New fuel pressure regulator design: Opinions Please

[synapse]

This is not a commercial solicitation to sell product, just feedback on design.
It will bolt straight onto the rail on the return units, and we're also working on a returnless model as well. I'd appreciate some feedback. What I would really like to find out, is if the Toyota guys are interested in someone actually making a bolt-on fuel pressure regulator for the 1JZ, 5SFE, 4AG, 3MG, etc.

*Direct Bolt-On to the factory of aftermarket fuel rail with no additional fuel connections
*Piston-based actuator without a diaphragm to fail
*Will support over 1000+ HP
*Interchangeable bypass orifices to accomodate upgraded higher flow fuel pumps
*Adjustable static fuel pressure via a turn screw
*Chamber dedicated to 1:1 ratio
*Boost-only chamber for a total of 12:1 ratio
*Infinitely adjustable rising rate ratio from 1:1 to 12:1
*Retain fuel pressure in rail, so that you don't have to prime the fuel pump on the next startup



From an application perspective, here are some things you can do:

*Turbo/Supercharged, will raise the fuel pressure enough for up to 10 psi of boost
*Will allow you to trim back larger injectors and still add fuel as a ratio of boost
*NA- Can be used to accomodate a larger fuel pump or larger injectors
*NA- Can be used to simply fine tune the air/fuel ratio
*Nitrous- rigorous enough to sustain direct injection of Nitrous to richen mixtures under nitrous conditions
*Standalone Fuel Injection- Can be used a 1:1 ratio regulator to fine tune your EMS, or use some ratio (ie 2:1) to increase fuel atomization or extend the capability of your injector size.

Installation on an S2000 to show scale of size

[bgrieger]

You mentioned that this will only support about 10PSI of boost? If that's the case, I don't think any factory turbo cars are going to be able to take any advantage of this...most of our stock regulators go farther, and almost all of us turn the boost past this point anyhow.

[synapse]

Thanks Bob, I need to clarify. you should really only use the rising rate ratio of 12:1 or 10:1 for about 10 psi of boost, because you start to run too high a fuel pressure. However, you can use it as just a 1:1 or 2:1 on any factory boosted car for 30+ psi if you wanted to, just like stock.

The 10 psi comment is intended only for the aftermarket boosted variety that is still primarily using the factory ECU and Synchronic for boosted fueling. So like a turbo Matrix for instance.

The big feature that were working on is the returnless feature, since all cars are going returnless.

[Pineapple]

The piston won't fail but it could get stuck when the seals are worn.

[synapse]

The funny thing we learned about regulators is that the valve/piston, doesn't actually move very much, so there is miniscule wear with the seals. We also use ISO9001 grade seals used in applications that require long life and reliability. One very good thing is that the units are very modular so they can be easily rebuilt with new seals if needed. The main seal that we use to seal fuel pressure is actually a low friction seal, not just your standard o-ring. We've really looked hard into the issues with rod seals and piston sealing, with thousands of miles and hours of real world testing, and there are no signs of seal failure or increased friction and binding.

[bgrieger]

I see. Just like normal, 1:1 rising rate, and let the piggyback/standalone deal with injector duty to fine tune at various points. X:1 for those running on factory setups and relying on the fuel pressure to rough tune.

How frequently do you see diaphragm types fail? I've only heard of that being a problem on the cheapies. Aeromotive, Cartech and a couple other big names, in my experience, have next to 0 failures in all the years I've seen them, and most people who did have a failure was through their own doing...

More for everyone else's reference...I tossed the entire factory fuel system and put the Aeromotive on the other day, so I'm not in the market right now.

Bob

[synapse]

Bob- Thanks for the input. I don't want to mislead everyone by giving the impression that we eliminated the diaphragm because of failures or to increase reliability. The main reasons we eliminated the diaphragm were:

1) to allow us to miniaturize the FMU

2) The piston actuator was was more responsive to changes in manifold pressure, you see, as pressure changes, the diaphragm has to deflect before even imparting any force on the valving mechanism

3) The piston actuator didn't introduce as much noise as a diaphragm

4) Diaphragms aren't strong enough to take consistent shots of nitrous directly

5) Synchronic is just an application of our patent that redesigned the ubiquitous cylinder actuator that hasn't been redesigned since it was first invented in the 20's, we're looking at industrial applications as well outside of automotive aftermarket.

[bgrieger]

Sweet. Miniturizing is almost always appreciated by anyone that has ever tried to add components to an engine bay can attest. Most FMU/AFPR range from the cartech units at about 4 inches circle by 3 or 4 tall, to the aeromotives that need 6 inches or more wide by that much tall and 3 or so deep once the plumbing is in. MCloser to 6 inches deep or more with gauges.

The piston reaction is about what I would have expected. Putting force on a solid object rather than a flexible one tends to get quicker results.

Supra injectors are louder than almost anything else. Sound like valves tapping. Most guys have an exhaust and won't hear this unless they jumper the fuel pump with the car not running .

If you're looking at automotive applications for the piston design, check out external wastegates...the heat may be an issue, but it's not like the diaphragms commonly used in their applications last forever in the fire either!

Bob

[synapse]

Sorry, when I said noise, I meant Hz of flow noise that interferere with injector fuel flow, not actual ear/ambient noise.

External wastegate is actually next, but I need to test a theory I have, that an exhaust manifold pressure referenced actuator body, in addition to an intake manifold referenced one, will bring the turbo system faster to boost crossover for intake to exhaust manifold pressure ratio.

Regarding the heat, with a piston, we can use teflon for seals, even if they leak a little, they still work, unlike a small puncture in a diaphragm.

[bgrieger]

Ahh...I see. A fuel pulsation dampener of sorts built in to cancel out some of the injetor pintle pressure waves. Neat.

Wastegate: Pressure in the exhaust manifold can be optimized this way, ensuring a 2:1 or otherwise chosen ratio, but the quickest spools usually come simply from keeping it fully closed until close to the peak compressor outlet pressure. By referencing the exhaust manifold pressures, as the turbo begins to max out, you run the risk of opening it early as you approach choke if you select too low a ratio, and here's where the every turbo combination is different thing comes into play. Now, you could use this to limit overspeeding incidents, but I'm not sure I see where the spool will come any faster than just keeping it closed until the intake reaches the desired peak, with early enough opening time of course to avoid spiking.


Bob

[synapse]

I'm not really so much concerned about spool, so much as I am in trying to find a closed loop relationship between Intake and Exhaust manifold pressure. We all know delta P pre and post turbine is a good thing, but at the expense of more efficient scavenging? Don't know, can't tell until the prototype is built and many, many hours of datalogging to be done. But that is for later.

[synapse]

For those of you concerned with size and the Synchronic regulator looking big, here's a comparo with the regulator that Comptech (same as BEGI, Vortech, Paxton, ETC.)uses on their kits.