Concorde Fuel pressure

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:58:28 -0500, "Smitty" >
wrote:

>If we get some warm weather I'm going to try some of these tips. Since this
>one has the pressure regulator buried under the intake I'm thinking it is a
>first generation eh? <snip>

Beauty, eh?

"Smitty" > wrote in message
...
> If we get some warm weather I'm going to try some of these tips. Since
this
> one has the pressure regulator buried under the intake I'm thinking it is
a
> first generation eh?
> Thanks a lot.

Since I have yet to see any mention of which engine you have, I'll just give
some general information. If it's the 3.3L, it right on top, easy to get
at; located at the right-rear (looking from front) of the fuel rail. The
3.5L requires removal of the intake plenum, plus injector electrical
connectors, fuel rail bolts and the injector clamp. This regulator is
located on the left-rear of the fuel rail.

In article >,
Bill Putney > wrote:

> Correct. For LH cars (Intrepid, Concorde, LHS), anything prior to '98
> is first gen. (there was no LH 1st gen. 300M).
Wasn't the previous to the "LH" the "H" car, such as my Le'Baron GTS?

In article >,
"Smitty" > wrote:

> I have a 95 Concorde that is starting to take longer to crank than it
> should. I suspect the fuel pressure regulator. I was going to pop one in as
> a guess until I saw what a job it was. Looks like the intake manifold or
> what ever they call it now days has to come off. Is this correct? (I've
> gotta find a manual for it one of these days). Is there something else
> (easier) I should try before I take this route?
> Thanks
> Smitty on the frozen tundra of Minnesota
Now that based on you suspecting fuel pressure problems and several have
suggested fixes that require disassembly of the engine, I ask how is
your battery? Is it old? Is it charging fully. Is each cell OK?

In the heat of last summer my '95 Concord 3.3L was taking longer to
start over a few week period.
Then one day it wouldn't turn over on leaving our golf course, not
surprising since the power locks wouldn't open. <
The problem was a bad cell in the 6 yr old battery.

I've got the manual, but sorry I need it until Chrysler builds a
sensible mid size car for me or I give up and buy elsewhere.

Some O wrote:

> In article >,
> "Smitty" > wrote:
>
>
>>I have a 95 Concorde that is starting to take longer to crank than it
>>should. I suspect the fuel pressure regulator. I was going to pop one in as
>>a guess until I saw what a job it was. Looks like the intake manifold or
>>what ever they call it now days has to come off. Is this correct? (I've
>>gotta find a manual for it one of these days). Is there something else
>>(easier) I should try before I take this route?
>>Thanks
>>Smitty on the frozen tundra of Minnesota
>
> Now that based on you suspecting fuel pressure problems and several have
> suggested fixes that require disassembly of the engine, I ask how is
> your battery? Is it old? Is it charging fully. Is each cell OK?
>
> In the heat of last summer my '95 Concord 3.3L was taking longer to
> start over a few week period.
> Then one day it wouldn't turn over on leaving our golf course, not
> surprising since the power locks wouldn't open. <
> The problem was a bad cell in the 6 yr old battery.
>
> I've got the manual, but sorry I need it until Chrysler builds a
> sensible mid size car for me or I give up and buy elsewhere.

I think his battery is spinning the engine - the engine is not firing
(supposedly due to lack of fuel).

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

Some O wrote:

> In article >,
> Bill Putney > wrote:
>
>
>>Correct. For LH cars (Intrepid, Concorde, LHS), anything prior to '98
>>is first gen. (there was no LH 1st gen. 300M).
>
> Wasn't the previous to the "LH" the "H" car, such as my Le'Baron GTS?

I'm not sure.

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

Some O wrote:

> In article >,
> Bill Putney > wrote:
>
>
>>Correct. For LH cars (Intrepid, Concorde, LHS), anything prior to '98
>>is first gen. (there was no LH 1st gen. 300M).
>
> Wasn't the previous to the "LH" the "H" car, such as my Le'Baron GTS?

No, I don't think there was an "H" platform. I forget what the LeBaron
GTS coupe chassis was called, but it was really just a modified "K"
platform. The bigger 4-door K-derivative platform was called the "AA"
body and included the 4-door LeBaron, the Acclaim, and the Spirit.

Really, there were only two front-drive platforms between 1978 and 1993-
the K-based ones (a boatload of variations with different designations),
and the Omni/Horizon. Then the LH platform came along, then the JA
plaform (Cirrus/Stratus/Breeze/Sebring), then the Neon, PT, etc. and
finally the whole front-drive nightmare ended with the LX platform
(300/Magnum/Charger).

Prior to the front-drive mess, there was the "A" platform (Lancer,
Valiant, Dart, and 64-69 Barracuda), the "B" platform (Coronet, Charger,
Satellite, Belvedere, Roadrunner, Superbee, 75-78 Cordoba, small Fury,
and other variations), the "C" platform (Fury, Monaco, Polara, Newport,
Chrysler 300, New Yorker), "D" platform (Imperial), "E"= Challenger and
70-74 Barracuda, "F"=Aspen/Volare, "R" = St Regis, late 70s Newport, "J"
= early 80s 2-door Cordoba based on the "F" body, and "M" body
(Diplomat, Gran Fury, 4-door rear-drive LeBaron).

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 06:29:29 GMT, Some O > wrote:

>In article >,
> Bill Putney > wrote:
>
>> Correct. For LH cars (Intrepid, Concorde, LHS), anything prior to '98
>> is first gen. (there was no LH 1st gen. 300M).
>Wasn't the previous to the "LH" the "H" car, such as my Le'Baron GTS? <snip>

Just another "EEK" car....K-platform stretch.

In article >,
Steve > wrote:

> Some O wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Bill Putney > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Correct. For LH cars (Intrepid, Concorde, LHS), anything prior to '98
> >>is first gen. (there was no LH 1st gen. 300M).
> >
> > Wasn't the previous to the "LH" the "H" car, such as my Le'Baron GTS?
>
> No, I don't think there was an "H" platform. I forget what the LeBaron
> GTS coupe chassis was called, but it was really just a modified "K"
> platform. The bigger 4-door K-derivative platform was called the "AA"
> body and included the 4-door LeBaron, the Acclaim, and the Spirit.
The Le'Baron GTS was a 5 dr hatch back. I had one.
I'm sure it was the H body.
It is, see he http://www.allpar.com/model/lancer.html
Although it was derived from the K car, I can assure you the handling
was much better. The K car was given a traditional NA understeer design
so NA drivers would take the change to FWD easier. I hated it after a
few rentals, but I liked the Le'Baron handling. It was much more direct
and crisp, a European feel which I was used to after several European
cars.
The body construction was also much more rigid than the K car. I drove
my '86 GTS for 10 yrs, moving to the '95 Concord.

Some O wrote:

> In article >,
> Steve > wrote:
>
>
>>Some O wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Bill Putney > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Correct. For LH cars (Intrepid, Concorde, LHS), anything prior to '98
>>>>is first gen. (there was no LH 1st gen. 300M).
>>>
>>>Wasn't the previous to the "LH" the "H" car, such as my Le'Baron GTS?
>>
>>No, I don't think there was an "H" platform. I forget what the LeBaron
>>GTS coupe chassis was called, but it was really just a modified "K"
>>platform. The bigger 4-door K-derivative platform was called the "AA"
>>body and included the 4-door LeBaron, the Acclaim, and the Spirit.
>
> The Le'Baron GTS was a 5 dr hatch back. I had one.
> I'm sure it was the H body.
> It is, see he http://www.allpar.com/model/lancer.html

I'd completely forgotten that the Lancer/Lebaron hatchbacks from that
era (of course I really try to forget the whole era of the 80s when it
comes to cars). I was thinking of the curvy Lebaron GTC. We nearly
bought in late 1992 instead waiting and buying my wife's 93 LH in March
of 93, and I'm glad we didn't!

> Although it was derived from the K car, I can assure you the handling
> was much better.

Thats true of the very last Relaint/Aires too- the K platform got a lot
of upgrades during its run. But those *ALL* were really just Ks, with
tons of shared parts. A quick look at a Hollander's interchange manual
tells the tale.