![]() |
Is there a 3rd hole up top to run a return with? Would imagine 4 holes would allow full flexibility: 1 inlet from OEM pump location, 2 for the 1
|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 (permalink) |
A True Z Fanatic
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,397
Drives: 2009 370Z
Rep Power: 16805 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
Is there a 3rd hole up top to run a return with? Would imagine 4 holes would allow full flexibility: 1 inlet from OEM pump location, 2 for the 1 or 2 fuel pumps, and then one more for return feed.
Looks like there's a gap up top to allow excess to flow out. Does seem like opportunity to consolidate everything into a single system, though I suppose the twin pump setup was originally intended for the passenger side while the RRP was designed to be left side? Regardless, will be cool to see the new products. I'm happy with my Radium kit's performance but from handling products from both, know CJM's designs and manufacturing is best of the best.
__________________
@stupidtoycars | My track vids 09 7AT|MCS 2WNR|Topgunz Rotrex|Ecutek (Eugene)|Maxxis RC1|Titan-7 TS-5|OSG LSD|Rear Mount Derale Oil Cooler (WIP)+25 Trans Cooler|Fismo|G-LOC R12/R10|Zeta III L|NLR Wing and Splitter|CJM Pan and Fuel Hat|Radium Surge Tank|AP Racing CP9668 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 (permalink) | |
A True Z Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,669
Drives: 370
Rep Power: 974724 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
The reply is complicated. If used how you are thinking, yes it will need an additional bulkhead on top of what is seen there. Ive gone back and forth on whether or not I wanted to make the RRP2.0 for use with RFS. I was on the fence just on the decision itself, and also awaiting to learn of the effectiveness of my standard twin pump canister via testing results. Because the RRP2.0, using the same canister parts... part of me feels like, if a non-RFS user has the RRP2.0 and then switches to RFS, maybe it makes more sense to, rather than RFS + RRP2.0: A: sell them the twin pump top hat, to move the canister to the right side of the tank, and get the nice simplicity of the standard twin pump layout. Or... B: just move the entire RRP2.0 assembly over to the right side, because the way I have been designing this stuff modularly, there is really no reason we cant do that. So to rephrase in a way that might make more sense... The RRP2.0 vs Twin Pump + canister add-on, minus installation kits, just looking at the main assembly; are not very different. Just the top hat design is different, and it honestly doesn't even have to be. I could make them use the same top hat if I wanted. So, what if the RRP2.0 was only intended to be used on the left side of the tank for non-RFS, and then with RFS you just move it to the right side of the tank? Decisions are difficult.
__________________
Last edited by phunk; 12-02-2021 at 10:03 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
First Fuel Starve on 8 year old Z | mcphelps | Engine & Drivetrain | 12 | 01-30-2018 02:28 PM |
Right of passage: my first fuel starve | Jayhovah | Nissan 370Z General Discussions | 22 | 06-16-2017 05:44 PM |
Possible inexpensive fuel starve fix (no more $1200 fuel pump system!) | Nismodean | Nissan 370Z General Discussions | 2 | 02-18-2016 12:32 PM |
Race Teams Fuel Starve fix? | Felix 808 | Nissan 370Z General Discussions | 3 | 01-15-2016 11:56 AM |
Anyone FI running the RRP Fuel starve fix? | martin82 | Forced Induction | 18 | 02-12-2014 12:53 PM |