240hoke Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 Would this work, from my understanding it would. Im just curious, looking for ways to clean up my engine bay. -Austin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 Sure will, thats the same way I ran mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
240hoke Posted October 17, 2005 Author Share Posted October 17, 2005 Sweet, thanks Spraky! I thought so but just wanted to double check before i cut my lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-Gad Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 yep, that'll work, but I wonder, when you are making 400rwhp at 20+ psi of boost, would the injector furthest from the FPR starve a little for fuel. i understand the pressure should be constant across the rail, but I still wonder...hmmm... I have seen many carbed L28's run that way, but the fuel demands/pressure aren't as high as with a turbo car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
240hoke Posted October 18, 2005 Author Share Posted October 18, 2005 Ummm hurm I dunno. I guess technically it shouldnt, but maybe someone with some more engineering education can explain this. I plan on running 20+ psi -Austin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Thats an interesting point, but as you've also mentioned, pressure should be constant across the rail. I would think that if you start loosing pressure in the rail than you have a fuel pump /or regulator problem, as the regulator should keep pressure up as the injectors start dumping fuel. I am no expert (?) and would be interested in some flow calculations or Engineering mojo action on this topic. Although honestly, It seems to me with my little physics knowledge, that this setup would actually be better seeing as how the regulator is regulating pressure by dumping excess fuel instead of having to regulate an entire return line system post rail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
280Zone Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 I just went though this same question in my head but decided to run it the stock configuration. If you run it your way let me know how it works out, I might reconsider reconfiguration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAMIE T Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 I have been advised to run it on the return side of my rail on my RB26. That is they way the are designed to run. You regulate the return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ON3GO Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 well i ran it that way after i ran it the way everybody does.. i thought like you i could clean up my engine bay.. for me it caused problems.. i dunno why because it should work fine that way. but as soon as i put it back the other way the car ran fine.. i dunno.. i do like it that way better though, looks awesome. mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
240hoke Posted October 18, 2005 Author Share Posted October 18, 2005 The only thing that i could think might cause a problem is air could get trapped in the rail. But it seems like it would work itself out very quickly or it could be bleed before startup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 73Turbo240z Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 the presentation factor is definately a plus... but i'd be interested in seeing it with a gauge at the end of the rail where it's plugged and a high boost run... that would put the theory to bed very quickly... i could try it on mine, just invert the flow setup i was planning on for my JSK rail, and plug a 1/8" jegs fuel pressure gauge onto my rail, i'm running 440cc supra turbo injectors, what are you running? try to get a baseline for fuel consumption... mines walboro 255lph, 3/8" line, JSK rail w/ 1/2" diameter main, aeromotive A1000 FPR, and a yet undetermined fuel filter, though i've been looking at russel inline filters, just don't know what micron filter i should use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
240hoke Posted October 18, 2005 Author Share Posted October 18, 2005 Walboro 255, peterson filter, aeromotive AFR, -8AN lines, pallnet 11mm o-ring rail, 550cc lucus injectors. Well Pallnet, and a few others seems to recommend running it the conventional way letting fuel pass through the rail. He said that that he has heard of hte fuel heating up at the end of the rail. I dont know I think I may run the conventional route on this to be safe, i cant risk anything. I would love to hear some expriences with this though. i woudl make for a super clean engine compartment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 I just recently did some testing with an Aeromotive FPR mounted in two different locations. Both were after the rail, so this doesn't directly relate to issue at hand, but the results were very interesting never the less. I found that the distance of the FPR from the fuel rail makes a dramatic difference to fuel flow and pressure in the rail, and I would have to conclude that the ideal location is as close to the rail as possible. In fact, I mounted my FPR directly to the end of the rail. I have datalogs of my air/fuel ratios with the stock ZX regulator, and the Aeromotive FPR attached to the passenger side inner fender and to the end of the fuel rail. You can clearly see the impact on A/F ratios compared with the location of the FPR. As soon as I have some time, I'll do a write up with greater detail, and provide some screen shots of my datalogs. As for mounting the regulator before the rail, I too would be concerned about heat soak. Nigel '73 240ZT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 73Turbo240z Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 I just recently did some testing with an Aeromotive FPR mounted in two different locations. Both were after the rail' date=' so this doesn't directly relate to issue at hand, but the results were very interesting never the less. I found that the distance of the FPR from the fuel rail makes a dramatic difference to fuel flow and pressure in the rail, and I would have to conclude that the ideal location is as close to the rail as possible. In fact, I mounted my FPR directly to the end of the rail. I have datalogs of my air/fuel ratios with the stock ZX regulator, and the Aeromotive FPR attached to the passenger side inner fender and to the end of the fuel rail. You can clearly see the impact on A/F ratios compared with the location of the FPR. As soon as I have some time, I'll do a write up with greater detail, and provide some screen shots of my datalogs. As for mounting the regulator before the rail, I too would be concerned about heat soak. Nigel '73 240ZT[/quote'] keep us updated... i'd like to hear about your findings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
240hoke Posted October 18, 2005 Author Share Posted October 18, 2005 I would love to see your datalogging charts if you can post them up. Are you saying it didnt act as accruatly as it should have or what exactly? This is quite interesting, Im glad I posted this up before I finished routing my lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Based on my observations, I would have to conclude that there is a delay in the response time of the FPR that increases in proportion to the distance from the fuel rail. It also seemed to affect the actual pressure at the rail. Unfortunately, I never had the time to hook up my electric fuel pressure gauge to the datalogger (Techedge WB 02 meter) to confirm this. But looking at my AFR's I can't explain it any other way. Nigel '73 240ZT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 I posted my writeup on FPR mounting location and AFR's as a new topic which can be found here: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=105772 Nigel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Workinprogress Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 I'm not an FI guy nor a turbo guy, but coudnt you just mount a "y" block after the FPR and run equal lenght lines to each end of the fuel rail, then your max distance away from the FPR is reduced by 50% ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Well alot of newer cars run something similar. They fuel pressure around 60psi. The bad things about this is fuel heat up, and you can't run the fpr as a rising rate. The fuel pressure is fairly consistent in the fuel rail. But in returnless systems they take the feed line and split it. So I would take it and put a T in it and put the supply line to both sides if I was going to run this. But remember you can only run this setup with a constant fuel pressure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.