Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,

Looking for some input.

I'm looking for a replacement pump for my 32R (standard 180k/km pump) and I'd prefer to avoid GTR tax on this one. Trying to find an alternative to the "Standard" replacement option being a Nismo/Tomei etc. I was considering a Walbro but ive had some pretty poor experiences with these in the past. Like to avoid this route if possible.

Originally i was going to opt for an 044 and just modify the existing cradle (i dont have a problem doing this) however after hearing how loud these are in person, im looking for an alternative.

I've seen Deatschwerks have a fairly substantial range, appears a ton of guys in the UK use these. However as ill only be pushing for ~300awkw at this stage i dont require 320LPH that the DX300 can support. However i would like some additional headroom for "future" fun.. fund permitting. The upper ceeling with my current setup is limiting me to ~300>320awkw anyway.

Was looking at a DX62A:

http://www.deatschwerks.com/products/fuel-pumps/dw65a-415-detail

Does anyone have any experiences with these in a 32/33GTR? Seems from most of the experiences im reading is that these pumps are fairly highly regarded. Seem to operate fairly quietly and are significantly smaller then the standard pumps. Any information you guys can provide would be great. However ideally im seeking personal experiences here not the "my mates brothers dog has a gtr and runs one and its great"

Also wanting to confirm that these will pull from an empty tank. I've read mounting these slightly lower on the standard cradle seems to work quite well.

For reference my current setup is as follows:

1993 R32 GTR

unopened/standard head

GT2860-7

680CC Delphi Injectors

RS260 dumps to a 3.5" Exhaust

Standard FPR

This is a 100% Street driven GTR.

Cheers,

Carlo

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/434639-deatschwerks-pumps-in-32r/
Share on other sites

A lot of people don't seem to trust the Walbros for some reason. They're pretty good if you aren't pushing huge amounts of boost. Anyway I'm sure the DW pump will be fine or you could look at an aeromotive stealth 340L/h pump which seem to do a bit better than the walbro 255's at higher boost.

good luck

I have no problems running my Walbro 255's at 70-80psi. As long as you buy original Walbro's they are fine, and last longer than DW pumps in Ethanol, that's for sure.

Best bet is the E85 460L Walbro for $200, or the petrol version for around $150.

044's are dinosaur pumps, loud and obnoxious. They also don't like ethanol.

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...