Joined
·
5 Posts
what's a fuel crossover
fuel crossover
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Joined
·
1,736 Posts
03-07 Ford 6.0L Powerstroke Diesel Stainless Fuel Crossover Line Kit
The best fuel system that we can design is our Stage II fuel system. That system is designed for none regulated fuel pumps. Many aftermarket fuel pumps are regulated. As such, the Stage II kit not needed. We have created a Crossover Line kit to help equalize the fuel pressure between the two cylind
puredieselpower.com
I don't know many people that run one of these, or if it is even needed.
I run the ADII and a simple home made RR and it has proven to be reliable and my motor has never idled smoother @ 62psi
Joined
·
2 Posts
Late to the party but how did you do a homemade RR? I’ve been thinking about buying one but definitely would opt for making one if it's generally reliable and not too terribly labor intensive03-07 Ford 6.0L Powerstroke Diesel Stainless Fuel Crossover Line Kit
The best fuel system that we can design is our Stage II fuel system. That system is designed for none regulated fuel pumps. Many aftermarket fuel pumps are regulated. As such, the Stage II kit not needed. We have created a Crossover Line kit to help equalize the fuel pressure between the two cylind
I don't know many people that run one of these, or if it is even needed.
I run the ADII and a simple home made RR and it has proven to be reliable and my motor has never idled smoother @ 62psi
My opinion in the past has been pretty solidly in the camp that the aftermarket return regulated fuel system (from the fuel plugs in the back of the heads) is not needed in the least - not for stock or even moderately tuned engines. The aftermarket systems are added complexity that have caused some people problems. The stock design is a return regulated system, it just happens before the heads instead of after. The fuel path in the heads is large enough that there is VERY little pressure drop in them when fuel flows to the back cylinders.
After talking with a friend about it, we started discussing how to cool the heads better. The return regulated topic came back up. Interesting thought - increasing the cooling of the heads with this RR fuel system. I still like the idea of drilling and tapping the back of the heads for installing coolant return lines (larger fluid flow rate), but the fuel would be at a lower inlet temperature and help some. Could be that the cooling aspect of a RR system is worth considering. Too lazy to make any attempt at calculations, just thinking out loud.
After talking with a friend about it, we started discussing how to cool the heads better. The return regulated topic came back up. Interesting thought - increasing the cooling of the heads with this RR fuel system. I still like the idea of drilling and tapping the back of the heads for installing coolant return lines (larger fluid flow rate), but the fuel would be at a lower inlet temperature and help some. Could be that the cooling aspect of a RR system is worth considering. Too lazy to make any attempt at calculations, just thinking out loud.
Joined
·
5,048 Posts
No intention of ever flowing fuel through the heads.
Installed coolant return lines from the back of the heads when I did the rebuild.
Installed coolant return lines from the back of the heads when I did the rebuild.
I think my preference would be an orifice in the rear head fittings , rather than an added regulator
there would be a problem getting the regulator on the filter and the added regulator to play nice together
An orifice would flow a little fuel back to the return, providing some cooling, while adding a path for any air that was trapped in the fuel rail, due to leaking injectors
Say a 0.020 or 0.030 size orifice in the return
there would be a problem getting the regulator on the filter and the added regulator to play nice together
An orifice would flow a little fuel back to the return, providing some cooling, while adding a path for any air that was trapped in the fuel rail, due to leaking injectors
Say a 0.020 or 0.030 size orifice in the return
Joined
·
1,736 Posts
The ADII made it easy for regulation of pressure. It is funny how the ford community works. Early on it was RR or you risk destroying the rear injectors! You need to remove the one way valve in the banjos! Install the 6.4 banjos they flow better!
Now it's like......well we aren't sure that was the best thing 🤣
I am no engineer, but I will say this....my truck has NEVER idled smoother until I installed the RR before and after the ADII install. The RR allowed me to dial in the fuel pressure perfect and make her purr.
On another note, if the RR wasn't a benefit then WHY does WDI absolutely demand a RR be installed with 175/30's and up in order for warranty not to be voided?😉
Just sayin'
Joe
Now it's like......well we aren't sure that was the best thing 🤣
I am no engineer, but I will say this....my truck has NEVER idled smoother until I installed the RR before and after the ADII install. The RR allowed me to dial in the fuel pressure perfect and make her purr.
On another note, if the RR wasn't a benefit then WHY does WDI absolutely demand a RR be installed with 175/30's and up in order for warranty not to be voided?😉
Just sayin'
Joe
Joined
·
5,048 Posts
I'd ask them if they ever put $6,000 pressure sensors at the back of the heads and recorded the data with a $30,000 data acquisition setup to see if there was a difference and what the pressure traces showed. (2002 prices).
The specific heat of diesel fuel is under .5, lower than the coolant/water mix, and if you are running the stock HFCM, pumps about a quart of diesel through each head per minute. So you'd get cooler fuel, but I doubt the heads would see anything significant.
The data I collected was from a 7.3L, but the 6.0L is not that much different. Still uses HEUI; it still has fuel rails.
The specific heat of diesel fuel is under .5, lower than the coolant/water mix, and if you are running the stock HFCM, pumps about a quart of diesel through each head per minute. So you'd get cooler fuel, but I doubt the heads would see anything significant.
The data I collected was from a 7.3L, but the 6.0L is not that much different. Still uses HEUI; it still has fuel rails.
The point of a return regulated system is TYPICALLY for higher horsepower and when a significantly larger fuel pump is installed. Stock systems aren't part of the thought process the way I look at it.
Not that I particularly want to get into the details, as I said I am choosing to be too lazy to do so, but if excess coolant flow is taken through the heads to a back port that is added, then the question should be - what does that do to the flow of coolant through other areas of the engine. Water pump flow is a relatively fixed component. That said, if my heads were off, I would have the ports installed.
Anyway, WDI may have their preference, but they are the ones that also hate Rotella T6 oil. I take what they have to say with a grain of salt.
Not that I particularly want to get into the details, as I said I am choosing to be too lazy to do so, but if excess coolant flow is taken through the heads to a back port that is added, then the question should be - what does that do to the flow of coolant through other areas of the engine. Water pump flow is a relatively fixed component. That said, if my heads were off, I would have the ports installed.
Anyway, WDI may have their preference, but they are the ones that also hate Rotella T6 oil. I take what they have to say with a grain of salt.
Joined
·
5,048 Posts
LOL, I know why/when the RR is often recommended. The 6.0L fuel rails are about 10mm in diameter. The lines to it are the restriction and the fittings the most.
For the 6.4L, INT altered the water pump, added restrictions to the front of the block, and greatly increased the size of the orifices of the 6.4L gaskets, so that is a major change in total. Plus, the head's water jackets are different.
The 6.0L diversion kits still have restrictions within the fittings, no matter the hose size. But the modification will still divert some of the flow through the heads, slowing the flow-through rate. Much depends on when or if the engineers considered nucleate boiling as part of the strategy.
I chose to minimize the flow out of the back of the heads, to not alter much of the coolant flow through the heads.
I agree, and there is no way for us to really determine that unless we had the resources of a cooling engineer working on the engine. One argument is it provides more coolant to flow up through the gasket orifices, which I don't see as a major point due to the size of the orifices. Some say it slows the flow rate, so the coolant has more time to accept the heat transfer, which I find to be a poor understanding.
For the 6.4L, INT altered the water pump, added restrictions to the front of the block, and greatly increased the size of the orifices of the 6.4L gaskets, so that is a major change in total. Plus, the head's water jackets are different.
The 6.0L diversion kits still have restrictions within the fittings, no matter the hose size. But the modification will still divert some of the flow through the heads, slowing the flow-through rate. Much depends on when or if the engineers considered nucleate boiling as part of the strategy.
I chose to minimize the flow out of the back of the heads, to not alter much of the coolant flow through the heads.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
