Upgrade fuel feed line

[Dean]

What aftermarket fitting is used (PN if available??) to go to the rail from the pump for a -6 line?

 

[TurboPhil]

Got Fuel

Aeroquip part # FCM2608 is what you are looking for? JIC 06 to M16x1.5 with “O” ring.
HTH……Phil.

 

[TurboDave]

Question is, why go to all that expense?? Unless there's a problem with the original?
The stock lines can easilly support these cars down to 11 flat or quicker!

 

[PRSRIZD_V6]

Phil, do you have a number for the 8AN version of that?

thanks....


And while I'm at it, is the regulator the same size fitting as the rail? I think it's smaller, aint it? Does anyone know what size the regulator takes? Looking to go with a 6AN return and a 8AN feed.

 

[Racetronix]

The Aeroquip catalog only lists:
FCM2608 -6AN to M16 x 1.5
FCM2609 -6AN to M18 x 1.5


Accel carries some -8AN to Saginaw fittings (74711H & 74743H) however I will have to check if they will fit the large size fitting used on the Buick fuel rail.
Most of these are listed for Chevy which I believe is smaller.
If one were to fit it would most likely be P/N 74743H.

There is the option of making your own adapters using the factory lines which I did on my car a few years ago. It may not look as pretty as a one piece fitting but it saves money and solves a few clearance problems.

This is my fuel rail inlet adapter:
http://www.racetronix.com/JK_BQWK/Dcp_0442a.jpg
The remaining length of steel line brings the -8 fitting toward the front of the intake so a 90 degree Aeroquip fitting directs the hose down the front of the motor nicely.

This is my fuel regulator return adapter:
http://www.racetronix.com/JK_BQWK/Dcp_0443a.jpg
Using the 90 degree bend in the factory line allows the use of an Aeroquip -6 90 degree fitting so the line again clears the front of the intake.

The Aeroquip part number for the special flare adapters are:
FCM2872 -6AN to 3/8" tube OD
FCM2874 -8AN to 1/2" tube OD
FCM4032 -6AN 90 to AQP braided line
FCM4033 – 8AN 90 to AQP braided line

All connections should be soldered with silver solder and the proper white paste flux. An inexpensive pluming torch COMPATIBLE with MAP gas will produce enough heat, propane will not.

Jack
Racetronix

 

[Dean]

Thanks Phil! Once again popping into my life to help me out! How's that wicked Elky running these days?


Dave, as preparation for the future. A friend of mine has a stock block/head/intake mid11/120mph TR with a Walbro 307, MSD 50s, base FP set at 45, & a T64. Last time out @ 25psi his O2s were in the 710 range. He has a 340 pump, which we will install next weekend, but he has a ported head engine going together too, so we figured we might as well do it now.

Besides, we're curious as to the effect of the stock lines on FP & volume, so we'll do some volume flow tests to see what the gains really are. We both have construction backgrounds and have experience with the rules of hydraulics with big pipes. We want to see if the same holds true for little pipes (it should) with much less volume & pressure. The only bench flow data I have ever seen for pumps was Harry's (PTE) from a many months ago on this BB. Here are some excerpts from his tests:

340:
@12.2 volts 70psi the pump delivered 5.71ppm enough for 685hp.
@14.02 volts 70psi the pump delivered 6.71ppm enough for 805hp. WOW this is the best a 340 ever tested in our shop!!

307:
@11.75 volts 70psi the pump delivered 4.46ppm enough for 535hp
@14.11 volts 70psi the pump delivered 5.78ppm enough for 693hp

Looks impressive. His testing was done with a -6 feed line, but unfortunately that's about all I know. I don't know the length, configuration, filter used, etc. I do know that the stock line is ~5/16" ID, or 17% smaller, so that alone takes quite a whack off his results. Also note his comment on the 340 @ 14.02V: "WOW this is the best a 340 ever tested in our shop!!" Sooo what's average?? Now consider the bends. Now consider the fitting orifices. Now consider the length. Now consider actual operating voltages. Not so impressive now.

I have no doubt that faster cars are out there with the stockers in place. My concern is why push the limits? I like my INJ PW not to exceed ~90% when racing so that there is a margin of safety. For the same reason I like my 02s ~740 with 100 octane fuel. Sure, I can go to 100% & 720s, and have, but why tempt fate. I think the same should apply to the feed line... unfortunately I do not have access to adequate testing facilities to find out the actual "stall" point in the line, but I can assure you this: Whatever FP you see at the rail is notably less than at the pump!

If we get some useful data from our testing, I'll post it.

Dean

 

[PRSRIZD_V6]

Thanks Jack,

So is the M16 x 1.5 the regulator size as well??? I thought it was smaller than the fuel rail?

I had a 6AN soldered on the bottom of my old regulator, but I misplaced it and got a New Accufab, I'd like to use a screw in fitting instead of trying to weld an aluminum fitting on such a nice piece.

 

[TurboDave]

Originally posted by Dean
Thanks Phil! Once again popping into my life to help me out! How's that wicked Elky running these days?


Dave, as preparation for the future. A friend of mine has a stock block/head/intake mid11/120mph TR with a Walbro 307, MSD 50s, base FP set at 45, & a T64. Last time out @ 25psi his O2s were in the 710 range. He has a 340 pump, which we will install next weekend, but he has a ported head engine going together too, so we figured we might as well do it now.

Besides, we're curious as to the effect of the stock lines on FP & volume, so we'll do some volume flow tests to see what the gains really are. We both have construction backgrounds and have experience with the rules of hydraulics with big pipes. We want to see if the same holds true for little pipes (it should) with much less volume & pressure. The only bench flow data I have ever seen for pumps was Harry's (PTE) from a many months ago on this BB. Here are some excerpts from his tests:

340:
@12.2 volts 70psi the pump delivered 5.71ppm enough for 685hp.
@14.02 volts 70psi the pump delivered 6.71ppm enough for 805hp. WOW this is the best a 340 ever tested in our shop!!

307:
@11.75 volts 70psi the pump delivered 4.46ppm enough for 535hp
@14.11 volts 70psi the pump delivered 5.78ppm enough for 693hp

Looks impressive. His testing was done with a -6 feed line, but unfortunately that's about all I know. I don't know the length, configuration, filter used, etc. I do know that the stock line is ~5/16" ID, or 17% smaller, so that alone takes quite a whack off his results. Also note his comment on the 340 @ 14.02V: "WOW this is the best a 340 ever tested in our shop!!" Sooo what's average?? Now consider the bends. Now consider the fitting orifices. Now consider the length. Now consider actual operating voltages. Not so impressive now.

I have no doubt that faster cars are out there with the stockers in place. My concern is why push the limits? I like my INJ PW not to exceed ~90% when racing so that there is a margin of safety. For the same reason I like my 02s ~740 with 100 octane fuel. Sure, I can go to 100% & 720s, and have, but why tempt fate. I think the same should apply to the feed line... unfortunately I do not have access to adequate testing facilities to find out the actual "stall" point in the line, but I can assure you this: Whatever FP you see at the rail is notably less than at the pump!

If we get some useful data from our testing, I'll post it.

Dean

Thanks Dean for the clear and concise answer. Usually when I ask questions lately I get a lot of flack and smart ass comebacks. There's still some really cool racers on this board that are willing to share their years of experiences with these wonderful machines. Again, thanks, and where you're headed with this project makes perfect sense now.

 

[Dean]

No problem, Dave. I know by looking at my sig line (12s) it wouldn't make much sense to focus on the supply line, and that there are a lot better ways to spend one's time & $$ first. That's why I figured I should give a complete response (rather than my ususal flack and smart ass comebacks! ).

Actually, this will be for me too, in time, possibly in short time. I haven't had the opportunity to get to a track in ~18 months, but I sure have learned a lot about what my car likes. My last time out was a 12.7 @ 105 & 1.9 60', with 19psi & 20* (93 Extender). I had since worked up to 22psi & 26-28* running a 100 Extender & 009s (INJ PW ran up to 100-105% top of third, 740 O2s, 0.0KR). Now the TA49 is gone and a TE52 is in place, some suspension issues have been addressed, 50# MSDs are going in, so it will be similar to his setup. Oh, and I also have a ported engine due to be ready this summer, before his. We're gonna have a little shootout before his goes in.

Dean

 

[TurboDave]

Originally posted by Dean
No problem, Dave. I know by looking at my sig line (12s) it wouldn't make much sense to focus on the supply line, and that there are a lot better ways to spend one's time & $$ first. That's why I figured I should give a complete response (rather than my ususal flack and smart ass comebacks! ).


Dean

Well, I sure hope you didn't think I was refering to you. It was an offhanded remark I made about some other well known members that I guess I have rubbed the wrong way.
Can't be around these cars for 16 years without pissin a few people off

Sounds like your car will be head'n for the 10's before you know it!!

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by TurboDave

Well, I sure hope you didn't think I was refering to you.

Naaa, no worries there. I keep my quips to myself on the BB as it is can difficult to discern when someone is serious or just playing. Smileys can help, but not always.

Can't be around these cars for 16 years without pissin a few people off

Heck, it's only been a couple years for me and there are already folks who consider me, and call me, a liar because of what I "claim" to have my car set up like! hehehe... Yeah, whatever... it works for me.

Sounds like your car will be head'n for the 10's before you know it!!

Well, the engine is generally be 10's capable (rings might be a tad tight to do it repetitively), but I'll never go there with this car... don't want to cage it. A soft launched 12.0x @ ~116 on DRs with pump 91 is my goal.

Should I feel the urge to outrun my bud, I'll toss in some octane, give it more boost and timing, and run ~122-123 mph. Attainable? Dunno, but I'll find out. It sure has been a fun trip so far!

 

[RealFastV6]

Originally posted by PRSRIZD_V6
Thanks Jack,

So is the M16 x 1.5 the regulator size as well??? I thought it was smaller than the fuel rail?

I had a 6AN soldered on the bottom of my old regulator, but I misplaced it and got a New Accufab, I'd like to use a screw in fitting instead of trying to weld an aluminum fitting on such a nice piece.

Its definately not the same size. I ended up taking my acufab regulator apart and bandsawing the bottom off and having a 6an alum weld fitting tigged on. I never found the right adapter fitting, (M14 maybe?) but even if I did I dont think it would fit there without grinding the intake to make a tiny bit of room for the 90 degree an fitting to fit there.

In Jack's pics hes putting a 6an fitting onto the return line at the bend just past the front of the intake. That may be the way to do it if you want to bolt it up.

Just my .01...

 

[PRSRIZD_V6]

I was gonna do that.

I might drill out the bottom and solder a 3/8 to 6an 908 elbow in there....

 

[Racetronix]

If you have an aftermarket FP regulator it is most likely made from billet aluminum so you will not be able to solder to it.
If you have one that is made from stock parts then you may be able to solder to the bottom but you must be very careful as too much heat can easily damage the diaphragm inside.

I am going to look into these Accel fittings as I am pretty sure the smaller Saginaw adapter will fit the Buick regulator.

There is still the option of taking my approach which will work quite well with not risk of damage to the fuel rail or regulator.

Jack
Racetronix

 

[PRSRIZD_V6]

Well actually I gavce you some BS, a welder that my old man works with told him there is some super aluminum epoxy that they use to repair smaller aluminum parts. I wrote solder.... didn't think about it though. He assured me that it's more than strong enough for this type of application. I figured everyone would react like I did.... NO WAY! but he swears by it. I may still have it TIG'd not sure yet.

 

[Racetronix]

Epoxy, metal weld, liquid aluminum.. very risky with fuel!
I know someone that tried that last year... he ending up buying a new regulator from Accufab in a hurry.

Aluminum rods require brazing temps which are way above regular soldering temps to work! If you attempt it there is a good chance you will damage the diaphragm inside the regulator unless you remove it first. I am sure the hot flame will not do justice the cosmetics of the regulator either!!! Perhaps you might even get it hot enough to distort the body... it does not take much with aluminum.

I don't understand why you are willing to overcomplicate this modification when a simple solution that works has already been posted? To each their own I guess???

Jack
Racetronix

BTW those rods have been around for a long time and are very popular in the HVAC industry.

 

[PRSRIZD_V6]

Well, taking the regulator apart is no biggie. The solder bit I meant was just to save a lengthy discussion that I didn't care to have. Like I said, I wasn't thinking aluminum, and I have managed to draw myself into this regardless. Oh well, good information anyhow.

I said the same about the fuel issue and epoxy, but this guy says it's completely compatible. After all joining of materials is this guy's job.

The reason this is not a complication is because I already have issues. I got the regulator for $20 because the threads are crossed on it. Drilling it out and welding it would be fine by me. Welding a 90 fitting would also solve some packaging issues too. I guess it would take more like a 1/4" NPT.

No offense but I don't particularly care for the looks of the setup you posted.It also wouldn't work for my regulator anyhow, since my threads are screwed up. Your method is very effective, no doubt, but... well... sorry.

At the same time I'm sure welding on the regulator I have will kill the blue anodizing. But for $20, it's worth a try. Brazing would be the ok, but it would probably warp it, since it takes so much longer than welding, thus creating a higher heat affected zone. If I wanted to really make this complicated I could do just like I do for headers to prevent warping, and transfer the bolt pattern to a thick plate and bolt it together for welding.... nahhh.

I think that the epoxy could work, but I'm scared to try it.

 

[TurboTR]

Well a good ol' 90 deg NPT to AN flare adapter will screw right into the bottom of the regulator o-ring flare fitting. So that would make a nice AN fitting sitting there, pointed forward just right and it would likely clear the manifold too. Hmm, now how to seal that NPT thread screwed into the o-ring flare hole? Man that Justice Bros stuff sure seems to work well for sealing inside the big crack in my alum valve cover ;-) I wonder? Hmmm...

Just some thinking out loud ;-)

TurboTR

 

[Racetronix]

HAHA... well while you are busy pondering whether or not to get Mr. Justice to Phil Yerkrakin I will be testing these new fittings ....

http://www.racetronix.com/images/misc/Accel_Fuel_Fittings.jpg

PRSRIZD_V6 if your thread is stripped it probably would be best to drill, tap and re-thread it with a pipe thread tap.

With all the aggressive chemicals in today’s gasoline I would not want to trust any sort of adhesive / epoxy filler etc...

Jack
Racetronix

please excuse my humor but it is 03:30hr

 

[RealFastV6]

Originally posted by Racetronix
PRSRIZD_V6 if your thread is stripped it probably would be best to drill, tap and re-thread it with a pipe thread tap.

Now THATS an idea.