... And I'm sure I speak for many on this forum as well... If this works out to be a drop on solution then IMO its well worth the money involved since it will fulfill the majority of our HP needs without a headache

And I hope to see progress on your project as well

CarlC

iTrader: (9)

Gents,

If the module can be made to fit and the fuel level sensor figured out, then it's all downhill after that. The electronics side is actually the easy part since it's straight-forward to adapt the wiring. Not so much with the module fitment and FLS.

If someone has easy access to a tank the main things I need to know are 1) The depth of the tank from the module sealing o-ring to the bottom of the tank, 2) Is the tank bottom parallel to the sealing o-ring, 3) The major diameter of the V1 fuel module hat, not including the alignment tab, and 4) The ohm range of the V1 FLS.

If someone has these it could make Damian's job a lot easier since he won't have to remove the tank for a simple fitment check. If the tank is too deep or shallow, then it's best to find that out now.

If it looks like it's going to work I have a V2 CTS-V test mule that will work for fitment purposes that I can send to Damian. From there final determination can be made if it will work.

vmapper

iTrader: (8)

Like so?
https://ls1tech.com/forums/cadillac-...uel-pumps.html

These discussions have been going on for some time...

Looks like, based on this thread, that using the drivers side as a secondary pump has been abandoned?

DMM

I don't know that "abandoned" is quite the right term. The OE fuel setup uses a siphon tube connected to the secondary float assembly that is located on the drivers side to draw from while cornering, etc. the V2 is set up in the exact same manner if you look at the illustration posted on page 1.

The problem with dual modules is that you would no longer have the siphon tube to feed either module, which causes a whole host of other issues. The V2 module has two pumps in one module while retaining the siphon on the drivers side.

The V2's are putting down serious power with this system and have had no issues with performance or reliability. It only makes sense to try a proven combination...if it fits.

That said...I just finished "draining my tank" tonight and my V won't leave the shop until I get the pics and info required to see if this truly is a viable option.

I suppose if the V2 module is a no go, then the next logical route would be the ZL1 module or two V1 modules with custom made siphon points cross connected...which is far from ideal as the lines would have to be much longer than necessary to facilitate actual installation.

Fingers crossed!

vmapper

iTrader: (8)

DMM - Interesting.
Sorry for the ignorance on the matter, but I dont recall the passenger pump being connected to a siphon tube of some sort. (Seems like I dont do anything to the car for a year and a bit, and Im way out of touch with the thing...)

So, a pump on each side (driver and passenger) you would no longer have the siphon tube to feed either module? Why would the siphon tube be removed? (I thought this was part of the tank? , not the pump module.) Are you perhaps referring to draining balance issues, as in, one side sucks one saddle dry (driver) as the passenger siphons fuels from the drivers side on top of fuel use? And more so, a return issue I guess.

I agree, the V2 module, which holds two pumps sounds like the ideal approach based on your posts.
So Something like so?
http://www.foreinnovations.com/product_p/17-900.htm


Well, I will closely be watching for results, as I will require an upgrade of some sort.

Does anyone know what Skydiver used for fueling?

DMM

I'm not entirely certain either at this point, however the GM schematic seemed to indicate there was an internal crossover from the jet pump to the drivers side float sensor, and VeryWhiteDevil described the presence of some type of cross over as well in Post #6. I'll know for sure by the end of this weekend I guess...LOL!

If the V2 module fits, then any aftermarket module would work as well. I would rather retain the OE level of reliability with GM parts since I DD my V, but to each his own. 388 lph of fuel at 60 PSI is quite a bit and likely more than I will ever need.

vmapper

iTrader: (8)

If V2 modules work (as in physically fit), for our V1 application, there is no need to include all this PWM / controllers as noted in the one link in my previous post?

Just straight wire in, using Hotwire kit for example? Will running the pumps exposed vertically and NOT using the Pulsing cause heating issues? (I would wire one constant, and the other off a 5psi Hobbs), so the heat question is regarding the one pump.

So using twin gss342 is just a hair more flow vs the stock V2 setup, I guess id step up to the twin 405lph type setup.

I suppose these V2 modules do not have 'regulators' built into the module being PWM, correct? WHich is what i want, I have a return setup controlled by a fuelab regulator post rail loop.

vmapper

iTrader: (8)

Fingers crossed is right!

Skidmarcx

The V2 pump is return less and does not have a regulator... It's a relief valve for pump shutoff... I'm sure it can used in conjunction with a regulator and install a return line

vmapper

iTrader: (8)

So if this V2 module works for the V1 depth and hole opening. Can the fuel gauge work on just the one driver side float?
How would one hook up the passenger float?

Skidmarcx

Good question... I suppose if the v2 float sensor has the same ohm range it should work without modification ... Or you can install the v2 float sensor on the driver side since its setup the same

vmapper

iTrader: (8)

Well if the V2 Module fits properly, I would get this :
http://www.foreinnovations.com/product_p/17-900.htm

but then there is the float issue, i see the green/black wires are there.
And I also should check to see if this module has the relief valve in place (which would be annoying if its set at 65psi)

DMM

Carl provided the fuel level sensor (FLS) range on the V2, he stated it's from 40-200 ohm's. GM has always taken the average of the sending units for the fuel level reading.

The V2 uses PWM to control the fuel pressure, and it can be adjusted through tuning the PCM. The stand alone PWM kit maintains the fuel pressure in the same manner as the V2, without the PCM. That's why there is no return or fuel pressure regulator on the V2 module, or the aftermarket module. If the FPCM were to fail high and run both pumps wide open, the bypass would open up at 74 PSI.

vmapper

iTrader: (8)

DMM-

Wondering if one can get away with running One sending unit. (drivers side)
I am aware of the Tuning aspect of the PWM for the V2. I dont see a need for the PWM kit though. For regulation, I would still use the Boost referenced FPR on the rails and would be used as a return system. (using ForeInnovation only though) - not GM Pn/19207950.
But using ForeInnovation, its the float issue.
Not sure if the ForeInnovation uses a relief valve as the Cts-v Gen II module has.

Do I have this right?

Also, did you find out anything on fitment? Is the depth of the module good?

DMM

I have not gotten the tank dropped yet...hoping for tomorrow but not definite as of yet. Out of curiosity, I did check two fuel modules I had laying around...don't remember what they were from, or how old they were, but they had the same 33-200 ohm's for the FLS.

I had to stop working at 1700 tonight and be a dad...it happens.

Oh, and I understand where you're at with the PWM kit, especially after already having spent on the upgraded lines and regulator...although I keep forgetting that, LOL.

CarlC

iTrader: (9)

The CTS-V V2 module cannot be run with a Hobb's switch to turn on/off the second pump. Both pumps feed into a common chamber. The outlet of that chamber has the check valve. Hence, the non-running pump acts as a leak.

The CTS-V V2 module poppet valve will start to leak at 68-70psi. It takes 18-20 amps to drive the pump at full power @ 65psi.

If the CTS-V module won't fit then neither will a Gen5 pump. Of the envelopes for the three modules that the PWM kits support, the CTS-V and the LS3 Gen5 are the shortest. The ZL1 needs about a 1/2" more on the minimum height side. All three have about the same extended height.

Since the Fore Innovation part requires an external regulator no other pressure relief valve is needed.

vmapper

iTrader: (8)

CarlC -

Regarding the ForeInnovation aftermarket drop ins:
"Yes, you can run one pump off a Hobbs switch. The pumps are individually checked, so it will not backflow through the non-running pump."
-Justin

I am surprised the GM OE does not operate the same.