Jump to content

Flex Fuel Conversion

Stonehenge

By Stonehenge
in Engines & Drivetrain

 Share

Recommended Posts

JONBLARC7 Enthusiast

JONBLARC7

Posted
Posted

Confirmed at lunch that the line was causing a restriction.  I removed it and just plug the fuel lines back into there stock spot and my fuel trims went back to the way it was before.

 

I'm going to go with the DXS fitting that is straight instead.  I never had a restriction with the Russell fitting that where straight.  So I'm going to go back to something like that.  

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

SinisterZ71
SinisterZ71

I've got a 2018 Silverado K1500 extended cab short bed that did NOT come with the flex fuel option.   I ordered a Continental brand flex fuel sensor p/n: 13577429 and Flex Fuel Sensor Rear l

CamGTP
CamGTP

Yes, the sensor and a tune will allow you to run E85.   Once everything in the computer is enabled it will work as if it came that way from the factory.   I'm currently running som

Mike GMC
Mike GMC

Besides the fuel sensor, what comes in the "kit"?  Why not just buy GM OEM parts?  They seem to work pretty well.

Posted Images

SinisterZ71 Enthusiast

SinisterZ71

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, JONBLARC7 said:

Have you logged you fuel trims after adding this fuel line.  After my Russell fittings failed I decided to use this line.  But I didn't from memory remember you flipped the fitting coming from the tank.  So my sensor it hanging out over the drive shaft.  But it shouldn't flow much different than how you have it set up.

 

I've been dialing in my spark since I already had my MAF and VE fueling dialed in pretty good.

 

After the only thing I did to the truck last night was I added that fuel line.  Now under WOT my fuel trims read much leaner.  At idol and cruising it's fine but I think it's causing a bottle neck at WOT.  My MAF error went from -1 to -2 to 8 to 10 and the wideband confirms it.  I'm usually around .86 lambda and before I noticed it was lean I was at .95.  Not good for WOT

 

I'm going to go out and take it off a log again and see if it goes back to the way it was be for.   

No, I haven't logged my fuel trims.  But this fuel line is the factory part for flex fuel trucks - if it is causing a bottleneck to fuel flow at WOT, wouldn't it do so on all factory flex fuel trucks equipped with this same fuel line???

  • Like 1
JONBLARC7 Enthusiast

JONBLARC7

Posted
Posted

You could be 100% right.  Because like I said the way I bent the line wasn’t quite like yours.  I didn’t realize you spun the line from the tank around 180 degrees.

 

just wanted to let you know.  Mine was being pinched or blocked somewhere.

SinisterZ71 Enthusiast

SinisterZ71

Posted
Posted
On 6/5/2020 at 9:45 PM, JONBLARC7 said:

You could be 100% right.  Because like I said the way I bent the line wasn’t quite like yours.  I didn’t realize you spun the line from the tank around 180 degrees.

 

just wanted to let you know.  Mine was being pinched or blocked somewhere.

I might have some time to do some datalogging on my truck later today, if I do, I'll get back to you with my findings.

 

Please let us know what you come up with on your suspected fuel line kink issue.

JONBLARC7 Enthusiast

JONBLARC7

Posted
Posted

Here is how I had the line bent.  If it’s not the new fuel line I guess I could of been punching the flexible fuel line coming off the fuel tank.  But don’t believe that’s it.  If you logs come back fine.  I’ll dig into it deeper.

FC0EF821-7912-4380-AE65-BA8C67C4F4EB.jpeg

SinisterZ71 Enthusiast

SinisterZ71

Posted
Posted (edited)

I recorded a log yesterday.  Flex fuel sensor was reporting 72.5% ethanol in fuel content, ambient (outside) air temp was 91 deg F.  WOT narrow band o2 voltage was 868mv on B1S1 and 880mv on B2S1 (plenty rich).  STFT on both banks was 0% at WOT and LTFT on B1 was -7.8% while LTFT on B2 was -9.4%.  So it wasn't running lean at WOT in my case.  If anything, the tune could stand to have a little fuel pulled out to correct for the negative fuel trim numbers.

Edited by SinisterZ71
  • Like 1
JONBLARC7 Enthusiast

JONBLARC7

Posted
Posted

Thanks 

 

I was thinking about it last night and maybe one of the clips on the top of the fuel tank that hold the soft line in place was pinching that line.  I'll hook it up again and spin the soft fuel line around like you have it and log again.

  • 2 weeks later...
M H Enthusiast

M H

Posted
Posted (edited)

edit***This line makes the sensor have to be directly above the driveshaft.  I used plastic to to make a mount/shelf, I'll change the line orientation later, don't recommend this though***edit

 

https://www.rockauto.com/en/moreinfo.php?pk=10359092&jsn=14898

 

Hey CC guys, I found this.  Same line but straight, and few cents cheaper.  :)

AC Delco part #20967834

Edited by M H
  • Thanks 1
  • 1 month later...
JONBLARC7 Enthusiast

JONBLARC7

Posted
Posted

I tired the line post earlier again but I spun around the top fitting so the tank line came in from the drivers side door.

 

Something must be pinched or it shrunk when I heated it up to straighten it out.  With the line added it makes my WOT go lean.  Around .91 to .93 lambda,  Then I can come right back home take the line off and go for a log again and it goes right back to where it should be around .87 lambda.

 

This is all checked with my wideband.  So be careful. 

 

The Russell fitting didn't have this problem but they failed on my after two years.  So I'm going to go back to that style and just use the more expensive DSX fitting. 

 

 

You can't go by your STFT or LTFT because it doesn't reference those during WOT pulls.  That's why the STFT go to 0% as soon as the truck goes into PE. 

SinisterZ71 Enthusiast

SinisterZ71

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, JONBLARC7 said:

 

 

You can't go by your STFT or LTFT because it doesn't reference those during WOT pulls.  That's why the STFT go to 0% as soon as the truck goes into PE. 

True, but I wasn't looking at my fuel trims at WOT.  I was watching my narrow band B1S1 and B2S1 o2 sensor readings - and both were above 900mv during the WOT pulls (which would generally indicate richer than 12:1 AFR).

  • Like 1
JONBLARC7 Enthusiast

JONBLARC7

Posted
Posted

Good deal I just want people to know and double check by logging before you go ripping around.  Obviously something when wrong with my line when I heated it up and bent it out straight. 

 

.93 lambda might hurt something

SinisterZ71 Enthusiast

SinisterZ71

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JONBLARC7 said:

Good deal I just want people to know and double check by logging before you go ripping around.  Obviously something when wrong with my line when I heated it up and bent it out straight. 

 

.93 lambda might hurt something

.93 lambda equates to about 13.7:1 AFR which is still a bit lean for an N/A engine at WOT for my liking (I would prefer no leaner than 13.0:1 AFR), but not as terrible as 1.00 lambda (14.7:1) would be.

Edited by SinisterZ71
  • Like 1
JONBLARC7 Enthusiast

JONBLARC7

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yea I'm tuning it my self so I'm targeting 1.135 in PE which is .88 Lambda.  I usually hang right around .87 to .88 in a pull.  I still need to clean up my VE table alittle.

 

 

Edited by JONBLARC7
lucas287 Enthusiast

lucas287

Posted
Posted
On 6/23/2020 at 12:06 PM, M H said:

 

Hey CC guys, I found this.  Same line but straight, and few cents cheaper.  :)

AC Delco part #20967834

Hey @M H did you end up using this part #? Looks like a good solution rather than boiling/bending the previously mentioned connector! 

M H Enthusiast

M H

Posted
Posted

I would not recommend.  I will probably switch to hard line adapters or something different.  I made a splash guard out of an old wheel liner, mounted the sensor to it, but its directly above the drive shaft (not optimal).

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.4k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,760
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    MASONV88888888
    Newest Member
    MASONV88888888
    Joined

  • Who's Online   5 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,664 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Coastie05
      Replacing 2.7L on 2021 Silverado with 2023 2.7L

      By Coastie05 · Posted

      I’m definitely interested to hear the end result here. 
    • MASONV88888888
      Another 6.2L engine failure!

      By MASONV88888888 · Posted

      My 2025 Silverado 1500 had to receive a brand-new engine (long block) under warranty last month at only around 16,500 miles. Before the replacement, the truck repeatedly displayed "Engine Oil Level Low" warnings, even though the Oil Life Monitor still showed around 50% remaining after about 6,000 miles since my last oil change. After seeing the warning several times, I checked the dipstick with the engine cold, and the oil level was completely normal. The next day, the message escalated to "Add Engine Oil." At first, I assumed it was just a faulty oil level sensor, so I brought the truck to the dealership. After inspecting the engine, they found internal cylinder wall scoring and ultimately replaced the entire long block under warranty. Before this happened, I was planning to install a 4-inch lift and suspension upgrade on my truck. After needing a new engine at just 16,500 miles, I honestly don't see the point anymore. I also contacted GM to ask whether my vehicle qualified for a buyback, but I was informed that it does not at this time. Anyway, this experience has left me with serious concerns about the long-term reliability of this engine. I sincerely hope NHTSA expands the current investigation or recall to include 2025 model and performs a thorough inspection of affected vehicles. My biggest concern is that these engines may fail shortly after the powertrain warranty expires. If GM truly stands behind this engine, then at the very least, please consider extending the powertrain warranty to 10 years for affected owners. That would go a long way toward restoring customer confidence.
    • Grumpy Bear
      OCI, not when but why?

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Without exception but then I'm the odd duck, right? I know what goes into that test, how it is calculated and thus how to beat it. But EPA values are often not beaten by the general public and the government has in past years adjusted the means and methods to come to those values to more closely approximate "Joe Average".    The only real trick to beating that EPA average is don't drive like "Joe Average".    It's the same method you used to profit from "Economic Migration" and in doing so beat the 'stats'. But you, like me, are not "Joe Average".     The thing you don't seem to grasp is this "Purchasing Power Index" isn't forward looking. It doesn't predict what it going to be but looks backward and states what it was. They are not telling us what the THINK, they are telling us what they MEASURED. Example:    Wife says "I'm going to lose 40 pounds by Christmas". May she does, maybe she doesn't but the doctors office who weighed her when she made that statement and again at Christmas only REPORTS what the RESULT was. You and I can banter about what was possible and what aunt Tilly did till the cows come home but the result is the result. Arguing otherwise is.....irrational. That's all I'm saying. This isn't about:      What you are calling a 'Statistic' is a RESULT not a CALCUATION and as a result the RULE. Like gravity as a rule, it can not be broken. 
    • MASONV88888888
      Rattle in the rear!

      By MASONV88888888 · Posted

      Just wanted to say thank you for posting this. Years later, your thread is still helping Silverado owners.   I bought my 2025 Silverado 1500 in January 2025, and I've had what feels like the exact same rattle since day one. After reading your findings, I believe my truck has the same issue with the cable carrier contacting the rear sliding window. To be honest, I had pretty much given up on pursuing the issue. It wasn't until I recently drove another brand's pickup that I realized just how quiet their cabin was—and how noisy mine has been all along. On my truck, the rattle happens on almost any paved road, gets even worse on rougher pavement, and I can even hear it during braking and acceleration.   I actually referenced your thread when submitting my case to GM, hoping they'll recognize this as a recurring issue instead of treating it as an isolated incident. The reason I reached out to GM first is because my dealership told me they would need to keep the truck for at least two days just to diagnose the problem. I was concerned that even after two days, they still might not be able to identify the source of the rattle before giving the truck back to me. I had also asked a few dealerships about this issue during previous service visits, but none of them seemed to know what was causing it or had a solution. That's why I decided to contact GM directly first, hoping they might already have an official repair procedure or guidance for this issue.   I also hope GM eventually comes up with an official fix for this problem. I have a feeling there are many Silverado owners experiencing the same rattle, but most either choose to live with it or simply don't know what the cause is.   Really appreciate you taking the time to document your diagnosis. Your post is still making a difference years later.
    • Buckwild27
      Gas Prices

      By Buckwild27 · Posted

      I have 2 choices. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...