dlaing Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 How is this for an idea? Move the Pressure Regulator to where the Level Sensor is, and then add a second Petcock where the Pressure Regulator was. The questions are, will the fittings intermingle, and will you remember to buy fuel before the Fuel Level Light fails to come on because you removed the idiot light? EDIT the level sensor hole is larger and the spacing of the bolts is greater for the level sensor. So my idea won't work without re-fabrication But please read the thread as there are other good ideas ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy york Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 looks to simple to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Stewart Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 I have been thinking of this mainly for my Jackal project. Same concerns about not having a low fuel light but I only have to fuel tank fittings available. I would use a mechanical petcock on each side of the tank (this way you will have a petcock that could operate a reserve side), you tee the two petcocks together to form your fuel feed to the fuel pump. Ok, now you modifie your pressure regulator so that a hose will work on the return side. This hose would also go to the tee that was used to connect the two sides of the tank together. Sound crazy, yes, but I have talked to many who add electronic fuel injection to cars and it is common to use the fuel feed as a return too. By having one petcock closed, you will have a reserve on one side of the tank (as long as you run the fuel return as above). You can just keep both petcocks open and use the fuel level sensor in the stock position and everythink should be fine. Now you just need room for all the plumbing Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 Mike, I like the idea of the petcock on one side as a reserve. I thought having the return go back into the fuel line was a bad idea at first, but the reasons against it don't seem be real problems. 1)it would back flow the petcock's pre-filter (maybe a good thing) 2)it might recycle more engine heated gas, increasing the risk of vapor lock. This is just a fear. I suspect fuel temperature may be a little warmer, but everytime the regulator is in pressure release mode, warmed fuel will flow into the tank cooling it down (assuming the tank is cooler than the hoses, filter, and pump, as has been proven in previous threads(please don't turn this into a global warming thread) 3)it might increase the risk of cavitation or decrease the ability to clear air after fuel filter changes and after running out of gas.(perhaps the hoses would be routed so the air would flow up and out and again, durring the regulator's pressure release mode, fuel and any air would flow to the tank anyway.) Does the Jackal not have a fuel level sensor? Or is the purpose of hanging the regulator on hoses, so you may keep the fuel level sensor? PS the idea I posted is for the earlier Guzzis, I don't think it will work with newer models with pump in tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callison Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Since this is right in my neck of the woods, I'll look into it and see what I cn find out. Fuel Plus II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Stewart Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 The fuel tank I am going to use on my Jackal project only has two fittings. So, no room for a fuel tank sensor. Could have a fitting welded on but, I will just use the older style petcock setup. The Jackal fuel system is quite different than the V11 Sport. Where as the V11 Sport has two fuel hose fittings per injector, the Jackal only has one. The V11 Sport also puts the regulator after the injectors and on the Jackal the regulator is teed into the fuel filter exit. You would think the Jackal would be the one with the fuel vapor lock problem, not the V11 Sport This is an experiment, but I think it should work out fine. Air in the fuel system should bleed out fairly quick so I don't think it will be a problem. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Stewart Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 What happened to the days of taking off the fuel cap and sloshing the fuel in the tank to see how much you had left Carl, you take the fun out of trying to figure out the Guzzi fuel injection system Mike Since this is right in my neck of the woods, I'll look into it and see what I cn find out.Fuel Plus II 87807[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callison Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 What happened to the days of taking off the fuel cap and sloshing the fuel in the tank to see how much you had left Carl, you take the fun out of trying to figure out the Guzzi fuel injection system Mike 87810[/snapback] Sloshing the tank went out about the time the locking gas cap came in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 Carl, you take the fun out of trying to figure out the Guzzi fuel injection system Mike 87810[/snapback] Says Mike lugging the leaking can full of fuel down the road back to his vapor locked bike that he thought ran out of fuel (like I should talk, having run out of fuel twice on my V11, and yes it took near exactly 5 US gallons to refill to bottom of filler neck.(which is why I would like to get access to that last near gallon) luckily the last time, I was only a few hundred yards down hill to the gas station, the other time I had to call my mommy as nobody would stop to give me a lift, standing with thumb out, helmet under arm and dead bike by side of road(damn Jap and Yank bikilists@#%!), Harley girl in pickup loaned me phone but would not let my scary mug into her cab....maybe it was the drool that scared her off or my views on global warming (see hooters thread)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O2 V11 Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 I've posted before on this one. My 2002 Naked uses all the gas in the tank so I wonder if there were any changes made post 2001? dlaing has run out of fuel twice and put in near enough to 19 litres both times. I have never run out of fuel, and have filled the tank with 21.67 litres. This time the slosh test failed there was nothing left, another 100 metres I would have been pushing. I'm double anal, if that's possible with fuel usage, so far in 7184 miles my average consumption is 38.99 mpg and 32.48 US mpg. In there is a high of 45.16 / 37.62 mpg and a low of 26.9 / 22.41 mpg. My high fuel usage relates directly to tyre wear and enjoyment factor. My last rear tyre a Continental Contiforce was knackered in a couple of miles short of 3,000. This is a but a small price to pay for the privilege of being able to ride such an outstandingly enjoyable motorcycle as we do. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangeokie Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Since this is right in my neck of the woods, I'll look into it and see what I cn find out.Fuel Plus II 87807[/snapback] This looks like somethiing I would be interested in. Let us know what you find out Carl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted May 1, 2006 Author Share Posted May 1, 2006 My 2002 Naked uses all the gas in the tank so I wonder if there were any changes made post 2001? 87826[/snapback] Does yours have the pump in tank? I believe the US models put the pump in the tank beginning 2003 But the US is behind on stuff like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O2 V11 Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Does yours have the pump in tank?I believe the US models put the pump in the tank beginning 2003 But the US is behind on stuff like that. 87868[/snapback] No, mine is one of the many 2002, sold as 2003 model bikes wholesaled by OC and their cronies in late 2003 and early 2004. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callison Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Sometimes it's nice to have a lot of junk parts... I just went out to my garage on a notion. The spine frames all have a couple of spots on the spine where large banjo bolts are use for fuel vapor returns, vents etc. I was wondering if that banjo bolt could be fitted underneath the fuel pressure regulator to allow access to the remaining fuel. In a word, no. The fuel pressure regulator doesn't have a long enough threaded portion to allow the inclusion of the rather great size of that banjo bolt. A thinner one might work, but it would have to be a custom piece. The fuel petcock - manual or electric - have the same problem. The fuel level sensor would work with a spacer to insure concentricity. The left side of the tank isn't where we would need the plumbing so that isn't useful information beyond the fact that it may be possible. This information might be useful in a different plumbing scheme. The Californias use an inline pressure regultor with a return line to the tank. That kind of regulator could be plumbed to the right side of the tank along with a fitting to pass over fuel to the left side. Another possible alternative would be to do away with the fuel level sensor, and plumb across as mentioned by Dave at the start of this thread. It really looks as if the petcock and the pressure regulator would be an interference fit though. If I knew where my spare V11 tank was out in the shed, I could find out which fittings can interchange where. One of these days I'm going to do that. Really. Maybe. (Edited late this evening. You know, I would've thought that I was typing all of this stuff correctly, but I keep finding mis-spellings because my eyes are not working well after two cataract surgeries. Apparently I can spell but cannot type.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted May 1, 2006 Author Share Posted May 1, 2006 One of these days I'm going to do that. Really. Maybe. 87888[/snapback] If I did not have $20 worth of fuel in the tank right now, I would be all over it, really, maybe, uh next year. I guess I could siphon off into my car's fuel tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now