The Diesel Stop banner

21 - 36 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
There is no difference between the right and left side. There is a difference in torque depending on the sealing washers you are using. If you use the black Viton sealing washers, torque to 18lbs-ft or 25nm. If using the copper sealing washers torque to 28lbs-ft or 38nm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,274 Posts
There is no difference between the right and left side. There is a difference in torque depending on the sealing washers you are using. If you use the black Viton sealing washers, torque to 18lbs-ft or 25nm. If using the copper sealing washers torque to 28lbs-ft or 38nm.
Using the 4 black washers that Tousley :ford: shipped with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Those are the newer Viton washers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
FWIW I personally think putting these banjo bolts on an engine that has not been boosted past around 500hp is a downgrade, not an upgrade. The check valves are there for a reason, both to retain pressure inside the fuel rails and to dampen pressure spikes, and taking that out for no reason is not in any way an upgrade. If you need a full flow fuel system to support your horsepower, then install that. Simply installing something because it's bigger kind of perpetuates a myth about men, that bigger is always better...

Brian
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
59 Posts
Brian what you said made me think but then I went back to YouTube watched the guy who does the Powerstroke videos (powerstrokehelp.com). He recommends a bigger passage for the fuel to flow and as he makes his living working on Powerstrokes and Powerstrokes only I think I'm going to go with him as an expert on this issue. How much experience do you have on working on Powerstrokes?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,874 Posts
FWIW I personally think putting these banjo bolts on an engine that has not been boosted past around 500hp is a downgrade, not an upgrade. The check valves are there for a reason, both to retain pressure inside the fuel rails and to dampen pressure spikes, and taking that out for no reason is not in any way an upgrade. If you need a full flow fuel system to support your horsepower, then install that.

This is quite correct.

Also, the videos presented by "that" website are chock full of bad information and have proven to be entertaining to many professionals... including some people at Ford whom must not know much about the diesel engines in their trucks otherwise they would not have those silly little check valves in the fuel supply ports. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,125 Posts
I have to agree. Just because someone is making money selling a part as an "upgrade" doesn't mean it is. Just like just because someone on the internet claiming to be an expert says to do something doesn't mean you should.

Think about it like this, the check valve adds cost to the stock 6.0 banjos. Granted the cost is small, but for a manufacturer making millions of units a small cost adds up. Why would they spend one penny more than they had to on something like this? The check valves serves the same purpose as the overflow valve in a P7100 pump on a Cummins. Both are there to maintain cavity pressure. Deleting that means in all likelyhood there is now less pressure in the fuel rails. Just because a gauge reads 65 PSI at the filter housing doesn't mean that accurately represents rail pressure. System pressure in different areas can and does vary. Assuming that's accurate is like assumign that becasue your temperature gauge reads 195 degrees that all the coolant in the system is at that temperature. All a gauge measures is the properties of the fluid where the sender is located.

If you want a better fuel system go to a return regulated system, because that will let you know what pressure is in the rails, because system pressure is now set by the pressure at the farthest point in the system. Pressure may be higher further upstream, but the concern, as noted, is starvation of the rear injectors. RR is the only way to ensure that doesn't happen.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
59 Posts
"Choke full of bad information"? That's your opinion. There seems to be more than a hint of professional jealosy in your reply. It takes more than a fancy logo, a self named "master" technician handle and the selling of t-shirts to make me a believer in your so call "society". I'm willing to bet that this guy has fixed more diesel engines than you're willing to give him credit for. Then again he's not a member of the Diesel Technician Society. OOOhhhh how does one go about joining this illustrious society? Pay the price of a t-shirt and then I'm in? LOL.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
59 Posts
Who said anything about "selling" and upgrade? Shaking my head. Go back and look at the video again. After that statement I gave your reply the same interest as you gave the video...none.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,125 Posts
I actually did watch the video, but drilling the holes in the banjos bigger on a 7.3 and swapping 6.0 banjos for 6.4 banjos isn't exactly the same thing. Guys drill the banjos on the P7100 pump on the Cummins all the time, and yes you will see a modest increase in flow from it. The difference is that once that is done you still have the check valve in the overflow valve on the return side of the pump to maintain factory fuel pressure. All that is being increased is flow, because the P-pump continuously circulates fuel.

A 6.0 uses a dead head fuel system. Fuel makes inlet into the rail in the head and stays in there until it is used. The rail pressure is maintained by the check valve in the banjo, which is odd, but that's its purpose nonetheless. Removing that check valve removes this feature. I get the theory that the pressure is set at the filter housing before it reaches the rails, but obviously the engineers at International didn't think that was enough. I return to my argument that no amount of money, regardless of how small, is spent by a manufacturer on a feature they consider unnecessary.

The issue I see with removing the check valve and going to a banjo with a bigger hole in it (or more of them) is that this might actually reduce rail pressure. A device designed to maintain rail pressure has been removed, and flow has been increased. Typically with an increase in flow there will be a reduction in pressure. Think about a garden hose without a nozzle vs. with one. If rail pressure is reduced, regardless of flow, injection pressure will be reduced, because the injectors operate on a step up principle. Reduced pressure reduces atomization, and this makes the use of fuel less efficient for a given pulsewidth. I simply do not see that increasing power, and frankly I see it potentially putting the injectors at risk, particularly the back two. I find that in the end this is more likely to cause exactly what it is trying to prevent.

I see the only real benefit to be gained is by re-engineering the factory system to return regulation. This allows for increased flow AND pressure throughout the rails. It also allows fuel to circulate and remain cooler. All in all it fixes a lot of the designed in flaws of the factory system. It comes at a price, but I'd rather spend money on well engineered parts than save money and just assume that the person who noticed that you could replace a 6.0 banjo with a 6.4 banjo and it would be better because the holes were bigger was a fuel system engineer, or even knew anything about the principles of operation of the 6.0 fuel system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
I have to agree with the Ford doc, being a fully certified marine tech, ford would waste there money on " spare " parts.I keep telling this to people that want to make their hipo mods to boat engines.There is a reason for all these parts.A lot of them are safety to people and the vessel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Has anyone thought about tapping and threading a banjo bolt and installing a Speed Bleeder? I've had them on cars and motorbikes with great results, thinking that it might be a convenient way to bleed air from the fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,874 Posts
Has anyone thought about tapping and threading a banjo bolt and installing a Speed Bleeder? I've had them on cars and motorbikes with great results, thinking that it might be a convenient way to bleed air from the fuel.
It's really not necessary to begin with and the bigger problem with your idea is clearance and access to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,125 Posts
On older Diesels you needed bleeders everywhere or had to crack the lines to get the air out of the system if you opened the system or ran them out of fuel. The new Diesels like the 6.0 self bleed, so there's no need to worry about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Bumping this post back up. My situation is I have a F350 Harley Edition 6.0. This week marks the third time I'm installing a new fuel injector in cylinder 7 and 1 time replacing cylinder 8 in the last 2 years. I pull a 15000 lbs Rv so it would probably be fine if I wasn't doing that. Anyways I do have the blue spring upgrade. This week I am now installing a fuel line crossover which connects the two heads together to equalize pressure between the heads. I am also considering changing the banjo bolts in the front to the 6.4 banjo bolts. I know I should probably just do the regulated return system but who has 500$ for that kit. It's pricey. The truck is mostly stock except its been bulletproofed, EGR deleted. I just want to know if anyone did the 6.4 banjo bolt upgrade and benefited from it. Because it does look like a real PITA of an install to do if there is no noticeable benefit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
I’d let it be and save up for the regulated return. The blue spring upped my fuel pressures about 10psi across the board, but with the regulated return, I have my pressure set at 63.5psi and it falls maybe 5psi on a WOT pull in my hottest tune. Where with the blue spring it would fall from 65psi to 48-50psi at WOT. That’s the true way to save those two rear injectors.
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top