it is a generalization matt. nothing more.

you can run off the map at 17.6 psi. 11k hz. you move enough air. it will do it.

 

Wait wut?

 

They were flowed at typical automotive voltage, approximately 13.8 volts. However, the point of the flow chart was not to show an exact flow number, but rather to make an accurate comparison between different pumps.

 

So are you saying there was some variables in your test?

 

Zoom was saying that the return part of the fuel system is unneccesary. He wasn't saying that the boost-reference part was unneccesary. He was also saying that too many people running lower boost levels also feel that they need to modify their fuel system, when it is not required.

All of the pumps were flowed on the same stand, on the same day, at the same voltage. Try all you want to find a flaw in the test. You will not be successful.

 

If you read what I quoted that he wrote, he stated: "What I am saying is that a return style fuel system isn't needed for any reason that I have seen to date in this market."

So now you admit that you are compensating fuel pressure as boost pressure increases, but you do it in a way other than changing the point of the return line and using a fuel pressure regulator.

fast98's kit which Zooomer called, "extra crap" is made for people who wish to, how do I say, want to add a "boost-referenced fuel system mod".

So, both types increase fuel pressure as manifold pressure increases, but one is somehow extra crap? Am I missing something here?

 

I wasn't trying to make that type of comparison, but since you asked- Yes, the return fuel system requires hundreds of dollars worth of extra parts and significantly more time to install. That could easily be considered "extra crap." Although Zoom could have made a better choice of words.

 

there is also compensation in the fuel control tables to reflect this as well.

 

I like how this thread has devolved to nit picking the use of text and the mis interpretation of other people words. Either way...

 

Please correct me if I'm missing something here. Only two ways I'm aware of to boost compensate the pressure in the rail with manifold pressure.

1: Install a boost compensating pressure regulator after the rail. This needs a return line obviously from the rail back to the tank. It involves moving the stock return line from a point at the fuel filter to after the regulator. Parts needed are a fuel pump to keep up with the flow and pressure of the new system, an adjustable pressure regulator, two fuel lines, one between the rail and the regulator, one between the regulator and the tank and the labor required to install a pump, lines and a regulator.

2. Install a "boost a pump" to increase pump voltage. Because this modification only "works" with the stock regulator when there is a pressure drop on the stock fuel system, the stock regulator needs to be removed and replaced with something of higher pressure, or the fuel rail pressure will never exceed the stock level and therefor never be boost compensated. Parts needed: boost a pump voltage booster, new regulator to replace the stocker, and the labor that is involved with wiring and plumbing the boost a pump as well as a new pressure regulator.

Both ways are a pain in the ass to install. The return style system however gives you an additional benefit of being able to lower stock fuel pressure while the manifold is in vacuum so that 60lb/hr injectors are not bumping against their min. pulse width.

Benefits and costs are associated with both. One is not crap because your company decides to use a different system.

 

We didn't do either of those on our setup.

 

I wasn't trying to find a flaw in the test, I was asking a question. The only flaw I can see is that your rig wasn't calibrated correctly.

 

So taking the extra step to ENSURE nothing goes wrong is bad?

 

Where can you possibly come to the conclusion that our test stand was not calibrated correctly from the information provided? I'd like to know your explanation.

That's just it, people feel the need to add more mods to "ENSURE nothing goes wrong," but the reality is that more mods often lead to more part failures. That's exactly why we keep mods to a minimum for the specific goal.

 

lawlz

This thread shows why i prefer OTT over ZZP

 

But if they are running low pressure the walbro flowed better...

Which is what these people with (mods that dont require it) are using.

 

I only say it's not calibrated correctly because the flow numbers don't match up to kinsler or rc engineering.

Look at the link area47 posted with the flow numbers.

 

Please read up on Bernoulli's law or google fluid dynamics.

 

Wow, I find it hilarious that every ZZP employee seems to come out of the wood work.

 

I know right?

 

Because OTT trys to sell parts that are not required and ZZP doesn't?

Seriously, if people are set on running a return style system, there should be a lower priced option. Maybe we will come up with something along those lines if the demand is there.

I'll start a different thread because we are not helping the OP with our debate.

But how is it that you are comparing their numbers to ours? And where do they have an oem Cobalt pump on their list?

 

OTT backs everything with any proof possible along with pretty much anything else they can through in to proof their point, You guys just make a bunch of claims and act like you are the almighty LSJ gods, With no solid proof, Then when questioned you start talking about your 3800 achievements, Thats great and all but it has nothing to do with the LSJ.

He is talking about the walbro numbers

 

We were looked down upon for not being here to defend ourselves. Now we are here.

 

We noticed...

 

Why do you think you are being looked down upon? You guys are doing this to yourselves. Even if your right, or wrong... you need to know when to just shut up. I can't believe you guys are actually trying to run a reputable business this way. You look like immature tools.