So the jist of your post is that I lack technical knowledge and make ingorant statements that don't help anyone because I made a comment to the tune of "this style of fuel system may filter the fuel slightly better"? Then I post a link where I got my info and you're saying my defense is weak? It would seem that you're quite hell bent on "proving me wrong" and it isn't going well.

The audience is slamming me for being arrogant, unknowing, etc. but you guys aren't coming back with anything other than generalized slams. I'm discussing physics and have asked repeatedly for some people to look up Bernoulli's principle and not one person has responded. Then I'm called arroagant and stupid for posting that? The only conclusions I can draw are that people don't care and just want to live in the drama or aren't smart enough to understand fluid dynamics. That doesn't make me an ass because someone can't google some basic physics. Then the ignorance is celebrated by a bunch of ZZP bashers searching for ways to 'prove' us wrong in non scientific mannors. I don't speak or think in terms of 'my friends car beat me on a roll after installing xxx part'. To me that isn't a scientic claim, it's just ramblings.

I don't know how to explain things at a more basic level than I have. Does that make me arrogant? I wouldn't think so. When we post flow test numbers from a pump and people don't understand why our numbers are different than another site they read, I cannot keep explaining that units of measure are different but the end result is identical. It's something you need to go back to school for. I can't help if if you don't understand that. I can't help it if you get mad at me for posting data and citing sources. I'm not even trying to sell a product here, just giving out free info that isn't obtainable by the average person. It would be nice to get some credit for providing this free info rather than being slammed for it.

 

you give generalized comments, you get generalized replies....

 

http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=bernoulli%27s+law

specifically

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle

and

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...oullisLaw.html

I think you really meant bernoulli's principle insead of law since the law deals with fluid behavior at different flows and heights and more specifically their velocity. Really none of these principles deal with increases of FLOW.

http://www.motor.com/page.asp?page_ID=72

Your writer of that article is a ASE certified mechanic. Not a single bit of engineering background there. Is the type of "engineer type technical people in the company" that you have and get your info from? Not to mention some of his stuff in there is a bit off like the returnless not needing a reg, while our system has one. We have both a sock and an after pump filter and since the return kit includes a new filter to replace the stock filter filtration doesnt change.

The part in bold is expressly shown in both walbro's charts and zzps own test.

and having a spare fuel canister unit in my possession I can tell you that witt is right that the change in filtration is 0.

 

The gist of that post is to show you are wrong in what you stated. That is all.

This is where you can feel free to prove what I'm stating is incorrect.

 

Possibly so. I stated that a style of fuel system may provide better filtration. If you have a filter and cut it open and analyzed the setup then you should speak up. If you're saying that my assertion of this fuel system possibly filtering better isn't correct then I can accept that.

 

can you get the manifold from the new SS/TC?

would the TC's manifold fit on the SC'd SS's?

 

I stated it was not correct and explained why. More fuel being filtered in an equal period of time equals better filtration.

 

I am not sure if this was beat to death or not already.....but its been discussed that generalities and inaccurate information have been used, information has been used to suit the needs of the poster.....I think this filtering comment is a a great example.

You claim that based on your research in MOTOR magazine that a return fuel system may not filter the fuel as well, but in fact the articles first mention of return style fuel system filtering is this "
one advantage of the older returntype fuel systems was the constant filtering of the fuel they provided. Each time the fuel made a trip to the engine, it had to pass through the fuel filter. The filter trapped tiny particles of dirt or debris that may have found their way into the system."

The article goes one to say that 2 of the 3 styles of return fuel systems actually offer very poor filtering....."So if it contains any contamination, the same junk will make repeated trips through the pump and back into the tank. A load of rusty fuel could pass repeatedly through the fuel pump, grinding the rust particles into increasingly smaller particles and making short work of the pump itself." "A filter that's become clogged with debris means the pump now has to suck extra hard just to get the fuel it needs. This causes low fuel pressure, fuel boiling and pump cavitation."

So we see that according to your source theres actually a 75% chance that a return style system will offer superior filtering regardless of flow rates. Interesting.

 

Nice lookup..

 

That he acknowledged that there are some educated people on the forum as well.

Those examples that you have listed do not apply because you are comparing to a returnless system, which is not what we have. We have a return system that filters the fuel before it is returned to the tank. It just doesn't run all the way to the engine compartment and back. We have all been mis-using the term "returnless." We should not be referring to the factory setup as returnless. Maybe we should call it a short loop return system vs. aftermarket full loop return systems or full length return systems.

 

so you wanna use a OE cast manifold with a tiny T2 based flange?

why?

 

out of curiosity, how does increased fuel pressure result in less flow from the fuel pump?

 

Fair enough, youve been misusing terms. Agreed.

 

It is actually a returnless. The term is used for any system that returns before the fuel rail and deadheads the rail. The term is in respect to the rail and not the system itself. Nearly all systems return fuel after the pump in some way (cited from the article here: This is something of a misnomer, as the unused fuel really i; returned to the tank. It just doesn't have quite such a long return trip to make. These systems were introduced in the mid-'90s, and their use is rapidly expanding.) until recently where you can run a pulse width modulated pump, but the article doesnt go into depth on that.

Where the differences in that article play out is simply the location of the fuel filter in respect to the return line. Obviously in a Cobalt, the filter doubles as a junction point for the return line and filters all fuel output from the pump.

 

its not increased fuel pressure, its increased manifold pressure.

60 being base, no boost (per say) and 80 would be base fuel pressure + 20psi boost.

 

So to summarise:

ZZP dont like their customers.
ZZP think the forum audience is against them
ZZP make mis-statements.Did I say that right? Technically inaccurate, bs baffles brains stuff.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. wake me up. NO thanks ZZP
fortunately, I have an OTTP fuel system, great value, works just fine, so I really dont need to worry. I dont know anything about that. I do have an Option B h/e system with a GM factory dual pass h/e and a single pass laminova. That works great, also you can buy them from OTTP. Well, you can see where this is headed:

OTTP really like their customers
OTTP finds that the forum audience likes them
OTTP dont make mis-statements. Their explanations are simple easy to understand and accurate. Takes a lot of thought to explain things simply and accurately. Thanks OTTP.


SO
ZZP FAIL
OTTP WIN

 

Because the regulator is a restriction in the return line that is responsible for the rise in pressure in the feed line. As the pressure rises, it reduces the avilable flow from the pump, while increasing the potential flow from the injectors.

 

nice headlights. Wheels are good too....

 

im really trying not to be a dick here about this. i obviously don't need help in tuning my personal vehicle. especially when my fuel maps end up on a twincharge car.

when you run a larger "maf" housing, you run into resolution problems in the lower hz range. double edged sword.

my build is just fine, and moving right along with proven knowledge. i do appreciate the concern

 

We've all been calling it returnless since day one. Just because I am open-minded enough to say that maybe we should use a better term for this should not be construed as some type of evidence against us.

 

Going back to this...the educated people I specifically listed are the ones in this thread SPEAKING up against the misinformation. Zooomer said that the educated people and those wanting to learn are the people who are not talking but listening...those are called sheep...they are being spoon fed. The educated ones are the ones actively discussing the topic and proving false information as false or unreliable.

 

you stated youve been misusing terms, plural. You werent talking about this one incident I took it, or did you mispeak again?

 

<-- bahhhhh



but dammit im trying.

 

Plural was referring to "returnless" and "return style". Now you are just looking for a typo or trying to catch me using the wrong word choice or puncuation. At that point, you are no longer interested in having a reasonable discussion and simply prefer to just search for insignificant flaws to nit-pick about. It doesn't help any of us.

 

yeaaa i think thats a little too much.