98 concorde starting problems

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.

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.
Don't do analogies anymore Gregg, you suck at it.


> 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...

In article >,
Greg Houston > wrote:

> > 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."

>
> > Or, maybe it has something to do with Matt performing his
> > pre-flight check list while he's airborne?
>
> Huh?

Awww... you missed it. I'm truly sorry.

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.

71 degrees is not an engine heat soak.

Fuel doesn't vapor lock at 71 degrees, doesn't matter if there is
a leaking check valve or not.

Nice try soccer daddy mechanic.

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 because
> >>they had the mechanical fuel pump mounted on the front (bumper side) of
> >>the transverse engine, and the front bank main exhaust pipe came off the
> >>collector pointing forward about 6" away from the fuel pump and did a
> >>perfect 180° with the fuel pump at the exact center of radius. Nice
> >>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 didn'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.

> 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 irrational
> 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.

In article >,
Bill Putney > wrote:

> aarcuda69062 wrote:
>
> > ...Hell, I just drove over 100 miles on Sunday in 100 degree heat in
> > a carbureted car with an engine mounted mechanical fuel pump, the
> > coolant was running at over 230 degrees, the gasoline is
> > reformulated **** water and I experienced absolutely no evidence
> > of vapor lock.
> >
> > Sorry, at 72 degrees, he doesn't have vapor lock.
> >
>
> You keep bringin up the "above 70°" thing.

Well yeah, because it's an important clue.
Too bad it went right over your head.

> Don't you realize that
> underhood temperatures (inculding fuel rail temperatures) will be
> directly affected by rises in ambient (i.e., a degree of ambient temp.
> rise will add about 1° to the rail temp.).

Uh-Oh, the fuel rail is one degree warmer...

> Certainly you understand
> that the underhood temperatures are higher than the ambient?

Not that I believe you for a minute, but just to humor you, I
went out and took some temperature measurements with my
infra-red, no Bill, no such thing occurs.
Please, don't assume that what happens to the interior of the car
happens to the underhood. There's this thing called
"circulation" that happens to the air under the hood when the car
is sitting.

> Perhaps
> you should sit in on a heat transfer class at a nearby engineering
> school (sorry - couldn't resist).

Why, are they going to brain wash me into believing that the fuel
rail in a car sitting outside on a 72 degree day gets scalding
hot?

> Also, as someone else already mentioned, perhaps the OP got ahold of
> some fuel with high alcohol content -

"Got ahold" implies a one time happenstance.
From what the OP states, this has been an on going problem.
Nope, don't buy it. But please, spin some more.

> combined with some other problem
> that is making a marginal problem an actual one.

Like I've been saying, he -does- have "some other problem."

> Besides the bad check
> valve that has been mentioned several times, a leaking injector could
> also explain system depressurization after shut down.

Bill, I've dealt with hundreds of leaking check valves and
hundreds of leaking injectors and never, ever has there been an
associated complaint with "temperatures above 70 degrees and low
fuel level."

Bill, get an LH fuel pump module and trace out the fluid paths,
it will become obvious what the problem is. Be open minded,
realize that this fuel pump doesn't just pull fuel in off of the
bottom of the tank, realize that the return circuit -has- to
supply enough excess fuel to keep the pump inlet submerged.

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.
>
> Must suck to be Dilbert, "eh?

Actually, being you sounds worse. :-)

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> aarcuda69062 wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Greg Houston > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>aarcuda69062 wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>> Greg Houston > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>There are service bulletins issued by Chrysler for vapor lock
conditions
> >>>>on
> >>>>the
> >>>>pressure side in the pump (more specifically inside the engine
> >>>>compartment)
> >>>>for
> >>>>some M.Y. 1998 LH vehicles.
> >>>
> >>>Greg, you might want to go back and re-read the OPs post, the
> >>>hard/no start occurs under two conditions;
> >>>1) Low fuel level
> >>>2) Ambient above 70 degrees
> >>>
> >>>Neither one of these conditions is worth attributing to vapor
> >>>lock.
> >>>Hell, I just drove over 100 miles on Sunday in 100 degree heat in
> >>>a carbureted car with an engine mounted mechanical fuel pump, the
> >>>coolant was running at over 230 degrees, the gasoline is
> >>>reformulated **** water and I experienced absolutely no evidence
> >>>of vapor lock.
> >>>
> >>>Sorry, at 72 degrees, he doesn't have vapor lock.
> >>
> >>You are mistaken original post. xmirage2kxsaid that the problem
occurs
> >>"when
> >>its low on gas, and when its hot." He also said that 80% of the time it
is
> >>over 70
> >>degrees/sunny outside. As discussed in Chrysler's TSB, vapor lock is
caused
> >>by
> >>heat from the engine, not ambient heat, although an engine cools more
slowly
> >>when
> >>ambient temp is higher. Your experience with a carbureted car is not
> >>relevant to
> >>the discussion; the discussion (and the Vapor Lock TSB for that matter)
is
> >>about a
> >>1998 Concorde.
> >
> >
> > So where does xmirage2kx say that this is a "heat from the
> > engine" problem.
> >
> > He cites two criteria;
> > 1) Low fuel level.
> > So explain how low fuel level contributes to vapor lock
> > 2) 80% of the time it's over 70 degrees and sunny out.
> > So, explain how either of these conditions contribute to the
> > "engine heat" situation that is germane to the TSB you keep
> > crowing about?
> >
> > Or is that you just don't get it?
> > The TSB doesn't apply.
> > Wrong diagnosis.
> > Warranty claim rejected.
> > Money spent, customer screwed again.
> > I will not argue that there is apparently a problem of sorts that
> > the TSB addresses, never said there wasn't.
> >
> > You guys have never met a wild goose chase that you didn't love,
> > have you?
> >
> > Just proves the old adage....
> >
> > A TSB in the wrong hands is dangerous.

> As is a keyboard.
>
> Matt

WELL SAID!!

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?"

It flushes the hot fuel and any vapor bubbles which have formed through
the system and back into the tank and provides cool fuel to the
injectors. Is this really a hard concept for you to understand?

Matt

aarcuda69062 wrote:

> In article >,
> Greg Houston > wrote:
>
>
>>aarcuda69062 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Greg Houston > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There are service bulletins issued by Chrysler for vapor lock conditions
>>>>on
>>>>the
>>>>pressure side in the pump (more specifically inside the engine
>>>>compartment)
>>>>for
>>>>some M.Y. 1998 LH vehicles.
>>>
>>>Greg, you might want to go back and re-read the OPs post, the
>>>hard/no start occurs under two conditions;
>>>1) Low fuel level
>>>2) Ambient above 70 degrees
>>>
>>>Neither one of these conditions is worth attributing to vapor
>>>lock.
>>>Hell, I just drove over 100 miles on Sunday in 100 degree heat in
>>>a carbureted car with an engine mounted mechanical fuel pump, the
>>>coolant was running at over 230 degrees, the gasoline is
>>>reformulated **** water and I experienced absolutely no evidence
>>>of vapor lock.
>>>
>>>Sorry, at 72 degrees, he doesn't have vapor lock.
>>
>>You are mistaken original post. xmirage2kxsaid that the problem occurs
>>"when
>>its low on gas, and when its hot." He also said that 80% of the time it is
>>over 70
>>degrees/sunny outside. As discussed in Chrysler's TSB, vapor lock is caused
>>by
>>heat from the engine, not ambient heat, although an engine cools more slowly
>>when
>>ambient temp is higher. Your experience with a carbureted car is not
>>relevant to
>>the discussion; the discussion (and the Vapor Lock TSB for that matter) is
>>about a
>>1998 Concorde.
>
>
> So where does xmirage2kx say that this is a "heat from the
> engine" problem.
>
> He cites two criteria;
> 1) Low fuel level.
> So explain how low fuel level contributes to vapor lock
> 2) 80% of the time it's over 70 degrees and sunny out.
> So, explain how either of these conditions contribute to the
> "engine heat" situation that is germane to the TSB you keep
> crowing about?
>
> Or is that you just don't get it?
> The TSB doesn't apply.
> Wrong diagnosis.
> Warranty claim rejected.
> Money spent, customer screwed again.
> I will not argue that there is apparently a problem of sorts that
> the TSB addresses, never said there wasn't.
>
> You guys have never met a wild goose chase that you didn't love,
> have you?
>
> Just proves the old adage....
>
> A TSB in the wrong hands is dangerous.

As is a keyboard.

Matt