I'm not running Full E-85 but have been running between 40-50% mix with 93 for about a month now. I have yet to disect the valve to the extent of @phate. I however did take my CDFP out to see what it looked like as the signs of "gumming up" would show on the ram and piston. I had so little residue around the cap/nut where the ram goes through I can't even say positively that it was from the e85 or if it may have been oil and or carbon that has snuck through over the last 10k. Just a lil update.

BTW I HAZ GENPU!

It has been proven in the srt, cobalt and evo community that just putting e85 in the tank and tuning to proper afrs will yield gains. Every single e85 tester on this forum has stated they "thought" or "knew" their car was faster with it in there. Thats not even counting the fact you can tune alot more aggressively with it in the tank. E85 works and its super cheap, my car loves it and Im gonna probably be hitting the dyno very soon. I really didnt want to but I might just have to go with pump only in the tank and dyno then try and get it as close as possible to 50/50 e85 pump to see what the true gains are. I have all the maps to do it so we will see. Either way Im hitting the dyno. Gotta see what my car is doing compared to my old setup. I just wanna break 400whp and Ill be happy. Based off my most recent logs, I should be well over that.

Phate good stuff in here and its nice to see another member going at it with e85. Though my suggestion is past 50% e85 with direct injection just isnt needed or worth it. The few guys I know with cobalts that played with it said the same thing. 50% is the farthest they were comfortable going and saw no substantial gains going farther. Who knows?? LOL Either way good stuff for sure. I truely feel like Ive been able to gain about 30-40whp over what I was doing on pump. My buddy gained around 50whp in his 2010 wrx over pump so I dont think I am pipe dreaming. Atleast I hope. LOL

I know for a fact that I have room to gain down here....And even in the shitty 95 degree weather I gained 5whp and 20 lb/ft over my dyno without e85. My afr's are rock solid now. So my maf cal and targets are great. But once I get my FMIC on I intend on spending some time on the dyno and actually doing a bit of tuning to see what more i can squeeze out of it.

Driver when you intend on hitting the dyno? Also interested to see what kind of timing your running on your car.

I posted logs in my e85 thread. Look at them. 14.5 max timing

No, I haven't talked to anyone else working with straight E85, and it seems the tuner you mentioned may be the only person with the experience. I did see the thread, though, and figured it would fizzle out pretty quickly. The car owner was running stock internals with a GT3076...

It looks like my dyno time is scheduled for the hottest day of the year, haha. Oh well, we'll see how resilient it is to heat, I guess. Maybe when it cools off I could schedule some follow up time to see if anything changes.

PS - I also grabbed an oil sample and will send it to Blackstone this week.

blackstone??

where you dyno in central Illinois?

Sent you a PM, Zenger.

I'll be dynoing at Redline Motorsports in Normal.

You still coming to my place this weekend? I would be interested in pulling the in-tank fuel pump and having a look, just to see if the sock and lines are in good shape. Have you pulled the primary fuel filter apart to inspect since going E85?


Tapadatass

Yeah, I'm planning on it. I'll send you a PM about the address. I haven't checked out the in-tank pump/sock filter, and I kinda doubt we see anything out of the ordinary.

I still suspect the buildup you're seeing on the CDFP internals is from fuel line/component deterioration.

There is an E85 station on the southside of Kankakee at exit 308, so you could run nearly empty to make dropping the tank easier (if there isn't an access hole under the rear seats already; I've never looked), and can fill up afterwards.


Tapadatass

Man you guys are making me want to drive up there now.....Access hole, drop that tank, sounds naughty

Seriously? As I was headed back from the Museum of Science & Industry this past Saturday, I stopped at that exit and asked around about E85. The one seemingly knowledgeable person said the closest one is now in Manteno...So I drove my ass back 10 miles to the Gas City where the E85 was almost as much as 87 octane!

Oh yeah, it's gonna get dirty.

i've hit the jackpot really....Have a e85 station 5 minutes from my work with 93 as well and about 10 mins from home same scenario...what blows is going and getting your 5-6 gallons of e85 only to find out their premium is 91 oct lol

Yeah, we have at least 1 E85 station on each side of my town. Unfortunately, when I go to Chicago, there's no E85 between Champaign and Manteno, which is ~90 miles.

hahah

leave it to bewsted to trash up the thread....

its e85 related...

back on topic...i failed sorry.

haha you poor mofo...I only have access to 93oct....you know how much that chit costs....someone needs to do the math on cost per gallon vs MPG....ya think it works out to be about the same?

So I went to the gas station that I was talking about just to verify it still had E85... It's now a Speedway and the E85 pump has been replaced with another fucking Diesel pump. Fuckers!


Tapadatass

i think your confused. all those platforms you listed are well developed proven platforms. im already way out past the choke point of my turbo on pump gas that i E85 isent gona do squat for me.

im running 16* by redline (with a really aggressive midrange) and 27psi with no knock. what more could u possibly expect out of my setup?


you can access from back seat but u need a SST to get the cap off the tank

SST?

super special tool lol (no joke)

its like this 4 prong wrench thing that locks these tabs in place while u unscrew the cap. HUGE PITA if u dont have this. its in the service manual if u wanna see a pict.

yes SST is any tool in the service manual that is "special" for a given purpose...so there are probably like 30 SSTs needed if you want to take the entire car apart...LOL

is that with or without the pixie dust?

j/k I don't know how you are doing that but then again I don't know that much LOL

glad you have the fast.

Haha, I was really unhappy about it at that time. It's like an extra $.50/gallon up there :damnit1: So I think the math works out the same doing this: 10% loss of mileage, 22% saved per gallon = ~12% savings per gallon, assuming I don't fuel up anywhere near Chicago, that is.

That's the story I got when I asked this one guy up there. He gave me like a 10 minute history lesson of gas stations in the area.

@silvapain - I'm pretty sure I don't want to dick with the fuel tank because of this.

____________________
____________________

Update

Fuel Pressure is dropping :(

.82 lambda tune
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...85_120_240.jpg

.86 lambda tune
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...85_126_248.jpg

This is not what I wanted to see tonight. I'm letting the car cool off right now. In a little bit, I'm going to pull the CDFP to check out the internal situation. I'm also going to remove the in line fuel filter, just in case it is creating a restriction. It's a long shot, but this wasn't happening with the other two filters.

Good thing I just bought some beer.

Im not here to argue bro. Its been proven over an over on many platforms even with similar tune setups that e85 makes more power. Im not scientist so dont expect the right answers from me. But riddle me this. Why is it that my car is straight up faster and making more power than it does on straight 104 octane oxygentated race gas and sunoco 110 when IM on only 50% e85? Tunes are almost identical. Same timing ramp, and same air fuel ratios? There is no doubt based off seat of the pants, and off my logs that the e85 is faster. There is no doubt, the power is sooooo noticeable and Ill do my best to prove it here very soon. The logs are showing huge gains and my car is ripping the tires in 3rd with ease. It wouldnt do that before at all on these new 245 tires I have. It took 24psi to duplicate what my car does on 21psi now.

Plain and simple. Two weeks ago I was trapping 113-114 with straight race gas on very aggressive map. Im going to track again here soon with damn near identical timing and afr map on e85. Im willing to wager my car traps minimum 116-117. Probably more like 118-119. ON same 21psi I was running last time. I said it last winter and Im still saying it. The car is faster on the e85, even over race gas. I know there is a big group of you guys that love you meth. It does help and IM not doubting that. Im very impressed with some of the numbers you guys are throwing up. But come on man. Its no mystery that it cant hang with e85. No fucking way. Dont take my word bro check the subaru, evo, srt forums and the list goes on and on. I mean look at what my car did this winter. 395whp on 18psi on only 30% e85. NO ones come close to that on meth even with bigger turbos?? Again remembering that we are all on the same team here, why dont you just find out for yourself instead of some guy in Boise, Idaho trying to convince you. The e85 will speak for itself. Shit keep your damn meth and just do what Dustin was suggesting. Run a 50% e85 map with your meth. Watch those damn numbers sky rocket on the dyno. Shits legit bro and the only way for you to be certain is to try the shoe on. LOL

do you think it's faster because you're running a more agressive setup, maybe more timing. I know that's what I did this past two months on my integra. I just recently switched to e85 on it. Once I got fueling issues taken care of increased the timing a bitchload and definately make more power.

On the mazda I run 25% to help with knock in the az heat and it leans out the mixture at wot which isn't a problem when you're dropping into the 10's. But otherwise it isn't tuned but I would bet it's faster since it's adding oxygen to the af mixture which means more burn.

I am losing about ~15% on my MPG with the 6 gallons per fillup (~290 miles per tank instead of ~340), which is dead on with my LTFT shift from my straight 93 MAF curve.

This makes the E85 more expensive than 93 for me; however, not by too much.

Same results for me. I get right at 300 if i stay out of it.

so your telling me that all you did was switch to E85 with NO OTHER changes and your making 40 more WHP? unless your suffering from that poor of a combustion explosion (read inefficient) on pump gas then your just talking out of your ass.

thats like saying just adding W/M to your car with no changes will net you power. W/M or E85 only lets you tune for MORE boost/timing which nets you the power, same with race gas.

i agree that E85 will net more gains then w/m (obviously cause your not using some tiny nozzle for extra octane fuel) but not unless you make your tune more aggressive.

unless you are on the dyno and do 2 different tunes on the same day with E85 and pump gas you cant quantify the gains.

So it looks like 2 out of 3 indicate that E85 costs more to run overall. This of course may depend on where in the country you live and the price of each type of fuel...in the middle of Nebraska...well I'd bet E85 is much cheaper to run LOL

@phate, so your dissection of the fuel filter indicated no debris yet you continue to get buildup on the purge valve. Do you think it could still be suspended particles that are getting past the filter and it is the action/heat, etc within the pump/valve that is pulling it out of solution? Silvapain indicated there is a sock in the tank and IIRC the EVO guys had issues with theirs dissolving? Can someone here confirm that I am not making that part up?

def heard some shit about the evo sock dissolving.

if you have that SST the intank pump is easy to remove. send a PM to dustin or socks as i think they have one you could prob borrow.

Just to fuel the fire a little between Super and Driver, this is a quote I pulled straight from the first page of Drivers E85 thread. I believe it was Click Here who posted this originally.

"I think ethanol does have some benefits even without any tuning. Whether these power advantages are measurable in practice, I guess is a different question...

1. Ethanol has less energy than gas does per volume, but when mixed at a stoich ratio the ethanol mixture is going to release more energy by about 5% over gasoline.

2. Ethanol generates lower exhaust gas temperatures as compared to gas, and also increases the total exhaust volume, which can be particularly beneficial for turbos.

3. Ethanol's evaporative cooling advantage is only amplified by the high-pressure DI system, which can cool the air charge and ultimately increase VE.

4. Ethanol burns much more efficiently (faster) at richer mixtures than gas does.

5. Ethanol's initial burn time is much slower than gasoline which reduces the amount of negative work done on the piston at the end of the compression stroke.

And I think what Driver is doing is bad ass."

I agree, that it is still up in the air whether or not these effects or maybe even others we aren't mentioning actually contribute to noticible power gains over regular fuel. However, I just wanted to illustrate that comparing the two isn't apples to apples. Also not mentinoed in the post above is the oxygen molecule already present in the E85 that isn't in normal gas. Isn't this one reason NOS give so much power? Another thing to consider is that with the differring burn characteristics of teh E85 timing and MBT will also be different than with regular gas. 16* on pump I don't think equals 16* on E85 or even an E85 mixture.

There seems to be several people claiming that they believe they are making more power simply running E85 even with the same tune. Obviously, optimizing the AFR and timing with E85 is going to give the best results, but I think there is some gain even without doing much with the tune. I personally have only run E85 one time. I did about 2.2 gal in a full tank of 91 earlier this summer when I was getting lots of knock seemingly due to high BATs. All I will say was that my car was ripping with zero knock. No tuning no nothing. Just dumped in a few gallons and went. The car hadn't felt that good since I had BATs in the 50-60s (vs 115+ this summer).

all good arguments but most of drivers comments were based on race gas vs E85. anytime u have a fuel with a higher octane your going to have different burn rates and effectively different MBT ect.

this is where your going to see the small gains over just normal pump gas but again their only small gains (like u said 5%). driver is talking a 40whp gain from no changes alone. i was simply trying to clarify how he came to that conclusion.

I am currently testing the reverse effects of target AFR'S.

Both @phate and I had talk about what our boost targets were. Upon the end of that discussion we determined that we run whatever boost we can run up top.

Just testing what running a richer target from say 5k up makes any difference in the ability to hold boost with e85. Since i'm finding it pretty impossible to peg WGDC.

Could be that with E85, the larger exhaust volume coupled with lower EGT is allowing the lil K04 to do more work than on 93 so less WGDC is necessary.

If that proves out to be true it would be an interesting way to stretch out the usefulness of such a small turbo.

Oh im sure thats what it is.

But that is why I am trying to fatten up the volume up top to keep the turbo moving....

It doesn't drop off too badly...Target 19 and see 16.5 to 18. I will say that the 22 psi from 3k to 5k feels REAL strong...

I just want to see if lowering the AFR in the upper range from say 12.5 to 12.0 from 5k on will help with holding boost up top.

I know its asking alot out of the k04 but its a trial and tribulation.

i would even go more major of a jump then that in AFR. do a few tests with .5, 1, 1.5 even 2 points less in AFR and see what happens.

i dont remember but did phate really investigate the best AFR targets for straight E85?

Region is going to have an impact on cost savings. I live in central Illinois, so it's really cheap for me.

The particles...Yes, it could be particles getting past the filter. But, I expected to see something on the filter. The element looked perfect. I mean absolutely nothing on it, not even specks of dirt.

I didn't pull the pump last night...those said beers were calling my name too loudly. I'll have to do it when I get back from work. I'm going to put the dyno guys on standby :(

Its a balance...more exhaust volume will cause more back pressure as well in the EM...so there is def a point of diminishing returns either way.

@driver311,

You aren't comparing apples to apples. Running the same timing curve with two different fuels will net you considerably different results. They WILL require different timing across the entire rev range to attain maximum power.

You may be running the same spark timing in both setups, but the explosion is not hitting the piston at the same time between the two fuels. You must consider flame speed when comparing.

No, this is what I plan to do on the dyno. Bewsted and I discussed this last night. Seat of the pants says down low likes to be a little leaner, and the top end likes to be a little richer.

I hope to provide some evidence about optimal fueling and timing curves on the dyno if I have fuel pressure tonight.

I saw the start of this in one of the first logs you posted (as a graph). The place where all stock pump MS3s have a fuel hole your pressures had dipped slightly as well.

Hopefully it's a cleaning thing and not something worse.

Right....I got my "starting point" dyno pull done now.


Next time around I will have the laptop out and being making tweaks.

The timing with 6 gallons is a trick little turd to nail down.

So I was going to post something substantive about running E40, but then I decided it was time for me to have a 40 of E...

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...R/DSCN7460.jpg

That is all...:beerchug:

I pulled the pump apart and it was pretty clean. Cleaned the little bit of gunk out and threw it back in. While doing this, I pulled out the filter, and ran it without.

Still dropping pressure. So no dyno tomorrow, I already emailed them to cancel :/

No Ive adjusted my maf cals by 12% which upped my gs obviously 12% but Im seeing close to double that in gs gain, minimum. Ive laid it out in that message if you read what I said. Im running basically the same map (plus maf scale of course) as I did with race gas. Two different kind of race gases to be exact. All three fuels running same timing curve and all three fuels running 12.2 afr. With the e85 the car pulls harder than it does on both other race gases. Hands down now doubt about it. Car pulls much faster and ill do my best to prove what e85 does over pump just by putting it in with no tune changes except scaling of course. But here is the simple fact. There are guys out there that are stuck in their ways and hard headed even though thousands of people across the country have reported the same results as me. Just switching to e85 even without tuning more aggressively adds power. I dont know what more to tell you except just fucking give it a try and see for yourself. Thats truely the only real way for you to see the light. Its very easy to scale for the e85. It was as simple as multiplying my maf scales by 1.12 and bam my fuel trims were perfect at 50% e85. How hard would that be for you to just try one time.

Run your tank almost empty. Go to gas station with your laptop. Add 2 gallons of e85 and 2 gallons of pump. Then load a map into your car with new maf scaling. Go drive for 10 miles and then do some pulls at lower boost just to make sure all is well. Then up to your desired boost level and see what the gains are. I mean its that easy to see for yourself. Shit you can even do it at the dyno you just went to, and when your car makes 20whp more you can say Wow Anthony you werent bullshitting. This gas really works. LOL Then we can all ride off happy into the 11s. LOL Im just trying to share my excitement of how well my car likes the e85. Ill be posting the vid of me racing the corvette in the next few days. Then we will see if there is clearly any difference. Well that and the dyno I plan on doing very soon. Simple fact is Im trying to help you here. There is no gain to me for you to believe what I say. I could give a fuck what you think anyhow. Im just trying to help and the sooner you get that and dont think Im trying to "prove" anything, the sooner you will reap the benefits of it too. Until then Im done trying to convince you, cause like I said there is no gain for me to convince you of anything.

Also about the 40whp. Im saying my car is making about 40whp more than it was on pump. Im guessing half of that came from just putting it in and the other half from tuning. The dyno will tell the real story.

I understand what you are saying. But how much time have you spent on the dyno finding out what timing this car likes and doesnt like? Cause I have over 100 pulls at the dyno with my car playing with all sorts of different combos. I have a pretty good idea of where the car likes to be, but I dont know it all and Im learning more and more every day. But look at my dyno numbers and track times. I have all the proof I need and its not just me taking guesses or throwing out crazy suggestions. I plan on going to the dyno here soon again to verify what Im seeing and feeling. If the car doesnt gain anything by just putting the gas in after rescale, well then Ill stand corrected and Ill smack myself around. LOL But damn it sure does feel faster and my logs sure look strong. Who knows I may be smoking :phillyb:

Phate, you check the cam lobes and follower to make sure shit ain't wrecked?

This is sad news :(

That sucks I was super pumped to see your results. Did I read your still on stock pump?

So in conclusion our cars dont react well with 100% E-85

No he has internals. Phate, as an experiment, perhaps you could pull the fuse for the relief valve to see what kind of pressure the in-tank pump is giving (obviously don't try to run the car like that).

Perhaps the in tank pump shit the bed and the CDFP is struggling to stay fed, especially if everything in the CDFP looks kosher.

Cam follower looks ok. I've looked at this a few times when the pump is out, and there hasn't been a change. This is just a minor setback (right now), worse things could happen. It's just a little disappointing to have the dyno time scheduled and then have to cancel :/

No, I'm running KMD internals. The 2.0 version (Armoloy coating), not the newest.

LOL, the internals looked the exact same as they have for the past 4k miles with E85. With fuel pressure, the car straight rips.

So let's not be so quick to blame the E85. I'm pushing the fuel system harder than 99% of people in this forum.

Enki, I'll do this later today, but I'm guessing I'll just see the normal 60psi. The car will reach 1900-2000psi until I really get into boost.

I agree it could be the in-tank fuel pump not keeping up.

or the dissolving sock impeding flow LOL but really it could just be as simple as failed internals. My PTP pump was awesome for about 20K miles then overnight it crapped out.

That sucks about the dyno session. we were all looking forward to you being able to quantify the results.

Just curious: Can anyone else hear their in-tank pump running when the car is running? I can definitely hear it whining...Not sure if that's normal.

@silvapain - I might have a good reason to check this out now, haha.

Seriously.

I can only hear my FP at KOEO. I cannot hear it when the engine is running, but To be honest I have a loud exhaust.


Tapadatass

time to PM Dustin or socks for the SST.

Only hear mine when the car is off and it's doing the pre-pressure thing; which is almost never. Even outside the car I can't hear mine.

Thanks. I just PM'd both of them.

I can hear the pump whining both inside and especially outside the car when it's running.

Haven't checked my pm's but just got back to work. Phate, send me your address and i'll get that tool shipped tomorrow.





Hi Silva!.... i miss your beard. Phate.... only rental fee for the tool is shipping both ways and touching Daniel's beard. You have to post a pic of your hand in his beard for it to count though.

Sent you a PM! Thanks!!

I can't wait until Saturday now.... ;)

A whining pump is usually a sign that it's failing. On a return-style fuel system like our 3's have, the pump is usually cooled by the returning fuel; if your regulator is having to stay closed to maintain adequate pressure at the rail (or if it's siezed closed), you may be overheating the pump. Or, it may just be degraded due to the E85.

3's have return setup?

sonofabitch. Just looked it up in the service manual...

I made the assumption (like a fucking idiot) that there had to be a return line if there's a pressure relief valve. Looks like the valve just dumps fuel back in right before the HPFP.

IIIIIIIIIIII'm retarded.

Soooo, I just checked the service manual. We definitely have to drop the tank to pull this thing out. And we won't have the SST to pull that cover piece off. What do you think, Daniel?

Really? Must be a Gen1 design fault... with the Gen2 you can remove the back seat, use the SST to get the cap off, then just pull the fuel pump unit out after disconnecting the lines and wires.

Edit: Nevermind, overlooked step 9 which says remove, tank, breather hose, fuel hose, and fuel pump unit as a single unit.

Wow bro didnt know your ptp pump went out. There is a handful of us that have had good luck with them. How is the cpe pump doing for you? Ive often wondered what Johns stg2 pump would do? If it flowing more volume would adversely affect the injectors at all? Probably not but just curious. SEveral peeps have told me now that they have gone over 100% idc and no issues. I might have to if I go over 22psi.

John is going to warranty mine...I just need to send it out.

My CPE is running right at 1800-1900 PSI with 1769 commanded in my tables.


just because the manual says you have to do it doesn't make it so. They are VERY over cautious.

Example: They say to replace the clutch you have to remove the engine cradle...not so. Tranny can be removed without removing the cradle.

I pulled the inspection plate, beneath the back seat, last night. The hole only uncovers enough to remove the electrical connector and evap line. It only allows access to about 1/3 of the top piece that needs removed with the SST. The tank definitely needs to come out.

im pretty sure theres just a tiny tab u need to trim to get the pump out from the top.

im pretty sure sean @socks posted a buncha picts of this in his dual pump setup thread.

You're right, I just looked at his thread. He just cut the opening quite a bit larger. Not sure if I want to do this or not...

Dont be scared..lol

Here's the access hole on ms6:

http://i359.photobucket.com/albums/o...n/312d3cd0.jpg



And my $.02 on enlarging it is..... well... sure as hell makes it alot easier to swap the pump, hahaha. Might be a blessing, especially when playing with alternative fuels.

You not going to lose any structural strength trimming that hole out to be able to remove that thing.

Only thing you may want to do is enlarge the plate as well, so you can keep the fumes sealed off from the cabin. But that'd be simple.

My friend Josh who is parts manager at Camelback Mazda/Subaru in Phoenix is going to be having stuff like SST's and timing tools for rent shortly.

Yep, took a dremel to that bad boy. You'll want to put some trim around it to prevent it from cutting any fuel lines though.

you dont like the fumes? gives it that..... racecar smell...

"HIGH DRIVER??!!



BECAUSE RACECAR"

Dripping the tank is no problem; getting an SST is the issue.

Let me call my local Mazda dealership and see if it cam be bought or rented from them.

Just for reference, the Mazda P/N for the SST is 49 F042 001

Tapadatass

I'm sending the SST tonight. Should be at phates early next week i bet.

If you find one closer, just lemme know so i don't send this one.

^^^ friendliest MSF neighbor to borrow sugar from!!!

Corrected for truth

Even moar corrected

It's evolved into greatness.

So here's the diagram of the MS3 fuel tank and assembly, for everyone's reference.

https://www.mazdamotorsports.com/wcs...79691_1000.gif

Mazda Motorsports prices:

42-167 - BN8F-42-167 - Union Nut - $30 - This is what the SST is used on.

13-ZE1 - LFB6-13-ZE1 - Fuel Filter - $13
13-350A - L3M8-13-350B - Fuel Pump - $123 [2010-2011 models use the same pump]
13-280A - L3M8-13-280 - Fuel Pressure Regulator - $22
13-ZE0 - L34B-13-ZE0 - Fuel Pump Body - $38

13-350 - L34B-13-35Z - Fuel Pump Assembly (4 parts, above) - $149



Edit: It looks like L34B-13-35ZA superseded the L34B-13-35Z referenced above. It's still the same price from Mazda Motorsports.

2010 & 2011 use the same fuel pump L3M8-13-350B.

The fuel filter is referenced through the 2010 model, so 2011's may use a revised version of this. I'll dig around.

Any idea what size the fuel line is?

I could be wrong, but the OD of the hardline is ~5/16", which gives us approximately a 1/4" ID.

What's the word?

I think Kmac did a write up on putting a bigger pump in tank ..
Hit him up for info .. It's on here somewhere ... But I am on My phone so it's hard to post a link ....

Work turned into a complete shitstorm today. Didn't get a chance to call a dealership until after 7PM.

Hopefully tomorrow will be much quieter at work and I can make some calls.

No worries. If you can't get it, don't worry about it, either. I'm not in a hurry, as the car is still running well enough to drive normally and I'm moving at the end of this month. I couldn't schedule dyno time until August, anyway. I'll still be there Saturday, either way.

@djuosnteisn, like I mentioned, its no hurry. If you haven't shipped it, let's wait until silva finds out.

Are you gonna put a walbro in there

It doesnt look much different from a srt4 fuel pump setup. I actually have 2-3 walbro 190 pump in my tool box if you would like to try one. Its yours if you want.

What is the flow rate of the stock in tank?

I don't really want to put a walbro in there. If the stock pump isn't malfunctioning because of the ethanol, I'll run a stock replacement.

One was tested at ~255lph. There's a thread about it somewhere. If anything, I'll get a Boost-a-Pump to make sure the stocker is running at full capacity.

So a walbro 255 would be a viable trade off in that case...

I'd run a 255 before I put in a boost-a-pump. BAP is just another point of failure.

I thought the one that was tested was 155lph?

i'd have to dig through whoosh's posts though. a single walbro isnt a "drop in fitment". you'd have to use an external regulator, and have the pump flop around in the bucket. then you'd have to find a way to retain the stock venturi system in the bucket unless you want to have to keep your tank level above 1/4tank all the time.

Thats why i did the dual setup. Two pumps physically kept eachother in place, i used an external filter and regulator, and used the regulators return to maintain the stock venturi system, so the bucket would stay full even at low tank levels.

I don't think Walbro makes a pump that designed for a returnless system. I know vortech makes one, and I'm pretty sure we could use it, but it's a little more cash than a Walbro.

here, have a looksee.

Reference:
in tank OEM fuel pump flow data - Mazda 6 Forums : Mazda 6 Forum / Mazda Atenza Forum

LOL I'll go back to my corner now...