Fuel Pump Question
zoooomlander how many of your zzp cars are Daily drive able.....any.....street able.....just aquestion......wheres the third party info as well......everytime i look at the feed back on the zzp site i see none......and i havent heard of anyone using your new fuel boost refferance part either...least know ones bragging about it or talking about using it
http://www.ionforums.com/forums/perf...el-system.html
So i have had this sitting around and finally got off of my ass to put it on (took all of 10 min) but instantly i noticed a difference. For those of you that have been following my build i was maxing out my injectors (60's) at 21lbs (356 HP) wit AFR of 11.8 if i turned up the boost even 1 pound it leaned out to 12.6 So i put the Boost refrenced fuel system on today and instantly the Idle smoothed out. I take it on a pass i noticed my old AFR of 11.8 was now 10.1 so i upped the boost a pound and a half to 22.6 LBS and still had no problem at all. So i just thought i would put this out here for anyone who might have been contemplating buying this. Its worth it. I will try to get IDC logs to compare to the old one so you can see the difference.
By the way i am still going to run the 80's on top of this.
Reaching for that 400 HP then find a way to hold it on the ground...LOL
By the way i am still going to run the 80's on top of this.
Reaching for that 400 HP then find a way to hold it on the ground...LOL
Senior Member
Joined: 08-13-05
Posts: 5,733
Likes: 1
From: the glove
So..basically, the REAL fix to our cyl #4 issues is with a new fuel rail, one that tapers off at a faster rate, or to increase fuel rail pressure enough to put the fuel rail pressure/peak flow rates back into the ratio that the stock fuel rail taper rate was designed for
its not an injector issue.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: 08-09-07
Posts: 992
Likes: 0
From: Columbus, Ohio
Understand that the reason a venturi has a pressure differential is because of the change in velocity of the fluid. Now take a rail that is flowing capacity at the feed end at a given pressure. As the injectors empty the rail, what happens to fuel velocity across it? Now can you correlate how the rail itself can be a venturi?
So..basically, the REAL fix to our cyl #4 issues is with a new fuel rail, one that tapers off at a faster rate, or to increase fuel rail pressure enough to put the fuel rail pressure/peak flow rates back into the ratio that the stock fuel rail taper rate was designed for
This discussion is changed to debating the details of physics that do not apply to the fuel rail but for the sake of discussion I will oblige with a reply and a comment.
Read the definition above regarding a venturi and think about what Witt and Hunter are thinking about and putting into words.
Two things. One comment is discussing the fuel rail taper. The idea I believe Hunter is discussing is to taper a rail faster to increase it's pressure at later injectors. In your head this seems to make sense, you picture fuel having to travel faster because the tube is smaller. The problem is that this is the opposite of what would happen. Read the Wiki definition again. Pressure must decrease if velocity increases! So Hunter's idea would be backwards.
Continuing on. The rail does have some taper to it, although no one here has cited how much taper it is or given measurements. But this ignores a vital part of the system. Imagine that your engine is at WOT and requires 4 liters per minute of fuel (simple for math's sake). How much fuel does each injector then flow? Answer: 1 liter per minute because there are 4 injectors. So how much fuel flows into the rail per minute? Answer: 4 liters. How much fuel flows past the first injector to the other 3? That's right, 3 liters. Then 2 liters flows past the 2nd injector and so on. So now that you have this pictured in your head what does the flow rate (or velocity) of the fuel do? That's right, slows down. Unless your taper was greater than the drop in flow past each injector, the pressure must rise according to physics, Witt and Wikipedia. And guess where pressure it highest? That's right, injectort 4.
So let's continue....
Why doesn't cylinder 4 get a ton of fuel since physics dictates pressure increases with a venturi effect? The answer is because the venturi effect is so small that it's not worth discussing. Same with pressure loss from the pump to the rail. Sure we can do math and plug the velocity along with change, etc and do the math but when you do the numbers are not worth discussing. It's like arguing if your car gets better mileage when it's washed.
So how does a return system or raising pressure help this equation? It doesnt.
In a return system the engine from the example above requiring 4 liters per minute may have a pump thats flowing 5 into the rail. 4 liters get used, one returns to the tank. This decreases the velocity change and actually gives the opposite of what you guys are looking for according to the formula for determining the venturi effect. But again. We are talking about 60.002 psi vs. 60.003 psi (as example). It really doesnt matter.
Witts comment As the injectors empty the rail is a false statement. The injectors can never empty the rail. Pressure cannot change in the rail because its being fed 60 psi all the time. I would guess that Witt thinks pressure in the rail is dropping and thats why he believes that increasing pressure will help keep the rail full but it makes no difference if you have 1 psi or 1000. Pressure in the rail cannot be different than what its being fed because liquid cannot have different pressures when its in the same system (yes, venturi I know but there is no venturi here, see examples and wiki explanation of what a venturi is)
Anyone who looks up a venturi or who has built one, you know that it requires DRASTICALLY different angles and flows and such than what we are discussing here.
I can explain the testing that was done with the tubes and rail as well but for now I will just comment on the logic methods here. They arent very well thought out. We started with a problem of cylinder 4 blowing. It was then ASSUMED that the cylinder was lean and people started coming up with wild ideas why. Its like a religious person who knows the earth is 6k yrs old and has to go look for answers to match that. The proper way to be smart about mods is to directly test your ideas. AKA install a wideband in 1 and 4 if you want to know and check. No guess work. Then swap the variable (injectors 1&4) and rerun the test.
Finally to those that keep posting rhetoric, insults and worthless babble; you only show your own inability to participate in an intellectual conversion.
Interesting reading all the important topics about our fuel system. (And skipping over all the **** in between...) I'm not going to dive into the fluid dynamics discussion, but that fishtank clearly shows there somehow was a fuel distribution problem with these higher flow injectors. (39 <> 41ml is a 5% difference. As injectors seem to vary up to 6%, I assume that calibrated injectors were used for this test?)
Raising the pressure seems to lessen the effect on the standard rail distribution problem (and on my European Ecotec a manifold pressure regulated return style fuel sytem is standard OEM), but another solution can be a dual feed rail. Saw that a few times on higly tuned 4 cyl. engines with apparent distribution problems => Fuel enters from both sides (cyl 1 & 4) and leaves in the middle through a pressure regulator. (Return system.)
Just an idea...
Raising the pressure seems to lessen the effect on the standard rail distribution problem (and on my European Ecotec a manifold pressure regulated return style fuel sytem is standard OEM), but another solution can be a dual feed rail. Saw that a few times on higly tuned 4 cyl. engines with apparent distribution problems => Fuel enters from both sides (cyl 1 & 4) and leaves in the middle through a pressure regulator. (Return system.)
Just an idea...
Hey Witt, do you honestly think that Zooomer will ever admitt he is wrong here? That guy has too much pride to ever go there, rather he will continue to contradict and mislead himself and it will never stop. I truly believe that anyone in there right mind lets all of Zoooms shi* in one ear and out the other. It gets old after a while.
Rent me! per hour
Joined: 03-22-07
Posts: 24,161
Likes: 20
From: Still fixing others mistakes.
all this talk about pressure this, pressure that. not a damn thing about volume. doesn't surprise me honestly.
number 4 doesn't self destruct due to lack of fuel. people were looking for something to point their fingers at, and this was it. while wrong. it gave them self comfort. similar to the b series honda were it favors to **** the number 3 cylinder.
number 4 doesn't self destruct due to lack of fuel. people were looking for something to point their fingers at, and this was it. while wrong. it gave them self comfort. similar to the b series honda were it favors to **** the number 3 cylinder.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: 08-09-07
Posts: 992
Likes: 0
From: Columbus, Ohio
ok so again, what would you guys inconclusion to all of this information think would be the best possible solution to fixing this problem, can we do my idea maybe make rails to match each of the flow rates of each injector to copensate for flow, or can we do speedytec's idea;
"Originally Posted by Speedytec'
"Interesting reading all the important topics about our fuel system. (And skipping over all the **** in between...) I'm not going to dive into the fluid dynamics discussion, but that fishtank clearly shows there somehow was a fuel distribution problem with these higher flow injectors. (39 <> 41ml is a 5% difference. As injectors seem to vary up to 6%, I assume that calibrated injectors were used for this test?)
Raising the pressure seems to lessen the effect on the standard rail distribution problem (and on my European Ecotec a manifold pressure regulated return style fuel sytem is standard OEM), but another solution can be a dual feed rail. Saw that a few times on higly tuned 4 cyl. engines with apparent distribution problems => Fuel enters from both sides (cyl 1 & 4) and leaves in the middle through a pressure regulator. (Return system.)
Just an idea... "
So any ideas? or solutions?
"Originally Posted by Speedytec'
"Interesting reading all the important topics about our fuel system. (And skipping over all the **** in between...) I'm not going to dive into the fluid dynamics discussion, but that fishtank clearly shows there somehow was a fuel distribution problem with these higher flow injectors. (39 <> 41ml is a 5% difference. As injectors seem to vary up to 6%, I assume that calibrated injectors were used for this test?)
Raising the pressure seems to lessen the effect on the standard rail distribution problem (and on my European Ecotec a manifold pressure regulated return style fuel sytem is standard OEM), but another solution can be a dual feed rail. Saw that a few times on higly tuned 4 cyl. engines with apparent distribution problems => Fuel enters from both sides (cyl 1 & 4) and leaves in the middle through a pressure regulator. (Return system.)
Just an idea... "
So any ideas? or solutions?
ok so again, what would you guys inconclusion to all of this information think would be the best possible solution to fixing this problem, can we do my idea maybe make rails to match each of the flow rates of each injector to copensate for flow, or can we do speedytec's idea;
"Originally Posted by Speedytec'
"Interesting reading all the important topics about our fuel system. (And skipping over all the **** in between...) I'm not going to dive into the fluid dynamics discussion, but that fishtank clearly shows there somehow was a fuel distribution problem with these higher flow injectors. (39 <> 41ml is a 5% difference. As injectors seem to vary up to 6%, I assume that calibrated injectors were used for this test?)
Raising the pressure seems to lessen the effect on the standard rail distribution problem (and on my European Ecotec a manifold pressure regulated return style fuel sytem is standard OEM), but another solution can be a dual feed rail. Saw that a few times on higly tuned 4 cyl. engines with apparent distribution problems => Fuel enters from both sides (cyl 1 & 4) and leaves in the middle through a pressure regulator. (Return system.)
Just an idea... "
So any ideas? or solutions?
"Originally Posted by Speedytec'
"Interesting reading all the important topics about our fuel system. (And skipping over all the **** in between...) I'm not going to dive into the fluid dynamics discussion, but that fishtank clearly shows there somehow was a fuel distribution problem with these higher flow injectors. (39 <> 41ml is a 5% difference. As injectors seem to vary up to 6%, I assume that calibrated injectors were used for this test?)
Raising the pressure seems to lessen the effect on the standard rail distribution problem (and on my European Ecotec a manifold pressure regulated return style fuel sytem is standard OEM), but another solution can be a dual feed rail. Saw that a few times on higly tuned 4 cyl. engines with apparent distribution problems => Fuel enters from both sides (cyl 1 & 4) and leaves in the middle through a pressure regulator. (Return system.)
Just an idea... "
So any ideas? or solutions?
Rent me! per hour
Joined: 03-22-07
Posts: 24,161
Likes: 20
From: Still fixing others mistakes.
the rail is not the problem. hell use the stock pump as a basic lift pump and stick a large pump inline to feed your needs.
or have the stock pump feed a surge tank, and have a large pump pull from the surge tank.
or have the stock pump feed a surge tank, and have a large pump pull from the surge tank.
The Venturi effect is the reduction in fluid pressure that results when a fluid flows through a constricted section of pipe. The fluid velocity must increase through the constriction to satisfy the equation of continuity, while its pressure must decrease due to conservation of energy: the gain in kinetic energy is balanced by a drop in pressure or a pressure gradient force. An equation for the drop in pressure due to the Venturi effect may be derived from a combination of Bernoulli's principle and the equation of continuity.
This discussion is changed to debating the details of physics that do not apply to the fuel rail but for the sake of discussion I will oblige with a reply and a comment.
Read the definition above regarding a venturi and think about what Witt and Hunter are thinking about and putting into words.
Two things. One comment is discussing the fuel rail taper. The idea I believe Hunter is discussing is to taper a rail faster to increase it's pressure at later injectors. In your head this seems to make sense, you picture fuel having to travel faster because the tube is smaller. The problem is that this is the opposite of what would happen. Read the Wiki definition again. Pressure must decrease if velocity increases! So Hunter's idea would be backwards.
Continuing on. The rail does have some taper to it, although no one here has cited how much taper it is or given measurements. But this ignores a vital part of the system. Imagine that your engine is at WOT and requires 4 liters per minute of fuel (simple for math's sake). How much fuel does each injector then flow? Answer: 1 liter per minute because there are 4 injectors. So how much fuel flows into the rail per minute? Answer: 4 liters. How much fuel flows past the first injector to the other 3? That's right, 3 liters. Then 2 liters flows past the 2nd injector and so on. So now that you have this pictured in your head what does the flow rate (or velocity) of the fuel do? That's right, slows down. Unless your taper was greater than the drop in flow past each injector, the pressure must rise according to physics, Witt and Wikipedia. And guess where pressure it highest? That's right, injectort 4.
So let's continue....
Why doesn't cylinder 4 get a ton of fuel since physics dictates pressure increases with a venturi effect? The answer is because the venturi effect is so small that it's not worth discussing. Same with pressure loss from the pump to the rail. Sure we can do math and plug the velocity along with change, etc and do the math but when you do the numbers are not worth discussing. It's like arguing if your car gets better mileage when it's washed.
So how does a return system or raising pressure help this equation? It doesn’t.
In a return system the engine from the example above requiring 4 liters per minute may have a pump that’s flowing 5 into the rail. 4 liters get used, one returns to the tank. This decreases the velocity change and actually gives the opposite of what you guys are looking for according to the formula for determining the venturi effect. But again. We are talking about 60.002 psi vs. 60.003 psi (as example). It really doesn’t matter.
Witt’s comment “As the injectors empty the rail” is a false statement. The injectors can never empty the rail. Pressure cannot change in the rail because it’s being fed 60 psi all the time. I would guess that Witt thinks pressure in the rail is dropping and that’s why he believes that increasing pressure will help keep the rail ‘full’ but it makes no difference if you have 1 psi or 1000. Pressure in the rail cannot be different than what it’s being fed because liquid cannot have different pressures when it’s in the same system (yes, venturi I know but there is no venturi here, see examples and wiki explanation of what a venturi is)
Anyone who looks up a venturi or who has built one, you know that it requires DRASTICALLY different angles and flows and such than what we are discussing here.
I can explain the testing that was done with the tubes and rail as well but for now I will just comment on the logic methods here. They aren’t very well thought out. We started with a problem of cylinder 4 blowing. It was then ASSUMED that the cylinder was lean and people started coming up with wild ideas why. It’s like a religious person who knows the earth is 6k yrs old and has to go look for answers to match that. The proper way to be smart about mods is to directly test your ideas. AKA install a wideband in 1 and 4 if you want to know and check. No guess work. Then swap the variable (injectors 1&4) and rerun the test.
Finally to those that keep posting rhetoric, insults and worthless babble; you only show your own inability to participate in an intellectual conversion.
This discussion is changed to debating the details of physics that do not apply to the fuel rail but for the sake of discussion I will oblige with a reply and a comment.
Read the definition above regarding a venturi and think about what Witt and Hunter are thinking about and putting into words.
Two things. One comment is discussing the fuel rail taper. The idea I believe Hunter is discussing is to taper a rail faster to increase it's pressure at later injectors. In your head this seems to make sense, you picture fuel having to travel faster because the tube is smaller. The problem is that this is the opposite of what would happen. Read the Wiki definition again. Pressure must decrease if velocity increases! So Hunter's idea would be backwards.
Continuing on. The rail does have some taper to it, although no one here has cited how much taper it is or given measurements. But this ignores a vital part of the system. Imagine that your engine is at WOT and requires 4 liters per minute of fuel (simple for math's sake). How much fuel does each injector then flow? Answer: 1 liter per minute because there are 4 injectors. So how much fuel flows into the rail per minute? Answer: 4 liters. How much fuel flows past the first injector to the other 3? That's right, 3 liters. Then 2 liters flows past the 2nd injector and so on. So now that you have this pictured in your head what does the flow rate (or velocity) of the fuel do? That's right, slows down. Unless your taper was greater than the drop in flow past each injector, the pressure must rise according to physics, Witt and Wikipedia. And guess where pressure it highest? That's right, injectort 4.
So let's continue....
Why doesn't cylinder 4 get a ton of fuel since physics dictates pressure increases with a venturi effect? The answer is because the venturi effect is so small that it's not worth discussing. Same with pressure loss from the pump to the rail. Sure we can do math and plug the velocity along with change, etc and do the math but when you do the numbers are not worth discussing. It's like arguing if your car gets better mileage when it's washed.
So how does a return system or raising pressure help this equation? It doesn’t.
In a return system the engine from the example above requiring 4 liters per minute may have a pump that’s flowing 5 into the rail. 4 liters get used, one returns to the tank. This decreases the velocity change and actually gives the opposite of what you guys are looking for according to the formula for determining the venturi effect. But again. We are talking about 60.002 psi vs. 60.003 psi (as example). It really doesn’t matter.
Witt’s comment “As the injectors empty the rail” is a false statement. The injectors can never empty the rail. Pressure cannot change in the rail because it’s being fed 60 psi all the time. I would guess that Witt thinks pressure in the rail is dropping and that’s why he believes that increasing pressure will help keep the rail ‘full’ but it makes no difference if you have 1 psi or 1000. Pressure in the rail cannot be different than what it’s being fed because liquid cannot have different pressures when it’s in the same system (yes, venturi I know but there is no venturi here, see examples and wiki explanation of what a venturi is)
Anyone who looks up a venturi or who has built one, you know that it requires DRASTICALLY different angles and flows and such than what we are discussing here.
I can explain the testing that was done with the tubes and rail as well but for now I will just comment on the logic methods here. They aren’t very well thought out. We started with a problem of cylinder 4 blowing. It was then ASSUMED that the cylinder was lean and people started coming up with wild ideas why. It’s like a religious person who knows the earth is 6k yrs old and has to go look for answers to match that. The proper way to be smart about mods is to directly test your ideas. AKA install a wideband in 1 and 4 if you want to know and check. No guess work. Then swap the variable (injectors 1&4) and rerun the test.
Finally to those that keep posting rhetoric, insults and worthless babble; you only show your own inability to participate in an intellectual conversion.
so, assuming cyl#4 IS running lean: the stock fuel rail tapers at too high of a rate, increasing velocity too much at injector #4, reducing pressure, and since pressure drops over the same area (all 4 injectors having the same area), a lower volume of fuel flows through that injector.
However zoom, you're saying the stock rail taper rate is fine, and there is no fueling issue with cyl#4. Area seems to be agreeing with that statement as well.
These conversations are what makes cars interesting to me...though the bickering in between isnt ideal, i happily put up with it if i get to enjoy an intellectual debate simultaneously
Rent me! per hour
Joined: 03-22-07
Posts: 24,161
Likes: 20
From: Still fixing others mistakes.
this all makes sense to me.
so, assuming cyl#4 IS running lean: the stock fuel rail tapers at too high of a rate, increasing velocity too much at injector #4, reducing pressure, and since pressure drops over the same area (all 4 injectors having the same area), a lower volume of fuel flows through that injector.
However zoom, you're saying the stock rail taper rate is fine, and there is no fueling issue with cyl#4. Area seems to be agreeing with that statement as well.
These conversations are what makes cars interesting to me...though the bickering in between isnt ideal, i happily put up with it if i get to enjoy an intellectual debate simultaneously
so, assuming cyl#4 IS running lean: the stock fuel rail tapers at too high of a rate, increasing velocity too much at injector #4, reducing pressure, and since pressure drops over the same area (all 4 injectors having the same area), a lower volume of fuel flows through that injector.
However zoom, you're saying the stock rail taper rate is fine, and there is no fueling issue with cyl#4. Area seems to be agreeing with that statement as well.
These conversations are what makes cars interesting to me...though the bickering in between isnt ideal, i happily put up with it if i get to enjoy an intellectual debate simultaneously
there never has been a cylinder number 4 fueling issue.
...yes, thats what i said...lol
well good to know. Although in all honesty, i run a different fuel rail than you guys anyway...and no one talks about "cyl#4 issues" on non-LSJ cars.
anyway, good to know all our fuel rails are fine. Its always good to see exactly HOW we know theyre all fine proven to us, rather than just taking it as fact from you area or zoomer or witt.
well good to know. Although in all honesty, i run a different fuel rail than you guys anyway...and no one talks about "cyl#4 issues" on non-LSJ cars.
anyway, good to know all our fuel rails are fine. Its always good to see exactly HOW we know theyre all fine proven to us, rather than just taking it as fact from you area or zoomer or witt.
Cool, 9 pages to work that out but we did have fun and I have to admit I learned quite a bit researching for my posts.
There is an issue with the LSJ cooling system. The water pump feeds one side of the engine first and that doesn't give even cooling. Then the way the water recirculates via the thermostat setup. This causes the engine to run hotter in some areas than others and we addressed it when doing Ryan's build. He'll post a thread in a few days I'm sure as it's painted and looking all pretty now
There is an issue with the LSJ cooling system. The water pump feeds one side of the engine first and that doesn't give even cooling. Then the way the water recirculates via the thermostat setup. This causes the engine to run hotter in some areas than others and we addressed it when doing Ryan's build. He'll post a thread in a few days I'm sure as it's painted and looking all pretty now
Senior Member
Joined: 03-03-06
Posts: 4,958
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Cool, 9 pages to work that out but we did have fun and I have to admit I learned quite a bit researching for my posts.
There is an issue with the LSJ cooling system. The water pump feeds one side of the engine first and that doesn't give even cooling. Then the way the water recirculates via the thermostat setup. This causes the engine to run hotter in some areas than others and we addressed it when doing Ryan's build. He'll post a thread in a few days I'm sure as it's painted and looking all pretty now
There is an issue with the LSJ cooling system. The water pump feeds one side of the engine first and that doesn't give even cooling. Then the way the water recirculates via the thermostat setup. This causes the engine to run hotter in some areas than others and we addressed it when doing Ryan's build. He'll post a thread in a few days I'm sure as it's painted and looking all pretty now
While doing a little online research for anyone with other models of vehicles that could also exhibit this problem I found that someone else flowbenched a rail from a stock 4g63 using only 450cc injectors @ 60psi and it too exhibited the same symptoms. While both setups are using a return fuel system, the difference between the two is minimal at high flow rates as the aftermarket regulator is near completely closed if the rail is already past its own flow capacity. That article can be found here: http://www.stevetek.com/R-FuelSys.html
The entire point I was trying to make which everyone seems to have forgot is that by changing from a returnless to a return style system you gain the ability to increase pressure thus increasing capacity of the rail especially at its critical restrictive point.
Also, if you didn't exactly know something here, no need to continue argueing a point you don't understand until you ask someone who might. I kinda giggled at this: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2272398
Senior Member
Joined: 02-03-08
Posts: 3,454
Likes: 1
From: Port Perry Ontario
"There is an issue with the LSJ cooling system." Well that should be good for a total waste of time threadjack. Good luck. Lets see in thousands of miles of racing 04 to present, I never had a problem with or saw a problem the cooling system in 20-30 different LSJ. But then thats bad for parts business. ZZP cooling gadgets next....improving the breed. Zumah you are a piece of work. Oh and Zumah on Physics Forum " I need help with fluid system debate" LMAO
Get the nannies in...
Witt : another Flawless Victory...
Get the nannies in...Witt : another Flawless Victory...
Last edited by qwikredline; Jul 15, 2009 at 09:34 PM.
