Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

ok, now we are getting some good tech info, so the fuel pump , different from a rb25de and rb25det version?

what are the stock fuel pump differences/numbers?

 

so what's the recommended pump to put in with the rb25det?.... I see Walbro 255lph pump listed a lot, is that a widely used unit?

Edited by JC71

tank sending unit all reusable from the rb25de stock setup or will tank, sending unit or anything else need to be changed?

 

I am looking at the 255lph 500HP Upgraded Genuine Walbro Fuel Pump For R34 GTT Skyline RB25DET Neo

thoughts?

Edited by JC71
3 hours ago, JC71 said:

I am looking at the 255lph 500HP Upgraded Genuine Walbro Fuel Pump For R34 GTT Skyline RB25DET Neo

 

I had one in my old 25GT +t and it was fine, will cover a bit of headroom for more power as well.

Walbro 255 is very old. There are newer better from Walbro and others.

As Ben says above, define your power level, then that defines your fuel flow. That narrows your range of pumps. E85 being a big variable on that of course, both in terms of capacity and whether the pump is rated to live with ethanol or not. The newer Walbros all are. Older Bosch ones (044, 040, etc) make no promises to survive.

I am going to guess and say that the wiring, fuel rail, injectors etc. all don't "need" to be replaced when replacing the pump to allow function of the pump to work properly rather needed if looking to gain possibility of "more power" when changing out other items.

and does any one know the stock LPH  fuel pump rating on a R34 RB25DE and a R34 RB25DET?

Edited by JC71

The wiring harness for the injectors are the same between de neo and det neo, fuel Rail is the same i believe, when i turbo swapped my r34 all i did was simply change the fuel pump. The walbro fits and plugs in directly 

cool, that's what I thought, what pump did you go with?

I am looking at a walbro 255lph  as it seems to be the "smallest" I can find and figure that's probably close to stock. appears to be a in tank replacement.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/255lph-500HP-Uprated-Genuine-Walbro-Fuel-Pump-For-R34-GTT-Skyline-RB25DET-Neo-/111883558315

 

Edited by JC71

Yes thats what i used, its been working no problems now for 9ish months now. You can get new from amazon for about 90-100usd. Its legit pull out the old one and plug in the new walbro one, no headache or wiring. All you would have to do is cut A small piece off the bracket so it can fit in

Edited by Dil-Dog

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...