FASS Dyno Results

[GIT-R-DONE]

First off let me give you some background. I had posted on another thread that I was going to dyno my truck with the recently installed FASS system, and no other mods since the last dyno. Thats what I did yesterday at Kauffman Motorsports.



Now, the reason I went with the FASS system, was for reliability. I was tired of always worrying about the lift pump that ended up going out of my truck at 29,000 miles. Pressure always dropping and not consistent. With my FASS, I cant drop the pressure more than 1/2 pound, according to my gauge. The one thing that I noticed too was I cant fuel up the truck with it running as the returning fuel to the tank from the pump was too much for me to throw in more fuel at the same time... ... ... ... so its obvious that there is a TON of volume with this pump. Plus you can increase the pressure, (correct me if I am wrong Brad) by using a heavier spring in the return line to the tank.



Now for the numbers:



Date:10/4/03 FALL BRAWL

Location: Kauffman Motorsports

Dyno: Dyno Jet 248C

Dyno operator: Dave

Truck: 2002 Dodge Cummins H. O. AFE Intake and muffler removed, everything else is STOCK.

Best of three runs on Dyno... ... . 236 HP 489. 8 TQ





Date: 12/20/03

Location: Kauffman Motorsports

Dyno: Dyno Jet 248C

Dyno operator: Dave

Truck: Same truck as above only with FASS installed

Best run was ... ... ... 232. 7 HP 481. 5 TQ



So, the "HUMBLER" as Andy says..... answered that question. There was no gain on horsepower, as some had expected.

I did my best to insure that all conditions were the same, ie same dyno, same operator ( thanks DAVE)



Now for those of you that need the proof on paper, I gave Andy ( HAMMER ) as he and Scott ( PRORAM ) were on hand to watch, a copy of the Dyno runs and he can post if he wants ( I don't have a way to post them on the PC ) Thanks guys for the help and suggestions on the best possible mods for the truck, and for coming to watch.



In closing I want to reemphasize, I didn't buy this system for Horsepower, I bought it for the reliability, that it is better than the stock lift pump. Would I buy the FASS again knowing that I am not going to gain any HP. YES I WOULD ! I noticed the truck runs smoother, a little faster starting and I have yet to test the fuel mileage, but I will say that in my 4 hour each way trip to the "HUMBLER" I got an avg of 19 with the hammer down both ways.



By the way, I am not affiliated with either www.kauffmanmotorsports.com or www.dieselpp.com



Thanks, Don

 

[DSteinel]

Good info, the only difference I have noted is the fact that at the end of the pulling track before my truck would miss, stumble and then fall flat on it's face, now I actually have to run out of power before it quits, not run out of fuel

 

[OL RATLR]

Fass Dyno Results

Cuda6Pack! Thanks for the numbers. I like you want reliabilty.

 

[Big P]

Could winter fuel be a factor?

 

[Cooker]

Thanks for your efforts

 

[HeberRam]

What HP ??????

Cuda6pack..... Just curious, what made you think you would gain HP with the install of the Fass system???

 

[Hammer]

First and foremost a HUGE thank you to Dave & Ernie at Kauffman Motorsports for letting us tie up their dyno to do this and try a few other little items Don brought along for after the FASS test. Their continued dedication to our chapter and its members is really refreshing and a finer bunch of people I do not think anyone could find. Now on to our early rips...



With going back to the shop it has given us a back to back analysis of how these pumps would fare for any HP gains. While were there yesterday we made sure Dave ran the truck completely the way he ran it during Fall Brawl. That way it would help us to determine what,if any,gains could be made with the FASS system. One thing I did notice with Don's truck,as I did with Proram's,was how much smoother it idled and the "cackle" was all but eliminated,the sound is alot smoother. Correction factors were about the same with the only difference being the temperature was lower. I'll put the factors up for all here to look at now.....



10/04/03 Fall Brawl. .

Temp. . 56 degrees... . 29. 2/. 30in CF-. 99



12/20/03 Santa Rip...

Temp. . 44. 8degrees... . 29. 3/. 10in CF-. 97



The truck had just been driven in from his house about 250 miles to dyno shop so I feel the fuel was sufficiently mixed and aired. The truck was pulled on the jet at full normal operating temp and was never shut down till we were done with the comparison. I am not a fan or believer in correction factors with our trucks but the numbers didn't vary one bit corrected or uncorrected. Test results were the same,no HP or Tq gains with the use of this pump. I do have the dyno sheets and will try to make them fit for this post for you all to see. I do feel the "winter blended" fuel contributed to the minor Hp losses he seen as we all know how bad the blended fuel hurts our mileages. The weather was a moot point as seen above and to me made no difference on the outcome.



Now,I do feel this pump would show more gain possibly in a much higher HP truck,time will tell though. I do know that the Ford's gain posted in other threads could be contributed to their fueling issues they have with the Powerstrokes. I know too many high HP Ford owners and what they do to dyno for fuel pressure gains for HP and can completely understand why this great system picked them up so much. Our Cummins trucks have a much more efficient fuel system than they do and it showed here in this test,but,we all know how poor the pumps are and their failure rates due to it.



In conclusion...

One only has to ask yourself as a owner of a truck destined for the FASS system this. . "Am I doing this for HP gains or Reliability and longevity?". I am certain most owners would answer reliability & longevity and thats a item Dodge should have addressed so we,the owner didn't have to. HP gains can be better addressed buy other means,but,without a stout fuel system even that is compromised.



Thanks for a good fuel system option for us to build our trucks on Brad. While it showed no gains Hp wise, I believe reliability & longevity is where your product will show its value on a Cummins. Now get to work upgrading it for us "properly valved" trucks... ... ... ... Andy

 

[Hammer]

HeberRam. .

I can answer that as it was mentioned by the designer in other threads that HP gains were made by the use of this pump. BUT,it was made on a Ford where fuel system issues are more common and bigger than ours... ..... Andy

 

[Hammer]

Here is Run 1 from Fall Brawl...

I had to shrink them so I do not know how good they can be seen. Someday someone will show me how to input the larger shots in... ... .

 

[Hammer]

Yesterdays Run...

 

[Ramafid]

I am glad the dyno results are finally in. It would have been nice to pick up additional HP but that is not the real reason behind the FASS. Reliability is the primary concern for us and a mileage gain would be an added bonus. Thanks to Don and Andy for getting us this information.



Anthony

 

[dresslered]

This is great data! I too, am mainly concerned with reliability of the pump. However, I have not seen any data to suggest that the reliability numbers are there.

 

[LowFly]

FASS Fuel System

I realize that the dyno did not show any horsepower increase over the dyno performed 2 months earlier and I really appreciate everybody's support about our product!!!!



There will be a dyno test using a G-Tech dyno performed on a 2003 or 2004 Dodge Ram within the next 2 weeks. The reason for the G-Tech dyno is so we can see how much of a difference in performance is noticed over a period of different driving times without the FASS. This way the entrained air in the fuel will not have the time to escape like it does while hooking onto a stationary dyno and a true "Real World Horsepower" can be obtained. Then on the same day within about 30 minutes (not 2 months) we will start testing with the FASS System on under the same parameters set on the previous test. After those tests are performed we will then perform more dyno runs using different rates of fuel pressure from the FASS System. From what I am hearing different amounts of fuel pressure can also change horsepower readings. I would like to know what pressure the FASS System was putting out on Don's truck during this dyno!! These dyno test will be performed on the P7100 and VP44.



The reason that we are so confident about horsepower increases (and we will report what we find out) is that we have had to many people report a 2 - 5 psi increase in manifold pressure after putting the FASS System on and with making no other changes. We have also had many reports about the turbo or turbo's getting up on boost quicker. I have also heard this comment a few times: "I didn't notice any horsepower increase but when I am pulling a load up a hill it holds the same speed longer". That is horsepower!



Here is a test for everybody about how long entrained air will stay suspended in fuel: Do this test at room temp (about 70 degrees)



1. Get a glass jar with a lid and fill it half full with diesel fuel.

Place the lid on the jar.

2. Slosh the jar around.

3. Set the jar down on the table and remove the lid.

4. Now time how long it takes for the majority of the air to

reach the top of the fuel and escape.



You'll notice it takes about 2 - 3 minutes for the majority of the air to escape. This is why we are choosing to use a G-Tech dyno and not a stationary dyno.



I am sorry I just do not believe there is very much accuracy on a comparison dyno run that was separated by 2 months. I believe there are just to many variables.



We are looking for the most accurate numbers in our tests. We are not performing this test to inflate any results, we are looking for the most accurate results so we can show potential customers what to expect.



I will still stand behind what I said previously, I believe that we will give the Dodge Cummins (P7100, VP44 or Common Rail) at least 35 more horsepower. I also believe that even on a stationary dyno performed on the same day we will even improve those number some.



We also really appreciate this input, because we are always learning and this will help us all out.



Thank you,



Brad

 

[dresslered]

Reliability? My posts must be invisible.

 

[Dkevdog]

Brad- Your testing should be interesting, although I'm still extremely skeptical. I'd like to see the same test you wish to perform done by independent members of the TDR, who've nothing to gain or lose by the results. I'm sorry, but you're talking 35HP increases?? And you're trying to convince me that in two months there some mysterious variables skewed your expected results?? Come on... ... .....



Now, Don't get me wrong, I'm very interested in the FASS system. But I'm interested for the reliability factor. I think you're gonna sell a whole lot more product by sticking to that marketing plan than you will by making HP claims. And, since, up until now there have been no documented comparison tests made, I find it hard to believe your claims. Maybe some additional testing will prove you right, and make us skeptics believers... ... But until then, stick to the reliability of your system rather than it being a performance product.



Kev

 

[LowFly]

FASS Fuel System

Sorry dresslered,



I had posted about the reliability of our pump at one time but I do not remember which thread.



I have had this pump in the field since 1994 in over-the-road trucks. We would usually get 300-500,000 miles out of it and that was with it in a vertical position. Now we have moved in into a horizontal position which will increase the life of the pump dramatically over the 300-500,000 mile figure. In the horizontal position it draws about 20% less amperage and displace the weight over 2 bearing instead of just 1. It also displace the correct thrust load onto the bearings when in the horizontal position. In the vertical position it put the incorrect thrust load onto 1 bearing. This situation would sometimes cause a pump to last 60 - 100,000 miles. The horizontal position eliminated the incorrect thrust load thus eliminating the premature life span sometimes experience with the vertical setup.



Thanks again,



Brad

 

[LowFly]

FASS Fuel System

Hello Kev,



Like I said earlier, I think it is healthy to be skeptical. As I am to on many things.



I have been with the TDR for many years (since 1996) and I know many of the members. I have met many members in person and what tests we perform will be accurate. Please do not take this next statement wrong, but what we find out during the test will be accurate and honest. I shoot straight with everyone and will not B. S. anybody about these figures. So you can take what we report and accept it or throw it in the trash but it will be accurate.



I realize the reliability is a main issue with everybody and we have that covered. If I knew that we didn't help performance I wouldn't try to sell it on performance, but we do help performance!! It will not be like adding a box or cam plate, it will be a nice modest increase in power. (I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you over the phone. I think if you really understood how the fuel system really worked it would make since to you).





Here is a little insight about us. People have been calling us about the Duramax and asking us about the FASS System for the Duramax. We have been telling them "we do not know if it will work on the Duramax and we do not have a kit for the Duramax". The reason we tell them this is first of all we just do not know and secondly we have a excellent reputation. Now we have the FASS System on 1 Duramax and it is performing excellent in the way of adding horsepower and in fuel mileage. The owner said it made one hell of a difference and he can really tell it when he passes someone. So now we are going to make up about 5 kits for the Duramax and see if we get the same results with different users. We now also have the G-Tech dyno to perform some test. We are very honest and sincere when it comes to selling our product and we alway try to be conservative on our improvement figures. I would rather understate and over-perform!



Thanks



Brad

 

[GIT-R-DONE]

Brad,

As when I talked with you on the phone the day before I was to leave for Kauffmans, I explained to you the reasons why I went with the pump and the reasons that I felt I needed to find out what, if any, the horsepower results were to be.

For those people out there like me, there are many of us that need to know where our trucks are as far as horsepower, so we know what modifications our trucks can take without self-destruction of clutches or pistons. As I explained to you I need to know what my truck is running at for horsepower, so I don't destroy something I don't want to destroy ..... yet !



Let me also tell you this... ... ..... I didn't do this for you or anyone else in TDR land. I am simply sharing this information with fellow members so the few thousand people that are online here have an idea of what I have done and the reasons behind them. I did it for my own sake as if this system would produce the horsepower, I want to know. I would have never dreamed of going back to the dyno if the claim of horsepower wasn't made. I needed to know (let me repeat that, I needed to know)... ... ..... as I am the one paying major dollars for a truck that I have much respect for.



You wanted to know about what pressure I had on my gauge, I had 10lb. I decided, for me, that was sufficient enough constant pressure. Some people may like to run more pressure, I decided for now that, that was enough for now. I have heard that if the pressure was raised to high, maybe 17-20+, would make the truck hard to start. I don't want a truck that is hard to start, so for now I'll leave it alone. I would like you to send me the other mount for the system so I can replace the one that I have with the proper one. That would be appreciated.



Another thing that I have heard was that the VP44 injection pump gets its cooling and lubrication from the fuel that flows through it. If that statement is wrong, someone please correct me. With that said, with the VOLUME that the FASS puts out, I would think that @ 10 lbs. , would be enough pressure. Comments welcome from other members on the sufficient pressure for the VP44.



Now , on to the next subject, your dyno. The G-Tech dyno, can you give me a website that explains what it is or does different than the one I dynoed my truck on. I want you to educate me on what the differences are between these dyno's.



If you need any of the information, such as a copy of the dyno sheets, let me know. I would be more than willing to help you out in whatever way I could. I believe in your product, and I am glad to have it on my truck as I feel better about it than the DC crap that was installed from the factory.



But, I would like to know what variables that I have on the truck as compared to the last run. I also would like to know if you think that any of this ( of my post ) was inaccurate or dishonest.



Thanks Don

 

[hammersley]

Cuda6pack is right about the refueling..

There is a lot more fuel coming in AND you can't leave her running and fuel up - the station fuel pump will kick off... .

 

[Hammer]

This way the entrained air in the fuel will not have the time to escape like it does while hooking onto a stationary dyno and a true "Real World Horsepower" can be obtained.

Brad...

I did not want to enter this debate with you but its a can of worms you have opened and I'll not allow you to discredit what was pr oven on a ''stationary" dyno. Your comments about the air escaping during tie down,while you may have others believe you,is nothing but a case of smoke and mirrors here. I am in belief you think I just fell off a turnip truck yesterday,which I did not. One thing you fail to relate to all here about this pump system is how much air it creates in the fuel itself they way it is bypassed back to the tank. This routing in itself is enough disturbance in the bypassed fuel to keep the fuel aired and should have given us the gains you proclaim. Understanding fuel systems and the proper placing of a bypass line returning into the tank to prevent aeration of fuel gave us BIG gains and limited detonation on many of the race applications I have been and am involved with.



The use of a G-Tech is nothing more than "seat of the pants" tuning and numbers shown there are not even comparable to what can be repeated on a stationary jet. As I have already said and I'll repeat myself, even with ''2 months'' difference between the pulls the correction factor between runs was a moot point and your gains should have been seen. The only way you could even begin to discredit the numbers in front of you is if by some chance we would have attained what in racers terms we call ''mineshaft air" and we were far off that.



Again,the reliability of the pump in other applications is already proven,although some here ,unless they are involved with heavy trucking,do not know of this and I feel this is why the questions arise on that. I do have a good friend who is a owner/operator who has over 400,000 miles on the FASS on his truck.



What we learned that day was this is a nice pump to build a fuel system on for a truck anywhere from stock to highly modified. It did not and wouldn't produce the gains claimed,but,the owner was in for longevity anyway. Why waste your time and efforts with claims that can not be backed up,why not market it correctly by proving the longevity and durability of the pump?. It will go a long way with the prospective owners on the outside looking at this pump for a possible solution to Dodge's screwed up pump and would certainly be better than playing the old smoke and mirrors game to sell them. Just my . 02 worth... ... ..... Andy