I had a really interesting discussion with the head engineer at Aeromotive,
a manufacturer of fuel system components, including pressure regulators. I
was talking with him because I have had to replace five or six of those
little chrome jobs, and several of us have had failures with Holleys,
although only after a couple of years. By the way (parenthetically) I have
watched the fuel pressure gauge as a car has been run up on the chassis
dyno - not recommended by the surgeon general -- and found that a system
with a Holley pump and regulator set at 6 psi drops to 2 psi at 6000 rpm,
for whatever that is worth.
Anyway, I have not been able to find a better regulator. The Aeromotive guy
explained that all these regulators work the same way -- they have a
diaphragm, a spring, and a screw to adjust pressure on the spring. He
pointed out that in the deadhead system that we use, there are three
regulators -- the float valve in the carb, the pressure regulator, and the
regulator in the pump. With all these going on and off at various and
unpredictable times, it is a wonder that we get the good results that we
do. Just imagine what's happening if two or three of these go open or shut
at the same time.
Modern systems use a return system -- that is, a line to the regulator and
a return line to the cell. The fuel is always flowing through the regulator
and you set the pressure on the regulator -- his rationalle was that this
reduces the number of regulators in the circuit and promotes more
controllable flow.
I'm not ready to run another line and put another fitting in the top of my
fuel cell just yet, feeling that this is overkill. But, at the same time, I
haven't come up with anything better that will eliminate the puzzling
failure of Holley regulators after a couple of years. I guess I'll just go
on replacing my Holley every two years. I wonder what the Holley folks
would say about all this.
At 09:31 AM 2/26/04 -0500, elliottd wrote:
>And let us know which preference you are going to use.
>
>Don Elliott
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <spitfiresuz@141.com>
>To: <group44tr7@aol.com>; <spitfiresuz@141.com>; <fot@autox.team.net>
>Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:50 AM
>Subject: Re: Fuel system information - Spitfiresuz's Summary
>
>
> > Thanks for the idea - I will check it out tonight and post results. (I
> > don't think there was any real consensus, so I didn't look into it
>earlier,
> > but I will certainly make sure.)
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Susan :)
> >
> >
> > Original Message:
> > -----------------
> > From: Group44TR7@aol.com
> > Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:42:02 EST
> > To: spitfiresuz@141.com, fot@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: Fuel system information - Spitfiresuz's Summary
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for posting the results.
> >
> > However, inquiring minds want to also know if the higher performing
> > drivers like Babcock, Drews, Jackson, Mordy, Snook, and Steve (sorry if I
> > missed
> > anyone) have any similiarity in their selection of fuel systems for their
> > racecars.
> >
> > What the rest of us are doing might be an indication of what not to
> > do.
> >
> > Cary
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > http://mail2web.com/ .
uncle jack
|