Fuel Line advice needed

Just a thought: the installation guidelines make the point that the fuel return/leak off must make a loop below the level of the tank bottom before connection to the tank top. This is to prevent 'fuel drain down', which I understand as fuel siphoning back into the tank.
Could it be that the reason for the 8mm return diameter requirement has to do with this? That the volumes of fuel in supply and return should be in balance?
The loop is to stop the return line emptying itself into the tank, which in turn can allow air into the injector pump. I found that out first hand when running our engine on the bench before installation, and could even see it because the temporary return line I used was translucent. Incidentally our Beta is a 17HP, and the return connection at the engine end is only 4mm.
 
The loop is to stop the return line emptying itself into the tank, which in turn can allow air into the injector pump. I found that out first hand when running our engine on the bench before installation, and could even see it because the temporary return line I used was translucent. Incidentally our Beta is a 17HP, and the return connection at the engine end is only 4mm.

Thanks for clarifying.
In my own installation, the full return line loop is one thing I forgot about (it loops down, but only to about mid tank level). I've been meaning to rectify this, but have not got around to. After 11 years this hasn't caused any trouble, yet...
 
I can't actually see any reason why it needs to go right down below the bottom of the tank. Equally you'd think that a loop up rather than down would achieve the same aim, that of keeping the pipe full of fuel. On our installation the return pipe runs upwards for a little, before looping down, to ensure that any air I've just bled out doesn't immediately go back into the pump.
 
They did provide someone more senior, the manual.

You're not likely to find a support line for anything where the guy on the phone will tell you to ignore the manual.

:)
No one ever suggested the manual should be ignored :)

The concern is that this (one beta) guy could not explain or would not discuss the need for a specific diameter.

Those in the know will appreciate the BETA manual in question is a generic book for all their small engines. If you ask a decent beta guy about the specification of a 3/4" water hose - he will tell you this is ideal but actually a 1/2" is fine for this engine and will not cause you a problem with a waranty claim.

So, what is that if not an instance of the 'guy on the phone' telling you the manual is not the bible?

If its not something you understand then, yes, go with the manual and pay an engineer to read it to you. If you have some understanding then you should be able to ask support to explain the manual.
Any less is the supplier not living up to their role. This is an expensive engine, not a Lidl toaster.
 
If its not something you understand then, yes, go with the manual and pay an engineer to read it to you. If you have some understanding then you should be able to ask support to explain the manual.
Any less is the supplier not living up to their role. This is an expensive engine, not a Lidl toaster.

I can't help feeling you are going way over the top here. You expect a design engineer to come on the phone and discuss his thought processes. It's like asking for a Ford design engineer to explain why you can or can't change the air filter on your car. You've had your answer so get on and try it. If it works, fine, if it doesn't then I pity those who gave you advice.
 
Twice (approx) as some one else has posted 1/36 plays 1/64

It's more complicated like that, because it depends on flow rate, and whether a turbulent boundary layer has fully established across the pipe. I used to teach this stuff, but the books I'd need to consult are buried away. In the OPs position I'd fit 6mm (if that's the engine outlet it's presumably what Kubota intended) and then, if there were any problems, go up to 8mm with an adaptor at each end later. I'd be very, very surprised if there were any problems, though.

By the way, the installation instructions for my nice new Nanni 2.14 specify 8mm for the return.
 
Last edited:
That would be correct if the resistance to flow was inversely proportional to the square of the radius or diameter but doesn't Poiseuille's law state that the resistance is inversely proportional to the radius4 for a constant volume flowrate

Poiseuille assumes laminar flow.
 
Sweet mother of Jesus! As you can see from my post count, I don't often post comments but this one would test the patience of Job. Is newBeta an agent provocateur for Nanni or Volvo? I have bought two Beta engines (for different boats) over the last 10 years and have found everyone from Andrew, the MD, to the guy who "adjusted" the packaging to load my latest B14 into the boot of my car, to be extremely helpful, knowledgeable and courteous at all times. The engine, although more expensive than a Lidl toaster is the cheapest of its type on the market and has many advocates on these pages.
In these days of warped consumer rights, I am not surprised that the engineer on the phone has not wanted to go off piste on the specification of return line hoses lest the OP engage the services of ambulancechasers.com should there be a misfire in the future caused by a incorrectly installed fuel hose. RTFM man and stop behaving like a maiden aunt that has been goosed by the postman.
 
I spoke to a guy who just repeated the mantra “8mm thorough out”. I mentioned it having a 6mm outlet from the engine and he said “8mm thorough out” but added “if you don’t use 8mm, I can’t guarantee you won’t get running problems”. This message was delivered in a 'matter of fact/end of discussion' tone. I was not told to 'go away' but it sounded like he did not want to continue the conversation, perhaps he felt I sould simply read the manual and not bother him?
Thats simple, tell him that you have been sold an engine that has not been built to specification and you require them to replace the engine, at their cost, as soon as practicable.
 
That doesn't really address the technical issue though, as the "Manual" is wrong/inconsistent/inappropriate. I spend most days reading sections from auto workshop manuals and then ignore the "expert" instructions around 50% of the time as I can see a better, cheaper, simpler or quicker way. ;)

Richard

A good few years ago I was at an IT user conference and one of the vendor speakers was someone who was very good and didn't half know it. Someone at the back interrupted one of his talks and said "That's not what the manual says", to which he replied "the manual wasn't written by the expert".
 
A good few years ago I was at an IT user conference and one of the vendor speakers was someone who was very good and didn't half know it. Someone at the back interrupted one of his talks and said "That's not what the manual says", to which he replied "the manual wasn't written by the expert".

I call Instruction manuals, destruction manuals and I don't repair things manual-ly I repair them automatic-ally.
 
A good few years ago I was at an IT user conference and one of the vendor speakers was someone who was very good and didn't half know it. Someone at the back interrupted one of his talks and said "That's not what the manual says", to which he replied "the manual wasn't written by the expert".

A case in point from last night.

This is the left-side a/c condenser fan and motor from a P38 Range Rover which I removed a couple of days ago as it was not spinning whereas the other one was.

IMG_5383.JPG


I consulted the workshop manual which says the motors are not user serviceable and the complete twin-fan assembly must be replaced. The manual gives clear instructions how to do it but, of course, fails to mention that the part costs £400-odd. Or you can get a second hand single motor and fan for £40-odd. Even the Land Rover forums say this motor is not repairable but, in my book, virtually everything is.

The fan cannot be separated from the motor spindle and the motor casing has no screws, bolts or nuts so the photo shows where I have ground away the 8 metal tangs with an angle grinder (whilst avoiding grinding the three mounting threads) before rebuilding the brush carriers, cleaning the commutator, clearing out the rust, greasing the bearings and epoxying the casing back together again.

RTFM cost - £400
My expenditure - £0 (I already had the angle grinder and the epoxy) ;)

Richard
 
What sort of man reads the manual anyway Roger ? :)

Quite right.

Coming from the days when cars were less common and being a poor student in the 1960's and 70's we had to learn how to fix out cars at zero cost. Don't know your vintage but RichardS is about the same vintage as myself.

Today it all throwaway and replace as RichardS described in his last post. This is encouraged by the manufactures who have to keep their "agents: happy by reducing the ability of the competent DIY'er to repair their own equipment themselves.

We are becoming a dying breed but I do enjoy fiddling and making things but I do understand that not all have the skills we have developed over the years.

I retrieved a Jabsco spot light from a guy who replaced it as the motors to up/down and port/starboard did not work. I stripped then down and cleaned then up and I how have a fully functioning spot light. Now all I need to do is find somewhere to fit it.
 
Top