i guess driver, palerider, tru boost, ill eagle, craighnj (these are just memeber of the top of my head) all have faulty stock fuel systems as well? This is a ms3 problem, not a ms6 problem. Why it doesnt show up on the ms6? Ill bet my left nut its tied into the reason why ms6 engine are blowing up constantly and no ms3 engines are.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PG Pump Installed
- Thread starter laloosh
- Start date
i guess driver, palerider, tru boost, ill eagle, craighnj (these are just memeber of the top of my head) all have faulty stock fuel systems as well? This is a ms3 problem, not a ms6 problem. Why it doesnt show up on the ms6? Ill bet my left nut its tied into the reason why ms6 engine are blowing up constantly and no ms3 engines are.
lol ! Wont the right one get lonley (hah)
- :
- 2007 MS3
Why it doesnt show up on the ms6? Ill bet my left nut its tied into the reason why ms6 engine are blowing up constantly and no ms3 engines are.
There may very well be something in the control system of the MS3 (electronic or mechanical) that is not present in the MS6 that is designed to protect the engine in the event of insufficient fuel delivery. Better to close the throttle and lose a race than blow your engine, wouldn't you say?
The 3 came out a year after the 6. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Mazda learned from the 6 and quietly incorporated some additional protection into the new cars. They wouldn't necessarily announce this because a retrofit could be costly and would require admitting that there was a flaw in the original vehicles. Remember how long it took to get them to own up to the transmission mount problem?
lol ! Wont the right one get lonley (hah)
no cause im right. The quicker people will realize this the better off they will be.
Just wait untill a dyno gets revealed. Some people on these forums know more than others....just leave it at that. Before you starting WASTING your time looking at intank pumps and pressure regulators, just wait for the ms3 dyno that showed xxwhp after 6k....cant saw who or when or how cause all that is not final yet. Just something to think about.
no cause im right. The quicker people will realize this the better off they will be.
(referance to your right nut) sorry bad joke....I bought the pump too, just waiting for it !
ATE BALLER
Member
- :
- MAZDASPEED 6
I keep seeing terminology being used either incorrectly or when the figures don't really matter. For example, I keep seeing references to the fuel pressure supplied by the tank pump. This is meaningless to this discussion. All that matters is if it can deliver sufficient volume to the motor mounted pump. The CDFP will then supply that fuel at the correct pressure to the fuel delivery system.
I know this is obvious, but a modded engine requires more fuel per minute under load than a stock engine.
Assuming that two things are true:
1) The stock fuel pumps together deliver sufficent fuel at the required pressure for an unmodded engine to run properly. This assumption is challenged by some who maintain that the reason the engine power falls off at high rpm is due to the pumps not delivering sufficient fuel at high rpms. It is why I (and others) have called for a dyno comparison of an engine with the fuel pump as the only mod, so this can be settled once and for all.
2) The stock fuel pumps together do not deliver enough fuel to supply a modded engine sufficient fuel at required pressure under load. This second point is pretty much not debatable. I don't think any reasonable forum members believe the factory pumps are up to the job of supplying a modded engine.
If we accept point number two, then the question is: which pump is the weak link?
Somewhere in the forum is an engineer with the required knowledge to calculate the amount of fuel needed under load by stock/modded engines at different rpms. It must then be determined how much fuel the stock CDFP is capable of moving at the required 1800 some odd PSI. Either it meets the requirements or it doesn't. The next comparison is to the tank mounted pump. Within reasonable limits, its pressure output is essentially moot: all that really matters is its flow rate. Can it supply the necessary volumes of fuel to the CDFP?
The replacement CDFPs being discussed are not helping (if they are - and the results indicate they are) by increasing pressure. They are solving the problems by increasing the volume of fuel being delivered at the required pressure. The increased pressure available is simply a side effect of the greater volume being moved by the pump.
This would indicate that the stock tank pump is capable of supplying enough volume to the CDFP to supply a modded engine under load.
It may turn out that as the modding gets more intense, both pumps will need to be upgraded, but only time will tell.
At least those are my thoughts, but I could be wrong.
Your point about the supplied pressure being moot is incorrect. I just completed a Mazdaspeed 6 technical consultant training program, and it was stressed more than once during the program that a minimum of 61psi must be delivered to the cdfp for it to operate correctly. In fact, if a customer is in with a problem that has been pinned to fueling, the first thing a tech is supposed to check is the low pressure side.
Just wait untill a dyno gets revealed. Some people on these forums know more than others....just leave it at that. Before you starting WASTING your time looking at intank pumps and pressure regulators, just wait for the ms3 dyno that showed xxwhp after 6k....cant saw who or when or how cause all that is not final yet. Just something to think about.
don't fear the unknown
nobody is saying intank pumps will cure cancer but work is being done in this area to learn and improve the entire fuel system, not just 1 piece
the intank pump may be adequate for certain current power levels but as everyone starts making more power, these fueling improvements will be mandatory
Last edited:
- :
- 2007 MS3
Your point about the supplied pressure being moot is incorrect. I just completed a Mazdaspeed 6 technical consultant training program, and it was stressed more than once during the program that a minimum of 61psi must be delivered to the cdfp for it to operate correctly. In fact, if a customer is in with a problem that has been pinned to fueling, the first thing a tech is supposed to check is the low pressure side.
I did say "within reason". It is far easier to test pressure than volume delivered. The engineers involved know that in order for a pump of w displacement pushing through a fuel line of x diameter to deliver y gallons per hour (or whatever the rating is), it needs to develop z psi. I still don't think the pressure is the point, but it is a way of establishing that the pump is working properly.
Unless of course the CDFP needs to be "force-fed" to ensure a full shot of fuel on each stroke.
I have been thinking of this setup in terms of the tank pump just making sure that the sufficient volume of fuel is available at the CDFP for it to "draw" in a full charge (a sealed mechanical pump sucks in at the inlet as well as pushes out at the outlet). If in fact the tank pump is "force feeding" the inlet cycle of the CDFP to ensure a full shot of fuel then that puts a whole new light on the importance of the pressure delivered from the tank pump.
This still doesn't definitively answer the question as to which pump is the weak link.
Stock car. Four dyno runs.
1. Baseline completely stock.
2. One pump upgraded.
3. The other pump upgraded.
4. Both pumps upgraded.
No more debate about the effect on the high rpm power drop off.
Last edited:
ATE BALLER
Member
- :
- MAZDASPEED 6
I did say "within reason". It is far easier to test pressure than volume delivered. The engineers involved know that in order for a pump of w displacement pushing through a fuel line of x diameter to deliver y gallons per hour (or whatever the rating is), it needs to develop z psi. I still don't think the pressure is the point, but it is a way of establishing that the pump is working properly.
Unless of course the CDFP needs to be "force-fed" to ensure a full shot of fuel on each stroke.
I have been thinking of this setup in terms of the tank pump just making sure that the sufficient volume of fuel is available at the CDFP for it to "draw" in a full charge (a sealed mechanical pump sucks in at the inlet as well as pushes out at the outlet). If in fact the tank pump is "force feeding" the inlet cycle of the CDFP to ensure a full shot of fuel then that puts a whole new light on the importance of the pressure delivered from the tank pump.
This still doesn't definitively answer the question as to which pump is the weak link.
Stock car. Four dyno runs.
1. Baseline completely stock.
2. One pump upgraded.
3. The other pump upgraded.
4. Both pumps upgraded.
No more debate about the effect on the high rpm power drop off.
I believe it is force fed. When PRacing had his Walbro in, there was a very slight pressure leak, equivalent to a sewing pin hole. There's no doubt that the Walbro was still able to supply the volume, however the pressure still dropped from the leak, causing his car not to run. That says to me that pressure is an important factor to the performance of the cdfp. The spill valve in the cdfp that feeds fuel into the pressure chamber is regulated by the ecu. The ecu commands it based on the algorythms from the factory. It tells it when to open and how far to open. Since there is no way for it to read how much pressure is at the inlet, it has to assume the stock 65psi of supplied fuel in its equations. If the pressure is actually higher, more fuel will get in during that same pw and dc of the spill valve. Thus, the piston inside the cdfp pushes that increased amount of fuel into the rail. The rail pressure regulator should be able to keep the rail pressure at factory levels, although it won't drop off as easily at the high rpms when the injectors are drawing the rail pressure down, because when it's trying to keep the rail pressure up where it needs to be, the rail pressure regulator will close, allowing for maximum net potential of the entire system. If it needs the fuel and it can get it, it will. Especially considering it doesn't drop off like that on a completely stock vehicle, the ecu will see the fuel pumps and rail pressure regulator opperating normally at wot, even though more fuel is actually being delivered. I think that's why my fuel cut is gone and why it feels as smooth as stock. It can supply the fuel at the pw and dc it's commanding the injectors because it isn't seeing the rail pressure drop like it used to. Now if I added a bigger ic and turbo, it might not be sufficient anymore, thus I would get the bigger cdfp. I would imagine the combination would be pretty darn solid for a ballsy set up.
So Driver311, you "had" a CDFP from PG, installed it, it cured your cut issue up top, and then you had to remove it? Sounds like some folks have the answers but are being a bit sketchy with posting the results. No offense my man, just getting the feeling you and loosh know more than your posting. Thanks for the info. Eagerly awaiting more data so I can purchase my mbc, map clamp, cdfp, etc. Thanks bros ... Mike
Darksun280
Member
- :
- MS3
So Driver311, you "had" a CDFP from PG, installed it, it cured your cut issue up top, and then you had to remove it? Sounds like some folks have the answers but are being a bit sketchy with posting the results. No offense my man, just getting the feeling you and loosh know more than your posting. Thanks for the info. Eagerly awaiting more data so I can purchase my mbc, map clamp, cdfp, etc. Thanks bros ... Mike
Loosh Posted all the info he had at his disposal no need to hold back. his pump has been working fine. drivers i believe something was wrong with it
dadasracecar
Member
His pump seized while the car was on the dyno.
Last edited:
So Driver311, you "had" a CDFP from PG, installed it, it cured your cut issue up top, and then you had to remove it? Sounds like some folks have the answers but are being a bit sketchy with posting the results. No offense my man, just getting the feeling you and loosh know more than your posting. Thanks for the info. Eagerly awaiting more data so I can purchase my mbc, map clamp, cdfp, etc. Thanks bros ... Mike
I had some issues with the install of the parts in the pump. Worked very very well while it worked. I was making good ground on the dyno and didnt want to post anything until I got the new pump back on the car. Im not being sketchy at all. The pump is gonna be great. Ill post my results for sure when I have them. I ALWAYS DO!!!(thumb)
dadasracecar
Member
One thing im curious about is what type of gas mileage people are getting using the cdfp ?
I've seen no change in gas mileage.
Your point about the supplied pressure being moot is incorrect. I just completed a Mazdaspeed 6 technical consultant training program, and it was stressed more than once during the program that a minimum of 61psi must be delivered to the cdfp for it to operate correctly. In fact, if a customer is in with a problem that has been pinned to fueling, the first thing a tech is supposed to check is the low pressure side.
Well i looked at the intank pump on my MS3 and it looks identical to the SVT Focus. High pressure, high volume 255lph. These pumps put a minimum of 60 PSI, so there has to be variable voltage going to the intank pump pushing it higher than 60. On my truck, ive seen these pumps hit as high as 78psi at 5580 RPM.
So, i think the stocker has no problem keeping up with volume to a modified CDFP at this point. Only time will tell what the intank is maxed at. Im really wondering the program differences between the 6 and 3. It must be substantial enough that Cobb abandoned the MS6 altogether. Food for thought.
Last edited:
New Posts and Comments
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 69
- Replies
- 1K
- Views
- 270K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 87
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 61
- Views
- 19K