Independent test of several common pumps, interesting read

http://realstreetperformance.com/sto...on-test-5.html

 

not really a fair comparison. of course the walbro will do the worst when it is the smallest pump of the 4.

 

The point was the hard data on each pump holding the variables constant so people can make a more educated decision on which pump to fit their needs

 

How are the variables constant? They test each pump at a different amperage... Only fair comparison is a constant amperage as a walbro flows quite a bit more at 14 amps than 11. Quite a big jump going up to 17 amp. Maybe I just don't understand the test, can someone fill me in?

 

Amperage is a result of the power requirements of the motor, you do not alter this. You can only compare pump flow at a common voltage.

As for the test results, I am not confident with the results posted. Most of the pumps shown have pressure reliefs set for approx 80psi, so I'm unsure of how they got some of these values.


The test voltage was not disclosed for the flow test or the amperage chart.

I have some personal test results here & they look quite different.

 

Well where are your personal test results?

 

With all due respect, since i dont know you... please dont make comments like this if you aren't familiar with the topic. You are mixing up voltage and amperage. The test was done at 13.2V ... this is the industry standard for testing fuel pumps. I understand it was a simple mistake that many people make, but unfairly discrediting the work of a reputable name like kinsler over a mistake like this could lead people who dont know any better to not trust results that are certainly more credible than most. This test was carried out by a very capable technician at a very respected name in the industry on very capable equipment. Kinsler performed the test for RSP, rsp published the results.

The integrity of the test is sound. The pressure release was at 105psi, the data was truncated to cut off anything after the first pressure relief valve opened to compare only data where the pumps were actively flowing.

This is a very straight forward test with very straight forward results. The point was not to bash the walbro, but to see by how much the pumps differ. The description actually clearly describes how this test proves the walbro worthy for most people.

Lets focus on the results instead of looking for loop holes in the flow readings. I guarantee theres no magic error in there that will shine a holy light on one of the other pumps skewing the ranking of flow.

 

Sorry you are correct and that is why I asked someone to fill me in, like Lonnie did. I did not see the voltage listed or did I have any idea 13.2 volts is industry standard fuel pump voltage. I was not discrediting their work at all, but other test I've seen listed different flow rates at different voltage. Why do you jump to conclusion that I'm looking for "loop holes" or trying to "discredit" anyones work? This benefits me in no way possible as a consumer.

If you beleive public forums are the end all be all for technical information than we have much bigger issues to worry about. I do realize you can alter voltage to the fuel pump and achieve higher flow rates. So what is your agenda here claytonm, as it appears you joined this forum just to comment on this post?

 

I absolutely did join this forum to comment on this post, that is not a secret. Yes you asked someone to fill you in, AFTER you said "Only fair comparison is a constant amperage as a walbro flows quite a bit more at 14 amps than 11" ... this is purely false information from someone confused. my "Agenda" is to clarify the situation. There are people on the forums that dont know any better, and they would learn something from this test that Kinsler performed. But when they read your post, if they assume you know what you are talking about, they might instantly disregard the results thinking "well hey, they didnt hold the amperage constant, i cant trust that" while everyone else is thinking "that guy is mixing up amperage and voltage" ... i know that you didnt MEAN to discredit anyones work, thats why i said i understand it was a simple mistake. But if it wasnt addressed, it would just sit there as false information for everyone to read.

i have nothing against you, but the post existing at all is accidentally discrediting the work.

Like i said before, its a very straightforward test that was completed by a very respected name in the fuel injection industry. The test was held at industry standards so that the data would be comparable and credible. My agenda is not to bash anyone on here, i make mistakes too, so im no better than you. But the thread was veering off course and needed to be steered back straight.

The most interesting thing I think the results show is how large of a portion of the racing community that the walbro is perfectly fine for. Its the least expensive, and most popular option, and most of the people you see out there modding their cars wont over-power one. But at what point does a bigger pump become necessary? which bigger pump is better for what you are doing? do you need more than one? how much power can you make theoretically before you need the second pump? Up until recently, people would guess, or through out very generalized assumptions like "500hp" whether they were talking about turbo cars or all motor cars. This data sheds a little more light on the optimal ranges of each pump and makes it a little bit less of a swing in the dark.

 

I agree with you and appreciate the clarificion. I also appreciate the test results, as they are very informative. Thanks alot and I hope you stick around to learn us fools something

 

Interesting results. I'd like to see those compared to some of the external pumps (IE: A1000 or A2000).

The Amperage draw of the pump while holding the Voltage steady is a rough way to show the actual efficiency curve of the pump/motor combo.

 

The Big External pumps are coming later this year