This is an interesting note for those of you who might run into something similar in the future.

Most fuel pump failures are of the "sudden stop" variety.  Sometimes you get odd grinding noises first, but frequently when they fail you come out to the car, put the key in, turn it and it cranks but refuses to fire because there's no fuel pressure.

This pump is out of my 2002 Suburban; it is original.  The symptoms that prompted me to pull it were an apparent "out of fuel" condition at high altitude and temperature.  In addition it has been "out" of fuel when the gas gauge reads that there is 1/4 of a tank remaining.  Out means out too -- no start and you can hear the pump cavitate during its few-second run when the key is turned to "on".  Put fuel in, it works fine.

I have detached the fuel level float arm and sender (which you can see upside down next to the pump motor); they're ok with no indication of a problem.

The interior of the tank is extremely clean; I see no residue or "trash" in it at all so the possibility of some piece of trash getting into the pickup area and blocking it is excluded.  On the other hand the in-cup strainer is quite dark, implying that it is full of dirt collected over the ~20 year service life.  Interestingly enough the in-tank, outside-cup strainer is not similarly clogged, which implies very strongly that whatever is in that "cup" strainer came from the cup or pump mechanism and was not in the fuel feeding the pump itself otherwise it should be equally bad in both strainers -- but isn't.

There's a one-way silicon valve at the bottom of the cup which clearly is intended to provide primary flow.  It's fine.  The purpose of that second, thin line is not clear; its either a feed or, quite-possibly, for pump-cooling purposes.  Whatever it might be it's not cracked; I checked carefully and its hardline so vacuum capable without collapsing.

The second internal strainer picks up fuel and the pump propels it through the hose visible to the outlet.  There is a mechanical pressure regulator on the fuel rail at the engine; the spill from that comes back down the other line back into the cup, so fuel that is not immediately burned is "recycled" in the cup and does not go back into the tank at-large, at least not directly.  I'm not sure I like that design at all because it means if the fuel coming back from the rail is hot as it does not go into the larger volume of the tank itself, which isn't as hot. That is, the fuel in the cup could wind up having a very elevated temperature under adverse conditions in which the engine burns far less than the pump delivers but the fuel lines are hot and so is the engine.  The cup is slightly less-tall than the tank profile itself; the clear intent is that when the tank is getting toward empty and fuel is sloshing around it will fill the cup to whatever level but not empty back out.

Close examination of the small line reveals no cracks or leaks from which air could be introduced, and the silicone one-way valve at the bottom looks perfectly ok.  The strainer is removable; I did so and it is not plugged.  Discolored yes, but not sufficiently fouled to impede fuel flow at all.  The connector at the top of the physical pump motor is in good shape with no evidence of burnt contacts and the interior beyond the seal is dry.

So what the hell is going on here? Oh, and the cup had fuel in it when I pulled the pump too.  Not a large amount but an approximately correct amount for the fuel I siphoned out of the tank -- it was not empty. 

Specifically, that's a metal pump body so how in the hell is it drawing air when there's 10+ gallons in the tank and the cup has fuel in it?  How the hell is there an air leak on the suction side of the pump?  I sure can't find one on close examination but quite-clearly there is one.

So here's what I think was going on with the hot/altitude shutdowns -- the return from the fuel rail goes into the cup, not the tank at large.  The valve at the bottom only admits more fuel when the cup drops below tank level.  So the hot fuel that is returned gets added to a very small volume of fuel and does not dissipate much of its heat.  Most of the time this is ok -- not great, but ok.  Oh, and the motor's cooling is provided by this very same gas, so the harder the pump is working the more heat it is contributing to that small amount of fuel as well.

Gasoline starts to boil its lightest fractions at 95F.  At 5,000' that's depressed by about 8%, so call it 90F.

Pumps don't work when attempting to pump a gas unless they're positive-displacement.  So now under high altitude and hot conditions eventually the fuel in the cup gets hot enough that it boils under suction at the pump -- the pump cavitates and the fuel rail pressure collapses!  You're ****ed.  A key off/on allows enough time for the boiling to stop as the hot feed back to the cup and the heat addition from the pump motor stops immediately when the engine ceases running.  It doesn't take much; as you know take a boiling pot off the heat and the bubbling stops almost-instantly.  So when you key off/on you now suck fluid again and it starts.

The problem is that if its still smoking hot it will do it again, and maybe quite quickly.  None of these trucks have fuel coolers on the return rail anywhere.  I've looked on mine -- nope.  All there is for "cooling" is a relatively short section of metal line tucked up under the frame where it likely gets ZERO airflow.  My TDI Jetta had a fuel cooler on the return line under the pax seat where airflow under the car provides a decent amount of convection, but it's not these for gasoline -- or on these trucks.  There is a short section of hard metal line but it's tucked up under the frame and body where it gets basically zero airflow (and thus won't do much of anything to cool the returning fuel.)  Thus the pump can be fine but if it tries to pump vapor you get nothing.

There is no fuel pressure sensor on these vehicles so the ECU has no knowledge of the problem and thus doesn't throw a code; from the point of view of the engine computer you simply ran out of fuel.

The only way to prove this would be put a pressure gauge on the rail's test point where you can see if while driving along with power monitoring on the pump motor pins, then take the truck to altitude and attempt to provoke the fault; if you have power to the pump and no or very low and fluctuating pressure there you are.  In short its pretty-much identical to vapor lock in an old non-return carb'd engine where the fuel in the shut down engine would boil in the pump at the block and prevent it from re-priming when you attempted to start it.

It seems they figured this out sometime in the last 20 years as the new pump is quite different.  It has two sections in the cup.  The intake side has the flapper and a suction hose to the motor compartment.  The fuel return goes into this compartment as well.  The second compartment contains only the motor and the output (I bet there is an intentional bleed to fill it with gas on a continual basis for cooling purposes as well.)

This is a much better design; if the returned fuel is hotter than Hell and boils it matters not, since if the level in the cup (boiling or otherwise) is lower than the tank's level fuel will be admitted from the tank into that section and, being cooler, will quench that.  The suction comes from the bottom of the cup and into the drive motor, which, I presume (I didn't try powering it in a big thing of gas where I could look!) continually bleeds off a small amount of the output which will overflow back into the tank, thereby providing positive rather than passive cooling.

Betcha the kid's van has the same issue -- we shall see.

Naw, you're not.

Ever look at a "modern" vehicle?  Own one?  Hope you like the dealer and their prices -- whatever they are.

Sure, there are times its worth it.  Major stuff where you get a warranty that has some teeth beyond where you had the work done, which matters if you travel.  A lot, by the way.

But the rest?  Not so much.

Enter my '02 Suburban.  Yeah, it's 20 years old.  It doesn't get driven a lot, but when it does, it works.  It tows, it hauls, it does the things a truck should do.  It can handle a 10' piece of something inside poking through to the front, which an 8' bed pickup cannot.  It will haul 4x8 sheets of plywood enclosed too with the seats folded, which came in very handy when Ivan threatened us in Florida.  It will pull (assuming you don't blow the GCWR) more than 7,000lbs, although beyond 5k without weight distribution it's unsafe, as are most half-ton trucks.  With WD, however, and a brake controller, 7k is fine.  275HP, allegedly, but normally aspirated, well, at altitude de-rate as appropriate (expect to go slower if you're hauling or towing something, maybe a lot slower.  At ~6,000 feet you got a bit over 200HP to pull whatever.  Yeah, you ain't doing it fast if there is any sort of grade.)

What would buying a newer one get me?  Nothing.  It's an 18mpg vehicle on the highway at reasonable speeds most of the time, 15-16 if you're doing the 75-80mph thing.  10mpg with a 5-7k load behind you.

It's not been bad.  I've raved about my Mazda 6 -- over 200,000 miles on that thing and exactly zero beyond routine maintenance has been done to it.  The '03 Jetta TDI I had is now my kid's, coming up on 300,000 miles and other than the A/C compressor and ordinary maintenance it too is all OEM.  Not bad.

The paint on the '02 is trashed.  Florida sun will do that over 20 years.  Meh.  So may I should get a newer one eh?

Except.... all the newer ones have fancy-pants crap in them you can't fix.

Right now mine is having fuel pump issues.  Ok, I buy one, it's coming in a couple of days, I get surprised when I drop the tank (which Chevy is so nice to make you do as they don't put a hatch where you can get at it from the top) and find after jumpering the pump to empty the tank that..... it's still got a ****-ton of gas in it!  Oh.  Ok, well, at least I could jumper the pump and the fuel pressure regulator is mechanical right on the fuel rail at the engine.  Takes about 20 minutes to swap it if it sticks open and screws you.

The new ones?  Uh, nope.  There's a nice module that runs the pump up under the spare tire.  Which is great, until it fails.  You'd think you go buy a new one, plug it in, all would be good.  Wrong.  You need the dealer tool to program it to talk to your specific VIN's ECU; without it you own a brick.  Congratulations; now a $100 module or thereabouts costs you $300 because only the dealer can change it or the truck will not run.

That's especially nice when it breaks in the middle of nowhere and you need a tow 100 miles to said dealer at a cost of several hundred more dollars, eh?

Yeah.

I'm willing to pay a reasonable price for a scantool that can do this sort of stuff.  I have before -- for my VW.  I have said tool for my Mazda, which also can do Fords.  But for GM?  Well, bend over and grab your ankles because while reading codes is reasonably cheap actually replacing modules on the newer ones requires a tool that costs thousands -- no bull**** -- and there is no third-party alternative at a reasonable cost.

Why does the government allow this crap?  I get it when it comes to keys; if you can match a key you can steal the car.  That makes sense.

But ordinary repairs?

Is this disclosed up front?  Of course not.

When you get down to it total cost of ownership is what matters and forcing people to spend money on maintenance at the dealer ought to be a mandatory disclosure across the entire panoply of service that will be required with prices attached.  It's not and that's fraud.

Why is this not prosecuted as an illegal tying arrangement, which has been illegal for more than 100 years?

Do I not own the car?

Oh, apparently not eh?  Apparently I only lease it even if I "bought" it in that it cannot have ordinary items replaced other than through whatever extortionate scheme the dealer wishes to impose on me at the time.

Well, **** that.  If I have to eventually drop a crate engine into this thing -- I will.  Right up until the frame or body rots from rust to the point that it's not worth it.

Perhaps when that happens I'll go eat a GM executive for lunch if the government hasn't put a stop to this sort of extortion by the time that occurs.

Jesus, is it time to put some of these media moguls under the nearest freeway overpass?

Rising real-estate prices are stoking fears that homeownership, long considered a core component of the American dream, is slipping out of reach for low- and moderate-income Americans. That may be so — but a nation of renters is not something to fear. In fact, it’s the opposite.

Complete crap.

Homeownership is not for everyone.  Specifically, it is best for those who (1) have a stable situation with work in a given area, (2) like it there and intend to stay for several years and/or (3) have stability needs that extend beyond oneself, such as children or in some cases pets such as larger dogs.

The generally-illiquid nature of real estate is not a bad thing.  It tends to stabilize price, for one thing, in both directions.  The so-called "liquidity premium" is not good when it comes to one's housing option; the very last thing you need is to have something go up or down in price by 30% in a year, yet that happens with stocks all the time.  Further, state and local governments rely on that stability for tax revenue and people rely on the stability in order to have certainty in paying those taxes, which are frequently a very large part of their budget.

Renters have none of this; they are subject to the vagaries of the market and liquification of said market screws them as often as it helps.  A renter who has a stable job and wants to raise kids with some continuity but has the market turned into a casino can and will be forced out at the whim of a landlord or local tax assessor who make it impossible to remain in their home.

There is no possible way to consider this is a public good.

As institutional investors increasingly enter the housing market, however, the incentives begin to shift. Large investors can expand or redevelop their properties themselves, because they benefit from a greater number of overall tenants, even if rents themselves dip.

Baloney.

Basic economic theory tells us that nobody ever intentionally takes a loss and that the more hands money or any other good or service goes through the more it costs because nobody works for free either.  As such the premise that this will "help" ordinary people is a flat-out, knowing lie.  Those who promote the further destruction of the family and stable industrial opportunity ought to be forced to take a long walk off a short pier -- and that's if we're being nice about it.

Some two years ago The Atlantic pointed this out -- that instability, which always comes with liquidity, was a bad thing for tenants.  Never mind the other perverse incentives -- a landlord has a strong incentive to do only that which he or she must to meet code, law or ordinance, while a homeowner has an incentive to invest more money in their residence and improve it.  If a landlord does this he then raises the rent because his property is more-desirable; this frequently forces the current tenant out.  Said tenant never has an incentive to improve anything as he or she can't take it with them.

Far be it from me to agree with The Atlantic on much -- but in this area they're right.  Yes, renting is a viable option for certain people.  Young, mobile individuals and young couples willing to go where their fancy takes them and not become "anchored" are a prime candidate.  I rented when I was young for this reason.  But you are always subject to a surprise, there is never an incentive to improve the property and whatever you have when you move in from the landlord is all you will likely ever have -- minus whatever deterioration from ordinary wear and tear occurs.  I've had leaking ceilings, plumbing problems, A/C that was marginal at best and more.  When your year is up you leave and find somewhere else.  If you don't like the town you're in, you move.  If you don't like your job, get a new one -- which could be anywhere.  That's the attraction.

But the other side is equally troublesome.  Your landlord can raise the rent each year.  You might not be able to pay.  Then you have to move.

If you have kids, or pets, this becomes a problem.  It is especially a problem with children.

What happens when there are no stable families 20 years on?

Your society collapses, that's what.

Maybe we should contemplate collapsing them instead.

To become less fat you must obviously burn fat.

When you burn fats (lipids) in your body ketones are produced.  Said ketones are excreted in your urine.

There are inexpensive (under $10) urine test strips that come in packs of 100+ on Amazon and elsewhere; buy a package.  You******on them, shake off the excess, wait the prescribed time (typically 30 seconds) and compare color against the reference chart.

Now go work out, doing whatever.  Walking, hiking, riding a bicycle, running, mowing the lawn, whatever you like.

Get done,******on strip.

If it does not change color then you did not burn any fat.

Period, end of discussion, full stop.

Why did you not burn any fat?

Because you are eating too many carbohydrates, and carbohydrates are always burned first before fat because it is easier for your body to do so, and the laws of thermodynamics are not suggestions.  Your body can store approximately 2,000 calories of energy in the form of glycogen, which is what carbohydrate is processed into when consumed.  Some is stored in your muscles and the rest in your liver; only that stored in your liver can be re-liberated into the blood in the form of glucose; that which is stored in a muscle must be used in that muscle because the muscles lack the enzyme necessary to re-liberate it into your circulation.

Therefore if you exercise (of any sort) and do not have ketones in your urine you did not lose any weight you carry as fat because it is not metabolically possible to process fats (lipids) in your body for energy without producing ketones.

You could lose weight from lean muscle mass or water through such exercise but one is bad and the other you'll simply recover when you sate your thirst during or after exercise by consuming water.

No more excuses folks.  If there are no ketones in your urine then you have no loss of fat on your body no matter what anyone tries to tell you since the products produced by your body consuming fat includes ketones and those are excreted in the urine.

Facts, not bull**** and fear.

Oh, and if you want to know how to have a deficit of glycogen (digested and processed carbohydrate) read here -- from a number of years ago.

Happy healthy Father's Day.