| Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| Fueling still a problem https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40497 |
Page 3 of 4 |
| Author: | emsvitil [ Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Does fuel actually make the complete loop? If the pump output isn't higher than the regulator, you'll never get fuel flowing thru the system to keep it cool. |
|
| Author: | Sam Powell [ Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the fuel must be making a full cycle. I don't know how I would know for sure, but it cannot possibly be using as much fuel at idle as when running down the road. So, one would think that the extra fuel is going back. I rerouted the input line tonight, but did not start it up. It is raining here tonight, and I didn't want to drive it in the rain now. Another evening. Sam |
|
| Author: | Pierre [ Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sam you only need an inch or two distance of seperation. Don't worry about insulation or anything to that extent, as long as they aren't hugging each other you should be fine. My rear brake stainless flex line is no more then 2" away from the exhaust pipe... Go ahead and do the small stuff. Shield the turbo. Do some driving then feel the lines at the pump / tank. Depending on the extent of heat going into the sump and coming out, we'll go from there. |
|
| Author: | Sam Powell [ Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Will do. It is nice to have something to do with purpose. It feels like progress. Thanks. Sam |
|
| Author: | Sam Powell [ Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Under hood temps |
After relocating the fuel lines to keep them away from hot stuff, I took the car for a ride and made the following observations when I got back: 1. The fuel rail is cooler, (see below) but the fuel pressure is still falling with raise in temp. However, the AF ratio was more stable. It never sent into the hyper lean mode. It went from idle of 13.5 to idle of 14. 1, but cruising the O2 sensor seemed to correct to keep it cruising at 14.8-15.1:1. When I got back I took measurements of temps on lots of stuff, and here is the results: 1. Fuel rail rear..........................144 2. Fuel rail front..........................150 (turbo is closer here) 3. PFR....................................... 114 4. Turbo Exhaust flange.............249 5. Turbo housing........................424 6.Intercooler..............................125 7. Master cylinder.......................113 8. Top Radiator hose...................179 9. Thermostat housing ................216 10.Intake manifold......................175 11. TB delivery tube....................125 12. TB........................................152 13. Fuel line delivery, ..................131 14. Pass inner fender...................106 15. Drivers inner fender...............110 (turbo is on this side, but is vented also) So I have several questions and a couple of observations. Do you see anything troubling in relationships of various temps here? Is fuel still too high. I have not changed the return line entry yet, and have not added a cooler to the return line. It is definitely better, and feel it is worth pursuing this more. I plan on moving the turbo over enough to get a good shield on it when I get back from vacation at the end of the month. The old shield required a slit in it for the T B throttle cable plate, which had to make it less effective. Since the fuel rail is attached to the intake manifold with aluminum brackets, I was wondering if I could engineer some brackets that had a plastic or rubber interface with the rail itself. All it serves to do is keep the rail from blowing out under pressure. So something that wrapped up over the rail and simply sat above it with no hard connections seems like a good idea. Sam |
|
| Author: | Sam Powell [ Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Went to a local speed/tune shop today the specializes in EFI conversions, and he thought the return fuel bubbling in the tank was as big a problem as temperature. He said try to return the fuel in the opposite corner from the pickup or sump. This makes me wish I could find a diagram of the inside of this tank. Does anyone out there have a FSM with a diagram of the configuration of the tank fromthe early 70's that has four tubes sticking out of the upper left corner of the tank? Does one of those tubes go to the rear pass corner? Thanks in advance if you can find this out for me. Sam |
|
| Author: | Sam Powell [ Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
So I'm thinking, ..... what style of return is going to minimize the bubbles in the tank? It seems as if allowing the return fuel to run down the fuel filler will give the bubbles some time to escape to the atmosphere, especially since it is at the top of the fuel filler tube that I placed my vent line. So any escaping gas from the bubbles that needs to can escape out the vent at the top of the tube. As apposed to returning the fuel into the bottom of the tank via the original supply outlet in the gauge/sending unit which will keep any bubbles trapped in suspension until they can float to the surface. Does this logic make sense? Pierre, did you run your return line to the filler pipe? I am pretty sure that is what Lou did for his cars that have gas tanks as apposed to fuel cells. Sam |
|
| Author: | Pierre [ Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sam I just realized unless fuel is boiling there shouldn't be any bubbles in the return. I think the idea is to just keep the hot fuel away from the pump (or sump) inlet so it doesn't get sucked right back into the pressure side and let it dissipate its heat into the rest of the fuel in the tank. Not a bubble issue, but rather a heat dissipation issue. I have my return going into the sending unit. I can't remember if I added a short nipple myself or if it had come that way. If I had to do it again I would probably choose the filler pipe. I don't think running the return through the vents is a good idea, they may not be able to flow enough fuel to be restriction free. I can't be positive, but I thought I remember trying to do that and it caused a restriction. Ahh that's right. When I initially did efi (gm based tbi kit) I went through this. As was described in the vent thread... the 4 vents go to a canister. The canister has one line that goes to the valve cover breather so the crankcase can store the vapors. I tried to run my tbi return through the vapor line but I measured 18psi (gm tbi pressure) in the return line so I knew either the canister or vents were the restriction. Sam don't fuss with the vents. Use the stock sending unit line as a temporary return to see if it helps with the heat issue then you can rig up the fuel line to the filler neck for a more permanent solution. If you still insist on using the vents I can crack open my 71 fsm. I do recall it having some internal tank diagrams in it. |
|
| Author: | Sam Powell [ Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks Pierre. I will run the return back to the stock sending unit for now. That is going to be somewhat close to the sump, but certainly better than directly into the sump. A difference in my proposed set-up, and your previous attempt is that I will not be trying to flow back through the canister as well. I will simply be using which ever one of the tubes or nipples goes to the far rear corner. I think one of them goes to each of the four corners. I vaguely remember seeing a diagram of this years ago, but of course have a pretty shaky memory by now. One thing of interest is that the rear most tube is slightly larger than the rest. If I had been thinking along these lines when I installed it, I would have taken a mirror and looked around in there. For what it is worth, the fellow in question at the speed shop, whose name is George, used to use Rick's Rod Shop for his gas tanks, and had a specific custom design he got Rick to do for him, just to avoid the bubbles he says he is afraid of. He specifically does not use the design that returns the fuel to the sump. Then Rick got so big he would not make a special tank unless he ordered a bunch of them. So I was talking to the counter guy, and not George, and Matt's knowledge fell off sharply when asked about the exact design. There may have been some proprietary thing going on there, by bosses orders. But, if there are bubbles in the fuel upon return, it would be the volatile compounds that are causing them. Especially if the return fuel is under any pressure. There might be a greater propensity for bubbles to form as it expands into the non-pressure atmosphere. Isn't that what happens when you take the radiator cap off a hot engine and it boils over? In that case there is heat for sure. But heat is a relative thing when it comes to a liquid's boiling point. Some of the volatile compounds in fuel will boil at a pretty cool temperatures for starting a cold engine. Thanks again for thinking about this. I appreciate your willingness to dig on a subject like this. It is kind of how you get to the most fundamental, underlying principles when trying to solve a problem. The most useful, and potentially enlightening words can be "Yeah but....." Sam |
|
| Author: | Sam Powell [ Sun Jun 13, 2010 6:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | I think the fueling problem is fixed. |
I know, this could become a good news, bad new joke, but here goes. I won't detail the drama of getting a good, working fuel pressure gauge, but once a got one that was the correct range, and worked, I discovered something very, very shocking. The static fuel pressure the regulator was set at, according to this mechanical gauge was 80 PSI! That's right. 80PSI! I decided to believe it instead of the Autometer electronic gauge in the dash, which read 43psi. I adjusted the PFR down to 43 PSI static, and retuned the REQ_FUEL and the VE tables and went for a ride of about 20 miles. When the pressure is adjusted to 43 static on the mechanical gauge, the electronic one in the cabin reads ZERO. So I was basically trying to blow my injectors out. It is kind of no wonder the fueling was not stable. When I got back to the garage, the fuel rail was now 170, up from the 150 of last night, but the fuel pressure was dead steady, so was the idle, and so was the AF ratio. Halleluah! The temp of the FPR was now 107, which was about the same as last night. So, for now all seems well. There are other tasks to accomplish before the car is really working well, but it is certainly on its way. I felt the bottom of the tank, and it was not warm. Then I looked carefully at the fuel rail, and realized it is closer to the exhaust manifold than it is to the turbo. The standard slant six design is adding as much heat to the fuel rail as the turbo for sure. So, the next task is to build a heat shield for the fuel rail that shields it from the heat of the exhaust manifold. That is at least as much a heat source as the turbo, which I will build a shield for also. Thanks for hanging in there with me. Sam |
|
| Author: | Pierre [ Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Almost double? Hmm, thats too wonky. Does the electric pressure sender have a good ground? Where is the manual gauge vs electric sender hooked up? If it really was running at 80psi... I wonder what that did to the Accel computer I would shield the turbo first. I have "Dual Dutra Dual" manifolds, no turbo, and again my fuel rail is cool to the touch. The fuel tank may be ok, but what about the sump that you can't get to? That's why I asked you to check the lines themselves at the tank I looked at the FSM diagram of the 4 vent tank. They had one generic illustration there but I think it's meant for just that, an illustration. The fuel filler was on one side of the tank and the vents on the other, so I know it wasn't accurate. The A-body specific illustration showed the vent tubes outside the tank but didn't show which tube went to which vent. |
|
| Author: | Sam Powell [ Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pierre, Accel is gone. It is Mega Squirt now. Dropping the fuel pressure down required raising the REQ-FUEL from 15.5 to around 16.5. This is just a constant that is applied in the fueling formulas. You can change the entire map at once by adjusting this number. Then I had to adjust the VE tables to make them richer. But, it all works right now. That is the key. I feel fabulous right now! I feel more confident, and more optimistic, and more gratified with this car project than I have felt since I took the carburetor off of it. I want to jump up and kick my heals. I could hardly sleep last night I was so excited by the direction things are going now. Any problems I encounter at this point will pale in comparison to what I have been through. You cannot imagine the heart aches this challenge created when I would think I had a solution to this ongoing problem, and it would simply come right back. Maybe it is a little too early to celebrate, but I am going out on a limb, and having my own personal, internal victory party. All the money and time I have put into this car are suddenly seeming like a worthwhile thing. I am no longer feeling defeated by it. Do you get my drift here? Before yesterday I felt like this project was never going to be right. I felt like a failure. I did not feel like I could drive long distances with it. I could drive it to work, but not across country. And now the missing link has been uncovered. It is a real car once again. Am I being melodramatic here? I just don;t want you to miss the point. Come celebrate with me. Now on to the gauge saga. It will help you understand why I trust this mechanical gauge (aside from the fact that it runs right now). Gauge number one was a 0-60 psi one and was ordered from Summit. When it arrived, I screwed it in and started the engine. It leaked, and APPEARED to read 0 psi on its face. Without any careful checking I sent it back, and they dutifully sent me another one. I screwed it in: This one didn't leak, but it APPEARED to read 0 on it 0-60 face. I cut the engine off, and .......wait a minute....the needle is falling slowly down to through the numbers. It had been pegged all the way around to the bottom of the gauge. So, logical me, I assumed (you know what they say about that), the gauge had the wrong face on it, and it was really a 0-15 gauge. O me of little faith. After all my expensive Autometer in-dash gauge couldn't be wrong could it? So, I trekked up to Frederick Maryland, where our local speed shop had moved to ( a distance of 25 miles now) and bought one over the counter. This one was liquid filled(what does that liquid do anyway?) and cost twice as much. Maybe that is retail markup, but Summit had more expensive ones also. So when I screwed this 0-100 psi one in and it read 80 PSI, my lightning fast mind began to put 2 and 2 together and it no longer added up to 43psi. And I realized for the first time that the first gauge was probably not bad except for the leak, and dollars to donuts was pegged as well. If three mechanical gauges (I know it is only 2 I can be certain of) all read over 60 psi I think my expensive in-dash gauge is likely the bad guy here. Here is the bottom line: at least for now, the fuel pressure and AF ratios seem to be reliable across varying temperature ranges. Here is another observation that is germain. When you kick the throttle now, the pressure jumps from the vacuum referenced input from 37 to 43 on the mechanical gauge. That is what it is supposed to do. My electronic gauge was not showing that relationship. Now maybe that was because it simply could not pump over 80 PSI and had no room to rise when vacuum dropped off. In fact, I think maybe that explains the loss of pressure when hot. I think the FPR regulator was doing nothing before. I had to turn up on the adjuster a long way before I saw pressure start to drop. The pressure was simply whatever the pump was able to put out. And it obviously dropped off when warm. Which was only a problem because the tuning was for 80 PSI and got too lean at 50 or 60 PSI or where ever it was going when hot. In fact when I lowered the pressure from out under the hood, I had to do it in stages, because the engine wanted to die as I was lowering it. So I lowered it to 60 PSI, kicked up the REQ_FUEL number, lowered it some more, kicked up the REQ_FUEL number ETC. until I had it reading 43 PSI with the vacuum reference unplugged. Plugged in the vacuum line, and voila, 37 PSI just as advertised. I do not think I have to change the fuel return line now. If I change my mind later, I will do it. But for now, this seems to have been the magic bullet. I have been chasing this ghost for 3 years. I switched to ACcel because of it. I switched back to MS because of it. I feel the car is no longer haunted. As my GRandfather used to say, "It is not what you don;t know that hurts you, it is what you know for sure" That makes more and more sense to me as I age. Now, on to other problems. And, you will hear about them. Sam |
|
| Author: | Dart270 [ Mon Jun 14, 2010 7:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sam, That is wonderful news. I am happy that my diagnostic skills are still working... My guess is that everything will work fine now, as far as the EFI/fuel system goes. Boost regulation is the next issue to resolve. Best, Lou |
|
| Author: | Sam Powell [ Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Sam,
That they are. That is wonderful news. I am happy that my diagnostic skills are still working... Lou Sam |
|
| Author: | Rick Covalt [ Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Great news Sam |
Sam that is great news. Now I suggest that you take a test ride up to Hagerstown, Mason Dixon Dragway on July 31 & Aug 1 and just make sure it is really really fixed! Rick |
|
| Page 3 of 4 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|