You can't make 486WHP on a stock FP unless you raise fuel pump voltage which is what I stated previously. Furthermore the stock pump at stock voltage cannot supply enough fuel to max 79# injectors so the system isn't matched.

On the 465WHP, we did it with our smaller turbo full exhaust. We dropped the exhaust and were setup to make over 500WHP but the clutch didn't hold. We'll surpass 500WHP easliy with our twin charged kit shortly. In terms of your mathematically impossible I have a few comments:

1. We already did it and will make much more. How is your math going to show me that what we did, didn't happen? It was repeatable.

2. Please post your math here so I can debunk it for you and everyone else here and we can move on.

3. ZZP has been doing things we were told is 'impossible' for years. This is no different and we'll be at track running the times to back the dynos when the weather warms up. I hope your impressed and spend as much time praising the acomplishments as you have posted calling us out.

We cannot guarantee the fitment of turbos we haven't used on your car. It's not possible to test every turbo because there are too many different housings and configurations. I'm not concerned about you 'breaking' the 465WHP mark. I don't consider it that much of an achievement. We did it with about 1 month of work so I expect it to be surpassed easily. I wasn't trying to challenge you, I was posting because I hear every day about people's 'plans' and they aren't realistic. Maybe you're different.
You also mentioned that you were going for over 500, so our 465 wasn't impressive. Maybe true but the other manifolds have not proved themselves at these levels. I was only posted to show that we're making good HP.
Depends on the year of Cobalt but that is correct. That's how this market is though. Rumors and myths run rampant. We're hearing about stock fuel pumps making nearly 500WHP at stock voltage, then other people are downgrading to Walbros and thinking they are 'modifying' their cars. Other people are excited about this return style fuel system and people have no clue. You don't need that. It's extra crap. Most people don't even know how the stock fuel system works or why it's pointless to run a return style setup. Used to be that 60# injectors made the #4 piston lean (no knowledge of fluid pressure laws), now 60's are the norm. Some posted that the stock IC core was restricting the TVS, no mention that people were making over 100WHP more than that through this core. Then we read that the stock intake manifold doesn't distribute air evenly, no testing or evidence, just rumor. Later we read that cams only make 5HP on cobalts with dyno charts to "prove" it. Posts about spraying water or windshield washer fluid in your engine are daily, probably millions spent on this with no gains. People just don't understand, yet they back it like their sister's honor and won't take ZZP up on our $1000 water injection challenge. It's a full time job debunking the bad information around here...
The fuel pump doesn't determine fuel pressure, you should have called us to explain the fuel system to you and save you the downgrade and cost of buying the Walbro.

 

just bought the zzp turbo manifold myself 4 my new turbo build and cant wait till i have it finished .. zzp has a good manifold 4 a good price

 

you just contradicted yourself more than once in this post.

if you're going to drag me and my car into this when i have left you alone you better bring more ammo than that.

 

The next episode of Tune Busters starts now.

 

I'm not dragging anyone into this thread that doesn't want to share information and discuss the modification of this platform. If you have something to share, including errors in my post, I would like to hear them. Without an exchange of ideas, experiences and information, knowledge cannot be gained.

 

What info do you have to back this up? Sure you wanna make that claim, not ever running our return kit on a cobalt? Did you get the stock pump flow tested.....if so please post results. I'm quite sure you didn't as your statement has made it pretty clear how lacking your knowledge is of said return fuel system.

With that in mind I offer up my logs of before and after my return kit on my tvs cobalt.



Thats stock fueling and 60's 124% idc's at 6500 rpms with a 13.20 afr




Thats after our return style kit 80% idc's at 7100 with a 11.6 afr.

 

I would think the return style would be safer.. Not because of psi issues or whatever, just the general idea of the flow of fuel through the injectors, not just to them.

Im liking the numbers.

 

subscribed for the battle.

 

the cammed cobalt comment. no one else has posted information on a simple comparison basis between the three cams.

on a stock m62. money can be spent in better places for the same power.

 

How exactly do you flow fuel "through" injectors with a return style system?

-------------------
Here is where it gets very hard for me to post because the knowledge level for understanding what is happening is lacking a little.

1. The factory system is a return style system. You just aren't returning after the injectors, you return before them and tap into the line. This works because pressure in a fluid system doesn't drop. You can't have a log with 60# at one end and 50# at another. Fluid pressure is different than air and remains constant in a sealed system.

2. Injectors are on off switches. They flow a given amount of fuel based on the pressure on top less the pressure on bottom. You cannot increase their flow without increasing the pressure to them or decreasing the pressure under them.

3. Fuel doesn't make power. There is an optimal amount of fuel for a given setup commonly referred to as the AF ratio. If you have an ideal ratio, changing injectors, fuel systems, etc, cannot give you any more power. The fuel system only needs to be upgraded when you need more fuel.

4. lsjwannabe is providing information which is factually accurate, however very misleading (especially in a market where people don't understand fuel systems). What you are doing, lsjwannabe, is showing two dynos to "prove" that your return system increases fuel to the car. Where you are misleading people is in the why. The return style system has nothing to do with the changes in available fuel as you have led people to believe. The reason your IDC went down is because you increased fuel pressure with an adjustable regulator. So in effect the setup you are selling is 'working' but not because it's a return style system. That part of the kit is doing nothing for people. It's only the increased fuel pressure lowering IDC and you don't need the return system to do that.

I agree with both of your statements and commend you for the research you did. It provided the community with good information. However we are back to speaking in an invironment where you have to be VERY careful what you say. People here and possibly you have stated that "cams only make 5HP on these engines". That statement may be true for guys running an M62 and guys choosing the cams you tested. I'm glad you worded it this way above. I have seen it said that 5HP is to be gained regardless of the other variables and that is why I posted what I did. There are people here actually believing now that aftermarket cams net nearly no power increase regardless of the other variables which is a silly notion.

 

Okay, just for your information, you made yourself look like a jackass for making yourself seem "all knowing and everyone else is stupid so im going to dumb my posts down a little"

And also, i was trying to say..

stock - the fuel is constantly being pushed into the fuel rail, and it has no where to go but to the end of the rail, waiting to be injected..

return style = each pump the fuelpump makes is being pushed through the fuel rail, and if it isnt used, its pushed through the other side, which i would think allows for even fueling through the injectors.

 

I made myself look like a jackass?
I just explained that you cannot have different pressure at different points in the rail. Read up on Bernoulli's law or google fluid dynamics. You just posted exactly what I stated is happening around here and then called me the jackass for being a know it all. LOL. Seriously dude, I'm just trying to explain things and I'm a little cocky but frustrated as well. When I told you that your post didn't make any sense you could have or should have asked why or researched it. Simply calling me a jackass and posting the same thing again only serves to continue the speading of bad information.

There is no difference in fuel flow from a 'return' style system to a dead head setup if the pressures are the same. None. I can't even believe I have to say that...

------------
The fuel pumps in these cars are positive displacement pumps. They flow a set amount of fuel which increases as the pump spins faster. Normally the pumps push out say a gallon (just for example) in a minute and this goes to the fuel filter where it has a choice. It can go to the front of the car or back to the canister where there is a regulator which keeps the pressure at 60 and dumps it back into the canister. All regulators work by letting enough fuel flow through them to maintain a pressure on the other side. So in effect the fuel system is always pumping and "returning" unused fuel to the tank with the stock or a 'return' style sytem as we're discussing in this thread.

Now if the car is using more fuel, less will need to go back to the canister to maintain 60psi (that holds true with either syle fuel system), but the entire system is always at 60. You can tap in anywhere and you'll read 60psi which is why a 'return' style system doesn't add any more fuel 'reserve', flow, distribution, etc.

 

I called you a jack ass for the comment of saying you basically dumbed down your post because everyone is ill-knowledged, not for the fact your proving me wrong.

And i actually said, you made yourself look like one, not that i called you one directly.

 

It was thought for a long time that the problem with people blowing the number 4 cylinder was due to fuel starvation. Hence the return style fuel system.

Most people agree that it is because of too much heat caused by small pulleys and no cooling mods. Or unequal air distribution from the IM.

Either way...

What is your opinion on why the #4 piston fails before the other three?

 

There is a difference in fuel flow... Its coming out the other end of the fuel rail instead of not.

that seems like a bit of difference to me...?

 

Your still not understanding things so clearly I'm not the best at explaining it. Is there someone here who can reword this for better general understanding?

Actually we have tested fuel pumps extensively. Clearly you have not or don't care that you are selling mods people don't need. I only respond as you're responding to me.

Pump--------------------- Flow @ 60 psi--------------------Flow @ 80 psi

Random used GP---------------24.7------------------------------N/A

2002 used GTP-------------------33------------------------------N/A

Walbro 340------------------------50------------------------------30.8

Used Cobalt SS-------------------42------------------------------33.6

Kalo GM truck E85 pump--------54.4-----------------------------39.4

--------So what you see is that at 60psi, the Walbro does outflow the stock Cobalt pump (06+) by quite a bit which at first would make you think it's better. However, this is usless because both flow enough to provide fueling up to boost levels that you can tune to without a boost referenced system. Once you make the big power, fuel pressure has to change with boost and then the stock pump actually outflows the Walbro when you need the fuel the most (high boost)

 

Yea zoomer i guess i just dont get it.. I understand how pressure is going to be the same everywhere.. obviously.. But i just dont see how having fuel being pushed through the fuel rail has NO effect.

 

No Offense, But if it were just crap why would some of the fastest, strongest vehicles in the world have such a setup in thier vehicle. The fuel system doesnt need a band aid fix. It needs a solution. Enter the return style fuel system.
If you wanted to prove it wrong, maybe you should just release YOUR fix to the situation.

 

Hmmm so it appears you have contradicted yourself here when its obvious the walbro flows better at stock levels...

Not saying walbro makes the best pump out there, its only a option when it comes to the kit.

Also my base pressure for those runs was 40 psi 1:1 in boost so 65 psi at redline amazing what that 7psi more can do....

 

so which manifold should i go with? LOL im O.K. with zzp manifold but i need to know if zoomer, you actually think a gt35r will clear with a .63 exhaust housing.

 

Youd be better off with the vulcan. or the Syanpse.. Ive read about a couple using them on other forums and lovin em

and fitting big turbos on them..

 

returnless style systems are common place due to the cost factors of it. it is financially cheaper to do a returnless system than a return style.


walbro pumps suck.

with a hammer and some patients yes. also the manifold needs more bracing to prevent future cracking. common downside to log style manifolds.

 

i have the zzp manifold and im using a t3/t04e 57 trim with .63 a/r with no problems. theres one little plastic piece coming through the firewall you have to cut/or break off. its nothing major. i think its some kind of drain from the a/c system. but it wont hurt anything to cut it off at the firewall itll still drain. but i have about an inch of clearance. also my manifold from zzp cracked after about 500 miles or so but only because i received the old design instead of the new one. and they offered to replace it for free with a new one. had it braced by one of my guys(couldnt afford down time) and it works fine other than the flange bowled out when the neck cracked. but you should be fine with the newer one.

heres a pic of it installed and the piece you need to cut.

 

^ hey i pmed you

 

You called me out and I stepped up by showing that we had indeed tested flow of the pumps. Now you skip over the fact that I answered your challenge and move to something else.

Anyways, yes the Walbro outflows the stock pump at 60psi but this fact is meaningless because the stock pump will provide as much fuel as you could ever use in a non boost referenced system.

Explanation: The stock PCM only allows scaling injector size up to 17.6 psi of boost. This is important because injectors flow based on pressure differential. So a car with 60psi of fuel pressure flowing into 20psi of boost only has 40psi of injector flow. The PCM compensates for this in the injector table which is why it's not just one number. This becomes a problem when you run big boost for two reasons.

1. The tuning is impossible without referencing boost pressure. The problem gets worse the further you go above 17.6psi of boost. 18-19 psi car can get away with it, 25+ psi and forget about it.

2. There isn't enough fuel pressure to flow into boost. Imagine running 30psi with only 60psi of fuel pressure. You only have 30psi of fuel pressure flow. That's why 79# injectors are pointless here. You can't just keep upping injector size because you keep lower pressure as boost rises. So if you have 30 psi and raise fuel pressure to even 70psi, your actual fuel flow has gone from 30psi to 40psi which is huge. This is why you see duty cycle drop on lsjwannbe's graph.

So now that you understand why higher fuel pressure is needed for high boost builds, you can see why the Walbro is pointless. It won't help you if you don't have big boost because the stock pump will be enough. If you do go high boost, the stock FP is better because you need to raise fuel pressure to support the build.

When you have a SERIOUS build, you need to get rid of the in tank pump and go external. This means all new lines, a fuel cell, high flow regulator, etc. This is an entirely different conversation and would only be applicaple to race only builds.

My solution is explaining to people running M62's and boost levels under 18psi that they do not need return style fuel systems or new regulators or Walbros, etc. Why go broke buying mods you don't need that are less reliable than stock?