fuel starve solutions

phunk

I would say there are 3 angles to compare.

Plumbing Schematic: Used in a naturally aspirated car with stock fuel system, the schematic is unchanged. For a return system, the connections will be made differently but I never had an official schematic for using the old one with return systems anyway, each install was an individual.

Installation Kit: totally different. The cross-tank hoses are no longer inside the tank. Todays average DIYer doesn't want to spend the time to understand the product or why they connect "this to that" well enough to be working with things blind. Also it makes diagnostics too difficult for individuals who dont understand the system. Installation kits for return and returnless will be totally different. They havent been built yet, but the gist of them is in my head and will be finalized when the main hardware is ready.

Main Hardware: Not a single shared component with the old kit, but ultimately what we have is a canister in the tank with fuel pump(s) in it. Serves the same purpose. Displacement remains huge. But the new model is a lot more intuitive and accommodating for setting up to support big power with twin pumps and return system. For naturally aspirated use, there is really nothing to write home about gained, it just looks cooler/nicer as youd expect 10 years later.

__________________

jchammond

I’m hoping to not have any issues on straightaway pulls only
Twice pump setup w/dual 525’s
Always the option to adjust the suspension for roadcourse setup though, if desired in future

__________________
MazWorx built long block | FI-TT-100 Stage 2.75 | IPT built 7A/T

http://www.the370z.com/members-370z-...s-musings.html

Rusty

The 1st gen is still going strong in my Z.

__________________

浪人 - 殺し屋
"The Difficult Anytime, The Impossible By Appointment Only"
http://www.the370z.com/members-370z-...o-journal.html

phunk

I just hopped on my CAD machine, give me about 10 min to populate the CAD assembly with some of the misc components and I can post a render of what the RRP2.0 looks like.

__________________

phunk

This is about it. Some minor things are subject to change when machining it, but its going to be pretty much this. Render is shown with 2-1 manifold for use with twin pumps. Single pump use it will just have 2 of the typical swivel banjo connections. The main canister is actually straight from the twin pump canister kit. They are sharing parts to make production easier.

Attached Images

rrp20.jpg (138.4 KB, 35 views)

__________________

phunk

Seb has been testing the twin pump with the new surge canister add-on kit for a couple days now. Gradually asking it for more, to see if he can find a limit to what it will do. Today he took it hard around a right hand on ramp, with the low fuel level light on, and then went full throttle with his 650-700whp map... no hiccups. This would of course not be possible without some form of surge protection.

As time goes on, we will find out more what its capable of. Higher power (fuel consumption rate) is asking more from it, more aggressive back and forth sloshing is asking more of it. It will be interesting to see where the limit is, or if anyone finds it. But I think its safe to say at this point that the canister add-on for the twin pump has the fuel slosh issue well under control.

Even if a limit is found beyond what its been through so far, it is still a world of improvement already and should be all that most users need. On top of that, I have one more add-on for the twin pump coming. Its a multi-point scavenging kit that is going to scavenge fuel from the remote corners of the tank. With this final addition, there is not really much else to ask from a fuel pump system.

The only reason to proceed with the RRP2.0 is to have something for people who dont want to install a return system, primarily naturally aspirated track cars. But the RRP2.0 will still be setup to accommodate big power and return systems anyway, because people are known to change directions with their build.

__________________

DarkJak

Is there a 3rd hole up top to run a return with? Would imagine 4 holes would allow full flexibility: 1 inlet from OEM pump location, 2 for the 1 or 2 fuel pumps, and then one more for return feed.
Looks like there's a gap up top to allow excess to flow out.

Does seem like opportunity to consolidate everything into a single system, though I suppose the twin pump setup was originally intended for the passenger side while the RRP was designed to be left side?

Regardless, will be cool to see the new products. I'm happy with my Radium kit's performance but from handling products from both, know CJM's designs and manufacturing is best of the best.

__________________
@stupidtoycars | My track vids
09 7AT|MCS 2WNR|Topgunz Rotrex|Ecutek (Eugene)|Maxxis RC1|Titan-7 TS-5|OSG LSD|Rear Mount Derale Oil Cooler (WIP)+25 Trans Cooler|Fismo|G-LOC R12/R10|Zeta III L|NLR Wing and Splitter|CJM Pan and Fuel Hat|Radium Surge Tank|AP Racing CP9668

Rojoryu

I'll be following this thread. I was suffering starvation at around 2/3rds of a tank on my last HPDE. I ended up just topping off between every session.

JARblue

Mine is still going strong and looking good in the box

Is the pricing going to be somewhat similar for the new kit? It sounds like for N/A I should probably just install the kit I already have. Plus, the blue anodized canister on my RRP kit matches my CJM oil pan. Can't have non-matching colors on hidden elements from the same company

__________________

OptionZero

Hi phunk

I was reading through this user's experience with the Radium kit - not sure if it applies to your system, so i apologize in advance:
Radium Fuel Hanger Surge Tank and Akebono upgrades, installed by Enthusiast Auto Care

Two issues that caught my attention:

The installer noted a need to upgrade the wiring to accomodate the draw from the aftermarket pumps. I was reading through some of the literature on Radium's website (as a total notice), and it appears there is a pretty obvious relationship between the power draw and the flow ability , although some can be more efficient than others. Will your system need upgraded wiring, and if so, will it be provided?

Also, this user noted some inaccurate fuel readings after installation; the car would show near empty when there was still over a gallon and left or so. IS this an electrical thing, and an issue that can be avoided?

Thanks for your work man!

__________________
OptionZero Build Thread

OptionZero

oh yeah, even though this is installed in a location no one will ever see, can you make yours candy red, so my car will go faster?

**** JarBLUE and radium green

__________________
OptionZero Build Thread

phunk

Impressive.. very few people are familiar enough with fuel system plumbing, especially when it starts to get complicated, to be sure enough of themselves to pick up on that and comment to me about it. That's rare. Most people dont find fuel systems interesting enough to focus their attention to it and understand it.

The reply is complicated.

If used how you are thinking, yes it will need an additional bulkhead on top of what is seen there. Ive gone back and forth on whether or not I wanted to make the RRP2.0 for use with RFS. I was on the fence just on the decision itself, and also awaiting to learn of the effectiveness of my standard twin pump canister via testing results. Because the RRP2.0, using the same canister parts... part of me feels like, if a non-RFS user has the RRP2.0 and then switches to RFS, maybe it makes more sense to, rather than RFS + RRP2.0:

A: sell them the twin pump top hat, to move the canister to the right side of the tank, and get the nice simplicity of the standard twin pump layout. Or...

B: just move the entire RRP2.0 assembly over to the right side, because the way I have been designing this stuff modularly, there is really no reason we cant do that.

So to rephrase in a way that might make more sense... The RRP2.0 vs Twin Pump + canister add-on, minus installation kits, just looking at the main assembly; are not very different. Just the top hat design is different, and it honestly doesn't even have to be. I could make them use the same top hat if I wanted. So, what if the RRP2.0 was only intended to be used on the left side of the tank for non-RFS, and then with RFS you just move it to the right side of the tank?

Decisions are difficult.

__________________

phunk

It should be similar but maybe a little less. Material costs have gone up but otherwise its become easier for me to produce this stuff than 10 years ago when the RRP 1.0 came out

__________________

phunk

The stock fuel pump wiring is inadequate for even a mild fuel pump upgrade. There is no way around adding larger wires when upgrading the pump or adding an additional pump. I already sell fuel pump relay kits, whether it will come standard with the kit (it did with original RRP) or as an option is TBD. Lots of people already have a fuel pump wiring upgrade, so it might be ideal to let people decide if they need it rather than including it default.

I read the post you mention regarding the fuel level gauge. It sounds like radium might have raised the fuel level sensor mounting point so that the gauge reads lower than it really is. This would not be an unreasonable thing to do, so long as the gauge is still fully functional. To verify the change, an installer could just measure the mounting position of the sensor compared to stock. I had a radium unit here to inspect and check out, but I did not think to measure their sensor position.

__________________

OptionZero

Thanks!

__________________
OptionZero Build Thread