Return vs. Return-less (Deadhead) Fuel Systems

I tried posting this in the Engine Building section but got zero bites, so I’d like to open the discussion, Return vs. Return-less Fuel Systems: What are the pros and cons that you’ve experienced?

I’m building a fuel system for a Subaru STI Type RA that I drive across the U.S. to attend track days. I haven’t ran it yet, but at the moment my setup goes like this: Pump>Filter>FlexFuel Sensor>F.P.R.>Rails (each bank w/ pulse damper)>1050x Injectors. Rails are mounted with thermal spacers, and all parts are from Radium Engineering. While I haven’t tested it yet, I’m realizing I could be walking into higher fuel temperatures and the risk of running into a fuel pressure drop that the regulator won’t see. (unlikely since I have lots of overhead, unless there’s a leak)

Since this is a stock turbo engine, and my current setup has plenty of headroom, I’m debating if its worth switching to a return style; Pump>Filter>FlexFuel Sensor>Rails>Injectors>F.P.R.>Return to tank. Again I haven’t even started the car now that it has the return-less, so I can’t say it hasn’t worked. I’m just trying to avoid finding out the hard way.

If you have any insights into anything I should change, I welcome your suggestions! Pulse damper location/quantity? FlexFuel sensor location? Brands of fittings I should use? etc…

Cheers!

What is the fuel flow requirement for your engine?

Does the current pump provide this?

Can you modify it to meet the requirements?

I wouldn't convert any demand control system to a return type unless I had to. That's my 0.02$

Others may have good reason to do so that I'm not aware of but I think this is a superior fuel delivery system simply by the design of it (not returning heated fuel to the tank and a higher head pressure by default).