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

In-the-tank fuel pumps cause death and destruction



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old October 30th 04, 10:45 AM
Denny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Thomas Moats" > wrote in message
...
> <snip>
>> >If you have about a week to wait for the fuel to tranfer........

>>
>> No,, about half an hour maximum will empty a 72 liter tank - and
>> totally unmonitored, so you can do another job while it is being
>> drained. The schrader valve is removed to remove a significant amount
>> of restriction from the line.
>> >
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >

>>

>
> That is bull.
>
>

Actually, no it's not. It works great as long as you have a working fuel
pump.

Denny


Ads
  #132  
Old October 30th 04, 10:45 AM
Denny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Thomas Moats" > wrote in message
...
> <snip>
>> >If you have about a week to wait for the fuel to tranfer........

>>
>> No,, about half an hour maximum will empty a 72 liter tank - and
>> totally unmonitored, so you can do another job while it is being
>> drained. The schrader valve is removed to remove a significant amount
>> of restriction from the line.
>> >
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >

>>

>
> That is bull.
>
>

Actually, no it's not. It works great as long as you have a working fuel
pump.

Denny


  #133  
Old October 30th 04, 11:24 AM
maxpower
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

When i worked at the dodge dealer, the way i removed the intank fuel pumps
was not to drop the tank but raise the bed, the tank can be completly full
and never dropped....remove the 6 15mm. bolts...leave the two back ones in
but loosen them the ground strap and the three screws attaching the fuel
neck to the body comes off, lower the truck with a jack stand under the bed
, the bed goes up while the truck comes down, looks like a dump truck
dropping a load when it is up
Glenn Beasley
Chrysler Tech
"Thomas Moats" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:54:06 -0400, "Al Smith" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> > >

> >
> > None of the intank fuel pumps used on carbureted Toyota vehicles
> > required removal of the tank to replace. All had screwed on access
> > covers either in the trunk or floor under the rear seat to access the
> > fuel sender.fuel pickup/fuel pump.. Many other vehicles were built the
> > same.
> >
> > Many of today's vehicles DO require dropping the tank - and MANY of
> > those tanks are plastic, not steel.. Many of them have quick
> > disconnects to disconnect the fuel lines, and if less than 1/4 full
> > pose a very limitted danger of spillage when removing. They are also
> > usually relatively simple to drain with a proper fuel transfer pump,
> > either electrical, air powered, or manual.
> >
> > Most fuel injected vehicles can be easily drained from under the hood
> > by connecting the transfer pump to the service valve on the fuel rail
> > - without getting ANY fuel or fuel vapours into the shop, and with NO
> > danger of fire.

>
> If you have about a week to wait for the fuel to tranfer........
>
>
> <snip>
>
>



  #134  
Old October 30th 04, 11:24 AM
maxpower
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

When i worked at the dodge dealer, the way i removed the intank fuel pumps
was not to drop the tank but raise the bed, the tank can be completly full
and never dropped....remove the 6 15mm. bolts...leave the two back ones in
but loosen them the ground strap and the three screws attaching the fuel
neck to the body comes off, lower the truck with a jack stand under the bed
, the bed goes up while the truck comes down, looks like a dump truck
dropping a load when it is up
Glenn Beasley
Chrysler Tech
"Thomas Moats" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:54:06 -0400, "Al Smith" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> > >

> >
> > None of the intank fuel pumps used on carbureted Toyota vehicles
> > required removal of the tank to replace. All had screwed on access
> > covers either in the trunk or floor under the rear seat to access the
> > fuel sender.fuel pickup/fuel pump.. Many other vehicles were built the
> > same.
> >
> > Many of today's vehicles DO require dropping the tank - and MANY of
> > those tanks are plastic, not steel.. Many of them have quick
> > disconnects to disconnect the fuel lines, and if less than 1/4 full
> > pose a very limitted danger of spillage when removing. They are also
> > usually relatively simple to drain with a proper fuel transfer pump,
> > either electrical, air powered, or manual.
> >
> > Most fuel injected vehicles can be easily drained from under the hood
> > by connecting the transfer pump to the service valve on the fuel rail
> > - without getting ANY fuel or fuel vapours into the shop, and with NO
> > danger of fire.

>
> If you have about a week to wait for the fuel to tranfer........
>
>
> <snip>
>
>



  #135  
Old October 30th 04, 12:43 PM
Eugene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:00:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> > wrote:
>
>>Have you all observed that not one automobile has a drain valve installed
>>to the fuel tank? Obviously, a drain valve installed at the tank sump
>>would safely allow the complete drainage of a fuel tank before
>>in-tank-fuel
>>pump or fuel gauge sending unit servicing. To the drain valve, a length
>>of
>>hose would be attached and led to one or more 5 gallon Jerry cans. Once
>>drained, the fuel tanks are much safer to work on, although caution should
>>still be exercised.
>>
>>Attempting to drain a fuel tank by disconnecting the fuel outlet hose and
>>attaching a shop pump will drain all the usable fuel, but not all the
>>fuel. A gallon or more gasoline will be retained in the tank.
>>
>>Fuel tank drain valves have always been required on aircraft, but totally
>>ignored for cars. They are useful for draining water and or other
>>contaminants. I am sure that is a useful feature for mechanics trying to
>>efficiently diagnose or correct a refractory fuel system problem.
>>
>>There may be a few objections to a drain valve, but there are workarounds.
>>1. Makes it easy to steal fuel. 2. Vandalism and arson. 3. Accidental
>>collision damage to valve and resultant fuel leakage. 4. Leakage. 5.
>>Cost Workarounds are 1. build in key lock 2. build in key lock 3. Locate
>>tank higher than low point of nearby structures 4. install screw cap as
>>per fuel injection rail shraeder valve. 5. cost is a non-issue for safety,
>>particularly on $30,000 plus cars.
>>
>>A drainable fuel tank makes fuel pump servicing safer than presently;
>>however, an external pump design is still much safer yet. One reader
>>suggested that the mechanic wait until the fuel level is half or less --
>>good luck if you fill your tank and 10 minutes later the pump quits. When
>>the pump quits, the engine stops right now! Now, if you had a DUAL fuel
>>pump system, you actually could run the fuel level down. I have addressed
>>this issue befo dual pumps, automatic controls, and warning indicators
>>when one fails.
>>
>>Think your car is advanced? There are four self-locking nuts on a
>>Wal-Mart
>>shopping cart. They retain the casters. How many self-locking nuts are
>>on
>>your $30,000 car. My car has none that I'm aware of. Car manufacturers
>>will do anything to avoid self lockers because of cost. Instead, auto
>>engineers did their own work-around for plain fasteners. They specify
>>torques at least 150% the maximum recommended by fastener torque tables.
>>Check it out. Every important fastener on your car is overtightened and
>>overstressed.
>>

> You are so full of $hit your eyes are brown.
> NO fasteners on a car are overtorqued by design. The bolts that carry
> high torque are SPECIFICALLY designed to stand that torque.
>
> As for fuel drains on fuel tanks, yes, aircraft have them. If a drop
> of water gets into the wrong place on an airplane you don't just pull
> over to the side of the road. You come down.
>
> That said, there are good reasons for NOT putting drain valves in
> automotive fuel tanks. When I started in the trade, they were common.
> Drain PLUGS, just like in an oil pan. Taking them out to drain fuel
> was more dangerous than pulling a line and letting it drain.
> The extra working of the metal, and welding in of the "boss" for the
> drain caused the tanks to rust out around the drain.
>
> On today's plastic tanks that would not be a problem, but in order for
> the drain to work as a drain it MUST be at the lowest point. Retention
> of the drain bolt in event of something being cought under the vehicle
> is a REAL issue, unlike the straw man you arer attempting to build
> around the in-tank pumps.
>
> The tanks must NOT LEAK under any cercumstances for environmental, as
> well as safety reasons.
>
> Also, it is ILLEGAL and UNSAFE to drain fuel into an open container. A
> proper, approved fuel drain unit is REQUIRED to safely drain a fuel
> tank. The fuel is drawn from the sealed tank, through an air-tight
> hose, into another sealed container that is GROUNDED to the vehicle
> being drained to avoid any chance of a static spark.
> Using this fuel drain unit, no fuel ever spills.
>
> As for the in-tank pump - the fuel acts as the coolant for the fuel
> pump. In some it is even the lubricant. The pump is always fully
> submurged in fuel - either liquid of vapour. Fuel vapour is
> significantly heavier than air, so even if air gets into the tank, the
> pump never sees it.
> The vapour pressure of Gasoline ensures the tank is virtually always
> air-free. The flamability limits of gasoline ensure it will NOT be lit
> by the "sparks" at the pump motor brushes.
>
> The electric fuel guage sender unit, basically an open rheostat, is
> MUCH more likely to cause a fire than the fuel pump - and has been in
> use since the late twenties. Never heard of a fire caused by the fuel
> guage.
>
> Externally mounted pumps, unless engine driven and engine mounted, are
> open to corrosion which can perforate the pump case, allowing it to
> leak fuel. The connections are also open to corrosion - and they are
> exposed to air, which contains oxygen, which gasoline requires inorder
> to burn.. Also, fuel pumps are MUCH better at pushing fuel than
> sucking it, and fuel vapourizes at a lower temperature when under low
> pressure - so vapour lock is ALWAYS a possibility with front mounted
> pumps - while almost unheard of with intank "pusher" pumps.
>
> With fuel injection, an engine driven pump poses a problem - how do
> you get fuel to the engine to start the engine, when the pump is
> driven by the engine? Yes, it was done with the diaphragm pumps
> running at roughly 5PSI for carbs - but with EFI it is not so simple.
> Go with mechanical FI instead??
>
> Sure - with all the serious problems that go with that setup. You
> could not afford to own one - particularly if it had to meet emission
> standards.
>
> I have worked on vehicles with vacuum operated fuel pumps - firewall
> mounted and gravity feeding to the carb, engine driven mechanical
> pumps, frame mounted electric pumps, both rotary centrigugal, rotary
> vane, rotary "roller cell" and plunger/diaphragm motor driven (AC) and
> solenoid driven (SU), and i n-tank electric pumps, both centrifugal
> and roller element and vane types.
>
> By FAR the most trouble free have been the in-tank roller element and
> vane pumps. I have seen MANY of them go over 300,000 miles without a
> single problem. I have seen them last 20 years without a problem.
>
> Up here in the salt belt a frame mounted pump of any description is
> doing well to last 10 years or 90,000 miles.
>
> Engine driven diaphragm pumps - even with the old leaded gasoline, did
> good to go 10 years. 5 was a lot more common. With today's ethanol
> blended and oxygenated fuels they would not last much more than half
> as long..
>
> I have yet to hear of a vehicle fire caused by an intank pump.
>
> I have seen several fires caused by half-wits spilling gasoline while
> attempting to remove or drain a fuel tank - with or without intank
> pump, and either lighting a torch to snip off a stubborn tank strap
> bolt, or thoughlessly lighting up a smoke a few feet away. Or dropping
> an incandescent trouble light, or spilling gas on one.
>
> Ive seen fires caused by gasoline vapour, spilling over the top of an
> open pail of gasoline and settling in the open drain of the shop,
> being ignited by a chance spark from either welding, cutting,
> grinding, dropping a tool, a dropped match or cig butt, etc.
>
> I've seen fires caused by short circuits while working on a vehicle
> electrical system without disconnecting the battery ground - and even
> from some dim-wit trying to remove the battery power lead instead of
> the ground, and shorting the power to ground, blowing up the battery.
>
> But NEVER from an intank fuel pump failure.
>
> And I've been in the business a long time - and worked on vehicles
> from the early twenties to the 2000s.

I have found many locknuts on the vehicles I have, seems they use them where
necessary.
Some new cars you don't have to drop the tank. I found an Impala web site
and the site owner did several how-to's from changing wiper blades to the
fuel pump. In the Impala you remove the back seat and then there is a
access panel that you remove and then you can pull the pump out from there.
I assume other cars would be the same.

  #136  
Old October 30th 04, 12:43 PM
Eugene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:00:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> > wrote:
>
>>Have you all observed that not one automobile has a drain valve installed
>>to the fuel tank? Obviously, a drain valve installed at the tank sump
>>would safely allow the complete drainage of a fuel tank before
>>in-tank-fuel
>>pump or fuel gauge sending unit servicing. To the drain valve, a length
>>of
>>hose would be attached and led to one or more 5 gallon Jerry cans. Once
>>drained, the fuel tanks are much safer to work on, although caution should
>>still be exercised.
>>
>>Attempting to drain a fuel tank by disconnecting the fuel outlet hose and
>>attaching a shop pump will drain all the usable fuel, but not all the
>>fuel. A gallon or more gasoline will be retained in the tank.
>>
>>Fuel tank drain valves have always been required on aircraft, but totally
>>ignored for cars. They are useful for draining water and or other
>>contaminants. I am sure that is a useful feature for mechanics trying to
>>efficiently diagnose or correct a refractory fuel system problem.
>>
>>There may be a few objections to a drain valve, but there are workarounds.
>>1. Makes it easy to steal fuel. 2. Vandalism and arson. 3. Accidental
>>collision damage to valve and resultant fuel leakage. 4. Leakage. 5.
>>Cost Workarounds are 1. build in key lock 2. build in key lock 3. Locate
>>tank higher than low point of nearby structures 4. install screw cap as
>>per fuel injection rail shraeder valve. 5. cost is a non-issue for safety,
>>particularly on $30,000 plus cars.
>>
>>A drainable fuel tank makes fuel pump servicing safer than presently;
>>however, an external pump design is still much safer yet. One reader
>>suggested that the mechanic wait until the fuel level is half or less --
>>good luck if you fill your tank and 10 minutes later the pump quits. When
>>the pump quits, the engine stops right now! Now, if you had a DUAL fuel
>>pump system, you actually could run the fuel level down. I have addressed
>>this issue befo dual pumps, automatic controls, and warning indicators
>>when one fails.
>>
>>Think your car is advanced? There are four self-locking nuts on a
>>Wal-Mart
>>shopping cart. They retain the casters. How many self-locking nuts are
>>on
>>your $30,000 car. My car has none that I'm aware of. Car manufacturers
>>will do anything to avoid self lockers because of cost. Instead, auto
>>engineers did their own work-around for plain fasteners. They specify
>>torques at least 150% the maximum recommended by fastener torque tables.
>>Check it out. Every important fastener on your car is overtightened and
>>overstressed.
>>

> You are so full of $hit your eyes are brown.
> NO fasteners on a car are overtorqued by design. The bolts that carry
> high torque are SPECIFICALLY designed to stand that torque.
>
> As for fuel drains on fuel tanks, yes, aircraft have them. If a drop
> of water gets into the wrong place on an airplane you don't just pull
> over to the side of the road. You come down.
>
> That said, there are good reasons for NOT putting drain valves in
> automotive fuel tanks. When I started in the trade, they were common.
> Drain PLUGS, just like in an oil pan. Taking them out to drain fuel
> was more dangerous than pulling a line and letting it drain.
> The extra working of the metal, and welding in of the "boss" for the
> drain caused the tanks to rust out around the drain.
>
> On today's plastic tanks that would not be a problem, but in order for
> the drain to work as a drain it MUST be at the lowest point. Retention
> of the drain bolt in event of something being cought under the vehicle
> is a REAL issue, unlike the straw man you arer attempting to build
> around the in-tank pumps.
>
> The tanks must NOT LEAK under any cercumstances for environmental, as
> well as safety reasons.
>
> Also, it is ILLEGAL and UNSAFE to drain fuel into an open container. A
> proper, approved fuel drain unit is REQUIRED to safely drain a fuel
> tank. The fuel is drawn from the sealed tank, through an air-tight
> hose, into another sealed container that is GROUNDED to the vehicle
> being drained to avoid any chance of a static spark.
> Using this fuel drain unit, no fuel ever spills.
>
> As for the in-tank pump - the fuel acts as the coolant for the fuel
> pump. In some it is even the lubricant. The pump is always fully
> submurged in fuel - either liquid of vapour. Fuel vapour is
> significantly heavier than air, so even if air gets into the tank, the
> pump never sees it.
> The vapour pressure of Gasoline ensures the tank is virtually always
> air-free. The flamability limits of gasoline ensure it will NOT be lit
> by the "sparks" at the pump motor brushes.
>
> The electric fuel guage sender unit, basically an open rheostat, is
> MUCH more likely to cause a fire than the fuel pump - and has been in
> use since the late twenties. Never heard of a fire caused by the fuel
> guage.
>
> Externally mounted pumps, unless engine driven and engine mounted, are
> open to corrosion which can perforate the pump case, allowing it to
> leak fuel. The connections are also open to corrosion - and they are
> exposed to air, which contains oxygen, which gasoline requires inorder
> to burn.. Also, fuel pumps are MUCH better at pushing fuel than
> sucking it, and fuel vapourizes at a lower temperature when under low
> pressure - so vapour lock is ALWAYS a possibility with front mounted
> pumps - while almost unheard of with intank "pusher" pumps.
>
> With fuel injection, an engine driven pump poses a problem - how do
> you get fuel to the engine to start the engine, when the pump is
> driven by the engine? Yes, it was done with the diaphragm pumps
> running at roughly 5PSI for carbs - but with EFI it is not so simple.
> Go with mechanical FI instead??
>
> Sure - with all the serious problems that go with that setup. You
> could not afford to own one - particularly if it had to meet emission
> standards.
>
> I have worked on vehicles with vacuum operated fuel pumps - firewall
> mounted and gravity feeding to the carb, engine driven mechanical
> pumps, frame mounted electric pumps, both rotary centrigugal, rotary
> vane, rotary "roller cell" and plunger/diaphragm motor driven (AC) and
> solenoid driven (SU), and i n-tank electric pumps, both centrifugal
> and roller element and vane types.
>
> By FAR the most trouble free have been the in-tank roller element and
> vane pumps. I have seen MANY of them go over 300,000 miles without a
> single problem. I have seen them last 20 years without a problem.
>
> Up here in the salt belt a frame mounted pump of any description is
> doing well to last 10 years or 90,000 miles.
>
> Engine driven diaphragm pumps - even with the old leaded gasoline, did
> good to go 10 years. 5 was a lot more common. With today's ethanol
> blended and oxygenated fuels they would not last much more than half
> as long..
>
> I have yet to hear of a vehicle fire caused by an intank pump.
>
> I have seen several fires caused by half-wits spilling gasoline while
> attempting to remove or drain a fuel tank - with or without intank
> pump, and either lighting a torch to snip off a stubborn tank strap
> bolt, or thoughlessly lighting up a smoke a few feet away. Or dropping
> an incandescent trouble light, or spilling gas on one.
>
> Ive seen fires caused by gasoline vapour, spilling over the top of an
> open pail of gasoline and settling in the open drain of the shop,
> being ignited by a chance spark from either welding, cutting,
> grinding, dropping a tool, a dropped match or cig butt, etc.
>
> I've seen fires caused by short circuits while working on a vehicle
> electrical system without disconnecting the battery ground - and even
> from some dim-wit trying to remove the battery power lead instead of
> the ground, and shorting the power to ground, blowing up the battery.
>
> But NEVER from an intank fuel pump failure.
>
> And I've been in the business a long time - and worked on vehicles
> from the early twenties to the 2000s.

I have found many locknuts on the vehicles I have, seems they use them where
necessary.
Some new cars you don't have to drop the tank. I found an Impala web site
and the site owner did several how-to's from changing wiper blades to the
fuel pump. In the Impala you remove the back seat and then there is a
access panel that you remove and then you can pull the pump out from there.
I assume other cars would be the same.

  #137  
Old October 30th 04, 12:43 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Putney wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> How many cars have you heard of that have exploded or caught fire from
>> an in-tank fuel pump? In my case, the answer is zero so I don't lose
>> much sleep over it.

>
>
> Well *sure* you say that *now*. But would you have wanted to be the
> first engineer in history to propose doing that? 8^)


Actually, yes, yes I would! I could use the royalty payments on my
patent... :-)


>> I'm more worried about an inadvertant air bag deployment than I am
>> about my gas tank exploding. The former is much more likely than that
>> latter and I've heard of several occurrences of unintended airbag
>> deployment.

>
>
> Can't argue with that.


Oh, come on, I'm sure you can! :-)

Matt

  #138  
Old October 30th 04, 12:43 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Putney wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> How many cars have you heard of that have exploded or caught fire from
>> an in-tank fuel pump? In my case, the answer is zero so I don't lose
>> much sleep over it.

>
>
> Well *sure* you say that *now*. But would you have wanted to be the
> first engineer in history to propose doing that? 8^)


Actually, yes, yes I would! I could use the royalty payments on my
patent... :-)


>> I'm more worried about an inadvertant air bag deployment than I am
>> about my gas tank exploding. The former is much more likely than that
>> latter and I've heard of several occurrences of unintended airbag
>> deployment.

>
>
> Can't argue with that.


Oh, come on, I'm sure you can! :-)

Matt

  #139  
Old October 30th 04, 12:46 PM
Eugene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #140  
Old October 30th 04, 12:46 PM
Eugene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:02 PM.


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