MR. Gasket CO. preliminary evaluation PE12030
Fuel Pressure Regulator Leak. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this preliminary evaluation about the carburetor system. Opened Oct 11, 2012, closed May 22, 2013 after 7 months without a recall. closed
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedODI directed the Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) to purchase and test 30 subject regulators. The regulators were marked 2011 and 2012 and were purchased from three separate sources. Externally, the regulators looked similar. Internally, there were distinct differences. The 2011 regulators had a burr on the upper gasket seat edge and a casting flaw that formed a sharp edge on the lower seat. Both of these cut into the diaphragm gasket. The plating on the inside surface had a dull finish with loose, flaky particles that stuck to the diaphragm when it was removed. The 2012 regulators were the same design but the plating was of a higher quality. There were no loose particles and the seating surface was smooth. VRTC found about half of the 30 units had at least one loose housing screw when received. The first 10 regulators were tested with water at the recommended maximum inlet pressure of 8 psig. Pressure was gradually increased to 100 psig. This resulted in two regulators exhibiting a slow drip at the flanges; one at 70 psi and another at 76 psi. To test the effect of loose screws on a regulator, screws were slowly loosened with the regulator at 80 psig. The screws were completely removed and no water leaked. The modulating valve had closed from the inlet pressure and no water could flow to the outlet side. Additional tests with loose screws indicated the modulating valve would close at about 40 psig inlet pressure with the adjusting knob set at 5.5, and close at about 20 psig with the knob at 0.5.After finding that higher pressures reduced the chance of major leaks, VRTC changed the test strategy to use lower pressures. A diaphragm was punctured in one regulator. This resulted in water flowing out below the adjusting knob. In two consumer videos posted on the internet, fuel sprayed out forcefully between the flanges. This meant the diaphragm was intact and fuel was leaking below the diaphragm gasket and between the flanges. Tests were conducted with grooves cut in the lower side of the gasket. This produced a slow drip. The modulating valve reduced flow and pressure too much to produce a spray pattern. VRTC tested regulators with a foreign object on the modulating valve O-ring. This didn't open the valve enough to produce the spray. The modulating valve had to fail fully open. VRTC tested a regulator with the retaining ring for the modulating valve pulled loose. With 15 psig inlet pressure and loose screws at the 6 and 12 o?clock positions, it produced the spray pattern seen in the consumer videos. VRTC concluded that a loose retaining ring was the most likely failure mode for those two failures. The retaining ring is a press-fit assembly. It fits in an unmachined cylinder in the cast-aluminum regulator body. The regulator was plated and the cylinder walls were coated in the plating process, which can leave an irregular surface thickness. It is not a precision manufacturing process and some retaining rings may be pushed out if inlet pressures exceed the manufacturer?s maximum recommendation. Prestolite reported low failure rates and claimed there was no reason for concern. ODI doesn't agree that there is no reason for concern as Prestolite did receive four reports where the owner's concern was fire related. Prestolite doesn't maintain ownership records or have a means to track production. Prestolite did not seek further event details and no parts were available for ODI to inspect. It is unclear whether the claims reported an actual fire or a potential fire. Unable to contact the owners or inspect the failed parts, ODI must rely on available data. No vehicle fires have been reported wit
A Preliminary Evaluation is the first formal stage: NHTSA has decided the complaints and other information it screened are worth a closer look, and asks the manufacturer for its own data on the condition. The summary is the agency’s own text from its investigation file, unedited; the opening and closing resumes with the full reasoning are on NHTSA’s site under this number.
What this means for an owner
Source: and what happens nextAn investigation is not a finding that a defect exists, and it puts no duty on anyone. NHTSA opens a Preliminary Evaluation when complaints and other reports suggest a condition worth asking the manufacturer about; it upgrades to an Engineering Analysis when the answers warrant testing; it closes either when it recommends a recall, when the manufacturer recalls on its own, or when no defect trend is found. The agency’s own goals are about four months for a petition, eight for a Preliminary Evaluation or a Recall Query and eighteen for an Engineering Analysis; many run longer.
This one closed without a recall. That means NHTSA found no defect trend it chose to act on at the time, or the manufacturer addressed the condition another way (a service campaign or a bulletin, which have their own pages). A closed file can be reopened if new reports arrive.
Model years it names
Source: as NHTSA filed themNHTSA filed this action against PRESTOLITE PERFORMANCE without naming a model year — an equipment or manufacturer-level query.
Common questions
Source: NHTSA Office of Defects InvestigationIs PE12030 a recall?
No. A preliminary evaluation is NHTSA asking questions, not a recall. A safety recall carries an NHTSA campaign number and a duty to repair for free; this one closed without one. Whether one particular vehicle has an open recall is a VIN question at nhtsa.gov/recalls.
Is PE12030 still open?
No. It closed on May 22, 2013 without a recall.
Which vehicles does PE12030 cover?
NHTSA filed it against PRESTOLITE PERFORMANCE without naming a model year.