Post What Fuel System You're Running!
12-20-2012, 03:06 PM
#82
TECH Regular
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cypress TX
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the V2 or G8 bucket fit into our smaller V1 opening? I'm sure Squash could make their top billet piece 4 7/8" to fit our tank, and they sell G8 bucket cores for *100.
From there I think all we would need to do is figure a way to attach our crossover line to the G8 bucket.
From there I think all we would need to do is figure a way to attach our crossover line to the G8 bucket.
12-20-2012, 03:56 PM
#83
Im going to say, no.
Even though I'm looking for a aftermarket pump setup rather than a OE module swap, the ForeInnovation is marketed as a V2 module replacement and is 129mm (just over 5"). The opening is under 5" based on DMMs findings.
Custom built cnc or similar looks like the required route.
Even though I'm looking for a aftermarket pump setup rather than a OE module swap, the ForeInnovation is marketed as a V2 module replacement and is 129mm (just over 5"). The opening is under 5" based on DMMs findings.
Custom built cnc or similar looks like the required route.
Last edited by vmapper; 12-20-2012 at 06:25 PM.
12-20-2012, 09:25 PM
#84
DMM,
Does the fuel bucket assembly fit in the drivers side?
I know there are a whole slew of possible other issues...
If one runs two buckets (which has been suggested several times - ive found 2009 threads) but not one mentions if this actually works.
lets say, one uses a Y on both return and feed... Y from each bucket feed to single line to filter then rails, regulated, send back return, Y and both return get fuel.
Does the imbalance of one pump pumping more really come into play?
Would the imbalance be corrected with the return feeding both saddles of the tank?
No siphon would exist from one side to the other...
One would just have to make sure the regulator is removed from the bucket, and ensure the bucket is fed from the return line.
Does the fuel bucket assembly fit in the drivers side?
I know there are a whole slew of possible other issues...
If one runs two buckets (which has been suggested several times - ive found 2009 threads) but not one mentions if this actually works.
lets say, one uses a Y on both return and feed... Y from each bucket feed to single line to filter then rails, regulated, send back return, Y and both return get fuel.
Does the imbalance of one pump pumping more really come into play?
Would the imbalance be corrected with the return feeding both saddles of the tank?
No siphon would exist from one side to the other...
One would just have to make sure the regulator is removed from the bucket, and ensure the bucket is fed from the return line.
Last edited by vmapper; 12-20-2012 at 10:17 PM.
12-21-2012, 02:19 AM
#85
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Will the V2 or G8 bucket fit into our smaller V1 opening? I'm sure Squash could make their top billet piece 4 7/8" to fit our tank, and they sell G8 bucket cores for *100.
From there I think all we would need to do is figure a way to attach our crossover line to the G8 bucket.
From there I think all we would need to do is figure a way to attach our crossover line to the G8 bucket.
If I could borrow a G8 or Camaro take out module for fitment we'd know for sure. I checked at my local dealer, they don't have any in the warranty return bin.
Im going to say, no.
Even though I'm looking for a aftermarket pump setup rather than a OE module swap, the ForeInnovation is marketed as a V2 module replacement and is 129mm (just over 5"). The opening is under 5" based on DMMs findings.
Custom built cnc or similar looks like the required route.
Even though I'm looking for a aftermarket pump setup rather than a OE module swap, the ForeInnovation is marketed as a V2 module replacement and is 129mm (just over 5"). The opening is under 5" based on DMMs findings.
Custom built cnc or similar looks like the required route.
DMM,
Does the fuel bucket assembly fit in the drivers side?
I know there are a whole slew of possible other issues...
If one runs two buckets (which has been suggested several times - ive found 2009 threads) but not one mentions if this actually works.
lets say, one uses a Y on both return and feed... Y from each bucket feed to single line to filter then rails, regulated, send back return, Y and both return get fuel.
Does the imbalance of one pump pumping more really come into play?
Would the imbalance be corrected with the return feeding both saddles of the tank?
No siphon would exist from one side to the other...
One would just have to make sure the regulator is removed from the bucket, and ensure the bucket is fed from the return line.
Does the fuel bucket assembly fit in the drivers side?
I know there are a whole slew of possible other issues...
If one runs two buckets (which has been suggested several times - ive found 2009 threads) but not one mentions if this actually works.
lets say, one uses a Y on both return and feed... Y from each bucket feed to single line to filter then rails, regulated, send back return, Y and both return get fuel.
Does the imbalance of one pump pumping more really come into play?
Would the imbalance be corrected with the return feeding both saddles of the tank?
No siphon would exist from one side to the other...
One would just have to make sure the regulator is removed from the bucket, and ensure the bucket is fed from the return line.
A few other things that has to be taken into consideration...the fact that one pump will be pumping a greater distance than the other one, for example.
I think it would be much easier to modify our tank opening and the V2 fuel module (by installing the V1 hat and sealing off the return) than to try and work the bugs out of a dual module system.
Here are the additional measurements in case anyone needs them:
Tank Module:
Outside hat diameter: 5.350"
Inner shoulder diameter: 4.450"
Top of hat (lock ring I.D.): 4.450"
Module Seal:
I.D: 4.455" (approx)
Thickness: 0.200"
Width: 0.400"
Fuel Tank:
Module opening (I.D.): 4.677" (Beginning of O-Ring sealing surface)
Module O-Ring Seal Surface (O.D.): 5.295"
Last edited by DMM; 12-21-2012 at 02:27 AM.
12-21-2012, 02:38 AM
#86
By the way, you can take the edge off the locking ring by prying up on the tabs a little bit with a massive flat-blade screwdriver. I actually bent the tip on my biggest Craftsman screwdriver doing it, so those tabs are ridiculously strong. It'll still seal just fine, and it'll make rotating the ring only 1/2 of a PITA instead of full one.
12-21-2012, 09:40 AM
#87
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
F@#k it....just ordered the V2 pump from my dealer, should have just done this to begin with even though it's $500+ with the float. I already have the tank and rear reinstalled, but have the 8.8" on the way so it will be apart again before too long.
Time to start cutting random holes in some scrap metal with my duct hole cutter and see what the smallest hole this damn thing will slide through is.
Time to start cutting random holes in some scrap metal with my duct hole cutter and see what the smallest hole this damn thing will slide through is.
12-21-2012, 09:50 AM
#88
Interesting discussion.
Scenario: twin stock buckets (one driver/ one passenger) the possibility of a starved bucket due to a non xover jet pump aiding in keeping the bucket full during high demand. - good point. but what happens when the drivers side is empty and the passenger is not? Would this not happen in a OE setup?
the distances is easy, no?... same length feed line from each side to a common Y fitting. same thing coming back with the return.
Would the difference in pump outputs really be a concern?
Lots of questions.
Perhaps another question i have is, does the Vaporworx controller have the ability to ignore the spike and voltage drop that would be seen during manual shifting when mashing on it? (rich with let off - the pump reduces voltage to bring the pressure down and lean with tip in, pressing back on the throttle, which will cause a lean condition. - low pressure).
Ive heard of high HP applications where the regulated mechanical (where pump output is never reduced) is easier to calibrate and removes these spikes and troughs in the rail pressure.
Scenario: twin stock buckets (one driver/ one passenger) the possibility of a starved bucket due to a non xover jet pump aiding in keeping the bucket full during high demand. - good point. but what happens when the drivers side is empty and the passenger is not? Would this not happen in a OE setup?
the distances is easy, no?... same length feed line from each side to a common Y fitting. same thing coming back with the return.
Would the difference in pump outputs really be a concern?
Lots of questions.
Perhaps another question i have is, does the Vaporworx controller have the ability to ignore the spike and voltage drop that would be seen during manual shifting when mashing on it? (rich with let off - the pump reduces voltage to bring the pressure down and lean with tip in, pressing back on the throttle, which will cause a lean condition. - low pressure).
Ive heard of high HP applications where the regulated mechanical (where pump output is never reduced) is easier to calibrate and removes these spikes and troughs in the rail pressure.
Last edited by vmapper; 12-21-2012 at 10:07 AM.
12-21-2012, 10:20 AM
#89
Perhaps Im just looking for a definitive reason as to why the twin bucket idea will not work.
I know there have been years of discussions, and pictures of twin buckets used, yet not one thread comes to a definitive end of "it works for my 650rw application" or "This does not work, I had to go to a fuel cell"
I know there have been years of discussions, and pictures of twin buckets used, yet not one thread comes to a definitive end of "it works for my 650rw application" or "This does not work, I had to go to a fuel cell"
12-21-2012, 03:48 PM
#92
what if one could mount a remote pick up on both the driver and passenger side of the saddle, use two buckets and have a crossover pipe to each side. X
Both Jet pumps would be fed from the opposing tank side.
Same length return and feed lines to Y connections. Both pumps run all the time (gss341s lets say).
Regulated at rails for my example.
Would only have to do some wiring for the use of the float on the drivers side (bucket)
This removes:
the favoring pump scenario
non equal pump distances
thoughts?
Both Jet pumps would be fed from the opposing tank side.
Same length return and feed lines to Y connections. Both pumps run all the time (gss341s lets say).
Regulated at rails for my example.
Would only have to do some wiring for the use of the float on the drivers side (bucket)
This removes:
the favoring pump scenario
non equal pump distances
thoughts?
12-22-2012, 02:07 AM
#93
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
VMAPPER - Haven't been ignoring you, just going over several possible scenarios in my head before I throw them out there.
The Walboro 255 and DW 300 pumps seem to work very well in our OE configuration, however they are both going to be handicapped by the OE fuel module bucket from what Mark has stated (as evidenced from the flow testing that he has had completed referenced from the Adobe file below). I found his flow test information and it seems the DW300 flows 207 LPH @ 60 PSI compared to an actual 98 LPH for the OE unit untouched, which is factory rated at 190 LPH. It looks as if the OE bucket consumes about 70 LPH or so for some reason, wondering if this is the design of the bucket or the jet pump parasitic loss? Keep in mind the Walboro would flow less than the DW.
Taking away from what CaddiVette (2006 twin turbo CTS-V) did with installing his secondary fuel pump long ago, he installed a boost referenced second in tank pump which secured to the drivers side float assembly. The problem with this (as we now know) is that the drivers side gets drawn down first by design which not only leads to starvation issue's, but will also lead to overheating, which will eventually cause failure as well.
So, building on everyone's combined efforts, here is what i'm thinking in the absence of a viable V2 pump assembly retrofit:
1. Install the DW300 pump in the OE fuel bucket and retain the OE return line, regulator, and crossover from the driver side sump. We now know that this exact setup is known to be tested to a real world 200 LPH @ 58 PSI.
2. Modify the driver side float assembly in nearly the same manner as CadiVette did, only with a Bosch 044 external pump. The use of the external pump will facilitate piping a remote pick up to the passenger sump which we now know is always the "full" side of the tank (the Bosch external pumps have been used in tank without consequence). The remote pickup line can be secured to the existing in-tank crossover pipe as not to interfere with either of the float assemblies, and the remote pickup filter may even be able to be secured to the outside of the passenger side fuel bucket. The Bosch unit would have to be boost referenced using a hobbs switch or wired to the N2O circuit (pick your poison).
3. Run standard -6 AN line from the drivers side float assembly hat, and ensure there is an inline check valve installed in the Bosch 044 supply line. Continue installation as CaddiVette did by using a -6 AN adapter on the OE fuel bucket supply in order to interconnect both -6 AN lines using a "Y" block. From the "Y" block, -6 AN line to another adapter in order to properly connect to the OE style fuel filter (for the sake of simplicity).
Let me know what you think.
Credits:
CaddiVette's fuel system pic's: http://s1199.beta.photobucket.com/us...view=slideshow
Mark's informative DW 300 thread: http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums...pump-info.html
External Bosch 044's being used in-tank (post's 6,7,18): https://ls1tech.com/forums/fueling-i...fuel-pump.html
The Walboro 255 and DW 300 pumps seem to work very well in our OE configuration, however they are both going to be handicapped by the OE fuel module bucket from what Mark has stated (as evidenced from the flow testing that he has had completed referenced from the Adobe file below). I found his flow test information and it seems the DW300 flows 207 LPH @ 60 PSI compared to an actual 98 LPH for the OE unit untouched, which is factory rated at 190 LPH. It looks as if the OE bucket consumes about 70 LPH or so for some reason, wondering if this is the design of the bucket or the jet pump parasitic loss? Keep in mind the Walboro would flow less than the DW.
Taking away from what CaddiVette (2006 twin turbo CTS-V) did with installing his secondary fuel pump long ago, he installed a boost referenced second in tank pump which secured to the drivers side float assembly. The problem with this (as we now know) is that the drivers side gets drawn down first by design which not only leads to starvation issue's, but will also lead to overheating, which will eventually cause failure as well.
So, building on everyone's combined efforts, here is what i'm thinking in the absence of a viable V2 pump assembly retrofit:
1. Install the DW300 pump in the OE fuel bucket and retain the OE return line, regulator, and crossover from the driver side sump. We now know that this exact setup is known to be tested to a real world 200 LPH @ 58 PSI.
2. Modify the driver side float assembly in nearly the same manner as CadiVette did, only with a Bosch 044 external pump. The use of the external pump will facilitate piping a remote pick up to the passenger sump which we now know is always the "full" side of the tank (the Bosch external pumps have been used in tank without consequence). The remote pickup line can be secured to the existing in-tank crossover pipe as not to interfere with either of the float assemblies, and the remote pickup filter may even be able to be secured to the outside of the passenger side fuel bucket. The Bosch unit would have to be boost referenced using a hobbs switch or wired to the N2O circuit (pick your poison).
3. Run standard -6 AN line from the drivers side float assembly hat, and ensure there is an inline check valve installed in the Bosch 044 supply line. Continue installation as CaddiVette did by using a -6 AN adapter on the OE fuel bucket supply in order to interconnect both -6 AN lines using a "Y" block. From the "Y" block, -6 AN line to another adapter in order to properly connect to the OE style fuel filter (for the sake of simplicity).
Let me know what you think.
Credits:
CaddiVette's fuel system pic's: http://s1199.beta.photobucket.com/us...view=slideshow
Mark's informative DW 300 thread: http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums...pump-info.html
External Bosch 044's being used in-tank (post's 6,7,18): https://ls1tech.com/forums/fueling-i...fuel-pump.html
Last edited by DMM; 12-22-2012 at 07:59 AM.
12-22-2012, 08:50 PM
#94
Well since nobody asked, here's the deal. I drew up a system to fit the V1 many months ago but never took it to production because I didn't think there was much demand for it. There are a couple issues as well:
1) In order to squeeze in the bucket from a G8, V2, or 5th Gen Camaro you need to trim the tank inside of the gasket area a smidge. I would prefer to use the Camaro bucket so we can use fat bottom Walbro pumps, and the trimming wouldn't be nasty. You will have a really hard time fitting them in the tank without trimming, especially when you try to get the nipple in there for the crossover. Not really a big deal.
2) We would need to manufacture an adapter hose with fittings for the crossover line that's in the tank. It will suck plenty of fuel from the other side of the tank, no issues there.
It's pretty spiffy, the supply and return fittings shoot right over the side of the tank so lines are easy to fab up. The level sender is oriented the same way, should work perfectly. I would prefer to use a bucket of some sort instead of just hanging pumps in the tank.
Andy
1) In order to squeeze in the bucket from a G8, V2, or 5th Gen Camaro you need to trim the tank inside of the gasket area a smidge. I would prefer to use the Camaro bucket so we can use fat bottom Walbro pumps, and the trimming wouldn't be nasty. You will have a really hard time fitting them in the tank without trimming, especially when you try to get the nipple in there for the crossover. Not really a big deal.
2) We would need to manufacture an adapter hose with fittings for the crossover line that's in the tank. It will suck plenty of fuel from the other side of the tank, no issues there.
It's pretty spiffy, the supply and return fittings shoot right over the side of the tank so lines are easy to fab up. The level sender is oriented the same way, should work perfectly. I would prefer to use a bucket of some sort instead of just hanging pumps in the tank.
Andy
12-23-2012, 12:51 AM
#95
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Well since nobody asked, here's the deal. I drew up a system to fit the V1 many months ago but never took it to production because I didn't think there was much demand for it. There are a couple issues as well:
1) In order to squeeze in the bucket from a G8, V2, or 5th Gen Camaro you need to trim the tank inside of the gasket area a smidge. I would prefer to use the Camaro bucket so we can use fat bottom Walbro pumps, and the trimming wouldn't be nasty. You will have a really hard time fitting them in the tank without trimming, especially when you try to get the nipple in there for the crossover. Not really a big deal.
2) We would need to manufacture an adapter hose with fittings for the crossover line that's in the tank. It will suck plenty of fuel from the other side of the tank, no issues there.
It's pretty spiffy, the supply and return fittings shoot right over the side of the tank so lines are easy to fab up. The level sender is oriented the same way, should work perfectly. I would prefer to use a bucket of some sort instead of just hanging pumps in the tank.
Andy
1) In order to squeeze in the bucket from a G8, V2, or 5th Gen Camaro you need to trim the tank inside of the gasket area a smidge. I would prefer to use the Camaro bucket so we can use fat bottom Walbro pumps, and the trimming wouldn't be nasty. You will have a really hard time fitting them in the tank without trimming, especially when you try to get the nipple in there for the crossover. Not really a big deal.
2) We would need to manufacture an adapter hose with fittings for the crossover line that's in the tank. It will suck plenty of fuel from the other side of the tank, no issues there.
It's pretty spiffy, the supply and return fittings shoot right over the side of the tank so lines are easy to fab up. The level sender is oriented the same way, should work perfectly. I would prefer to use a bucket of some sort instead of just hanging pumps in the tank.
Andy
It sounds as if you were planning on modifying a Camaro/G8 bucket for twin pumps in the as an upgrade? Wouldn't the ZL1 or V2 module work just as effectively?
I think there is sufficient demand for a V1 fuel system that can support upwards of 700 whp. If you couldn't tell by this thread, lots of people circling waiting to jump in.
12-23-2012, 10:20 AM
#96
What about the module HAT? Will the HAT for the module fit after the tank opening has been massaged? Or, will the V1 HAT have to be transferred/grafted onto the Camaro/G8/V2 module assembly?
It sounds as if you were planning on modifying a Camaro/G8 bucket for twin pumps in the as an upgrade? Wouldn't the ZL1 or V2 module work just as effectively?
I think there is sufficient demand for a V1 fuel system that can support upwards of 700 whp. If you couldn't tell by this thread, lots of people circling waiting to jump in.
It sounds as if you were planning on modifying a Camaro/G8 bucket for twin pumps in the as an upgrade? Wouldn't the ZL1 or V2 module work just as effectively?
I think there is sufficient demand for a V1 fuel system that can support upwards of 700 whp. If you couldn't tell by this thread, lots of people circling waiting to jump in.
Andy
12-23-2012, 01:21 PM
#97
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
The Camaro/V2/G8 lids share the same dimensions, and they are all much larger in diameter than the opening in the tank. The lock-down ring also has a smaller diameter on the V1 than all of those others. In my system I would machine a lid specifically for the V1 but use a bucket from the Camaro.
Andy
Andy
If there was a way to get the V2 bucket in the V1 tank, we could use the PWM controller (which removes the necessity of a regulator, return line, etc) and never have to worry about fueling issues ever again. Thought's?
12-23-2012, 01:35 PM
#98
Why would you use the Camaro bucket over the 2009+ CTS-V bucket with twin pumps already installed? Since the Camaro/G8/V2 buckets are so similar, could a hat be made for the V2 bucket instead?
If there was a way to get the V2 bucket in the V1 tank, we could use the PWM controller (which removes the necessity of a regulator, return line, etc) and never have to worry about fueling issues ever again. Thought's?
If there was a way to get the V2 bucket in the V1 tank, we could use the PWM controller (which removes the necessity of a regulator, return line, etc) and never have to worry about fueling issues ever again. Thought's?
Andy
