Turbo Install Finished!

[reserved50]

The Gen2 Explorers do not use a true returnless system with a PWM turbine pump. You can swap pumps between them. You should check it out sometime.

Im familiar with the return style Exploder efi that was mentioned and know a few people that have used non HP "EFI" pumps in similar setups and have been fine. I thought it was being mentioned in generalization to use return style pumps in all systems, PWM etc.

I was talking about the EFI pumps they classify for HP and standard EFI. Im sure anyone would be aware they are using a carb pump

 

[manaen]

I don't want to sound all negative, I really like the setup and the routing of the system, you did a class A job on the design, I will be really curious to see the dyno numbers if you run it.

 

[manaen]

The returnless pumps can work in a return application even without the check valve, but it is not optimal for long pump life. The system does not hold pressure so it will have to reprime every time you start the engine but the reprime only takes about 2 seconds. There are only a few examples of situations where I would recommend using a pump setup like this. Most people in here would be best to get the right type of pump for the job from the beginning.

Using return in true PWM returnless application will burn the pump out really quick like you said.

OK, so now I am confused, I have a returnless 62psi system on my mounty, it has a PWM on the fuel rail, everything I read (which isn't much, there is little documentation on the returnless gen 2 system That I could find) says that there is a FPR located on the fuel pump in the tank, is that not the case?

and I'm not sure I understand what makes a fuel pump with the PWM so much different then the standard return style pump with a FPR on the fuel rail

I don't want to divert the topic of this thread too much though...

 

[V8RangerBoy]

I don't want to sound all negative, I really like the setup and the routing of the system, you did a class A job on the design, I will be really curious to see the dyno numbers if you run it.

I'd love to dyno it, but I can't find anyone in southern Idaho with a chassis dyno that's still in business! 6psi is 6psi, so the peak numbers should be very comparable (typically slightly higher) to a supercharger. I have a couple Modified Mustang magazines that have done "stock block" turbo builds on 5.0's - at 10psi they went from 199hp/243tq up to 440hp/493tq. Granted the heads on the Exploder flow a little less, so the gain wouldn't be as dramatic, but nonetheless, interesting ballpark figures.

 

[V8RangerBoy]

You know I've got to agree with you, after doing structural welding for a few years that shot of the frame really scares me. I will accept the welds on the pipes, but those welds on the frame look really poor for structural welds, that is a lot of metal missing there, and it is at the most stressed part of the frame, right between the wheels. It could just be the images, maybe I cannot see the full details of how you reinforced the area, but I would really question its integrity. But then again I've always overbuilt/over engineered structural items so maybe it is just me.

Trustin' my dad again on this one. He hand built the frame for his '50 Ford F1, so I let him take the reigns on that part of it. He's extremely experienced in flame, MIG, TIG, etc, so I let him take over here! The way I took the picture truly does make it look alot worse than it is. It's welded along top and bottom completely, with about a dozen rosettes throughout the middle of the plate itself. There's still a ton more metal on top than what it looks. The bottom is more lacking than the top, but the way that drop-down bracket is placed, it doesn't worry me.

Where I don't jump the truck or do any suspension "flexing" I don't forsee it being in major issue.

 

[reserved50]

well in that case you could of remote mounted the turbo in a bed box just behind the cab with a semi truck style smoke stack (with flapper of course) and saved the trouble , that would be unique haha

 

[manaen]

well in that case you could of remote mounted the turbo in a bed box just behind the cab with a semi truck style smoke stack (with flapper of course) and saved the trouble , that would be unique haha

but then to make it authentic he would have had to run the oil line into the exhaust to make black smoke come out like a diesel

 

[Jakee]

Props to you for making this happen. There will always be people out there that say "should have done it this way"....ect. What counts is how you feel about it. I don't think you'll ever see a problem with cutting the frame like you did either. In fact, I bet it's stroger than before.

And this comment has nothing to do with the "tuning" suggestions in this thread. (I would listen to the suggested tuning air-fuels...ect)

 

[rocket 5979]

Im familiar with the return style Exploder efi that was mentioned and know a few people that have used non HP "EFI" pumps in similar setups and have been fine. I thought it was being mentioned in generalization to use return style pumps in all systems, PWM etc.

I was talking about the EFI pumps they classify for HP and standard EFI. Im sure anyone would be aware they are using a carb pump

Reserved, we are talking about 3 different pumps here. One is a 255lph carb pump which is flow rated at 4-9psi pressure. The other pump is the 255lph EFI pump which is usually rated at 40psi. Some of the HP EFI pumps (nicknamed Forced Induction pumps by some) are rated at 255lph at 60 psi. There is a world of difference in flow ability with those three pumps.

I am not saying there there will be a problem running a HP pump meant for boosted application in a N/A vehicle. It will just have extra fuel going back to the fuel tank. No problem.

The problem is that there are some carb electric pumps that look identical to the EFI pumps. If you accidentally stick a carb 255lph pump into an EFI setup running forced induction then just be aware that you will run into that pump flowing nowhere near its rated 255lph. That may, and probably will cause fueling issues depending on how much boost you are running of course.

 

[rocket 5979]

OK, so now I am confused, I have a returnless 62psi system on my mounty, it has a PWM on the fuel rail, everything I read (which isn't much, there is little documentation on the returnless gen 2 system That I could find) says that there is a FPR located on the fuel pump in the tank, is that not the case?

and I'm not sure I understand what makes a fuel pump with the PWM so much different then the standard return style pump with a FPR on the fuel rail

I don't want to divert the topic of this thread too much though...

That thing on your rail is likely the fuel pulse dampener that you are talking about. It is nothing like what is used in a Pulse Width Modulated fuel system. One big way to find out which specific system you have is to take a look at the tuning. If you have a full fuel pump voltage table then you have a PWM "true" returnless system. If you do not, then you likely have a mechanical returnless. And of course if you have a regular FPR and a return line then you already know what kind of fuel system you have.

 

[reserved50]

I know I already said I assumed he was talking about the two high pressure EFI nitrous/FI pumps not the carb version. I guess I assumed people with EFI setups werent looking at carb pumps

 

[CDW6212R]

Robert, what limit would the two EFI pumps have? I'm sure that I will want the top pump later, should I go after it now? I'll be NA to start with, the stock fuel lines will be fine for a 332, with 30lbs. injectors. I should get the high pressure pump then to start with yes?

 

[rocket 5979]

I know I already said I assumed he was talking about the two high pressure EFI nitrous/FI pumps not the carb version. I guess I assumed people with EFI setups werent looking at carb pumps

Unfortunately some people do not notice that. Some people look at the magical 255lph number and pay no attention at what fuel pressure that flow number was made at.

 

[rocket 5979]

Robert, what limit would the two EFI pumps have? I'm sure that I will want the top pump later, should I go after it now? I'll be NA to start with, the stock fuel lines will be fine for a 332, with 30lbs. injectors. I should get the high pressure pump then to start with yes?

The higher pressure pumps are not much more expensive than the regular EFI pumps. It would not hurt to stuff the higher pressure pumps in now and save yourself the install time to do it all again later.

Honestly, two regular EFI pumps will flow enough fuel to support a pretty good amount of power. You could probably get away with those just fine, but then what if you decide to shoot for more power in the future? If you are anything like me then just go with the higher pressure pumps now to save yourself future work.

 

[jah81592]

Robert, what limit would the two EFI pumps have? I'm sure that I will want the top pump later, should I go after it now? I'll be NA to start with, the stock fuel lines will be fine for a 332, with 30lbs. injectors. I should get the high pressure pump then to start with yes?

A 332 with stock fuel lines and a 190ph pump would service you sufficiently. If you are going to run n/a'd or even up to around 10# boost. I have several F150 customers using this pump in a boosted (9-10psi) environment with no fueling problems whatsoever. Just for safety measure if you are going to boost later then I would install a 255lph fuel pump. But the 190 can be used successfully.-j

Unfortunately some people do not notice that. Some people look at the magical 255lph number and pay no attention at what fuel pressure that flow number was made at.

Wow this brings back memories and funny how history repeats itself. This is the same debate which was in Justins turbo thread about a year ago. I went through extinsive explanation of the difference between the 3 systems and there seems to still be confusion. Robert sums it up well. But keep in mind I recommend higher psi pumps for forced induction but never for a N/A application as it isn't necessary. Guys please note that running higher psi unneccessarily does put additional wear on the regulator and injector pintles. Is it enough to debate about? I won't get into that conversation. But I will say for example a 255lph pump @ 90psi will support the some of the biggest n/a Windsor strokers for street driven vehicles. Otherwise forced induction pumps generally have a 115psi rating.-j

 

[rocket 5979]

But keep in mind I recommend higher psi pumps for forced induction but never for a N/A application as it isn't necessary. Guys please note that running higher psi unneccessarily does put additional wear on the regulator and injector pintles. Is it enough to debate about? I won't get into that conversation.

If you increase fuel pressure while running those higher pressure pumps then that can cause the premature wear like you described. If fuel pressure is left to stock levels with that higher flow pump (while running N/A before boosting) then minimal additional wear will result. You will have a little extra fuel returning back to the tank due to that higher pressure rated pumps better flow ability but that is no big deal unless you are running a truly huge pump. Keeping fuel pressure at stock levels will be the name of the game to ensuring longer life for other components in the fuel system, like James said.

Running needlessly high fuel pressure does wear things out quicker and it can also play with your AFR's depending on if it gets close to or exceeds the pumps max flow abilities when under boost. Take a look at an example of the AFR's becoming screwy when running much too high a fuel pressure below...

For you big power guys:

Since there are a few of you guys in here that look to have the idea for going for bigger power I figure I would include this example for you. You have a blown vehicle running 20psi boost and you adjust your shiney new boost referenced FPR's fuel pressure to be at 60 psi static thinking that well more fuel pressure must give me more fuel and keep me safer. Well when you hit full boost your pump is actually having to supply 80psi of fuel to the rails now because it has to push an extra 20psi against that boost pressure in the manifold. We all know that running a higher pressure will decrease a pumps flow abilities. So now we have turned our 255lph pump into a 200 lph fuel pump essentially. Now if and when your fuel demands rise above that new/lower threshold your fuel pressure and flow will plummet and cause your AFR's to go lean. If you took that same fuel system and adjusted it down to 40 psi static (60psi under full boost) you will give yourself much more room before maxxing your fuel pump out. For those few of you that plan to go for bigger power this will be something that you will want to pay close attention to. Running needlessly high fuel pressure will prematurely max your fuel pump out. Also keep in mind that running needlessly low fuel pressure will max your injectors out prematurely as well. Just a bit of info for you guys planning to shoot for over 500-550rwhp or above.

 

[CDW6212R]

My ears are ringing, I hadn't got that far along in planning. I figured the 40psi was the right path, and maybe if one 255lph pump was marginal, a boost-a-pump may help. I'm trying to match the right piston to builder for my 332, to get a higher compression than 9.0 to one. I've almost got the 28oz. balancer worked out. Regards,

 

[rocket 5979]

My ears are ringing, I hadn't got that far along in planning. I figured the 40psi was the right path, and maybe if one 255lph pump was marginal, a boost-a-pump may help. I'm trying to match the right piston to builder for my 332, to get a higher compression than 9.0 to one. I've almost got the 28oz. balancer worked out. Regards,

Running 40 psi rail pressure will probably be best for you. The greatest factor determining how much fuel pump you will need is how much power and boost you plan to end up running. Take whatever goals you have and then design a system to work around that premise.