Dead Head Return Fuel setup or no? - Page 8

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 9 First 123456789 Last
Results 106 to 120 of 127
  1. #106

    Default

    If you have already invested in the return style hardware I would not spend the monies to go back to the returnless system, Todd. Both systems work well and in the FWIW category most of the race setups opt for the simplicity of the return style system.

    The challenge(s) you need to manage are unnecessary heating of the fuel and subsequent return to the tank. Vacuum / boost pressure vacuum line signal delays and attendant uncontrolled return system pressure variances in the fuel rails. The good news is that all are manageable. If you still have a returnless system and use the PID control model that Sullivan Performance developed you can easily handle up through essentially 700 HP.

    Things you want to pay attention to for a return style system certainly include placing the fuel pressure regulator away from engine heat. When you do this, you end up using a longer rubber signal hose to deliver the manifold boost or vacuum signal to the regulator. This can potentially produce rich or lean transition points as manifold pressures rise and fall because of the time delay in signal delivery from the manifold through a hose to the pressure regulator. Shorter hose is always better but in a typical balancing headache shorter gets you closer to the engine heat soak problem and longer gets you a manifold vacuum/pressure single timing delay.

    When Ford designed the OEM fuel system they had a variation of the signal delay problem that was caused by the tank mounted pumps and normal delays in sensor readings. Their approach was to employ a second pressure test point closer to the injectors and the manifold. The sensor they used was the FRPS. The FRPS measures the delta pressure across the injector calculated as the difference between instantaneous fuel rail pressure and instantaneous manifold pressure.

    Once the ECU knows what the actual delta pressure is it calculates a pulse width for the injector that is designed to produce the commanded AFR the tuner asked for. A lot of guys remove the FRPS when they switch to the return style systems because they have been frustrated by blown FRPS sensors prior to the change over to return style. While this is possible to do it is better to leave the FRPS in place, more on that in a minute.

    The reason for the FRPS failures in the returnless system is the pressure spikes associated with a poorly adjusted PID — which is what the Sullivan fix . Once you do the Sullivan fix in a returnless system the fuel surges and pressure spikes that kill an FRPS suddenly come under control.

    The firs time return style conversions frequently eliminate the FRPS. While the engine will still run w/o the FRPS it will run much better with the FRPS even in a return style system. Remember those lazy to get to the pressure regulator manifold pressure signals that appear with longer hoses between the manifold and the pressure regulator? With the FRPS present the factory ECU can see the effect those slow to arrive signals have on fuel rai pressure. The factory ECU not only sees them it compensates for them by adjusting injector pulse widths in real time to deliver the tuner's commanded fuel charge to each cylinder irrespective of varying fuel pressures.

    If you are already a return style system, consider getting the fuel pressure regulator away from the engine compartment heat and reinstalling your FPRS (if you removed it). Your ECU (and your engine) will like you for it.



    Ed

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ModularFords.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #107

    Default

    Apologies Todd!

    I thought I had posted a pdf of the Sullivan "fix" in this thread. It looks like I did not so here is a pdf copy of it. I lifted this out of the original thread about a decade ago — yeah, its been around that long. Those Sullivan guys were pretty sharp folks.

    Ed
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. #108
    Member Array 67coupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Thanks for info Ed. I’ve read that Kurgan also has the fix for the returnless hesitation. I’m assuming he’s adjusting the same PIDs?

    I guess I’m still undecided as which way to go.

    For returnless, I still have a factory fuel hat and have squirreled away two junkyard FPDMs. I’d only be focus pumps (unless there’s a better alternative) and a tune away from converting back. The idea of having factory like operation is very appealing. Mainly OEM like start up behavior and not constantly pumping unnecessary fuel.

    As for staying return, I’m not exactly clear as to what current components I can use. From what I’ve read in this thread, aftermarket fuel rails with a supply for each and a crossover at the end is ideal. Would the stock supply line work for my hp goals? Would the regulator in the budget return kit work (Division X two port)? Add necessary plumbing and fittings, converting to dead head is adding up to addditional money.

    Would there be any concerns with both pumps running, or would staging them be ideal? Also, any known hot restart issues with dead head, or does the pressure in the rail prevent them? Finally, would a re-tune be necessary or recommended?

    Sorry for the excessive questions. Thanks again.
    Last edited by 67coupe; 07-10-2018 at 05:36 PM.

  5. Remove Advertisements
    ModularFords.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #109

    Default

    These days it pretty much comes down to what your personal preferences and willingness to buy new stuff is, Todd. Both system styles can be made to work well for your intended use.

    If you already have a return style setup the pregnant question is why buy more stuff to go back to a returnless style system. Similar questions going the other direction. Remember, both can be made to work well for you. My suggestion would be to use what you have rather than buying "new stuff".

    If you have a regulator with one of the small bypass orfices in the return port, you might want to try it before stepping up to the next larger regulator — $200 or so is a fair amount of beer and pizza. At the 500 HP threshold you might be very satisfied with its performance.

    This next comment is not meant to be deprecating. Why not take the best parts you have right now and lets build a 500 WHP engine that does the least damage to your pocketbook and produces the best smileage (smiles per driven mile).


    Ed

  7. #110
    Member Array 67coupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Thanks Ed. I’ll start piecing together the lines and fittings to go dead head.

    The to do list prior to a supercharger upgrade keeps getting longer...

  8. #111
    Member Array 67coupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    70

    Default

    I just finished converting my lethal performance budget return system to a dead setup and took it for quick drive. The exhaust note is different and the throttle is not as responsive. I’m pretty sure I have a fuel supply issue.

    I relocated the division x FPR to the factory fuel line near the passenger strut tower, rerouted the retuern line and ran a new supply line to the factory fuel rails.

    First thing I suspect is I’ve plumbed the FPR incorrectly. It’s a 2 port EFI regulator. Are the two -8 ports directional? I’ve searched everywhere for directions or a flow diagram but can’t find anything.

  9. #112

    Default

    Here is a cutaway of a Fuel Lab pressure regulator, Todd. It is typical of most return style systems' regulators. It should help you get a handle on the fluid flows.

    Name:  Press Reg.jpg
Views: 58
Size:  74.9 KB



    Ed

  10. #113
    Member Array 67coupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Ed,

    I did find that diagram. What I’m unsure of, or want to verify, are the two “side” ports directional? E.g. is the input on one specific side? I do have the return plumbed to the bottom port.

    Also, I did replace both fuel pumps (Walbro GSS342) as the old ones became very loud after what I’m assuming was repeated fuel heating. I’m want to confirm the FPR is plumbed correctly before dropping the tank again.

    Thanks, Todd

  11. #114
    Senior Member Array soap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,918

    Default

    They are not directional. Both sides will see the same pressure so either can be used as an "in" or "out".

    --Joe

  12. #115

    Default

    What Joe said ^+1


    Ed

  13. #116
    Member Array 67coupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Thanks Joe. I was afraid of that.

    Just brainstorming here. So assuming my new pumps are good. What are the chances that using the stock supply line (5/16”) with a -6 return is causing a pressure drop at the rails now that the regulator is between the pumps and rails? Could the stock line be too small to keep up with change in demand?

    I haven’t data logged the FRPS yet. I’ve got to borrow a laptop and add the SCT software. Will be doing that in the next few days.

  14. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 67coupe View Post
    Thanks Joe. I was afraid of that.

    Just brainstorming here. So assuming my new pumps are good. What are the chances that using the stock supply line (5/16”) with a -6 return is causing a pressure drop at the rails now that the regulator is between the pumps and rails? Could the stock line be too small to keep up with change in demand?

    I haven’t data logged the FRPS yet. I’ve got to borrow a laptop and add the SCT software. Will be doing that in the next few days.
    This is a virtual certainty, Todd. Your feed line should be -8 with at least a -6 return. At WOT your engine will use most of the fuel the pumps can supply so the return requirement will be relatively small. At idle and in town driving speeds your engine will use very little of the fuel your pumps can supply and will return the majority (90%+) back to the fuel tank.

    A 5/16 line is great for a carburetor or a >200hp daily driver. It is unsuitable for a performance engine of the type you have built. If you replace the 5/16 hard line with a teflon lined -8AN line I think you will find most of your fueling gremlins will disappear.


    Ed

  15. #118
    Senior Member Array 4sdvenom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN
    Posts
    4,308

    Default

    You basically have a -5 supply and a -6 return right now.

  16. #119
    Member Array 67coupe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Thanks everyone.

    I’m piecing together the hoses, fittings and hose ends to use a -8 supply vice the factory hard line.

    Couple of additional questions.

    Are the stock rails okay or will I need to replace them as well?

    Currently, the adaptor on the rail is a -6. Will a -6 from the regulator to the rails be sufficient?

  17. #120

    Default

    The stock rails have been used to deliver somewhere north of 700 WHP. They should work fine for you. The aftermarket billet rails have a decidedly higher bling factor but the OEM rail will easily get the job done at your current power level, Todd. As you reach higher you can always step up to the billet rails.

    Fragola and Russel both make a -6 and also a -8 adapter for the OEM fuel rail. The adapter will mate to the Ford rail side and provide you a male AN nipple for a -8 line if you order the -8 adapter. This is what they look like;

    Name:  Fragola OEM Fuel Rail Adapter.jpg
Views: 30
Size:  4.7 KB

    Summit usually carries them in stock.


    Ed

  18. Remove Advertisements
    ModularFords.com
    Advertisements
     

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Looking at Dead Head Return System
    By speeddemon2000 in forum 2003 - 2004 SVT Mustang Cobra
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-08-2013, 11:31 PM
  2. Returnless to Return Fuel Setup Q's
    By ytngt in forum 1996 - 2004 Mustang GT
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-03-2011, 05:54 PM
  3. Aeromotive Fuel Pump Controller for Return Fuel Setup
    By BLK_03 in forum 2003 - 2004 SVT Mustang Cobra
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-12-2007, 01:21 AM
  4. Fuel setup... decided return style.
    By guarnibl in forum Turbo Modular
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-05-2006, 11:02 AM
  5. Return less V.S. Return fuel system for high HP setup
    By BlownBlu97 in forum 2003 - 2004 SVT Mustang Cobra
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-21-2005, 09:19 AM