Let’s talk about return style fuel systems

[MKL_DS]

Anyone looked into the Holley setup? We've been using it in a buddy's 17 GT for a couple years now with great results. Can be configured as return style or returnless, the returns dump right onto the hydramat at the pickup, minimal starvation issues...

https://www.holley.com/products/fue...efi_fuel_pumps/efi_in-tank_pumps/parts/12-175

Sponsored

 

[Cory S]

Anyone looked into the Holley setup? We've been using it in a buddy's 17 GT for a couple years now with great results. Can be configured as return style or returnless, the returns dump right onto the hydramat at the pickup, minimal starvation issues...

https://www.holley.com/products/fue...efi_fuel_pumps/efi_in-tank_pumps/parts/12-175

Nothing wrong with that at all. Just as good as Fore stuff. 100%. Still an open pump design though.

 

[illtal]

Anyone looked into the Holley setup? We've been using it in a buddy's 17 GT for a couple years now with great results. Can be configured as return style or returnless, the returns dump right onto the hydramat at the pickup, minimal starvation issues...

https://www.holley.com/products/fue...efi_fuel_pumps/efi_in-tank_pumps/parts/12-175

From what I remember some of the passenger saddle's fuel is sent over to the driver's saddle with the return as well. How does this not burn up the passenger pump?

Just asking.

 

[Cory S]

From what I remember some of the passenger saddle's fuel is sent over to the driver's saddle with the return as well. How does this not burn up the passenger pump?

Just asking.

Passenger pump?

 

[illtal]

Passenger pump?

Yeah man click on the link. It has a passenger and driver pump one in each saddle.

 

[MKL_DS]

From what I remember some of the passenger saddle's fuel is sent over to the driver's saddle with the return as well. How does this not burn up the passenger pump?

Just asking.

The return dumps into both hats.

 

[Cory S]

The return dumps into both hats.

Bests part of no return lines, is you don't have to dump or circulate anything that wasn't used.

 

[LOL WUT]

Currently between the juggernaut stage 3 + rails and VMP + rails kits. Both will support my goals on E85. Both have a bucket setup and both are essentially plug and play. What it comes down to is dual TI274s vs dual DW400 pumps.

Anyone care to advise if one seems to be more advantageous than the other that I may be missing? Pricing is pretty comparable as well.

https://www.beefcakeracing.com/vmp-enf043/

Or

https://juggernautpower.com/product...-1800-hp-11-mustang-gt?variant=41180411003062

 

[illtal]

Currently between the juggernaut stage 3 + rails and VMP + rails kits. Both will support my goals on E85. Both have a bucket setup and both are essentially plug and play. What it comes down to is dual TI274s vs dual DW400 pumps.

Anyone care to advise if one seems to be more advantageous than the other that I may be missing? Pricing is pretty comparable as well.

https://www.beefcakeracing.com/vmp-enf043/

Or

https://juggernautpower.com/product...-1800-hp-11-mustang-gt?variant=41180411003062

my vote is the 274 pumps for either one. The VMP unit is the DW X-2 unit just rebranded. You will have to cannibalize your own bucket for this one.

If the price is negligible the Radium unit is a nice thing to have. It will allow you to upgrade to brushless if you desire.

 

[LOL WUT]

my vote is the 274 pumps for either one. The VMP unit is the DW X-2 unit just rebranded. You will have to cannibalize your own bucket for this one.

If the price is negligible the Radium unit is a nice thing to have. It will allow you to upgrade to brushless if you desire.

Appreciate the insight!

 

[Angrey]

If it's an option, upgrade to the 285 (vs the 274).

The TI (which used to be Walbro) 525 l/h series of pumps are:

267 (low max pressure)
274 (same as 267 but with higher max pressure)
285 (same as 274 but spun harder for more flow but higher draw)
295 (same as the 285 but with no backflow/check valve for decreased friction loss and even more flow).

The 295's require either an external check valve (which is a restriction) or deal with start issues from the system not maintaining pressure when off.

The 285's flow the most while still maintaining start up static pressure.

 

[LOL WUT]

If it's an option, upgrade to the 285 (vs the 274).

The TI (which used to be Walbro) 525 l/h series of pumps are:

267 (low max pressure)
274 (same as 267 but with higher max pressure)
285 (same as 274 but spun harder for more flow but higher draw)
295 (same as the 285 but with no backflow/check valve for decreased friction loss and even more flow).

The 295's require either an external check valve (which is a restriction) or deal with start issues from the system not maintaining pressure when off.

The 285's flow the most while still maintaining start up static pressure.

Looks like the juggernaut system can be upgraded to the 285s for minimal cost. I’ll absolutely keep that in mind if going with their kit.

 

[illtal]

Looks like the juggernaut system can be upgraded to the 285s for minimal cost. I’ll absolutely keep that in mind if going with their kit.

285s have a significantly higher amperage draw and thus they get hotter. if this is not a concern to you then go with the 285s.

 

[LOL WUT]

285s have a significantly higher amperage draw and thus they get hotter. if this is not a concern to you then go with the 285s.

I was just diving into that reading this thread.

https://www.spoolstreet.com/threads/ti-automotive-walbro-274-vs-285-vs-295.5882/

Seems like the 295 is the sweet spot but no check valve. However, juggernaut offers an inline check valve but doesn’t offer the 295 pumps. I’m fairly certain the 274s will be ample for my goals.

 

[wish i was fast]

It's a matter of keeping the pumps surrounded by fuel. In the past, that was accomplished through baffles inside the tank or even better, having an inline pickup tube in a sump at the bottom of the tank.

Modern IRS cars have the fuel tank further forward (because of the rear suspension conflicts) and that generally involves a "saddle" style tank which creates a couple of problems. The biggest being fuel imbalance from one side to the other (over the hump) which on the mustang (and many others) is accomplished via a siphon system (which reduces/sacrifices some pump flow to draw fuel slowly from the passenger side). Many high flow aftermarket fuel setups create a starvation issue because in order to fit 3 pumps, they eliminate the bucket (for fitment and/or cost savings). Having a bucket or reservoir that holds fuel around the pump intakes while the car momentarily lurches and fuel sloshes rearward helps. Additionally, the siphon flow from the passenger side dumped into the bucket provides a small amount of continuous reservoir fill.

The simplest solution to solving low fuel starvation is a surge tank. A dedicated reservoir that's filled with a lift pump and then the main fuel pumps draw it down temporarily. But that creates location issues and having fuel components inside the firewall with you. (in fairness, there's fuel systems exposed to the interior of the firewall regardless and separated by a rubber cover and a steel ringed friction top).

Adding a bucket to the system provides some limited measure against dry pumps. A lot of aftermarket systems just say "racecar" and warn you to not flog it when the fuel level is low. The Radium hat has many positive features, one of them being fuel storage with a one way bladder valve at the bottom (so fuel can flow in but not out) and then obviously over the top when fuel level is high. It can reduce, but not totally eliminate inertia starvation. (long/extended rips where the rearward G force is maintained for several seconds on high hp/consumption systems will eventually suck it dry).

i'm sorry but None on the fuel pump capacity is used to transfer fuel from one side of the tank to the other. This is done on a siphon in the bottom of the stock bucket. if you mean the little hose on the top of the pump it is to fill the bucket. that's all. i'm sorry if i'm misunderstanding.

Sponsored