In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> aarcuda69062 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Bill Putney > 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).
>
> What?

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.