When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Sounds like a good gameplan. I was going to spout off and say you should make sure the pump is safe to run on a duty cycle, but I went ahead and saw that is exactly what the pump is designed to do. Since that is the case, I think it will be a far more modern style of fuel system than the usual return style system.
I know from experience that E85 doesn't like to be returned to the tank after getting heated up by hot fuel rails and an engine bay.
With a well controlled fuel pump, this won't be an issue.
The bigger issue I see is the use of a Y-block. Why? One more point of failure, one more pressure drop, etc. Just run them in series, not parallel.
This is something that I'll be using for my setup as well, to cut down on fuel pulsation with such large injectors:
While I do aim to keep things as simple as possible I want to split the lines in the bay and run parallel. It has been discussed many times on here and the general consensus was that unless you were trying to do something absolutely nuts with fuel, which I am, then you would be fine running in series.
So I've made some moves and will now be moving on to the next part of the setup. I had initially posted on here that I was sold on the Fuelab setup, but after some additional thought I erased the post as I don't yet want to commit to anything while I'm still in the planning of the whole system.
That being said, I picked up a set of ID1300 injectors to serve as my primaries which combined with 4 ID2000 secondaries will give me 11,530 CC/min worth of injector which will be more than enough to cover my needs. I sent my set of ID2000's off to ID for general inspection and testing, and bought the full race fuel sump with the twin -10AN discharge fittings. Before I get into the rest of the system plan I need to figure out how exactly to best go about sumping the OEM tank. I searched on here, and norotors extensively and there is very little information about doing so in general. I've never done this before so bear with me.
What I really need to figure out now to kick it off:
Do i really need to have a radiator shop professionally clean it before having the sump welded on? Some people apparently just rinse it out with soap and water repetitively until no fuel scent remains.
Where is the best place on the tank to have a 11"L X 3.5"W X 1" Max depth sump welded onto the tank so as to take optimum advantage of the OEM in-tank baffling?
What should I do with the fuel vapor valves on the tank? Would it be worth retaining a line on the passenger side one and the charcoal canister and having it through the canister and then vent the outlet of the canister somewhere back there? I'm not really worried about the gas smell, but I would prefer it not extend from the garage into the house.
What I really need to figure out now to kick it off:
Do i really need to have a radiator shop professionally clean it before having the sump welded on? Some people apparently just rinse it out with soap and water repetitively until no fuel scent remains.
-Skeese
i often weld gas tanks. i fill them to the overflowing point and let the hose run for 20 mins. it gets the gas, and there fore fumes out.
i often weld gas tanks. i fill them to the overflowing point and let the hose run for 20 mins. it gets the gas, and there fore fumes out.
So I've now completed the flushing, reflushing, and re-reflushing of the tank. I've let all the remaining moisture evaporate and the dried out the inside using compressed air so I'm fairly certain the tank is clean and ready for cutting and welding.
I'm thinking that it may be worth retaining the fuel vapor valves on top of the tank and simply running lines from each into a tee and then having it vend somewhere in the back?
I'll be getting the fuel sump in today so I'll mark off the area that is going to be cut and welded and begin removing the tanks coating in that area. Any suggestions on how to best remove the coating? I was thinking die grinder with a steel brush wheel.
Either that, or do it chemically with Acetone/Paint Remover spray first, wipe off, then lightly sand/wire brush to a clean welding surface.
I would HIGHLY suggest taking it to a radiator shop once you have the sump welded in and requesting they do 4-5x layers of RED-KOTE for your e85 compatible seal. That's what I found is needed for my 1st Gen tank.
Either that, or do it chemically with Acetone/Paint Remover spray first, wipe off, then lightly sand/wire brush to a clean welding surface.
I personally tried acetone on my tank. Didn't freaking touch it. I had to bear down with a wire wheel attachment on my grinder. Wear a respirator. It gets messy.
Either that, or do it chemically with Acetone/Paint Remover spray first, wipe off, then lightly sand/wire brush to a clean welding surface.
I would HIGHLY suggest taking it to a radiator shop once you have the sump welded in and requesting they do 4-5x layers of RED-KOTE for your e85 compatible seal. That's what I found is needed for my 1st Gen tank.
I've got a friend of mine who's cousin runs a paint shop and he has everything needed to do the sealing. I'll check out the red-kote. I assumed the POR-15 was compatible with E85, but didn't think to check.
Originally Posted by ACR_RX-7
I personally tried acetone on my tank. Didn't freaking touch it. I had to bear down with a wire wheel attachment on my grinder. Wear a respirator. It gets messy.
Thanks man. Noted. I'll be starting on that part this weekend and will be sure to grab a respirator from work tomorrow before I leave!
Will post fitup pics with the sump tomorrow, I just got the Fedex notification that it is at my house.
Alright, so I got the full race sump in. I'm impressed with the quality, but wasn't doubting it would be awesome for what it cost.
That being said, I need to figure out where on my tank it it would be best to weld it on so as to utilize the oem baffling the best I can.
Option A being in the center of the tank centered between the support straps. This would put it right on one of the 'lumps' if you will but would be clear of the oem rubber baffle thing that the fuel pump hanger and return line discharged into.
Option B being to weld it to the flat part of the tank which falls directly under the oem rubber baffling where the return line would discharge. From welding perspective this seems like it would be easier, however I would have to drill holes through the orange fuel container cell thing which would get messy, or I could remove it entirely.
Lastly I was rethinking the fuel vapor valves on top of the tank. I was thinking about maybe having a flange made to replace the valves and then installing a bulkhead fitting into each. I would then split my return line once it reached the tank externally and run a return to each bulkhead port. I could then angle the discharge of each on the inside to send returning fuel any which way I wanted, on both sides of the tank which would in theory reduce the affects of fuel slosh since return fuel would be incoming on both sides of the tank. I'd have to find some other way to vent the tank, but that can't be too hard.
I really first need some input on the sumps location as I want to start grinding off the coating and drilling holes tomorrow. Let me know what you guys think of the split return. It seems like a killer idea to me, but haven't seen anybody else do so which leads me to think there may be some problem with it I'm totally missing.
Lastly I was rethinking the fuel vapor valves on top of the tank. I was thinking about maybe having a flange made to replace the valves and then installing a bulkhead fitting into each. I would then split my return line once it reached the tank externally and run a return to each bulkhead port. I could then angle the discharge of each on the inside to send returning fuel any which way I wanted, on both sides of the tank which would in theory reduce the affects of fuel slosh since return fuel would be incoming on both sides of the tank. I'd have to find some other way to vent the tank, but that can't be too hard.
I really first need some input on the sumps location as I want to start grinding off the coating and drilling holes tomorrow. Let me know what you guys think of the split return. It seems like a killer idea to me, but haven't seen anybody else do so which leads me to think there may be some problem with it I'm totally missing.
-Skeese
Might want to pump your brakes on using the vapor valve ports as fuel returns. That would induce quite a bit of aeration of the fuel and also get rid of a vent port for the tank. The tank does need to breathe when the engine is off. That's why the charcoal canister is there. To capture hydrocarbons and keep them out of the atmosphere. It also allows expansion and contraction.
I recently replaced a fuel tank on a car that collapsed under vacuum from a clogged canister. Eliminating the vapor lines would effectively do the same thing. The car was hot when it was parked. The fuel cooled and sucked the tank down and destroyed it.
Just google image search "fuel tank collapse". Many people have had their older cars fuel tanks crumple inward due to using the wrong fuel cap. Old cars didn't use charcoal canisters (early 70s and prior) but they did use vented caps. A vented cap, may or may not prevent this on the FD tank, but I would not personally take that risk. I personally think it's pointless to eliminate the canister. The primary emission from any car, excluding electrics, is hydrocarbons from fuel. That raw fuel vapor is dangerous and must be dealt with; enter the charcoal canister.
Might want to pump your brakes on using the vapor valve ports as fuel returns. That would induce quite a bit of aeration of the fuel and also get rid of a vent port for the tank. The tank does need to breathe when the engine is off. That's why the charcoal canister is there. To capture hydrocarbons and keep them out of the atmosphere. It also allows expansion and contraction.
I recently replaced a fuel tank on a car that collapsed under vacuum from a clogged canister. Eliminating the vapor lines would effectively do the same thing. The car was hot when it was parked. The fuel cooled and sucked the tank down and destroyed it.
Just google image search "fuel tank collapse". Many people have had their older cars fuel tanks crumple inward due to using the wrong fuel cap. Old cars didn't use charcoal canisters (early 70s and prior) but they did use vented caps. A vented cap, may or may not prevent this on the FD tank, but I would not personally take that risk. I personally think it's pointless to eliminate the canister. The primary emission from any car, excluding electrics, is hydrocarbons from fuel. That raw fuel vapor is dangerous and must be dealt with; enter the charcoal canister.
Are you thinking the additional aeration of the fuel would come from it dumping openly from the top of the tank? It would be extremely easy to use a AN to tube fitting to have the fuel pass through the flange and dump the fuel back into bottom of the tank on either side of the sump
I can find a way to vent the tank outside of these ports. From what I gather the purpose of the charcoal canister is to keep the car from putting out fuel odors due to fluctuations in tank pressure. I currently still have the charcoal canister in place but have been debating removing it as I'm not overly concerned about it smelling, if I accomplish 750, it will be a racecar.
If I were to retain the valves, tee them together with some line, and have the line just open to the atmosphere somewhere near the rear axle would that not serve the purpose of venting the tank? There has to be some sort of filter/vent/canister that is smaller and lighter than the OEM charcoal canister. that hunker is huge.
More importantly...
Does anybody have anything on the placement of the sump? I want to be ready to start making moves on that part tomorrow.
Are you thinking the additional aeration of the fuel would come from it dumping openly from the top of the tank? It would be extremely easy to use a AN to tube fitting to have the fuel pass through the flange and dump the fuel back into bottom of the tank on either side of the sump
That's a better plan, but a 1/2' dump in the usual location with a tube to the sump would probably be sufficient.
I can find a way to vent the tank outside of these ports. From what I gather the purpose of the charcoal canister is to keep the car from putting out fuel odors due to fluctuations in tank pressure.
Not fuel odor. Raw hydrocarbon, fuel vapor. Fuel vapor is still harmful. It's not about smell, it's about pollution. I know I sound like a dirty hippie here, especially since I have an RX7, but I prefer to keep the vapor where it belongs. In the tank.
[/quote]
I currently still have the charcoal canister in place but have been debating removing it as I'm not overly concerned about it smelling, if I accomplish 750, it will be a racecar.
If I were to retain the valves, tee them together with some line, and have the line just open to the atmosphere somewhere near the rear axle would that not serve the purpose of venting the tank? There has to be some sort of filter/vent/canister that is smaller and lighter than the OEM charcoal canister. that hunker is huge.
[/quote]
Yes, you can tee them together. There is a smaller canister available. Get an FC one. Its about the size of a coffee can. Not too big and easy to mount. I'm sure you can get one from a guy parting his car out. Get the bracket too.
More importantly...
Does anybody have anything on the placement of the sump? I want to be ready to start making moves on that part tomorrow.
-Skeese
uuuhhhhhh middle?
Someone else who builds tanks should reply, but most drag racers mount them dead center in the middle. Between two existing baffles should be preferable.
I say most, because when I'm at Pacific Raceways, all tanks seem to be sumped in the middle.
Forgot what type of fuel you're going to be using. But What I don't like about Sumps is the fact that it'll be the low spot in the tank. Meaning that everything that passes by, that sinks,...will get stuck and trapped down in there. And I don't know if you've ever had to clean out an OEM FD fuel tank before...but It's an absolute Pain in the ***... and Nearly Impossible to get to parts of it without rigging up some Makeshift scrubby tool.
Forgot what type of fuel you're going to be using. But What I don't like about Sumps is the fact that it'll be the low spot in the tank. Meaning that everything that passes by, that sinks,...will get stuck and trapped down in there. And I don't know if you've ever had to clean out an OEM FD fuel tank before...but It's an absolute Pain in the ***... and Nearly Impossible to get to parts of it without rigging up some Makeshift scrubby tool.
I agree with you on that it isn't ideal that the sump is the low part of the tank, however I still believe it is my best solution. The downside of the swirl pot setup is that I would have to mount it inside the trunk of the car and as this will still primarily be an on-the-street car and I won't have a divider between the trunk and the cabin I don't want to do that. The only other option being a surge tank mounted under the trunk somewhere but these guys are all extremely expensive. In a perfect world I'd do that, but I can't justify tacking on an additional $700 before additional lines and fittings it would require.
I don't want to go with the in tank setup due to the fuel starvation issues that arise when the car is under half a tank, and given that it is extremely difficult to fit dual 044's in the OEM tank as it is, I can' only imagine doing so with some sort of additional custom made fuel collector in there would be a nightmare.
I'm pretty crafty when it comes to gizmo's and home made gadgets though, I'll start thinking on what I can do to build this makeshift scrubby thing you speak of!
I agree with you on that it isn't ideal that the sump is the low part of the tank, however I still believe it is my best solution. The downside of the swirl pot setup is that I would have to mount it inside the trunk of the car and as this will still primarily be an on-the-street car and I won't have a divider between the trunk and the cabin I don't want to do that. The only other option being a surge tank mounted under the trunk somewhere but these guys are all extremely expensive. In a perfect world I'd do that, but I can't justify tacking on an additional $700 before additional lines and fittings it would require.
I don't want to go with the in tank setup due to the fuel starvation issues that arise when the car is under half a tank, and given that it is extremely difficult to fit dual 044's in the OEM tank as it is, I can' only imagine doing so with some sort of additional custom made fuel collector in there would be a nightmare.
I'm pretty crafty when it comes to gizmo's and home made gadgets though, I'll start thinking on what I can do to build this makeshift scrubby thing you speak of!
-Skeese
The good surge tanks are internal, like on my build (I believe Winfield does them for FD's now too! Coachman Performance IST.) However, it is a non-pressure pump (lift only) and even running the Walbro 416 (e85 pump), it wouldn't be able to keep up. I'm still wondering why you haven't decided on two of these, since e85 is your primary fuel and Bosch 044 claims no more than 10% ethanol for extended periods.
If you were setting the car up for road course, an IST + two EXTERNAL fuel pumps would be the way to go. You'd have fuel capacity of 1.5L minus the pump, which is A LONG sweeper's worth, at least. Zero fuel starvation sounds good to me!
The good surge tanks are internal, like on my build (I believe Winfield does them for FD's now too! Coachman Performance IST.) However, it is a non-pressure pump (lift only) and even running the Walbro 416 (e85 pump), it wouldn't be able to keep up. I'm still wondering why you haven't decided on two of these, since e85 is your primary fuel and Bosch 044 claims no more than 10% ethanol for extended periods.
If you were setting the car up for road course, an IST + two EXTERNAL fuel pumps would be the way to go. You'd have fuel capacity of 1.5L minus the pump, which is A LONG sweeper's worth, at least. Zero fuel starvation sounds good to me!
I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks it's ok to run E85 through Bosch 044's and ID 1000's/2000's.
I haven't decided on two of those because their flow rate drops off sharply under heavy pressure. While the flow rate drop wouldn't cause it to flow less that a pair of the 044's it suggests to me the pump is struggling. I would prefer to use pumps with a less dynamic flow vs pressure curve. Solid. Pushes damn near the same fuel at higher pressures. No dynamic change.
I'm old school in a mechanical sense. I believe if it isn't broken, don't fix it. 044's are battle tested and proven, even on e85.
I'm old school in a mechanical sense. I believe if it isn't broken, don't fix it. 044's are battle tested and proven, even on e85.
I'm not trying to over complicate things.
E85 is less lubricatory than gasoline, so you can expect fuel pumps to wear out more quickly. it would be a good idea to have some kind of fuel pressure info, either a gauge or an ecu input, so you can change the filter(s) when it drops, and or the pump.
also maybe lends credence to a dual speed fuel pump, or something along those lines, but simplicity might be better there
possible that whatever premix you're running makes the fuel pump/E85 thing a moot point.
also maybe lends credence to a dual speed fuel pump, or something along those lines, but simplicity might be better there
possible that whatever premix you're running makes the fuel pump/E85 thing a moot point.
Boost-A-Pump or Weldon Fuel Pump controller (ideally something constantly variable off of MAP pressure) could be a nice addition to keeping the fuel temps down and car streetably quiet.
I was thinking the 2-stroke premix would help with the pumping "dryness" issues as well. Interested to see what comes of this.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks it's ok to run E85 through Bosch 044's and ID 1000's/2000's.
I haven't decided on two of those because their flow rate drops off sharply under heavy pressure. While the flow rate drop wouldn't cause it to flow less that a pair of the 044's it suggests to me the pump is struggling. I would prefer to use pumps with a less dynamic flow vs pressure curve. Solid. Pushes damn near the same fuel at higher pressures. No dynamic change.
I'm old school in a mechanical sense. I believe if it isn't broken, don't fix it. 044's are battle tested and proven, even on e85.
I'm not trying to over complicate things.
I am going on 4 years using 2-ID1000s and 4-ID2000s with 2-044's in an external surge tank and 1-044 as a lift pump. Car has never had anything but E85 in it and has sat extended periods of time when it was to hot to drive. I have had no issues what so ever so far but I do live in a very dry climate.
I am going on 4 years using 2-ID1000s and 4-ID2000s with 2-044's in an external surge tank and 1-044 as a lift pump. Car has never had anything but E85 in it and has sat extended periods of time when it was to hot to drive. I have had no issues what so ever so far but I do live in a very dry climate.
I'd be more impressed with your battery/alternator set up that's able to keep all that happy 👌👍
It would be a good idea to have some kind of fuel pressure info, either a gauge or an ecu input, so you can change the filter(s) when it drops, and or the pump.
also maybe lends credence to a dual speed fuel pump, or something along those lines, but simplicity might be better there
possible that whatever premix you're running makes the fuel pump/E85 thing a moot point.
I'll be running a fuel pressure sensor to the ECU and a gauge. Plan is to set up multiple fuel pressure fail-safes in the ECU the first being such that if the pumps are flowing less than the set base fuel pressure at idle or in any non-boost situation a warming light is triggered essentially letting me know that the filters may need cleaned. The second being that if the fuel pressure drops below X pressure while above X boost the ECU will cut the ignition while the fuel keep flowing. Between the two I should have a pretty good handle on monitoring the pressure.
Originally Posted by SirLaughsALot
Boost-A-Pump or Weldon Fuel Pump controller (ideally something constantly variable off of MAP pressure) could be a nice addition to keeping the fuel temps down and car streetably quiet.
I was thinking the 2-stroke premix would help with the pumping "dryness" issues as well. Interested to see what comes of this.
I have a Boost-A-Pump at my disposal should I choose to use it, but I'm going to first just ensure I wire the pumps correctly with high quality wires and relays sized to meet their needs. If I end up with a fuel pressure drop issue with this setup I'll consider the Boost-A-Pump but I want to try the simple route that doesn't drive the pumps past their intended design first.
Originally Posted by Neutron
I am going on 4 years using 2-ID1000s and 4-ID2000s with 2-044's in an external surge tank and 1-044 as a lift pump. Car has never had anything but E85 in it and has sat extended periods of time when it was to hot to drive. I have had no issues what so ever so far but I do live in a very dry climate.
Good to know. I've seen multiple builds where people run 044's with E85 without issue. I'm not looking for a pump to last 10 years, I'm looking for one that will weekend warrior it when I ask it to and I believe with proper fuel filtration, monitoring, and maintenance I'll be well aware of when the filters need cleaned or the pumps replaced.
IN OTHER NEWS
I spent some time with the die grinder and a steel wire attachment and cleaned out the section on the tank where the sump would be going. It really wasn't bad grinding it off with the die grinder and steel brush. All in all I think I had about 40 minutes in it including multiple beer fridge runs while my crappy air compressor built back up pressure.
I dropped it off for welding and cleanup with D3 Performance Engineering to have the holes drilled and the sump welded yesterday and will be picking it back up this afternoon. They have a reputation here in Houston for being the absolute best automotive fabrication shop in town, so we shall see when I get my tank back. Picture update to come tonight. They gave me hell about the rotary thing when I told them what I was building, but I'm beyond caring about that at this point. It's my car, I like it, and I love being the oddball. Seriously...what is more hooligan oddball style than rolling in a completely stock body FD with a semi-peripheral port motor and huge turbo. Nothing. My kinda weird.
I got a spare "dead" 044 from a friend of mine to use for mock up purposes on the side of my tank. This was the first time I've ever held one and was surprised by the size, weight, and feel of the pump. When holding one, it is clear that it is a serious piece of hardware.
I've ordered a dual 044 mount that I think will best suit my mounting ideas. I'll be reinstalling the tank and mocking up the pump mount on the side of the tank positioned based on the pump/filter/checkvalve/fitting dimensions that I've modeled in cad.
Can somebody provide the link to the study that shows how combining the flow of two pumps into one line causes a 30% reduction in flow? I searched online everywhere and couldn't seem to find anything to support that.
My current plan is to run twin -10AN suction lines to the pumps then twin -8AN lines out of the checkvalve (fitted directly onto the discharge of each pump) and then Y them together and run one line to the front. I'm unsure of whether it would be ideal to Y them together into an -8AN feed line to run to the post pump filter and then into the engine bay or a -10AN feed line.
Lastly, where would be the ideal placement for the post pump fuel filter in relation to the pumps being mounted on the side of the oem tank. Closer to the pumps? Closer to the engine bay? Right in the middle? I'm not sure.
Sorry for the novel. Fuel sump welded pics tonight. Thanks for sticking with me here.
Well...I have been through a couple alternators. Current 180amp and Odyssey battery seem to be doing okay
I currently have the odyssey PC680 but am planning to get a bigger battery and relocate it to the rear bin before the motor gets here while also sending my alternator off to IRP for their 90 to 140 amp alternator upgrade. Seems legit to me and the price isn't bad.
07-15-16, 06:59 PM
