Jump to content

K2XX 5.3L Pic Request - Flex Fuel sensor mounted on the frame

crafferty

Recommended Posts

FishinJ Enthusiast

FishinJ

Posted
Posted

Are Non E85 vehicles equipped with fuel lines that can handle it or are they the different? I've seen boats that had fuel lines clog up from E10.

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Hockeylover86 Enthusiast

Hockeylover86

Posted
Posted

Are Non E85 vehicles equipped with fuel lines that can handle it or are they the different? I've seen boats that had fuel lines clog up from E10.

 

The fuel lines are probably ok, either coated steel, stainless, or multi-layer nylon.

Beatme Enthusiast

Beatme

Posted
Posted

Not great pics, but one is of the sensor mounted up with its lines going to it, and the other is of the line right in front of the fuel tank that i spliced in to. If you look closely you can see the second QD behind the first one.

 

[/url]">http://20151016_163108_zps5pdqq8mt.jpg

[/url]">http://http://s1175.photobucket.com/user/Sam_VanHorn/media/20151016_163132_zpso7ypvime.jpg.html'>20151016_163132_zpso7ypvime.jpg

crafferty Senior Enthusiast

crafferty

Posted
  • Author
Posted

image_zpsv0mvem2e.jpeg

Damn ipad2 is so slow after iOS8 it took forever to stop laggin, beat me above.

Thanks for the picture.

 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

iCryWheniGoPoop Enthusiast

iCryWheniGoPoop

Posted
Posted

Pace performance sells the kit to convert to flex fuel. I haven't called them yet to check and see if this is compatible with the 6.2. Anyway here is the link.

http://paceperformance.com/i-22373492-pac-13577429-e85-sensor-kit.html

I am particularly interested in the fittings with the quick connects to this sensor. They look like 3/8" or 1/2 male JIC to quick connect that would plug right up to the sensor. If I had those I could just buy some like sized female JIC to a ferrul lock fitting that I could just connect to the cut steal fuel lines and I would have this mod complete.

 

I'll call these guys and see if I can just get those fittings... Thanks.

 

 

Sent from Off Driller Side

erocktimus prime New Member

erocktimus prime

Posted
Posted

You'll be good to go. I did this mod as well, still working on the tuning aspect of it with BBP but plumbing the sensor in and hooking it up is a piece of cake! As far as the rest of the fuel system thing.....it's all identical between FFV or non FFV so no worries there!

I am under the impression the flex trucks have larger injectors due to the need for more flow when using ethanol. I could be wrong .

 

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

Beatme Enthusiast

Beatme

Posted
Posted

I am under the impression the flex trucks have larger injectors due to the need for more flow when using ethanol. I could be wrong .

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

I'm almost positive another member in here went to the parts counter and both he and the guy behind the counter started comparing part numbers between FFV and non FFV truck and all pumps, injectors, etc were the same part numbers.

raym0016 Enthusiast

raym0016

Posted
Posted

I'm almost positive another member in here went to the parts counter and both he and the guy behind the counter started comparing part numbers between FFV and non FFV truck and all pumps, injectors, etc were the same part numbers.

 

When you think about it, this makes complete sense. The difference in E85 vs non E85 trucks is $100.00. I assume that is to cover the cost of the sensor. The "upgraded" lines, injectors, ect. end up in all trucks because it is cheaper to just have one set of parts for all trucks.

Hockeylover86 Enthusiast

Hockeylover86

Posted
Posted

 

When you think about it, this makes complete sense. The difference in E85 vs non E85 trucks is $100.00. I assume that is to cover the cost of the sensor. The "upgraded" lines, injectors, ect. end up in all trucks because it is cheaper to just have one set of parts for all trucks.

 

It depends on how many non- FFV trucks would have the FFV rated components.

 

If the fuel pump alone costs $4 more for FFV internals - x 250,000 trucks, thats a million dollar cost save just hanging out there.

 

There is no way its cheaper...

raym0016 Enthusiast

raym0016

Posted
Posted

 

It depends on how many non- FFV trucks would have the FFV rated components.

 

If the fuel pump alone costs $4 more for FFV internals - x 250,000 trucks, thats a million dollar cost save just hanging out there.

 

There is no way its cheaper...

 

 

Maybe there is more to it than cost per part. Maybe some efficiencies are gained by having 1 set of parts across the entire line that make up the difference. Either way, if they could cut costs by putting "lesser" parts on non FFV trucks, they probably would, wouldn't they? It seems like parts made with FFV in mind are more robust than non FFV parts. Maybe GM is just putting the higher capability parts in all because these are 40-50K + trucks and we customers deserve more robust parts in these trucks. Perhaps that is why GM consistently has the most reliable, longest lasting trucks on the road?

Hockeylover86 Enthusiast

Hockeylover86

Posted
Posted

 

 

Maybe there is more to it than cost per part. Maybe some efficiencies are gained by having 1 set of parts across the entire line that make up the difference. Either way, if they could cut costs by putting "lesser" parts on non FFV trucks, they probably would, wouldn't they? It seems like parts made with FFV in mind are more robust than non FFV parts. Maybe GM is just putting the higher capability parts in all because these are 40-50K + trucks and we customers deserve more robust parts in these trucks. Perhaps that is why GM consistently has the most reliable, longest lasting trucks on the road?

 

No, the efficiency created by reduced part numbers would be greatly offset by the component costs. Its unnecessary expense and a waste of money from a business standpoint.

 

I have a lot of experience with automotive fuel systems and components and i can't think of any reason to use FFV rated materials in a system if the intention was only to certify it for E10.

Rawyzf Senior Enthusiast

Rawyzf

Posted
Posted

 

No, the efficiency created by reduced part numbers would be greatly offset by the component costs. Its unnecessary expense and a waste of money from a business standpoint.

 

I have a lot of experience with automotive fuel systems and components and i can't think of any reason to use FFV rated materials in a system if the intention was only to certify it for E10.

 

No offense, but you seem very dead set on the systems between FFV and Non FFV being different. Can you find some facts around this, other than thinking they just wouldn't do it?

raym0016 Enthusiast

raym0016

Posted
Posted

 

No offense, but you seem very dead set on the systems between FFV and Non FFV being different. Can you find some facts around this, other than thinking they just wouldn't do it?

 

Right, I think it was stated earlier in this thread that the part numbers for are identical for both systems. So at this point, unless proven otherwise, the reality is that they are all the same. There is only value in discussing "why" GM would do this and if it meant higher cost, I would bet they wouldn't. Therefore, the cost must be a wash.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Sugar Bears 2015 GMC Terrain SLE-2 2.4 AWD

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      286,740 Mile Services   8/6/2026   New AC Compressor. Refrigerant oil and dye, evacuate and charge system.  New exhaust system from cat back.  New Iridium plugs plus replace #3 coil Repair/rewire headlamp wiring (passenger side) and replace all forward bulbs. Polish lenses of both assemblies.  Pull rear rotors, clean and adjust parking assembly. Inspect, clean and grease front calipers. Check pads and shoes.  4 wheel power bleed of brake system. Dot 4 Reset idle speed 50 rpm higher New Serpentine belt.    Will need new pads in the rear in about 5K more miles.    Tax Title and License out the door just short of a grand.    AC clutch had bitten the dust. 1 year warranty on the pick and save replacement. Thing will make a Polar Bear cry Uncle.  He spent quite some time on the wiring. It was in the harness and he does nothing half. I got off cheap. I have considerable more light down the road. Sylvania Silver Star replacements.  Gas seal between the porcelain and shell of plug #3 was blown, cooked the coil. That was the cold miss.  Love the new exhaust. I can sneak into the neighborhood again.  Nice to have a working parking brake again. Belle Tire never got it done. That was disappointing.    This was one of her bigger bills and still way cheaper than a payment even given the oil consumption. This thing cost me under a hundred a month in repairs and normal routine costs. What is my incentive to replace it? 🤔           
    • AidenVorpagel
      cam upgrade in CA

      By AidenVorpagel · Posted

      hello I recently bought a 2012 gmc 1500 with a 5.3 and have a AFM disabler on it I'm interested in doing a cam but I'm worried if I remove the AFM system I will fail smog does anyone have info if they are able to detect that or a work around to it (not talking about hot smogging) please let me know thank you  
    • B14Sierra
      Noise after AFM delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Did you figure it out?
    • B14Sierra
      Possible lifter tick after DOD delete

      By B14Sierra · Posted

      Update. I started chasing down my symptoms. Started first with pulling valve covers and looked at everything. Everything looked good and couldn't hear or feel anything different. Then a compression test. 240 psi or really close on each cylinder. I was worried I was a tooth off of timing. Not bad for an engine with 173,000. Granted I did put new heads on. I sprayed water around the injector area to see if I could hear a change. Nothing. I hooked up my new hp tuner which I should have done in the first place but I don't really know what I'm looking at just yet but am learning. I noticed the fuel trims were way off so that told me I have to have either a bad injector or exhaust leak. New injectors, so I did the shop vac on blower and in the tail pipe. Sprayed soapy water and found the exhaust flange on the drivers side was leaking. I didn't think it would be that considereding I pulled the heads and left the manifolds attached. I did have the transmission replaced not long ago. They must have not seated them properly but I guess I didn't notice. I put in new gaskets on both sides. Which by the way isn't a bad job but I had a hard time getting them to seal right. Took two attempts. Reset the fuel trims and the ticking is gone, engine runs smooth and acceleration has improved. Got to feel the real difference with that stage 1 cam. It's not that big of a difference but it does add a little more. It feels like how the truck should have been from the factory.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...