2011-14 Mustang 5.0 fuel pump?

[Bill@HPTuners]

Curious if you guys, tunershops in particular, have seen a variance in fuel pressure output on these applications. For a while now I've suspected I have a weak fuel pump and I'm just curious if its common, not common, any ways to test specifically for a WEAK fuel pump. AFAIK its a completely stock fuel system but its always been a little funky ever since I put on the procharger, 47lb injectors were not big enough to support 7lb of boost@6200 rpms(which is what ALOT of kits such as roush, procharger, vmp previously used them on theirs so while I know they were going to be borderline I thought 6200rpms & 7 psi would be doable), so I went to ID1050x which bandaided it in that they have no problem supporting a .78 lambda on pump 93 @ 7000rpms w/ 70% IDC but I'm only pushing 578rwhp which equates to about 700 at the crank I just get the feeling there is something else going on here. Simple combination procharger d1x, VMP BAP(which I've tested the voltage output and thats good so I've completely ruled that out, & full exhaust no cats.

I used fords injector data with the 47's
I used ID's injector data with the id1050x

so the injector data is good.

PS one thing I've noticed since I bought the car is there is a SLIGHT delay at startup, and while to me it was really unnoticable upon purchase maybe a 1/2 second longer than I see other similar cars start. Pump primes fine from what I can hear.

TIA

[mbray01]

yes, i see quite a few pumps that are marginal. other shops tuned them, you could see the issue baked into their tune, an upgrade pump, and back off to the races, the extended crank also lends itself to a pump on the verge of failure. its likely been getting hot, and baking the check valve

[Bill@HPTuners]

yeah its a marginal cranking period, I've seen bad fuel pumps that need to be primed a few times before they'll start or it'll take 2-3 seconds to start while cranking, mine takes a good full second but its long enough for someone with ocd to notice lol. Guess I know where my tax refund will be going this year.

[Jn2]

Toss a single DW400 in the hat and call it a day, make sure you order it with the venturi fitting added(you have to request it). The OE regulator will cap you at 58psi, so on 7psi you are looking at a 51psi delta, which is more than enough on ID1050x's to fuel your set up.

I have seen this issue before though, If you prime the car a few times does it crank right up? You could also run a fuel pressure gauge if you get a 3/8th male to 3/8th female adapter with a 1/8NPT port on it and put it on the fuel rail between the rail and the OE hard plastic line(driver side with blue clip)

[Bill@HPTuners]

Toss a single DW400 in the hat and call it a day, make sure you order it with the venturi fitting added(you have to request it). The OE regulator will cap you at 58psi, so on 7psi you are looking at a 51psi delta, which is more than enough on ID1050x's to fuel your set up.

I have seen this issue before though, If you prime the car a few times does it crank right up? You could also run a fuel pressure gauge if you get a 3/8th male to 3/8th female adapter with a 1/8NPT port on it and put it on the fuel rail between the rail and the OE hard plastic line(driver side with blue clip)

It cranks up fine, just seems to take an instant longer than other cars and running out of fuel at 6200 with 47's at only 7lb of boost or so which makes me believe there is a weak link in the fuel system namely the pump providing the fuel. Swapping in a new pump seems like a good next step.

[Bill@HPTuners]

is there any tuning that needs to be done when going to a larger pump such as the DW on a returnless style fuel system such as mine?

[Jn2]

is there any tuning that needs to be done when going to a larger pump such as the DW on a returnless style fuel system such as mine?

There is tubing you can change to make it a much better system. The stock feed is 5/16th for the first foot or so from the hat to the aluminum hard line, this is your first restriction. If you swap to a DW400 I would remove the 5/16 hard line and replace it with e85-safe hose then at the hat I would drill out the OE 5/16 quick connect male and replace it with a 6AN bulk head and run a 6AN line to the aluminum 3/8th hard line. This will let you keep the entire system from the pump to the rails 3/8ths.

total cost including the DW400 pump is going to sit around $300-350 depending on where you source your parts.

- DW400 pump
- AN6 bulkhead to 3/8 barb(barb will face pump)
- AN6 90* push lock fitting(too attach to bulkhead)
- AN6 e85-safe hose (connect bulkhead to OE hardline)
- 2 clamps(one on hat fitting and the other on the hardline)
- 3/8th corrugated or smooth bore fuel hose to connect pump to barb on bulkhead
- replace fuel pump fuse with a 30a


^^ that set up at 58psi should be eight to run e85 on the 7psi you are pushing as well, it will have to run on a 58psi base pressure that has no boost reference since it's capped by the OE regulator in the hat.

Tuning side you can set the inferred fuel pressure tables to what ever your delta pressure is(preferred), which would be 51psi on 7psi of boost, or you can scale the MAF(meh, it works but can mess with other torque based logic)....choice is yours

[Witt]

Toss a single DW400 in the hat and call it a day, make sure you order it with the venturi fitting added(you have to request it).

Thanks for this info...I have a buddy with a little higher horsepower ecoboost and I think this might be a solution to a soon to be encountered fuel issue.

[Lidio Iacobelli]

Bill and guys,,, my two cents. At my shop we've started to tune and work with lots of 2011+ coyote cars on "e85" fuels the last few years... Its very common in the Detroit TRi-county area.
Some may agree or disagree with this,, but this is real world stuff I'm seeing and touching regularly -- On 5.0's that are seeing about 10-12psi of boost (mostly TVS's and Whipple's for me) we've taking the stock 5.0L fuel pumps and lines, with only the addition of a Boosta-pump device, and 100# injectors to about 675-725rwhp. Most of these have headers and Off-road pipes, and manual trans.
I keep the boost under about 11-12 so that the demand form the stock pump is lowered a bit (less air in the motor). And I run them at A/F ratios in the .82 lambda range. This has proving to be extremely reliable for countless 2011+ cars we do on e85 at this power level on stock motors, and as I said stock fuel pumps. I also tune them to command over 15.25 volts from the charging system too.. but due to the nature of all the electrical draws under WOT and severe load,, they only seem to sustain about 14v-14.3v or so at WOT,, which is very good though.

One thing we've caught on only a couple; is the older the car,, or the higher the mileage is on the original stock pump when switched to e85 fuels.. the more likely the pump will have a failure sooner,, but this could also be from the BAP device bumping the voltage up on them as well. One things for sure is the earlier in life its switched to this stuff,, the longer they seem to last.
I guess my point is that a stock fuel system on a 2011+ 5.0 (other then injectors) can handle a ton of power with a BAP on regular fuels. Around here when we shoot for really big power on them, we switch to e85 fuels as it give us the ability to make way more power and with greater engine safety and more knock protection. Even on less then 12-13psi of boost,, they gain a lot from e85 fuels.

Mentioning this because you threw out there your RWHP numbers;
I wanted to point out one more thing (this is probably gonna start a shit storm) I've always believed that for the most part the powertrain of a vehicle (transmission, drive-line, axles, etc) is pretty much a constant power or TQ draw/loss from the motor to the ground on a chassis Dyno. By this I mean that I don't believe in the fact that when you "Chassis Dyno" a vehicle that you loose 15% or 18% or what ever percent thru the drive line. I believe that its a fixed number depending on what you have.
For me (or my opining) this is the simplest way to explain it so everyone can understand it (some may already).... As an example in just simple numbers and terms,, I believe that most "manual transmission" rear drive cars like Mustangs and Camaro's (sorry, what I see a lot of),, eat up about roughly 40 to 60hp by the time it gets to the ground.
So in a very exaggerated way of saying this to make a point,,, why should the powertrain loss be any different for a lets say 4000-hp (Four thousand HP) motor then a lesser 400-hp motor? So if you take the same drive line that eats about ruffly 40-60hp on a 400-hp motor,,, then a 4000-hp motor should suffer only that same fixed loss? A 400-hp motor should only show about 350rwhp,,, and 4000-hp should show about 3950-rwhp with the same manual trans and etc. In my opining the drive-line loss is a constant if you don't change it,, not a percentage of loss from the motor. There is no way that the same trans that eats up or losses about 50-rwhp at about 15-18% (as most claim) or so will now eat up about 600hp (15%) behind a 4000hp motor. Just the way Iv'e been looking at this since I've used Chassis Dyno's the last 20+ years.


Thank you

[TimZ]

There is tubing you can change to make it a much better system. The stock feed is 5/16th for the first foot or so from the hat to the aluminum hard line, this is your first restriction. If you swap to a DW400 I would remove the 5/16 hard line and replace it with e85-safe hose then at the hat I would drill out the OE 5/16 quick connect male and replace it with a 6AN bulk head and run a 6AN line to the aluminum 3/8th hard line. This will let you keep the entire system from the pump to the rails 3/8ths.

total cost including the DW400 pump is going to sit around $300-350 depending on where you source your parts.

- DW400 pump
- AN6 bulkhead to 3/8 barb(barb will face pump)
- AN6 90* push lock fitting(too attach to bulkhead)
- AN6 e85-safe hose (connect bulkhead to OE hardline)
- 2 clamps(one on hat fitting and the other on the hardline)
- 3/8th corrugated or smooth bore fuel hose to connect pump to barb on bulkhead
- replace fuel pump fuse with a 30a


^^ that set up at 58psi should be eight to run e85 on the 7psi you are pushing as well, it will have to run on a 58psi base pressure that has no boost reference since it's capped by the OE regulator in the hat.

Tuning side you can set the inferred fuel pressure tables to what ever your delta pressure is(preferred), which would be 51psi on 7psi of boost, or you can scale the MAF(meh, it works but can mess with other torque based logic)....choice is yours

Hi - sorry to resurrect an old thread, but it was the newest relevant one I could find. I'm just getting started tuning a low boost turbo setup on my son's S197, and this is my first time playing with returnless fuel. Here's the setup:

On3 67mm twin turbo
1000cc injectors (supplied with test data and properly transferred to the tune)
JMS PowerMax V2 BAP
Stock Pump (so far)
Stock fuel lines
E85
SCT Advantage SW (I'm new to SCT tuning in general and didn't know about HP Tuners until it was too late - the forum support is light years better here)

We are noticing similar pressure drops as have been noted elsewhere in this thread - I've got the fuel rail instrumented, and I'm dropping down to around 42psi at 7000 rpm and 6psi boost. I've matched up the inferred fuel pressure tables to match what I'm seeing (plus boost pressure), and I've gotten it to the point where it will maintain ~.75 lambda all the way out to 7000rpm and 6psi boost, but it's clearly on the edge at this point - I'm relatively certain that it doesn't have much left.

We've run the JMS at 18V and at 22V, and get pretty much the same results, pressure drop-wise. Unfortunately, I only have the pressure measurement at the rail, and not at the tank, but looking at the size of the fuel lines (as noted above) I'm thinking that a good deal of this pressure drop is through the lines, and that the pump may be holding 58psi when the BAP kicks in. Next order of operations is I'm going to increase the fuel line size to minimize that drop - I can report back the results if anybody is interested. If that doesn't help I'm thinking next step is the DW400 drop-in pump with an AN6 or AN8 bulkhead fitting as noted above.

So now I have some questions...
First, while setting up the inferred fuel pressure tables, they are in terms of Fuel Pump Flow Rate vs. Pressure across the injectors. I made some calculations as to what I thought I'd need out to ~10psi for future headroom and decided to make the flow rate column go out to 12lb/min. After datalogging this numerous times I'm finding that the Fuel Flow Rate from the ECU is capped at 8.0 lb/min - it just flatlines there. I can't find anyplace in the tune where I can change the upper limit for this, and I assume that if I went to a larger pump I'd still run into this, as the ECU has no idea that something different is going on here. This forces me to have to fudge the Inferred FP table to just show worst case at 8lb/min. Anybody else seen this? Is there a way to change the max flow rate that the ECU infers?

If I change to the DW400 (or any other drop-in upgrade pump for that matter), am I still limited to 58 psi? I can't seem to find info on where the Pressure Relief Valve resides - is it in the pump, or external to the pump, where it could be bypassed/modified?

If it's external and could be bypassed, I'm assuming that the 58psi PRV is an over-pressure safety device and not the regulator (i.e., if I bypassed it and changed nothing else the nominal pressure would still be ~55psi). Is this assumption correct?

If it's built into the pump, I'm assuming that a drop-in like the DW400 would have a different PRV setting (the Deatchwerks website says the DW400 has in internal relief pressure of 120psi) - if so, does the nominal pressure remain at ~55psi, or is it higher? It seems like it should be higher since it's running open loop with no real feedback mechanism - maybe the Pump Low Speed PWM settings could be adjusted?

It would be _nice_ if the nominal pressure stayed at or near 55psi while in the "low speed" mode, but was allowed to go higher when it switches to the high flow setting. Can anybody offer any insight on this?

[small tuner]

Hi - sorry to resurrect an old thread, but it was the newest relevant one I could find. I'm just getting started tuning a low boost turbo setup on my son's S197, and this is my first time playing with returnless fuel. Here's the setup:

On3 67mm twin turbo
1000cc injectors (supplied with test data and properly transferred to the tune)
JMS PowerMax V2 BAP
Stock Pump (so far)
Stock fuel lines
E85
SCT Advantage SW (I'm new to SCT tuning in general and didn't know about HP Tuners until it was too late - the forum support is light years better here)

We are noticing similar pressure drops as have been noted elsewhere in this thread - I've got the fuel rail instrumented, and I'm dropping down to around 42psi at 7000 rpm and 6psi boost. I've matched up the inferred fuel pressure tables to match what I'm seeing (plus boost pressure), and I've gotten it to the point where it will maintain ~.75 lambda all the way out to 7000rpm and 6psi boost, but it's clearly on the edge at this point - I'm relatively certain that it doesn't have much left.

We've run the JMS at 18V and at 22V, and get pretty much the same results, pressure drop-wise. Unfortunately, I only have the pressure measurement at the rail, and not at the tank, but looking at the size of the fuel lines (as noted above) I'm thinking that a good deal of this pressure drop is through the lines, and that the pump may be holding 58psi when the BAP kicks in. Next order of operations is I'm going to increase the fuel line size to minimize that drop - I can report back the results if anybody is interested. If that doesn't help I'm thinking next step is the DW400 drop-in pump with an AN6 or AN8 bulkhead fitting as noted above.

So now I have some questions...
First, while setting up the inferred fuel pressure tables, they are in terms of Fuel Pump Flow Rate vs. Pressure across the injectors. I made some calculations as to what I thought I'd need out to ~10psi for future headroom and decided to make the flow rate column go out to 12lb/min. After datalogging this numerous times I'm finding that the Fuel Flow Rate from the ECU is capped at 8.0 lb/min - it just flatlines there. I can't find anyplace in the tune where I can change the upper limit for this, and I assume that if I went to a larger pump I'd still run into this, as the ECU has no idea that something different is going on here. This forces me to have to fudge the Inferred FP table to just show worst case at 8lb/min. Anybody else seen this? Is there a way to change the max flow rate that the ECU infers?

If I change to the DW400 (or any other drop-in upgrade pump for that matter), am I still limited to 58 psi? I can't seem to find info on where the Pressure Relief Valve resides - is it in the pump, or external to the pump, where it could be bypassed/modified?

If it's external and could be bypassed, I'm assuming that the 58psi PRV is an over-pressure safety device and not the regulator (i.e., if I bypassed it and changed nothing else the nominal pressure would still be ~55psi). Is this assumption correct?

If it's built into the pump, I'm assuming that a drop-in like the DW400 would have a different PRV setting (the Deatchwerks website says the DW400 has in internal relief pressure of 120psi) - if so, does the nominal pressure remain at ~55psi, or is it higher? It seems like it should be higher since it's running open loop with no real feedback mechanism - maybe the Pump Low Speed PWM settings could be adjusted?

It would be _nice_ if the nominal pressure stayed at or near 55psi while in the "low speed" mode, but was allowed to go higher when it switches to the high flow setting. Can anybody offer any insight on this?

JMS BAP can support upto 800whp keeping others stock on race fuel. my advice is start tune using roush fuel pressure setting and make sure you are using the correct fuel injectors data

[bbrooks98]

Quickest thing you can do to a 11-12 model to improve fuel flow is drill out the outlet on the hat. If you look at it it's probably .060 at best. Opening it up to match the 5/16 line alone should get it on part with the later pump hats which have supported over 725-750whp on e85 without too much trouble when ran at 17v.

[TimZ]

Quickest thing you can do to a 11-12 model to improve fuel flow is drill out the outlet on the hat. If you look at it it's probably .060 at best. Opening it up to match the 5/16 line alone should get it on part with the later pump hats which have supported over 725-750whp on e85 without too much trouble when ran at 17v.

Thanks - I was thinking about doing that, or I really like the idea of the AN6 bulkhead fitting. I was appalled when I saw that 5/16" outlet on the stock pump lol.

I'm also going to replace the entire feed line with 1/2" stainless and 8an in the engine bay - I've made fuel lines plenty of times before so this isn't too scary to me, plus there don't appear to be a ton of bends required anyway. Anything to get the pressure drop minimized should help. Hopefully if all the stuff shows up, this can be the weekend project.