NASCAR's fuel system discussion.

SST55 said:
We ran a Holley electric fuel pump mounted on the crossmember a good 18 inches above the tank pickup and a good foot forward. Yes this was a carb engine and not fuel injected but saying a electric pump won't pick up isn't true.
Picture.jpg
Click to expand...

Did it have a lift pump

Ok let me try and clear up what i tried to say
External fuel pumps work better and LONGER if gravity fed or with a lift pump
Some electric fuel pumps DO NOT have a lot of suction
And a carb only requires about 8 psi
 
Nope

Only thing between tank and carb was this pump and a screwy little pressure regulator near the carb inlet.

Bought that pump new in '95, still working perfectly when we got out in '05/'06.
 
SST55 said:
We ran a Holley electric fuel pump mounted on the crossmember a good 18 inches above the tank pickup and a good foot forward. Yes this was a carb engine and not fuel injected but saying a electric pump won't pick up isn't true.
Picture.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes that will work, but remember you where working with a carb and only needing 8-12 psi with good fuel volumn, you probably were'nt as concerned about picking up every drop of fuel in the cell either.
Neat lookin Racetruck by the way! What rules where you running under that Allowed the electric fuel pump?
I should as said Electric impeller type fuel pumps are not as efficient at sucking as they are at pushing :eek:
 
I have a sweet Kohler 26HP EFI engine on my lawnmower. In tank pump. Pretty sweet......
 
I gotta laugh when someone starts repeating what I already said as if they discovered something. :rolleyes:
 
In my opinion this whole thread has been a waste of time. It has NOTHING to do (factually) with what NASCAR is running this year. The link was to something dealing with airplanes, NOT NASCAR, and the diagram that said "Fuel system schematic for cars that had carburetors" is totally useless to a NASCAR discussion. What does that even mean???????? Cars that "had" carburetors? WTF? I mean seriously, we need the ACTUAL NASCAR schematics before we can discuss this with any intelligence.

I will agree that I haven't found much actual tech info on the systems that the teams are running. But comparing it to an airplane system that has some random schematic of what "cars that had carburetors" just does not make any sense at all to me.

When it comes to tech talk I demand facts. I don't see any facts in this thread, just a lot of speculation. :owquitit:
 
KingGlamis said:
In my opinion this whole thread has been a waste of time. It has NOTHING to do (factually) with what NASCAR is running this year. The link was to something dealing with airplanes, NOT NASCAR, and the diagram that said "Fuel system schematic for cars that had carburetors" is totally useless to a NASCAR discussion. What does that even mean???????? Cars that "had" carburetors? WTF? I mean seriously, we need the ACTUAL NASCAR schematics before we can discuss this with any intelligence.

I will agree that I haven't found much actual tech info on the systems that the teams are running. But comparing it to an airplane system that has some random schematic of what "cars that had carburetors" just does not make any sense at all to me.

When it comes to tech talk I demand facts. I don't see any facts in this thread, just a lot of speculation. :owquitit:
Click to expand...

You know what they say about opinions.....:D

Go get the NASCAR schematics and post them. Until then, a carburatorated engine converted to port EFI is EXACTLY what NASCAR is doing. If you actually read what the article says, you would know the diagram ISN'T for an airplane EFI system. How could you even think that, when the diagram is titled "cars that had...".

I am starting to fear for mankind. ;)
 
FenderBumper said:
You know what they say about opinions.....:D

Go get the NASCAR schematics and post them. Until then, a carburatorated engine converted to port EFI is EXACTLY what NASCAR is doing. If you actually read what the article says, you would know the diagram ISN'T for an airplane EFI system. How could you even think that, when the diagram is titled "cars that had...".

I am starting to fear for mankind. ;)
Click to expand...

Simple question. Do you know the difference between "cars" and "NASCARs"? I could post the fuel injection diagram for hundreds of different "cars" and not one of them would be the same as a NASCAR diagram. Do you not get that?
 
KingGlamis said:
Simple question. Do you know the difference between "cars" and "NASCARs"? I could post the fuel injection diagram for hundreds of different "cars" and not one of them would be the same as a NASCAR diagram. Do you not get that?
Click to expand...

Well, you didn't mention airplanes, so we're making progress.

You are confused as to what this thread is about and it's purpose. Let me suggest that you go back to the beginning of the thread and read along so you understand where the disscussion started and why. Then decide if you want to be involved in SPECULATING about something technical that NASCAR hasn't published yet. Jumping in and calling cars 'airplanes' isn't constructive.

Do YOU get THAT?
 
FenderBumper said:
You know what they say about opinions.....:D

Go get the NASCAR schematics and post them. Until then, a carburatorated engine converted to port EFI is EXACTLY what NASCAR is doing. If you actually read what the article says, you would know the diagram ISN'T for an airplane EFI system. How could you even think that, when the diagram is titled "cars that had...".

I am starting to fear for mankind. ;)
Click to expand...

I will post the NASCAR schematics if I find them. You clearly didn't find them, so why are you trying to pretend some other schematic is the same thing? Guess what, it's not. "Carburatorated?" WTF kind of spelling is that? If you're going to discuss tech stuff, at least know how to spell what you are talking about. My next statement you need to think about very, very, very, very carefully before responding. You said, "If you actually read what the article says, you would know the diagram ISN'T for an airplane EFI system. How could you even think that."

DUDE. Put the crack pipe down. I don't mean to insult you but you just made yourself look like a total dumbass. Somebody had to say it. So I did. I read the whole article. It's about airplanes. How could I even think that? The fact that you asked that question proves you are a friggen dumbass of the highest order.

FB, please don't tell me you are the new Andy. But in all honesty your posts in this thread are way more ignorant than anything Andy has posted.

Please don't PRETEND to know about tech stuff when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. It only lessens your credibility.
 
:D The Entertainment value of this thread is just Absolutely PRICELESS ;)


Perhaps for a sligthly better insight as to what the Cup cars are running for FI one could check into the rules regulations and possibly the FI system used by the ASA, there's some strikeing similaritys. This is'nt New stuff. Before it folded in 2004 ASA was the only nationally touring stock car series that used passenger car technology for its racing engines including FI. Although NASCAR has only recently changed to FI, ASA required fuel injection in all of its engines during its final years 2000 to 2004.
 
FlFlash said:
:D The Entertainment value of this thread is just Absolutely PRICELESS ;)


Perhaps for a sligthly better insight as to what the Cup cars are running for FI one could check into the rules regulations and possibly the FI system used by the ASA, there's some strikeing similaritys. This is'nt New stuff. Before it folded in 2004 ASA was the only nationally touring stock car series that used passenger car technology for its racing engines including FI. Although NASCAR has only recently changed to FI, ASA required fuel injection in all of its engines during its final years 2000 to 2004.
Click to expand...

You calling me a clown:D
 
My first post in this thread.

FenderBumper said:
I can't find any official NASCAR documents on how their fuel supply will work, but here is a diagram and explaination of the fuel supply system for cars that had carburators.

Scroll down a little and Look at the schematic. You'll see LOW pressure feeder (lift) pumps feeding LOW PRESSURE lines (BLUE) that lead to the EFI HIGH PRESSURE pump that feeds the HIGH pressure fuel lines (GREY).

So, the lift pumps NASCAR is talking about are near the tank and easily primed (if electric). They then feed high volume/low pressure (fat) fuel lines that feed the HIGH PRESSURE EFI fuel pump, which supplies 10x the fuel pressure to the injectors. Why can't they mount the high pressure pump near the tank? I'm guessing that having heavy gauge fuel lines with a bunch of fittings running the length of the car is undesirable.There are high pressure mechanical drive pumps capable of feeding the EFI, but they wouldn't be mounted back near the tank because you would need high pressure lines all the way to the injector rails. These cars are run on and off the gas constantly, so you need that HIGH pressure pump as close to the fuel rail as possible to have quicker throttle response.

------------

This is EXACTLY the system I predicted months back, with the exception of the surge tank and return lines, but rail over-pressure needs to be released somewhere. Lets hear some other guesses. Perhaps NASCAR will eventually come out with a full explaination some day.
Click to expand...

And you respond with this delusional tantrum?

KingGlamis said:
I will post the NASCAR schematics if I find them. You clearly didn't find them, so why are you trying to pretend some other schematic is the same thing? Guess what, it's not. "Carburatorated?" WTF kind of spelling is that? If you're going to discuss tech stuff, at least know how to spell what you are talking about. My next statement you need to think about very, very, very, very carefully before responding. You said, "If you actually read what the article says, you would know the diagram ISN'T for an airplane EFI system. How could you even think that."

DUDE. Put the crack pipe down. I don't mean to insult you but you just made yourself look like a total dumbass. Somebody had to say it. So I did. I read the whole article. It's about airplanes. How could I even think that? The fact that you asked that question proves you are a friggen dumbass of the highest order.

FB, please don't tell me you are the new Andy. But in all honesty your posts in this thread are way more ignorant than anything Andy has posted.

Please don't PRETEND to know about tech stuff when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. It only lessens your credibility.
Click to expand...

The king is naked.

You SAY you read the article????? Did you miss this from the article? "Below is a proven fuel system used in racing cars which undergo high G forces."

With your reading ability......well, enough said.
 
Yeah, but we managed to drag out the fact that the original post is inaccurate for what 6-7 pages ;)

And it's certainly better than discussing Kevin and Delana's love life...........
 
BobbyFord said:
I've forgotten more about engines than you've ever known. Feel free to post any pics of the last motor you built...:D
Click to expand...

I guess that would matter if we were talking about building engines. :p

But I do take your word on how much your memory has failed. :D

:lurk:
 
Maybe we could start a thread discussing the difference between a Motor and an Engine? huhuhu anyone wanna go there? :rolleyes:
 
FlFlash said:
Maybe we could start a thread discussing the difference between a Motor and an Engine? huhuhu anyone wanna go there? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's easy, Typically, an engine burns fuel and/or changes the composition of matter. Usually, a motor doesn't. As in electric motor vs internal combustion engine.

I assumed BobbyFord wasn't bragging about builting starter MOTORS, but I could be wrong.
 
FenderBumper said:
That's easy, Typically, an engine burns fuel and/or changes the composition of matter. Usually, a motor doesn't. As in electric motor vs internal combustion engine.
Click to expand...

Do you have a Valid Link with Pictures and Diagrams to back that statement up?

One of my professors in college used to go Ballistic over this on a regular basis, we got to where we'd say it just to see him rant for an hour or so, hehehehehe.
 
how many revolutions of the crank does take to fire all 8 cylinders
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom