Re: In-the-tank fuel pumps cause death and destruction

Page 7 of 8  
There are four self-locking nuts on a Wal-Mart


There's one NUT right here in this newsgroup, Why, it's YOU Nomen!!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Senator John Edwards, is that you?
Two examples, of how NOT to properly handle volatile fuels, deleted for lack of relevance. LOL
mike hunt
Nomen Nescio wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
sure they do, alot of the newer chrysler products have them,,, im sure EPA doesnt want those on the vehicles, it is hard enough just getting fuel pressure sharader valves on most cars now, EPA screams enviroment!!!

in-tank-fuel
of
fuel.
Cost
fuel
Wal-Mart
on
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nomen Nescio wrote:

My goodness! You are so full of shit!
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Its called lock tite, how many shopping carts do you see in the shop geting the wheeels off,,if ther was a demand for technicians to work on these carts,,,,,they would use lock tite

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I really hate to be the one to say it, but there probably is some truth to what he says. I can't speak for the auto industry, but where I worked they eliminated probably 95% of the lockwashers used in assembly. They compensated by raising the torque values on the bolts and nuts. This was many years ago and it is still common to have to replace bolts during or after assy because the bolts begin to stretch and specified torque can't be achieved.
H
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hairy wrote:

Well, then don't....we are talking about the "auto industry".

So what? They have eliminated many lockwashers in the auto industry, but they now use other methods to lock the bolts/nuts in place. On GM vehicles, it's mainly thru the use of lock nuts, with either a deformed section of the thread, or a plastic insert in the upper portion of the nut. On bolts, a lot of "loctite" is in use from the factory.
There are also many bolts used on the newer engines that use "torque to yield", but these bolts are fine during their lifetime and are simply replaced when you have to loosen them. They are designed that way (to stretch when torqued). But that's really a different topic and has nothing to do with what lock washers are trying to achieve.
Ian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lock washers don't always work either. If I am bolting something that needs to stay bolted I'll use a lock nut with a deformed thread section, or take a standard nut and turn it into a locknut with a deformed section with a hammer and punch.
Ted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

If you REALLY want it to stay put, do as the aviation folks do and drill and safety wire it.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:01:04 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"

Called a "stover nut". Acceptable under the cowl on a plane, where nylocls and peletted bolts don't pass muster.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:00:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio

I've seen many early Japanese cars with such a device (Nissan Maxima, Toyota Crown / Cressida etc). Question is how often is it used (virtually never) Putting a drain on a fuel tank creates a potential leak source and requires greater cost and added weight for the vehicle to haul around (ditto for the dual fuel pump idea that was below).
My Personal Olds is almost 10 years old and well well over 160K still on the original fuel pump that should have been replaced last spring <grin>. Every part will wear out given enough time & miles. The safety issue is more of incompetence and negligence on the part of the repair shop.
My $0.02
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Most diesel tanks do. Most diesel engines also have water separators somewhere in the fuel system. There is a physical difference between gasoline and diesel fuel as to why.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thomas Moats wrote:

Actually, their isn't. Water doesn't mix with either.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

somewhere
diesel
Your correct, water does not mix in either. Diesel does not evaporate like gasoline which is the physical difference I was referring, and the fuel systems are not required by law to have an closed evaporative system like gasoline tanks have. Because of this most if not all diesel tanks are exposed to large amounts of outside atmosphere which contains water which condenses in the tank.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thomas Moats wrote:

But that isn't the reason that diesels take water in the fuel much more seriously. The reason is that diesels have very high pressure injector pumps. These pumps operate with very tight tolerances and any water that gets into them is very likely to cause instantaneous failure of a very expensive piece of hardware. That is why diesel engines have much better filtration sytems (dirt is as bad as water obviously) and take extreme measures to keep water out of the injector pump.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Full_Name wrote:

Yes, and if you don't use the drain fairly often, it will be so corroded by the time you need it that it will likely just snap off anyway causing a situation more dangerous than not having it to start with. Someone earlier mentioned the comparison to airplane fuel drains. This is a completely bogus analogy for at least two reasons:
1. The airplane drains are used before EVERY flight (or at least should be). This keeps them in good working order, at last until the seals get back and they start to seep, but then you replace the seals.
2. Airplanes aren't exposed to the road salt and other nasty stuff that the underside of a car sees.
Matt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:00:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:17:03 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@sny.der.on.ca wrote:
And speaking of vehicle fires -
There is one less Aerostar in Waterloo Ontario tonight - and almost one less house as well.
An appliance serviceman had his Aerostar parked on a customer's driveway, about 3 feet from the garage door for several hours while on a service call. Just when he was about to leave, the vehicle started on fire. Suspicion is it was a defective ignition switch, subject to recall, that was never replaced.
At any rate, I was on my way home when I saw a plume of black smoke billow up about a block away, so I turned in to see what was going on. The vinyl siding was dripping off the front of the house and the van was fully engaged. People were standing around watching, and I hollered for a garden hose and sprayed down the front of the van, keeping the flames from playing on the house like a blow-torch. It was almost 5 minutes before the fire trucks arrived, and although the truck was a total loss, and the siding and garage door were seriously singed, there was no actual "fire damage" to the house, and no-one was hurt. The plastic fuel tank, under the floor, and separated from a raging inferno by only a single layer of sheet metal, did not melt, burn, leak, or explode.
And the electrical part that started the fire was nowhere close to what we would consider to be a serious fire safety thrat like gasoline - and there were no electrical "loads" connected at the time of the fire.
There have been NUMEROUS confirmed reports of fires being caused on these vehicles from this electrical defect, vs NO confirmed instances that I am aware of, of an intank fuel pump, even in operation, causing a fire.
Note relevance - it was a FORD.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@sny.der.on.ca wrote:

One other problem with external pumps. Noise. The tank acts as a nice muffler for the pump while. Plus the rubber on the tank straps deaden the sound even more.
My buddy's Nova with an external Holley electric pump whines. Fortunately, you can't hear it over the exhaust. ;)
Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ray wrote:

Sometimes that has a lot to do with the type of pump. For example, the roller vane type pump is inherently noisy. Often it would be the design of chioce for technical reasons, but the vehicle manufacturer will go with a different type for that reason alone. GM uses roller vanes but very sparingly because of noise.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.