98 concorde starting problems
xmirage2kx
its happening more and more. so far there are only 2 conditions that
it wont start that often. when its low on gas, and when its hot. about
80% of the time when its above 70 or a sunny day even it just wont
start. I have had the plugs changed, battery, checked compression,
etc.
heres what happens: then engine will turn over, it just wont start.
every so often it does start, and it feels like its missing quite a
bit (3-4 cylinders). then other times it runs like a champ. aften it
gets running (even when it feels like its missing) I rev the engine a
few mins and it will run fine till its off.
I have taken it to many mechanics, spent close to $1k fixing it, and
everytime i get it back, the mechanics either cant find the problem,
or tinker with this/that and say they fixed it. PLEASE any suggestions
would be great.
my guess would be a fuel problem, but ive been told the fuel system is
fine.
--
Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.autoforumz.com/Chrysler-98-concorde-starting-problems-ftopict130227.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=634475
Bill Putney
> I have a 1998 chrysler concorde LXi. Every so often it wont start, and
> its happening more and more. so far there are only 2 conditions that
> it wont start that often. when its low on gas, and when its hot. about
> 80% of the time when its above 70 or a sunny day even it just wont
> start. I have had the plugs changed, battery, checked compression,
> etc.
>
> heres what happens: then engine will turn over, it just wont start.
> every so often it does start, and it feels like its missing quite a
> bit (3-4 cylinders). then other times it runs like a champ. aften it
> gets running (even when it feels like its missing) I rev the engine a
> few mins and it will run fine till its off.
>
> I have taken it to many mechanics, spent close to $1k fixing it, and
> everytime i get it back, the mechanics either cant find the problem,
> or tinker with this/that and say they fixed it. PLEASE any suggestions
> would be great.
> my guess would be a fuel problem, but ive been told the fuel system is
> fine.
>
Have it checked for codes.
Has anyone mentioned crank or cam position sensors to you? Also, if the
problem is intermittent, I don't see how someone could rule out fuel
system (pump) - unless they caught it in the act of failing and
determined that the pump was indeed working when it wouldn't start, in
which case they should have been able to isolate the problem.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
Steve B.
<UseLink...@AutoForumz.com> wrote:
>I have taken it to many mechanics, spent close to $1k fixing it, and
>everytime i get it back, the mechanics either cant find the problem,
>or tinker with this/that and say they fixed it. PLEASE any suggestions
>would be great.
>my guess would be a fuel problem, but ive been told the fuel system is
>fine.
These intermittent problems sure stink. My gut feeling is that you
have a fuel problem but that is purely speculation. If it won't act
up for the mechanic and there are no codes it really is hella hard to
fix.
You might get a fuel pressure gauge so next time it won't start you
can hook it up and see what the fuel pressure is. Also get a can of
starting fluid and see if you can get a little bit of a start with
that.
If the fuel pressure is fine then you know the pump is good.
If it doesn't try to start with starting fluid then you know that
spark is missing.
If it does try to start with starting fluid and the fuel pressure is
good then you know the injectors are not firing.
Not a great deal of help but it makes it a lot easier if the mechanic
at least has an idea of which system to troubleshot.
Steve B.
Ted Mittelstaedt
"xmirage2kx" <UseLink...@AutoForumz.com> wrote in message
news:1_634475_9ba02b3f843...@autoforumz.com...
> I have a 1998 chrysler concorde LXi. Every so often it wont start, and
> its happening more and more. so far there are only 2 conditions that
> it wont start that often. when its low on gas, and when its hot. about
> 80% of the time when its above 70 or a sunny day even it just wont
> start. I have had the plugs changed, battery, checked compression,
> etc.
>
OK, this calls for going back to the basics in troubleshooting on this
engine.
Wait till it's hot and having difficulty starting. You may have to carry
a small tool set with you if you drive it somewhere.
When you go to start it and it doesen't catch on the first few
revolutions, stop the engine, open the hood, connect a fuel pressure
guage to the fuel pressure diagnostic port, then have an assistant
try cranking and watch the guage. The needle should immediately snap
to pressure and remain at pressure as long as your cranking.
Then stop, and pull a spark plug boot, plug it into a spare plug,
hold the plug with heavy gloves to the block, have the assistant
crank a few times more. See if you got good spark. Next,
stop trying to crank, (by now you should have been cranking it
about a minute with all the testing your doing) turn off car,
pull out one of the spark plugs and check to see if it's wet with
fuel.
If you don't have good pressure it's the pump, or a restriction in
the gas line or filter or some such.
If you don't have good spark it's ignition (electrical ignition parts
are sensitive to heat)
If the spark plug you pull out is wet with fuel, and you have good
fuel pressure and good spark, then it's the timing, crank sensor or
some such. If the plug is dry then the injectors aren't firing.
Last but not least, how many miles on this car and how has it's
oiling been handled during it's lifetime? You could be looking at
a timing chain that has slipped. This can be checked by a
competent mechanic.
Ted
maxpower
"xmirage2kx" <UseLink...@AutoForumz.com> wrote in message
news:1_634475_9ba02b3f843...@autoforumz.com...
My guess would be cam/crank sensor, What's the mileage on this vehicle? Has
the vehicle ever cut off as you are driving it or is it just a no start
first thing in the morning or first start of the day? Were there any fault
codes found when the vehicle was in the shop? O , what engine?
Glenn Beasley
Chrysler Tech
tim bur
if it does the timing has to be checked
maxpower
"tim bur" <dbr...@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42E24682...@cac.net...
Explain this. I have never heard of that before, where did you get that info
from?
maxpower
"xmirage2kx" <UseLink...@AutoForumz.com> wrote in message
news:1_634475_9ba02b3f843...@autoforumz.com...
Or TSB 18-09-98 needs to be performed 2.7 and 3.5 engine that meet the
criteria and build specified build dates
Some vehicles may exhibit a hot engine no start, hot engine restart with a
rough idle, or hot engine restart/die-out. Some vehicles may also exhibit
misfire DTC's. This condition occurs after a 10 to 20 minute hot soak and
may be aggravated by alcohol blended fuels. Some vehicles may not restart
until the engine cools. Fuel vapor build up in the fuel rail may be the
cause for these conditions.
Glenn Beasley
Chrysler Tech
Bill Putney
Correction of a few generalizations tha need to be tweaked for this
vehicle, otherwise good info.:
> OK, this calls for going back to the basics in troubleshooting on this
> engine.
>
> Wait till it's hot and having difficulty starting. You may have to carry
> a small tool set with you if you drive it somewhere.
>
> When you go to start it and it doesen't catch on the first few
> revolutions, stop the engine, open the hood, connect a fuel pressure
> guage to the fuel pressure diagnostic port, then have an assistant
> try cranking and watch the guage. The needle should immediately snap
> to pressure and remain at pressure as long as your cranking.
> Then stop, and pull a spark plug boot, plug it into a spare plug,
> hold the plug with heavy gloves to the block, have the assistant
> crank a few times more...
This is coil-over-plug, so the coil screws and coil would have to be
removed and plugged onto another plug, but it should work - just not as
easy and quick as non-coil-over-plug.
> ...See if you got good spark. Next,
> stop trying to crank, (by now you should have been cranking it
> about a minute with all the testing your doing) turn off car,
> pull out one of the spark plugs and check to see if it's wet with
> fuel.
>
> If you don't have good pressure it's the pump, or a restriction in
> the gas line or filter or some such.
>
> If you don't have good spark it's ignition (electrical ignition parts
> are sensitive to heat)
>
> If the spark plug you pull out is wet with fuel, and you have good
> fuel pressure and good spark, then it's the timing, crank sensor or
> some such. If the plug is dry then the injectors aren't firing.
>
> Last but not least, how many miles on this car and how has it's
> oiling been handled during it's lifetime? You could be looking at
> a timing chain that has slipped. This can be checked by a
> competent mechanic.
Unless this is a 2.7L (doubtful since it's an LXi), it has a belt.
Minor technicality - belt could have slipped).
Bill Putney
> Or TSB 18-09-98 needs to be performed 2.7 and 3.5 engine that meet the
> criteria and build specified build dates
> Some vehicles may exhibit a hot engine no start, hot engine restart with a
> rough idle, or hot engine restart/die-out. Some vehicles may also exhibit
> misfire DTC's. This condition occurs after a 10 to 20 minute hot soak and
> may be aggravated by alcohol blended fuels. Some vehicles may not restart
> until the engine cools. Fuel vapor build up in the fuel rail may be the
> cause for these conditions.
Damn! Is there some reason they can't use the phrase "vapor lock" in
those TSB's!!!???
Are we seeing in the problem that the TSB is reporting a consequence of
not having a recirc fuel system?
tim bur
if it's a 2.7 thgere is a good chance the motor sludged up and the chain jumped
a tooth
maxpower
Yes but the fuel does not go to the injector rail and back to the tank
dumping out the hot fuel, so its not a recirc fuel system
Bill Putney
the engine area, it does no good, don't you think? The recirc in the
tank consist of the pressure regulator (at the tank) dumping excess fuel
back to the tank from the pressure relief valve - not the same thing as
recirc'ing all the way from the fuel rail. With under hood temperatures
rising over the years, that's one of the reasons they had to abandon the
engine-mounted fuel pump and recirc the fuel. I guess the Chrysler
engineers forgot about that lesson learned.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
aarcuda69062
Bill Putney <bp...@kinez.net> wrote:
> Yes - I knew that - *BUT* for the purposes of preventing vapor lock in
> the engine area, it does no good, don't you think? The recirc in the
> tank consist of the pressure regulator (at the tank) dumping excess fuel
> back to the tank from the pressure relief valve - not the same thing as
> recirc'ing all the way from the fuel rail. With under hood temperatures
> rising over the years, that's one of the reasons they had to abandon the
> engine-mounted fuel pump and recirc the fuel. I guess the Chrysler
> engineers forgot about that lesson learned.
Less chance of vapor lock with the return less system since the
fuel does not pick up engine heat (the whole point of the return
less system).
tim bur
there is no vapor lock there
Bill Putney
THE YEARS [emphasis added], that's one of the reasons they had to
Bill Putney
Bill Putney
I beg to differ. Without recirc, the fuel is in the engine area a while
soaking up heat. With recirc, cool fuel is always coming in at
relatively high volume, and the warmed fuel is going back to the tank,
and any global heating of the tank by that is effectively removed by
ambient temps surrounding the tank (plus the volume of fuel there is
(relatively speaking) almost an infinite heat sink. Sre - you shut the
engine off, and it's going to heat up, but if it starts out a few
degrees cooler, chances are much better that it will never reach the
vapor stage.
Matt Whiting
What?
Matt
aarcuda69062
Bill Putney <bp...@kinez.net> wrote:
> I beg to differ. Without recirc, the fuel is in the engine area a while
> soaking up heat. With recirc, cool fuel is always coming in at
> relatively high volume, and the warmed fuel is going back to the tank,
> and any global heating of the tank by that is effectively removed by
> ambient temps surrounding the tank (plus the volume of fuel there is
> (relatively speaking) almost an infinite heat sink. Sre - you shut the
> engine off, and it's going to heat up, but if it starts out a few
> degrees cooler, chances are much better that it will never reach the
> vapor stage.
Doesn't work that way.
aarcuda69062
Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
less - chance - of - vapor - lock - with - a - return - less -
system. The - fuel - doesn't - pick - up - engine - heat - which
- is - carried - back - to - the - tank - raising - the -
temperature - of - the - entire - fuel - supply - making - it -
more - susceptible - to - vapor - lock.
You and Bill may not find the above to be in the least bit
palatable. I suggest you take it up with the engineers who
design the systems, since it's their description as to why it's
done that way. The chief benefit being that it's easier to meet
OBD2 EVAP compliance, the side benefit being improved hot
driveability.
I could regale you both with stories of GM police cars that
after 2 shifts became un-driveable because the fuel temperature
had risen so high that the vapor pressure allowed the purge
system to overwhelm the fuel delivery system.
BTW, the OP needs a new fuel pump module, common failure mode.
Greg Houston
> I have a 1998 chrysler concorde LXi. Every so often it wont start, and
> its happening more and more. so far there are only 2 conditions that
> it wont start that often. when its low on gas, and when its hot.
>
> engine will turn over, it just wont start. every so often it does start,
> and it feels like its missing quite a bit (3-4 cylinders). then other
> times it runs like a champ. aften it gets running (even when it feels
> like its missing) I rev the engine a few mins and it will run fine till its off.
Ok some other people have mentioned some TSBs so you may already have
this info.
There are several TSBs for a 98 Concorde which may apply to your problem.
18-14-98 In Stock/Transit Flash Update to Minimize Vapor Lock Concerns.
- and -
18-09-98B (6/12/1998) NO RESTART/ROUGH IDLE AFTER A HOT SOAK - PCM - REVISED
This second TSB supercedes two earlier TSBs with the same title
18-09-98 (Feb 27 1998) 18-09-98A (March 13 1998) Be sure you're
looking at the last version.
----------------------------------------
TSB 18-09-98B NO RESTART/ROUGH IDLE AFTER A HOT SOAK -PCM- REVISED
(Jun 12 98)
Applies to all vehicles built before May 12, 1998. (2.7L t'stat mod
applies to vehicles built after Apr 20, 1998). Check your VIN if you're
not sure when your vehicle was built.
Symptom: Hot engine no start, hot engine restart w/ rough idle, or hot
engine start/die-out. May have misfire DTCs. ... May not restart until
cools. Fuel vapor build up in the fuel rail may be the cause.
The summary diagnosis for 18-09-98B basically is to Check codes and
repair as necessary prior to proceeding. Cold soak the vehicle for min.
of 8 hours. Connect a fuel pressure gauge (Miller Tool # C4799) to svc
port. Switch key to RUN while monitoring pressure but do NOT start
engine. Allow fuel pressure to stabilize (48-50 psi) and switch to OFF.
Monitor pressure for 15 mins. If fuel pressure drops 20 psi or more
perform flash update repair procedure only. Additionally if vehicle
has 2.7L perform thermostat mod. and heater hose mod. repair procedures.
The fix-it section starts with replacing the fuel pump module (if
necessary per diagnostics I paraphrased above) and then flashing the
PCM. [Release 21 or higher and TIL CD Release 1161 or higher]. For
the 2.7L engine (which I don't think you have b/c you said Concorde LXi
not LX) there are additional mods to the cooling system involving hoses.
The full procedures are too detailed to post here.
-----------------------------
TSB 18-14-98 Flash Update to Minimize Vapor Lock Concerns. (Mar 13 1998)
This TSB applies to 3.2 L engine vehicles built prior to Feb 16 1998 MDH
(0216XX) and 2.7L engine vehicles built prior to Mar 9 1998 MDH (0309XX).
There is no diagnosis section. Basically it has step by step
instructions to erase and reprogram the PCM and seems to be a subset of
the TSB 18-09-98B above, except it was written a little earlier so it
has a lower software release number specified as the minimum to use. It
lists that the MDS and DRB must have Release 21 or higher and TIL CD
release 1153 or higher.
Matt Whiting
Then how does it work?
Matt
Matt Whiting
I don't know any fuel system design engineers personally. Do you? This
is exactly opposite everything I've read. It would be very hard to heat
up all of the gas in the tank by enough to get anywhere near enough
vapor pressure to cause vapor lock. It is much easier to just heat the
slow moving fuel in a non recirculation system. This is pretty simple
physics. I'd like to hear your explanation as to why a non recirc
system will pick up less heat in the fuel before it reaches the injector.
Matt
Greg Houston
> less - chance - of - vapor - lock - with - a - return - less -
> system. The - fuel - doesn't - pick - up - engine - heat - which
> - is - carried - back - to - the - tank - raising - the -
> temperature - of - the - entire - fuel - supply - making - it -
> more - susceptible - to - vapor - lock.
Maybe if the fuel tank was almost empty and the little amount of fuel
returning to the pump was enough to almost make a measurable change in
temperature to the fuel in the pump. Otherwise I don't see how that
would be much of an issue. The advantage of a return line is that you
can pump plenty of liquid gasoline through the system to keep it
continuously cool enough to avoid vaporization in the lines. This is
similar to a garden hose sitting in the sun that is full of hot water
but if you keep running fresh water though it, it stays fairly cool even
though it is still in the sun.
Vapor lock has been a hot starting issue for some piston aircraft
engines with fuel injected engines. When return lines are used it
becomes less of an issue as running the electric fuel pumps for a short
while is an item on the pre-start checklist.
I'm not sure what the PCM update (mentioned in the TSB I posted in a
separate message) does, but it probably turns on the fuel pump a little
longer before cranking or some similar trick. On my 99 (built after
they fixed the problem in the TSB) I can hear the fuel pump come on for
a second or two when I turn the key to ON before START. On the other
hand I have a California Emissions-Certified vehicle that needs a leak
detection pump which may work differently then vehicles sold in the
other 45 or so states that did not use this type of pump.
Bill Putney
> less - chance - of - vapor - lock - with - a - return - less -
> system. The - fuel - doesn't - pick - up - engine - heat - which
> - is - carried - back - to - the - tank - raising - the -
> temperature - of - the - entire - fuel - supply - making - it -
> more - susceptible - to - vapor - lock.
On close analysis, that explanation makes no sense (some of the heat
will be removed to ambient in the travel back to the tank, the tank is a
huge heat sink, so if nothing else, it buys you a lot of time (more than
no recirc) before temps at the rail rise significantly.
> You and Bill may not find the above to be in the least bit
> palatable. I suggest you take it up with the engineers who
> design the systems, since it's their description as to why it's
> done that way. The chief benefit being that it's easier to meet
> OBD2 EVAP compliance, the side benefit being improved hot
> driveability.
>
> I could regale you both with stories of GM police cars that
> after 2 shifts became un-driveable because the fuel temperature
> had risen so high that the vapor pressure allowed the purge
> system to overwhelm the fuel delivery system.
OK - but why was recirculating fuel system design used in the first
place - it obviously costs the motherfacturers more to run a return line
instaed of dumping it at the pressure regulator in the tank? There must
be a reason for its use since they could save money by not doing it. Or
was this a lesson-learned in the industry?
Bill Putney
>
> I don't know any fuel system design engineers personally. Do you?
Does designing fuel pumps for 8 years count?
Bill Putney
> Vapor lock has been a hot starting issue for some piston aircraft
> engines with fuel injected engines. When return lines are used it
> becomes less of an issue as running the electric fuel pumps for a short
> while is an item on the pre-start checklist.
>
> I'm not sure what the PCM update (mentioned in the TSB I posted in a
> separate message) does, but it probably turns on the fuel pump a little
> longer before cranking or some similar trick...
I think you're forgetting that this car does not do recirc (I don't
count pressure relief valve dumping at the tank a true recirc).
aarcuda69062
Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
What are the necessary components to create a vapor lock?
Is heated fuel one of them?
aarcuda69062
Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
> I don't know any fuel system design engineers personally. Do you?
Personally as in ; I visit their home at least once a week for
dinner? The answer would be no. Why would it be necessary to
know one personally? Does one need to have a personal
relationship with an engineer in order to avail themselves on how
a (any) system works? I hope not, otherwise there is probably
only a handful a people out there who are capable of servicing
any given component or assembly on an automobile.
Do I know any engineers? Yes.
Do I know any Chrysler/GM/Ford engineers? Yes, I've met them on a
regular basis during various training
sessions/conferences/committee meetings, etc.
Are there Chrysler engineers here, lurking? Yes
Are they/do they laugh at the pomposity that is posted here? You
betcha!
> This is exactly opposite everything I've read. It would be very hard to heat
> up all of the gas in the tank by enough to get anywhere near enough
> vapor pressure to cause vapor lock.
before you commit to that Matt, you might want to familiarize
yourself with the criteria set for monitoring EVAP pressures on
any vehicle built to 1996 or later OBD2 standards, because fuel
heating is a very major component used in the EVAP strategy.
> It is much easier to just heat the
> slow moving fuel in a non recirculation system.
Please explain how the fuel in the tank is heated by engine heat
in a non recirculating system.
> This is pretty simple
> physics. I'd like to hear your explanation as to why a non recirc
> system will pick up less heat in the fuel before it reaches the injector.
It would be much more interesting to hear why you think a
recirculating system -wouldn't- raise the temperature of the fuel
in the tank in spite of the fact that a portion of the fuel has
traveled to the engine compartment, sat in the fuel rail for a
period of time soaking up heat, and was returned to the tank
repeatedly. Especially since it -is- a known occurrence and is
something that has to be dealt with in the OBD2 EVAP strategy.
aarcuda69062
Greg Houston <gh...@no.spam> wrote:
> Maybe if the fuel tank was almost empty and the little amount of fuel
> returning to the pump was enough to almost make a measurable change in
> temperature to the fuel in the pump. Otherwise I don't see how that
> would be much of an issue.
> The advantage of a return line is that you
> can pump plenty of liquid gasoline through the system to keep it
> continuously cool enough to avoid vaporization in the lines.
The fuel ahead of the pump is at 35-40 psi, at that pressure, it
isn't at all susceptible to vapor lock. Doesn't mean it can't
happen, but as it's been since the advent of EFI, usually the
only time vapor lock becomes an issue is when the gasoline supply
is blended for winter and a geographic area receives an unusual
for the season warm/hot spell which makes it a specific function
of the gasoline's vapor pressure.
> This is
> similar to a garden hose sitting in the sun that is full of hot water
> but if you keep running fresh water though it, it stays fairly cool even
> though it is still in the sun.
Not at all like a garden hose, the fuel lines do not sit in the
sun like your garden hose does, soaking up heat. Also, once
purged of the hot water from the sun soak, your garden hoses
supply of water comes from underground where the ambient ground
temperature keeps it cool(er).
Bad analogy
> Vapor lock has been a hot starting issue for some piston aircraft
> engines with fuel injected engines. When return lines are used it
> becomes less of an issue as running the electric fuel pumps for a short
> while is an item on the pre-start checklist.
A purge function which is separate from the causing event.
Run the aircraft for enough hours to sufficiently heat the fuel
and the problem will return I suspect.
> I'm not sure what the PCM update (mentioned in the TSB I posted in a
> separate message) does, but it probably turns on the fuel pump a little
> longer before cranking or some similar trick.
Or; they increase the pulse width of the injectors to purge
vapors. Running the fuel pump longer would do nothing since
there's no recirculation involved, so what if anything would it
do?
> On my 99 (built after
> they fixed the problem in the TSB) I can hear the fuel pump come on for
> a second or two when I turn the key to ON before START.
Same as any other EFI car.
> On the other
> hand I have a California Emissions-Certified vehicle that needs a leak
> detection pump which may work differently then vehicles sold in the
> other 45 or so states that did not use this type of pump.
Nope. AFAIK, LDPs are used federally also, I see enough of them
for service here in Wi.
aarcuda69062
Bill Putney <bp...@kinez.net> wrote:
> On close analysis, that explanation makes no sense (some of the heat
> will be removed to ambient in the travel back to the tank,
Oh yeah, that fuel sure is going to cool down in the whole three
seconds that it resides in the return line.
> the tank is a
> huge heat sink,
You're implying that heat sinks do not warm up.
> so if nothing else, it buys you a lot of time (more than
> no recirc) before temps at the rail rise significantly.
Where did 'temps at the fuel rail" become an issue?
Why would they be/
The fuel rail is under pressure where as the inlet to the pump is
not.
> > You and Bill may not find the above to be in the least bit
> > palatable. I suggest you take it up with the engineers who
> > design the systems, since it's their description as to why it's
> > done that way. The chief benefit being that it's easier to meet
> > OBD2 EVAP compliance, the side benefit being improved hot
> > driveability.
> >
> > I could regale you both with stories of GM police cars that
> > after 2 shifts became un-driveable because the fuel temperature
> > had risen so high that the vapor pressure allowed the purge
> > system to overwhelm the fuel delivery system.
>
> OK - but why was recirculating fuel system design used in the first
> place - it obviously costs the motherfacturers more to run a return line
> instaed of dumping it at the pressure regulator in the tank?
Proximity of the fuel pressure regulator and the attendant
manifold vacuum source, for one. Complexity and the lack of (to
that point,) OBD2 regulations.
> There must
> be a reason for its use since they could save money by not doing it. Or
> was this a lesson-learned in the industry?
I think it's pretty obvious that the industry as a whole has been
evolutionary, a large part of which has been because of lessons
learned.
aarcuda69062
Bill Putney <bp...@kinez.net> wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't know any fuel system design engineers personally. Do you?
>
> Does designing fuel pumps for 8 years count?
Just the pumps? Without knowing more specifics about who and
what application, no.
I know a whole gaggle of electrical engineers who design electric
motors, most of them can't even install a simple 4 wire trailer
light connector.
Matt Whiting
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know any fuel system design engineers personally. Do you?
>
>
> Does designing fuel pumps for 8 years count?
Yep, but you aren't the guy who claimed that a recirc system is MORE
susceptible to vapor lock!
Matt
Matt Whiting
It is the main one. Your point?
Matt
Matt Whiting
> In article <TtXEe.1103$Ke3.1...@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know any fuel system design engineers personally. Do you?
>
>
> Personally as in ; I visit their home at least once a week for
> dinner? The answer would be no. Why would it be necessary to
> know one personally? Does one need to have a personal
> relationship with an engineer in order to avail themselves on how
> a (any) system works? I hope not, otherwise there is probably
> only a handful a people out there who are capable of servicing
> any given component or assembly on an automobile.
> Do I know any engineers? Yes.
> Do I know any Chrysler/GM/Ford engineers? Yes, I've met them on a
> regular basis during various training
> sessions/conferences/committee meetings, etc.
> Are there Chrysler engineers here, lurking? Yes
> Are they/do they laugh at the pomposity that is posted here? You
> betcha!
Then let one of them weigh in on this topic.
>>This is exactly opposite everything I've read. It would be very hard to heat
>>up all of the gas in the tank by enough to get anywhere near enough
>>vapor pressure to cause vapor lock.
>
>
> before you commit to that Matt, you might want to familiarize
> yourself with the criteria set for monitoring EVAP pressures on
> any vehicle built to 1996 or later OBD2 standards, because fuel
> heating is a very major component used in the EVAP strategy.
So?
>>It is much easier to just heat the
>>slow moving fuel in a non recirculation system.
>
>
> Please explain how the fuel in the tank is heated by engine heat
> in a non recirculating system.
It isn't, but then vapor lock doesn't occur in the tank in occurs in the
engine compartment typically where the fuel line runs past a hot
component such as the exhaust manifold.
>>This is pretty simple
>>physics. I'd like to hear your explanation as to why a non recirc
>>system will pick up less heat in the fuel before it reaches the injector.
>
>
> It would be much more interesting to hear why you think a
> recirculating system -wouldn't- raise the temperature of the fuel
> in the tank in spite of the fact that a portion of the fuel has
> traveled to the engine compartment, sat in the fuel rail for a
> period of time soaking up heat, and was returned to the tank
> repeatedly. Especially since it -is- a known occurrence and is
> something that has to be dealt with in the OBD2 EVAP strategy.
I don't think that it won't heat the fuel in the tank. However, since
that is largely irrelevant to vapor lock, what does it matter? What
matters is when the fuel in the fuel line vaporizes before reaching the
carbuertor or fuel injector. And the temperature of the fuel in the
fuel lines in the engine compartment will be much higher in a
non-recirculating system that has a low flow rate and thus higher dwell
time near the hot components of the engine.
Matt
tim bur
line running bac to the tank from the engine
that is alos why u see more window switches in the center console as in
libertys and pt bruisers less wiring since it runs onma bus circuit
aarcuda69062
Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
> aarcuda69062 wrote:
> > In article <TtXEe.1103$Ke3.1...@news1.epix.net>,
> > Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I don't know any fuel system design engineers personally. Do you?
> >
> >
> > Personally as in ; I visit their home at least once a week for
> > dinner? The answer would be no. Why would it be necessary to
> > know one personally? Does one need to have a personal
> > relationship with an engineer in order to avail themselves on how
> > a (any) system works? I hope not, otherwise there is probably
> > only a handful a people out there who are capable of servicing
> > any given component or assembly on an automobile.
> > Do I know any engineers? Yes.
> > Do I know any Chrysler/GM/Ford engineers? Yes, I've met them on a
> > regular basis during various training
> > sessions/conferences/committee meetings, etc.
> > Are there Chrysler engineers here, lurking? Yes
> > Are they/do they laugh at the pomposity that is posted here? You
> > betcha!
>
> Then let one of them weigh in on this topic.
Not in my control.
>
> >>This is exactly opposite everything I've read.
I would (belatedly) interject here that apparently all you've
got to go on is what you've read, and it's certain that you may
not have read all that is necessary, and it's also certain that
you lack practical experience.
> >>It would be very hard to
> >>heat
> >>up all of the gas in the tank by enough to get anywhere near enough
> >>vapor pressure to cause vapor lock.
> >
> >
> > before you commit to that Matt, you might want to familiarize
> > yourself with the criteria set for monitoring EVAP pressures on
> > any vehicle built to 1996 or later OBD2 standards, because fuel
> > heating is a very major component used in the EVAP strategy.
>
> So?
So, apparently it is not "very hard to heat up all the gas in the
tank by enough to get anywhere near enough vapor pressure to
cause vapor lock." If you knew anything about OBD2 EVAP
criteria, you'd be familiar with the pressure built and the
conditions where they are maximum.
>
> >>It is much easier to just heat the
> >>slow moving fuel in a non recirculation system.
> >
> >
> > Please explain how the fuel in the tank is heated by engine heat
> > in a non recirculating system.
>
> It isn't,
That equals a head start as far as the fuel system is concerned.
> but then vapor lock doesn't occur in the tank in occurs in the
> engine compartment
Hog wash. Vapor lock is more likely to occur on the suction side
of the pump and is virtually non existent on the pressure side of
the pump up too the point where there is a component problem such
as a failing fuel pump.
You could easily win this by describing in detail the precise
movements of the fuel in the tank to the pump, from the pump to
the filter/regulator and its return to the fuel tank in an LH
chassis and include the where and why that causes the (cited in
TSB by Greg Houston) vapor lock condition. IOWs, cite the
specific failure mode that contributes to the vapor lock.
(hint, it's got nothing to do with anything you or Bill have
posted so far). I'll tell you this much; Chryslers description
using the words "vapor lock" is a bit disingenuous.
> typically where the fuel line runs past a hot
> component such as the exhaust manifold.
I'm under the hoods of a lot of LH cars, exactly where is this?
>
> >>This is pretty simple
> >>physics. I'd like to hear your explanation as to why a non recirc
> >>system will pick up less heat in the fuel before it reaches the injector.
> >
> >
> > It would be much more interesting to hear why you think a
> > recirculating system -wouldn't- raise the temperature of the fuel
> > in the tank in spite of the fact that a portion of the fuel has
> > traveled to the engine compartment, sat in the fuel rail for a
> > period of time soaking up heat, and was returned to the tank
> > repeatedly. Especially since it -is- a known occurrence and is
> > something that has to be dealt with in the OBD2 EVAP strategy.
>
> I don't think that it won't heat the fuel in the tank. However, since
> that is largely irrelevant to vapor lock, what does it matter?
Fuel temperature is "irrelevant" to vapor lock?
Does raising the pressure of a liquid tend to increase or
decrease its boiling point?
Pick a point in the fuel system where the fuel goes from a
negative pressure to a positive pressure and then cite why the
side under positive pressure is (according to you) more likely to
boil of form into a vapor.
> What
> matters is when the fuel in the fuel line vaporizes before reaching the
> carbuertor or fuel injector.
Again, vapor lock on the pressure side of the fuel is quite rare
and would probably take some pretty extreme temperatures to
facilitate. And, in the case of the LH cars, it doesn't occur
there to begin with, it starts at the inlet to the fuel pump.
(you can go ahead and do the math since I already know what the
root cause of the LH vapor lock is)
> And the temperature of the fuel in the
> fuel lines in the engine compartment will be much higher in a
> non-recirculating system that has a low flow rate and thus higher dwell
> time near the hot components of the engine.
This totally ignores the fact that the fuel can pick up heat on
the return path from things like the pavement and/or the exhaust
system. But then, you -did- say that fuel temperature was
"irrelevant."
Greg Houston
> I would (belatedly) interject here that apparently all you've
> got to go on is what you've read, and it's certain that you may
> not have read all that is necessary, and it's also certain that
> you lack practical experience.
>
> > >>It would be very hard to
> > >>heat
> > >>up all of the gas in the tank by enough to get anywhere near enough
> > >>vapor pressure to cause vapor lock.
> > >
> > >
> > > before you commit to that Matt, you might want to familiarize
> > > yourself with the criteria set for monitoring EVAP pressures on
> > > any vehicle built to 1996 or later OBD2 standards, because fuel
> > > heating is a very major component used in the EVAP strategy.
> >
> > So?
>
> So, apparently it is not "very hard to heat up all the gas in the
> tank by enough to get anywhere near enough vapor pressure to
> cause vapor lock."
There is no indication of that all, either in your posting or the Chrysler
service bulletin regarding the vehicle in question.
> If you knew anything about OBD2 EVAP
> criteria, you'd be familiar with the pressure built and the
> conditions where they are maximum.
Exactly which OBD2 criteria are you referring to?
>
>
> >
> > >>It is much easier to just heat the
> > >>slow moving fuel in a non recirculation system.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please explain how the fuel in the tank is heated by engine heat
> > > in a non recirculating system.
> >
> > It isn't,
>
> That equals a head start as far as the fuel system is concerned.
>
> > but then vapor lock doesn't occur in the tank in occurs in the
> > engine compartment
>
> Hog wash. Vapor lock is more likely to occur on the suction side
> of the pump and is virtually non existent on the pressure side of
> the pump up too the point where there is a component problem such
> as a failing fuel pump.
There are service bulletins issued by Chrysler for vapor lock conditions on the
pressure side in the pump (more specifically inside the engine compartment) for
some M.Y. 1998 LH vehicles.
>
> You could easily win this by describing in detail the precise
> movements of the fuel in the tank to the pump, from the pump to
> the filter/regulator and its return to the fuel tank in an LH
> chassis and include the where and why that causes the (cited in
> TSB by Greg Houston) vapor lock condition. IOWs, cite the
> specific failure mode that contributes to the vapor lock.
> (hint, it's got nothing to do with anything you or Bill have
> posted so far). I'll tell you this much; Chryslers description
> using the words "vapor lock" is a bit disingenuous.
>
> > typically where the fuel line runs past a hot
> > component such as the exhaust manifold.
>
> I'm under the hoods of a lot of LH cars, exactly where is this?
The hot component cited for sure is the engine cooling lines, at least for the
2.7L engine.
>
>
> >
> > >>This is pretty simple
> > >>physics. I'd like to hear your explanation as to why a non recirc
> > >>system will pick up less heat in the fuel before it reaches the injector.
> > >
> > >
> > > It would be much more interesting to hear why you think a
> > > recirculating system -wouldn't- raise the temperature of the fuel
> > > in the tank in spite of the fact that a portion of the fuel has
> > > traveled to the engine compartment, sat in the fuel rail for a
> > > period of time soaking up heat, and was returned to the tank
> > > repeatedly. Especially since it -is- a known occurrence and is
> > > something that has to be dealt with in the OBD2 EVAP strategy.
> >
> > I don't think that it won't heat the fuel in the tank. However, since
> > that is largely irrelevant to vapor lock, what does it matter?
>
> Fuel temperature is "irrelevant" to vapor lock?
I don't think he indicated anything like the question you propose.
>
> Does raising the pressure of a liquid tend to increase or
> decrease its boiling point?
> Pick a point in the fuel system where the fuel goes from a
> negative pressure to a positive pressure and then cite why the
> side under positive pressure is (according to you) more likely to
> boil of form into a vapor.
The vapor lock problem occurs while the engine is off. If pressure is not
maintained while the engine is off (but the engine is still warm) the vapor lock
problem can occur. The first step for diagnosis in Chrysler's service bulletins
is to check if fuel pressure is maintained for 15 minutes after the fuel pump is
turned on, then off.
>
>
> > What
> > matters is when the fuel in the fuel line vaporizes before reaching the
> > carbuertor or fuel injector.
>
> Again, vapor lock on the pressure side of the fuel is quite rare
> and would probably take some pretty extreme temperatures to
> facilitate. And, in the case of the LH cars, it doesn't occur
> there to begin with, it starts at the inlet to the fuel pump.
> (you can go ahead and do the math since I already know what the
> root cause of the LH vapor lock is)
Careful there, your statement is resembling begging the question. First Chrysler
published a TSB for vapor lock conditions on the pressure side of the fuel pump.
Second, what math are you referring to? If you honestly know some math which
supports your position don't be afraid to post it. You may already "know" what
the root cause of the LH vapor lock is, but Chrysler published a service
bulletin that disagrees with your diagnosis. Given the choice, I'll lean
toward Chrysler's analysis and repair.
>
>
> > And the temperature of the fuel in the
> > fuel lines in the engine compartment will be much higher in a
> > non-recirculating system that has a low flow rate and thus higher dwell
> > time near the hot components of the engine.
>
> This totally ignores the fact that the fuel can pick up heat on
> the return path from things like the pavement and/or the exhaust
> system. But then, you -did- say that fuel temperature was
> "irrelevant."
To be fair, you've made an irrelevant conclusion policy here. His "irrelevant"
comment was only referring to the temperature of gasoline in the Fuel Tank, not
any fuel temperature anywhere. As stated in Chrysler's own bulletin, the vapor
lock problem occurs near the hot engine, not in the tank. However according to
the TSB the fuel pump module is a source of the problem due to its inability to
maintain fuel pressure after being switched OFF.
Greg Houston
> In article <z9mdnT79CbW...@rcn.net>,
> Greg Houston <gh...@no.spam> wrote:
>
> > Maybe if the fuel tank was almost empty and the little amount of fuel
> > returning to the pump was enough to almost make a measurable change in
> > temperature to the fuel in the pump. Otherwise I don't see how that
> > would be much of an issue.
> > The advantage of a return line is that you
> > can pump plenty of liquid gasoline through the system to keep it
> > continuously cool enough to avoid vaporization in the lines.
>
> The fuel ahead of the pump is at 35-40 psi, at that pressure, it
> isn't at all susceptible to vapor lock. Doesn't mean it can't
> happen, but as it's been since the advent of EFI, usually the
> only time vapor lock becomes an issue is when the gasoline supply
> is blended for winter and a geographic area receives an unusual
> for the season warm/hot spell which makes it a specific function
> of the gasoline's vapor pressure.
It's only at 35-40 psi after the engine is shut off (while the engine remains
warm) IF the fuel module is working properly.
> > This is
> > similar to a garden hose sitting in the sun that is full of hot water
> > but if you keep running fresh water though it, it stays fairly cool even
> > though it is still in the sun.
>
> Not at all like a garden hose, the fuel lines do not sit in the
> sun like your garden hose does, soaking up heat. Also, once
> purged of the hot water from the sun soak, your garden hoses
> supply of water comes from underground where the ambient ground
> temperature keeps it cool(er).
> Bad analogy
Actually the fuel line is adjacent to warm engine components, where they can
soak up heat. The TSB states as much as well. It is also why the TSB refers
to modifying engine cooling lines. The combination of the fuel lines
absorbing engine heat and a malfuntioning fuel pump that doesn't keep pressure
high enough after it is shut off causes the vapor lock condition.
>
>
> > Vapor lock has been a hot starting issue for some piston aircraft
> > engines with fuel injected engines. When return lines are used it
> > becomes less of an issue as running the electric fuel pumps for a short
> > while is an item on the pre-start checklist.
>
> A purge function which is separate from the causing event.
> Run the aircraft for enough hours to sufficiently heat the fuel
> and the problem will return I suspect.
Not at all. Running the fuel pump is a warm engine start checklist item.
(i.e. after the aircraft has been run for hours.)
> > I'm not sure what the PCM update (mentioned in the TSB I posted in a
> > separate message) does, but it probably turns on the fuel pump a little
> > longer before cranking or some similar trick.
>
> Or; they increase the pulse width of the injectors to purge
> vapors. Running the fuel pump longer would do nothing since
> there's no recirculation involved, so what if anything would it
> do?
>
> > On my 99 (built after
> > they fixed the problem in the TSB) I can hear the fuel pump come on for
> > a second or two when I turn the key to ON before START.
>
> Same as any other EFI car.
With the LDP you can also hear the LDP sequence (only when starting an engine
that is cold [it doesn't do it when it is really really cold in the winter).
In later years CA cars used another technology in lieu of the LDP--I think
around MY 2001 or 2002.
>
>
> > On the other
> > hand I have a California Emissions-Certified vehicle that needs a leak
> > detection pump which may work differently then vehicles sold in the
> > other 45 or so states that did not use this type of pump.
>
> Nope. AFAIK, LDPs are used federally also, I see enough of them
> for service here in Wi.
According to the Chrysler '99 LH service manual the LDP was only on CA
emissions cars, at least for that MY.
Greg Houston
Oops, strike that last sentence. I just confirmed with my copy of the LH manual.
Leak Detection Pumps may be found on non-CA emissions cert. vehicles.
aarcuda69062
Greg Houston <gh...@no.spam> wrote:
> There are service bulletins issued by Chrysler for vapor lock conditions on
> the
> pressure side in the pump (more specifically inside the engine compartment)
> for
> some M.Y. 1998 LH vehicles.
Greg, you might want to go back and re-read the OPs post, the
hard/no start occurs under two conditions;
1) Low fuel level
2) Ambient above 70 degrees
Neither one of these conditions is worth attributing to vapor
lock.
Hell, I just drove over 100 miles on Sunday in 100 degree heat in
a carbureted car with an engine mounted mechanical fuel pump, the
coolant was running at over 230 degrees, the gasoline is
reformulated piss water and I experienced absolutely no evidence
of vapor lock.
Sorry, at 72 degrees, he doesn't have vapor lock.
He has the classic pattern failure of a weak fuel pump.
> The vapor lock problem occurs while the engine is off. If pressure is not
> maintained while the engine is off (but the engine is still warm) the vapor
> lock
> problem can occur. The first step for diagnosis in Chrysler's service
> bulletins
> is to check if fuel pressure is maintained for 15 minutes after the fuel pump
> is
> turned on, then off.
Which means that the vapor lock is a symptom, not the cause of
the problem to begin with, i.e., he has a failing fuel pump.
> Careful there, your statement is resembling begging the question. First
> Chrysler
> published a TSB for vapor lock conditions on the pressure side of the fuel
> pump.
All well and good, except that it doesn't fit the OPs description
of when the problem occurs.
Wrong diagnosis.
> Second, what math are you referring to? If you honestly know some math which
> supports your position don't be afraid to post it. You may already "know"
> what
> the root cause of the LH vapor lock is, but Chrysler published a service
> bulletin that disagrees with your diagnosis. Given the choice, I'll lean
> toward Chrysler's analysis and repair.
I guess if you follow the TSB, you -might- stumble upon the root
cause for the no start.
Thing is; I have numerous customers who own 2.7 LH cars and they
do not suffer wholesale vapor lock problems with their cars under
-any- ambient temperature conditions.
> To be fair, you've made an irrelevant conclusion policy here. His
> "irrelevant"
> comment was only referring to the temperature of gasoline in the Fuel Tank,
> not
> any fuel temperature anywhere. As stated in Chrysler's own bulletin, the
> vapor
> lock problem occurs near the hot engine, not in the tank.
The OPs problem occurs at ambient temperature above 70 degrees
with low fuel level. No mention of a "hot engine," so the TSB
doesn't fit.
A simple amp meter hook up to the fuel pump circuit will show
lower than normal amperage draw for the fuel pump which means
it's spinning faster than normal, it's spinning faster than
normal because it's cavitating, it's cavitating because the pump
is worn out and lacks sufficient volume to maintain an adequate
level of fuel in the cup at the bottom of the fuel pump module
(via the return line) so the pump is starving.
If you guys had the slightest clue of how this system -actually-
works, and had actually paid attention to the customers
complaint, non of this back and forth crap would be necessary.
> However according
> to
> the TSB the fuel pump module is a source of the problem due to its inability
> to
> maintain fuel pressure after being switched OFF.
Sounds like a fuel pump failure, not vapor lock.
Vapor lock occurs in spite of a properly functioning fuel supply.
Frankly, I haven't seen a case of vapor lock in near 25 years,
but then, I DO know to recognize the symptoms when they are
presented (like the OPs mention of missfiring when the problem
occurs).
aarcuda69062
tim bur <dbr...@cac.net> wrote:
> the whole of retuirnless is the carmaker is saving money by not having a fuel
> line running bac to the tank from the engine
In order to facilitate a MPFI fuel system that does not have a
vacuum operated fuel pressure regulator it is necessary to modify
the injector driver circuit so that the injectors can be
multi-fired to achieve adequate fuel delivery, this means heavier
duty - higher quality drivers in the PCM. It's entirely likely
that the increased costs of these injector drivers offsets any
dollar saving realized by not having to use a dozen or so feet of
1/4" fuel line. Especially if one considers that the PCM is
under warranty a lot longer than the fuel line(s).
> that is alos why u see more window switches in the center console as in
> libertys and pt bruisers less wiring since it runs onma bus circuit
Center mounted window switches have been around a lot longer than
buss controlled body functions. Buss networked systems in and of
themselves eliminate many feet of wiring which is the whole point
of using buss circuits to begin with, so it's really not germane
to -where- the switches are positioned.
YMWTC; Japanese cars have typically had the dome light over-ride
switch built into the dome light itself (where it's reachable
from every seat position).
Matt Whiting
> In article <PydFe.1132$Ke3.1...@news1.epix.net>,
> Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>aarcuda69062 wrote:
>>
>>>In article <TtXEe.1103$Ke3.1...@news1.epix.net>,
>>> Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't know any fuel system design engineers personally. Do you?
>>>
>>>
>>>Personally as in ; I visit their home at least once a week for
>>>dinner? The answer would be no. Why would it be necessary to
>>>know one personally? Does one need to have a personal
>>>relationship with an engineer in order to avail themselves on how
>>>a (any) system works? I hope not, otherwise there is probably
>>>only a handful a people out there who are capable of servicing
>>>any given component or assembly on an automobile.
>>>Do I know any engineers? Yes.
>>>Do I know any Chrysler/GM/Ford engineers? Yes, I've met them on a
>>>regular basis during various training
>>>sessions/conferences/committee meetings, etc.
>>>Are there Chrysler engineers here, lurking? Yes
>>>Are they/do they laugh at the pomposity that is posted here? You
>>>betcha!
>>
>>Then let one of them weigh in on this topic.
>
>
> Not in my control.
Which means that none watch this ng.
>
>
>>>>This is exactly opposite everything I've read.
>
>
> I would (belatedly) interject here that apparently all you've
> got to go on is what you've read, and it's certain that you may
> not have read all that is necessary, and it's also certain that
> you lack practical experience.
Actually, I've had practical experience with both cars and airplanes and
an engineering degree that gives me a little understanding of the
subject. What is your experience and credentials?
>>>>It would be very hard to
>>>>heat
>>>>up all of the gas in the tank by enough to get anywhere near enough
>>>>vapor pressure to cause vapor lock.
>>>
>>>
>>>before you commit to that Matt, you might want to familiarize
>>>yourself with the criteria set for monitoring EVAP pressures on
>>>any vehicle built to 1996 or later OBD2 standards, because fuel
>>>heating is a very major component used in the EVAP strategy.
>>
>>So?
>
>
> So, apparently it is not "very hard to heat up all the gas in the
> tank by enough to get anywhere near enough vapor pressure to
> cause vapor lock." If you knew anything about OBD2 EVAP
> criteria, you'd be familiar with the pressure built and the
> conditions where they are maximum.
I'm not familiar with OBD2 EVAP criteria, so why don't you fill me in
since you know so much about it?
>>>>It is much easier to just heat the
>>>>slow moving fuel in a non recirculation system.
>>>
>>>
>>>Please explain how the fuel in the tank is heated by engine heat
>>>in a non recirculating system.
>>
>>It isn't,
>
>
> That equals a head start as far as the fuel system is concerned.
>
>
>>but then vapor lock doesn't occur in the tank in occurs in the
>>engine compartment
>
>
> Hog wash. Vapor lock is more likely to occur on the suction side
> of the pump and is virtually non existent on the pressure side of
> the pump up too the point where there is a component problem such
> as a failing fuel pump.
Only while the pump is operating. Most vapor lock problems, both in the
old days with engine mounted pumps and carbs or today, occur while the
car or airplane is sitting after being run hard and hot. Vapor lock is
relatively rare during operation.
> You could easily win this by describing in detail the precise
> movements of the fuel in the tank to the pump, from the pump to
> the filter/regulator and its return to the fuel tank in an LH
> chassis and include the where and why that causes the (cited in
> TSB by Greg Houston) vapor lock condition. IOWs, cite the
> specific failure mode that contributes to the vapor lock.
> (hint, it's got nothing to do with anything you or Bill have
> posted so far). I'll tell you this much; Chryslers description
> using the words "vapor lock" is a bit disingenuous.
It has everything to do with what we've posted and next to nothing with
what you have posted.
>>typically where the fuel line runs past a hot
>>component such as the exhaust manifold.
>
>
> I'm under the hoods of a lot of LH cars, exactly where is this?
I'm not familiar with LH cars, I was talking cars in general. The
routing of the fuel line is a major contributor to vapor lock
susceptibility and the reason why some cars are famous for this problem
and some rarely have it. A properl routed and insulated fuel line will
greatly reduce the likelihood of vapor forming in the fuel line.
>>>>This is pretty simple
>>>>physics. I'd like to hear your explanation as to why a non recirc
>>>>system will pick up less heat in the fuel before it reaches the injector.
>>>
>>>
>>>It would be much more interesting to hear why you think a
>>>recirculating system -wouldn't- raise the temperature of the fuel
>>>in the tank in spite of the fact that a portion of the fuel has
>>>traveled to the engine compartment, sat in the fuel rail for a
>>>period of time soaking up heat, and was returned to the tank
>>>repeatedly. Especially since it -is- a known occurrence and is
>>>something that has to be dealt with in the OBD2 EVAP strategy.
>>
>>I don't think that it won't heat the fuel in the tank. However, since
>>that is largely irrelevant to vapor lock, what does it matter?
>
>
> Fuel temperature is "irrelevant" to vapor lock?
Fuel temperature is highly relevant, but not in the tank ... in the fuel
line in the engine compartment.
> Does raising the pressure of a liquid tend to increase or
> decrease its boiling point?
> Pick a point in the fuel system where the fuel goes from a
> negative pressure to a positive pressure and then cite why the
> side under positive pressure is (according to you) more likely to
> boil of form into a vapor.
Positive pressure isn't always maintained while the vehicle is sitting
with the fuel pump turned off. Check valves tend to age and leak.
>>What
>>matters is when the fuel in the fuel line vaporizes before reaching the
>>carbuertor or fuel injector.
>
>
> Again, vapor lock on the pressure side of the fuel is quite rare
> and would probably take some pretty extreme temperatures to
> facilitate. And, in the case of the LH cars, it doesn't occur
> there to begin with, it starts at the inlet to the fuel pump.
> (you can go ahead and do the math since I already know what the
> root cause of the LH vapor lock is)
You know the root cause of one form of vapor lock, but not every form
obviously. And you seem to live in an ideal world where pressure is
always maintained between the pump and the fuel injector. Taint so.
>>And the temperature of the fuel in the
>>fuel lines in the engine compartment will be much higher in a
>>non-recirculating system that has a low flow rate and thus higher dwell
>>time near the hot components of the engine.
>
>
> This totally ignores the fact that the fuel can pick up heat on
> the return path from things like the pavement and/or the exhaust
> system. But then, you -did- say that fuel temperature was
> "irrelevant."
Sure if the maker was stupid enough to run it along side the exhaust
system. I haven't yet seen a car designed that way, but I'm sure
somebody somewhere has done it. And the heat from the pavement pales in
comparison to the heat from the exhaust manifold.
Matt
Matt Whiting
>>>Vapor lock has been a hot starting issue for some piston aircraft
>>>engines with fuel injected engines. When return lines are used it
>>>becomes less of an issue as running the electric fuel pumps for a short
>>>while is an item on the pre-start checklist.
>>
>>A purge function which is separate from the causing event.
>>Run the aircraft for enough hours to sufficiently heat the fuel
>>and the problem will return I suspect.
>
>
> Not at all. Running the fuel pump is a warm engine start checklist item.
> (i.e. after the aircraft has been run for hours.)
His ignorance of vapor lock in autos is exceeded only by his ignorance
of vapor lock formation in airplanes. :-)
Thinking that you will heat the fuel in the wings while flying is a real
hoot!
Matt
Bill Putney
You keep mentioning a bad check valve relesaing the fuel rail pressure -
don't forget a leaking injector.
Speaking of running a fuel line next to exhaust, I bought a 1980
Citation brand new - V-6. It would vapor lock after a heat soak because
they had the mechanical fuel pump mounted on the front (bumper side) of
the transverse engine, and the front bank main exhaust pipe came off the
collector pointing forward about 6" away from the fuel pump and did a
perfect 180° with the fuel pump at the exact center of radius. Nice
design!!
Greg Houston
Especially since the return lines are part of the design to reduce vapor lock
during hot starts. Vapor lock isn't a problem when the engine is running, just
when you feel like starting the engine again before it cools.
Greg Houston
So does my LH vehicle.
I am curious what "heavier duty - higher quality drivers in the PCM" are and why
these drivers cost more :)
Greg Houston
> In article <42E5A009...@no.spam>,
> Greg Houston <gh...@no.spam> wrote:
>
> > There are service bulletins issued by Chrysler for vapor lock conditions on
> > the
> > pressure side in the pump (more specifically inside the engine compartment)
> > for
> > some M.Y. 1998 LH vehicles.
>
> Greg, you might want to go back and re-read the OPs post, the
> hard/no start occurs under two conditions;
> 1) Low fuel level
> 2) Ambient above 70 degrees
>
> Neither one of these conditions is worth attributing to vapor
> lock.
> Hell, I just drove over 100 miles on Sunday in 100 degree heat in
> a carbureted car with an engine mounted mechanical fuel pump, the
> coolant was running at over 230 degrees, the gasoline is
> reformulated piss water and I experienced absolutely no evidence
> of vapor lock.
>
> Sorry, at 72 degrees, he doesn't have vapor lock.
You are mistaken re: original post. xmirage2kxsaid that the problem occurs "when
its low on gas, and when its hot." He also said that 80% of the time it is over 70
degrees/sunny outside. As discussed in Chrysler's TSB, vapor lock is caused by
heat from the engine, not ambient heat, although an engine cools more slowly when
ambient temp is higher. Your experience with a carbureted car is not relevant to
the discussion; the discussion (and the Vapor Lock TSB for that matter) is about a
1998 Concorde.
aarcuda69062
Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
> > Not in my control.
>
> Which means that none watch this ng.
Could you possibly be a little more absurd?
> > I would (belatedly) interject here that apparently all you've
> > got to go on is what you've read, and it's certain that you may
> > not have read all that is necessary, and it's also certain that
> > you lack practical experience.
>
> Actually, I've had practical experience with both cars
Yet farther down you admit to having no familiarity with LH cars.
> and airplanes
I don't believe the vehicle in question is the French built SST.
> and
> an engineering degree that gives me a little understanding of the
> subject.
For all I know, you design toilet plungers.
> What is your experience and credentials?
On my resume I usually just put "dumb fucking country mechanic."
Ya see Matt, the importance of glitzy job titles and education
bench marks lost it's luster long-long ago.
> I'm not familiar with OBD2 EVAP criteria, so why don't you fill me in
> since you know so much about it?
Gee, I guess you really don't have the practical experience as
you claim.
> > Hog wash. Vapor lock is more likely to occur on the suction side
> > of the pump and is virtually non existent on the pressure side of
> > the pump up too the point where there is a component problem such
> > as a failing fuel pump.
>
> Only while the pump is operating.
The TSB that Greg Houston cited mentioned "miss fires" do you
suppose they occurred while the engine was shut off?
> Most vapor lock problems, both in the
> old days with engine mounted pumps and carbs or today, occur while the
> car or airplane is sitting after being run hard and hot. Vapor lock is
> relatively rare during operation.
Oh, so all those cars that stalled in traffic, they must have
just pulled over to take a piss on the side of the road then, 'eh?
>
> > You could easily win this by describing in detail the precise
> > movements of the fuel in the tank to the pump, from the pump to
> > the filter/regulator and its return to the fuel tank in an LH
> > chassis and include the where and why that causes the (cited in
> > TSB by Greg Houston) vapor lock condition. IOWs, cite the
> > specific failure mode that contributes to the vapor lock.
> > (hint, it's got nothing to do with anything you or Bill have
> > posted so far). I'll tell you this much; Chryslers description
> > using the words "vapor lock" is a bit disingenuous.
>
> It has everything to do with what we've posted and next to nothing with
> what you have posted.
Well no since the OPs symptoms occur at 70 degrees or above, that
isn't a high enough temperature to induce vapor lock.
>
>
> >>typically where the fuel line runs past a hot
> >>component such as the exhaust manifold.
> >
> >
> > I'm under the hoods of a lot of LH cars, exactly where is this?
>
> I'm not familiar with LH cars, I was talking cars in general.
Okay, give me a car in general where the fuel line is routed near
the exhaust manifold.
> The
> routing of the fuel line is a major contributor to vapor lock
> susceptibility and the reason why some cars are famous for this problem
> and some rarely have it.
> A properl routed and insulated fuel line will
> greatly reduce the likelihood of vapor forming in the fuel line.
And this has what to do with a car that won't start when the fuel
level is low and/or the ambients are at 70 degrees or above and
these specific symptoms lay blame to a return less fuel system
exactly how? Bear in mind, my 98 Intrepid *has* a returnless
fuel system and it started just fine on Sunday when it was over
100 degrees with 1/8th tank of fuel.
> > Fuel temperature is "irrelevant" to vapor lock?
>
> Fuel temperature is highly relevant, but not in the tank ... in the fuel
> line in the engine compartment.
I disagree. If the fuel is already heated, adding the delta T
from the engine compartment is only going to make matters worse.
>
>
> > Does raising the pressure of a liquid tend to increase or
> > decrease its boiling point?
> > Pick a point in the fuel system where the fuel goes from a
> > negative pressure to a positive pressure and then cite why the
> > side under positive pressure is (according to you) more likely to
> > boil of form into a vapor.
>
> Positive pressure isn't always maintained while the vehicle is sitting
> with the fuel pump turned off. Check valves tend to age and leak.
Well, thank you Matt. Imagine, it only took this long to get to
the root cause and it's attending symptoms.
Wow, worn failed parts cause X, Y and Z to happen.
> > Again, vapor lock on the pressure side of the fuel is quite rare
> > and would probably take some pretty extreme temperatures to
> > facilitate. And, in the case of the LH cars, it doesn't occur
> > there to begin with, it starts at the inlet to the fuel pump.
> > (you can go ahead and do the math since I already know what the
> > root cause of the LH vapor lock is)
>
> You know the root cause of one form of vapor lock, but not every form
> obviously.
Maybe we should wait to hear from those who own second generation
LH cars with recirculating fuel systems to see if they have fewer
or more problems with vapor lock, just for the sake of fair
comparison.
> And you seem to live in an ideal world where pressure is
> always maintained between the pump and the fuel injector. Taint so.
Oh, I don't know about that Matt, I built my first fuel system
check valve leak testing tool 24 years ago from a spare radiator
pressure tester. I deal with this stuff daily, you on the other
hand obviously don't.
>
> >>And the temperature of the fuel in the
> >>fuel lines in the engine compartment will be much higher in a
> >>non-recirculating system that has a low flow rate and thus higher dwell
> >>time near the hot components of the engine.
> >
> >
> > This totally ignores the fact that the fuel can pick up heat on
> > the return path from things like the pavement and/or the exhaust
> > system. But then, you -did- say that fuel temperature was
> > "irrelevant."
>
> Sure if the maker was stupid enough to run it along side the exhaust
> system. I haven't yet seen a car designed that way, but I'm sure
> somebody somewhere has done it. And the heat from the pavement pales in
> comparison to the heat from the exhaust manifold.
Earlier, you posted:
> >>typically where the fuel line runs past a hot
> >>component such as the exhaust manifold.
Would you like to borrow my napkin?
aarcuda69062
Matt Whiting <whi...@epix.net> wrote:
You can either cite where I mentioned "while flying" or summarily
go fuck yourself.
Must suck to be Dilbert, "eh?
aarcuda69062
Bill Putney <bp...@kinez.net> wrote:
> Speaking of running a fuel line next to exhaust, I bought a 1980
> Citation brand new - V-6. It would vapor lock after a heat soak because
> they had the mechanical fuel pump mounted on the front (bumper side) of
> the transverse engine, and the front bank main exhaust pipe came off the
> collector pointing forward about 6" away from the fuel pump and did a
> perfect 180° with the fuel pump at the exact center of radius. Nice
> design!!
You bring up an interesting point Bill.
That fuel line was designed by an engineer.
Oooops, wait...
-You- are an engineer.
So is Matt. (but Matt flies airplanes which somehow makes him
superior)
Hold it.....
Didn't you mention having designed fuel pumps at one time in your
career?
Could it be?
You guys are a riot!
aarcuda69062
Greg Houston <gh...@no.spam> wrote:
Okay, I'll bite...
How exactly does the return line "reduce vapor lock?"
aarcuda69062
Greg Houston <gh...@no.spam> wrote:
Oh, maybe because they can handle higher current for longer
periods of time without failing.
Or, maybe they handle the same amount of current for longer
periods of time without failing.
Or even, they handle lower current at a higher duty cycle without
failing.
Or, maybe it has something to do with Matt performing his
pre-flight check list while he's airborne?
aarcuda69062
Greg Houston <gh...@no.spam> wrote:
So where does xmirage2kx say that this is a "heat from the
engine" problem.
He cites two criteria;
1) Low fuel level.
So explain how low fuel level contributes to vapor lock
2) 80% of the time it's over 70 degrees and sunny out.
So, explain how either of these conditions contribute to the
"engine heat" situation that is germane to the TSB you keep
crowing about?
Or is that you just don't get it?
The TSB doesn't apply.
Wrong diagnosis.
Warranty claim rejected.
Money spent, customer screwed again.
I will not argue that there is apparently a problem of sorts that
the TSB addresses, never said there wasn't.
You guys have never met a wild goose chase that you didn't love,
have you?
Just proves the old adage....
A TSB in the wrong hands is dangerous.
Greg Houston
As explained several times earlier in the thread, a return line provides fresh fuel
from the tank that has not been warmed locally from the engine to higher
temperatures. Fuel returning to the tank has a higher temperature than the tank,
but little more specific heat per mass due to the low volume compared to the tank
volume. That is the raison d'etre of return lines on fuel injected aircraft
engine systems. Today's cars use a pressurized fuel system that maintains
pressure (supposedly) for a while when the engine is off and warm.
Greg Houston
You did state, "Run the aircraft for enough hours to sufficiently heat the fuel
and the problem will return I suspect." Aircraft engines are typically not run
for hours on the ground during normal operations. Needing to resort to profane
language does not assist your argument.
Greg Houston
What is "they?"
> Or, maybe it has something to do with Matt performing his
> pre-flight check list while he's airborne?
Huh?
Greg Houston
As I quoted earlier, the exact statement from the OP discussing his car is "when
its low on gas, and when its hot."
> Or is that you just don't get it?
Got it.
> The TSB doesn't apply.
The TSB does apply.
> Wrong diagnosis.
The diagnosis is part of the TSB.
> Warranty claim rejected.
What warranty claim are you referring to in the context of what is *actually* being
discussed?
>
> Money spent, customer screwed again.
> I will not argue that there is apparently a problem of sorts that
> the TSB addresses, never said there wasn't.
>
> You guys have never met a wild goose chase that you didn't love,
> have you?
No.
> Just proves the old adage....
>
> A TSB in the wrong hands is dangerous.
The vehicle is exhibiting symptoms specifically mentioned in a TSB for the same
model year. It is reasonable to do the diagnosis procedures in the TSB.
Bill Putney
Oh no! Not another guy who has a chip on his shoulder because he didn't
go to college and someone else did. Sorry about that - I wish you could
have gone, but not my problem.
So your logic is: (1) Some engineer did a crappy system design (2) I am
an engineer (3) Therefore I am stupid too. That logic reflects on you
not me, and is an extension of the chip on your shoulder (your emotion
takes over your brain in certain situations so that you make irrational
statements).
Bill Putney
> ...Hell, I just drove over 100 miles on Sunday in 100 degree heat in
> a carbureted car with an engine mounted mechanical fuel pump, the
> coolant was running at over 230 degrees, the gasoline is
> reformulated piss water and I experienced absolutely no evidence
> of vapor lock.
>
> Sorry, at 72 degrees, he doesn't have vapor lock.
>
You keep bringin up the "above 70°" thing. Don't you realize that
underhood temperatures (inculding fuel rail temperatures) will be
directly affected by rises in ambient (i.e., a degree of ambient temp.
rise will add about 1° to the rail temp.). Certainly you understand
that the underhood temperatures are higher than the ambient? Perhaps
you should sit in on a heat transfer class at a nearby engineering
school (sorry - couldn't resist).
Also, as someone else already mentioned, perhaps the OP got ahold of
some fuel with high alcohol content - combined with some other problem
that is making a marginal problem an actual one. Besides the bad check
valve that has been mentioned several times, a leaking injector could
also explain system depressurization after shut down.
aarcuda69062
Greg Houston <gh...@no.spam> wrote:
So, what you really meant to say is that re-circulating the fuel
allows a vapor locked engine to start by supplying cooler fuel.
The return line itself does nothing WRT the vapor lock condition.
Just wanted to see if you guys understand this as well as you
claim you do.
aarcuda69062
Greg Houston <gh...@no.spam> wrote:
So, the whole basis of -your- aircraft analogy amounts to 'we
don't use them the same way as an automobile.' Like somehow that
is supposed to prove a point.
Don't do analogies anymore Gregg, you suck at it.
> Needing to resort to
> profane
> language does not assist your argument.
Nor does putting words in my mouth or mocking me just because the
three of you can't understand a simple concept.
Look; it's obvious that the three of you think you're dead right
on this, problem is, it's contrary to current accepted industry
practice and teaching. Matters not one whit to me if Matt and
Gregg didn't get the memo from Stutgart. Can't possibly be true,
Putney didn't read it on Intrepid.net, right?
Kludge work arounds that were utilized back when carburetors were
common and PCV valves were a mystery to you guys won't cut it in
todays world of increasingly tighter emissions controls.
You all want to believe that it's because ChryCo wanted to save
69 cents on some tubing, fine, have at it, I just hope that the
black helicopters don't keep you awake at night.
Frickin soccer daddy mechanics...
aarcuda69062
Greg Houston <gh...@no.spam> wrote:
That would be the universal "they."
The one size fits all "they."
The K-Mart Blue Light special "they."
The all major credit cards accepted "they."
The saved 69cents on some tubing "they."
>
> > Or, maybe it has something to do with Matt performing his
> > pre-flight check list while he's airborne?
>
> Huh?
Awww... you missed it. I'm truly sorry.
aarcuda69062
Greg Houston <gh...@no.spam> wrote:
Really? Because the only people to mention an engine heat soak
are you guys, the OP certainly hadn't.
71 degrees is not an engine heat soak.
Fuel doesn't vapor lock at 71 degrees, doesn't matter if there is
a leaking check valve or not.
Nice try soccer daddy mechanic.
aarcuda69062
Bill Putney <bp...@kinez.net> wrote:
> aarcuda69062 wrote:
>
> > In article <dc6iak$b6g$1...@news.isdn.net>,
> > Bill Putney <bp...@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Speaking of running a fuel line next to exhaust, I bought a 1980
> >>Citation brand new - V-6. It would vapor lock after a heat soak because
> >>they had the mechanical fuel pump mounted on the front (bumper side) of
> >>the transverse engine, and the front bank main exhaust pipe came off the
> >>collector pointing forward about 6" away from the fuel pump and did a
> >>perfect 180° with the fuel pump at the exact center of radius. Nice
> >>design!!
> >
> >
> > You bring up an interesting point Bill.
> >
> > That fuel line was designed by an engineer.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Oooops, wait...
> >
> > -You- are an engineer.
> >
> > So is Matt. (but Matt flies airplanes which somehow makes him
> > superior)
> >
> > Hold it.....
> >
> > Didn't you mention having designed fuel pumps at one time in your
> > career?
> >
> > Could it be?
> >
> > You guys are a riot!
>
> Oh no! Not another guy who has a chip on his shoulder because he didn't
> go to college and someone else did.
Bad assumption Bill.
Maybe 'Neil beats his wife' will work better for you.
> Sorry about that - I wish you could
> have gone, but not my problem.
And I'm sorry that you're stuck in your cubicle doing the Dilbert
thing worrying about when your job will be sent to India.
> So your logic is: (1) Some engineer did a crappy system design (2) I am
> an engineer (3) Therefore I am stupid too.
Yup, you got it.
Couldn't help but notice that you have two things to contribute
to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
1) replace the input or out speed sensors on your 41te/41le
2) put cryogenically treated brake rotors on your ________, (fill
in the blank).
You're a two trick pony.
You (and that line of ducks behind you) can't even read a set of
symptoms and decide whether or not a clearly worded TSB applies.
> That logic reflects on you
> not me, and is an extension of the chip on your shoulder
Bill, you can only dream that you'd have that kind of power over
me.
> (your emotion
> takes over your brain in certain situations so that you make irrational
> statements).
Irrational would be you jumping to the conclusion that a car that
won't start at 71 degrees and/or with low fuel level is somehow
vapor locked.
Irrational would be claiming that it must be so because that's
the way it is in an airplane.
aarcuda69062
Bill Putney <bp...@kinez.net> wrote:
> aarcuda69062 wrote:
>
> > ...Hell, I just drove over 100 miles on Sunday in 100 degree heat in
> > a carbureted car with an engine mounted mechanical fuel pump, the
> > coolant was running at over 230 degrees, the gasoline is
> > reformulated piss water and I experienced absolutely no evidence
> > of vapor lock.
> >
> > Sorry, at 72 degrees, he doesn't have vapor lock.
> >
>
> You keep bringin up the "above 70°" thing.
Well yeah, because it's an important clue.
Too bad it went right over your head.
> Don't you realize that
> underhood temperatures (inculding fuel rail temperatures) will be
> directly affected by rises in ambient (i.e., a degree of ambient temp.
> rise will add about 1° to the rail temp.).
Uh-Oh, the fuel rail is one degree warmer...
> Certainly you understand
> that the underhood temperatures are higher than the ambient?
Not that I believe you for a minute, but just to humor you, I
went out and took some temperature measurements with my
infra-red, no Bill, no such thing occurs.
Please, don't assume that what happens to the interior of the car
happens to the underhood. There's this thing called
"circulation" that happens to the air under the hood when the car
is sitting.
> Perhaps
> you should sit in on a heat transfer class at a nearby engineering
> school (sorry - couldn't resist).
Why, are they going to brain wash me into believing that the fuel
rail in a car sitting outside on a 72 degree day gets scalding
hot?
> Also, as someone else already mentioned, perhaps the OP got ahold of
> some fuel with high alcohol content -
"Got ahold" implies a one time happenstance.
From what the OP states, this has been an on going problem.
Nope, don't buy it. But please, spin some more.
> combined with some other problem
> that is making a marginal problem an actual one.
Like I've been saying, he -does- have "some other problem."
> Besides the bad check
> valve that has been mentioned several times, a leaking injector could
> also explain system depressurization after shut down.
Bill, I've dealt with hundreds of leaking check valves and
hundreds of leaking injectors and never, ever has there been an
associated complaint with "temperatures above 70 degrees and low
fuel level."
Bill, get an LH fuel pump module and trace out the fluid paths,
it will become obvious what the problem is. Be open minded,
realize that this fuel pump doesn't just pull fuel in off of the
bottom of the tank, realize that the return circuit -has- to
supply enough excess fuel to keep the pump inlet submerged.
Matt Whiting
Actually, being you sounds worse. :-)
Matt
Matt Whiting
It flushes the hot fuel and any vapor bubbles which have formed through
the system and back into the tank and provides cool fuel to the
injectors. Is this really a hard concept for you to understand?
Matt
Matt Whiting
It is when you are:
1) wrong
2) have a small mind
3) all of the above.
:-)
Matt
Matt Whiting
As is a keyboard.
Matt
maxpower
"Matt Whiting" <whi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:FWSFe.1267$Ke3.1...@news1.epix.net...
WELL SAID!!
Matt Whiting
It also prevents vapor lock in low pressure delivery systems by keeping
the fuel cooler during operation.
Matt
Matt Whiting
Even your entertainment value is now diminishing.
Matt
Bill Putney
> In article <dc7mr0$2a3$1...@news.isdn.net>,
> Bill Putney <bp...@kinez.net> wrote:
>
>
>>aarcuda69062 wrote:
> And I'm sorry that you're stuck in your cubicle doing the Dilbert
> thing worrying about when your job will be sent to India.
'er you go again letting your emotions run away with you causing you to
make false assumptions again. If you knew what I did for a living,
you'd know that there was no way.
>>So your logic is: (1) Some engineer did a crappy system design (2) I am
>>an engineer (3) Therefore I am stupid too.
>
>
> Yup, you got it.
> Couldn't help but notice that you have two things to contribute
> to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
> 1) replace the input or out speed sensors on your 41te/41le
> 2) put cryogenically treated brake rotors on your ________, (fill
> in the blank).
>
> You're a two trick pony.
Whad ya do? A google search on my name to check past stuff. Weird. I
have a few more tricks than those which if you really kept up instead of
doing a quick search you'd know.
Oh - BTW - you might also learn some cool stuff about grain structure in
metals from taking a couple of materials science courses
(again - at your nearby engineering school). Then you'd understand why
cryogenic treatements work. But you really don't want to know, do you.
Greg Houston
Correction: I meant to say return line _system_ provides . . .
>
>
> So, what you really meant to say is that re-circulating the fuel
> allows a vapor locked engine to start by supplying cooler fuel.
>
> The return line itself does nothing WRT the vapor lock condition.
The return line certainly does do something. It permits relatively cool fuel to
flow, displacing a quantity of warmed fuel that could not immediately be consumed
by the engine.
>
>
> Just wanted to see if you guys understand this as well as you
> claim you do.
No problem.
Greg Houston
Not at all. Return line systems permit relatively cool fuel from the tank to
prevent vapor lock conditions. That is as true for cars as it is for airplanes.
The only difference is that many cars today use a fuel system that maintains
pressure for sometime after shutdown to prevent vapor lock. Chrysler states that
there is a problem with this pressure being maintained in some 1998 LH vehicles,
and vapor lock can occur.
>
> Don't do analogies anymore Gregg, you suck at it.
I noticed that you need to resort to personal ad hominem attacks, but it doesn't
make your argument stronger or accurate.
>
>
> > Needing to resort to
> > profane
> > language does not assist your argument.
>
> Nor does putting words in my mouth or mocking me just because the
> three of you can't understand a simple concept.
No mocking nor putting words in your mouth from this author. In fact I took the
trouble to quote and attribute your words verbatim.
> Look; it's obvious that the three of you think you're dead right
> on this, problem is, it's contrary to current accepted industry
> practice and teaching.
Actually my argument was to follow the exact diagnosis procedures supplied by the
manufacturer, Daimler-Chrysler. I believe you will find that D-C is part of the
accepted industry.
> Matters not one whit to me if Matt and
> Gregg didn't get the memo from Stutgart. Can't possibly be true,
> Putney didn't read it on Intrepid.net, right?
> Kludge work arounds that were utilized back when carburetors were
> common and PCV valves were a mystery to you guys won't cut it in
> todays world of increasingly tighter emissions controls.
> You all want to believe that it's because ChryCo wanted to save
> 69 cents on some tubing, fine, have at it, I just hope that the
> black helicopters don't keep you awake at night.
>
> Frickin soccer daddy mechanics...
If a mechanic who reads and follows service bulletins (and their diagnosis steps)
from the manufacturer of a vehicle is a "soccer daddy mechanic," then that's who I
want servicing my vehicles.
Greg Houston
> In article <42E71550...@no.spam>,
> Greg Houston <gh...@no.spam> wrote:
> > aarcuda69062 wrote:
> > > I am curious what "heavier duty - higher quality drivers in the
> >> PCM" are and why
> > > these drivers cost more :)
> > > Or even, they handle lower current at a higher duty cycle without
> > > failing.
> >
> > What is "they?"
>
> That would be the universal "they."
> The one size fits all "they."
> The K-Mart Blue Light special "they."
> The all major credit cards accepted "they."
> The saved 69cents on some tubing "they."
Oh my mistake. I had thought you were talking about cars and PCMs. I
missed your transition to rambling. Your first name wouldn't rhyme with
Floyd by any chance, would it? ;-)
Greg Houston
> In article <42E71657...@no.spam>,
> Greg Houston <gh...@no.spam> wrote:
>
> > > A TSB in the wrong hands is dangerous.
> >
> > The vehicle is exhibiting symptoms specifically mentioned in a TSB for the
> > same
> > model year. It is reasonable to do the diagnosis procedures in the TSB.
>
> Really? Because the only people to mention an engine heat soak
> are you guys, the OP certainly hadn't.
Actually he had said, "so far there are only 2 conditions that it wont start
that often. when its low on gas, and when its hot." When a car is hot is
another way of saying when it has a heat soaked engine.
>
>
> 71 degrees is not an engine heat soak.
I never claimed that it is.
>
>
> Fuel doesn't vapor lock at 71 degrees, doesn't matter if there is
> a leaking check valve or not.
Irrelevant to the Chrysler Service Bulletin.
>
>
> Nice try soccer daddy mechanic.
There's that term again :-) I can't diagnosis somebody's car over the Internet
as you seem to be able to claim the ability to have, but I do point out that the
OPs problems are listed as the symptoms in the TSB(s) and the OPs vehicle is a
make model and year that is covered by the same TSB. Therefore I would follow
the manufacturer's diagnosis procedures in that TSB first.
Greg Houston
Again, the symptoms were: "so far there are only 2 conditions that
it wont start that often. when its low on gas, and when its hot."
He didn't say when the car is 72 degrees he says when the car is HOT (and/or
low on gas). (72 degrees is hardly hot anyway).
>
>
> > That logic reflects on you
> > not me, and is an extension of the chip on your shoulder
>
> Bill, you can only dream that you'd have that kind of power over
> me.
>
> > (your emotion
> > takes over your brain in certain situations so that you make irrational
> > statements).
>
> Irrational would be you jumping to the conclusion that a car that
> won't start at 71 degrees and/or with low fuel level is somehow
> vapor locked.
> Irrational would be claiming that it must be so because that's
> the way it is in an airplane.
Except the OP also said when the car is low on gas and/or HOT (emphasis added).
David
Christ I don't know who's worst AARCuda who has yet to diagnos anything,
Really have you actually posted anything to help an OP? No seriously? Have
you. I googled haven't found one!
And Bill, What the fuck, are you ASE certified? No, Do you own every year
and model of the LH series? No! So you are not an expert!
And airplanes are not even similar to any Vehicle, So shut the fuck up.
So guess what, All three of you babies, should get a time out and sit on the
stairs and think of what you did. ( one minute per year of age)
Actually none of you know the problem! That's right. Neither of you. Unless
you are looking at the actual vehicle you know nothing. Symptoms are not the
same for all vehicle so shut the fuck up?
That's it thats all! Any lip from you and you'll get the black snake across
your asses.
Greg Houston
David wrote:
> OK, Are you finished arguing with every single post?
>
> Christ I don't know who's worst AARCuda who has yet to diagnos anything,
> Really have you actually posted anything to help an OP? No seriously? Have
> you. I googled haven't found one!
>
> And Bill, What the fuck, are you ASE certified? No, Do you own every year
> and model of the LH series? No! So you are not an expert!
I see. So by your own new standard, if somebody doesn't own every model and
year of the LH series they are not qualified to post to r.a.m.c. :-)
>
>
> And airplanes are not even similar to any Vehicle, So shut the fuck up.
Yet somethings are in common to piston gasoline airplanes and piston gasoline
automobiles, such as the reason for adding fuel recirculation.
>
>
> So guess what, All three of you babies, should get a time out and sit on the
> stairs and think of what you did. ( one minute per year of age)
Speak for yourself.....
> Actually none of you know the problem! That's right. Neither of you. Unless
> you are looking at the actual vehicle you know nothing. Symptoms are not the
> same for all vehicle so shut the fuck up?
Neither Bill nor I attempted to diagnosis anything over the Internet. I did
post excerpts from Chrysler Corporation service bulletins which referred to the
symptoms and exact model year of vehicle because I believe it can be of value to
some people.
> That's it thats all! Any lip from you and you'll get the black snake across
> your asses.
Uh huh.
xmirage2kx
> In article <42E6DBB0...@no.spam>,
>
> > aarcuda69062 wrote:
> >
well to answer a few questions Ive been hit with in this post. its a
3.2L engine. and its got 98k miles on it. as for vapor lock and tsb
and all that other tech stuff, how does it apply to my car? all i’m
looking for is something i can do o have someone do to make my car
work. when the engine is running the car runs great. I wanna know how
the mild heat from the sun makes the car not run when the 500+degree
temps of the engine doesnt make a difference. or even just what is
causeing it.
--
Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
Topic URL: http://www.autoforumz.com/Chrysler-98-concorde-starting-problems-ftopict130227.html
Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse: http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=637120
Greg Houston
> well to answer a few questions Ive been hit with in this post. its a
> 3.2L engine. and its got 98k miles on it. as for vapor lock and tsb
> and all that other tech stuff, how does it apply to my car? all i’m
> looking for is something i can do o have someone do to make my car
> work. when the engine is running the car runs great. I wanna know how
> the mild heat from the sun makes the car not run when the 500+degree
> temps of the engine doesnt make a difference. or even just what is
> causeing it.
The TSB is a factory service bulletin that applies to '98 Concordes that have the symptoms of problems starting
when the engine is warm or engine running rough after restart when the engine was warm. Earlier you had stated
that the problems occurred with you car "when its low on gas, and when its hot."
Nobody can diagnose your vehicle over the Internet, but read my post where I included information from the
factory's TSB. If it were my car I would follow the diagnostic procedures in the service manual and this TSB,
starting with the TSB. Its diagnostic test is fairly simple if you have a fuel pressure gauge. Your car may
require a new fuel pump module and/or a software update. Or it may be something else completely, again, can't
diagnose a vehicle over the Internet.
Bill Putney
> OK, Are you finished arguing with every single post?
>
> Christ I don't know who's worst AARCuda who has yet to diagnos anything,
> Really have you actually posted anything to help an OP? No seriously? Have
> you. I googled haven't found one!
>
> And Bill, What the fuck, are you ASE certified? No, Do you own every year
> and model of the LH series? No! So you are not an expert!
Please quote one of my posts in this thread that warrants that comment.
I have no idea why you would say that.
> And airplanes are not even similar to any Vehicle, So shut the fuck up.
Why do you and aarcuda keep attributing airplane comments to me. I have
not once mentioned airplanes.
> So guess what, All three of you babies, should get a time out and sit on the
> stairs and think of what you did. ( one minute per year of age)
>
> Actually none of you know the problem! That's right. Neither of you. Unless
> you are looking at the actual vehicle you know nothing. Symptoms are not the
> same for all vehicle so shut the fuck up?
And who said they were?
The TSB that Greg quoted said: "Symptom: Hot engine no start, hot engine
restart w/ rough idle, or hot engine start/die-out. May have misfire
DTCs. ... May not restart until cools. Fuel vapor build up in the fuel
rail may be the cause."
Why is it a bad thing that Greg suggests that the OP follow the TSB in
this particular case since his symtpoms are pretty close to that, and it
applies to the exact vehicle.
Again, please quote me where your comments apply. My original post in
its entirety was: "Have it checked for codes.
"Has anyone mentioned crank or cam position sensors to you? Also, if
the problem is intermittent, I don't see how someone could rule out fuel
system (pump) - unless they caught it in the act of failing and
determined that the pump was indeed working when it wouldn't start, in
which case they should have been able to isolate the problem."
Is that so terrible? I think aarcuda is saying that the problem is in
the fuel pump/sender assembly. But if I suggest that as a possibility
in contradiction of what the OP has been told by the mechanics he's
consulted, I get hammered. I can't win with you and aarcuda.
> That's it thats all! Any lip from you and you'll get the black snake across
> your asses.
I think much of what you have to say is totally unwarranted.
aarcuda69062
<1_637120_e2e6625a400...@autoforumz.com>,
xmirage2kx <UseLink...@AutoForumz.com> wrote:
> > A TSB in the wrong hands is dangerous.
>
> well to answer a few questions Ive been hit with in this post. its a
> 3.2L engine. and its got 98k miles on it. as for vapor lock and tsb
> and all that other tech stuff, how does it apply to my car? all i’m
> looking for is something i can do o have someone do to make my car
> work. when the engine is running the car runs great. I wanna know how
> the mild heat from the sun makes the car not run when the 500+degree
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> temps of the engine doesnt make a difference. or even just what is
> causeing it.
See that you bunch of blow hards.
Like I said, none of you so called engineers can read worth a
shit. Just a bunch of frustrated Dilberts stuck in their
cubicles -wishing- they could do something constructive.
You all make me laugh.
Greg, nice job in those last few posts, how convenient that you
left off where he said; "about 80% of the time when its above 70
or a sunny day even " That makes you a sneak and a liar.
aarcuda69062
"David" <davi...@cox.net> wrote:
> OK, Are you finished arguing with every single post?
>
> Christ I don't know who's worst AARCuda who has yet to diagnos anything,
> Really have you actually posted anything to help an OP? No seriously? Have
> you. I googled haven't found one!
You must be new here. Sorry, but if you aren't familiar with the
other names that I've posted under, you'd probably come to the
wrong conclusion that you have. Hard to be directly helpful when
the signal to noise ratio gets as high as it is, these soccer
daddy mechanics tend to send people on wild goose chases, and
they can't stand the thought of someone who has dirt under their
fingernails knowing the root reasons and causes for these
problems, thus, all the sneering and puffery.
> And Bill, What the fuck, are you ASE certified? No, Do you own every year
> and model of the LH series? No! So you are not an expert!
Bill is a cheapskate who fixes what he can on his own cars and
farms the rest out and then complains about the cost... fancies
himself to be skilled. He's a legend in his own mind. He knows
two things, chilly-willy brake rotors and where the input and
output speed sensors are on 41te/41le transmissions.
He thinks I'm jealous of him and anyone who went to college,
which really doesn't make any sense since I get along fine with
many other engineers and college educated people who frequent
this (and other) newsgroup(s). He's totally befuddled by the
fact that I have no respect for him because he's a full of
himself blow hard.
> And airplanes are not even similar to any Vehicle, So shut the fuck up.
Bravo! There are enough differences in the fuel alone to make
the comparison a red herring.
Yet, for some reason, Matt Whiting feels compelled to remind us
on a regular basis that he's a airplane pilot and that makes him
smarter than anyone else.
(Matt, no one cares)
> So guess what, All three of you babies, should get a time out and sit on the
> stairs and think of what you did. ( one minute per year of age)
I'll consider your request.
> Actually none of you know the problem! That's right. Neither of you. Unless
> you are looking at the actual vehicle you know nothing. Symptoms are not the
> same for all vehicle so shut the fuck up?
Actually, I do know the problem, it's a very common one and
has/had been the subject of discussion in a professional forum
many years ago.
Where the confusion starts is that Chrysler expects their
mechanics to do the normal routine diagnostics -FIRST- and then
check to see if any TSBs APPLY. These numbskulls with the
assistance of one Glen Beasley (Mr. Back-flag his time ticket) do
things backwards, hence the saying; a TSB in the wrong hands is a
dangerous thing. (even when a dealership mechanic is involved)
> That's it thats all! Any lip from you and you'll get the black snake across
> your asses.
Well, nice chatting with you. Let's sit back and wait for the
comments from the brain trust. (should be good for some laughs
and yucks)
aarcuda69062
Bill Putney <bp...@kinez.net> wrote:
> aarcuda69062 wrote:
> > In article <dc7mr0$2a3$1...@news.isdn.net>,
> > Bill Putney <bp...@kinez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>aarcuda69062 wrote:
>
> > And I'm sorry that you're stuck in your cubicle doing the Dilbert
> > thing worrying about when your job will be sent to India.
>
> 'er you go again letting your emotions run away with you causing you to
> make false assumptions again. If you knew what I did for a living,
> you'd know that there was no way.
Oh, I hadn't realized that you'd gone back to spitting tobacco
for a living.
>
> >>So your logic is: (1) Some engineer did a crappy system design (2) I am
> >>an engineer (3) Therefore I am stupid too.
> >
> >
> > Yup, you got it.
> > Couldn't help but notice that you have two things to contribute
> > to rec.autos.makers.chrysler
> > 1) replace the input or out speed sensors on your 41te/41le
> > 2) put cryogenically treated brake rotors on your ________, (fill
> > in the blank).
> >
> > You're a two trick pony.
>
> Whad ya do? A google search on my name to check past stuff.
No Dilbert, I've been here a long long time and my memory works
just fine.
> Weird. I
> have a few more tricks than those which if you really kept up instead of
> doing a quick search you'd know.
The wheel bearing thing doesn't count since it only works some of
the time. Stethoscope is the only sure fire method.
> Oh - BTW - you might also learn some cool stuff about grain structure in
> metals from taking a couple of materials science courses
> (again - at your nearby engineering school). Then you'd understand why
> cryogenic treatements work. But you really don't want to know, do you.
Bill, I never said that cryogenics -didn't- work, now did I?
Ya see, the thing is, I have a car very identical to yours, it
has cheap chinese rotors on it and has had for quite a few
years/miles, no chilly-willy, no RT rotors. My brake rotors
don't warp, but then, I DO know how to do a proper brake job.
The fact that you've needed to resort to cryogenic treatment of
your rotors to solve a problem just means to me that you can't
solve the root problem and probably shouldn't go anywhere near
brake components.
Please, post some more wet dreams, they're quite humorous.
Matt Whiting
Is it a full moon again already?
Matt
David
Could be my calander does not show the cycles!
Bill Putney
That's got to be what it is. The combination of that and parasites in
the brain.
Steve m...
to the garage & $100 and out the door fixed and never did it again.
Steve m...
"xmirage2kx" <UseLink...@AutoForumz.com> wrote in message
news:1_634475_9ba02b3f843...@autoforumz.com...
>I have a 1998 chrysler concorde LXi. Every so often it wont start, and
> its happening more and more. so far there are only 2 conditions that
> it wont start that often. when its low on gas, and when its hot. about
> 80% of the time when its above 70 or a sunny day even it just wont
> start. I have had the plugs changed, battery, checked compression,
> etc.
>
> heres what happens: then engine will turn over, it just wont start.
> every so often it does start, and it feels like its missing quite a
> bit (3-4 cylinders). then other times it runs like a champ. aften it
> gets running (even when it feels like its missing) I rev the engine a
> few mins and it will run fine till its off.
>
> I have taken it to many mechanics, spent close to $1k fixing it, and
> everytime i get it back, the mechanics either cant find the problem,
> or tinker with this/that and say they fixed it. PLEASE any suggestions
> would be great.
> my guess would be a fuel problem, but ive been told the fuel system is
> fine.
>
> --
> Posted using the http://www.autoforumz.com interface, at author's request
> Articles individually checked for conformance to usenet standards
> Topic URL:
> http://www.autoforumz.com/Chrysler-98-concorde-starting-problems-ftopict130227.html
> Visit Topic URL to contact author (reg. req'd). Report abuse:
> http://www.autoforumz.com/eform.php?p=634475