Fuel tanks

[Renato]

Hi Jason,

If you look at Ford Controls Pack Installation Manual it shows how the fuel system should be connected.
I can't attach the manual for some reason, but you can find it here: http://www.jegs.com/InstallationInstructions/300/397/397-M-6017-A504V.pdf

Regards,
Renato

 

[Darrin]

Got a reply from Aeromotive. They say it should work. Just cut the foam to the height of the tank, not where it it is the width we need. The foam will crumple a bit but they said it should be fine.

 

[Dylan]

Renato, that link wasn't working for me. Don't have time to explore the jegs site right away to try to get it another way...

So, Aeromotive really recommended this over a swirl tank/low pressure pump setup? You can't get much worse of a tank shape than the GT40 pontoons for a pump that needs to remain submerged....

 

[Ian Anderson]

Have you got baffles / trapdoors etc in your tanks?

I don't and have Explosafe in my tanks (Wire wool stuff for want of a better description, from half tank down driving on the roads and slowing for a roundabout the facet fuel pump that feed my swirl pot starts sucking air (Changes note from a ticking to a "hammering")

On track at Le Mans after 2 laps (full tanks that morning) braking hard into the chiccaines it was sucking air and hammering!

Now a high pressure vane type pump will go soft and not deliver as it should after seeing something like 3 seconds of air.

Please bear this in mind when deciding on your system

Ian

 

[Darrin]

Have you got baffles / trapdoors etc in your tanks?

The tanks that come from GTForte (our builder) have foam at the ends. Think Renato may make his but with baffles.

The more I think about this though, the more it sounds like an external pump with a swirl pot may make the most sense.

 

[Renato]

Hi Ian,

Thanks for sharing that experience.
I have no race experience (in a car) so I'm going on product description to make my decision. My tanks are going to have at least baffles and maybe trap doors to help pumps. Not sure if that will be enough. It seems a lot of people are having some sort of problems with fuel delivery.
Also, I'm interested in EFI systems only since I'm installing a Coyote in my GT40. EFI system engines are less tolerable to loss of fuel pressure than the carb counterparts.
When I researched the original mustang fuel system it uses regular in tank submerged style pump. Does anyone know of any issues with that system in corners or braking. Yes, the performance of two vehicles is not the same, but you can decelerate pretty fast in a Brembo braked Mustang. How do the car manufacturers get around this issue?

Ian, are you using EFI?

Regards,
Renato

 

[Renato]

Hi Dylan,

I'm not sure why I can't upload a PDF around 2 MB but I'll try again.
I tested the link and it works.
The file has a lot of information about Control Pack and Fuel System required if you are using a Coyote.

Regards,
Renato

 

[Dylan]

Renato, I drive a 2012 Mustang GT. I've had it at Lime Rock and at many autocrosses. Never a problem with fueling

This is not saying much, because the Mustang has split tanks in the rear, and has a very short run front-to-rear. The GT40 tanks, even with a sump...when you brake with low fuel, all your remaining fuel is now 2 feet away from the pump.

The aeromotive setup would be so much simpler and easier than a swirl pot and all the lines, that it might be worth it even if you burn out a pump and have to take it apart and add more baffling.

 

[Renato]

Here it is... I think... :stunned:

 

[Dylan]

Thanks Renato!

Just to answer a question from earlier for those who don't want to read through the PDF...The mustang fuel setup IS returnless, BUT, the standalone wiring kit and PCM for the coyote is for a return-style fuel system, NOT a stock mustang setup.

 

[Darrin]

Thanks Renato!

Just to answer a question from earlier for those who don't want to read through the PDF...The mustang fuel setup IS returnless, BUT, the standalone wiring kit and PCM for the coyote is for a return-style fuel system, NOT a stock mustang setup.

There is a technical note section on the aftermarket PCM from Ford that must be used with the Coyote/Aluminator/RoadRunner that calls this out:

"Technical Note. The included PCM with Ford Racing calibration requires the use of a return type fuel system, this Engine Control Pack will not work with a returnless fuel system.

Technical Note. Installation of this PCM in a 2011 or newer Mustang GT will result in a no-start condition. "

 

[Darrin]

The aeromotive setup would be so much simpler and easier than a swirl pot and all the lines, that it might be worth it even if you burn out a pump and have to take it apart and add more baffling.

It would be simpler but the first time I burned out a $450 pump and had to rip my tanks out to add baffling would be the time I realized I went the wrong route! LOL

Take a look at the photo I added above of the tank. There is foam right by the built in pickups. Using those, that should prevent almost all fuel starvation under normal conditions if you add a swirl pot to the setup.

My thought was a filter between a low pressure pump to pull from the tanks (will be linked, so just one pump needed) to fill a swirl pot, then a high pressure external pump to supply the engine. I am not a fuel supply expert by any means though and that's why I'm trying to get advice from some folks who are.

 

[Dylan]

That exact setup has been detailed in some diagrams.

As I think about it this morning, I am leaning more and more towards installing a restrictive baffle plate in the passenger tank and running the aeromotive pump in the rear. Between that and a check valve in a tank crossover, I'm thinking it'll be damn hard to suck air. Since I would have been shortening the passenger tank anyway for the installation of a swirl tank, I think I'll add in the baffle and slosh some water around, and see what it takes to drain the submerged pickup area.

 

[Darrin]

...As I think about it this morning, I am leaning more and more towards installing a restrictive baffle plate in the passenger tank and running the aeromotive pump in the rear. Between that and a check valve in a tank crossover, I'm thinking it'll be damn hard to suck air...

On a flat surface yes, but if you ever want to park on an incline facing downhill with a tank that isn't mostly full, then it will fail. The only sure solution I can see is a swirl tank and that's probably the biggest reason for leaning that way for me.

 

[Ian Anderson]

Hi Ian,

Thanks for sharing that experience.
I have no race experience (in a car) so I'm going on product description to make my decision. My tanks are going to have at least baffles and maybe trap doors to help pumps. Not sure if that will be enough. It seems a lot of people are having some sort of problems with fuel delivery.
Also, I'm interested in EFI systems only since I'm installing a Coyote in my GT40. EFI system engines are less tolerable to loss of fuel pressure than the carb counterparts.
When I researched the original mustang fuel system it uses regular in tank submerged style pump. Does anyone know of any issues with that system in corners or braking. Yes, the performance of two vehicles is not the same, but you can decelerate pretty fast in a Brembo braked Mustang. How do the car manufacturers get around this issue?

Ian, are you using EFI?

Regards,
Renato

Hi
Yes I am
Tank to filter to Pollack 6 way valve to facet red top to swirl of about 2 litres. Return from swirl through pollack to same tank
Then swirl to hp pump to fuel rail return to swirl

Only 2 pumps required but also my power is about 250 hp out of the Morgan Rover lump

I picked up some crud in a tank that caused the swirl to run dry. Clicked to other tank and started again but already Bosch pump was singing!

On joining the 2 tanks just remember if you manage to dislodge the cross over pipe by count over debris etc you will have two tanks of fuel on the floor with no wat pro stop it. That is why most tanks have the outlet exiting from the top so the bipe burst will not necessarily result in dumping your fuel on the road.

Ian

 

[Renato]

Yes, failure of a cross over pipe will empty both or one tank if you locate the check valve close to the receiving tank.

Well, here's a really bad attempt to draw a fuel system with Aeromotive components. This is probably very similar to other systems on forum.
So looking at all suggestions, possible problems with this system are failure of cross over pipe and pump sucking air. Not sure if baffles will be enough to do the trick.

As always, I'm open to comments.

Regards,
Renato

 

[Darrin]

I talked to Holley about their pumps. They are all gravity fed so need to sit below the tanks. Not really impressed with their technical support folks. Only thing I got out of them is that they suggested a 12-890 pump if it could be gravity fed.

About the only way to guarantee you won't have fuel starvation issues (unless you run out of gas) is with a swirl pot. It does mean having another pump and the swirl container added to the cost, but the cost of a good high pressure pump will be a good bit less than the Aeromotive Phantom too so this is kind of a wash. I really don't see any downside to this if you have the room for the two pumps and swirl pot, and I think we do (going to look at this tonight) although the Phantom installation would be cleaner for sure.

 

[David]

I've mentioned this elsewhere but my plan is to run twin 'lift' pumps (probably facet red tops) to a 3l swirl pot (then a bosch 044 to the engine) with a single overflow into a T joining the two tanks. Theoretically each lift pump will do 35 gph or 160 l/h which is 2.6 l/min. The 044 will do >200 l/h or 3.33l/m so assuming my engine is using *all* fuel my swirl tank will 'last' ~1 minute at full flow but both lift pumps can fill faster than it can be drained.

I plan on running somewhat of a smart controller for the lift pumps, although I'm not 100% sure how to do it yet. I want to run a single pump while the swirl tank is full and then bring the second pump in if the level drops. The fuller tank being the one that's picked for the single pump. The bit I'm not sure on is how to detect the level drop.

Doing it this way will automatically 'level' the tanks as the fuller one will overfill the swirlpot and then drain into both tanks.

 

[Darrin]

Any reason you wouldn't just connect the two tanks and run one larger lift pump?

Makes it much more simple. Does remove a bit of redundancy but pumps these days are pretty reliable.

I've mentioned this elsewhere but my plan is to run twin 'lift' pumps (probably facet red tops) to a 3l swirl pot (then a bosch 044 to the engine) with a single overflow into a T joining the two tanks. Theoretically each lift pump will do 35 gph or 160 l/h which is 2.6 l/min. The 044 will do >200 l/h or 3.33l/m so assuming my engine is using *all* fuel my swirl tank will 'last' ~1 minute at full flow but both lift pumps can fill faster than it can be drained.

I plan on running somewhat of a smart controller for the lift pumps, although I'm not 100% sure how to do it yet. I want to run a single pump while the swirl tank is full and then bring the second pump in if the level drops. The fuller tank being the one that's picked for the single pump. The bit I'm not sure on is how to detect the level drop.

Doing it this way will automatically 'level' the tanks as the fuller one will overfill the swirlpot and then drain into both tanks.

 

[James Harvey]

I really don't see any downside to this if you have the room for the two pumps and swirl pot, and I think we do (going to look at this tonight)

Hi Darrin - how about the space behind the fuel tanks... One side has the battery and the other side the swirl pot. Not sure if a stock swirl pot would have the right dimensions to fit, but maybe a bespoke one could be fabricated to the space available. Would be out of the way there...