Which Walbro??

Make it quick...and reliable
Post Reply
User avatar
Diverteh
Supporter
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:48 pm
Location: County Durham, England

Which Walbro??

Post by Diverteh »

Was just looking on Ebag for the 393 and load of hits came up for the 392. The 392 seems to be slightly cheaper but with a higher flow of 255lph.

Why does everyone seem to go for the 393? Can the injection system not handle the increase in the flow rate of the 392, or is it something else?

I have just installed 360cc injectors.
User avatar
Charlie @ Evergreen
Supporter
Posts: 7730
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:20 am
Location: Ocala, Florida USA

Re: Which Walbro??

Post by Charlie @ Evergreen »

Both will work fine the 393 less gpm and draw vs the 392 being the highr flowing 255 pump will be good with the HI injectors. :thumbup

Just think about the Fuel Pressure Regulator controls the pressure. So you will have plenty of flow for the higher HP levels and bigger injectors.
User avatar
Betterthanfabio
Supporter
Posts: 5806
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:31 am
Location: Hobart Tasmania Australia

Re: Which Walbro??

Post by Betterthanfabio »

I wouldn't go for anything that draws more amps. The charging system already has enough to deal with & was beefed up slightly to handle the fuel injection anyway. The one we use has more than enough pressure on a modified engine. I suppose it has the advantage of a bigger flame front if the bike catches fire. :humour
You should try to know everything about something & something about everything.
User avatar
Charlie @ Evergreen
Supporter
Posts: 7730
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:20 am
Location: Ocala, Florida USA

Re: Which Walbro??

Post by Charlie @ Evergreen »

That is likely important but would say bet Walbro newer design pumps take less amps to run then the old 80s fuel pump designs?? Maybe someone has checked this out. No one has had any issues with over 10 installed including my own. So that is good information to have or would not recommend it. When I had all those extra electrical gauges added for FP, Boost, AFR, plus my Speed Hut gauges had a intermittent surge now and then. Went back analog on all except the Speedo and RPM removing everything it went away. So yes the amp draw must be important. :thumbup
User avatar
DEATH_INC.
Member
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:00 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand, at the arse end of the planet

Re: Which Walbro??

Post by DEATH_INC. »

In My case with the high boost and higher fuel pressure, the 392 on it's own will draw more than half the amps that the alternator puts out. I know that's only at full boost, but it also draws higher amps off boost too. Made worse by the fact I run a bumped up n/a alternator. I run the 'high pressure' 195lph pump.
Here's all the numbers;
https://www.autoperformanceengineering. ... specs.html
Rip Loosebruce and Daryl :(
User avatar
Diverteh
Supporter
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:48 pm
Location: County Durham, England

Re: Which Walbro??

Post by Diverteh »

Thanks for the prompt reply guys.

I intend to run with 810, 360cc injectors, pcv with Autotune, fpr, bov, larger boost pipework and a gt2056 with ported spider, dyna 2.2's etc.

Electrics are witchcraft to me. I've had a look at the APE table and to be honest with you, I don't understand if the difference is significant. Which do you recommend??

Sorry for the dumbass question 🙏
User avatar
DEATH_INC.
Member
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:00 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand, at the arse end of the planet

Re: Which Walbro??

Post by DEATH_INC. »

If you're chasing big HP/boost go with the one I did, a high pressure 195lph model (GSL394-max pressure 87psi). It was the best balance between amp draw and fuel flow at high boost. I was running up to 30psi boost with 45psi static fuel pressure.
Otherwise lower boost and fuel pressure will be safe with a standard 190lph model (GSL391- max pressure 50psi).
walbro.jpg
walbro.jpg (72.95 KiB) Viewed 4876 times
Rip Loosebruce and Daryl :(
nadrol
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:48 am
Location: South Dakota

Re: Which Walbro??

Post by nadrol »

You guys should look at the flow charts and use a fuel pump calculator. the listed max pressure is very misleading.
Calculator: https://deatschwerks.com/pages/fuel-pump-calculator
flow charts: https://walbrofuelpumps.com/walbro-gsl3 ... -pump.html
https://walbrofuelpumps.com/walbro-gsl3 ... -pump.html
https://walbrofuelpumps.com/walbro-gsl3 ... -pump.html
https://walbrofuelpumps.com/walbro-gsl3 ... -pump.html

the 391 flows a few more GPH under boost than the 393. The 394 flows a few more GPH than the 391. 392 flows 40% more than the 394.

At 65psi (20psi boost) and 12v:
393: 28 GPH, 7A
391: 32 GPH, 8A
394: 33 GPH, 8.5A
392: 48 GPH, 10A

75 psi (30psi boost) and 12v:
393: 26 GPH, 8A
391: 27 GPH, 9.5A
394: 31 GPH, 9.5A
392: 45 GPH, 11A

WHP required pump flows:
150: 16 GPH, 23 GPH E85
250: 27 GPH, 38 GPH E85

I'm using a return-less (low current :rock ) boost referenced system on E85 and the 393 is plenty. shooting for 150 wheel.

391, maybe 394 is the most any of us should need.
User avatar
Würstchens-Turbo 810
Intercooler
Posts: 1596
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Bremen / Germany
Contact:

Re: Which Walbro??

Post by Würstchens-Turbo 810 »

i use a 393 ,about 200 PS rwp ,about 20 psi boost
User avatar
Lorcan
Intercooler
Posts: 14764
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:35 pm
Location: Norfolk, UK

Re: Which Walbro??

Post by Lorcan »

The 393 was recommended, by me, back in 2005 because it had the flow required but was a lower current draw than the more commonplace 392. I had previously had issues with flat batteries running a Weldon alcohol pump and a high power ignition on my dragbike, so went for a Walbro that was big enough but the lowest current draw on my petrol bike.

I'd still go for the smallest pump that does the job. No point running an oversize pump that wastes electrical energy circulating fuel around the system when the charging system is already marginal.
First to 200mph (2006) and still the fastest (211mph)
Quickest turbo-only 8.69 @ 162mph
Post Reply