Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / July 2009

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

How many fires?  (In the tank fuel pumps)

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jimw - 03 Jun 2009 04:22 GMT
I'm just curious.  How many people burn to death in their cars every
year, because of in the tank fuel pumps?  I'm asking this because I
just had one blow a line on top of the sending unit.  In just a few
seconds there was gas all over the place, coming out like a fountain.
I did some checking on this, and found that these pumps are designed
to pump up to 35 gallons per minute.  That means that in one minute, a
broken fuel line can dump a full tank of gas under your vehicle, and
any spark can end your life, destroy your vehicle in a ball of flame,
and possibly set fire to homes, other cars, and whatever else.

The first vehicle I owned with an in the tank pump, died an early
death because of a failed fuel pump.  Rather than unscrewing 2 bolts
and a couple fuel lines under the hood to replace a $20 mechanical
fuel pump.  A roadside repair that takes a half hour at most,  I was
faced with a towing bill, then removing the entire gas tank, paying
$70+ for the pump, and replacing other fuel lines, and the tank
straps, and a full day's labor.  I did the job myself at a final cost
of around $400 with the towing bill included, and this does not take
into account that I nearly froze to death on the winter night when
this pump suddenly died on a deserted rural road, making me walk over
5 miles in below zero weather.  Then losing a days wages, and having
to rent a car for a few more days.  Then having to do one of the most
miserable repair jobs I ever did.

THEY CALL THIS PROGRESS????????

The old mechanical fuel pumps had a much longer life, pumped less fuel
per minute, were cheaper, much easier to replace, and most
importantly, the fuel lines in the engine compartment rarely ever
sprung a leak due to rusting because of oil and heat keeping them
relatively rust free.  On the other hand, all fuel lines UNDER all
vehicles eventually rust and leak.  Those before a mechanical pump
will drip a little gas, but will not dump the full contents of a gas
tank in one minute.  Additionally, the mechaiical fuel pumps generally
give a warning, allowing the driver to get the vehicle home or to a
service garage before total failure, whereas these in the tank pumps
just suddenly quit, leaving the driver stranded.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things ever done to modern
vehicles.  It's reverse technology at best, a killer at worst.  I
question why the government safety officials ever allowed these in
tank fuel pumps in the first place?  

Then I go on to read that some of these pumps have had the wires
inside the gas tank overheat and the insulation melt.  Correct me if
I'm wrong, but having overheated wires inside a flammable liquid is
just asking for disaster.  One spark and BOOM!  Lives are ended and
property is destroyed in a ball of flame and explosion.

WHY WAS THIS EVER ALLOWED?

HOW MANY HAVE DIED?

HOW LONG WILL THIS STUPIDITY CONTINUE?

Jimw
Rod Speed - 03 Jun 2009 05:53 GMT
> I'm just curious.

Dont forget what that did to the cat.

> How many people burn to death in their cars
> every year, because of in the tank fuel pumps?

f.ck all.

> I'm asking this because I just had one blow a line on top of the sending
> unit.  In just a few seconds there was gas all over the place, coming out
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> vehicle, and any spark can end your life, destroy your vehicle in a ball
> of flame, and possibly set fire to homes, other cars, and whatever else.

In practice that combination is hardly ever seen.

> The first vehicle I owned with an in the tank pump, died an early
> death because of a failed fuel pump.  Rather than unscrewing 2 bolts
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> wages, and having to rent a car for a few more days.  Then
> having to do one of the most miserable repair jobs I ever did.

> THEY CALL THIS PROGRESS????????

Just the usual complete abortion of a design that infests car design.

> The old mechanical fuel pumps had a much longer life, pumped
> less fuel per minute, were cheaper, much easier to replace, and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> home or to a service garage before total failure, whereas these
> in the tank pumps just suddenly quit, leaving the driver stranded.

> This has got to be one of the stupidest things ever done to
> modern vehicles.  It's reverse technology at best, a killer
> at worst.  I question why the government safety officials
> ever allowed these in tank fuel pumps in the first place?

Because they dont get involved with design at that level.

> Then I go on to read that some of these pumps have had the
> wires inside the gas tank overheat and the insulation melt.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but having overheated wires inside a
> flammable liquid is just asking for disaster.  One spark and BOOM!

In practice that doesnt happen.

> Lives are ended and property is destroyed in a ball of flame and explosion.

> WHY WAS THIS EVER ALLOWED?

Because it isnt as bad as you claim.

> HOW MANY HAVE DIED?

No one.

> HOW LONG WILL THIS STUPIDITY CONTINUE?

FOREVER.

If you dont like it, dont buy cars done like that.
aarcuda69062 - 03 Jun 2009 13:34 GMT
> I'm just curious.  How many people burn to death in their cars every
> year, because of in the tank fuel pumps?  

Less than one.

> I'm asking this because I
> just had one blow a line on top of the sending unit.  In just a few
> seconds there was gas all over the place, coming out like a fountain.

And then it stopped because there was insufficient fuel to keep the
engine running which then resulted in the fuel pump ceasing to pump.
(no RPM signal, no fuel pump)
That "gas all over the place" was likely less than one quart.

> I did some checking on this, and found that these pumps are designed
> to pump up to 35 gallons per minute.  

Odd, the standard volume test is one pint in 30 seconds.

> That means that in one minute, a
> broken fuel line can dump a full tank of gas under your vehicle, and
> any spark can end your life, destroy your vehicle in a ball of flame,
> and possibly set fire to homes, other cars, and whatever else.

Or, it means your source of information is grossly wrong and prone to
hysteria.

> The first vehicle I owned with an in the tank pump, died an early
> death because of a failed fuel pump.  

Define "early."

> Rather than unscrewing 2 bolts
> and a couple fuel lines under the hood to replace a $20 mechanical
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> to rent a car for a few more days.  Then having to do one of the most
> miserable repair jobs I ever did.

Yup, broken cars are costly to fix.  Inconvenient also.
Find a better job.

> THEY CALL THIS PROGRESS????????

Who is "they," and when and where was this stated?

> The old mechanical fuel pumps had a much longer life,

Not really.  But feel free to predict when the 14 year old electric pump
will fail in my pick up truck.

> pumped less fuel
> per minute,

Irrelevant.

> were cheaper,

So were bread, milk, eggs.

> much easier to replace,

Not always  (the Chevy 229 V-6 comes to mind).  I can replace the
electric fuel pump in my Dodge Intrepid in less than 15 minutes.
(not that it's ever been needed)

> and most
> importantly, the fuel lines in the engine compartment rarely ever
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> will drip a little gas, but will not dump the full contents of a gas
> tank in one minute.  

The hysteria is redundant.

> Additionally, the mechaiical fuel pumps generally
> give a warning,

Not always.

> allowing the driver to get the vehicle home or to a
> service garage before total failure, whereas these in the tank pumps
> just suddenly quit, leaving the driver stranded.

They were also prone to vapor lock, without warning leaving the driver
stranded.

> This has got to be one of the stupidest things ever done to modern
> vehicles.  

It's done for valid reasons.

> It's reverse technology at best, a killer at worst.  

More hysteria.

> I question why the government safety officials ever allowed these in
> tank fuel pumps in the first place?  

Because they have been demonstrated to be safe for over 35 years.

> Then I go on to read that some of these pumps have had the wires
> inside the gas tank overheat and the insulation melt.  

Wrong gauge wires.  Has nothing to do with where the pump is located.

> Correct me if
> I'm wrong, but having overheated wires inside a flammable liquid is
> just asking for disaster.  One spark and BOOM!  Lives are ended and
> property is destroyed in a ball of flame and explosion.

Okay, you are wrong.
There is not enough oxygen in an automotive fuel tank to support
combustion.
No "BOOM," no "ball of flames."

> WHY WAS THIS EVER ALLOWED?

For the same reasons anything is allowed; thankfully, they don't consult
you first.

> HOW MANY HAVE DIED?

Less than one.

> HOW LONG WILL THIS STUPIDITY CONTINUE?

That's up to you.
webpa@aol.com - 02 Jul 2009 02:17 GMT
> HOW MANY HAVE DIED?
>
> HOW LONG WILL THIS STUPIDITY CONTINUE?
>
> Jimw

1.  Close to ZERO.

2.  Until you learn statistics, physics, and logic.

So: Quite probably never.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.