I purchased a Skunk2 composite fuel rail, took a lot of time to do my research and ordered every possible part I might need, specifically because Skunk2 garranteed that their rail was "plug and play" for my '90 Integra, and I believed they knew their stuff, considering their reputation.

They were wrong, not only because their position of the mount for the pulsation damper at the end instead on top....that was easy enough and only meant purchasing a $70 fuel line from Acura, which I did......

Then what killed it for me, was their mounting system will not fit my intake manifold, which is detailed in the photo below. It's true if I spent some real time I MIGHT be able to come up with the correct length spacers, but when I buy from a company that tauts itself as one of the best in the world, and they swear up and down to me it fits my car, and doesn't, then I've had enough. I won't buy anything from them again.

Companies like this don't know that the '90 Integra is obd-0 and as the 1st year of a model change, different then even the next year? I've seen other companies that clearly state a part is only good for '91 to '93 or '95.

It's true, I'm pissed.

 

It is possible the design is intended to use both the original and their spacer. That would seem to be about the right height, I'm asking their tech help about that, but they didn't know that the other day. It would also be crazy difficult to install that way. Their mount requires the removal of the original stud in the manifold and using a bolt instead.

That's a damn hard way to do it.....even if you removed the intake getting your hands or a tool underneath to line everything up is problematic. Trying to do that with the intake mounted, nearly impossible.

I'll consider it, but I expect better from a company like this.

 

that's why I don't waste money on junk items which aren't needed.





we've all had issues like this come up with manufactures before- live and learn

no need in getting pissed off... just don't ever buy from them again.

 

Spec out what size spacer you need, grab it off McMastercarr.com

 

What are you talking about. This would NOT be a waste. If I got it installed, the car will run better and the added mileage will make it pay for itself. You can't tell me what to post, get over it. Maybe you don't understand what running cooler fuel can do. Every bit of data here is good for research that allows other people to decide what to do with their cars. That's exactly what this forum is for.

I'm also letting people know that the support I received from skunk was very poor. That's something to consider when buy parts.

 

Yes, I'm considering that, but I kind of think I should try and make them do it considering their reputation and claims.

I could easily make this myself.

I would also get or make longer studs for the manifold mount instead of using their bolts. Trying to push bolts thur to the holes in the manifold is about the hardest possible way to install it.

 

lol'n @ OP thinking a fuel rail will make his car run better.

 

oh and in4bounty

 

Are you guys ignorant or what? Here, I'll educate you. If the claim from skunk2 that this composite fuel rail will keep the fuel up to 100 degrees cooler is true, it Will make a difference. Ever heard of a "cool can" that people use in drag racing. There have always been efforts to keep fuel cooler and it is proven to make a difference. You know the rail is like 3" from the head right?...and aluminum is a heat conductor and composites not nearly as much. Skunk's claim may be valid.

You know, if you can't contribute or only have bs negative crap to say, leave it out or continue to have a poor and useless effect on the forum. Go away.

My goal in this experiment is 1.5 mpg increase in fuel efficiency. If I get even 1 mpg better, this will pay for itself, and I'll get over 30 mpg at 80 mph, so shut up unless you can contribute. You're just showing your lack of mechanical aptitude.

 

What are you talking about added mileage? are you smoking crack? do you have magnets on your fuel line too?

 

Just get a refund and get a tune! Then you can tune for fuel efficiency!!!!

 

Maybe I should give up this conversation. I'm not trying to argue with people, but have any of you ever stuck your nose in a book about how fuel burns? There a lot of scientific discussion and analysis about how gasoline and other fuels burn....and lots of books about that particular application, especially in factory LaMans cars of the '60s and '70s, drag racing and in aircraft.

When fuel temperature is lowered it burns more fully and more efficiently. It's something that was developed and used in performance engineering for 3 or 4 decades. Now with everything computerized, everybody thinks the newer technology is the only way to go, but still the science of cooler fuel works. It's the nature of how fuel burns.

What I'm doing, is adding new 280cc, 4 hole, high impedance injector upgrade and using a fuel rail that will decrease the temperature of the fuel. According to the science of how fuel burns that means a higher percent of the fuel in my cylinders will be burned. It is common knowledge that a fairly good percent of the gas that goes thru the engine is wasted. That's why they've added Cats, EGRs and other pollution devices. To recycle or burn off the unburned gas.

My result should be that when I'm not using heavy throttle, I should get a bit better gas mileage, and when I use heavy throttle, I should get a bit better responsiveness.

This stuff is something that many mechanical engineers have talked about and applied for decades. The only reason it's disappearing is because these days people rely more on electronic tech, but the laws of physics has not changed.

Then again, I grew up with one of the world's most famous airplane builders. That's why I know about it, but believe me, go read a science book.

If I strictly tuned for mileage, I'd lose the responsiveness, maybe even HP and torque. This way I can have both. Skunk and other manufacturers didn't turn to composite fuel rails for the weight savings. That's why they specifically state and claim it can drop the temperature of the fuel by up to 100 degrees, because they know it means more gas will burn.

In decades past, they didn't have these materials.

Gee, I had a 911 in 1975 (no cat) that got 30 mpg at 80, and there aren't lots of cars that do that now?

Right now I'm getting 29.6 mpg at 80, and 32 mph at 75. I'm just aiming for 31mpg at 80 without losing performance. I log every fill-up and drive all the way across Texas 3 to 4 times per year. So I know exactly what this car gets.

.

 

A fuel rail will not make any difference in what you're trying to accomplish.

 

So what's your reasoning? Tell me why?

 

Scientific theory is great '15er. Some of us have been at this **** for a while and have a little thing called empirical evidence.

 

EGR reduces emissions and cools the combustion chamber allowing for leaner burn without heat damage.
Catalytic converter is NOT for unburnt fuel, that kills cats. it is there to reduce noxious gases like NOx.

btw i get an average of 33-35 mpg in mixed city and freeway driving including a bunch of stop and go houston traffic. I have a stock fuel rail.

Everything i have been taught is that colder fuel is better power and less economy.

Feel free to point out an actual peer reviewed study that shows that cooler fuel makes more for more MPG....also feel free to demonstrate that your fuel is really all that hot...

 

Yes, in what?

My car is a 1990 obd-0, and is nearly all original. Never rebuilt, never modified. The injectors were never even serviced. Just valve adjustments, oil changes, CVs just before I got it. Idler pulley, brake pads, that's about it. Nearly all of its 142k miles were on I-10 in West Texas.

Do you actually log your fill-ups. I've heard lots of people claim great mileage, but they don't log their fill-up. I log every fill up, with all of my vehicles. I have never missed one on all my vehicles back to 2003.

My last motorcycle (it was a '76 Super Sport), the valves would change adjustment often, so I adjusted them every morning for 35 days until I found the adjustment where they wouldn't change. It was just a minor variation on each valve. I never needed to adjust them again for the next 8 years. That's the kind of effort that makes me believe.

This is a snippet of my logs. I hear everybody quoting data, but they have no logs, no data, they're guessing. The 19.45 was a short run on IH-281 between gas stations, at 90 mph.





.

 

I don't know his reasoning but I'll tell you why: fuel is vaporized before it's burned 99.8% of the time. So regardless if the fuel hits the back of the valve at 50F or 90F, the fuel vapor will be the same as your IAT before it passes the intake valve, enters the combustion chamber, absorbs CC heat for ~360 crank degrees, gets compressed, then burned. In all my years in the industry I've yet to hear one technical benefit to combustion from cooler fuel. And unless you're testing in a lab, you're not gong to have the conditions or resources to measure a performance or economy difference in fuel rails.

Cooler fuel for fuel pump longevity is a different topic, but no one has mentioned that.

 

Well very good. Finally someone that uses some data and logic to make sense. This kind of response I appreciate, whether it's for or against my point.

I agree I have not found any data of the difference in fuel temps on dynos or other type testing, but that could be because the difference was so small nobody was interested. Most commonly, this type testing is done by people that want major HP changes, so if it's small they may dismiss it.

Have you run across any dyno logs testing differences in fuel temperature?

I admit the idea of cooler gas burning more efficiently might be a "wives tale", but I know of much effort in that belief in the '60s and '70s.

I knew a guy in '94 running bracket racing at Alamo Drag Strip in San Antonio. He was running an old Duster, very well done with a 440 dual quad setup. He was always dialing in at about 10 flat against several 350 Camaro's buring Nitrous. He had a little sign painted on the back of car, "All Throttle, No Bottle". In the finals a few of them were hitting 9.98. He had a cool can and in the final he'd stuff dry-Ice in it, and run 9.96. He always walked away with 2-3000 bucks from the side bets. I saw him do this week after week for about 4 months. Nobody every caught on, and then he threw a rod thru the block tuning it one day.


I can't say the "cool can" was why he gained the edge, he never did it on the dyno.




.
.

 

Carburetted or injected, from John Deere riding lawnmowers to Indy Cars, I have yet to see any performance benefit from cooler fuel. I guess I should qualify fuel and say "gas."

Alcohol based fuels will lower your IAT, CCT, and EGT which account for a small percentage of the gains most people see from switching from gas to alcohol. Octane & knock resistance are still the primary reasons to run alcohol though.

Edit: since I'm sure I''m coming off a little harsh - there are good reasons to upgrade a stock fuel rail. When it comes to dampening injector pulse frequencies, the more fuel volume you have the better. But if you bought one to reap the benefits of injecting "cooler fuel," you're going to be disappointed.

 

You know your stuff and you might be correct, but you haven't said you've looked at any dyno logs that were done to prove or disprove it.

I'm probably going to keep this composite rail and re-fabricate a proper mounting system for it and find out myself, and I'll compile data and log it, whether it goes my way or not.

I knew a guy once that built airplanes, and at some point his customers would bring in an airplane stating it wasn't going as fast as it was suppose to. The builder always knew from experience, going thru this a number of times, and would properly recalibrate the instruments in the airplane and wow, all of a sudden the airplane was going its specified max. speed. The builder was Ed Swearingen.


.

 

you cannot compare old carb'd cars that were susceptible to vapor lock to fuel injected cars of today when it comes ot fuel flow etc....

 

You are right about that, but there are many things that come into play.

 

How are you going to get better mileage?? Get better mileage from a hotter motor running leaner. They are called junk2 for a reason!

 

I have found a directly opposite correlation to fuel temp and MPG.
I am in no way discrediting the science and theory, only stating the controlled facts about my ride.

In the winter time when commuting to work (105 miles each way) 5 days a week all highway steady 70ish speed; I use exactly 7 gallons of fuel round trip. When the weather warms up, I use 6.4 gallons round trip. I have logged 100kmi in two years with this car and the results continue each year.
This is a bone stock B20 swap into a DelSol with no check engine lights on.
I have no reasonable explanation for this phenomena but it is a fact.

PS. Nearly every new part needs some massaging as we used to say. Don't get spoiled thinking that there is no work in an upgraded combination. That's life.