If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
actually it does have a recirc fuekl system but it's done in the tank
if it's a 2.7 thgere is a good chance the motor sludged up and the chain jumped a tooth Bill Putney wrote: > maxpower wrote: > > > 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? > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"tim bur" > wrote in message ... > actually it does have a recirc fuekl system but it's done in the tank > if it's a 2.7 thgere is a good chance the motor sludged up and the chain jumped > a tooth > > Bill Putney wrote: > > > maxpower wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > Bill Putney > > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > > adddress with the letter 'x') 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') tim bur wrote: > actually it does have a recirc fuekl system but it's done in the tank > if it's a 2.7 thgere is a good chance the motor sludged up and the chain jumped > a tooth > > Bill Putney wrote: >> >>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? >> >>Bill Putney >>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >>adddress with the letter 'x') |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
really!!!!!!!! my 72 cudda and my 69 newport both have engine mounted fuel pumps and
there is no vapor lock there 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. > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') > > tim bur wrote: > > actually it does have a recirc fuekl system but it's done in the tank > > if it's a 2.7 thgere is a good chance the motor sludged up and the chain jumped > > a tooth > > > > Bill Putney wrote: > > >> > >>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? > >> > >>Bill Putney > >>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > >>adddress with the letter 'x') |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Uhh - read it again. I said "With under hood temperatures RISING OVER
THE YEARS [emphasis added], that's one of the reasons they had to abandon the engine-mounted fuel pump and recirc the fuel." Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') tim bur wrote: > really!!!!!!!! my 72 cudda and my 69 newport both have engine mounted fuel pumps and > there is no vapor lock there > > 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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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). 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. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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? Matt |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Bill Putney > 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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1993 Chrysler Concorde starting problems | jstanavgguy | Chrysler | 1 | June 7th 05 04:20 AM |
97 Dodge Neon Starting Problems | ericktknuj | Dodge | 1 | April 13th 05 08:19 AM |
starting problems | [email protected] | Technology | 2 | April 4th 05 06:17 PM |
Hot weather starting problems | John Ings | Mazda | 0 | September 13th 04 02:16 PM |