Thanks Phil. Definitly don't have those kind of funds for fuel this season. Maybe next.

 

Here is a curve ball since I am running all -8 feed lines:

The rails that come with the victor Jr I am using are about a -6 pipethread size. Same with the ports on my fuel lab FPR. Is this gonna be a bottle neck issue? Or will I be fine (in theory) just using -6 to -8 reducer fittings?

 

Best of luck sean its black bird lol....hey you running a carb setup ?? You still gonna be going to rick ???

 

Rick will tune the car. I am running an EFI victor Jr. this year.

 

Nce...Build is looking great. Cant wait to see the finished results

 

3/8 npt inside diameter is just slightly bigger than -8 inside diameter. youre good to go.

 

oh ****. i was totally supposed to upgrade my fuel system over the winter!

well sounds good yep and thanks for the reminder. lets see it in real life!

 

The other standard layout would be -12 from the sumped fuel tank to a big single pump (Magnafueler is good or a Weldon if you like the noise haha). Put a filter before and after the pump to be safe. Then -10 up to the engine bay to a splitter with a -8 to each rail. Send it back with a -6 or -8 back to a fuel cooler for the streets and -6 or -8 return to a the tank.

I prefer the single pump config because they can certainly move the fuel that you need and it probably cost less to run one pump and a bigger line than it costs to run two pumps with dual filter setups and two lines.

If you feel the need to go to the dual pump isolate line config, I'd still merge both lines into a splitter to a -10 and then split them back to a -8 to each rail. That way if a pump fails on the street, you still get fuel to all cylinders and to get home. If one fails at the track, you have a better chance of keep some fuel going to cool down while you shift to neutral and shut off the engine during a pass. I just think having the one fuel rail go completely dry while the other is going full power while not be a happy experience for the engine during a pass.

It's different for each project planner but that's just my opinion which is worth 1.5 cents when adjusted for inflation.

Rick

 

Interesting take. I'll have to chew on this.

 

lolol

 

I dont like how you have your pumps pushing each side of the motor. if one of your pumps take a **** then by by motor. if you ran a y block after the pumps you have insurance. also why are you not running filters after the pumps?

 

Your diagram looks fine ninetres.

Although I would question the flow data posted. I tested my setup with dual 044's albeit at 13.1volts was the highest I could achieve with a non-running engine for the test.

At that level at 60psi base, it is some 100 litres per hour lower than the data posted above.

14.0v may see it just over 500 lph.

As for splitters and Y's. Doesnt matter a damn what way its configured. If there are check valves after each pump, fuel flow would be maintained to both rails in the event of a failure.
If there is no check valves, it will try and pump fuel back through the other pump. Although it would still also supply fuel to the injectors and would likely still drive.

I dont know the layout of caindo's setup in the diagram. I would not do it like that though. Feed has adequate size, return appears not to. And fuel rails are plumbed oddly.

Ideally stick with full flow rails as you have drawn yourself.

 

Wont make any difference the way he has it, or with a Y.

 

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I totally went another direction

I am running one 1800hp fuelab pump, -10 feed, dual -8 y-fitting to rails.

Only issues I seem to have at this point is the 90* an fittings I have coming off the sump. I have read a couple places that it restricts flow. Thoughts?

 

Obviously anything other than straight has the potential to restrict. Most proper brands fittings will claim that they are full flow, with no size reduction etc on any part of the bend.

But the fact it is a bend, must hinder it slightly. Ideally you'd keep any tight bends to a minimum, but in practise this is hard to achieve. Unless you have a load of them in front of the pump ( ie tank to pump ) I wouldnt worry about it.

Out of interest, what pump did you go for ?

I was looking at some Magnafuel ones recently, and some adverts claimed like 2000bhp, yet others as low as 1250 for the same pump. They didnt seem to be too open about pressure vs flow etc, n/a carb use versus efi forced induction etc.

Although they do seem to offer some fantastic pumps that dont use a lot of current.

 

As posted, a fuelab 1800hp pump. Nasty Nate can get you a price on one. I hear they are good for a real 1500rwhp on an FI car.

 

I'm going fuelab as well, but using the 42401 instead of the 42402 like you. I need more pump than twin walbros can supply for E85. Your setup should be more than enough for your goals.

 

how much are either of those pumps, do they have a lifetime warranty? what happens when they are run say 6-12 hours straight at full voltage?

 

The flow figures do seem very high....although comparable Magnaflow pumps seem to suggest they flow a lot more, yet support less hp ??

All their stats are very confusing, if not misleading. Although they really do start to draw some current as the pressure goes up.

Fuelab stuff looks quite compact though for the power claims.

Magnaflow claim their units can be run long term no problem. Are the Fuelab pumps similar as MM says ?

How noisy are they ?

 

No experience with them yet. 2 year warranty. Their site says they are very quiet because they have a brushless something-or-other that is patented. They also have a system where they only run at half speed (or so) for cruise, and full power for WOT. Pretty nifty. I have heard nothing but good things about them from vendors, and people who have seen them at sema and whatnot.

I will definitly post results of how I like it. It seems pretty beefy in person. Seems bigger and badder than an A1000 to say the least.