Fuel sending unit problem - GM Forum - Buick, Cadillac, Chev, Olds, GMC & Pontiac chat


2000-2005 Discuss your 2000-2005 Bonneville SE, SLE, and SSEi Please use General Chat for non-mechanical issues, and Performance and Brainstorming for improvements.

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-10-2006, 09:56 AM   #1
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kansas
Posts: 35
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Toms94 is on a distinguished road
Default Fuel sending unit problem

Does anyone here know if there is a problem with the fuel sending unit getting sulfer corrosion and makes it stop working? I know that the C5 Corvettes have an issue and apparrently 1999 and up GM light trucks have the same issue. Now I am wondering if this is a future problem with the Bonneville.
Toms94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 10:13 AM   #2
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 6,313
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
PontiacDad is on a distinguished road
Default

The only fuel gauge problems we've had so far were a bad ground wire in 2k+ bonne'*.
There was a warning a while back about using Shell gas as it contains too much sulfur for our gm fuel injectors?
PontiacDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 10:13 AM   #3
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 7,030
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
lash is on a distinguished road
Default

Not really sure what is the exact cause, but we do know that the fuel sender is known to fail on our cars. I know for sure that it is a '96-99 issue and have no reason to believe that other years are any better.
lash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 11:35 AM   #4
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kansas
Posts: 35
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Toms94 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lash
Not really sure what is the exact cause, but we do know that the fuel sender is known to fail on our cars. I know for sure that it is a '96-99 issue and have no reason to believe that other years are any better.


My guess is that this is the same issue that the other GM products have. According to a GM tech, GM has come out with a Fuel system additive. Here is the info I found:

Quote:
GM Fuel System Treatment PLUS, Fuel Sending Unit Corrosion and Fuel System Deposits #05-00-89-078 - (Nov 9, 2005)

2006 and Prior All GM Cars and Trucks

2003-2006 HUMMER H2

2006 HUMMER H3

2006 and Prior Saturn (Canada Only)

2005-2006 Saab 9-7X

GM Fuel System Treatment PLUS
GM Fuel System Treatment PLUS, P/N 88861011 (for U.*. ACDelco®, use 88861013) (in Canada, 88861012), is now available.

Added Benefits and Uses
The PLUS portion of GM Fuel System Treatment PLUS is the addition of a filmer additive that, when used regularly, can protect fuel system sending units from the corrosive effects of certain sulfur contaminants found in some of today'* gasoline.

Sulfur contamination can disrupt electrical continuity of certain fuel sending units and lead to erratic or false fuel gauge readings. With scheduled usage, GM Fuel System Treatment PLUS protects against the effects of harmful sulfurs in gasoline.

You Get Four Benefits
One bottle of GM Fuel System Treatment PLUS added to the fuel tank at each oil change:

• Cleans -- Sulfur corrosion from fuel gauge sending units.

• Prevents -- Harmful sulfur components from attacking sensitive fuel system electronics.

• Protects -- By coating metallic surfaces of the fuel system.

• Removes -- Engine deposits left from use of poor quality fuels.

GM Fuel System Treatment PLUS will replace the original GM Fuel System Treatment, P/N 12345104 (in Canada, 89020804). The original formula may still be available for a limited time, and provides the excellent Fuel System Cleaning aspects of the new product without the filmer.
[/quote]
Toms94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 01:31 PM   #5
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 7,030
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
lash is on a distinguished road
Default

Hmmmm....interesting. So let me guess, it'* only available through your friendly neighbohood GM dealer, right?
lash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 01:34 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 0
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
vital49 is on a distinguished road
Default

For what it'* worth, the sender failed on my 99. We dealt with it for about a year (using the trip odometer). I ended up swapping out the faulty unit for a new GM one. It'* a pricy SOB....$330.
vital49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 02:10 PM   #7
Member
Posts like a V-Tak
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kansas
Posts: 35
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Toms94 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lash
Hmmmm....interesting. So let me guess, it'* only available through your friendly neighbohood GM dealer, right?
It appears to be so! My question is; Why don't they just fix the problem instead of bandaiding it? They know it'* an issue with millions of cars and trucks, seems they should stand behind them and fix them, maybe not for free but at least a a reduced price.
Toms94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 02:19 PM   #8
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 7,030
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
lash is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toms94
Quote:
Originally Posted by lash
Hmmmm....interesting. So let me guess, it'* only available through your friendly neighbohood GM dealer, right?
It appears to be so! My question is; Why don't they just fix the problem instead of bandaiding it? They know it'* an issue with millions of cars and trucks, seems they should stand behind them and fix them, maybe not for free but at least a a reduced price.
I get the impression that GM feels the issue is quality variation in the fuel supply, not their sender unit. I just re-read the notice and see there'* an AC Delco P/N...hmmmmm.
lash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 05:39 PM   #9
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Groton, CT _NEBF 05, 06, 07_
Posts: 2,703
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
markwb is on a distinguished road
Default

I would factor in planned obsolescence. They (GM & others) want stuff to wear out prematurely.
markwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 05:45 PM   #10
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,071
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sully1742 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vital49
For what it'* worth, the sender failed on my 99. We dealt with it for about a year (using the trip odometer). I ended up swapping out the faulty unit for a new GM one. It'* a pricy SOB....$330.
Mine failed on my 97, and is still. My mechanic wanted 400 bucks after alls said and done to fix it. I'll stick to my trip odometer.
Sully1742 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
96 Fuel Sending Unit Problem spit Everything Electrical & Electronic 1 11-27-2007 03:49 PM
Replaced Fuel Sending Unit - fuel gauge on empty now -fixed gigion 1992-1999 17 09-08-2007 10:44 PM
Fuel pump/sending unit vital49 1992-1999 8 01-26-2005 10:19 PM
Fuel sending unit - how to replace? eds2000bonn 2000-2005 5 08-06-2004 01:19 AM
Quick ? on fuel sending unit dmcfan 1992-1999 2 05-13-2004 04:20 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:41 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.