I have a 95 Chrysler concord ive replaced fuel pump and filter no gas and wont start I sprayed starter fluid in to intake it starts but wont stay running and I cant located pressure regulator no pressure comes out of fuel rail eather please help
Test for spark and injector pulse when cranking and post back.
June, 11, 2011 AT 8:40 PM
Hi Wrenchtech. Excuse me for popping in again. You're right about the injector pulse but these cars also have a related issue with the anti-theft system. We ran into this problem twice at the dealership and once with a '95 Intrepid that was donated to our school by Chrysler. This only pertains to cars that do NOT have the factory anti-theft system installed.
The first thing is to listen for the hum of the fuel pump for one second when the ignition switch is turned on. If that is not heard, there's a wiring problem to the pump. That one second each time you cycle the switch to "run" is plenty to develop fuel pressure at the test port, so if there is still no pressure, suspect the fuel pump relay, the wire to the pump, or the connector is not making good contact. Don't overlook the ground wire.
Forget the pressure regulator. Problems with those are almost unheard of on Chrysler products. Since the engine runs on starter fluid, you know it has spark. Most of the sensor failures that cause the fuel pump to not continue running during cranking will also cause no spark, so we can rule out sensors. The problem that has been known to develop is the Engine Computer and the Body Computer accidentally self-program themselves to have the anti-theft system and they will stay in theft mode until they get a disarm signal, (which is never coming). To prevent retyping this novel over and over, I have a copy / paste version of my previous reply. Disregard what doesn't apply to your situation but look at the swapping computers information: Ok, first of all, roll the driver's window down, hop out of the car, use the power lock button on the door to lock the doors, close the door, then wait for at least a minute. The anti-theft system will arm if you have it. Now reach inside and open the door with the inside handle. If the horn starts blowing and some lights start flashing, you have the anti-theft system. This is real important to know when it comes to replacing the Body Computer or the Engine Computer. If you have the anti-theft system, you can use any computer from the salvage yard, but from then on, that computer will only work on another car that also has the anti-theft system. DO NOT borrow a friend's computer if his car doesn't have the anti-theft system.
Both computers have anti-theft programming that can not be undone. If your car does not have the anti-theft system, you must find a used computer from a donor car that also did not have anti-theft, and that can be impossible to find out from the salvage yard since there's no easy way to tell unless the car was running when it was brought in. Even then, they might not have bothered to find out.
When you install either the Body Computer or the Engine Computer with anti-theft programming into your car without anti-theft, the new computer will teach it to the other one. A Body Computer will teach it to the Engine Computer or a replacement Engine Computer will teach it to the Body Computer. At that point the car will not start because both computers are waiting for the disarm signal that's never coming. Both computers will have to be replaced at the same time. If you just replace one of them, it will immediately learn the anti-theft programming from the other one as soon as the ignition switch is turned on.
If you buy a remanufactured Body Computer from the dealer, it will come without the anti-theft programming. It will work in any car as soon as it is installed and will self-program itself for anti-theft only if the system is on the car, when it learns it from the Engine Computer.
I just wanted to get all of that out of the way in case you do need to replace the Body Computer, (Body Control Module) ( BCM).
Okay, back to the live version of me. Use that information only if it comes to replacing a computer. If your car is equipped with the factory anti-theft system, computers aren't the issue as they will exit theft mode when you unlock the doors. If you're using a key to unlock the doors vs. A remote key fob, there could be broken wires between the driver's door hinges. The system will also disarm by unlocking the passenger door.
When armed, you will still have spark but not injector pulses. I never checked whether the fuel pump was running for that first one second or during cranking when it's in theft mode.
Also check for diagnostic fault codes. On the older cars signals were needed from both the camshaft position sensor and crankshaft position sensor for the Engine Computer to turn on the automatic shutdown (ASD) relay which sent current to the ignition coil(s), injectors, and fuel pump or pump relay. On newer cars my understanding is the engine will still run if one of those sensors fails but injector firing times are mixed up. I am 99 percent sure you still need both signals on a '95 model for the plugs to fire, but it's still a good idea to check for fault codes.
Remember, all of this story means nothing if you aren't hearing the pump run for one second. If that is the case, troubleshoot that circuit.
June, 11, 2011 AT 8:47 PM
You won't need 2 of us here and since Doc loves Chryslers and I think they are the most backwards car ever built, I'll let him finish this.
June, 11, 2011 AT 9:41 PM
You can't say that. Except that they are the only company that has been able to make an engine run right without the troublesome mass air flow sensor, (high-level Carquest trainer's words; not mine), they are almost identical to GM's engine controls. But yes, it's true. I think all cars are backwards in their over-use of technology to make simple process complex.
I didn't mean to horn in on your conversation. Just wanted to add the computer programming information to prevent possible future problems if it comes to that. This was before the days of needing to have new computers programmed to the car, (a GM innovation to cost people money that other manufacturers have copied).
My second reason for replying was so I can wait and see what the final fix is. Always looking to add to the memory banks.
Carry on you fine fellows!
June, 11, 2011 AT 9:50 PM
Hi doc, Troubleshooting a Chrysler makes you work by completely different rules. It's the only car that relies on the PCM to power the main relay and won't power it without a tach signal. That causes hundreds of mis-diagnosed bad computers. And that "cab forward" design was one of the worst ideas ever, from a tech's point of view anyway. And why would every manufacturer out there determine that MAF was a better way to go and Chrysler doesn't? I wouldn't call that a benefit. I'll take a GM or a Ford to work on any day.
June, 11, 2011 AT 10:11 PM
Can't argue about "cab-forward", however, all they did was give it a name. It's a copy of a Taurus. Just like Reagonomics. That too was the same thing Kennedy did with great success, only the media gave it a name. But, ... People buy new cars based on these advertising gimmicks.
I HAVE noticed that people who regularly work on Fords and understand them tend to like them. Hey, someone has to. What I loved about the gold old days was every system on Chryslers was the same. You understand one, you can troubleshoot them all. If a Pontiac oil filter was better than a Chevy filter, why didn't they use it on both brands? Evey GM engine, year, and car model used different parts so it was impossible to stock everything you might need. GM had over 50 PCV valves. Chrysler had two. Even Ford was better than GM at parts interchangeability. When they had one rubber-bonded-socket outer tie rod end that fell apart leading to a crash, ya gotta admire them for sticking with it for years.
I could go on and on about why I am disgusted with ALL new cars and trucks, but I'll leave you with my favorite quote: "You are welcome to like any brand of car you choose; just don't tell me yours is better than mine unless you can tell me WHY it's better".
The profoundness of that statement always left my students speechless, ... Or maybe confused; but at least amused.
You may keep your piles with their common problems, and I'll keep my piles with their common problems. None of them are going to get better until they hire me to design cars!
June, 11, 2011 AT 10:13 PM
Sorry Heather, for getting off topic. : )
We really do want to help you solve this problem, ... I mean your CAR problem.
June, 11, 2011 AT 10:17 PM
Same as a Taurus? You GOT to be kidding. Not even close. I can reach the back of the engine and the firewall with plenty of room to spare and even see what I'm doing. Try that on an Intrepid.
I work on all 3 plus Asian and Euro but Chrysler is the most annoying. IMO anyway. LOL
June, 11, 2011 AT 11:15 PM
You're trying to pick an argument on the wrong car model but it's not going to work. I don't like working on them either. Miserable rack and pinion design and placement, (copy of a Grand Am), miserable toe adjusters, (not as bad as a Grand Am's, but still nothing to be proud of), non-adjustable camber, (just like most Ford models that don't provide for alignment adjustments to fix their horrendous tire wear problems), and no way for me to rest my elbows on the center rest and door armrest at the same time. When I saw the first Intrepid, I ordered out one of the last Dynastys which is infinitely more comfortable and easier to work on.
Sounds to me like you do more engine performance stuff. I do suspension and alignment, brakes, and electrical. Chrysler had everyone beat, ... Well, it's true GM did have a bunch of good designs in the '70s and '80s, but there's no excuse for the troublesome truck brakes Ford gave us.
I am very disappointed that Chrysler has been squeezing their parts suppliers to build parts cheaper and cheaper, then they run into problems. Funny thing is a lot of those commonly failing parts are used on Toyotas too and fail just as often, but Toyota owners dismiss those problems as insignificant and laugh at Chrysler owners when the same parts break. The '96 and newer Caravan nightmare signal switch has three part numbers on it. The Chrysler number, the Toyota number, and one that we don't know what it's used on. High-failure AC compressor clutches are used by Toyota. High-failure starters are also used on Toyotas and fail just as often. So where the blame lies for this misery is anyone's guess. My newer cars and vans sit at home. For 3,200 mile cross-country trips, I only trust my rusty '88 Grand Caravan with a single Engine Computer. No anti-theft system to keep me out of my own car as is very common on GMs. No unreliable computers to roll down the power windows or run the door locks. My dome lights turn on with simple door switches. I don't need dome lights that fade out slowly with a computer. And I'm not so lazy I need a computer and motors to slide the side door closed. I know how to press the lock button when I want the doors to lock. All of these gimmicks make me laugh, and whatever silliness one manufacturer comes up with, everyone else falls all over themselves to copy.
I could type for hours on how I feel Chrysler screwed up on their designs in the last 15 years but the same is true of most other manufacturers. The problem is all I see is what has broken over and over so that's what I remember. We don't pay much attention to what doesn't cause problems. Besides that, there are a lot of GM's business practices that are very bad for owners. THAT's why I can't promote their products. If you want to look at a company with customer-friendly practices, my opinion is look at Hyundai from what I've heard.
If you don't like working on the '96 and newer Caravan, you must love the Lumina APV disaster. That and the Buick Rendezvous where attempts to prove that no matter how ugly they made a vehicle, someone would buy it. Since then there seems to be a war on between manufacturers to see who can make the other ones laugh the hardest. The people who can afford to buy new cars don't care about how hard they are to work on because someone else will have to do that. It's us mechanics who develop our opinions from twisting our hands into impossible shapes to get to poorly placed parts that need expensive equipment to test. I guess when everything is ugly, complicated, or poorly designed, no matter what you buy you're going to get ugly, complicated, and poorly designed. I'll buy my next new car when it has a single Engine Computer and gets the same fuel mileage to weight ratio as the '69 Buick Wildcat.