fuel starve solutions

DarkJak

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

Rojoryu

I'll be following this thread. I was suffering starvation at around 2/3rds of a tank on my last HPDE. I ended up just topping off between every session.

phunk

Impressive.. very few people are familiar enough with fuel system plumbing, especially when it starts to get complicated, to be sure enough of themselves to pick up on that and comment to me about it. That's rare. Most people dont find fuel systems interesting enough to focus their attention to it and understand it.

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.

__________________