Here I am

Engine/Transmission (1998.5 - 2002) Vp-44

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

Engine/Transmission (1994 - 1998) Oil Report

Engine/Transmission (1998.5 - 2002) TC unlock mystery switch

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve St. has a point about the stock fuel lines. The one between the LP and the filter housing is junk. Could it be that the premature failure of the LP has something to do with this? You draw through a 3/8 line and are trying to shove it through a hole that is 1/8 to 3/16". I'm sure this is why we see such a huge drop from idle to wot as well. I'm sure the heat of the engine has a big effect on the life of the LP's as well. I'm sure the changing of fuel lines has something to do with fuel cavatation and lack of cooling to the vp-44. I know this is a vp-44 thread but isn't the biggest issue lift pump failure or inadequatecy?



Nathan
 
O.K. Steve......

Maybe my heads swimming with all this but... .....



If you have higher pressure at the VP inlet, 20 vs 10 as in your example. It would not mean you are flowing more fuel than at 10 psi. With the same restriction your pressure goes up because it cannot flow more fuel. (If max flow has been achieved)



Take your garden hose for example. (Cheap one like mine 5/8") When the nozzle on the end is wide open the hose is normal size and everything is fine. When I let off the nozzle a little the hose begins to swell and pressure builds. It's the same pressure that's always been available to the nozzle but it can't flow any more because the restriction is greater (Smaller nozzle). I change to a 3/4" hose. Same nozzle size, the hose takes longer to swell and reach the same pressure but eventually does. The nozzle is the same size so the 3/4" line cannot flow more water. Only when the nozzle opens again is there an advantage to having a larger hose. The static pressure available has never changed only the pressure read at the nozzle and that changed only with the nozzle size.



So I guess what I'm saying is your larger line to the VP should read the same back pressure until the nozzle (VP demand) increases.



If the last fitting going into the VP were that restritive I wouldn't be able to bring my pressure down with the throttle. It would remain steady at 20 psi. But it does drop on throttle meaning my restriction (VP internals not last fitting) is opening wider and allowing more flow hence less back pressure.



I'm trying to relate this more to pressure in relation to flow but it's difficult.



Any experts out there care to chime in and let me know if I'm off base?



Garrett
 
I was just trying to give generalizations BWB in comparing pressure and flow. There is a point where there is a max flow through an orifice. What I was trying to point out to Pitbull is that if you take a given line size and measure the pressure and then up the pressure there definately is not less flow. The second part I was saying is that I believe the pressure spec that the bosch engineer was giving out was inside the pump and past the return line. Since the return line is supposed to flow at a minimum 70% of the flow into the pump then the greatest restriction once inside the pump has to be the orifice leading to the low pressure pump inside the VP44 and we cannot measure the pressure at that point. I may be wrong and he may have been talking about pressures at the inlet of the VP44 which would be before the return line. I wish I would have asked him that at the time. I think I'll try to contact him and ask him about that.
 
You guys are forgetting the tolerances in the VP44.



They are so tight that a fingerprint on a part will stop them from fitting together. . ~. 0001!!!!!



each one is hand lapped at the factory and marked with the initials of the tech. Chip (from Blue Chip) showed me this. it was very interesting.



at those tolerances too little or too much is a narrow margin and can be detrimental. I don't pretend to understand all the intricasies but I have seen enough to keep me from breaking a working pump open to look.



FWIW,

Mark
 
Great Debate

Love this topic. I have always contended that strict adherence to poorly defined parameters eg. "15 psi @idle, never below 8psi WOT" was not realistic. Your injection pump is dependent on fuel volume delivered not a strict pressure value. A fuel pressure gauge is necessary,IMO, to monitor for deterioration or failure. I believe {did someone say "religion":D } many reported VP-44 failures are a matter of poor/no diagnosis by D. C. techs, that find it easier to R&R than test. Again just my somewhat educated opinion, I hope to hear from some real flow bench experts. Jim G. :)
 
Steve,

I'm sorry if that sounded like a slam. Not what I intended. I was speaking in generality's also. Heck I was confusing myself writing it.



Mark that's some interesting info. Those parts can't be in the pump area though. Diesel fuel isn't that clean and the filtration is only 40 micron I believe. Whatever a micron is!! :eek: :eek:



I know the VP is a critcical component in our systems and have read all I can to find out whats best. All the lift and pusher threads. Now the VP threads. The VP cannot be that fragile. I'd like to think that all Diesel Ram owners were TDR members but their not. We are very aware of the lift pump problems and they are not. Yet most of those trucks chug along just fine. Then most of those aren't bombing their trucks either. So would it be safe to say that if not bombed the pressures the rep quoted would be sufficient? Unless the lift pump siezed and blocked flow the VP can pull what it needs.



From what I've read injectors aren't detrimental to the pump as the duty cycle remains the same. It's our boxes that alter how the pump works. The Bosch rep was giving numbers for a stock set up. What happens when that changes. These pumps are lubricated and cooled with fuel. So if we are working them harder it only makes sense to me that we need more flow to keep them in shape.



I'm babbling again but I like when these threads get into healthy discussions of how things are actually working. As in everything balance is probably the key here. Pump pressure/flow need to be worked out for the amount of bombing done.



Garrett
 
side note: the vp44 on a volvo has 1000 psi higher pop-off(not sure what model or displacement but it looked like a tractor pump by the way it was painted) according to my local bosch rep. Soon to be vp44 rebuilder. He showed me the inards and the 3 pistons were absolutely destroyed. wish I still had my digi cam but my ex wife snaked it.
 
Re: Steve,

Originally posted by Big White Beast



Mark that's some interesting info. Those parts can't be in the pump area though. Diesel fuel isn't that clean and the filtration is only 40 micron I believe. Whatever a micron is!! :eek: :eek:




The parts I'm talking about are the plungers in the rotor. . and yes they are that tight. the tolerances are what allows them to achieve the pressures they do with a rotary pump. It also makes them vulnerable and failure prone. Everyone that I've talked to views the VP44 as a POS compared to other injection systems.



It gets results for emissions and performance but longevity sucks.
 
Filtration is 10 microns.



In both Eric’s and Steve’s post on the feedback from the Bosch Engineer, the figure given for the minimum pressure (translated from bars) was –2psi. I would take that to mean the minimum pressure before cavitation begins to eat the pump and/or the minimum before the high side pump begins to starve. In the “pumps, lines & whatnot” thread, Mopar-muscle consistently measured 30ghp flow back to the tank at WOT at anywhere from 6psi to 0 psi. It would have been interesting to cut the flow on the intake side and see what happened at –2psi, -4psi, etc. If I were a betting man, I would say that the injection high side could keep up with the demand, at least initially, at –2psi. So, at WOT there is an excess of 30gph that is being pumped by the low pressure pump inside the VP-44 that isn’t being used by the high side part of the VP-44 and that is being returned to the fuel tank. .



So, any positive pressure maintained on the inlet side of the VP44 guarantees an adequate supply of fuel at our power levels. I don’t see a need to pressurize the low side beyond what the pressure relief valve is going to vent back to the tank. And don’t confuse the relief valve with the return on the VP.



Here’s a thought. If we force the relief valve to open because we are pushing an excess of 14psi, does any less fuel go to the lubrication of the VP-44?



Bill Kondolay wrote in that thread mentioned…” I talked to Lawrence at DD saturday night, since he is the only guy i know with R&D data on the vp44 pump , he said too much pressure at the inlet of the vp44 pump can actually cause more wear to the vp44 pump. ”



I missed that or forgot about that on the first go around. So there has been a previous indication that we can put too much pressure on the inlet side of the VP.



Pressure vs. flow has been discussed ad nausea, so if you read the rest of this, prepare for that. For some, I belive the following may clear up some confusion.



We are not simply measuring the static pressure of fluid restricted through an orifice, we are measuring the differential pressure between two pumps, the Lift Pump (LP) and the VP-44 (VP). If the LP operates at a maximum of 15 psi @100gph, then it can supply fuel in any amount up to that limit, which is the head pressure. The VP’s ability to pull or push fluid is proportional to the speed at which it runs, i. e. the faster it spins, the more fluid it will pump. If the demand (suction) of the VP is greater than the supply (head) of the LP, negative pressure; vice a versa, positive pressure. In other words, the LP provides a head of pressure to the VP. When the VP takes fuel from that head, the pressure will drop. The faster the VP operates, the more fuel it draws and the flow is increased both through the LP and VP but the pressure differential is REDUCED between the two pumps. That is why flow is increasing with a reduction of perceived pressure. It’s not a static orifice and it’s not static pressure. It is simply a pressure differential between two pumps. It would be hard to fathom if you were trying visualizing static pressure. We are not pushing fuel through a carburator, the same logic doesn’t apply.



I imagine, because I don’t know, that fuel passes into a reservoir chamber that is shared by both the inlet of the hi-pressure pump and the relief valve inside the VP-44. The valve is designed to open at between 12-14 psi. The relief valve acts as an orifice, not able to accept the entire volume of fuel that the LP is trying to deliver. Then, the excess pressure (0ver 12-14psi) developed inside the reservoir would only be reduced by the fuel demands of the hi-pressure pump in the VP. The pressure has to be pushing, at the very least, on a seal. It would also be nice to know if the lubrication for the VP is supplied by the low or hi pressure pump inside the VP-44.
 
Last edited:
RADdodge.......

I agree with what your saying. MY terminology may have been off.



The one point I was trying to make was that the inlet to the VP was not the biggest restriction. As the pressure would never drop then.



The lift pump is still in a bad location so pushers are needed. How do we design a system that increases flow with demand?



Garrett
 
What I was trying to say is the lift pump of itself is adequate for the VP-44. There is no restriction at the VP-44! The VP-44 takes the fuel it wants and returns the fuel it doesn’t send to the injectors and that is the 30gph rate Mopar-muscle measured at WOT (including a small amount of fuel returned from the injectors). There is, in essence, only a restriction to fuel flow when pressure is increased inside the VP-44, beyond what the relief valve opens at. Then the relief valve is a restriction. The LP supplies a head of fuel; the VP takes from that head. There is no question that the LP is in the wrong place and needs to be either moved back to the tank or augmented with a pusher pump. But there is no need to push in excess pressure of what the relief valve opens at which is 12 – 14 psi. Also, as has been discussed, the restrictions of the piping, i. e. banjo bolts and such, is good to reduce, but there is only a limited amount gained by doing so. What matters is that the fuel delivery system can satisfy the fuel flow demands of the VP. If you ever see a negative pressure between the LP and the VP, the LP isn't doing its job in supplying enough fuel.



The one fly in the ointment here is the report that HVAC increased his HP output by modifying the fuel system up to the VP-44. In theory, it would take the modification of the VP-44 pump (either externally like what the fueling boxes do, or internally to the VP itself) to make more HP and torque. Everything up to the VP-44 only supplies the injection pump with what if wants. It’s happy if it get what it wants! As far as fuel delivery, the VP-44 is the master here, even when it is told to deliver more fuel, if we have a supply of fuel more than what it can pump, it will always have enough fuel to deliver. That supply of fuel is in gph, not psi. The psi only drops between the LP and the VP because the VP is taking more and making the increased fuel flow.



In HVAC's case, I would suspect that the VP wasn't getting the amount of fuel it need to do what HVAC was telling it to do. From the Vp-44's perspective, HVAC is a hard master to please, but he gets results!
 
Last edited:
Horsepower Gain

It is POSSIBLE that the 36 horsepower gain I saw on the dyno was attributable to the fact that the measurements were at different locations. Same dyno brand and model, just different places. We have all seen how the correction factor can effect our readings.



OTOH, is anyone familiar with the function of the fuel preporator? It is reported to be worth 30 hp. This device is designed to provide clean vapor free fuel at a consistant pressure and volume. Big rigs use it to improve their mileage.

I'm quite pleased with my modified fuel supply system. I still feel it's the foundation for building really BIG horsepower. And even if you discount that concept, you would probably agree that without adequate fuel supply the VP44 is doomed. I'm still on my OEM VP44.
 
So HVAC, it looks like your leading the BOMBardiers further into the dark side. So tell us, is that where the extra HP came from? Are you using a preporator? Clean vaporless fuel. They look kind of big to fit on our trucks. Any Pictures? Please tell…
 
Fuel Preporator

I still would like to believe that the new power was resultant from the new larger fuel supply system. It stands to reason that at SOME point you will outgrow the OEM system. We are making three times the power of a stock ram, and I don't think we would be so successful without having revamped the fuel system.



I was mentioning the Fuel Preporator cause they claim some benefits that may be present when one relocates their LP to the tank. That is less entrained air compared to the OEM system in which the fuel is sucked out of the tank. With negative pressure it would seem more likely that the entrained air could develop.



I tried to fit the Fuel Preporator under the body of my 2wd, but gave up. It's 17" tall!!! Better off on a 4x4 I suppose.
 
Thanks RADdodge

Great explanation of the LP/VP relation regarding pressure differentials. If you don't mind me asking do you work in this field [fluid dynamics] . Jim G. :)
 
When I originaly post this thread I did not realize that the subject of the VP-44 would get so much attention. The sad part about all of this is that the trucks I use in my business never have these problems. I guess due to the fact that the are mechanical pumps not dependent on computers. Just Guessing--but I have only changed one injector pump in the last six years on a Detroit.



Just the same--I am awestruck buy the support from all the members so far.



As of yet I have not made it to the Bosch Dealer to test the pump--too busy sailing & having fun. But I also know I can't ignore this much longer--ie. pump pressures.



Thanks again to all for the awesome support.



Herman
 
"I guess due to the fact that the are mechanical pumps not dependent on computers. "



I seriously doubt that the "computerized" part has any significant relationship upon VP44 life - I rather suspect it's far more related to the basic design of the VP44 itself. Actually, if the VP44 wasn't so seemingly fragile, the ability to do with software what you had to do in a limited fashion at BEST with the older mechanical pumps SHOULD be a plus...
 
Originally posted by Gary - KJ6Q

[B

I rather suspect it's far more related to the basic design of the VP44 itself. Actually, if the VP44 wasn't so seemingly fragile

[/B]



What is the failure rate on the VP44 pumps? How does that compare to the P700's?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top