Engine/Transmission (1998.5 - 2002) the ultimate lift pump solution

[Hohn]

For most guys, this isn't a good solution.



Did anyone consider the parasitic losses from the mechanical pump??



It takes a lot of energy to pump fuel at 40-50psi.



And if you only NEED 20psi, this is a very ineffient setup. You're robbing yourself of all that power just so you can make fuel pressure you don't need.



You'd be better off running larger lines and a modest pusher. Shoot, even the Carter pusher when paired with Wildcat's maxflow setup would be a more efficient setup, IMHO.



If you want a good electric pump, run teh Aeromotive A1000.



Aren't you running this, Chris? It's a great pump-- real reliable, efficient, and will move enough fuel to DROWN a p-pump even.



Justin

 

[KLockliear]

Funny, we measured no difference in HP running the mechanical lift pump. How much power do you think it should take? Have YOU tested this to come to that conclusion, or are you just talking?



Also, I believe that A1000 is designed to be gravity fed. The mechanical was designed pull head.

 

[paulb]

Justin - I like your idea of using the Aeromotive A1000, how do you have it setup? Are you using a bypass regulator?



Thanks, Paul

 

[Hohn]

Originally posted by KLockliear

Funny, we measured no difference in HP running the mechanical lift pump. How much power do you think it should take? Have YOU tested this to come to that conclusion, or are you just talking?



Also, I believe that A1000 is designed to be gravity fed. The mechanical was designed pull head.

Really? Maybe you could explain to me why there WAS no difference in power? I find that interesting. I guess maybe you can conclude that the alternator drag needed to power the pump is roughly equivalent to the parasitic drag of the mech pump? How about the inefficiency? Care to elaborate WHY your test revealed what it did?



To answer your question, I am just talking. I don't have a cool business. I don't have a dyno. Shoot, I barely even have a garage and modest bomb budget. I have a desire to help others to consider all the aspects of a given course of action.



Yes, the A1000 is designed to be gravity fed, so it will require tank modification and installing a bulkhead connector.



Justin

I think the DD cam is a good piece, but it's not worth it just to go with a mechanical LP. There are other, better reasons to get it.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Just outta curiosity, exactly HOW do you design a pump differently to PULL fuel as opposed to pushing it - why is it reasonable to claim one type is "made" to pull fuel, and another is not? I thought the same laws of physics applied when PULLING liquids, regardless of the mechanics of the pump involved...

 

[Hohn]

Originally posted by paulb

Justin - I like your idea of using the Aeromotive A1000, how do you have it setup? Are you using a bypass regulator?



Thanks, Paul

I am presently running just stock LP w/ Max Flow. I have experience with the pump on gasser drag cars. It's great.



It requires a lot of extra work on the CTD though. You have to mod the tank a bit and install a regulator as well. The Pump will put out 45PSI and 600 lb/hr. That's a LOT of fuel to me.



Richard Madsen is running a Preporator feeding an A1000 to his engine. I supplies enough fuel for his insane hp level, so I think this would be enough for us mere mortals.



Justin

 

[Hohn]

Originally posted by Gary - KJ6Q

Just outta curiosity, exactly HOW do you design a pump differently to PULL fuel as opposed to pushing it - why is it reasonable to claim one type is "made" to pull fuel, and another is not? I thought the same laws of physics applied when PULLING liquids, regardless of the mechanics of the pump involved...

Good question. I think the only pump that can really pull very well is a diaphragm-style pump, as almost all cam-driven pumps are.



All other fuel pumps I can think of, PD, rotary vane, etc, do a lot better pushing than pulling.





Why is it that we sweat having a centrifugal fuel pump "pull" the fuel from the tank, but we don't seem to think twice about having the turbo "pull" air through the intake?



Interesting... .

 

[KLockliear]

Originally posted by Hohn

Really? Maybe you could explain to me why there WAS no difference in power? I find that interesting. I guess maybe you can conclude that the alternator drag needed to power the pump is roughly equivalent to the parasitic drag of the mech pump? How about the inefficiency? Care to elaborate WHY your test revealed what it did?

Why would there be? If you have seen the LP lobe, it's quite small. I certainly don't see how it would push 40-50hp, or even 10hp for that matter. I doubt alternator drag would be a factor either. If the fuel system that was on the truck before was adequate as far as supply volume and pressure goes, there really shouldn't be a change in power output. The system that was on that truck before did fine... Mark just wanted it bulletproof - and we wanted to see what it would do.

Originally posted by Hohn

To answer your question, I am just talking. I don't have a cool business. I don't have a dyno. Shoot, I barely even have a garage and modest bomb budget. I have a desire to help others to consider all the aspects of a given course of action.

I appreciate your desire to help, and admire your enthusiasm; however, STATEMENTS made in matter-of-fact language like "It takes a lot of energy to pump fuel at 40-50psi. " and "this is a very ineffient setup. " sure make it sound like that is the law. In this case, the statements were incorrect, but a newbie reading along wouldn't know that (in fact, most people wouldn't know that since most people haven't done it), and might take your thoughts as fact. I don't have a problem with people posing questions - heck, that's how WE learn too... someone says something, we don't know so we go test it if we haven't already done it. But to make statements invalidates the testing being done. Don't take it personal Justin, I know you didn't mean to mislead anyone - it's just hard to get that across on the internet.

Originally posted by Hohn

I think the DD cam is a good piece, but it's not worth it just to go with a mechanical LP. There are other, better reasons to get it.

I completely agree. In the application where we previously have installed this setup, as well as Jim's setup, this LP setup was strictly cursory to the original goal/design of the cam.

 

[Hohn]

Thanks for posting, Keith. I can see what you're saying.



I assume that everything I see here is opinion (unless posted by a vendor or someone like the big HP guys who do all the testing)- I guess I thought everyone else would assume everything I said was opinion as well.



I'll be more careful in the future. After all, we're all trying to accomplish the same thing-- helping other members to consider all options and think things through.



I remember reading a parasitic loss study done on the valvetrain of a NASCAR that turns 8800 rpm with 750# spring pressure over the nose. Valvetrain losses exceeded 120hp!!



Granted, the pump has a wimpy lobe pushing against much less resistance, so I think that study is where I was coming from with the parasitic angle. Apples and Oranges, turns out.



I DO like the DD cam. I talked with Don M at length about a cam upgrade, and I am convinced that the DD approach is the most sound approach (but not the cheapest



Justin

 

[Jim Fulmer]

yada yada, now you really know how little fuel a vp-44 can flow. have you put a guage on your truck to see how low it was dropping? or did you just add a electric pump? are you using the electric pump as a pusher or are you replacing it completely?



I can pull my stock system down from 33 psi to 5 psi, so I went with the Hasiley's system last year and now it will hold 30-32 psi down from 50, it is an adder system going into the banjo bolt at the pump and the stock system fully in place.



Good topic Jim, if some one want's lower pressures a regulator to return would be easy to install.



Jim

 

[KLockliear]

Originally posted by Hohn

I remember reading a parasitic loss study done on the valvetrain of a NASCAR that turns 8800 rpm with 750# spring pressure over the nose. Valvetrain losses exceeded 120hp!!

Justin

That I can believe, but remember, we're only talking one "valve" here not 16, and very soft pressure really... and the RPM is less than 1/2.



So, 120hp/16 valves = 7. 5hp/750# springs = . 01hp loss.



Just kidding of course.

 

[CUMINNTSTRKN]

Originally posted by Jim Fulmer

yada yada, now you really know how little fuel a vp-44 can flow. have you put a guage on your truck to see how low it was dropping? or did you just add a electric pump? are you using the electric pump as a pusher or are you replacing it completely?



I can pull my stock system down from 33 psi to 5 psi, so I went with the Hasiley's system last year and now it will hold 30-32 psi down from 50, it is an adder system going into the banjo bolt at the pump and the stock system fully in place.



Good topic Jim, if some one want's lower pressures a regulator to return would be easy to install.



Jim

jim



with your tests it really show's the flow differences between the p7100 and the vp-44. i know the p7100 flows alot more fuel, but i think that it returns alot more fuel to the tank also.





hohn



heck my wife could push the plunger on the pump by hand.



jim

 

[CUMINNTSTRKN]

guys the dd cam is one great peice. it works great!!! but if your looking into getting a cam and spending big bucks on one of these new fuel sytems you can off set some of the cost going this route.



jim

 

[Sled Puller]

Originally posted by CUMINNTSTRKN

[B

i have you put a guage on your truck to see how low it was dropping? or did you just add a electric pump? are you using the electric pump as a pusher or are you replacing it completely?



[/B]

Not that it matters any more after 2 pages of Keiths I am god routine, but yes I did put, a gauge on. In true hilljack fashion also.



I bored and threaded a hole for a fitting, took some hose and a nice large guage, ran it out between the hood and cowl, duct taped it to the outside of the windshield, and hit the road for testing.





17-19psi at idle and cruising, hammer time dropped it to 1 psi, after the shock it would back to 8-10.

me thinks at 4000 rpm it just floats that stocker pump, anyway. I guess you don't have that problem?



Oh yea, did I mention the testing was at night, and the shotgun rider was armed with a flashlight?



The aux is pushing to the lift pump.

 

[Sled Puller]

ONE more thing, that was my second lift pump, first was replaced by Dodge under warranty.

Prolly did n't want to hear that, lol

 

[KLockliear]

Originally posted by Sled Puller

Not that it matters any more after 2 pages of Keiths I am god routine, but yes I did put, a gauge on. In true hilljack fashion also.

Someone note the date and time... Gene bowed to the West!



Was this on your new truck Gene? What year... I heard you sold your old one, but nothing about the new one.

 

[Sled Puller]

Yes, that was the old one.



Oh, didn't I tell you what I was doing to the new one?

 

[PRout]

Originally posted by Sled Puller

Not that it matters any more after 2 pages of Keiths I am god routine,

I didnt take Keiths posts to be condescending. Seems he was trying to be helpful by adding his experience to the discussion.



Also, The original post indicates the main reason for trying a mechanical pump was for RELIABILITY.

 

[Hohn]

I'll leave the coastiness to you guys who care



I *did* want to point out that aeromotive has a new Marine grade pump that's all but indestructible, and rated for diesel fuel.



Of course, it's only applicable to those of us who don't need more than the 600lb/hr it can deliver... .



Justin

 

[Hohn]

My bad, it's 800 lb/hr..... http://216.242.145.16/products/product.phtml?p=44