Racetronix PnP FP Regulator vs. 97-98 Rail/Regulator Setup?
10-05-2004, 10:06 PM
#2
Melting Slicks
they will be essentially the same with a lesser price tag associated with it, mainly because the racetronixs will retrofit into the newer style where you would have to re-plumb back into the tank with the older style.
Both will regulate the fuel at the rail, so i would imagine they would perform the same from a pressure at the rail perspective.
For those of us that are waiting........ we are still waiting....
500+ to re-configure for the old style or 300 +/- for the retro fit???
Both will regulate the fuel at the rail, so i would imagine they would perform the same from a pressure at the rail perspective.
For those of us that are waiting........ we are still waiting....
500+ to re-configure for the old style or 300 +/- for the retro fit???
10-05-2004, 11:37 PM
#3
Supporting Vendor
Member Since: Jul 2003
Location: http://www.mphparts.com 800-364-1975
Posts: 6,486
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
I agree. The Racetronix system, if/when it comes out, will simply be a more cost effective solution vs. what's currently out there.
Of course if you ever show your engine bay, the aftermarket systems out there just look plain cool:
Of course if you ever show your engine bay, the aftermarket systems out there just look plain cool:
10-05-2004, 11:45 PM
#4
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: Clouds Over California
Posts: 6,872
Received 444 Likes
on
240 Posts
Originally Posted by diynoob
I agree. The Racetronix system, if/when it comes out, will simply be a more cost effective solution vs. what's currently out there.
Of course if you ever show your engine bay, the aftermarket systems out there just look plain cool:
Of course if you ever show your engine bay, the aftermarket systems out there just look plain cool:
Thats a nice looking setup noob. Did you make that or buy it?
10-05-2004, 11:47 PM
#5
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by diynoob
I agree. The Racetronix system, if/when it comes out, will simply be a more cost effective solution vs. what's currently out there.
Of course if you ever show your engine bay, the aftermarket systems out there just look plain cool:
Of course if you ever show your engine bay, the aftermarket systems out there just look plain cool:
Also agree that the above pic looks very nice. Don't want to hide those behind the covers.
Did you ever get your fuel issues worked out diynoob. Last thing I remember was that you needed a BAP.
10-06-2004, 01:05 AM
#7
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by MelloYellow
To convert to a 97-98 rail setup, what is required?
'97 Rails
'97 FPR
etc?
Anyone have p/n's and pricing?
'97 Rails
'97 FPR
etc?
Anyone have p/n's and pricing?
That should answer all your questions and then some.
10-06-2004, 01:54 AM
#8
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
Member Since: Apr 2000
Posts: 7,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thx!
Could you explain the bottom quote a bit more?
Is this something inherent stock? Which vacuum line causes the regulator to be boost referenced? Is this a 97-98 only characteristic?
Could you explain the bottom quote a bit more?
Is this something inherent stock? Which vacuum line causes the regulator to be boost referenced? Is this a 97-98 only characteristic?
First the results; the big surprise for me was that the stock 97 regulator is boost referenced at 1:1.
No surprise there - I'd be surprised if it wasn't 1:1! 1 PSI of additional pressure on top of the diaphram (vacuum/boost reference) means 1 PSI of additional pressure under the diaphram (where the fuel is). For a regulator not to be 1:1, there would have to be a piston between the fuel and vacuum reference that had different areas on each face (i.e., an FMU).
The main reason that I was so surprised is that anything you read about the ls1 states that it is a static fuel pressure based system. I figured the vacuum line was only an assist of some sort and that the pressure would still be static.
No surprise there - I'd be surprised if it wasn't 1:1! 1 PSI of additional pressure on top of the diaphram (vacuum/boost reference) means 1 PSI of additional pressure under the diaphram (where the fuel is). For a regulator not to be 1:1, there would have to be a piston between the fuel and vacuum reference that had different areas on each face (i.e., an FMU).
The main reason that I was so surprised is that anything you read about the ls1 states that it is a static fuel pressure based system. I figured the vacuum line was only an assist of some sort and that the pressure would still be static.
Last edited by MelloYellow; 10-06-2004 at 02:07 AM.
10-06-2004, 10:59 AM
#9
Supporting Vendor
Member Since: Jul 2003
Location: http://www.mphparts.com 800-364-1975
Posts: 6,486
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Thanks for the compliments Shinobi/Quick --
The system was bought from LS1Speed.com. It seems to be working well, but I am a little concerned over the diameter of the plumbing. The braided hose takes -8 fittings and appears to be almost twice the size of the stock fuel lines. There is probably some multiple of volume inside this plumbing vs. stock plumbing -- which I think means that the fuel pump will have to work a little harder to achieve the same pressure inside the lines. I am running out of fuel at about 600rwhp, but that's normal for a non-BAP Racetronix setup.
Quick -- I have the BAP sitting in its bag inside the house. I need to get around to installing it for sure
I think that will solve my issue and tack on another 50hp without any additional boost. I'm still road testing to make sure the belt challenges are gone before moving onto the fuel challenges.
and thanks again for the compliments.
The system was bought from LS1Speed.com. It seems to be working well, but I am a little concerned over the diameter of the plumbing. The braided hose takes -8 fittings and appears to be almost twice the size of the stock fuel lines. There is probably some multiple of volume inside this plumbing vs. stock plumbing -- which I think means that the fuel pump will have to work a little harder to achieve the same pressure inside the lines. I am running out of fuel at about 600rwhp, but that's normal for a non-BAP Racetronix setup.
Quick -- I have the BAP sitting in its bag inside the house. I need to get around to installing it for sure
I think that will solve my issue and tack on another 50hp without any additional boost. I'm still road testing to make sure the belt challenges are gone before moving onto the fuel challenges. and thanks again for the compliments.
10-06-2004, 01:10 PM
#10
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: Clouds Over California
Posts: 6,872
Received 444 Likes
on
240 Posts
Originally Posted by diynoob
Thanks for the compliments Shinobi/Quick --
The system was bought from LS1Speed.com. It seems to be working well, but I am a little concerned over the diameter of the plumbing. The braided hose takes -8 fittings and appears to be almost twice the size of the stock fuel lines. There is probably some multiple of volume inside this plumbing vs. stock plumbing -- which I think means that the fuel pump will have to work a little harder to achieve the same pressure inside the lines. I am running out of fuel at about 600rwhp, but that's normal for a non-BAP Racetronix setup.
The system was bought from LS1Speed.com. It seems to be working well, but I am a little concerned over the diameter of the plumbing. The braided hose takes -8 fittings and appears to be almost twice the size of the stock fuel lines. There is probably some multiple of volume inside this plumbing vs. stock plumbing -- which I think means that the fuel pump will have to work a little harder to achieve the same pressure inside the lines. I am running out of fuel at about 600rwhp, but that's normal for a non-BAP Racetronix setup.
10-06-2004, 04:05 PM
#11
Melting Slicks
Guys,
The cross over size being to large will not impact on fueling once the system is pressurized.
The pump flows way more fuel than is required by the injector etc and is returned via the regulator back to the tank. Its the regulators job to maintain that fuel pressure inside the rails and its location on the opposite side of the crossover will control just fine.
Liquid in uncompressable, once the line is filled on startup and controlled by the regulator, a line,rails or other being to large has no impact at all as it has NOT changed how much fuel is required to run the engine.
But, this can lead to long crank times to "charge the system". The short key on cycle from the PCM was designed to fill the stock rails etc.
If the regulator and pump have check valve to maintain pressures when disable, this will not be an issue.
Phil
The cross over size being to large will not impact on fueling once the system is pressurized.
The pump flows way more fuel than is required by the injector etc and is returned via the regulator back to the tank. Its the regulators job to maintain that fuel pressure inside the rails and its location on the opposite side of the crossover will control just fine.
Liquid in uncompressable, once the line is filled on startup and controlled by the regulator, a line,rails or other being to large has no impact at all as it has NOT changed how much fuel is required to run the engine.
But, this can lead to long crank times to "charge the system". The short key on cycle from the PCM was designed to fill the stock rails etc.
If the regulator and pump have check valve to maintain pressures when disable, this will not be an issue.
Phil
10-06-2004, 04:09 PM
#12
Supporting Vendor
Member Since: Jul 2003
Location: http://www.mphparts.com 800-364-1975
Posts: 6,486
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Shinobi'sZ
After reading your description. I would consider that the large diameter of the crossover, could be effecting the fuel pressure. It is the hole garden hose thing, with relation to pressure. You have a smaller hose and you get more pressure, you have a larger hose and you get more volume but less pressure (unless you turn it up). In your case the pump might be having problems maintaining the pressure with the increased volume, or capacity due to the diameter of the crossover. Could you simply try a smaller cross over tube (smaller braided hose). It seems like that would only take 20 mins to swap out. You could then go test your fuel pressure and see if it is still dropping at redline or what rpm it is losing pressure at.
Last edited by Tony @ MPH; 10-06-2004 at 04:13 PM.
10-06-2004, 04:30 PM
#13
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Jan 2001
Location: Lakeland, Center of Florida Fl
Posts: 8,238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cool, after reading all of this it makes me happy have a 97 car..
Still not sure if the boost-a-pump is ness. with over 600rwhp but its neat to see some of you converting to my setyp.
Jon
Still not sure if the boost-a-pump is ness. with over 600rwhp but its neat to see some of you converting to my setyp.
Jon
10-06-2004, 04:56 PM
#14
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: Clouds Over California
Posts: 6,872
Received 444 Likes
on
240 Posts
Originally Posted by RoadRebel
Guys,
The cross over size being to large will not impact on fueling once the system is pressurized.
The pump flows way more fuel than is required by the injector etc and is returned via the regulator back to the tank. Its the regulators job to maintain that fuel pressure inside the rails and its location on the opposite side of the crossover will control just fine.
Liquid in uncompressable, once the line is filled on startup and controlled by the regulator, a line,rails or other being to large has no impact at all as it has NOT changed how much fuel is required to run the engine.
But, this can lead to long crank times to "charge the system". The short key on cycle from the PCM was designed to fill the stock rails etc.
If the regulator and pump have check valve to maintain pressures when disable, this will not be an issue.
Phil
The cross over size being to large will not impact on fueling once the system is pressurized.
The pump flows way more fuel than is required by the injector etc and is returned via the regulator back to the tank. Its the regulators job to maintain that fuel pressure inside the rails and its location on the opposite side of the crossover will control just fine.
Liquid in uncompressable, once the line is filled on startup and controlled by the regulator, a line,rails or other being to large has no impact at all as it has NOT changed how much fuel is required to run the engine.
But, this can lead to long crank times to "charge the system". The short key on cycle from the PCM was designed to fill the stock rails etc.
If the regulator and pump have check valve to maintain pressures when disable, this will not be an issue.
Phil
I would like to agree with you. However, I put an oil cooler circuit on my car with TTi setup and my oil pressure dropped from 35@ idle to 19@idle. When I took the stuff off, it went back up to 35@ idle. Essentially all that was added was more plumbing, would that not be the same as increasing the diameter of existing plumbing?? I thought the same thing as you, that being, that once the system was pressurized it would not matter...however that was not the case.
10-06-2004, 05:44 PM
#15
Drifting
the oil cooler added length to the supply line and causes a preasure drop due to resistance to flow, an increase in the size of the oil line (diameter) and/or a reduction of the resistance to flow caused by the cooler would pick up the psi.
In short more diameter in a fluid flow system helps reduce the psi drop as long as the flow volumn does not increase.
In short more diameter in a fluid flow system helps reduce the psi drop as long as the flow volumn does not increase.
10-06-2004, 06:08 PM
#16
Originally Posted by M_T_0
the oil cooler added length to the supply line and causes a preasure drop due to resistance to flow, an increase in the size of the oil line (diameter) and/or a reduction of the resistance to flow caused by the cooler would pick up the psi.
In short more diameter in a fluid flow system helps reduce the psi drop as long as the flow volumn does not increase.
In short more diameter in a fluid flow system helps reduce the psi drop as long as the flow volumn does not increase.
Last edited by drcoffee; 10-06-2004 at 06:23 PM.
10-06-2004, 11:40 PM
#17
Melting Slicks
Originally Posted by MelloYellow
Thx!
Could you explain the bottom quote a bit more?
Is this something inherent stock? Which vacuum line causes the regulator to be boost referenced? Is this a 97-98 only characteristic?
Could you explain the bottom quote a bit more?
Is this something inherent stock? Which vacuum line causes the regulator to be boost referenced? Is this a 97-98 only characteristic?
Anyway, hook it up to your intake manifold and you will get a 1psi rise in FP with each PSI of boost (this is a nice thing to have). It works great for me.
One other thing, I noticed in those old posts that I said I was not changing my IFR table. I have changed my mind on that and have it flat lined right now and it seems to work best this way. I've went back and fourth with that a few times trying to solve a problem, but it ended up being my 02 sensors instead.
10-07-2004, 12:19 AM
#18
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: Clouds Over California
Posts: 6,872
Received 444 Likes
on
240 Posts
Originally Posted by drcoffee
I just spoke with Perma-cool and they tell me the resistance is increased within the cooler lines and would result in loss of idle pressure. A stronger oil pump would be advised.
I have the strongest oil pump available. A modified Katech Pump.
Hey Quick,
When I go to modify my fuel system what am I going to need to do now. I currently have 60lb mototrons, Kenne Bell BAP, and LPE (racetronix) Fuel Pump. I have not done anything else to my 01 fuel system other than what is described. I want 60psi when I go to tune. I just found out PTK is giving me the TE64s for my TT...they are good for 700hp a piece...although my motor is 8.95:1, with all the goodies..I never intended to run over 12-14lbs of boost..otherwise I would have O ringed or installed 1/2" studs.
Thanks
10-07-2004, 07:36 AM
#19
Melting Slicks
Ok..Time for some Physics..
Actually, I will post links to caculators to determine Reynolds #s for flow as well and pipe friction calculations.
You can read up and even do some sample tests on pipe diameter etc.
You can never argue with science and math. Well, except for UFO's, Ghosts and other supernatual phenomenons.
Pipe Friction
Reynolds Number
Phil
Actually, I will post links to caculators to determine Reynolds #s for flow as well and pipe friction calculations.
You can read up and even do some sample tests on pipe diameter etc.
You can never argue with science and math. Well, except for UFO's, Ghosts and other supernatual phenomenons.
Pipe Friction
Reynolds Number
Phil
10-07-2004, 09:32 AM
#20
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by Shinobi'sZ
I have the strongest oil pump available. A modified Katech Pump.
Hey Quick,
When I go to modify my fuel system what am I going to need to do now. I currently have 60lb mototrons, Kenne Bell BAP, and LPE (racetronix) Fuel Pump. I have not done anything else to my 01 fuel system other than what is described. I want 60psi when I go to tune. I just found out PTK is giving me the TE64s for my TT...they are good for 700hp a piece...although my motor is 8.95:1, with all the goodies..I never intended to run over 12-14lbs of boost..otherwise I would have O ringed or installed 1/2" studs.
Thanks
Hey Quick,
When I go to modify my fuel system what am I going to need to do now. I currently have 60lb mototrons, Kenne Bell BAP, and LPE (racetronix) Fuel Pump. I have not done anything else to my 01 fuel system other than what is described. I want 60psi when I go to tune. I just found out PTK is giving me the TE64s for my TT...they are good for 700hp a piece...although my motor is 8.95:1, with all the goodies..I never intended to run over 12-14lbs of boost..otherwise I would have O ringed or installed 1/2" studs.
Thanks
Kevin,
If you decide to go with the 97 fuel rail w/ boost referenced regulator and a return line along with the other components you have fuel delivery will not be a problem. I have very similiar components with the exception of we installed a 8N braided steel fuel supply line with a big in-line filter and a 6N braided steel return line and fabricated some one off fittings at the fuel tank. I see no less than 60# of pressure at idle and fuel pressure increases 1:1 in conjunction with the amount of boost , at full boost I am at 75-78# on the f.p. gauge. I would have to say this setup is easily good for 800 plus h.p.