Which fuel rail routing would you choose, and why?
#21
Tweaking Enginerd
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,816
Total Cats: 371
I modeled multiple configurations, dual feed single balanced return, DF biased return, single feed end return, single feed balanced dual return, single feed biased dual return....
there are differences, but honestly they are in the mud in a return style system as long as the FLOW (not pressure) of your fuel pump is significantly greater than the injector flow.
400hp on a miata is a lofty target
there are differences, but honestly they are in the mud in a return style system as long as the FLOW (not pressure) of your fuel pump is significantly greater than the injector flow.
400hp on a miata is a lofty target
#22
Dual feeds were probably something carried over from returnless V8's (like LSs). I know a guy who burned up I don't know how many motors in his T1 C5 Vette due to last cylinder leaning out at higher RPM. We finally convienced him to go with a dual feed or return system it was never an issue. That being said, its not something 99.5% of Miata's need. It was just a way to sell more fuel rails and fittings.
#23
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Murfreesboro,TN
Posts: 2,079
Total Cats: 283
It makes sense that this could be more of an issue with a return system than with returnless. Is it possible that a higher powered returnless NB could benefit from dual feeds? With the regulator in the tank, you'd have to expect pressure to drop with each injector the fuel passes.
#24
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,494
Total Cats: 6,905
Originally Posted by ninerwfo;1464666[img
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.miataturbo.net-vbulletin/497x640/80-0b0a262a_e654_4070_963a_b9da7cc32be2_6618374f2f64e 7fc3670370917d5dacea59eff24.jpeg[/img]
That's because there isn't one. Mostly because, as Six and others have pointed out, the stock fuel rail simply isn't an impairment at flow rates which one can reasonably expect to encounter with anything remotely resembling a streetable BP engine. There's a fair bit of empirical evidence to support this.
I compliment your problem-solving nature, but this specific area of the under-hood environment just isn't a problem.
#26
Retired Mech Design Engr
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seneca, SC
Posts: 5,012
Total Cats: 859
It makes sense that this could be more of an issue with a return system than with returnless. Is it possible that a higher powered returnless NB could benefit from dual feeds? With the regulator in the tank, you'd have to expect pressure to drop with each injector the fuel passes.
Possibly true with a returnless system stripped of the proper (OEM) dampers.
In return style, there is constant flow though a rail, through the regulator, then back to tank. That will result in pressure drop across the rail, but it is insignificant.
In a returnless, the only flow is that which goes out each injector. Therefore, pulsation is more of an issue than pressure drop.
Therefore, the aftermarket rail creates the problem that they then solved with dual feed.
#30
Last night I took it all apart, put a caliper to the rail at the injector ports and they all measured out the same. Inspected the NPTs and didn't see any damage in the threads, replaced all the O-rings (but not the injector seats), and then put a consistent smear of thread sealant on the NPTs before installing everything back in place. So, pretty much the same thing I've done the previous 4 times, only this time I paid more careful attention to the torque at the 3 rail bolts. No more than 19 ft lbs on these; I think before I was overtightening them. They honestly don't seem tight enough to me, but after letting it sit out the night I warmed the engine up and took it for a short spin this morning, and it seems OK, no leaks. Here's hoping.
#31
Last night I took it all apart, put a caliper to the rail at the injector ports and they all measured out the same. Inspected the NPTs and didn't see any damage in the threads, replaced all the O-rings (but not the injector seats), and then put a consistent smear of thread sealant on the NPTs before installing everything back in place. So, pretty much the same thing I've done the previous 4 times, only this time I paid more careful attention to the torque at the 3 rail bolts. No more than 19 ft lbs on these; I think before I was overtightening them. They honestly don't seem tight enough to me, but after letting it sit out the night I warmed the engine up and took it for a short spin this morning, and it seems OK, no leaks. Here's hoping.
--Ian
#32
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,494
Total Cats: 6,905
I wish AbeFM was still around. He's got a great story about the day his FM rail (the old piggyback version) doused the whole under-hood area with more fuel than was spilled by the Exxon Valdez.
#38
It was used in the early NB FM2 kit, with a Link piggyback computer that controlled the 4 auxiliary injectors on that rail, while leaving the stock computer to control the stock injectors.
The problems that Abe encountered were caused by the tabs that mounted the rail to the intake manifold cracking, thus letting the rail come off the end of the injector. He had repeated problems with it, although the same kit on my car didn't have that problem. There was some speculation about vibration related to engine mounts and removal of the intake manifold brace, but AFAIK it never got sorted out. FM never sold many of these BEGI-designed NB kits, and the piggyback had significant limitations compared to a full ECU, so I'd be surprised if there were many left at this point.
--Ian
#39
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,494
Total Cats: 6,905
My post is not relevant to this thread, as it was a totally different design (Bell), and failed for entirely different reasons. It was just kind of hilarious when it let go, aside from the whole "Oh, ****, the car is really quite severely on fire!" part.
#40
That's the first I've heard of it, but no. The fuel rail that Joe's talking about was last sold in 2005 or so, and looked like this:
It was used in the early NB FM2 kit, with a Link piggyback computer that controlled the 4 auxiliary injectors on that rail, while leaving the stock computer to control the stock injectors.
The problems that Abe encountered were caused by the tabs that mounted the rail to the intake manifold cracking, thus letting the rail come off the end of the injector. He had repeated problems with it, although the same kit on my car didn't have that problem. There was some speculation about vibration related to engine mounts and removal of the intake manifold brace, but AFAIK it never got sorted out. FM never sold many of these BEGI-designed NB kits, and the piggyback had significant limitations compared to a full ECU, so I'd be surprised if there were many left at this point.
--Ian
It was used in the early NB FM2 kit, with a Link piggyback computer that controlled the 4 auxiliary injectors on that rail, while leaving the stock computer to control the stock injectors.
The problems that Abe encountered were caused by the tabs that mounted the rail to the intake manifold cracking, thus letting the rail come off the end of the injector. He had repeated problems with it, although the same kit on my car didn't have that problem. There was some speculation about vibration related to engine mounts and removal of the intake manifold brace, but AFAIK it never got sorted out. FM never sold many of these BEGI-designed NB kits, and the piggyback had significant limitations compared to a full ECU, so I'd be surprised if there were many left at this point.
--Ian