Captain Bondo Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 If you're going to do that you should probably upgrade to -12 fuel lines while you're at it, since the rail is around 5/8" ID already. Since you seem to think you need 1000hp worth of fuel system for some reason... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted October 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Used 1" OD (3/4" ID)" box section, staggered the outside so it sits parallel to the base, and so the stock plastic injector cover with still fit. fitted to my old manifold to pressure test stock rail in comparison Kpax rail again.. Had a balljoint fail yesterday - it was fine, and then it wasn't - got a severe vibration around 65-70. The left BJ was REALLY loose. Don't have a new arm handy, so I swapped it out with a good used Volvo arm for the time being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Bondo Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 That clip-in banjo fitting is the restrictive part in your pictures. Especially with that fitting there, increasing the fuel rail volume is accomplishing nothing. Notice that both my rail and the kpax rail, that fitting is deleted and replaced with a straight-through one. That fitting is the weak link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dublin14 Posted October 3, 2012 Report Share Posted October 3, 2012 Extremely simple to just put aluminum AN fittings on an ME7 rail, though. Very Nice!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Mac Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) Straight through fittings for sure, Hussein. Also, those PWR intercoolers are beautiful. Edited October 4, 2012 by B Mac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted October 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 That clip-in banjo fitting is the restrictive part in your pictures. Especially with that fitting there, increasing the fuel rail volume is accomplishing nothing. Notice that both my rail and the kpax rail, that fitting is deleted and replaced with a straight-through one. That fitting is the weak link. Thanks. I have fabricated a larger ID banjo fitting to replace that. I'm using an 1/4npt fitting on the other end, for test port or possibly a pressure sensor Finally got a reasonably long 4th gear pull to see how the overall mapping has worked out. Boost is set to 1.45kg/cm2, and shows as such on my gauge, but still logs about 1.5-2psi under actual. Boost does drop off over the length of any pull, still haven't got the Apexi set up to my satisfaction. I wired the boost controller circuit with VEMS, so I'll probably do away with the Apexi at that point. Timing seems to be holding up nicely! I have found that the EGT probe is not accurate - I've been getting spikes in the logs that don't correspond to the gauge - the gauge probe is in the collector by the #4 runner, the logging probe is in the WG dump pipe, so it doesn't get the same flow as the main exhaust, which I presume is affecting the readings. 4th graph: data: Based on this log, I think I can add a little more timing, I'm getting higher than requested under WOT over 6200rpm. Next. I'm going to try a diverter on the IC inlet - like the Treadstone IC's - to push some air up out of the base area, see if that drops the approach under 30º increase over a pull. If not, I'll go with a Treadstone IC, probably the TR-1235 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dublin14 Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 I wouldnt have thought that intercooler was so cheap to buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted October 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 Made new ends for the rail - I first made a banjo adaptor, but then taking the advice on the input line, I made an elbow fitting instead. Used the stock flare fitting, just bored it out a little. both ends are step-bored so the elbow is fitted inside the ends. Also cut the stock valve fitting off & made an adaptor for checking pressure at the rail. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted October 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Fitted the rail this afternoon. had to modify another timing belt cover to allow for the repositioned feed line What I hadn't considered was that the added volume would lower the pressure in the rail, so tomorrow I have to raise the regulated pressure to compensate. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCviggen Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 What I hadn't considered was that the added volume would lower the pressure in the rail It shouldn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dublin14 Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Dam that engine looks good Hussein! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted October 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 It shouldn't? No, it makes sense that it would, I just didn't factor it in yesterday. I ran out of time & had to go pick up my pregnant daughter & son in law from JFK last night - so I turned off the Apexi to limit overall boost. Car ran fine at only 15psi, I presumed I might have lean issues at higher levels, since the base pressure at the rail was now only 3bar instead of 4bar. I basically drove like a granny to avoid any issues. I did one gentle pull after I dropped the pair of them off, just to see if there was any indication of a problem at the base WG setting. Dam that engine looks good Hussein! Thanks, Gary. I'm happy with the overall look, it's coming together nicely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCviggen Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) No, it makes sense that it would, I just didn't factor it in yesterday. I really don't see why unless you have a very weird fuel pressure regulating setup where the diameter of the fittings has screwed something up, the volume of the rail itself is irrelevant. It could be 10 times the volume and it still wouldn't matter. In any case the FPR regulates to a set pressure and it is located downstream from the fuel rail, and the rail itself has no influence on the preload of the spring inside the regulator... Only thing I can think of is that you might have reduced the "backpressure" behind the regulator (the return line fitting enlarged?) which meant that the FPR has a larger pressure difference to deal with now and thus needs to be tightened to get back to the same pressure as before. But it's not related to the rail. Edited October 6, 2012 by JCviggen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Riker Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Checking in on your thread H to say... I like what I'm seeing here. Great job, as always. FWIW, here's my ME7 rail... and AN fittings... and an aeromotive FPR mounted up on the FW. Looks like a similar FPR to what sir captain bondo had sitting on the engine in that previous pic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted October 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 I really don't see why unless you have a very weird fuel pressure regulating setup where the diameter of the fittings has screwed something up, the volume of the rail itself is irrelevant. It could be 10 times the volume and it still wouldn't matter. In any case the FPR regulates to a set pressure and it is located downstream from the fuel rail, and the rail itself has no influence on the preload of the spring inside the regulator... Only thing I can think of is that you might have reduced the "backpressure" behind the regulator (the return line fitting enlarged?) which meant that the FPR has a larger pressure difference to deal with now and thus needs to be tightened to get back to the same pressure as before. But it's not related to the rail. It didn't make sense to me. It turns out the schraeder valve insert I used was the problem - the nipple was too short, so the gauge adaptor was not depressing the valve resulting in incorrect gauge values. I figured it out when I rechecked the pressure today - I adjusted the FPR, then found I had almost 5bar of pressure at idle. put a replacement insert in reset the base pressure (vacuum connected) to 3.5bar checked it on the road, and pressure is now as expected, 4 bar at atmospheric, around 5bar (70+psi) under full boost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.