Fuel pump choices?

-
Rat Bastid,
Such ignorance. And it is getting worse!!!!!!! Only a low life attacks a person's country.
Apparently you do not understand that an IC engine is an AIR PUMP. It will draw in an amount of air based on [a] capacity [ b] max rpm. Once that is known, the amount of fuel reqd can be determined to get the correct A/F ratio. Above applies to NA only.
Just for you, dope, here is a quote from Holley: '' Fuel requirements relate to the air flow because fuel is consumed in proportion to the air taken in by the engine." A chart is provided for convenience/quick reference.
You better contact Holley & tell them they know squat....
 
Bewy said:
Rat Bastid,
Such ignorance. And it is getting worse!!!!!!! Only a low life attacks a person's country.
Apparently you do not understand that an IC engine is an AIR PUMP. It will draw in an amount of air based on [a] capacity [ b] max rpm. Once that is known, the amount of fuel reqd can be determined to get the correct A/F ratio. Above applies to NA only.
Just for you, dope, here is a quote from Holley: '' Fuel requirements relate to the air flow because fuel is consumed in proportion to the air taken in by the engine." A chart is provided for convenience/quick reference.
You better contact Holley & tell them they know squat....
Click to expand...


Whatever. Let me ask you a question and then I’m done with you. You are nothin but a nasty little troll wherever you go.

So let’s look at what you claim. You say a 512 inch engine at X rpm will require Y amount of fuel. And I say that’s bullshit. Why is that?

Because I can build a 512 that makes only 500 hp or I can build one that makes 600 hp or I can build one that makes say 650 hp. Who cares right?

I can also build a 408 and make 500 hp quite easily. 600 isn’t out of the question if you aren’t afraid of relatively high compression ratios on pump gas and some rpm...say 6800 rpm. 650 is still pretty easy on pump gas with a W2 head and say...7500 rpm.

Your *** backwards thinking that displacement is what drives fuel consumption is straight nonsense.

You have to burn FUEL to make power. Simple as that. And the fuel required to make 500 hp is the same whether the engine is 512 inches or 408 inches.

So, you do not base your fuel pump selection based on displacement as you have tried to do here.

And once again, I have to spend a bunch of time typing out something so simple because you are nothing but a troll.

So crawl back under the rock from where you come and go learn something.
 
Rat Bastid said:
Whatever. Let me ask you a question and then I’m done with you. You are nothin but a nasty little troll wherever you go.

So let’s look at what you claim. You say a 512 inch engine at X rpm will require Y amount of fuel. And I say that’s bullshit. Why is that?

Because I can build a 512 that makes only 500 hp or I can build one that makes 600 hp or I can build one that makes say 650 hp. Who cares right?

I can also build a 408 and make 500 hp quite easily. 600 isn’t out of the question if you aren’t afraid of relatively high compression ratios on pump gas and some rpm...say 6800 rpm. 650 is still pretty easy on pump gas with a W2 head and say...7500 rpm.

Your *** backwards thinking that displacement is what drives fuel consumption is straight nonsense.

You have to burn FUEL to make power. Simple as that. And the fuel required to make 500 hp is the same whether the engine is 512 inches or 408 inches.

So, you do not base your fuel pump selection based on displacement as you have tried to do here.

And once again, I have to spend a bunch of time typing out something so simple because you are nothing but a troll.

So crawl back under the rock from where you come and go learn something.
Click to expand...
I have to agree. I've worked on Ford medium trucks with the famed 534 Super Duty gas engine. Small, mechanical fuel pump with 5/16 lines and a Ford style Holley 600 type carburetor.....probably in the 500 range, because those engines didn't spin a lot of RPM. It's how hard an engine works that dictates how much fuel it will eat. Right?
 
RB,
You get the Gold Star for ignorance!! I am not going to waste too much time on you because you will never get it.....
All my comments, now & before, are based on NA engines. Forced induction changes things.
The displacement AND max rpm determine the total airflow. That was provided by the OP so that the calculation could be made. Once airflow is known, fuel flow [ requirement ] can be determined. Allowance has to be made for VE [ misnamed, should be mass efficiency, but everybody is used to using VE ].

If you don't like typing...don't type. We will all be better off....
 
RRR,
You have just proved the point. Big engine, but low rpm. It will require less fuel than it would use at higher rpm. Hence small pump, lines etc because they are big enough to do the job. If we assume 4000 rpm max for this 534 ci engine, it will need about 25 gph @ 4000. That is using 70% as the VE at peak rpm [ 4000 ].
 
I'm not proving anybody's point, I'm just sharing what I've seen.
 
Bewy said:
RRR,
You have just proved the point. Big engine, but low rpm. It will require less fuel than it would use at higher rpm. Hence small pump, lines etc because they are big enough to do the job. If we assume 4000 rpm max for this 534 ci engine, it will need about 25 gph @ 4000. That is using 70% as the VE at peak rpm [ 4000 ].
Click to expand...


LOL. Fuel consumption is based on horsepower not displacement.

Time to go find a hole and get in it you foolish troll.
 
Bewy said:
RB,
You get the Gold Star for ignorance!! I am not going to waste too much time on you because you will never get it.....
All my comments, now & before, are based on NA engines. Forced induction changes things.
The displacement AND max rpm determine the total airflow. That was provided by the OP so that the calculation could be made. Once airflow is known, fuel flow [ requirement ] can be determined. Allowance has to be made for VE [ misnamed, should be mass efficiency, but everybody is used to using VE ].

If you don't like typing...don't type. We will all be better off....
Click to expand...


In your 512 example above, how much air flow do you have? A VE of 80% of what? Displacement? You still have to make power with it.

We all know that you can have 2 engines that both have heads that flow let’s say 300 cfm. And both can have wildly different horsepower curves.

In your ignorant logic, both would have the same fuel consumption rates. Of course, that’s moronic. We all know that two identical engines can have much different BSFC numbers.

What I don’t like is typing out a bunch of stuff to unscrew your bullshit advice. Your beehive spring, 58 degrees of timing at idle, wrong geometry nonsense. You don’t even know that all rocker arms have a ratio gain so the nominal ratio is accurate when the rocker is under load, even though Jesel and HS both verified it.

It’s old. You will never learn. You are just a nasty, bitter old troll. Your arrogance keeps you from looking in the mirror to see you don’t know everything.
 
RustyRatRod said:
I have to agree. I've worked on Ford medium trucks with the famed 534 Super Duty gas engine. Small, mechanical fuel pump with 5/16 lines and a Ford style Holley 600 type carburetor.....probably in the 500 range, because those engines didn't spin a lot of RPM. It's how hard an engine works that dictates how much fuel it will eat. Right?
Click to expand...


Right. And they generally have a very low volumetric efficiency. So they don’t use a bunch of fuel for the power they produce. And of course, rpm IS a factor.

If someone would think it through, the more firing cycles you have in any given minute, the more fuel you will burn even at the same BSFC and VE.

To claim that displacement and VE is how you pick a fuel pump is simple minded at best. You still have to figure in G forces, the length of fuel line (all fuel pumps are measured at free flow rates) as the longer the line the greater the pressure drop. That means you have to up the pressure for the longer line just to maintain whatever pressure you have established you need.

When that happens, the GPH the pump is rated at goes down significantly. In much greater proportion than the graphs show. The longer the carb feed hose, the greater the flow loss.

Same with fittings. The more fittings you have, especially 90’s and tighter reduce flow and increase the load on the pump.

If you don’t consider all those things then you can’t make an informed decision on what size pump you need.

Buy too big a pump and no one knows. Buy too small a pump and everyone knows. And as a rule, never dead head an electric pump.
 
RB,
Keep on typing & show how DUMB you are.
The flow volumes I have quoted from calculation are delivered to the carb. That is why you allow a safety factor/cushion when choosing a pump using it's advertised rating. Restrictions such as length of line, bends, fittings, filter etc are factored in when choosing the pump capacity. A Carter 4600 pump that I fitted was measured for flow, by removing the hose from the carb inlet; the system used a Mallory reg set at 6psi. It delivered 90 gph, enough to feed over 1000 hp. It lost 10 gph from it's advertised or free flow rating on this car. Pumps are rated at free flow because the pump mfr has NO IDEA what sort of lines, bends, filter etc that restrict flow, that you will be using.
G force is separate consideration. Allowing for G force requires the line pressure to be high enough to overcome the G forces. Nothing to do with pump GPH rating. A 10 gph pump that pumps at 15 psi is going to handle G force better than a 800 gph pump putting out 4 psi.
And now you are making it up as you go along. Just getting dumber. I NEVER said or recommended 58* of timing at idle. You got it WRONG in the geometry thread & now you have got it WRONG AGAIN with the statement that all rocker arms have a ratio gain. There may be some, but not all. D. Vizard has proved it with the results in his BBC book & that was only a small number of brands he tested. A test using 1.65 alum rockers was tested using different length p'rods. The object of the test was to see how much the valve lift changed by changing prod length. Advertised valve lift was 0.587". Three different prod lengths were used. Measured lift was 0.574", 0.573" & 0.558". So much for your nonsense. Not a Class Act.
 
Bewy said:
RB,
Keep on typing & show how DUMB you are.
The flow volumes I have quoted from calculation are delivered to the carb. That is why you allow a safety factor/cushion when choosing a pump using it's advertised rating. Restrictions such as length of line, bends, fittings, filter etc are factored in when choosing the pump capacity. A Carter 4600 pump that I fitted was measured for flow, by removing the hose from the carb inlet; the system used a Mallory reg set at 6psi. It delivered 90 gph, enough to feed over 1000 hp. It lost 10 gph from it's advertised or free flow rating on this car. Pumps are rated at free flow because the pump mfr has NO IDEA what sort of lines, bends, filter etc that restrict flow, that you will be using.
G force is separate consideration. Allowing for G force requires the line pressure to be high enough to overcome the G forces. Nothing to do with pump GPH rating. A 10 gph pump that pumps at 15 psi is going to handle G force better than a 800 gph pump putting out 4 psi.
And now you are making it up as you go along. Just getting dumber. I NEVER said or recommended 58* of timing at idle. You got it WRONG in the geometry thread & now you have got it WRONG AGAIN with the statement that all rocker arms have a ratio gain. There may be some, but not all. D. Vizard has proved it with the results in his BBC book & that was only a small number of brands he tested. A test using 1.65 alum rockers was tested using different length p'rods. The object of the test was to see how much the valve lift changed by changing prod length. Advertised valve lift was 0.587". Three different prod lengths were used. Measured lift was 0.574", 0.573" & 0.558". So much for your nonsense. Not a Class Act.
Click to expand...


LOL, you didn’t calculate for a damned thing. You are liar.

Bye bye Felcia
 
Bewy said:
RB,
Keep on typing & show how DUMB you are.
The flow volumes I have quoted from calculation are delivered to the carb. That is why you allow a safety factor/cushion when choosing a pump using it's advertised rating. Restrictions such as length of line, bends, fittings, filter etc are factored in when choosing the pump capacity. A Carter 4600 pump that I fitted was measured for flow, by removing the hose from the carb inlet; the system used a Mallory reg set at 6psi. It delivered 90 gph, enough to feed over 1000 hp. It lost 10 gph from it's advertised or free flow rating on this car. Pumps are rated at free flow because the pump mfr has NO IDEA what sort of lines, bends, filter etc that restrict flow, that you will be using.
G force is separate consideration. Allowing for G force requires the line pressure to be high enough to overcome the G forces. Nothing to do with pump GPH rating. A 10 gph pump that pumps at 15 psi is going to handle G force better than a 800 gph pump putting out 4 psi.
And now you are making it up as you go along. Just getting dumber. I NEVER said or recommended 58* of timing at idle. You got it WRONG in the geometry thread & now you have got it WRONG AGAIN with the statement that all rocker arms have a ratio gain. There may be some, but not all. D. Vizard has proved it with the results in his BBC book & that was only a small number of brands he tested. A test using 1.65 alum rockers was tested using different length p'rods. The object of the test was to see how much the valve lift changed by changing prod length. Advertised valve lift was 0.587". Three different prod lengths were used. Measured lift was 0.574", 0.573" & 0.558". So much for your nonsense. Not a Class Act.
Click to expand...


Read it again, because you get nothing straight. All GOOD rockers have a higher than nominal ratio when using checking springs. To dispute this is moronic.

Did your hero Vizard do his rocker tests on shaft mounted rockers? Of course not. He did it with stud mounts so pushrod lengths change far more with pushrod length than shaft mounted rockers.

Again, just because you refuse to get it, your 512 CID example is junk. Again, to make power you have to burn fuel. More power, more fuel. Nothing to do with displacement. Yet you keep trying to unload crap on everyone.

You have issues with Holley anything and a love affair with anything not Holley. You will argue for that junk no matter what. No one in their right mind would buy a Carter pump when there are far better option on the market, except you.

As for timing at idle, you are the FABO goon who thinks every engine needs manifold vacuum advance. You said many times you need over 50 at idle, because your god Vizard says so. He also says to use vacuum secondary Holleys. I don’t know why, they are door stops. So who cares what he says.

I’m going to block you. You follow me on other sites and pull the same ****. Like I’ve said, it has to be a down under issue. There is something wrong with you. Trolling is what you do.

Blocked you are.
 
Jesus. Both of you should kick your selves off this forum. Your not helping anyone muck less the the guy who posted a simple question
 
I run a summit brand holley style black pump with a holley return regulator set at 6.5 psi on my street strip 340 car. It has worked great at the track and no more vapor lock issues with today's pump gas.
 
Holley, Carter, Aeromotive, what ever. Pick your parts, plug the **** in, and burn rubber. Its hot-rodding guys.
:drama:
 
Johnny Dart said:
Limp Wristers and their red X's. SMH :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Holley pumps are total trash, been there done that and now have true quality. Carter is for stock or mildly above and even then probably a crap shoot with the trash quality of cheap parts nowadays.
 
'68cuda416 said:
Holley pumps are total trash, been there done that and now have true quality. Carter is for stock or mildly above and even then probably a crap shoot with the trash quality of cheap parts nowadays.
Click to expand...

While you are entitled to your opinion, that's all it is, is "your" opinion. Certainly not the end all be all. I usually just state my opinion, and move on. No need to put a red x on someone because I don't agree with them, seems kind of petty and childish. I guess we are all programmed a little different.

Having said that, I have no dog in this fight, but I'm sure there are thousands of satisfied Holley and Carter electric fuel pump owners. Me, I run the Carter Strip Super mechanical fuel pump. Works just fine for me. 02
 
Johnny Dart said:
While you are entitled to your opinion, that's all it is, is "your" opinion. Certainly not the end all be all. I usually just state my opinion, and move on. No need to put a red x on someone because I don't agree with them, seems kind of petty and childish. I guess we are all programmed a little different.

Having said that, I have no dog in this fight, but I'm sure there are thousands of satisfied Holley and Carter electric fuel pump owners. Me, I run the Carter Strip Super mechanical fuel pump. Works just fine for me. 02
Click to expand...
When the POS Holley latest and greatest "gerotor" pump failed in under 2 years I was less than impressed and so it is my experience and not my opinion that gives me the right to say what I said.
 
'68cuda416 said:
When the POS Holley latest and greatest "gerotor" pump failed in under 2 years I was less than impressed and so it is my experience and not my opinion that gives me the right to say what I said.
Click to expand...


Well there you go. Feel better now ?
 
Johnny Dart said:
Well there you go. Feel better now ?
Click to expand...
I shouldn't even say anything to be honest.....my cars are ******* BAD MOTHERFUCKERS and since all the circus sized wheel experts on here always have something smartass to say **** IT I will just keep all my wisdom to myself and keep on having some of the baddest street/strip Mopars out there.
 
Tubbedamx,
If you read my posts on this read you will see that all I have done is try & provide advice to the OP, with part #s & calculations to show him what his engine needs.
Then this idiot Rat Bastid chimes in with his nonsense [ which he does on many of my posts ]& introduces all sorts of non-related things into this thread that are unrelated to elec fuel pumps. I hope he continues because he just cements how dumb he is!!!
The examples I gave on fuel requirements are mathematical calculations. In the Holley book written by Holley engineers, they have kindly converted these to graphs so that fuel requirements can easily be read off. If somebody has the Urich book, maybe they could post page 7 on this thread. Rat Bastid might learn something then.
 
Rat Bastid, you are going to block me? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease make that a promise...
 
Regarding the fuel requirement charts in post #48. The same charts are also in Doug Roe's QJ book, pages 23 & 25.
If anybody has either of these books, I would appreciate it if you could post them. I do not know how to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top