98 concorde starting problems

Greg Houston wrote:

> aarcuda69062 wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Greg Houston wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>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!
>>
>>You can either cite where I mentioned "while flying" or summarily
>>go **** yourself.
>
>
> 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.
>

It is when you a

1) wrong
2) have a small mind
3) all of the above.

:-)

Matt

aarcuda69062 wrote:

> In article >,
> Greg Houston > wrote:
>
>
>>aarcuda69062 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Greg Houston > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Greg Houston wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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!
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Okay, I'll bite...
>>>
>>>How exactly does the return line "reduce vapor lock?"
>>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.

It also prevents vapor lock in low pressure delivery systems by keeping
the fuel cooler during operation.

Matt

aarcuda69062 wrote:

> In article >,
> Greg Houston > wrote:

>>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...

Even your entertainment value is now diminishing.

Matt

aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article >,
> Bill Putney > 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.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

aarcuda69062 wrote:

> In article >,
> Greg Houston > wrote:
>
> > aarcuda69062 wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > Greg Houston > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Matt Whiting wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Greg Houston wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>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!
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Okay, I'll bite...
> > >
> > > How exactly does the return line "reduce vapor lock?"
> >
> > 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.

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.

aarcuda69062 wrote:

> In article >,
> Greg Houston > wrote:
>
> > aarcuda69062 wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Greg Houston wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>>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!
> > >
> > > You can either cite where I mentioned "while flying" or summarily
> > > go **** yourself.
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.

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.

aarcuda69062 wrote:

> In article >,
> Greg Houston > 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? ;-)

aarcuda69062 wrote:

> In article >,
> Greg Houston > 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.

aarcuda69062 wrote:

> In article >,
> Bill Putney > wrote:
>
> > aarcuda69062 wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > Bill Putney > 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 be=
cause
> > >>they had the mechanical fuel pump mounted on the front (bumper side=
) of
> > >>the transverse engine, and the front bank main exhaust pipe came of=
f the
> > >>collector pointing forward about 6" away from the fuel pump and did=
a
> > >>perfect 180=B0 with the fuel pump at the exact center of radius. N=
ice
> > >>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 did=
n'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.

Again, the symptoms we "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 (an=
d/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 irration=
al
> > 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 a=
dded).

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 ****, 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 **** 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 **** up?

That's it thats all! Any lip from you and you'll get the black snake across
your asses.