E85 and upgrading both feed & return lines--???

[696]

As far as feed and return my -8 feed and -6 return was able to handle 70psi to 30psi motor off both pumps running on the fuel pump hotwire by the lead near the alt. I talked to "Rick" at Aeromotive and I was told the same thing, use a -10 or I could be restricting things. He also couldn't BELIVE I was able to use both 340's on my "stock" motor. He said I had to have a leak somewhere, cause it would flood out my motor. Racetronix set it up for -8 and -6 then thats what I would use...they did it for a reason.

 

[87-WE2]

You do have a major leak in your system - the return line. I'm starting to think that the Aerimotive guys you've talked to don't realize that your system is not a "returnless" system.

 

[696]

You might be on to something there, because he couldn't seem to wrap his head around it.

 

[TurboBuRick]

More than likley you will need a bigger return line. The easiest solution is to run a new -8 feed and use the factory feed for return.

RL

 

[Rafs-T-Type]

More than likley you will need a bigger return line. The easiest solution is to run a new -8 feed and use the factory feed for return.

RL

Hey Rick, what size is the stock feed? I didn't think it was any bigger than a -6

 

[TurboBuRick]

3/8 I believe. My point is why run a another line when the old feed can be used?

 

[Rafs-T-Type]

3/8 I believe. My point is why run a another line when the old feed can be used?

True, but the -6 is already installed.

 

[jasjamz]

In Joe's case he was utilizing the stock feed line and running the second pump under boost conditions. He upgraded the return line because it was said that the stock return would not be sufficient for one Aeromotive pump at idle. I understand why he did it that way but yes, I agree with Rick on the stock feed as a return and a -8 feed. No -10 no -6 for feeds. I look and the cars faster than me and take notes. Saves $$$ and makes sense.

 

[TurboBuRick]

True, but the -6 is already installed.

The thread title
E85 and upgrading both feed & return lines--???


I didn't see where it says -6 is already installed.

 

[Slow91z]

2nd paragraph, he says he's running a stock feed and a -6 return.

 

[Rafs-T-Type]

In Joe's case he was utilizing the stock feed line and running the second pump under boost conditions. He upgraded the return line because it was said that the stock return would not be sufficient for one Aeromotive pump at idle. I understand why he did it that way but yes, I agree with Rick on the stock feed as a return and a -8 feed. No -10 no -6 for feeds. I look and the cars faster than me and take notes. Saves $$$ and makes sense.

2 question...is there some reason you would not do -10 for a feed? Also the -6 return is already in place so would you just leave the -6 return hooked up, or would you pull that new line out and hook it up to the feed line like you're talking about?

 

[jasjamz]

From what I've seen and done a -8 can supply a ton of fuel on these cars for E-85. What gain is there in using a -10? Bigger isn't better in this scenario. Now if you go into mid nine second cars and faster then OK I can see it on the build sheet. I wouldn't change it until it shows itself to be a problem. It just seems like it looks cooler or whatever. Its up to the owner in the end.
Now if I get a car with a -6 return and stock feed would I remove it? No. Its there, use it for the feed and the stock as the return. We know the stock feed has some very minor restrictions that the new -6 shouldn't have. A -6(3/8) feed is just fine for a full weight 10.50 car and maybe faster. Walking around Buick events pit areas looking at cars, talking to owners, and watching cars run will really change your views on what's "needed" to reach a certain Et&MPH.

 

[TurboBuRick]

2nd paragraph, he says he's running a stock feed and a -6 return.

Got it!

 

[Firechaser]

From what I've seen and done a -8 can supply a ton of fuel on these cars for E-85. What gain is there in using a -10? Bigger isn't better in this scenario. Now if you go into mid nine second cars and faster then OK I can see it on the build sheet. I wouldn't change it until it shows itself to be a problem. It just seems like it looks cooler or whatever. Its up to the owner in the end.

It may not be completely needed, I agree with that. I look at certain upgrades and weigh out what may take place in the future (ie: mid 9's) then look at the difference in cost to prepare for such a future event ( -10 line versus -8 ) to see if it's worth it. In this case, i would personally opt for the -10 as the costs aren't much more and it allows me almost infinite room to grow along with good insurance as it seems most problems are caused by inadequate fuel systems. Personally, I would run -10...split it to a Y block that reduces to -8's and dual-feed the rails. I realize it doesn't necessarily "need" this immediately however I would rest easy knowing my fuel system is well above par to handle anything that's thrown at it, especially after reading the fuel delivery required w/ E85 then considering the ridiculous amount of money we dump in our cars. This is just my $.02...I tend to overdo things a bit..

 

[kidglok]

...I tend to overdo things a bit..

You and me both bob! Lol

 

[Slow91z]

If we knew more about the op's combo and long term goals it would help, but a -10 and dual feeding the rails is not something that's going to be needed until going faster than most tr owners will ever go. Dual feeding the rail adds a ton of cost and complexity which means is has no business on a lets just say for giggles 10 second street car.

I have a Atr double pumper and stock lines and on a car that has gone mid 10's and is now converted to e85 it looks like I'm just on the edge of what the lines can support.

 

[jmendlik]

So after doing some research I think I have found the line I'm going to run. This is PTFE lined high flowing Stainles steel line thats E85 compatible-I'm going to have a local Hydraulic Shop install the -8 fittings needed and cut the lines.

I have read that many of the -8 lines out there are not a true 1/2 inner diameter-most are 7/16 ID...

See the attached chart for this Parker 919 PTFE hose specs-if I wanted a true 1/2 ID line I would need to go to a -10 in this line. Parker -8 Line is 13/32 ID (0.406)....Most other -8 are 7/16 ID (0.437) so I should be good-plus this PTFE types flows better.

http://www.goodyearrubberproducts.c...0/ParkerParflexCatalog4660examin1.Page139.pdf


http://www.parker.com/portal/site/P...extcatid=2609257&vgnextcat=919-919B+PTFE+HOSE

 

[Silver Fox]

Very soon. Waiting on inventory from Goodridge and time to polish off kit. Hopefully sometime early in the new year...

Any update on this?