I check mine every fill up. Pump a gallon or two into the truck than take a sample. So far no water, and I'm not sure what I'll do if I get a foul sample. Guess it depends on the amount of water in the fuel. For sure I'll stop pumping into the truck. I started doing that when I found out what bad fuel could cost me. I just refuse to be a victim. It's also worth noting that ford reflashed all the trucks (11b23) to reduce the chanches of water damage. I give them credit for that, even though they messed up some trucks and had to reflash them. If you've been involved with many computer system upgrades you know there will be some glitches.

 

Yeah I don't think some of the people who posted understand that just because someone can afford a 60k truck that doesn't mean they can afford to drop 10k on one repair

 

I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. I don't think Vince, Jesse, Cheezit, or any of the other techs that post on here think that $10K is a small matter for anyone who owns one of these trucks.

It's a matter of who should be paying for them. Why should Ford spend $10K on a repair that's not their fault? I'm confident that an expensive repair like that would prevent them from making a profit on that truck, and in turn drive up the cost of future Ford products to cover the loss. I'm pretty sure that's why the diesel engine option went from $6,895 in '08 to 7,895 in '09.

Right now there are a lot of folks attacking Ford and the dealers for a problem they didn't cause in many cases. Coming at it like it's not "fair" is counterproductive, as fairness has absolutely nothing to do with it. These things are expensive to replace, and the owner is responsible for damage not covered under warranty. Do you think any of these techs should spend nearly a week working on your truck for free? Would YOU work on someone's truck without getting paid?

Fairness has nothing to do with it.

 

Yeah, afford is an interesting word. I mean if I can pay it without borrowing the money then I guess I could afford it, but I darn sure don't want to do it. That deal of saving the reciept strikes me as a problem. I can't even get the stations to let me fill up and then pay. I just don't think they will admit that it was in their fuel without hiring a lawyer and filing a law suit. In the end it will cost the truck owner. I did note a year or so ago a fella filed with his insurance company and they paid. I think that's what I would try first.

 

I have read at least 3 or 4 reports on the various forums of people who had trucks damaged by bad fuel and had minimal problems getting reimbursed for repairs from the fuel station's insurance. When these things happen, it isn't just one claim, so the stations know they aren't being scammed when they get 50 claims from people from a wide area that all reference fueling at the station on the same day.

 

They sold a HD truck, with super expensive fuel system, and a fuel filtration system not good enough for the engine. Might have been good enough for a different engine, but not the 6.4.

It's like selling it with a chunk of wire screen for an air filter, and saying "Dont drive in dust".

 

My pal is dealing with this issue right now. Stealership says it failed due to bad fuel. Insurance paide for fuel review and testing only to find 3 ozs water in the fuel seperator (that holds 20 oz).

Why would ford allow a HD truck to go out that has a water seperator, but if water is found in it (even just 3 oz's), won't warranty the truck? Sounds like a faulty design and should be owned up to.

The fuel system isn't THAT sensitive. Any fuel system with a high pressure fuel pump isn't going to like ANY water. That said, how is water allowed to get to the pump in the first place? DESIGN ISSUE and that's IT!

 

ok 3oz is greater then spec of 50ppm, so please let us know what the ppm of the tank sample is

 

Is that the spec? 50 ppm can be found in the trap before you're out of warranty? I get .5 oz to 1 oz every 10k miles. I'm sure that 1/20th of trap is much greater than 50ppm. If ford has been maintaining this, shouldn't they have replaced this filter recently and thus it isn't an issue? Odd that a water trap filter can't handle a few oz's in the trap.

The report states nothing other than 3 oz's of water with some sediment... and goes on to maintain that obviously this filter should handle this.

 

take a sample from the trap is not the correct place to really do this. if its being done this way I woudl suggest draining the trap. running the truck and then removing the sample from the wif drain.

yes the filter can handle it if you drain the thing the way you should be. if you let it fill up it will have no choice by to pass the water that should have been drained by a lazy owner.
the lack of knowldege on how to correctly take a fuel sample is enugh to scare me.

 

To clearify, Ford sampled the fuel in my buddies truck...

Ford in san antonio took the "sample", and then flushed / refilled the fuel system. Fuel pressure is only around 5k at idle, and that's why it must have stutered causing my buddy to bring it in the first place.

Since it wasn't sampled correctly, how can they prove bad fuel? The insurance analysis was only done against fuel from the seperator, which is to be expected. Sounds to me like ford is tired of paying out on these delicate little flower of a fuel system going bad.

This is the same ford that's producing mustangs that are dropping trannys. EDITED BY CRAZY You know, with asian manufactured getrag designed trannys.

Do I need to get an airdog or the like if i want to keep my 08 going long? I can't afford 10k on this thing... And I just bought my wife the new limited explorer. I used to love ford, but they are inovating too quickly, and quality isn't quite job 1. That would be okay if they would cover the fixes under PUBLISHED WARRANTIES!

 

first off I did list the correct way to do a sample from the wif. If the tech took a sample, then an inspector took a sample it was done both correctly and fairly.
second 5k psi at idle is spec and also what it need to light off. so your information is off again.
base fuel pressure is not an issue, the pump has a 6-10psi output. thats all.
what you can do is drain the wif on a normal interval, replace the filter when they should be and avoid fuel station that have had fuel droped on the same day as well as fuel dealers with a slow turnover rate.

so far as the mustang trans issue goes. us tech new about that long before it happened. No idea what they were thinkin gon that one. but yet again it has little to with design flaws in the unit so please if your going to bash do it correctly and state fact not opinions. the issue is the trans was not ment to support the hp/tq the enigne puts out.

 

Nice.

Who's job is it to look out for these type of problems?

How many engineers does it take to screw in a light bulb?


LOL

 

haha, I typed up a similar post but decided to let someone else be the smarta**

 

I think they're lacking in the real world testing portion of the designs.

Heat / cold cycles and dyno runs are no match for a few hundred thousand miles of driving.

For being a heavy duty work truck, the SD fuel system is not idiot proof enough. Lots of these trucks get filled from slip tanks or farm tanks, or bulkers. Lots of them might only get used a few times per year to pull a camper. You cant expect a person to replace the entire fuel system because it sat for a few months and got moisture in the fuel.

Thats a junk design, slice it any way you want. As for the engineers, if any of those overpaid virgins took a glimpse of daylight, and actually looked around at how these trucks get used, they'd realise that the fuel system is a liability to the truck. The fuel filtration needed to be able to accomodate the fuel quality commonly supplied to the truck, not their ideal conditions wishful thinking.