I.e. one single sending line before the fuel rail, then it splits into two separate lines which goes to each fuel rail, then it consolidates back into one line before going into the FPR?

Basically having each rail in paralell instead of serial? Any pro's and cons?

The pro I see is that each fuel rail keeps more constant fuel pressure versus one long "fuel rail".

Thnx.
_________________
Vinnie Lima
vinnie.lima@jvllogistics.com
AIM: Kiku888
1997 Chrysler Sebring "Silver XTC"
I4 420a w/ HRC Stage 2.45 w/ FMIC
14.7@97 mph@6psi
Proud member of the
ASOG BoOsT JuNkIe Crew

That Is what I plan on doing , I already bought the block. It is also what many who plan to do the set up or "update" their current set up plan on doing.
Its just a bit better that way.

Member # 751


FOUNDER of the Central Cali chapter of 2GNT!
(I got kicked out after I refused to go Cow tiping) - Hehehe you know who this is for

If you are using the FPR on Corbin's page it is a dual inlet so you won't need to merge them back together before the FPR. This is what I planned to do but just ran series because it was cheaper.

Its all good Vinne. I thought about doing it that way, but decided against it because I wanted both my filter and FPR on one side(passenger) using short braided lines. But yeah thats a good way


95 Eclipse RS : 5 speed
Jeep TB writeup - http://www.dimensia.com:81/jimbo/JeepTBfor2gnt.html

Yep, no reason why you can't run them in parallel. Serial just makes the fuel line routing cleaner. I believe that parallel would be slightly better on a really high power application. But, I doubt it would make a difference on most applications.

Corbin

'95 ESI-T
HRC+FMIC+ETC...



Gimme fuel...Gimme fire...Gimme that which I desire