Advanced Tech Advanced tech discussion. Major rebuilds, engine theory, etc.
HIGH-END DISCUSSION ONLY - NOT FOR GENERAL TECH INFO

Balance tube necessary for fuel rails?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 4, 2004 | 05:23 PM
  #1  
Birdie2000's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,519
From: Westland, MI
Balance tube necessary for fuel rails?

I'm doing the typical upgrades to the stock fuel rails like putting -AN fittings on them. I see that most people tend to keep the crossover tube as sort of a balance tube. I'm wondering if this is necessary in any way or if everything will go fine without using this tube. Also, would taping this line for the fuel pressure gauge have any downsides? Thanks.
Old Mar 4, 2004 | 08:10 PM
  #2  
sleeperz28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 839
From: Minnesota
I think most people still use the crossover on the fuel rail. Thus, the rail is still setup in a simialr fashion as came from the factory. I still run the factory crossover in mine and dont have starvation problems
Old Mar 4, 2004 | 08:32 PM
  #3  
Birdie2000's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,519
From: Westland, MI
Re-reading the question I see that I wasn't terribly clear. I am running -8AN to each rail and have a -6AN return off of each rail. I've seen some people leave the crossover pipe in there just to equalize pressure between the two rails or something of that nature. I'm just wondering if it's worth it to keep that pipe or if the rails can be indedpendant of each other. Also, if the crossover is retained simply to "balance" the two pipes, would it be an ideal place to put a -4AN fitting to hookup to a gauge?

Thanks for the response tho.
Old Mar 4, 2004 | 08:42 PM
  #4  
sleeperz28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 839
From: Minnesota
Think of it like this, your running fuel to both sides of the fuel regulator right? So everything will balance there. I have thought about doing it this way, but the crossover seems to supply enough fuel. I may just do it anyway.
Old Mar 4, 2004 | 08:56 PM
  #5  
Birdie2000's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,519
From: Westland, MI
I'm setting up my fuel system based on the manufacturer's recommendations. Basically the way many people have explained it to me so far is that it's better to go overkill on the fuel system than to take any chances.
Old Mar 4, 2004 | 10:06 PM
  #6  
Injuneer's Avatar
Administrator
 
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 71,110
From: Hell was full so they sent me to NJ
Rather than individual return connections off each rail, I took a single -6AN return off the cross-over pipe. This solution will generally be satisfactory up to about 1,000HP with the stock rails. Over that, the individual return connections appear to be needed. I don't see a whole lot of difference with the cross-over being there or not when you have what becomes two independant rails returning to a single regulator. My fuel pressure sender is on the middle of the passenger side rail.

return line
Old Mar 21, 2004 | 02:17 AM
  #7  
OneFlyn95z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,431
From: Pacific North West
well other then sucking up about four cubic inches of plenumn volum and blocking flow it provide the rest of the "Loop" in the fuel return system. if you look the way the factory sets it up the fuel comes up the passenger side and back the driver side to the regulater
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
HectorM52
Parts For Sale
26
Jul 30, 2017 11:46 AM
dfarr67
Parts For Sale
3
Apr 10, 2015 07:44 PM
4586
Appearance
0
Feb 13, 2015 09:16 AM
chevroletfreak
LT1 Based Engine Tech
202
Jul 4, 2005 05:00 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 PM.