How many people have used this fuel pump in an 88 Fiero tank and were the results acceptable for an upgraded engine (3800 SC Series II with 3.4 pulley). I am particularly interested in whether the universal fit version is relatively easy to install in an 88 tank. Did the universal install kit allow a quick installation in the Fiero tank?
How many people have used this fuel pump in an 88 Fiero tank and were the results acceptable for an upgraded engine (3800 SC Series II with 3.4 pulley). I am particularly interested in whether the universal fit version is relatively easy to install in an 88 tank. Did the universal install kit allow a quick installation in the Fiero tank?
Nelson
Justinbart and dark horizon swear by these pumps. I will be getting the DW300 shortly as I am leaning towards trying E85 this summer and these pumps have worked super for DH and JB.
I swapped in an 88 tank into an 86 today with a DW300 pump. Swapped over sending units with no issues at all. The filter is a little odd on it cause it comes off the side but didn't make it difficult to install.
I swapped in an 88 tank into an 86 today with a DW300 pump. Swapped over sending units with no issues at all. The filter is a little odd on it cause it comes off the side but didn't make it difficult to install.
Do you have any recommendations wrt the pump (200 or 300) for a stock 3800 SC Series II with a 3.4 pulley? It appears that the 200 will work for the stock engine and I do not have any real plans to upgrade the engine further. Is it worth the extra $60 for peace of mind?
I'm running one of these as well now. Much better than the walbro I had in there before (which after only 1.5 yrs was already giving me fuel starvation issues at WOT). Even simply in terms of noise its a vast improvement and I expect it to last longer as well. Install was simple for me as the pump was almost identical in terms of physical dimensions and wiring.
It is always a good idea to upgrade wiring when going to these high output fuel pumps.
I might not run a 300 unless you plan on making north of 350whp. The 200 or even the big GM/delco pumps are probably a better bang per buck.
Thanks for the recommendation. This engine will stay stock except for the 3.4 pulley. The last dyno indicated 258 hp and 300 ft/lbs torque at the wheel on this engine so it looks as if the DW 200 pump will work well for this application. This sucker has been eating fuel pumps (3 so far) and I think that it must be the alcohol chewing up the pump seals. Since the DW 200 is supposed to work on high alcohol fuels, I will give it a try.
Nelson
edited to correct HP typo.
[This message has been edited by hnthomps (edited 04-09-2013).]
Look at the torque number - its probably a typo....
You are most correct and that is what sometimes happens when I type very early in the morning. If you substitute a 2 for the 3, then 258 hp is much more reasonable for the mostly stock engine.
Thought some of you might be interested in seeing this. I recently swapped out my ailing in tank Walbro for an OE pump from a GM 8100 V8 that pushes 30 lb/hr injectors at about 50 psi. I left the inline Walbro in place but disconnected power wise. The 8100 pump was apparently used in trucks with up to 325 hp and ~455 lb/ft of torque. I was also tired of the noise from the Walbro and although I had been looking at the DW300 for more than a year decided to use the pump I already had on hand.
Here are some snapshots of my final base pulse width under both circumstances demonstrating to a small degree given the other parameters that were changed affecting delivery but not mentioned the effects of pressure and volume. I have 60 lb/hr injectors which were giving me a hard time tuning in OBD I for closed loop idle. I decided to set them at factory test specs by lowering the fuel pressure to that used to rate them at 60 lb/hr and then calculated percentage wise what my base pulse constant should be relative to the stock 8F code 24 lb/hr injectors.
That along with adjusting the voltage offset table helped get closed loop idle under control eliminating the hunt and stalls.
BPC=40 and fuel pressure = 40 psi with the 8100 pump in place:
Same as above except with both Walbro pumps working together:
This one is significantly different and was taken before the above with a BPC = 35 and fuel pressure = 50 psi with both Walbro pumps running.
Despite being nearly double the boost level the BPW is near the range of the other snapshots taken up to about 6.5 psi.
It appears the 8100 fuel pump is a standard flow OE pump but with high volume rating as opposed to high pressure. I'll have to turn on the inline Walbro pump to see if my AFR bottoms out to confirm it as I did need to increase the boost multiplier fuel upon installing this pump and turning off the inline pump.
I installed DW200 pump last month to prep for 3800.
I cut a small notch in the bottom of the sending unit cradle for the sock to fit on (I DON'T think this is going to stay on due to tight clearance in the tank, I recommend finding a stock type sock that will fit or mount it so it faces the opposite direction of this picture)
It did install like this but it's a very tight fit, almost feels like you're going to break the sending unit. No problems so far though, and the pump is whisper quiet, even quieter than the stock pump it replaced.
Originally posted by Joseph Upson: bla bla bla bla
I have no idea what you are ranbling about but I know it has nothing to do with fuel pumps. If anyone is trying to get anything out of this post information wise they are wasting their time decifering the rambling.
Originally posted by darkhorizon: I have no idea what you are ranbling about but I know it has nothing to do with fuel pumps. If anyone is trying to get anything out of this post information wise they are wasting their time decifering the rambling.
Okay, and what took you so long to speak for everyone else. I can see where it might help someone trying to decide between a DW200 or 300 in terms of high volume and low volume/ high pressure pumps, based on intended application. Whatever the case, you would have responded in the manner that you so often do regardless of what I posted and that's fine with me. Have a good day.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 04-10-2013).]
Okay, and what took you so long to speak for everyone else. I can see where it might help someone trying to decide between a DW200 or 300 in terms of high volume and low volume/ high pressure pumps, based on intended application. Whatever the case, you would have responded in the manner that you so often do regardless of what I posted and that's fine with me. Have a good day.
In no case would it ever help anyone decide anything. You didnt offer any fuel pump data, just meaninless information on your quest to "tune" your car.
Originally posted by darkhorizon: I have no idea what you are ranbling about but I know it has nothing to do with fuel pumps. If anyone is trying to get anything out of this post information wise they are wasting their time decifering the rambling.
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon: In no case would it ever help anyone decide anything. You didnt offer any fuel pump data, just meaninless information on your quest to "tune" your car.
It's gotta be worth more than any of that to someone. I asked you once before to restrict your complaints regarding me to PM for the sake of others who at least have the courtesy of not doing what you've done above. Consider it, as the above is your opinion. If you don't like what I posted it's okay, ignore it.
So, this is information in regards to your IPW while idling with respect to three different pump configurations? This is very useful information to me, as I have been having issues deciding on which pump configuration to go with. Those different numbers on those charts have swayed me in my decision. Thank you for posting this.
I've decided to purchase one of these pumps and after talking with a DW rep decided to go with the 200 series after some calculations to decide if it would be able to support my fueling requirements.
Listening to the rep thinking out loud, it appears he did the following estimation:
Pump litres/hr (DW200 = 255L/hr = ~404 lb/hr) compared to the estimated fuel demand as follows:
number of injectors x maximal flow of injector x maximum duty cycle the motor may require.
In my case I run 60 lb/hr injectors at 40 psi static pressure for an estimated maximal fuel delivery of 60 x 6 = 360 lbs/hr which is 44 lb/hr of fuel per hour less than what the pump is capable of. Multiply 360 lbs/hr by the duty cycle the motor is commanding which in my case as far as I have pushed the motor to this point is about 30% and my fuel requirement is an estimated 360 lb/hr x (.30) = 108 lbs/hr a little over 25% of what the injectors are able to support at my static fuel pressure and still even less percentage wise than what the pump can provide, so as he stated it's more than enough pump for my engine requirements.
This goes back to the history table snap shots I posted above. I have not actually calculated the relationship of my BPW (base pulse width) and injector duty cycle recordings relative to what their actual representation of % duty cycle is for precise calculation. In other words whether or not the 27% value showing up in a snapshot at 15 psi and 4800 rpm translates directly to 27% duty cycle. I know the true percentage is on time ratio to off time.
Whatever the case it's a good base line approach I believe to making a pump decision.
I went to the DW site and noticed the pump applications only differ by the pump screen offered within a given series. It looks like pump #9-201s-1005 or 9-301s-1005 with a 360 degree circular pump screen aimed straight down and pump #9-201s-1007 and #9-301s-1007 with a centered rectangular screen would be the best arrangements for our sending units as they allow for unimpeded fuel entry from directly below the pump inlet. Just a thought.
I also think with these it would be a good idea to try and angle the return fuel away from the pump screen as I observed air-ration in my liquid air intercooler pump when the return water splashed near the water pump located inside the water tank and I bet that can happen in this application if one is not careful with positioning of the pump screen which is already close to the return fuel outlet.
Here is a screenshot of the boosted area of my history table. I still haven't pushed the motor to the peak rpm output yet but the general trend shows the injector duty cycle increasing and although 14.7 psi is the max pressure the 2 bar MAP is able to measure according to my log I saw the boost gauge bound past 15 psi up as high as 18 psi by 4800 rpm before settling back down to 15-16 so the maximum value reached to date can't be shown in the log yet because the MAP sensor and code limits can't measure the values under those conditions although they are present. I estimate a maximum of about 40 will be reached if the motor is run to 6000 rpm and 18 psi, I'll be switching to code59 which can measure in that range to find out for sure.
Here are the pump screens I mentioned.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 07-02-2013).]
I have the Areomotive 340lph "stealth pump". Turns out, this isn't recommended for a street car per ZZP. Something about the pump overheating.....
i have the same pump, I contacted Aeromotive about the issue and was told over the phone that the the pumps tend to fail in retunless systems that are run in traffic / spend a lot time with a low fuel demand. with a return system the fuel keeps the pump cool. Made sense to me so I rolled with it. I was SHOCKED how quiet it is though.
Originally posted by 1fast2m4: i have the same pump, I contacted Aeromotive about the issue and was told over the phone that the the pumps tend to fail in retunless systems that are run in traffic / spend a lot time with a low fuel demand. with a return system the fuel keeps the pump cool. Made sense to me so I rolled with it. I was SHOCKED how quiet it is though.
Their rational doesn't make sense, the pump can't tell the difference between the two because it has to push the same fuel pressure regardless, a returnless (misnomer) fuel system keeps the bypass fuel cooler by it not traveling through the warm to hot fuel rail and creating more fuel vapor in the tank with the heat it would bring back from the rail. I'd put money on the real problem being that the pump has a high torque wiring format to support its fuel delivery capability and as a result runs much hotter than the average pump and therefore can not endure long term continuous use very well except in the presence of a considerable quantity of fuel to help dissipate the heat. Low fuel demand also means less fuel flowing through the pump to help cool it as well.
Their rational doesn't make sense, the pump can't tell the difference between the two because it has to push the same fuel pressure regardless, a returnless (misnomer) fuel system keeps the bypass fuel cooler by it not traveling through the warm to hot fuel rail and creating more fuel vapor in the tank with the heat it would bring back from the rail. I'd put money on the real problem being that the pump has a high torque wiring format to support its fuel delivery capability and as a result runs much hotter than the average pump and therefore can not endure long term continuous use very well except in the presence of a considerable quantity of fuel to help dissipate the heat. Low fuel demand also means less fuel flowing through the pump to help cool it as well.
You sir are a ding bat!
I'm sorry that was my inner child coming out.
3 things
#1 "the pump has a high torque wiring format to support its fuel delivery capability" Yes it's a 340LPH in tank pump
#2 "can not endure long term continuous use very well except in the presence of a considerable quantity of fuel" Correct
#3 "Low fuel demand also means less fuel flowing through the pump to help cool it as well" Really that's exactly what they said Also with a return system fuel flow through the pump won't really change much if at all.
Originally posted by 1fast2m4: You sir are a ding bat!
I'm sorry that was my inner child coming out.
3 things
#1 "the pump has a high torque wiring format to support its fuel delivery capability" Yes it's a 340LPH in tank pump
#2 "can not endure long term continuous use very well except in the presence of a considerable quantity of fuel" Correct
#3 "Low fuel demand also means less fuel flowing through the pump to help cool it as well" Really that's exactly what they said Also with a return system fuel flow through the pump won't really change much if at all.
So in your opinion they should have scratched the 340LPH version and brought a much smaller pump to market?
"Returnless systems" is a qualifier suggesting the same pump under the same conditions will be less prone to failure in a return system like that of a stock Fiero and various other first design conventional systems. My point is the fuel in a returnless system will generally run cooler than in the old conventional system where the rail raises the temp of the fuel. That being the case, a returnless system should be better for it and that's not the scenario that was presented. Probably because the pump is not designed or intended for street use regardless of the fuel system.
Fuel is always returned to the tank, a returnless system is better called a bypass system as excess fuel bypasses the rail.
Whatever the case, I always hope for constructive dialogue here that EVERYONE can either use or appreciate. Good luck with your inner child.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 07-03-2013).]
