Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The valves will usually leak off anyway over a few hour period, and the way i figured it was with the valve there it actually restricts the flow from the pump so i completely drilled mine out, just when starting the car you have to let the pump prime to fill back up the lines

The non return valves need to be there in case one pump shuts down. If it does then the other will pump straight back to the tank instead of the fuel rail and you could have a wrecked engine on your hands so you have the non-return valves to make sure the fuel only goes to the engine.

The same told me my engineer! But if we have two 044 and one blow and the car run with one 044 it will blow the engine sure!!

If we have one fuel pump like stock cars if it blow, simple the engine stop to work...

What is your opinion?

Also GTRgeoff what do you have to said for the green 33 post?

It's just Geoff mate. We aren't formal here.

You have to be running a fair amount of power for a single 044 to be running at the limit. The reason for running 2 pumps after a swirl pot fed by a lift pump is to protect your investment in an expensive engine. If you lift your power requirements beyond that of a single pump (in which case there is an argument to run separate fuel lines from each pump) then you must get new pumps that will deliver the power you require.

As for drilling out the non-return valves, they are a restriction above a certain flow rate, but should not cause a problem at the flow rates expected from an 044. If you need more flow, get a larger valve. And yes they will often allow pressure loss in a standing fuel system but every fuel system has that in common. The reason for their existence is to stop the fuel finding the easiest route out, and that will be a pump that isn't running and pressure loss in an engine being pushed hard is almost a guarantee for a meltdown. Sure it may be a little more expensive to do it properly, and not as ghetto or drift cool as drilling them out for extra flow that isn't needed anyway, but it is definitely cheaper than lunching a motor.

I have two 044 with surge tank and one walbro intank. The return from surge tank to fuel tank will have a stock fuel pressure regulator without any vacum so 2.5bar fuel pressure!!!

Geoff can a T04Z runs with one 044? All people here said me no in a topic! I need two! So if one stop work and the other continue to work?? What will be the result? A blow engine!!! Right?

If we have two and one stop work without non-return valves the fuel of the working pump will not go in the engine so we will avoid the lean running.

But we will have a little fuel that will injected in the engine... because the surge tank have 2.5bar fuel pressure..

So I will save my engine with this method? Or I will blow it too?

If you have spent enough money on your engine to truly need 2 x 044's then you should spend the little bit extra and buy a fuel pressure guage. If you have a Power FC, then any leaning out will cause knock and the knock warning light will flash. If you ignore the low fuel pressure and/or the knock warning then nothing will save you.

If you don't have the one way valves, some of the fuel will still go to the engine, just less than what would flow if one pump failed and you had non return valves.

Cheers

Gary

If you have spent enough money on your engine to truly need 2 x 044's then you should spend the little bit extra and buy a fuel pressure guage. If you have a Power FC, then any leaning out will cause knock and the knock warning light will flash. If you ignore the low fuel pressure and/or the knock warning then nothing will save you.

If you don't have the one way valves, some of the fuel will still go to the engine, just less than what would flow if one pump failed and you had non return valves.

Cheers

Gary

I certainly wouldnt be running 40 psi fuel pressure in the surge tank, why not just plumb it up like everyone else does, it works fine?

Sidneykid so there is no difference in reliability either with non-return valves or without ?

Either with or not the result is a blow engine ? :rofl:

I have egt and wideband gauges with warning so I don't think that I need a fuel pressure gauge.

But think also.... if we have non-return valves and one pump don't work we will not understand it! Right?

So more dangerous!!

Maybe when the one pump stop to work to survive my engine... but if the car still works with one pump I will detonate it many times!!

But if you think that with 2.5 fpr at surge tank the one pump will feed the engine properly at low demand for fuel so I will still don't understand the non-work pump.. so if I don't put non-return valves better to don't use fpr to stop the fuel feed totally.

Adriano I like the idea of fuel pressure regulator at the surge because I will be sure that the surge tank is absolutely fuel.

Also if I choose to don't have non-return valves the lines will be empty so long try to start the engine.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • http://calfinn.com.au/product/1500kg-standard-trolley-jack-cj-2t-c/1500kg-standard-trolley-jack-cj-2t-c   I have this and fits under a S3 33 GTR with no issues. Purchased in 2009 and not one issue. It was $950 back then. Not cheap but something so important isn’t worth cheaping out on.
    • Just trying to get my head around this. At 5psi of boost, you turn on your wmi pump, and then you're using a 3000cc injector, to allow flow upto the actual engine, where you have your 6x200cc injectors and a 500cc injector. If the above is correct, what advantage are you obtaining by having the 3000cc injector blocking flow, is this just incase a line breaks between that injector and the motor you can stop flow immediately? Or are the 6x200cc and 500cc less injectors and just spray nozzle?
    • Welcome! New member myself, but I had an R33 back in 2002. Best advice I could give, based on my experience: if you're running the factory turbo, be very conservative with boost. I made the mistake of just fiddling around with the boost controller and cranking the boost for fun, and the end result was my intake pipes popping off frequently from the constant deluge of oil that was being blown into the recirc by the stressed-out turbo, which itself was siphoning oil from the engine and farting it out both sides of its centre bearing (or something to that effect). If I could do it all again, I would have gotten a new turbo and had a tune dialled in professionally and then just left it alone! Funny you mention the metal shavings in the gearbox, as I had the same thing - the probe plug (magnetic drain plug, essentially) would come out caked with shavings. At least it was doing its job. Not sure if that's just sacrificial wear and part of the deal, or if my gearbox was shagged, but I wasn't abusing it. Enjoy the R33 - they're a dying breed, and if they weren't $35k+ on CarSales in Queensland, I might have picked up one of those again, instead of the 370GT I own now (though I'm loving the 370GT, that big 3.7L V6 just hits different).
    • Howdy folks. I owned an R33 back in 2002, which was thoroughly beyond my capacity (financially speaking) to maintain/insure, so we parted ways in 2004. Fast forward 21 years (to literally yesterday, in fact) and I'm now the proud owner of a 2007 V36 370GT. I'm happily surprised by how much power the VQ37VHR makes, compared to the RB25DET, considering the latter is turbocharged. I had planned to add a turbo at some point but I'm on the fence about whether I'll even need it (though I do love the sudden onset of extra torque). Any other 370GT owners around the traps, I'd love to hear about your experiences with this car (good and bad).
    • Perhaps the answer is... more jacks!* *proper jacks must be used.  
×
×
  • Create New...