@Stapl3 This picture has been on my mind since it got posted. I mean no offense, but I am curious what happens if that solder job fatigues from vibration over time? Since there is no plastic physically holding the wire in place, it will happen eventually right? That's how solder joints work, no?

So when it separates with current flowing through it, will it have enough energy to arc as the wire falls away from the terminal? It will be in a liquid filled gasoline/ethanol tank, which is not easy to ignite without the right circumstances, but I just do not know enough about electronics submersed in flammable liquids to say this was a good idea... Is there more to your setup I am not understanding?

Does anybody else have any thoughts on this? I know we have some EE guys on here right?

I removed the white plastic to expose the walbro wires, which were soldered. I simply removed the solder and wires, put my own on, and covered it all up with JB weld.

No issues over the years, I've done this to 2 of my DSMs.

Ahh, okay. I didn't realize you stuck them back down with JB weld. That's certainly better than nothing. Even if the solder joint cracked the wire wouldn't separate from the pump terminal? if so you I would imagine you are safe...

The JB weld was just to cover up the solder. There was a good size of contact area for the wires to be soldered to. They're solid. And when it's mounted in the hanger, if you pay attention to how the wires are ran, there's no strain on the connection and there's virtually no movement.

I did this because the first 450 I fried the wires on trying to go from 18v to 22v. I certainly wouldn't want to experiment with frying wires in a tank of fuel, but if it was ever going to become a bomb that would have been the time. All that happened was the pump stopped working.

TK's9d2TSi said:

I see walbro offers two different 450's. One has a Speed Test Scrabble Word Finder Solitaire higher pressure relief point. Which should I go with?

Click to expand...

TK's9d2TSi said:

Thanks
Tony

Click to expand...

I purchase the walboro 450 high pressure and made 630hp with just fuel pump rewire kit. This was on E85 by the way.

1990TSIAWDTALON said:

I haven't heard of it Will. I will check it out tho. I just like my check valve so I hold fuel pressure for a day or two and have that instant start without pre-priming my fuel pump. Hell, I guess I am just stuck on what is working for me. Is it much more in price?

Click to expand...

I switched to the Walbro 535(also referred to as the Walbro 550, both have part number F90000295) and it is an amazing pump. Yes it does not have a check valve but ECMLink has a prime function that turns your pump on when the ignition is turned on so no need to worry about having fuel pressure for your next start up!

If you have to replace the 525 for any reason, I would definitely look in to the 535(F90000295) as it’s a monster of a pump.

It won't ever need a different pump since it moves the volume it moves....unless I did some super mods over my current setup but glad to know. I still like my check valve .
Pops

1990TSIAWDTALON said:

It won't ever need a different pump since it moves the volume it moves....unless I did some super mods over my current setup but glad to know. I still like my check valve .
Pops

Click to expand...

I guess the saying “Can’t teach an old dog new tricks” is a true statement

535 moves 10% more fuel with 25% less amps according to radium's testing.... I kept the 450 I bought for the EVO and went with the 535 for my dsm.

@1990TSIAWDTALON - what do you like about the check valve?

My car's dont hold pressure at the rail , they leak past the regulators (aeromotive 13301 and fuel lab unknown model), because they weren't designed to hold pressure at the rail when not running (like a stock FPR). There is no remedy for this that I am aware of. I even went as far a machining the ball seat on my fuel pressure regulator, only to slightly slow down the leakdown after shutdown.

If you car isn't holding pressure between start-ups, I don't think your check valve isn't doing anything beneficial. Perhaps I am missing something?

Maybe old farts are just "stubborn". I must be like my dad was, . In my case, the 295 wasn't available IIRC, but the 285 was. And since it is doing a good job I don't feel like taking it out but I may have to do some mods to my delivery system soon, if so, then would be the time if I wanted, and I could donate the "old" Hellcat pump to one of the other 1g's that I have.

My cars all hold pressure for over a day at the rail. Link didn't always have the prime on key on option when I first got it. Also, what is the drawback on a checkvalve? Maybe it is contributing to an issue I have Will.

Marty, I dont think there is necessarily any drawbacks to the check valves. My only thought is they may be an additional restriction in the system, but I am sure they were probably designed to have near-zero restriction. I personally don't think there is any advantage or drawback performance wise. I am pretty sure OEMs use them for emissions reasons actually.

Which fuel pressure regulators do you run? That may be all the difference in this case... I have been ignoring this minor issue for the past 12-13 years, and I do remember the days before ECMlink had a prime function... My other cars both had fuelab regulators, and they didn't hold pressure either, so I started to think all aftermarket regulators must not hold pressure. Clearly I was wrong there!

1990TSIAWDTALON said:

Maybe old farts are just "stubborn". I must be like my dad was, . In my case, the 295 wasn't available IIRC, but the 285 was. And since it is doing a good job I don't feel like taking it out but I may have to do some mods to my delivery system soon, if so, then would be the time if I wanted, and I could donate the "old" Hellcat pump to one of the other 1g's that I have.

Click to expand...

Its a quick change out if you ever need to try to squeak a little bit more out of your setup without any other major changes. A 450 with reduced restrictions (larger lines) should support a LOT of power. My only worry with a single-in-tank pump is, can it keep up when pressure is in the 80+ psi range....?? Please get on the testing of that question please!! with your very similar setup...

I have two FuelLab and one Aeromotive. All the cars hold pressure but I have found that when I change INJECTORS sometimes the amount of time I can hold pressure changes. None of them hold forever but all would usually hold for hours or overnight. I have one Aeromotive 340, one Wally 255 and the 285 Hellcat pump for my different cars.

Before the 295 my Aeromotive compact FPR would hold pressure but I don’t believe it would hold it for days.

I have recently been looking in to regulators as I move in to the 40 psi boost range. The Aeromotive Compact has a large enough bleed off to keep my fuel pressure at idle in check but at what point do you need a FPR that can supposed 85+ psi of pressure? Not trying to switch topics but looking at the fuel system with the very large drop in pumps haha

rabenne said:

Its a quick change out if you ever need to try to squeak a little bit more out of your setup without any other major changes. A 450 with reduced restrictions (larger lines) should support a LOT of power. My only worry with a single-in-tank pump is, can it keep up when pressure is in the 80+ psi range....?? Please get on the testing of that question please!! with your very similar setup...

Click to expand...

I ran my Red Talon at 40 lbs boost plus 43.5 lbs BFP. It never leaned out. I didn't log FP on that car tho. That car has the 340 in it too.

Boomdeeze said:

Before the 295 my Aeromotive compact FPR would hold pressure but I don’t believe it would hold it for days.

I have recently been looking in to regulators as I move in to the 40 psi boost range. The Aeromotive Compact has a large enough bleed off to keep my fuel pressure at idle in check but at what point do you need a FPR that can supposed 85+ psi of pressure? Not trying to switch topics but looking at the fuel system with the very large drop in pumps haha

Click to expand...

Have you seen Kevin Jewer's website and his recommendation on regulators? He's saying to go with the 13305...
https://www.sixsigmatuning.com/fuel-system-troubleshooting

@Boomdeeze I will add, if you are referring to the rated pressure levels of the regulator, keep in mind the ranges listed by aeromotive indicate base pressure range. They can operate well above those ranges. So if you arent getting any weird lean out issues in the mid-range, like Kevin describes, and your not overruning the regulator at idle - you are probably set with your current regulator.

I am wanting to get on to the 40lbs testing also Will. I'm not used to being held back and I have this "issue" with my setup only going to 34 lbs right now. I almost wonder if my compressor housing has a pinhole leak. I'm ready to slap one of my other Holsets on just to see, as I am currently tuning and we are running into a lean afr wave issue. Thats why I was asking you about your fuel delivery setup at your hanger, as I may have to go to larger lines to solve the issue.

rabenne said:

Have you seen Kevin Jewer's website and his recommendation on regulators? He's saying to go with the 13305...
https://www.sixsigmatuning.com/fuel-system-troubleshooting

Click to expand...

Thats where we are Will.
I'm willing to ad 5' of line tee'd in for VOLUME just as a test.

1990TSIAWDTALON said:

I am wanting to get on to the 40lbs testing also Will. I'm not used to being held back and I have this "issue" with my setup only going to 34 lbs right now. I almost wonder if my compressor housing has a pinhole leak. I'm ready to slap one of my other Holsets on just to see, as I am currently tuning and we are running into a lean afr wave issue. Thats why I was asking you about your fuel delivery setup at your hanger, as I may have to go to larger lines to solve the issue.

Click to expand...

Are you still on the stock hangar setup with the oring? Once I started nearing the 40psi mark I was experiencing a lean condition and was trying several things to narrow it down. One of the last possibilities was the oring(I used the Toyota seal). I said screw it and went to the 6an so I could use the bulkhead fitting and it seemed to fix my leaning out issue. Don’t know if it was the little increase in line size or the better sealing of the bulkhead and AN fittings.

No Josh, I cut the "bell" off of my hangers and put a 3" piece of hose with clamps on it to supply fuel. I didn't like the oring and had a pump that wasn't offset so I said f*** it and cut the bell off and have ever since. Good thought tho for sure. I need bigger lines is what it comes down too for me. The boost issue is entirely different.
Thanks Josh!

1990TSIAWDTALON said:

No Josh, I cut the "bell" off of my hangers and put a 3" piece of hose with clamps on it to supply fuel. I didn't like the oring and had a pump that wasn't offset so I said f*** it and cut the bell off and have ever since. Good thought tho for sure. I need bigger lines is what it comes down too for me. The boost issue is entirely different.
Thanks Josh!

Click to expand...

That makes sense, I am hoping I don’t regret going 6an rather than the 8an, was easier since I had a 6an filter and rail setup. The 6an lines with the 295 pump should take me to the limit of the DSM82 but time will tell! Have a few new secrets this year too

Not to revive and old post but I’m currently running the walbro 535 as well rewired with 2150s. Flowing over 75lbs @ min on e85

deboelduro said:

Not to revive and old post but I’m currently running the walbro 535 as well rewired with 2150s. Flowing over 75lbs @ min on e85

Click to expand...

what turbo are you running? How much boost?