Jump to content

Fuel lines - go original or uprated?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, R2D2 said:

Shirish, I would interested in using yours to get a quote from Pirtek, would be helpful for other 3.2 users on here. Nathan

Lemme see what I have - I’ve not looked in “M O T R O N I C” box for some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was having an email discussion with Chris at FLM on this and sent what turned out to be the wrong illustration from PET.  He passed the test by noticing this and responded as below. Is the 3.2 the same in that the tunnel lines are steel?  If so it sim0lifies th8ngs a little as we only need the engine bay and fuel pump end pipes.

Ian,

 

I you look carefully at your PET drawing (201-10) you will see that it covers the Turbo Model and I would agree that these are flexible lines.

 

If you look at 201-05 this drawing states an SC Model and the lines appear to be steel and the 180 degree swivel nut fittings isn’t used on Item 4 on this alternative drawing.

 

Sadly it appears to be a complete ‘bugger’s muddle’.

 

We currently have 1 x 1978 car and 1 x 79 car in the unit and have discovered the following:

 

The 78 Car – which may be a Carrera 3 but fitted with an SC Motor has the flexible lines in the engine bay as per 201-10. The lines we have appear in good condition but the car had been stored for many years.

 

The 1979 car has steel lines in the engine bay but the short flexible line Item 4 on 201-05 is different in appearance and has the 180 degree swivel nut fitting.

 

I am not too sure that there is a great deal of consistency and when we drop back to  2.7 litre cars it may be even worse.

 

If it is the engine bay pipes that are worst affected it must be a combination of chemistry and temperature and  I will try to learn if ‘percolation’ rates are influenced by temperature.

 

As percolation is possibly  a diffusion type reaction it is probably governed by an Arrenhius Equation which will be exponential  with respect to temperature.

 

The hose with the lowest percolation is an ‘R14’ type but hose with this designation only seems to have a pressure rating of around 3.5 bar which I don’t think is adequate.

 

Interesting set of challenges J

 

Regards

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My SC injector lines are metal.  The ones I am looking to replace (purely pre-cautionary as they look absolutely fine) are the ones going into the accumulator, from the filter and into the fuel head and the returns. This is the contents of a basket I assembled on D911:

Fuel hose. Porsche 911 SC 1980-83 Code: 91135608901 - £114.71

Fuel hose. Porsche 911 SC 1980-83 Code: 91135608701 - £171.99
 
Fuel line. Porsche 911 81-89 Code: 91135609102 - £69.13
 
Fuel line. Porsche 911 SC 81-83 Code: 93011049800- £136.59
 
FUEL LINE  06 Code: 93011051400£56.10
 
Total: 548.52 + 109.71 = £658.23
 
Presume they are Porsche parts. Don’t know if they are Ethanol safe. 
 
The usa USA source seems like quite good value for modern hand made stuff; but a bit concerned about that too - factory stuff sounds safer. 
 
Lets see what Chris turns up. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good response.

Looking at PET for SC's and 3.2, my reading of PET gives the following for the tunnel pipes:

FLOW 

SC -79 and Turbo: 911 356 066 07

SC 80- and 3.2: 911 356 066 08

RETURN

SC -79 and Turbo: 911 356 062 07

SC 80- and 3.2: 911 356 062 08

I don't have PET for earlier IB's

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, R2D2 said:

Good response.

Looking at PET for SC's and 3.2, my reading of PET gives the following for the tunnel pipes:

FLOW 

SC -79 and Turbo: 911 356 066 07

SC 80- and 3.2: 911 356 066 08

RETURN

SC -79 and Turbo: 911 356 062 07

SC 80- and 3.2: 911 356 062 08

I don't have PET for earlier IB's

 

Aren’t saying though that we don’t need tunnel pipes as they are steel ? Or are they plastic on the 3.2 only?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ian Comerford said:

I was having an email discussion with Chris at FLM on this and sent what turned out to be the wrong illustration from PET.  He passed the test by noticing this and responded as below. Is the 3.2 the same in that the tunnel lines are steel?  If so it sim0lifies th8ngs a little as we only need the engine bay and fuel pump end pipes.

Ian,

 

I you look carefully at your PET drawing (201-10) you will see that it covers the Turbo Model and I would agree that these are flexible lines.

 

If you look at 201-05 this drawing states an SC Model and the lines appear to be steel and the 180 degree swivel nut fittings isn’t used on Item 4 on this alternative drawing.

 

Sadly it appears to be a complete ‘bugger’s muddle’.

 

We currently have 1 x 1978 car and 1 x 79 car in the unit and have discovered the following:

 

The 78 Car – which may be a Carrera 3 but fitted with an SC Motor has the flexible lines in the engine bay as per 201-10. The lines we have appear in good condition but the car had been stored for many years.

 

The 1979 car has steel lines in the engine bay but the short flexible line Item 4 on 201-05 is different in appearance and has the 180 degree swivel nut fitting.

 

I am not too sure that there is a great deal of consistency and when we drop back to  2.7 litre cars it may be even worse.

 

If it is the engine bay pipes that are worst affected it must be a combination of chemistry and temperature and  I will try to learn if ‘percolation’ rates are influenced by temperature.

 

As percolation is possibly  a diffusion type reaction it is probably governed by an Arrenhius Equation which will be exponential  with respect to temperature.

 

The hose with the lowest percolation is an ‘R14’ type but hose with this designation only seems to have a pressure rating of around 3.5 bar which I don’t think is adequate.

 

Interesting set of challenges J

 

Regards

 

Chris

Carrera 3 (1977 not 1978!) have the rubber hose lines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Northy said:

My SC injector lines are metal.  The ones I am looking to replace (purely pre-cautionary as they look absolutely fine) are the ones going into the accumulator, from the filter and into the fuel head and the returns. This is the contents of a basket I assembled on D911:

Fuel hose. Porsche 911 SC 1980-83 Code: 91135608901 - £114.71

Fuel hose. Porsche 911 SC 1980-83 Code: 91135608701 - £171.99
 
Fuel line. Porsche 911 81-89 Code: 91135609102 - £69.13
 
Fuel line. Porsche 911 SC 81-83 Code: 93011049800- £136.59
 
FUEL LINE  06 Code: 93011051400£56.10
 
Total: 548.52 + 109.71 = £658.23
 
Presume they are Porsche parts. Don’t know if they are Ethanol safe. 
 
The usa USA source seems like quite good value for modern hand made stuff; but a bit concerned about that too - factory stuff sounds safer. 
 
Lets see what Chris turns up. 

Thanks Lewis.  I will compare your detail with that for my 79 SC and then share with Chris.  It would be good to arrive at a single source of the truth....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmnnn Having a good look at mine I found this on the line from the bottom of the accumulator onto the return line.  

3894856D-9971-4A7A-8507-BD56708802E5.thumb.jpeg.678f227ffa97cb523c72c35cb52b3b34.jpeg

I don’t like the look of that crease at all. 

Thats going to be a barsteward to change with the engine in too as it runs all around the back to the fuel distributor head. 

I’m just waiting on confirmation back from Bosch automotive on a couple of things, but so far they are saying the pressure rating of the standard pump and the 044 are both the same at 5 bar.  

So right now I’m inclined to replace with factory lines.  

What do you guys think? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Northy said:

Hmmnnn Having a good look at mine I found this on the line from the bottom of the accumulator onto the return line.  

3894856D-9971-4A7A-8507-BD56708802E5.thumb.jpeg.678f227ffa97cb523c72c35cb52b3b34.jpeg

I don’t like the look of that crease at all. 

Thats going to be a barsteward to change with the engine in too as it runs all around the back to the fuel distributor head. 

I’m just waiting on confirmation back from Bosch automotive on a couple of things, but so far they are saying the pressure rating of the standard pump and the 044 are both the same at 5 bar.  

So right now I’m inclined to replace with factory lines.  

What do you guys think? 

Check the information you get back from Bosch. Stock efi fuel pumps are rated at 5 or 9 bar but this is a pressure value at a given flow. Ask for the limiting valve pressure for the 044 pump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Leicestershire

I've asked the specific question to Bosch, but I think this is the right datasheet for the stock pump, which is a FP165 - the specific part number isn't shown, but it is shown on other charts as the same spec. It also does flow 165 l/h - like this. 

http://www.bosch-motorsport.de/content/downloads/Raceparts/Resources/pdf/Data sheet_67880203_Fuel_Pump_FP_165.pdf 

That says: Pressure limiting valve 7 to 12.5 bar rel. 

The Bosch 044 is an FP200 : http://www.bosch-motorsport.de/content/downloads/Raceparts/Resources/pdf/Data sheet_67896971_Fuel_Pump_FP_200.pdf

That says the pressure limiting valve is 10 to 12.5 bar rel.

This is where I found that lot: http://www.bosch-motorsport.de/content/downloads/Raceparts/en-GB/109950603.html

I'm not sure what the implications are on the pressure limiting valve in the fuel pumps - any ideas? I'm not sure what the rel. means (presume relative, but not sure what it's it's relative to!)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SP72 said:

It seems Len (BoxsterGT) is still doing replacements (unsure if he does the underbody lines)

 http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/1026134-gas-smell.html#post10494314

The same Len (Cummings) is mentioned in this longish thread which suggests that the tunnel lines are also problematic.  Worth a read. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/792001-okay-so-i-am-going-replace-my-main-tunnel-fuel-lines-tomorrow-any-suggestions.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Type911 said:

Interesting, but they say 77-89 and I thought we had concluded there were differences within these years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...