Sponsored

Time to upgrade to a Fuel system, here is what I’m considering.

illtal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Threads
17
Messages
1,865
Reaction score
908
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT
I believe the e5lm pump can do that but with a controller that injected dynamics is making. Even still the bks1000 configuration can be set to flow 600-700 lph constantly. There are plenty of those offerings available just not specialized to the mustang specifically.

One with enough time and ingenuity could figure it out, however the easiest and most effective probably would be a surge tank setup using the factory pump, in conjunction with a brushless pump and boost activated pwm controller. As long as it's mounted outside the car that would be perfect and no need to mount a firewall.
Sponsored

 

Angrey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Threads
92
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Coral Gables
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350
I believe the e5lm pump can do that but with a controller that injected dynamics is making. Even still the bks1000 configuration can be set to flow 600-700 lph constantly. There are plenty of those offerings available just not specialized to the mustang specifically.

One with enough time and ingenuity could figure it out, however the easiest and most effective probably would be a surge tank setup using the factory pump, in conjunction with a brushless pump and boost activated pwm controller. As long as it's mounted outside the car that would be perfect and no need to mount a firewall.
The LM pump won't fit in the tank (too long). Surge tanks present their own problems (again, with saddle tanks you MUST run an in tank pump or pumps in order to move fuel from the passenger side over). There's really no decent place on a modern mustang to mount a surge tank, except for inside the cabin, so unless you create a custom firewall at the trunk, it's a safety issue (maybe not a huge risk, but still a factor). Having lift pumps (even if you use the OEM pumps to act as lifts and provide the syphoning) then you're only solving one issue (pump starvation) and creating another one (more electrical load).

The goal is to solve each problem without creating new ones. I fully examined surge tanks from both Radium and Fuelab and while it resolves some issues, it either leaves or creates others.
 

illtal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Threads
17
Messages
1,865
Reaction score
908
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT
That's why you leave the oem in place. Use sure you are still adding amps to the system but probably less heat, less wiring and still no fuel slosh issues.

I don't see any real issues other than mounting. PWM controllers don't load the system the way that a conventional brush pump does thus creating less heat ( from what I have read) if you the best setup it would be something OEM style with some brushless pumps that fit and do the job on a single controller controlled by the ECU.

I'm only speaking on simplicity, I almost pulled the trigger on a setup like that and still may. Glad someone is trying to push the market forward.
 
OP
OP
Dominant1

Dominant1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2016
Threads
94
Messages
3,737
Reaction score
1,127
Location
USA
First Name
Dr Frankenstang
Vehicle(s)
2016 gt/cs auto 3:55 gears
Vehicle Showcase
1
What about the possibility of pulling the tank and modding the hatless side to take another hat with 1 or 2 pumps, then run its fuel line all the way to the passenger side of the fuel rail while the original hat feeds the driver's side fuel rail. The pumps would be a lower volume pump like Walbro Gss 342's that don't flow like 465's, therefore, minimizing heat and current draw...is that even possible? or am I Wacked?
 

Angrey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Threads
92
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Coral Gables
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350
That's why you leave the oem in place. Use sure you are still adding amps to the system but probably less heat, less wiring and still no fuel slosh issues.

I don't see any real issues other than mounting. PWM controllers don't load the system the way that a conventional brush pump does thus creating less heat ( from what I have read) if you the best setup it would be something OEM style with some brushless pumps that fit and do the job on a single controller controlled by the ECU.

I'm only speaking on simplicity, I almost pulled the trigger on a setup like that and still may. Glad someone is trying to push the market forward.
There's many more issues. The surge tank is great for N/A applications, but for blown applications where the capability of the surge tank pump exceeds the lift pumps, you have a fixed amount of WOT time before you run the risk of running the surge tank dry. The flow delta, which can be as much as 200 lph, means that while your main fuel pump is sucking at say 600 lph, your lifts running at like 400 lph, that means with even the biggest surge tank (2.3 liters, or about 2 liters net fuel volume) that means your sucking down the surge tank in approximately 36 seconds (crude calcs). This exercise exposes a flaw in the setup where in order to ensure you never suck it dry, you're always providing plenty of fuel to the surge tank, that means shuffling a lot of fuel to and from (the surge tank can't be pressurized). Even if you dump the return fuel back in the surge tank (which is mixing hot fuel returning from the engine bay, creating a temperature differential between the surge tank mix and the main tank.

The biggest issue with heat isn't the controller, it's the pumps themselves. 40 amps of load means 40 amps of "work" going into the system, much of which is excessive heat that the fuel needs to cool off the pumps. Even if you can live with that, the additional load on the electrical system has detrimental affects (which you can research on your own).

The surge tank has to be mounted as close to vertical as possible and most of them are arranged tall and skinny (by deliberate design) so it makes mounting options more limited.

Trust me, I exhausted the surge tank option, it only solves the baffle issue (and then only temporarily) and maintains the unfavorable additional electrical load.

And there's a better/more elegant solution than controlling the pumps from the ECU. I actually considered doing just a true upgraded returnless system, but that doesn't account for boost (or it does, just through a bunch of sophisticated and complicated tuning and sensory inputs).
 

Sponsored

Angrey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Threads
92
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Coral Gables
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350
What about the possibility of pulling the tank and modding the hatless side to take another hat with 1 or 2 pumps, then run its fuel line all the way to the passenger side of the fuel rail while the original hat feeds the driver's side fuel rail. The pumps would be a lower volume pump like Walbro Gss 342's that don't flow like 465's, therefore, minimizing heat and current draw...is that even possible? or am I Wacked?
I only briefly considered something like this. Given that you've already "invested" the money in the OEM side, the costs to do this aren't as ridiculous as one might think. It has some custom machining challenges (remember, it's not like the old days when the tank was completely separated from the cabin). You'd have to cut the opening and get the mounting retainer ring just right so you don't have leaks. But OEM style buckets and pumps are pretty economically priced.

One could resolve the inherent imbalance in fuel between the passenger side and drivers side saddles with either dualing syphons or maybe some sort of union of the two feed lines (that way if a pump bucket was starved, the other side could pick up the load). It would involve some unique/sophisticated check valving, but I'm sure it could be done.

to be honest, I was trying to avoid a completely crazy one off machining adventure and trying best I could to assemble a complete system from available components with minor modifications.
 

illtal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Threads
17
Messages
1,865
Reaction score
908
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT
There's many more issues. The surge tank is great for N/A applications, but for blown applications where the capability of the surge tank pump exceeds the lift pumps, you have a fixed amount of WOT time before you run the risk of running the surge tank dry. The flow delta, which can be as much as 200 lph, means that while your main fuel pump is sucking at say 600 lph, your lifts running at like 400 lph, that means with even the biggest surge tank (2.3 liters, or about 2 liters net fuel volume) that means your sucking down the surge tank in approximately 36 seconds (crude calcs). This exercise exposes a flaw in the setup where in order to ensure you never suck it dry, you're always providing plenty of fuel to the surge tank, that means shuffling a lot of fuel to and from (the surge tank can't be pressurized). Even if you dump the return fuel back in the surge tank (which is mixing hot fuel returning from the engine bay, creating a temperature differential between the surge tank mix and the main tank.

The biggest issue with heat isn't the controller, it's the pumps themselves. 40 amps of load means 40 amps of "work" going into the system, much of which is excessive heat that the fuel needs to cool off the pumps. Even if you can live with that, the additional load on the electrical system has detrimental affects (which you can research on your own).

The surge tank has to be mounted as close to vertical as possible and most of them are arranged tall and skinny (by deliberate design) so it makes mounting options more limited.

Trust me, I exhausted the surge tank option, it only solves the baffle issue (and then only temporarily) and maintains the unfavorable additional electrical load.

And there's a better/more elegant solution than controlling the pumps from the ECU. I actually considered doing just a true upgraded returnless system, but that doesn't account for boost (or it does, just through a bunch of sophisticated and complicated tuning and sensory inputs).
Ok so hear is moreso a problem with petroleum(think 93-100 octane etc). Not so much with alcohol (people are using 3 pumps constant on street cars). I get what you're saying but honestly the pumps are the problem if you ever incur the problem. As you said electrical load has other side effects which are easily discernable. But how many people are actually getting these problems? If someone made/makes a brushless in tank pump the size of a walbro/bosch pump that would be gold especially if they could integrate the Venturi as well.

How are most of these systems balances the other saddle? If the pumps are open the hose going to the other bank has to still be there right?
 

Angrey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Threads
92
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Coral Gables
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350
Ok so hear is moreso a problem with petroleum(think 93-100 octane etc). Not so much with alcohol (people are using 3 pumps constant on street cars). I get what you're saying but honestly the pumps are the problem if you ever incur the problem. As you said electrical load has other side effects which are easily discernable. But how many people are actually getting these problems? If someone made/makes a brushless in tank pump the size of a walbro/bosch pump that would be gold especially if they could integrate the Venturi as well.

How are most of these systems balances the other saddle? If the pumps are open the hose going to the other bank has to still be there right?
It's more a problem with Ethanol than 93. Ethanol requires approximately 30% more flow. But given the HP levels we're talking about, most tuners won't touch 93, hence the escalation over the past few years with HP and E85 flow rates. Some of us can remember the days when 265 l/h pumps were the badass aftermarket pump offerings. HP and street cars + E85 have escalated fuel flow rates in the past 10 years to ridiculous levels.

Yes, all the current systems maintain the jet syphon, but that's only part of the equation, the bucket is there to provide momentary baffling and keep the pumps supplied.

How are most guys dealing with this? I'll tell you how. They don't run below 1/3 of a tank or if they do, they baby the car until they have enough fuel level to ensure they're not going to starve the pumps.

Imagine taking a 300 mile trip having to fuel up every 100 miles. Can it be done? Sure, is it the best we can do, I don't think it is.
 

Angrey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Threads
92
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
2,393
Location
Coral Gables
Vehicle(s)
2016 GT350
Ok so hear is moreso a problem with petroleum(think 93-100 octane etc). Not so much with alcohol (people are using 3 pumps constant on street cars). I get what you're saying but honestly the pumps are the problem if you ever incur the problem. As you said electrical load has other side effects which are easily discernable. But how many people are actually getting these problems? If someone made/makes a brushless in tank pump the size of a walbro/bosch pump that would be gold especially if they could integrate the Venturi as well.

How are most of these systems balances the other saddle? If the pumps are open the hose going to the other bank has to still be there right?
And you're on the right track. There are brushless pumps that will fit. There are buckets that will work. There are improvements to jet syphoning.
 

illtal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Threads
17
Messages
1,865
Reaction score
908
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
2018 Mustang GT
It's more a problem with Ethanol than 93. Ethanol requires approximately 30% less flow. But given the HP levels we're talking about, most tuners won't touch 93, hence the escalation over the past few years with HP and E85 flow rates.

Yes, all the current systems maintain the jet syphon, but that's only part of the equation, the bucket is there to provide momentary baffling and keep the pumps supplied.

How are most guys dealing with this? I'll tell you how. They don't run below 1/3 of a tank or if they do, they baby the car until they have enough fuel level to ensure they're not going to starve the pumps.

Imagine taking a 300 mile trip having to fuel up every 100 miles. Can it be done? Sure, is it the best we can do, I don't think it is.
Ethanol requires more flow .... I think that's what you meant
93 boils around 100 degrees
E85 is about 200 degrees
 

Sponsored

Ivan214

Active Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Threads
1
Messages
39
Reaction score
5
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
2018 5.0 GT Triple Yellow
what about upgrade the DI pump and using a Voltage booster on a pump with bucket if you want to hit a certain range. I was wondering how much blend % is done with after market fuel system vs upgrading the DI pump and injectors? would focusing more on DI squeeze out more HP with DI? I believe you had a shop car @beefcake go that route.
 
OP
OP
Dominant1

Dominant1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2016
Threads
94
Messages
3,737
Reaction score
1,127
Location
USA
First Name
Dr Frankenstang
Vehicle(s)
2016 gt/cs auto 3:55 gears
Vehicle Showcase
1
Define big. are you talking triple 465’s? Twin dw-400’s in an x2 set up? Isn’t it better to buy a system specific to you needs and goals?
 

Whitedevil95

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Threads
36
Messages
732
Reaction score
503
Location
Temecula, CA
First Name
J.P.
Vehicle(s)
2017 Mustang GT
Lots of good info out there. I went with a Sai Li system because i was planning to be around 700-750rwhp. If I went bigger I think I would get the new DW set up. That seems like a great system.
Sponsored

 
 




Top