A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

98 concorde starting problems



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 24th 05, 03:03 AM
tim bur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 24th 05, 10:18 AM
maxpower
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old July 24th 05, 12:13 PM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 24th 05, 01:59 PM
aarcuda69062
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 24th 05, 02:11 PM
tim bur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 24th 05, 03:16 PM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 24th 05, 03:22 PM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 24th 05, 11:23 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 25th 05, 01:42 AM
aarcuda69062
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 25th 05, 01:56 AM
aarcuda69062
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.