Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

If you buy a genuine Walbro you should have no issues, it's the knock offs causing the confusion.

I have twin 255's intank and have been running them for years on e85 without a problem. These days I would go for the e85 416L version just for the sealed plug and the fact they are designed for long term ethanol use.

I wonder if my Nismo pump will last long term on ethanol. I haven't heard anything bad yet about the e85 walbro pumps so they must be a good upgrade from the standard pump.

Nismo over engineer their things, im sure they would have had race gases similar to E85 being tested with the pump during their their RnD. Im slapping mine in soon hope it lasts.

Since this discussion is ongoing...I'd like to pose a question...

How much power roughly do you think a single Sard 280LPH intank pump would support on a 2JZ?

I'm at 325rwkw atm on eflex but I'm thinking of turning the wick up alittle more...

"If you buy a genuine Walbro you should have no issues, it's the knock offs causing the confusion.

I have twin 255's intank and have been running them for years on e85 without a problem. These days I would go for the e85 416L version just for the sealed plug and the fact they are designed for long term ethanol use."

In regards to the Nismo pump, I'm running one on e85 with no problems at all. I stayed away from your standard Walbro pump just from the fact that they have a higher tendency to fail. I know a few guys who have had problems after a period of time.

I've heard this too. So i was never convinced the walbro were perfect little gems to begin with. Thats why I had no problems deciding to give This is the "fake" walbro pump a go as well

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/GSS341-Type-340L-H-Performance-Fuel-Pump-Skyline-GTR-RB20-RB25-RB26-R32-R33-R34-/110983052442?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item19d71afc9a&_uhb=1

They claim 340L/PH. I"m not sure if anyone has verified it. I did get a genuine 255 too. Didn't notice any difference in the way the car ran between the two.

Anyway I will think about cleaning the injectors, or possibly buy another set for not much more than clean. Boost is staying low for now.

Can anyone extract any data out of the spark plugs?

5k298p.jpg

2w207sk.jpg

Red spark plugs? hmmm.

Edited by sonicz

I would be curious to know as well. I will try and squeeze every kw out of my nismo pump before I need to move on :)

What's generally the limit i.e. maximum power for the nismo pumps?

I would be curious to know as well. I will try and squeeze every kw out of my nismo pump before I need to move on :)

What's generally the limit i.e. maximum power for the nismo pumps?

RHD says 550ps and im sure it will get there and probably over.

regarding the walbro 450lph E85 fuel pumps....what power have people made with these and at what boost (psi)? have we found the limit of these pumps yet??

They are rated @ 450lph @ 0-30psi... A stock RB fuel rail runs a higher base pressure than that :whistling:

Once you get them to 60-70psi (which is what most people will be running), the flow drops to under 400lph, maybe even 360lph - I saw the rating graph from Walbro 450l a few weeks back but for the life of me i can't find it right now.

Gotta love the online retailers at the moment claiming they will support "900hp on a turbo set-up", maybe if you used two they would.

Haha exactly right

I'm running one getting 13.8volts, with my base pressure at 55psi and 26psi boost it made 410rwkw on e85,

Obviously lower and or stock rail pressure and lower boost will net more flow

I have been recommended by quite a few knowledgeable tuners recently to bump up my base pressure, (I am running 40 psi with the hose off) The bosch ev14's apparently spray a beautiful mist at 90-100psi but there aren't any intank pumps out there that flow much at such high pressures, certainly not the 255 twins I have currently.

To test my theory (more pressure = finer mist = better power and economy) I would need a large mechanical gear pump off the fuel cell, I am thinking one of these Magnafuel external pumps which are rated up to 120psi.

http://www.magnafuel.com.au/index.php/efimenu/efipumpsmenu/protunermenu

Might be time to ditch the twin intanks I think.

post-63525-0-36682600-1369965751_thumb.jpg

Yep injectors needed abit of help and also idles better so maybe the higher pressure is atomizing better?

My next step besides cams cos my stockers are holding me back would be 2000cc injectors and maybe a fuel lab external pump

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...