[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by Trochoidal

That’s the plan for sure. This build will see some passes at the track but it will primarily remain a street car. I want to run full E with plenty of headroom. Minus the install of the pump, this should be a straight install. (We all know expectations never meet reality with regards to projects like this)

Between what Mike Jr., cjperformance, and airtroop accomplished the only real decision will be whether I stick with the Procharger or move to 2650. I’m hearing lead time for 2650 is 14 weeks. There’s enough time between now and spring before this project starts. If I do decide to go 2650, I’ll need to order that soon.

I have 2 2650s in stock. one Magnuson and one Edelbrock.

The Edelbrock has the port injection bungs already.

You can add mikes system without the plates.

Ted.

[Trochoidal]

Originally Posted by cjperformance

Just making some conversation and speculation...

I have zero experience with secondary port injection, but as a general rule simpler is better. I went with LT4 injectors & HPFP... + DSX low side... In hindsight, with similar goals maybe the only thing I would have done differently is go with even larger injectors and HPFP to run full E. Not sure if I would need a cam w/ larger fuel lobe at that point. So I think the deciding factor for me between larger capacity DI vs supplementary port would be whether I would need to add a cam to support DI only.

I like the idea of playing with secondary port injection, but for a primarily street driven setup... I might worry about the complexity of having two systems.

Just some thoughts, again pure speculation... With DI + Port... I would think risks are similar as with DI + Meth from a fueling perspective... Meaning a failure in the supplemental port inj might still allow the engine to run lean, where with ONLY DI if there's a pump failure, it would be more likely to get zero fuel, or not enough to keep runnning, where with supplemental... there might be enough fueling happening to run lean for longer?

Personally I would prefer to exhaust my DI fueling options (heh heh) before going with supplemental port. If you were doing it for fun, that's different! I would love to do it just for the tuning experience.

The supplemental port does promote a secondary system failure. To what extent there are failsafes built into the MAF Fusion, I don’t know. Last night I started reading about this setup from the manufacture. I’ll read it thoroughly to learn what happens in the event of a failure.

Originally Posted by EDFHOBBIES

Any Idea which way you will tune? Are you going to tune off a second map or IPW base operation off of TPS?

I’d prefer 2nd MAP.

Originally Posted by 1LEornothing

Considering vehicles like the C7 ZR1 and newer mustang gts come from the factory with both direct injection AND port fuel injection, I'd say the risk is rather low when the set up is implemented correctly. A meth pump is highly more susceptible to failure than a complementary port injection system in my opinion.

I agree the risk anticipated shouldn’t be any greater than other after market electronics.

Originally Posted by EDFHOBBIES

No not that easy the pcm and port module talk to each other. Harder to do e85 on that car to.

Two family members both running E85 on their Mustangs. I wouldn’t say it’s harder, just less convenient because of loading times from handheld. I don’t recall the limitations on adding the flex sensor.

Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING

I have 2 2650s in stock. one Magnuson and one Edelbrock.

The Edelbrock has the port injection bungs already.

You can add mikes system without the plates.

Ted.

Thanks Ted. I’ve been watching you update the inventory of your current stock. What you started with sure isn’t collecting dust.

[Trochoidal]

I’d like to see THPSI bundle this as a kit with the new controller, harness, plates, injectors, pump and lines. Once I get this far along I’ll reach out to him and place my order. If it’s À la carte instead of a kit, that works too.

[laynlo15]

I'll be running the stock fuel system on my toohighpsi Magnuson setup. I will run a JMS boost a pump for a little more voltage to help out the lowside. Other then that, stock HPFP and stock injectors and in tank pump

[asthmamax11]

So real question is
Could we run 100% E with this PI system + stock LT1 fueling ?

E85 seems to give alot more gains than what the dyno shows...

[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by asthmamax11

So real question is
Could we run 100% E with this PI system + stock LT1 fueling ?

E85 seems to give alot more gains than what the dyno shows...

Stock LT1 high side, yes (obviously there is a HP limit there based on how much power you’re shooting for and how big your PI injectors are). The stock LT1 in tank pump won’t cut it, since it now needs to feed the PI system too.

[Trochoidal]

Originally Posted by Joshinator99

Stock LT1 high side, yes (obviously there is a HP limit there based on how much power you’re shooting for and how big your PI injectors are). The stock LT1 in tank pump won’t cut it, since it now needs to feed the PI system too.

So would the LT4 in tank cut it?

[LT1ornothing]

Originally Posted by Trochoidal

So would the LT4 in tank cut it?

With a JMS voltage booster, I would imagine so. To a certain point obviously.

[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by Trochoidal

So would the LT4 in tank cut it?

Originally Posted by 1LEornothing

With a JMS voltage booster, I would imagine so. To a certain point obviously.

[laynlo15]

Originally Posted by Trochoidal

So would the LT4 in tank cut it?

Based on what I've been able to find out that my 2022 has the Lt4 low side pump. This is my theory as I compared logs from my 16 C7 on E65. My C7 would show the low side at about 48-49 psi and my 22 Lt1 at 68 to 69 psi. Both cars had similar mods so thats my determination and I'm going to be running just the stock low side which should be fine with the JMS BP. I do agree with Josh that you won't be able to run with stock Lt1 low side.

[wnta1ss]

Originally Posted by laynlo15

Based on what I've been able to find out that my 2022 has the Lt4 low side pump. This is my theory as I compared logs from my 16 C7 on E65. My C7 would show the low side at about 48-49 psi and my 22 Lt1 at 68 to 69 psi. Both cars had similar mods so thats my determination and I'm going to be running just the stock low side which should be fine with the JMS BP. I do agree with Josh that you won't be able to run with stock Lt1 low side.

The pressure was higher likely because of the stock tune for the low side pump in newer NA cars being like a ZL1, we don't really know if your '22 has the LT4 low side pump until someone pulls the tank and checks.

See this thread https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=605150 where the different fuel pressure tune in newer cars is discussed. Also that guy found out that his pump was actually the LT1 in the tank, not the LT4, because he actually dropped the tank. Plus on this subject, someone had posted part numbers and it was determined by performance package (1LE or ZL1 most likely) and not performance package, different pumps for each category.

[laynlo15]

Originally Posted by wnta1ss

The pressure was higher likely because of the stock tune for the low side pump in newer NA cars being like a ZL1, we don't really know if your '22 has the LT4 low side pump until someone pulls the tank and checks.

See this thread https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=605150 where the different fuel pressure tune in newer cars is discussed. Also that guy found out that his pump was actually the LT1 in the tank, not the LT4, because he actually dropped the tank. Plus on this subject, someone had posted part numbers and it was determined by performance package (1LE or ZL1 most likely) and not performance package, different pumps for each category.

That is true that we don't but it makes sense that it is because of the difference in pressure of my own two cars on the logs. Can't prove that as you said until the pump is pulled but it appears to me it is. My KPA on one of my dyno logs was 459 and on my C7 I converted the 48 to 333 KPA which matches what was confirmed in Chrome383z post. Since I have dozens of logs that are the same. Now I have a buddy that we tuned his 17 2SS with a Pro Charger and I have all his logs also and his was 516 KPA but we did turn up the Voltage on his, prior to turning up the voltage it was 333 KPA on his first pulls.

[asthmamax11]

Originally Posted by Joshinator99

Stock LT1 high side, yes (obviously there is a HP limit there based on how much power you’re shooting for and how big your PI injectors are). The stock LT1 in tank pump won’t cut it, since it now needs to feed the PI system too.

Awesome
Appreciate the info and I apologize if these questions have been asked before.


I'm excited for this build because Laynlo always gives consistent updates and details of his progress.
I am confident he will run faster than what he predicted earlier. This is going to be a much superior setup to his first 6th gen in reliability and practicality.

[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by asthmamax11

Awesome
Appreciate the info and I apologize if these questions have been asked before.


I'm excited for this build because Laynlo always gives consistent updates and details of his progress.
I am confident he will run faster than what he predicted earlier. This is going to be a much superior setup to his first 6th gen in reliability and practicality.

Anytime! So much good info on this board.