New Drop In E85 Compatible Fuel Pump, DW300, January 2011

Hey Big,

As far as the pump is concerned...

500whp on E85 and boost in 15-17psi range on a 43.5psi base pressure should be do-able with our DW301 and a pump hardwire @13.5v.

550whp in the same scenario would be stretching the limits of the pump at that voltage, however @16v should have you covered easily.

Your 83# injector size is spot on for your goals, though.

Good tip Nick.

So, anybody know if this pump will support 23-25 psi with a little extra voltage on our cars with a decent size turbo? I see 15-17 psi mentioned above with what would equate to just a hotwire kit. Can it support a 600hp engine with 80 lb injectors? Just trying to find the realistic limits.

HP rating shown VS what GNs need

The aproximate BSFC that Turbo Regals want is .65. The 80 PSIG line shown in the graph crossreferencing 1120 HP is for .5 BSFC. The .65 BSFC HP level supported by 355 LPH is just over 850. This should be sufficient for most, even when allowing for a generous margin of error, which is always wise. The fact that it draws almost 20 amps at that level would likely require a 30 amp circuit.

I should qualify The above post by saying it's for gasoline. The 18 volts will require a step up transformer like the KenneBell "Boost-A-Pump". A simple hotwire from the alt at full feild won't cut it.

Taking your calculation a step further. Rough calculation to get hp for E85. 850bhp * .7 = 595bhp on E85. Say 20% drive train loss, 595bhp * .8 = 476rwhp.
Sticking with your .65 bsfc and then converting to E85, I get about 73 lb/hr injector size supportable by this pump at 18v for E85. What do you think?

If you follow that reasoning line then it seems OK, but there are a few things I would like to point out.
First the BSFC of E-85 is not stated to be .7 of the number I quoted for gas of .65. I know this sounds confusing. The .65 number is just a very rich (SAFE) place to start with an estimate.
I have seen E-85 BSFC quoted at .7 and that is just slightly richer than the .65 that I was using as an example in the above formula for gasoline. I have seen gasoline quoted at .5. This is the point. There may be a range of different possible BSFCs. They only sure way to know your specific consumption is to dyno.
I have also seen E-85 quoted to need roughly 30% more fuel than gas.
The concern is for this question, is what components are going to work for a specific application.
I suggest building your fuel system to be capable of exceeding the limits of your application. I suggest using at least a 20% margin for saftey. Plan on using less than 80% of your fuel delivery system's capacity. This includes injectors as well as pump, lines and fittings.

Thanks for clearing that up Tom.

The .7 wasn't bsfc it was the ~30% increase in fuel requirement for E85. It's actually .68, but I rounded to .7.
Regardless I took the rwhp to calculate the injector size when it should be engine hp. Sorry for the mix up.

850bhp * .68 = 578bhp on E85. 20% drive train loss, 578bhp * .8 = 462rwhp
Injector size requirement for 578bhp on E85 would be about 92 lb/hr at 100% dc which is the same as 850bhp on gas.
Point being that based on your calculation scenario the pump will only support 578bhp or ~462rwhp on E85 at 18v.
My concern is that people think (or hope) they can run 10's on E85 with this single pump. I don't see that happening. At least not safely.
If you run lean enough you could do it, but that would be extremely risky.

"The TurboTweak TT340 - New high flow turbine fuel pump that fits exactly like the stock pump with the correct inlet, and flows about 20% more than the Walbro 340. Compatible with E85. Super quiet! Typically supplies enough fuel for low 10's on race fuel, around mid 10's on E85"

According to the above statement you should be ok for around mid 10's on E85. Wonder what calculation was used.

Fuel Delivery system

The .65 pounds of fuel per horsepower is something I should not have referred to as BSFC which stands for "Brake Specific Fuel Consumption". This is something that is determined by dyno testing. I should be more careful about that term. .65 is a good place to start when estimating the fuel needs for a TR when designing your fuel deliver system.
There are other considerations like if alcohol inj is used and what type of fuel.
I have run A/F ratios in a range between mid 10s to low 12s and have gotten away with it. I have not yet had any personal experience with E-85. There is a guy from my club that does use it. He goes by Northern GN on this board. He is very pleased with how it works for him. I think he is upgrading his fuel delivery system substantially specifically for E-85.

I hear ya on that one. What kind of 60' time is that assuming? Although, Eric seems to know his stuff, especially regarding what he sells. Wouldn't surprise me at all if it's the same design as this DW pump. Maybe it even comes from the same supplier overseas.

From the flow data on the DW website, it says the 301 pump supports 370 L/hr with 18V supplied to it at 70 psi, like you would get from a boost-a-pump. Say you want to run 80lb injectors, at 100% duty cycle that would be 480 lb/hr total, right? I would hope they used gasoline in their testing, or at least something with a similar viscosity. Using a density of 737 kg/m^3 for regular vehicle gasoline, I get that this pump at these conditions could flow just over 600 lbs/hr, more than enough to support 80 lb injectors at full duty cycle. Can someone do their own calculations to see if they get the same answer? I'm new to this fuel system stuff.

I agree with Tom that you should not build your system so you are always pushing it to the limits. Seems like this pump can support 80s with a volt booster if my math was correct. I certainly wouldn't try supporting 120s. How much power 80s can support on E85, I don't know. The veterans on here can probably better answer that.

Fuel Injector and Fuel Pump Calculator Have you seen this?

Fuel system Requirements

The real concern here should be what will work for my car? There are many factors that will be different for each of us. The real trick is to avoid future difficulties. That means running lean and breakage as well as the possibility of having to re-do something that that could have been done right in the first place.
Building a fuel system without a good saftey margin is taking a chance. That having been said, lets look at our options. What would be a good start? Obviously getting a good idea what your particular engine (not rwhp) needs. Fuel volume flow at rail pressure is the key. Rail pressure = aprox 45 psi base + boost. This number should assume 30 PSI boost possible for 75 PSI rail pressure, minimum.
This number could possibly be achieved by using a volt booster for the pump. These will typically be controlled by a pressure switch that only activates the extra voltage under boost. This might be a concern, since there is always the possibility of malfunction. A component that is relied on to the extent that if it fails, the engine would likely be subject to catastrophic damage is definetly something to think about seriously.
The possibility that the system is at or near the max capacity as advertised is also a serious consideration. These factors could result in running lean if diminished capacity was experienced. This could happen from the simple wear and aging process that inevitably occurs.
The very real possibility that there will have to be additional mods done to the system over and above just pump and injectors will increase with power level.
The return flow from the rail may become a restriction if using a high flowing pump. This issue is common, and will result in the inability to lower the fuel pressure at idle to the desired setting. Modifications to the return line are required to address this. The return line is only 1/4 just above the rear axle.
I don't see anything wrong with designing a system that is well above the needs of your engine for all of the above reasons. You don't need to know the exact fuel consumption of your application, but rather use an estimate and then over build the system to the extent that you feel comfortable with. I suggest overkill with fuel systems, since they can make or break your combination.

Overkill is right when money allows Ill be using a fuel cell (non aluminum) -12 outlet to 40 micron inline filter 12 in/out mounted directly to pump-12 inlet all line (check jegs brand) rated for use with e-85,-10 up to engine bay attached to -10 in/out 100 micron filter after pump to y block -10in dual -8 out,dual feeding the internally anodized aluminum fuel rails to a dual inlet fuel regulator -8 in to -8 back to the tank for a fuel return...In preparations the coil pack is already relocated for max room for plumbing

Dan, did you mean a 10 mic filter after the pump?

Oops, good catch! Yes, I meant 40 micron...

-Dan

Pre & post pump filters

1. So then you mean the 100 mic pre pump and the 40 after?
2. I assume these are both the stainless mesh.
3. Is there a 10 mic available, (4) and is it in paper only?
5. Is there a concern for the fact that paper may swell from moisture content in the alcohol?
6. Is there any concern that a 40 mic may not be fine enough to protect the injectors?

Tom see #9

// WELDON RACING PUMPS // Frequently Asked Questions

Also...

// WELDON RACING PUMPS // Fuel Filters -- Weldon Racing Pumps

-Dan

Filters E-85

Dan: I don't see where the issue of paper filters with e-85 was addressed on the Weldon site. It does say that they offer the three mic sizes. It also specs them with materials. 100 mic = stailess. 40 mic = Cellulose. 10 mic = paper. You stated you were going to use a 40 mic pre pump and originally a 100 mic after. That's why I asked if you meant 10 mic after. You responded with 40 mic. I think you might want to give them (Weldon) a call and ask specifically about the 10 mic paper for use with e-85. It's possible that 40 mic final filter may not be fine enough to protect the injectors.