HessViper

right, but it is not just a set value, the car seems to go through a protocol to check if it is able to get into the higher 14.x volt range, and then it comes back down.

Is this adjustable in HP tuners?

atljar

Its controlled by the BCM and PCM working together to command charging voltage. Not sure if adjustable.

Kingtal0n

don't recommend it for various reasons
1. may reduce lifespan of components (almost guaranteed to in the case of the pump)
2. PWM control is very specific, the gain and phase shift/margins of such a signal can create non-linear (unexpected) oscillations and behaviors that the original factory engineers did not anticipate

I'd be worried that such a system may create an unstable operating condition and starve the engine for fuel, causing disaster.

HessViper

if the pump fails for any reason, it is just going to put the car into limp mode instantly (unless someone turns p228c completely OFF by lowering the min required pressure to some foolish number like 40psi instead of keeping it at 61psi)

And even if p228c was disabled by lowering the values, then you still have p0089 to catch the car and its anticipated/required minimum pressures on the high side of the fuel system. So you literally have 2 safety nets if the car starts to lose optimal performance of the low side fuel pump.

Keep in mind, if the low side pump fails, and the only thing a person had done to their car was to add this voltage booster, just to test it out, the stock computer and tune would not have any adverse affects from this voltage booster. The car would not even know it is there.

I hate to say it, but if it did cause the pump to fail, a person could take the voltage booster off the car, and then take the car in under warranty and the dealer would never know the voltage booster was on the car.

What I am getting at is, testing the voltage booster for longevity and reliability in conjunction with the stock in tank pump, can be done on a stock tune vehicle, with no negative tradeoffs.

Kingtal0n

I am sure you are correct in that there are probably safety nets and systems in place to prevent disasters. That is a good engineering practice overall.

However, I feel like what you are suggesting is, instead of replacing the factory pump with an adequate higher-flowing unit, to 'put those safety features to work by trying something potentially dangerous'.
It reminds me of "jump! Its ok, theres a net..." when I really don't want to jump, all I want is a new fuel pump...

FYREANT

atljar

I can understand these points and mostly agree that I never want to rely on a safety net... BUT....There arent any good alternatives IMO. The safety net on a booster is much better than on the alternative systems.

- Fore in tank, completely eliminate the PWM system, run a traditional regulator, new AN lines, AND have to prime the system before every start. (Cons = Custom fuel line plumbing, primed system before every start or custom ECU to run the prime function, set/boost referenced pressure only, tank out install)
- You could "try" a LT5 pump. Who knows if that even works, lots of conflicting information. (Cons: Only 20% gains, tank out install, may not even work??)
- Drill and tap the bottom of the tank and run a secondary pump. (Cons: Drilling and tapping the bottom of the tank = leak risk and irreversible, cant run low on fuel any more without possibility of starving the secondary pump as its not siphoning from the fuel bucket, additional AN lines and fittings, relying on check valve to hold back factory pump pressure during normal operation (Which I have had SEVERAL check valves fail in Walbro units)

OR

Run a Voltage booster. Cons (May eventually fry the factory pump/fuel pump driver, which leads you back to tank out install, no worse than above options. For what its worth, there is some evidence that running DC pumps at a higher voltage actually is easier on the pumps/will lengthen service life)


Everyone is welcome to assess their own risk vs reward. To me, this is a no brainer, if, which back to my initial point was more.... can we make this work on a C7?

0Billy@MTI

We make a Aux fuel system because the factory pump can not be boosted such as the C6 fuel pump.
Billy

atljar

Going to push you a little on that answer. Ive seen you post that several times through the search history, but never with any facts/experiences. One time you said PWM pumps couldnt be boosted, which according to the booster manufactures and my logic, isnt accurate. PWM is just a on/off digital signal. No reason the on time cant be done at 18v instead of normal charging voltage.

So why cant they work or why dont they work?

0Billy@MTI

You are kinda right. They will work at 18v but the cars controller is the issue. Plus the factory pump is pretty tapped out anyways.

atljar

What happens with the controller?

RoxyCarter

Your analogy is not reality.

2 or more in tank pumps (Fore system) or 1 in and 1 or more external (mti etc) if any one pump fails, the car still runs at normal driving, and it only runs lean at wot. So as a driver, you have no idea there is a problem, until after it is too late. If you don't have the safety nets, you will destroy an engine when 1 of multiple in tank or external pumps, fail.

now let's look at option 2, 1 large external single pump, since we realize multiple pumps is the most dangerous, and we also realize larger pumps for in the tank don't really exist, and the ones that do are junk.

1 large external pump, needs a return line. It is loud. It overheats since it is not submerged in fuel. And it overheats your fuel in The tank. The return line turns your tank into a Jacuzzi, and the bubbles aerate the internals of the larger pump, since it is feeding from an aerated tank... causing irregular pressures, cavitation, and eventual premature pump failure from the heated/aerated fuel.

the moral of the story, you need the safety nets more... with the other 2 options than you do with a voltage boosted single stock pump. When the single voltage boosted stock pump fails, the car shuts off. Anticlimactic. Its Hard to run lean when the car does not run at all.

let's say it's wired to a Hobbs switch, and that switch fails, so the voltage booster does not initiate...

you are still in the same boat as when 1 pump fails in a dual or triple pump setup (Fore)

so what you are saying above makes zero sense to me. You are acting like these safety nets fail.

the only way They can fail is if they aren't set up properly in the first place to put the car into limp mode before it has lower pressures to be lean.

In the stock configuration, 61psi or below... and the car goes into limp mode. Goodluck running lean in limp mode.

The car does not run lean at anything above 61psi in the low side, and as long as adequate pressure on the high side exists.

and to argue that one of those pressure sensors could fail to correctly report... is nonsense because the other is still reporting. If p228c does not throw, p0089 will throw, and visa versa.

the people who's motors blow up are the ones who shut off these safeties thinking they could be weak alarms and "feel that they dont want to rely on the safeties to save the day".

there's no way to blow a motor with them on, let alone run lean with them on, IF the tuner knows how to set them up, like GM did.

It's not even a debate. Harsh reality. Or, prove me wrong and Get a car to run lean with them on, and with a tune that is not already initially programmed lean. Goodluck. You can't do it.

...aside from, a failed/clogged injector. And then you have knock sensors to catch that one... unless your tuner does not want to rely on those to save the day either.

atljar

I talked again to JMS. Below are a few answers to some of the unknowns...

P2000GM is a Hobbs switch or 0-5v activation unit. The GMP and GMP2 units have accelerator pedal activation harnesses included with them. The difference in part number is based off of which connector the accelerators need but the core unit is still a P2000GM

The P2000GM is different than their normal unit in how it treats voltage when the activation parameters have NOT been met. Their standard units regulate to 14.4v. The GM units do not regulate at all. This is done because their isnt a power on/remote turn on switch on these units. They rely on power coming in to activate the unit. Since GM uses Full time B+, that means the unit would have a fairly large parasitic draw if it was trying to output 14.4v 100% of the time, even with car off.

I asked about the LED status light.... This stays on, 100% of the time, car on or off. They claim the draw is negligible, "less than the clock in the car" I call BS and totally unacceptable. Most 12v LEDs are going to pull ~20ma. Thats enough to be noticeable in battery life. Its just total bush league to leave a light on with key off. They already created a semi unique part, why in the world wouldnt they create a switched unit???

I then asked about boot up time. In other words, the time from when the unit first gets power, until the time it is able to output power. They claimed that there is no, 0 seconds, boot time.

So with all that said, I am most inclined to buy their standard, non GM unit. Wire it to a relay and switch the unit on and off with an ignition signal. This would create a switched and full time regulating unit.

I also have a message into Kenne Bell, asking a few questions. I will report back with answers.

RoxyCarter

That's a shame they don't do a better job on all the other small important details.

if done correctly, it would be a good add on.

RoxyCarter

Kingtal0n

its completely bonkers to get involved in something so complex, we are missing 99% of the story.
And that includes me. I don't know what components are on the board of the fuel pump driver module, nor any lines of code from the microprocessor control memory which undoubtedly keeps track of input and output signals and modifies them accordingly. The output and possibly input (very likely) of such a CPU is amplified, and when amplifying signal it goes through changes of form/shape such as magnitude and phase which must be predicted in order for the closed loop operation (of maintaining desired fuel pressure in this instance) to stay within a stable set of system boundaries and design criterion. Operating electronics of that caliber outside of intended use is anyones best guessas to what sort of consequences there will be, just in terms of appropriate signal form factor when it finally arrives at the pump.

My novice opinion about the electronics themselves (besides all of the complexity involved with signal shape/lag/frequency processing) is obvious suggestion that engineers would have chosen an acceptable voltage operating condition range based on all of the components, and in electric motors, the gain and phase margins of a Bode plot is affected (magnitude of signal frequency response) by the voltage PWM input because higher voltage means more torque to change the position of the motor (the fuel pump motor, in this case) which means the motor will pump more fuel in a shorter amount of time and closed loop operation to control the pressure will need to operate at a higher frequency (pressure will rise faster between 'pump signals' so the pump will need to be more firmly controlled, the closed loop will work harder and could run outside an acceptable range as suggested above). And finally If engineers have design the electronics with a max of 15v in mind, there may be components which will become damaged or perform incorrectly at higher voltages, like any device.


So I can't recommend it from the processing dept. nor from the electronics dept.
furthermore the overwhelming complexity of the system makes me want to avoid it completely if possible. A better solution would be injecting methanol or adding a port injection manifold than trying to mess with such a well implemented factory system which is already reliable and working as intended. "don't mess with it if you don't understand it" telling people to put PCV back on their engines since 2002

atljar

I totally respect your right to an opinion, but I could not disagree with it more. Meth injection a better solution?? (Seriously? Even the meth guys will be the first to tell you about the pitfalls of of relying on meth as a fuel source) Integrating Port injection into the vehicle rather modify/playing with a PWM pump? Port injection complexity is about 100x more involved and complex diving into those "well implemented factory systems" that you dont want to disturb.

Look Im not saying a BAP is a miracle drug, but I stand by itbeing A) The least invasive into the car B) The lowest risk vs other fueling options

The questions are really will it work (Ive now had 2 SHOPS confirm they will work on the C7 through private communications) and secondly, how much are we actually going to gain. Shop A says should hold another 70-90 RWHP at 17v on a C7, which unfortunately isnt enough for my wants. They hadnt tried at 21v.

RoxyCarter

Ironically, for higher hp cars, dual or tripple pumps in tank, have my vote.

I just had little tolerance for someone saying they don't like the idea of needing the low pressure codes to limp mode the car and save the day. All systems need the limp mode to save the day, even the stock system. And it does save the day.

Our whole point was that since those low pressure limp modes exist within the stock tune, there is little to no damage that can be done to a stock tune vehicle by adding a voltage booster to the stock pump... to conduct further testing.

Our other point is that this would be a good mod for cars with light bolt ons and maintaining the stock tune at sea level... without hitting p228c or p0089, if the product performs without flaw. or those codes are there to catch the fails if they occur.

Kingtal0n

this is where perception plays a large role. To some, those systems may seem complex (port and meth injection). Yet to me, they are far more familiar, and much easier to deal with than modifying factory DI injection hardware in unpredictable ways. I'm not saying the voltage boosters are 'bad' I am only saying the truth: We don't know the long term consequences or reliability issues boosters might cause, and relying on some kind of 'safety net' is never a good idea. For example knock sensors- everyone knows you DON'T tune based on knock sensors. Knock sensors are 'safety nets' yet relying on one is sure to cause catastrophe.


In favor of methanol: Meth injection is reliable and safe to use (50/50 is ideal for forced induction, and superior in many ways than using pump fuels like 93 or even race fuel 106-116 octane). I am guessing you never tried it.
I know a fair number of 'meth guys' local and I get the feeling they like to complain about it because they don't want others to try it (having water its a huge advantage for FI).
Throttle body injected fluids can run into distribution problems at higher flow rates, but 70-90rwhp I think is very reasonable for almost any engine (even 2.0L) all but the worst manifold designs (perhaps TPI). Even if it was only 50-70rwhp from methanol injection (reliably) I would still take that over 70-90 from a voltage booster for the fuel pump that was never intended to run at higher voltages. Also 50-100hp on top of a 500rwhp tune is within a fair margin of safety (plenty of time to 'kick the system off before damage' with the proper precautions in place. I've tuned around 20 cars with 50/50 and the only issue they tell me about is 'oops I ran the tank empty' for the systems without fluid level sensors. It is fairly standard to rely on 50 horsepower of methanol as a fuel in the majority of applications, even daily drivers at higher boost settings, because with the additional fuel to run without methanol the a/f would be obscenely rich. So whether you want to or not, a properly tuned methanol system at 50-100 horsepower on a 500hp setup is going to lean on the methanol some anyways, even if it has the fuel pump flow available the tune is required to lean out the fuel injectors some to let the methanol work its magic at slightly leaner a/f ratios or even the same a/f ratio (and sometimes a bit more timing). I think my experience in tuning hundred~ cars allows me a wider range of observation to know what is really reliable or not; I consider myself a reliability expert, I like to build affordable 500-600hp daily drivers around the idea of never breaking down and one of the key items is water injection to keep OEM engine components safe.
I wouldn't run an FI car on gasoline without it.

The systems for injecting methanol have come a long way, and thousands of people use them safely, just keep the tank full. Also keep in mind that it isn't necessary to inject methanol to the superior air stream; if desired, one could inject to 8x each cylinder for reliable distribution (just pointing it out not recommending it).
Furthermore, I see no difference between relying on a pressure safety switch failsafe for fuel injection at WOT, vs relying on a pressure safety switch failsafe for methanol injection at WOT.
In summary, I'd prefer the water content of methanol injection for cooling EGT (reduces reaction rate of fuel and makes the engine safer to run at WOT) and late-model electronics that have been fine tuned over the last twenty+ years that methanol injection offers, above any kind of uncertainty regarding an expensive factory fuel pump system/situation which cannot be divulged or tested for flaws, or long term consequences easily.

atljar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingtal0n

this is where perception plays a large role. To some, those systems may seem complex (port and meth injection). Yet to me, they are far more familiar, and much easier to deal with than modifying factory DI injection hardware in unpredictable ways. I'm not saying the voltage boosters are 'bad' I am only saying the truth: We don't know the long term consequences or reliability issues boosters might cause, and relying on some kind of 'safety net' is never a good idea. For example knock sensors- everyone knows you DON'T tune based on knock sensors. Knock sensors are 'safety nets' yet relying on one is sure to cause catastrophe.

I dont think any of the solutions are complex, you're the one over complicating things and mis-representing what has been said. Booster pumps have been around since at least the mid 1990s. Id call 20+ years plenty enough time to get a feel for what a product can do and the potential pitfalls, so we do know. There are no modifications with a voltage booster to "DI Injection hardware" (Is that related to an ATM Machine?). All modifications are done on the low side supply, which again has nothing to do with the vehicle being DI, or not. There's plenty of cars out there running pulse width pumps without direct injection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingtal0n

In favor of methanol: Meth injection is reliable and safe to use (50/50 is ideal for forced induction, and superior in many ways than using pump fuels like 93 or even race fuel 106-116 octane). I am guessing you never tried it.

Keep your argument on track please. No one has said that meth doesnt work, isnt ideal or isnt superior to pump fuels in power potential. And be glad you're not a betting man because you would be a few dollars shorter. Ive run water injection, washer solvent, 100% meth and all sorts of mixes in between

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingtal0n

I know a fair number of 'meth guys' local and I get the feeling they like to complain about it because they don't want others to try it (having water its a huge advantage for FI).
Throttle body injected fluids can run into distribution problems at higher flow rates, but 70-90rwhp I think is very reasonable for almost any engine (even 2.0L) all but the worst manifold designs (perhaps TPI). Even if it was only 50-70rwhp from methanol injection (reliably) I would still take that over 70-90 from a voltage booster for the fuel pump that was never intended to run at higher voltages.

Again, you are arguing something that isnt being discussed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingtal0n

Also 50-100hp on top of a 500rwhp tune is within a fair margin of safety (plenty of time to 'kick the system off before damage' with the proper precautions in place.

NOW THIS IS GOLD. Is that a safety net youre relying on??? Wait, we cant do that! Who wants to rely on a safety net?????!!!! ROTFLMAO

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingtal0n

I've tuned around 20 cars with 50/50 and the only issue they tell me about is 'oops I ran the tank empty' for the systems without fluid level sensors.

If only there was a net!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingtal0n

It is fairly standard to rely on 50 horsepower of methanol as a fuel in the majority of applications, even daily drivers at higher boost settings, because with the additional fuel to run without methanol the a/f would be obscenely rich. So whether you want to or not, a properly tuned methanol system at 50-100 horsepower on a 500hp setup is going to lean on the methanol some anyways, even if it has the fuel pump flow available the tune is required to lean out the fuel injectors some to let the methanol work its magic at slightly leaner a/f ratios or even the same a/f ratio (and sometimes a bit more timing).

Makes total sense. Lets modify the tune, lean out the car, add timing and then support those changes with a totally independent system that requires 5 or 6 things to all go perfectly right to be successful. Hey lets make sure the tank isnt low. Hey lets make sure the pump is actually running. Hey lets make sure the nozzle jet is the right size. Hope that nozzle doesnt get any debirs in it or clog. Hey lets make sure the lines didnt blow off or come loose too. Lets make sure the mix is a perfect 50/50 ratio. Gosh it would be bad if we only got 20% meth in this mix huh on a leanly tuned car? Of maybe we go the other way with a 80% meth mix, sure hope we dont wreck and burst into flames from that reservoir tank that isnt approved by the NHTSA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingtal0n

I think my experience in tuning hundred~ cars allows me a wider range of observation to know what is really reliable or not; I consider myself a reliability expert, I like to build affordable 500-600hp daily drivers around the idea of never breaking down and one of the key items is water injection to keep OEM engine components safe.
I wouldn't run an FI car on gasoline without it.

Nothing like a self proclaimed expert. I have no idea who you are, or whose cars you have tuned, but based on what you have said so far I feel sorry for your clients if they begin to believe the lines of BS you have spewed out here. Oldest rule in the book. Keep it simple stupid. A voltage booster integrated into a factory low side is light years less complicated and with significantly less risk factors than running meth, especially vs running meth as a fuel source. Again, in no way am I saying, or have I ever said that meth doesnt work, or doesnt make power. Figured Id repeat that because reading comprehension doesnt seem to be a strong suit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingtal0n

Furthermore, I see no difference between relying on a pressure safety switch failsafe for fuel injection at WOT, vs relying on a pressure safety switch failsafe for methanol injection at WOT.

Youre not allowed any safety nets, remember! But ill play along anyways. Lets say the factory low side pump gets burned up, or the driver fails, or the pressure switch goes out. Whats the worst outcomes happens? The pump stops running and the engine dies because it has no fuel. OR a check engine light comes on. Rough failure there! Lets say you have one of the meth failures I mentioned above..... worst case? You are buying an engine because the ringland comes off the top of piston.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingtal0n

In summary, I'd prefer the water content of methanol injection for cooling EGT (reduces reaction rate of fuel and makes the engine safer to run at WOT) and late-model electronics that have been fine tuned over the last twenty+ years that methanol injection offers, above any kind of uncertainty regarding an expensive factory fuel pump system/situation which cannot be divulged or tested for flaws, or long term consequences easily.

In my summary, as I said before, I couldn't disagree with you any more. You are a democrat and Im a republican arguing over gun control. I wont be responding to any more of your comments. Good night.