Anybody with regulated fuel return read this!

Strictly Diesel

Active member
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
1,747
Reaction score
8
Location
Phoenix
So if the stock poppet is the root of the low PSI evil why invest in a $600 kit when I can buy a $60 rebuild kit?? Seems to reason I rebuild the stock kit and monitor with a FP gauge. Anything that drops below suggested pressure shows the poppet is up to no good.
Rebuild the stock setup with what...more of the same stock parts and a stiffer spring? How is that changing or fixing anything?

Bringing this back full circle now. HOW does turning down a RR to 45PSI help the truck?? Since we follow the calling that 45PSI at the OEM point is bad, should it not apply to a RR setup??
The issue of whether lower pressure or higher pressure is still up in the air for some people. Some have noticed no change, others have noticed something. What nobody knows right now is the long term effects of running lower pressure...my injector sources want to see 60-70psi for longevity.

Since it's now being suggested to turn the PSI down one needs to ask what role a RR really plays??
In the end, it really doesn't matter whether you run 50psi or 70psi, the benefits of a RR setup over the stock setup are still the same. You get increased flow of fuel through the fuel rails and more reliable pressure management than the stock spring/poppet crap can offer. It's really pretty simple, if you eliminate the leak/drain you have at the front end of the stock system (regulator poppet), the only place fuel can go is through the rails. At that point, either the injectors use it or it reaches the regulator (which is after the rails) and is then returned to the tank.

As for the heat issue, I would bet that the time the fuel spends in physical contact with the fuel rail (which is bored down the middle of a cast iron cylinder head) contributes a lot more heat to the fuel than pressurizing it to 60psi. I would also bet that fuel that is constantly flowing through the head (with a bunch of it exiting at the rear and returning to the tank) is probably slightly cooler than fuel that enters a deadhead fuel rail and can only pass through the injectors. While the difference in time actually in the fuel rail may only be fractions of a second, the longer it's in the rail and the slower it moves from the entrance point to wherever it leaves the rail (other end or injector), the more heat it will pick up.

Charles is right about the HP differences and needing some actual data. Ideally this would be data that has been backed-up on different vehicles and different dynos...since we've already had a few people do it here and report "butt dyno" improvements...and one report no change at all. My bigger concern is what does the reduced pressure do to injector longevity since we know that 6.0L injectors are sensitive to pressure problems? I personally would trade a few HP for longer life.
 

HeavyAssault

Active member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
1,343
Reaction score
0
Location
Middle, VA
so all i get from this thread is that some say more psi is better, others say more psi is better, and there is no factual data to prove either way. ok, got it.

Garrett


Circle gets the square!! Yep...No data...YET. And I'll be the first to post up if I'm wrong.
 

Charles

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
2,711
Reaction score
27
WTF does that mean? It's about density changes caused by heat. Returning the fuel before the area where density matters (supply rails) is what the stock system does and is part of the reason we have a regulated return was because it returned to much starving the injectors. Returning fuel before the injectors will just mean less fuel to cool the injectors and remove the heat in that key point of the system. Im saying to cool the fuel pre supply rails as much as possible and allow for a lower set regulator psi which results in more flow to the take and more heat taken to the tank. IDK what your thinking but your ego I'm smarter comment leads me to believe your not.



I'm going to throw something out there for you that may or may not have come to your attention in relation to your above thoughts.

Now, concerning the idea of whether or not to send the fuel back to the tank before entering the heads, or to send it on through the heads and then back to the tank in the quest for the lowest fuel temperature at the injectors, here are my thoughts:

If you send the fuel through the heads before returning it to the tank, the fuel temperature will obviously increase at the tank, pre-pump in the filter and everywhere ahead of the heads themselves. This will increase problems with vaporizing the fuel on the inlet side of the pump, bar none, no questions asked. Whatever the line sizes you run, and whatever the atmo maintained in the inlet side of the circuit, the heat will be greater if you run the fuel through the headrails like coolant passages before sending it back to the tank all the time, and this will increase the required pressure for the inlet side of the circuit to keep the fuel from vaporizing in any bends, fittings, filtration or the like.

But..... we're talking about the temperature at the injectors right? Well, when you are at low fuel demands, like crusing around empty, idling and general bs driving (99% of the time) the fuel will almost certainly be cooler at the injectors with a "flow through" setup than with a "static" setup where the fuel will reside in the headrails for quite a while before being consumed.

However..... what about moderate to heavy fuel demands at part to full power?

In these situations, I point is reached where the fuel is traveling through the heads at basically full pump speed. In these situations it honestly makes no difference whether or not the system plumbed "flow through" or "static", as the regulator is basically closed in both cases, as the fuel pumps outflow is almost 100% directed to the injectors. The fuel is basically leaving the pump and never coming back to the tank until you lift.

It is in these conditions that the temperature of the fuel to the injectors is simply the temperature of the fuel in the tank, as it's literally blasting straight from the tank, into the cylinder bores as fast as the injectors can put it there, and at nearly 100% pump capacity (otherwise you sized your pump a bit large for your needs).

And in these conditions, the "static" system is delivering fuel at a LOWER temperature... because the fuel system temp is lower because it wasn't being used as an auxiliary radiator for the engine while you were sitting in the drive-thru at wendy's for 10 minutes.


A flow through system will worsen problems of vaporization (often termed "air entrainment") because of increased pre-pump and in-tank fuel temperatures due to the fuel always passing through the heads, and then under high demands (full power) this higher temperature fuel is what the injectors still see.

The static system will run the injectors on hotter fuel than the "flow through" system when tooling around town, but it will also run the pump, filter(s) and lines at a lower temperature all the time.

Then when you let the big dog eat, the hot fuel is quickly consumed by the injectors, and they are then fed a nice, steady diet of lower temperature fuel when it really matters.

Switching from "flow through" to "static" my frame-mounted spin-on filter went from 100+ degrees on the laser gun to just above ambient. I can't recall the exact values as it's been a number of years, but it was shocking how much heat a flow through system puts into the fuel.


The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not you want hot fuel going to the engine and running through your pump and filtration systems, or if it would make sense to have your pump and filtration systems working with basically ambient fuel temperature all the time, and the injectors running on hot fuel when at low power, and then basically ambient fuel temp at full power.


If you want to optimize for idle to part-throttle, go flow through. If you want to optimize for wide open power, go static.

IMO.
 

Dieselcraft

New member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
2,195
Reaction score
0
Location
Moore O.K. Tornado alley
Really this thread is full of opinions.
Some facts here and there.
Some people do mods and think they make a change

I purchased a rnr kit for insurance when I installed it I wasn't like my truck is a Lil faster now
 

Charles

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
2,711
Reaction score
27
Also.... can the industry as a whole just stop calling it a "regulated return kit"???

The factory system they replace IS a regulated return!!!

LOL
 

windrunner408

New member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
0
What would you like it to be called?? I know I sure didn't invent the name. Hey at least most people know what you are talking about when you use that term. :poke:
 

Strictly Diesel

Active member
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
1,747
Reaction score
8
Location
Phoenix
I don't entirely agree with Charles on the temperature data. We did a BUNCH of testing on fuel temps and coolers years ago and found that fuel tank temp, fuel temp at the filter bowl and return fuel temp (at the regulator) were more closely related to overall underhood temp than anything else. The fuel in the tank did not show a significant increase in temperature over longer driving time and as the fuel level went down as some people speculated. The fuel returning to the tank actually lost quite a bit of heat just running along the stock frame mounted steel fuel lines. A return cooler did make a difference, but it wasn't huge and made no difference in how the truck performed or what economy the truck got.

I've attached some images showing the digital gauges we used for testing...notice that the fuel in the tank was 84°F and the fuel in the stock filter bowl was 124°F...that's a lot of heat gain for fuel that has not yet reached the cylinder heads. Engine oil temp was always hotter than coolant temp, and the filter bowl in is bolted directly to the high pressure oil reservoir (7.3L test truck)...so that's where a lot of the heat came from.
 

Attachments

  • Gauges01.jpg
    Gauges01.jpg
    133.5 KB · Views: 60
  • Fuel-vs-Ambient.jpg
    Fuel-vs-Ambient.jpg
    53.3 KB · Views: 56
  • Fuel-vs-DriveType2.jpg
    Fuel-vs-DriveType2.jpg
    47.8 KB · Views: 52
  • Fuel-vs-RunTime.jpg
    Fuel-vs-RunTime.jpg
    50.2 KB · Views: 53

TheReelMuhcoy

New member
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
I think that when it comes down to making clean and efficient power, it takes things being set up properly so everything works together (in harmony essentially) and doesn't end up fight anything else. I think that my EGT drop could be due to a better atomization of the fuel for a cleaner burn. I guess there could be less fuel but perhaps the flow being delivered to the injector is more laminar than before so the fuel flows into the port on the injector easier. Of course this is all purely conjecture. I just look at it from the stand point that a smart engineer put a specification out for a minimum pressure of fuel be delivered to the injectors (for a specified amount of fuel flow for a given volume) and the injector builders know that by running too low of a fuel pressure ends up resulting in not enough fuel flow to the injectors and there by leads to premature failure of the injectors and therefore probably build in a large factor of safety. I agree with Dennis below in that it is really going to take some long term standardized testing on a lot of different trucks to fully know what the deal is. I know I have talked with the injector builder of my injectors and he is fine with me running the pressure where I have it. I also figure that I have more than what is at my regulator in the fuel rails due to it being further down the line so I am going to keep it where it is for now anyways.



I agree completely Dennis. This is why I just post up what I noticed with my truck and if others want to try it then all the more power to them. I think the only way to really know is to do a lot of standardized testing with different trucks.

I liked my strictly diesel RR kit.

Like stated above it is more or less a "harmony"
Relate the flow of fuel to air.... Using an air compressor set to "x" psi for this tool or "y" psi for that tool, simply because they consume air at a different rate. Dont forget about delivery too (air hose, fuel lines....) Another example is a wind instrument, they require a specific volume of air at a constant pressure to create the propper sound. In all of these scenarios it's not a matter of more! It's a matter of "just the right amount"

Just because we are maintaining pressure does not necessarily mean we are maintaining flow. As pressure increases so does turbulence/friction resulting in less volume. So set to the right pressure for your setup, not necessarily the manufacturers specs, could definitely produce higher power.

I guess what I am saying is we could actually be starving our injectors by following suggested specs. Set to 65psi and the injectors are not actually getting their fill like we think they are...

Sounded good in my head...
 

Blake

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
So confirmed today fuel presssure works best at 50psi

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2
 

windrunner408

New member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
0
Just for clarification, is your 50 psi monitored at a regulator on an aftermarket Regulated Return kit or is it on the filter bowl?? Glad you got it where you like it.
 

Strictly Diesel

Active member
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
1,747
Reaction score
8
Location
Phoenix
It would also help to know what "works best" means for each person that's making a change and liking it.

How are you determining "best"? Butt Dyno? Engine sound? Smoke? Track ET or MPG? Actual Dyno?
 

windrunner408

New member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,496
Reaction score
0
It would also help to know what "works best" means for each person that's making a change and liking it.

How are you determining "best"? Butt Dyno? Engine sound? Smoke? Track ET or MPG? Actual Dyno?

Agreed. Quantifiable data is what is needed here as this definitely flies in the face of traditional thought. JMO of course.
 

hawgdoctor

Active member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
0
Location
king george, va.
Ok, tried this, and actually had to turn my pressure back up. With it set at 50 psi it acted lazy, and would actually have a very slight stutter out of one or two injectors. Dialed it up to 58 psi, and it was back to normal for the most part. About the only thing I did notice was a lazier idle, and less Max boost with this setting, and the previous at 50. Now with it back at 65 psi it is as it always has been. Snappy throttle, rock steady idle, smooth power, and full boost again at 32 lbs.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

TheReelMuhcoy

New member
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
Those of you who are trying this can you tell us what fuel lines are used to supply the heads also whether you are using banjo bolts (and which ones) or an elbow fitting etc. maybe also what pump setup would help too.
 

hawgdoctor

Active member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
0
Location
king george, va.
Lol, guess that would help. All high flow front lines in 5/16 hard line, banjo fittings, and banjo bolts that are high flow three hole. As far as delivery goes its a stock pump piggy backed with a superduty pump. Stock filter setup, etc...

Other shop truck is ad150, stock pump, filters, and lines built like mine.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

Latest posts

Members online

Top