In my earlier post, I already addressed this. We are in no way acting like LSJ gods. We are here to learn what we can and teach what we know.

I understand that, but there is absolutely no place in the charts that use the same voltage and tests at the same pressures that we did. Aside from that, Zoom did not even post the unit of measurement being used in our tests. The tests were not to provide a specific flow number. They were done to compare different pumps under the same conditions. Therefore, I find it ridiculous to read someone posting that our calibration is somehow off.

To people that disagree with us or already dislike ZZP, we might look immature. However, I can assure you that there are plenty of people reading who take notice of what we say and will learn something from it. I challenge you to find something immature that I have posted in this thread and quote it here. You are letting your emotions decide that I must be a jerk because you don't like the fact that I openly disagree with others on this forum. It's unfortunate because your name calling is what really brings the thread down. Please try to have a discussion without resorting to that type of post.

 

Agreed...

 

Matt, see post #55

Not you, but worse your boss made an accusation totally unfounded and contrary to what I posted.

 

With the lack of an explanation I have to conclude that the use of "magic" is being used to provide pressure above what the stock regulator offers as well as a variable in order to drive fuel pressure in a ratio to manifold pressure.

 

Oh so you want to call us out on a product but now you want to make your own version? With regards to the pump flow numbers, your walbro numbers are way off of what the other companies list.

 

I find it amazing that you state my numbers don't match without me listing the voltage, time or unit of measurement. The test you referenced is a generic test for a couple very specific applications. Not all that applicable here. At ZZP, when we're testing something we look for real world data. We want to know what the pump will flow in the used application with the same voltage the car is likely to see. Granted the cobalt pump doesn't see 13.8 volts but with the proper rewire (required for any serious build) it would. So I provided data applicable to the situations we're talking about here.

also to note is that pump which do better at higher psi usually scale better with increased voltage. This would put the advantage to the cobalt pump as well. But I'm rambling and getting into things we do in house without normally posting about it because most people don't even understand what we're talking about or why we're doing it.

It's much easier to sell someone a Walbro pump and tell them "it flow more" than to get into these technical discussions. Keep in mind, ZZP is not selling anything here. We have no incentive to be lying about this. Ask yourself, does a guy telling me to keep my money have more incentive to provide false information than a guy trying to sell you something? Of course not. in time people will come to know ZZP as a no bullshit shop that has experience and technical knowledge beyond most shops. Notice how the haters say things like "your hurting yourself" or "you guys are arrogant" or "you're not the gods of LSJs" but not a single person comes in with real technical knowledge. If somone doesn't understand basic fluid dynamics and when you talk about it they slam you with petty bickering, it kind of goes to show where the education level is.
We're way ahead of you Area, although your information is accurate for the most part. ZZP dealt with running off the MAF tables in PCMs before the first cobalt was ever sold. This knowledge led us to run a larger MAF tube to lower the frequency at a given airflow and then recalibrate the PCM to compensate. The other alternative is to run a mini-AFC that some of you may remember on ZZPs site years ago. You can PM me Area if you need more details to fix your build and I'll help you out.
I have answered this and I'll do it again. The Walbro is WAAAY less reliable than stock and any modification to the fuel system will be less reliable than stock. when an increase in fuel is needed, you have to make changes to the very reliable factory systems on the car but if no change is needed, then you are INCREASING the chance of failure by adding parts.

example would be buying a brand new car and going to autozone to change out all the parts under the hood to ENSURE, as you stated, that you car would be reliable for a trip around the country. This would be a fools move and demonstrates exactly my point. Thus your logic is backwords.
This is meaningless because the stock pump flows enough to max the injectors. You could run 100 pumps to the same injectors and flow 100x more but it wouldn't give the engine any more fuel. That's my point, the Walbro will not be a better pump in any situation. With 60# injectors the stock pump can provide fuel till they go static. if you up fuel pressure, the stock pump flows more.
Again, based on what? I didn't say if we measured gallons, pints, ounces, liters, CCs, barrels, cubic feet, etc. I also didn't post the time the pumps were tested for. Is the scope of your fact collecting limited to comparing one number to another? do I need to do the conversions for you so you can compare to other sites? Do you buy car audio based on wattage ratings from manufactures as well? I simply cannot believe people are calling us out as being ignorant when we have to respond to posts like this.

Making our own version is all but about an hours work, some pictures and a web site update. We've already done it on the twin charged cars. We simply don't offer it because no one in this market we've seen needs one and to sell it as an "upgrade" would be terribly misleading as evidenced by the consumers who posted in this thread.

 

THe mini-afc that cobalt addiction pulled because everyone and there mothers was saying it was a peice of crap?

Or was there one you developed yourself?

I didnt say i was gonna replace my fuel pump...

I was going to uncap the end of my fuel rail...

 

I'd go with ott or HAHN dude

 

The AFC was pulled by CA because it was no longer available from the manufacture (Easy Performance). They went into a redesign and didn't release the 3.0, you'd have to email them as to why. Easy Performance is a break out company from ZZP. Digital Ken, a nuclear engineer and Wizbang, an electrical engineer brached out to specialize in electronics.

uncap the end of your fuel rail and what?
Because there are a lot of engineer type technical people in the company that don't believe us when we tell stories about threads. They simply cannot believe it until they read it for themselves and then probably get so frustrated watching the chaos of ignorance that is almost celebrated around here that they have to post. But I believe a good majority of the educated people, or people wanting to learn merely read and leave the posting to the loud mouths. No one with any understanding of physics could read this without investigating or already knowing that ZZP is on top of our game. This is what we are proving and improving with the exchange of information.

 

Do whatever http://www.ottperformance.com/Cobalt...d4f2a71e234d66 Does and not replace my fuel pump if it is all agreed that the walbro is pointless

 

The return style fuel system is pointless for your car as well. you don't make enough boost to get into boost referenced mode. You really wouldn't want to, or at least need to, have FP change with boost all the time. so I see it as extra time, money and less reliability for no gains. (unless you're going turbo soon and then i would do the fuel upgrade at that time) And your post shows what I've been fearing with the talk of return style fuel systems. It's not a good thing for people to be thinking about changing their fuel pumps or talking about return style fuel systems when they are totally unneeded. (although the FP in the 05 is a little smaller. still it's plenty for the M62)

A full on return fuel system heats the fuel more than the factory setup and may not filter the fuel as well. Granted we're talking small differences here but there are pros and cons to be considered.

 

yeahhhh, manifoldsssss

I have an idea, whoever can give me the best price on thier turbo manifold percentage wise will win this debate? any takers?

 

cheap isnt always better.....for what u want look long term(air flow)......buy the right thing the first time or u will later

 

There's one thing I would like to add in response to the people saying that our Walbro flow numbers don't match the ones posted earlier in the thread.

A. The page posted says April 2004.
B. I already stated that Walbro sold their aftermarket pump division and the pumps have since changed.

 

This may be hard to believe but there are people on this site who are actual engineers not engineer type technical people. Off the top of my head there is a mechanical engineer with experience in powertrain design and testing for OEMs and a former mechanical engineer that is now an industrial engineer with a stats minor with oem powertrain and nvh testing and design experience.

 

the entire thread from Zoomer is demeaning to all the forum members, and his factual inaccuracies about most anything technical are truly scary. I think the ZZP motto should be "go broke...not fast."

 

You quoted Zoom, but must have missed the part where he mentioned "a good majority of the educated people..."

I would like to see you post some of these instances of his "factual inaccuracies." I bet you won't actually find any.

 

We can start with this one if you want.

 

What are you trying to imply here?

 

and we can add this. Really your treatment and characterization of forum members as idiots is not smart. You want to do business with customers you consider to be jackasses?

Quote: the statementOriginally Posted by Turbo Tim
The option B really only is stuff to add fluid capacity to the system, so it wont help a great deal. If you are using our ZZP heat exchanger that already adds a ton of extra capacity to your system. I havent set the price yet, until I have the ordered pieces in stock and ready to ship.

My response
This statement "option B really only is stuff to add fluid capacity to the system, so it wont help a great deal" is categorically untrue. As a vendor you owe this to your customers , you should not make untrue statements. Option B provides a self bleeding capability to the production lamova system, along with a small added capacity, and a dual pass through the laminova instead of 4 pass. This self bleeding capability was an inexpensive and elegant way to fix an issue that GM identified in production and made as an available option for the enthusiast aftermarket.

The issue is entrained air in the coolant inhibiting transfer of induction heat through the laminova cores, causing high inlet temperatures which causes loss of power...

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...10/ai_n9426858

My post was based on the filter being located outside of the tank and fuel passing through it at full speed constantly. In the above article you can read about the pros cons and differences based on filter location. I grabbed my info from there and made two additional comments. 1 was that the differences would be small, 2 I used the word may. If you have proof that the return system will increase filtering or make no difference post it up. I have provided my source although this attempt to show me as lacking technical knowledge is weak at best...

 

i'd put money on you not having a build "big" enough to NEED a 35R, were talking about 82mm comp wheels here, ~600hp..

i'd also sideline into your (or whom ever is doing) tuning ability's, do you have a clue what your in for?

judging by your questions, not at all.



research is your friend, and its key to a successful set up.

also, why run such a larger turbo with such a small ****** hotside? that's asinine!

you've got a 600hp turbine, and a 400hp housing (ok, more then 400, but you get the point)

i'd jump to a small-ish / small-mid-size T4 if you think your gonna push the turbo that hard. (start reading up on AR's, i'm not giving them to you)

also, as to the point of this thread, i'd stay away from ANY log manifold. once again, if you think your gonna push a turbo of that size hard enough to need it, a solid equal length manifold(with a rotated flange) is your key to making responsive HP.

don't think that you'll see happy responsive big numbers on a log manifold, as big restrictions inherent to that design cause delayed shaft response (spool per say) and add back pressure (thus lowering HP potential).

 

oh god, it's fun watching the hole get deeper.

 

My source would happen to be the car.

All fuel output from the fuel pump is filtered as a returnless. This doesn't change in a return style setup. What does change is the pressure at what the output is being run at and where its being returned. Since the majority of the time, the car is not under boost, pressure will be lower than the 4 bar constant stock pressure. Lower pressure = more volumetric flow from the pump which equals a higher volume of fuel being filtered in a return style setup the majority of the time.

Your initial claim and link to some e article that is not about this specific setup is weak at best.

Wanna keep diggin?

 

****** funny.