Al Smith wrote:

>
> "shiden_kai" > wrote in message
> news:_TAgd.57890$nl.34438@pd7tw3no...
>> Wound Up wrote:
>>
>> > Also, this type of integration is used secondarily, but not
>> > insignificantly, to increase book-billed labour charges and replacement
>> > costs on all related parts and diagnostic procedures. Under warranty,
>> > this isn't usually a big deal, because the factory-trained techs are
>> > specifically trained in the "is/is not" questions that arise, and how
>> > to test for them. Off warranty, or at the local shop, properly
>> > trained techs use this to their advantage like many other things,
>> > simply billing "book time" that doesn't reflect reality, relying on
>> > the customer's ignorance.
>>
>> This shows your lack of knowledge about the times required
>> to replace in tank fuel pumps and the older on-engine fuel pumps.
>> For someone who knows what they are doing (like myself), there
>> is very little difference in labour time needed to change an in-tank
>> fuel pump as opposed to the older on-engine fuel pumps.
>
> Wait a minute. Maybe there are shortcuts in some cases - and I have only
> done
> it once - but every fuel pump replacement I have heard about
> involves dropping the tank.
>
> e. g.
>
http://popularmechanics.com/automoti...place_intank_f
> uel_pump/
>
> There is no way dropping the tank can be compared to disconnecting
> two fuel lines and unplugging the electric plug.
>
I replied to another part of the thread already but will repeat here that
the car my wife owns (2001 Impala) has an access door under the rear seat.
Pull the seat and then unbolt the access door/cover and you can then remove
the pump.