#43470, "RE: Would you trust JB Weld to do this?" In response to In response to 9
Well there's a couple of things going on there. He says that he's using a rail from a 96+. Here's what he says about how they're tied in series "...I am using the test port on the primary rail as an outlet. The outlet of the primary rail leads into the test port of the secondary rail. You must use a tire valve tool to remove the shrader valve from the test port on each rail....". His 96+ rail have test ports located on the end(passenger side) of the rail, but mine doesn't. The test port on mine is on the top of the rail between injectors for cyl 1 and 2 - just like my 95 rail. But I know that it's not a 95 rail because there's no FPR or fuel return, just an inlet and test port. But none of that really matters because I wouldn't use the 5.5mm ID test port as an inlet OR outlet because it's too small.
Please check out http://www.stevetek.com/R-FuelSys.html . This guy Steve Wells did a study on the turbo model's fuel delivery system and discovered that it was inadequite for more than 450cc per cylinder. It's basically the same fuel delivery system as the non-turbo. The reason for the inadequicy has more to do with flow than it does with pressure. If you read that link you'll see what I mean. I'm upgrading the fuel delivery from the tank forward to use at least 3/8 inch fuel lines - like he did. I suppose I'd be a little less concerned about flow if I was only using 1 rail, but the secondary injectors route fuel from closer to the TOP of the rail(because the rail is kind of on an upside down angle). If I outflow the rail at any point - the secondaries will run dry more immediately than if they were right side up. I don't want to run the rail dry...and that's why I'm using 3/8 inch line from the tank to the primary rail - and 1/2 inch line from the primary to secondary rail.
