Thanks Dan, and Cars. I'll look at those suggestions.My system with turbo, in theory needs at least 50 psi at 216 lbs /hour. If the Aeromotive pump provides 45 at 325, it seems as if 50 aor even 60 would be possible ast 216. Am I right about that, or is my logic flawed?


Sam

_________________

Dan, I am a little confused. I checked the charts on the Walbro pumps, and they are shown in the chart to have a maximum of 70 GPH. This is way short of the 216 my calculations indicated are needed, and way, way below the indicated 325 GPH for Cars Aeromotive pump. Could they possibily mean maybe LPH which would make the GPH 3.8 times the chart, or 266 GPH? What am I missing here?

Sam

_________________

litres per hour is 3.785 times gallons per hour, not the other way round (there are 3.785 litres in a gallon). Are you sure your setup needs 216 gph...? I'm not intimately familiar with your car, but that seems way, way high to me.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

OOPS ! I have 36lb/hr injectors which would be 216 maxed out, or 172 at 80%. I have seen it go up as high as 80% under full boost. Thanks for pointing out what I was missing. Now tell me what else I am missing here. I'm sure it is something.

OH! YEAH! GALLONS PER HOUR! NOT POUNDS PER HOUR. NOW I KNOW WHAT I WAS MISSING. How does that translate? Thanks.

Sam

_________________

A pint is a pound? It is with water, I'm not sure about fuel.

If you figure your injectors at 4.5 gallons/hr. I think it would get you close. (36 / 8 pints in a gallon)

Danny

Gasoline weighs substantially less than water. A gallon of water weighs 8.33 pounds, but a gallon of gasoline averages 6.2 pounds, so your 216 lb/hr maxed out would be ~35 gallons/hr.

Which is much more reasonable just thinking it through, eh? 30% duty cycle at 216 gallons per hour would be ~65 gallons per hour, which would mean a 16-gallon fuel tank would be drained dry in just under 15 minutes!


(reference http://www.santacruzpl.org/readyref/fil ... line.shtml )

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

It kind of seems like the gasoline goes that fast sometimes doesn;t it. Who was the bright guy who started talking lbs /hr anyway? Why can't everybody discuss this in terms of gallons per hour? Or always talk in terms of lbs per hour. But to list injectors as lbs per hour, and fuel pumps in gallons per hour, are they just trying to torture us? So, the bottom line is those pumps are plenty big enough. I will study them and see what looks like it would work. Thanks. Sam

_________________

I don't know why injectors are commonly sized in terms of pounds per hour. I'm guessing (but it's only a guess) that this is a measurement unit that's used during OE fuel system and engine management calibration, and since aftermarket injectors are a byproduct of OE injector development and production, that measurement has filtered out into the public.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

Helicopters use lb/hr.....so do boats

_________________
Yeah....Im the one who destroyed this rare, vintage automobile.....

That's a good point.

_________________
一期一会
Too many people who were born on third base actually believe they've hit a triple.

When they calculate out BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) they use pounds of fuel........

_________________
Ed
64 Valiant 225 / 904 / 42:1 manual steering / 9" drum brakes

I've been trolling the internet on this subject, and here are some thoughts looking for reactions.

The sump kits suggest putting the sump at the back of the tank. This must be for accelration applications only. It seems as if you hit the brake, take a corner and floor it again, the front might be the better place. However, if I put it in the rear, then the external pump would also be in the rear. This would make it further from the passengers compartment, thus quieter. But how low would this hang? Would it be safe back there? I haven't gone out and actually looked at the car. I am only imagining the set up. I could build a box that would bolt to the bottom of the spare tire well. But would that restrict cooling of the pump? PUtting a sump on the rear of the tank would solve several problems, if I can work out the geography of it.

All this comes up since I have a good, in-line, external pump now. Maybe a sump, and move the pump to the back would work just fine.

So to reiterate:
1. Does a sump work OK? Any drawbacks there?
2. Sump on the front, or back?
3. Why are there two outlets on the sumps offered by Summit. I would think dumping the fuel back in the top would be better.
4. Do you think a sump would work as well as an in-tank pump?
5. Any need to further baffle the tank up inside above the sump, which would be open during installation of the sump?
Any thoughts?

I haven't made up my mind yet; still exploring ideas, and learning.

Sam

_________________

I would think that sump design features such as baffles would play a big role in determaning where the sump goes. My first thought is to put it towards the rear because you don't want to starve the engine of fuel under acceleration. When you are on the brakes (front sump) odds are you are off the throttle. Side sloshing should be controlled by baffles but then again, so should front to rear.
I think one of us should find a wrecked hi-po car and cut open the tank to see what the oem is doing with baffles.

(you could just keep the tank full all the time )

One thing I hate about add-on rear sump kits like the Moroso one is all the plumbing, filter, and pumps are just hanging out the rear. Go to a drag strip and look at the back of any drag car. It just looks bad to me.

_________________
Chris'
Autobody
Restoration
Service

That was probably me- its "LH" Mopars. Dodge Intrepid, Chrysler Concorde, Eagle Vision.

The pump is pretty generic as modern pumps go, and can deliver 60 PSI for the MPFI system on the 3.5L v6 (215 horsepower in the gen-1 cars, 253 HP in the HO version of the Gen-II cars). The Gen-1 pumps have enough volume to supply a "return line" pressure regulator, the Gen-2 system is a returnless system with the fuel pressure regulator in the pump itself.

Heres a Napaonline picture of the pump/pickup/gauge sender assembly:

http://tinyurl.com/2k9t7o

In order to use it as a drop-in, the tank top would have to have the correct fitting, gasket surface, and retainer ring. ITs also set up for quick-disconnect fuel fittings, including return and vent lines.

If I were looking to pursue this, I'd probably invest in a junkyard tank to experiment with, take measurements from, etc. And probably ANY vehicle with a pump assembly that drops in through the top would work, so long as your trunk access panel allows you to get at it and enough clearance to remove it.



I suspect that you really wouldn't have to

_________________

Thanks Magnum. I think I would like to keep the fuel regulator and fuel line plumbed as it is,with a return line to the tank. I guess this means the earlier, lower HP rating is what I would look for in an application.

I went on line and got into a thread in a Supra Forum, where they were arguing this very point. There was no agreement there. And there were some very violent, nasty comments being thrown back and forth. It made our disputes sound positively civilized by comparison. Anyway, the discussion made me want to look at the Supra tank and pump set up. The guy in favor of using the OEM arrangment for the Supra claimed it was beyond wonderful. I guess there is no hurry.

Back to the sump, if you put it on the front, then you could hang all that gear where it does not show. And, while the tank was cut open, you could baffle it to minimize the fuel slosh. I was hoping to find a site describing fuel tank baffle theory, but have not so far.

Sam

_________________