It is currently March 5th, 2021, 5:39 pm
grumpyvette wrote:in all applications that reduction in cross sectional area MIGHT BE a problem but in this case I can,t see it being an issue
grumpyvette wrote:while an engine like the one built here for the T-bucket can get by with AN#6 LINES (3/8") as your not likely to exceed the potential flow restriction limitations of that size fuel line, and you only need about 100 gph pump and about 6 psi, IVE ALWAYS PREFERRED THE LARGER AN#8 fuel line size and an ELECTRIC fuel pump that puts out a minimum of 140 gph mounted back as close too the fuel cell or fuel tank,and as low as possible and used with a return style regulator.
my current EFI 383 has a walpro 255 that provides 40 psi but uses 3/8" lines , and it will supply the required fuel to maintain about 500 hp.
keep in mind Im using an extensively ported stealth ram base with a custom plenum and throttle body and and 36 lb injectors on my 383 SBC
on my 496 BIG BLOCK I found the larger size fuel lines and larger pump with a fuel cell installed mandatory, as the smaller lines allowed the engine power to drop noticeably by the time I had reached the 100 ft from launch point, swapping to the larger fuel pump helped noticeably
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=1939&p=5137#p5137
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=211
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=4381
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=635
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=5731
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=733&p=6470&hilit=fuel+cell#p6470
mathd wrote:i use 3/8 line with quality fittings and they are fine. i did only because i was too lazy to take the fuel tank off and weld some 1/2 bung. otherwise i would have went with 1/2.
Now if i want to upgrade and say use nitrous.. i dont think 3/8 will handle that.
grumpyvette wrote:the longer those 3/8" feed connection lines are the more leverage they
have on the seal, and vibration will tend to effect the durability,
obviously check for linkage clearance or carb mounting issues
Return to Intake Systems , fuel systems and related
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest