98 concorde starting problems

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!

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?"

In article >,
Greg Houston > wrote:

> aarcuda69062 wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > tim bur > wrote:
> >
> > > the whole of retuirnless is the carmaker is saving money by not having a
> > > fuel
> > > line running bac to the tank from the engine
> >
> > In order to facilitate a MPFI fuel system that does not have a
> > vacuum operated fuel pressure regulator it is necessary to modify
> > the injector driver circuit so that the injectors can be
> > multi-fired to achieve adequate fuel delivery, this means heavier
> > duty - higher quality drivers in the PCM. It's entirely likely
> > that the increased costs of these injector drivers offsets any
> > dollar saving realized by not having to use a dozen or so feet of
> > 1/4" fuel line. Especially if one considers that the PCM is
> > under warranty a lot longer than the fuel line(s).
> >
> > > that is alos why u see more window switches in the center console as in
> > > libertys and pt bruisers less wiring since it runs onma bus circuit
> >
> > Center mounted window switches have been around a lot longer than
> > buss controlled body functions. Buss networked systems in and of
> > themselves eliminate many feet of wiring which is the whole point
> > of using buss circuits to begin with, so it's really not germane
> > to -where- the switches are positioned.
> > YMWTC; Japanese cars have typically had the dome light over-ride
> > switch built into the dome light itself (where it's reachable
> > from every seat position).
>
> So does my LH vehicle.
>
> I am curious what "heavier duty - higher quality drivers in the PCM" are and
> why
> these drivers cost more

Oh, maybe because they can handle higher current for longer
periods of time without failing.
Or, maybe they handle the same amount of current for longer
periods of time without failing.

Or even, they handle lower current at a higher duty cycle without
failing.

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

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.

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. Fuel returning to the tank has a higher temperature than the tank,
but little more specific heat per mass due to the low volume compared to the tank
volume. That is the raison d'etre of return lines on fuel injected aircraft
engine systems. Today's cars use a pressurized fuel system that maintains
pressure (supposedly) for a while when the engine is off and warm.

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.

aarcuda69062 wrote:

> In article >,
> Greg Houston > wrote:
>
> > aarcuda69062 wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > tim bur > wrote:
> > >
> > > > the whole of retuirnless is the carmaker is saving money by not having a
> > > > fuel
> > > > line running bac to the tank from the engine
> > >
> > > In order to facilitate a MPFI fuel system that does not have a
> > > vacuum operated fuel pressure regulator it is necessary to modify
> > > the injector driver circuit so that the injectors can be
> > > multi-fired to achieve adequate fuel delivery, this means heavier
> > > duty - higher quality drivers in the PCM. It's entirely likely
> > > that the increased costs of these injector drivers offsets any
> > > dollar saving realized by not having to use a dozen or so feet of
> > > 1/4" fuel line. Especially if one considers that the PCM is
> > > under warranty a lot longer than the fuel line(s).
> > >
> > > > that is alos why u see more window switches in the center console as in
> > > > libertys and pt bruisers less wiring since it runs onma bus circuit
> > >
> > > Center mounted window switches have been around a lot longer than
> > > buss controlled body functions. Buss networked systems in and of
> > > themselves eliminate many feet of wiring which is the whole point
> > > of using buss circuits to begin with, so it's really not germane
> > > to -where- the switches are positioned.
> > > YMWTC; Japanese cars have typically had the dome light over-ride
> > > switch built into the dome light itself (where it's reachable
> > > from every seat position).
> >
> > So does my LH vehicle.
> >
> > I am curious what "heavier duty - higher quality drivers in the PCM" are and
> > why
> > these drivers cost more
>
> Oh, maybe because they can handle higher current for longer
> periods of time without failing.

>
> Or, maybe they handle the same amount of current for longer
> periods of time without failing.
>
> Or even, they handle lower current at a higher duty cycle without
> failing.

What is "they?"

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

Huh?

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?

As I quoted earlier, the exact statement from the OP discussing his car is "when
its low on gas, and when its hot."


> Or is that you just don't get it?

Got it.

> The TSB doesn't apply.

The TSB does apply.

> Wrong diagnosis.

The diagnosis is part of the TSB.

> Warranty claim rejected.

What warranty claim are you referring to in the context of what is *actually* being
discussed?

>
> 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?

No.

> Just proves the old adage....
>
> 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.

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. Sorry about that - I wish you could
have gone, but not my problem.

So your logic is: (1) Some engineer did a crappy system design (2) I am
an engineer (3) Therefore I am stupid too. That logic reflects on you
not me, and is an extension of the chip on your shoulder (your emotion
takes over your brain in certain situations so that you make irrational
statements).

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

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. 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.). Certainly you understand
that the underhood temperatures are higher than the ambient? Perhaps
you should sit in on a heat transfer class at a nearby engineering
school (sorry - couldn't resist).

Also, as someone else already mentioned, perhaps the OP got ahold of
some fuel with high alcohol content - combined with some other problem
that is making a marginal problem an actual one. Besides the bad check
valve that has been mentioned several times, a leaking injector could
also explain system depressurization after shut down.

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