Afr question... - Page 4 - CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion

Notices
C6 Forced Induction/Nitrous C6 Corvette Turbochargers, Superchargers, Pulley Upgrades, Intercoolers, Wet and Dry Nitrous Injection, Meth
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Afr question...

Reply

 
 
 
Old 05-16-2018, 12:04 PM
  #61  
Kingtal0n
CF Senior Member
 
Kingtal0n's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2007
Location: miami florida
Posts: 705
Thanked 59 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post


Because a vacuum signal is not needed.
If he has a tune-able ECU it can surely take advantage of the vacuum referencing capability of a regulator. It is only 1 line to hook up and he can drop vacuum for idle/cruise significantly lowering the fuel pressure for those times.

This will:
1. extend fuel pump life
2. keep fuel cooler
3. fuel systems components will last longer in general
4. reduce current draw of fuel pump

To me, this^^^ is all 'needed'.
Kingtal0n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 02:16 PM
  #62  
schpenxel
CF Senior Member
 
schpenxel's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2004
Location: Greensboro NC
Posts: 15,104
Thanked 727 Times in 677 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15
Default

You should probably let GM know all these improvements they could get from putting vacuum referenced regulators back on their cars

/sarcasm

Last edited by schpenxel; 05-16-2018 at 02:18 PM.
schpenxel is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 02:17 PM
  #63  
stevieturbo
CF Senior Member
 
stevieturbo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,477
Thanked 80 Times in 72 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post


Because a vacuum signal is not needed.
You could also say a boost signal is not needed either.

Doesn't make it a good way to do things.

There really is no reason to reference anywhere other than the intake manifold. There are no benefits to taking the reference from elsewhere.
stevieturbo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 02:20 PM
  #64  
stevieturbo
CF Senior Member
 
stevieturbo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,477
Thanked 80 Times in 72 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by schpenxel View Post
You should probably let GM know all these improvements they could get from putting vacuum referenced regulators back on their cars

/sarcasm
Some modern GM cars and some others run closed loop pump control.....so in essence, yes they are referenced to load....just not mechanically via an FPR.

People, manufacturers etc do different things for different reasons.
stevieturbo is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  #65  
[email protected] Performance
Supporting Vendor
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Location: Forney TX
Posts: 2,221
Thanked 124 Times in 93 Posts
Default


You could say it, but it wouldnít make it true.
How so? How about the vehicle owner is currently tight on money and his IDC is too high or maxed out because of the boost heís running? Letís say 28psi boost and not boost referenced for instance. Now, as you well know, he has only 30psi across his injector. Boost referencing gives him the fix he needs for now without having to spend money he doesnít currently have or want to spend.
How about another one of my customers running 40psi boost? Yes 40. And youíre going to say for the sake of your argument that a boost reference signal isnít needed? I know you to be a smarter cat than that.
The customer happens to want to tap into his charge pipe for a signal. So what? Get the benefits of boost referencing and everything else remains as GM designed it as far as fueling is concerned.
There certainly is a benefit from getting the boost side of it and absolutely no harm in not getting it on the vacuum
side. Never thought of it? Okay, fine, but think about it. It has all the upside that the car owner desires with none of the downside.

Originally Posted by stevieturbo View Post
You could also say a boost signal is not needed either.

Doesn't make it a good way to do things.

There really is no reason to reference anywhere other than the intake manifold. There are no benefits to taking the reference from elsewhere.
BLOWNBLUEZ06@RKT Performance is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 02:33 PM
  #66  
[email protected] Performance
Supporting Vendor
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Location: Forney TX
Posts: 2,221
Thanked 124 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by stevieturbo View Post

People, manufacturers etc do different things for different reasons.
See, I knew you were that smart!
BLOWNBLUEZ06@RKT Performance is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 02:37 PM
  #67  
Kingtal0n
CF Senior Member
 
Kingtal0n's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2007
Location: miami florida
Posts: 705
Thanked 59 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by schpenxel View Post
You should probably let GM know all these improvements they could get from putting vacuum referenced regulators back on their cars

/sarcasm


I want to believe their decision in this case has something to do with regulator placement near the rear of the vehicle, near the tank. For whatever reason (probably engine bay clutter and unique access) an under-car replaceable, serviceable filter-regulator was established, and the idea of running a vacuum signal from the engine to the rear of the car was laughable. So they argued the system was worth more than the fuel system parts that needed to be replaced sooner, and that someone could just add a real regulator up front (I mean, duh you notice right away when you go to build the car) if they recognized the need for proper reference in the fuel system easily enough. As even if they gave us one we would still probably seek to replace it at a level due to flow orifice diameter, anyways.

It isn't a problem for GM dealership when serviceable parts fail in our cars, and need to be replaced. Especially parts that need a couple hundred dollars to get going again, like timing belts, brake pads, clutches, fuel pumps. I think we've all tried, in one way or another, to get our car manufacturers to implement systems which last longer.

Just because it isn't there, doesn't mean we won't benefit from it. If you bought a car with no A/C would you immediately suggest that I let the manufacturers know "hey guys you forgot / need A/C". Or a sunroof. Or a battery life extender. Or a spare tire. Or a fuel system stress reliever.

Last edited by Kingtal0n; 05-16-2018 at 02:39 PM.
Kingtal0n is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2018, 08:45 PM
  #68  
C U IN REARVEIW
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
C U IN REARVEIW's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2009
Location: ocean springs mississippi
Posts: 5,356
Thanked 83 Times in 77 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=schpenxel;1597211604]You should probably let GM know all these improvements they could get from putting vacuum referenced regulators back on their

Last edited by C U IN REARVEIW; 05-18-2018 at 09:06 PM.
C U IN REARVEIW is offline  
Reply With Quote
 
 
 


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Afr question...


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: