Fuel system quick-connects reliability


#1

I have a 2005 Mercury Montego with under 50000 miles on it. Only place I have taken it was to a dealer for the routine maintenance. About 6 months ago, the advisor suggested that the fuel filter be replaced. I authorized that rpair.

A week ago, the car had to be towed. The fuel line had become disconnected at the fuel filter. Dealer did not charge to reattach the line. Also ran scan and found two trouble codes which were cleared.

I had seen where there were issues, in 2005, with Purolator filters not fully engaging the couplings.

I am just wondering if I can count on the couplings to stay connected now.


#2

The techs may not be pushing the fitting on the end of the fuel line–that connects to the nipple on the filter–all the way onto the fuel filter nipple & the tabs aren’t engaging the “step” on the nipple. You know if it’s engaged by hearing it snap into place, but shops are noisy, so you’ve gotta also pull back once you think it’s engaged & make sure it doesn’t slide back off.

It’s amazing how long an improperly connected fitting can stay on & not leak until it’s disturbed! Last week I was putting a thermostat in a Pontiac 3400 engine. You gotta remove some cables & other spaghetti, but you don’t have to disconnect the fuel line, even though it’s in close proximity to the work. Now, when this type of fuel line connection is on right, it’s impossible to accidentally disconnect it, since you need the proper quick-disconnect tool.

After I got the thermostat in & filled the cooling system, I started the engine. Fuel sprayed everywhere. The fuel line, where the female end connects to the steel pipe, much like the way a fuel line connects to the nipple on the filter, had disconnected, but I had barely handled it. Also, the Purolator issue ibm 1130 brings up could also be the issue.