Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: jgara962 Jun 25 2008, 10:40 PM

Has anyone tried the fuel rail kit Auto Atlanta has in thier catalog? The description about it delivering more fuel than the original makes sense, I'm just wondering if anyone has experience with it? Good? Bad? Worth the $190?




Attached image(s)

Posted by: ericread Jun 25 2008, 11:53 PM

IMHO, This applies for any of the fuel resevoir rail systems.

If you are using FI, and you have a stock 1.7, 1.8 or 2.0L engine, then your fuel is being delivered to the injectors at about ~38PSI. If the fuel pressure is being held steady by the fuel pump, you cannot starve your engine of fuel. If you are finding that your fuel pressure is wavering, then you need to troubleshoot the fuel pump and pressure system.

Holding a resevoir of fuel at pressure cannot hurt your fuel delivery system, but it certainly doesn't do anything to assist your system. It just puts more fuel at pressure. For $190, I would want to see a marked improvement in my system, not just more fuel being put under pressure.

Quite frankly, any system that can use more fuel than the fuel pump can reliable provide is in trouble from the start, and a fuel resevoir rail system is not the fix.

Just my $.02.

Eric Read

Posted by: brant Jun 25 2008, 11:56 PM

Nicely stated Eric....

a stock system should not benefit from this...
theoretically a custom system could?
ooops.. I'm on the bad list now.

brant

Posted by: brer Jun 26 2008, 12:00 AM

I think they would look great on the right engine.
Not a stock one though IMO.

Posted by: ericread Jun 26 2008, 12:09 AM

BTW: I am not ranting on the AA rail kit exclusively, my comments go for any of the available kits.

As for a custom system benefiting, it would only benefit where fuel starvation from the existing fuel delivery system is engineered into the engine - sounds like pretty damn poor engineering to me.

However, if you think it looks cool - then why not? Just don't expect any performance increase.

Eric

Posted by: McMark Jun 26 2008, 12:21 AM

The only bonus there is the fuel gauge. If your car is running nicely, you're not running out of fuel. If you're running out of fuel, you need a bigger pump. This part is not the solution to any problem.

And if we were just talking about engine 'dress-up', I think that thing looks kludgy. Brass fittings are ugly all of the time, and the red anodized brick is uglier than any generic fuel rail off Summit, most of which feature a D-shape and grooves cut in them for a nice 'texture'.

But that's just me.


Attached image(s)

Posted by: URY914 Jun 26 2008, 07:13 AM

Only useful as bling in my book.

Posted by: rhodyguy Jun 26 2008, 08:26 AM

are your stock fuel rails leaking? apply that $190+s/h towards new suspention items or a good set of ss heat exchangers.

Posted by: dr914@autoatlanta.com Jun 26 2008, 09:08 AM

Mike Buxbaum designed these and sells them so we just put them in the catalog for sport. I would NEVER install them on my car in a million years, but since the 944s have a larger rail that held more fuel Mike thought that it would be beneficial for the 914 pooling more fuel helping the vapor lock and for the racers have more fuel available at the higher rpms.
For a stock 914 the only benefit would be the dress up and the gauge.
Bottom line is that the kids who work for me (any of them under the age of 50) thought that putting some nifty 914 products in the catalog would be beneficial to those who are more open minded than I am about 914 modification!!!!!
I of course will continue to tote the line (so to speak) so please do not ask me to recommend the fuel rail kit (although we have sold 13 kits in the last month and a half!)

Posted by: Cap'n Krusty Jun 26 2008, 10:03 AM

I challenge first the "38PSI" statement earlier in the discussion. It's 28-30PSI. 38 will render the car almost undrivable. Then there's the Dr.s statements: I challenge "helping the vapor lock", and "more fuel available". Both are unproven conjecture. In fact, the existence of vapor lock in 914s is questionable.

And just to show I'm still "His Krustiness"(and loving every minute of it!), Dr., it's "toe the line", not "tote the line".

The Cap'n

Posted by: URY914 Jun 26 2008, 10:10 AM

Gotta love the Cap't.

Posted by: URY914 Jun 26 2008, 10:11 AM

Actually it is "One Toke Over the Line", by Brewer & Shipley released in 1970.

Posted by: URY914 Jun 26 2008, 10:13 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye3ecDYxOkg

Posted by: ConeDodger Jun 26 2008, 10:32 AM

Now a system that cools the fuel.... That WOULD be beneficial. Whatever happened to the old KoolKan deal?

As for that system, it looks like bling to me and if you want bling just hang some earrings on the stock system.

Posted by: jgara962 Jun 26 2008, 10:50 AM

Nothing is wrong with my FI, I was just curious if anyone had tried them. The description in the catalog makes them sound like an easy bolt on upgrade that will increase performance.

That makes me wonder why are they advertised that way if the owner of Auto Atlanta wouldn't put them on his car? It sounds like someone who purchased these would be dissapointed in the results.

Posted by: ericread Jun 26 2008, 11:10 AM

Well done George!

Let's not forget that George is in business to sell parts. Some parts are really critical for the proper running of our vehicles. Some parts are sold because there is a demand by the buying public. As we have all said, the resevoir fuel rail won't hurt 914 performance, and to many, it probably looks really cool.

I respect George for speaking up here, and at least he didn't cut the picture of the fuel rails out of an Automotion catalog (reference to George's interview on Jake Raby's radio show).

Eric Read

Posted by: Jake Raby Jun 26 2008, 11:29 AM

I could see this being effective if the injectors being used were 42 lb/hr on a 350 HP Turbo engine... BUT then you wouldn't be using stock runners or injector positions.

A stock injector can't move as much fuel as the stock rails can.

My only gripe with the stock rails is the fact that can chaff against the engine sheetmetal and rub holes into them that can leak fuel and burn the car to the ground... These units would resist that, but they are kinda clunky and I'd be afraid that the added mass of the unit would be hard on the rubber injector hoses since there isn't any support of the fuel rail.

George, send me a pair and I'll share the data here. I have an engine coming up using stock FI and another after it using a stock plenum and runner with a 30 pound injector.

The stock unit is lighter and lighter is always faster. :-)

Posted by: Jake Raby Jun 26 2008, 11:35 AM

FWIW- I prefer 38 PSI as well. The added fuel atomization helps mixture quality and efficiency and usually results in better MPG and cooler running. I typically only do the mod to L jet engines so the AFM can be adjusted to balance the AFR. I have found engines to start easier and idle better with elevated fuel pressure.

But, what the hell do I know?

Posted by: Joe Ricard Jun 26 2008, 11:40 AM

Just boggles the mind don't it............

Posted by: ericread Jun 26 2008, 11:59 AM

Jake; I don't understand. If there was a situation where the fuel pump couldn't proivde enough fuel to the injectors, the fuel pressure will drop no matter how much fuel you ahve in the rail resevoir. How would this be acceptable? The lower pressure would certainly degrade performance.

What am I missing???

Eric

Posted by: URY914 Jun 26 2008, 12:03 PM

Posted by: Smitty911 Jun 26 2008, 11:41 PM

BIC or a Zippo?????

Smitty

Posted by: Cevan Jun 27 2008, 06:45 PM

According to my Haynes manual (page 51), on L-Jet cars, fuel pressure should be 35 psi, not 29.

Posted by: orange914 Jun 27 2008, 10:06 PM

isn't it 29 psi? 2bar

oops i shoulda' read ahead

mike

Posted by: Demick Jun 27 2008, 10:36 PM

You're not missing anything. Doesn't matter how much reservoir you have. Only matters how much pressure/flow the pump can provide through the system. Adding extra reservoir capacity does nothing

Demick