What about this y block for dual feed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DTanklage said:
why not?

you just decreased restriction of fuel flow

pump20ports-1.jpg


you made a straighter shot for the fuel to exit

less restriction = less pressure

don

ps - thank you for proving my theory to be correct
Click to expand...




Oh no.
I surly didnt do this to prove any theorys right or wrong, I didnt even expect a power increase from it just the poss. of reliability and more volume to the pump.
I see don's point..... kind of, but def. not saying I agree either way. The regulator or in my case the OFV is the determining factor of case pressure, I dont see moving inlets around or even adding more changing the way that the OFV is going to work. The internal spring rate is going to determine when it blows off no matter if their is one feed or 3, I agrre that since it is so close to where the fuel exits the RT. that some of that fuel is certainly going to exit quicker, but that tiny orfice and -6 line will only flow so much, the dual -8's are supplying much more than is being returned.... in a given time frame. Just my helper pump moves 110gph and I cant remember what the factory mechanical moves but seems like maybe it was ~ 60gph? Thats quite a bit of available fuel at 40+ psi.
The fact is that I keep a very close eye on engine pressures from week to week including fuel pressure and with the shims and springs in the OFV it always idles at 45 psi and will bury the 60# gauge down track. And now at idle in the shop it is 37-38# and just slow reving the engine no longer pegs the gauge like it did before it seems to want to go to ~55 and stop there?
Another thought is I also made a larger change in timing at the same time, more timing than I have ever had loaded up before, being that the engine still runs off a mechanical pump curve and that is dectated by engine speed that maybe thats all it is, it did seem to maybe idle a little slower this alone would prob. show the decrease in idle fuel pressure, maybe? Either way Im not detured from the change, I will get the pressure back up to where it used to be and make some laps this weekend and see.
Which regulator are many of you guys running, and do many use a boost ref style, this is all I used back when I raced blown alky small blocks.........I orig. retained the mech. pump because I liked the idea of the curve, but really dont see it making any diff. these days. Ryan
 
One could argue don's point by saying that the internal pump body also adds restriction equating to pressure. You may have gotten a ΔPp of 7psi through the pump and a ΔPv of 38psi across the OFV. By removing the restriction through the pump, you are only left with the overflows ΔPv. I don't think that loss of 15% of pressure will make much of a difference. Flow is still the same.

I could bye that but theory for the loss of pressure that about as far as you can go on speculation. The other 11 posts arguing speculation would be a waste. To solidly argue this theory you would need to measure the flow through both feed ports and the fuel temperatures and flow to each individual pumping plunger. Until someone provides that data, my speculation is as good as yours; choose whichever you feel is better.


Regardless of if the fuel is simply flowing out the return port or not, you can not deny that with a dual feed setup both ends of the pump are provided with cool fuel and even pressures. The flow available to the pump is the same. These facts show that this is a worthy way to supply the pump. $.02
 
I agree 100%. I'll know more after Sat. night. The only other change I plan to make is the tweak it will require to put idle pressure back to 45#
Ryan
 
stock600 said:
that some of that fuel is certainly going to exit quicker, but that tiny orfice and -6 line will only flow so much, the dual -8's are supplying much more than is being returned.... in a given time frame.
Click to expand...

That's a shaky statement to make, I'm sure the internal velocities of the fuel in the line are different. The -6AN will certainly provide more resistance to flow though.


stock600 said:
Which regulator are many of you guys running, and do many use a boost ref style, this is all I used back when I raced blown alky small blocks.........I orig. retained the mech. pump because I liked the idea of the curve, but really dont see it making any diff. these days. Ryan
Click to expand...

I run THIS Aeromotive pump but they have a few others that others run with good results. Click HERE or HERE


I'm interested to hear how the setup preforms. :pop:
 
White Knight said:
That's a shaky statement to make, I'm sure the internal velocities of the fuel in the line are different. The -6AN will certainly provide more resistance to flow though.




I run THIS Aeromotive pump but they have a few others that others run with good results. Click HERE or HERE


I'm interested to hear how the setup preforms. :pop:
Click to expand...

Thanks, and I'll post back some info after the weekend. Maybe even a video If I can swing it....
Ryan
 
Smokem said:
Two -8AN feeds, one -6AN banjo return out the front. You have to realize that everytime the plunger reaches spill port, it is pushing high pressure fuel back into the case. Since the P7100 uses longitudinal scavenging instead of cross-flow scavenging such as the P8600 does, it does not matter on location to feed the pump body.

Longitudinal on left, cross-flow on right.

8.jpg
Click to expand...

White Knight said:
One could argue don's point by saying that the internal pump body also adds restriction equating to pressure. You may have gotten a ΔPp of 7psi through the pump and a ΔPv of 38psi across the OFV. By removing the restriction through the pump, you are only left with the overflows ΔPv. I don't think that loss of 15% of pressure will make much of a difference. Flow is still the same.

To solidly argue this theory you would need to measure the flow through both feed ports.....
Click to expand...

i have enough understanding of hydrolics as to not need to put 4 grand worth of electronics on the thing to know what is going on

feeding the pump with two -8 lines, one from the front and one from the rear, is a great idea

or would be if the return exited from between plunger #3 and plunger #4

but it doesnt

now, whos gonna be the first when getting their pump rebuilt to weld, machine, drill and tap between 3&4 ?

pick me pick me
 
Don,

I've played with hydraulics too, I've taken classes, and read the books, I've even read the bosch manual for the inline injection pump; no where have I found a chapter about getting every last horsepower possible out of a P7100. I think of it more an art than a science. Sure physics gets you started but R&D gets the final say. No use in grilling an opinion to death, sometimes you just have to disagree and let them do it there way.


I understand your point, its a valid one in my opinion. If I were to run a dual feed in the port setup for the stock case the forward feed would incorporate a means of flow control in the line. I would like to ensure that all the plungers are forced to be feed with ample fuel and ensure streamlined flow through the body regardless. But I still see how feeding both ports is beneficial.

But that's just my $.02 And you have yours.
 
White Knight said:
No use in grilling an opinion to death, sometimes you just have to disagree and let them do it there way.
Click to expand...

your right

except its their, not there

MODS - PLEASE DELETE THIS AND ANY POST'S I HAVE IN THIS THREAD

especially #73, 74, & 75

i am sure wesley is kickin himself for not thinking of this years ago

dumb newbie first time he looks at a p-pump comes with up a awesome flow mod

don tanklage
 
Well since it's now spelling corrections.com, your posts might be taken a little more seriously if you learn how to spell "hydrolics" LMFAO I know 0 about p-pumps but if you know the same about them as you claim to know high-pressure systems it's prob. more BS with no experience behind it.
 
DTanklage said:
your right

except its their, not there

MODS - PLEASE DELETE THIS AND ANY POST'S I HAVE IN THIS THREAD

especially #73, 74, & 75

i am sure wesley is kickin himself for not thinking of this years ago

dumb newbie first time he looks at a p-pump comes with up a awesome flow mod

don tanklage
Click to expand...




Your the next p-pump guru:bang
 
I think this could be tested easily with the use of air pressure and air flow monitors.

We could crank the pump with air in it, right? Take out delivery valves, turn it into an air compressor for the sake of testing?

With the pump not moving it should verify an increase in flow through the feed port closest to the return, and a corresponding decrease in flow through the standard feed port, with the return flow being held constant. Once the plungers start pumping and creating pressure drops, Pascal's law will come into effect and flow will equalize in both lines accordingly to maintain pressure.


According to my highly valuable intuition, anyways...
 
bsmith said:
Your the next p-pump guru
Click to expand...

you got no idea who i am or what my accomplishments are

what kind of schoolin or experience i have

that goes for the rest of ya too

so stfu

again mr mod, plz delete any of my posts in this thread

if its easier to just delete my user name thats fine too
 
Smokem said:
Dual feed, return out the front.

Sorry I don't have any experience in hydrolics, but I do have some experience in spelling.
Click to expand...

yea, but of what design is that sigma? cross flow?

hydrolics is the way it shoulda been entered into our webster dictionary

lol

its a german word that came over (into our country) with the germans and never got englishfied (lol)

think about it

its defined as - "involving the moving of water, of the force exerted by water in motion"

water

hydro

what everrrrrr..,,

*please delete those three posts
 
Last edited:
I'm not deleting anything. You were man enough to post them....you better be man enough to stand behind them.

And who the hell is Wesley ?
 
UNBROKEN said:
I'm not deleting anything. You were man enough to post them....you better be man enough to stand behind them.

And who the hell is Wesley ?
Click to expand...

you dont get it

if the nay sayers want to be all neg fine, but i now regret sharing my idea with them

dont matter, smokem (whats his real name?) (thought it was wesley shoupe or simular), well, he says "it is not an option"

i say it is an option and will start building my first pump monday a.m.

now to come up with a name for my mod...

'tanklage correct flow 7100' ?

too long

'tanks center exit' ?

naw

tanklage true tee return mod

i like it!
 
DTanklage said:
you got no idea who i am or what my accomplishments are

what kind of schoolin or experience i have

that goes for the rest of ya too

so stfu

again mr mod, plz delete any of my posts in this thread

if its easier to just delete my user name thats fine too
Click to expand...


I say you don't know who any of these people are either or what their accomplishments are .



Your the one talking the doo doo , now you have to eat some doo doo. Natural part of these forums.

I find that with the last some 20 or so of your threads started and asking a question only to give some discredit to peoples honest replies.

Do what you feel you need to do , nobody is stopping you. But quit preachin the bible because most are not buying it.
 
MAXTORQ said:
I say you don't know who any of these people are either or what their accomplishments are .



Your the one talking the doo doo , now you have to eat some doo doo. Natural part of these forums.

I find that with the last some 20 or so of your threads started and asking a question only to give some discredit to peoples honest replies.

Do what you feel you need to do , nobody is stopping you. But quit preachin the bible because most are not buying it.
Click to expand...

X2 :thankyou2:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top