Thanks Tom.
I guess when a thread gets 14 pages long, it's bound to drift some.
And I gotta say, I feel kind of honored that a thread that I started has garnered so much interest and provided so much info.
And I do appreciate all that Niner has offered, as it may be relavent in the future.

Now I'll try to get back on track.

Some of this thread has a all too familier ring.

I remember back when I had my 2001 Duramax LB7, and people first started having injector problems. Naturally there were many big discussions similar to this one.
The opinions of many was that the LB7 needed better filtration and fuel treatment. A lot of people spent some big dollars on elaborate filtration systems, and more money on fuel treatments.
It didn't help.
As history has now proven, those injectors were simply not reliable. Mine lasted 130,000, but many fell far short of that mark. GM changed the design and later models didn't have the problem.

I originally asked if the GM and Ford pumps are the same.
The answer seems to be somewhat.
My reasoning was that if they were the same, and GMs are not having issues, then the pump itself is probably OK. The rest of the fuel system would need to be looked at to see where it differs from GM.

To this date I have not seen a single verifiable GM HPFP failure reported.
Of course my crystal ball is cloudy, and I don't know if this trend will continue.

Not sure that it matters as I am not sure what the differences are between the two. GM states that the LML has a completely hardened fuel system to allow for biodiesel use. Not sure what that entailed. I do know that GM isn't recommending monthly water seperator draining, and actually discourages fuel treatments. Just the opposite of Ford. So I tried looking it up on the Bosch site....No luck.
I then had a thought that if the GM pump was spec'd to a higher standard than the Ford pump, that it would cost more,,,probably a lot more. So I tried to price one....No luck. It seems that there are none to be bought.

Going forward, I think that if Rick were to buy his core, disassemble it and take pics then that would add useful info,,now and possibly in the future if a GM pump becomes available for comparison.

Could probably take the pics, reassemble it and return it for the core.
And since Rick may be in the market for a GM.....He may want to know this for his own info.

 

this came out 10/13/2011

Article 10-B-2011
6.7L Powerstroke Diesel Engine Fuel Contamination
2011 F-Super Duty

A review of warranty claims and returned parts has found that some dealers have replaced 6.7L Powerstroke Diesel Engine fuel system components (including the High Pressure fuel injection pump and fuel injectors) due to damage caused by contaminated fuel. The most common sources of contaminated fuel are:
•Auxiliary vehicle mounted tanks
•Local storage tanks
•Other infrequently used fuel sources
•Refueling errors (i.e. Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) or Gasoline introduced into the fuel tank)

The 6.7L Diesel Fuel System Contamination Diagnosis and Service Procedure Job Aid (Revised September 2011) provides diagnostic and service procedures to determine if fuel system contamination is present.

Category: Powertrain / Diesel Engine
Do: Follow 6.7L Diesel Fuel System Contamination Diagnosis and Service Procedure Job Aid procedures if fuel system contamination is suspect before replacing fuel system components.
Don't: Replace fuel system components under warranty for damage caused by fuel contamination or improper fluids.



These Notices are in accordance with the Company's warranty and policy requirements. It highlights repairs or operations that are often improperly completed or claimed. We ask that you take immediate steps to make certain that your dealership follows the recommendations included in the attached document. Doing so will help your dealership avoid unnecessary repair procedures, improper labor operations, or improper claim preparation practices that may result in the claim being returned unpaid.
HOW CAN I ACCESS WANs and SEARCH PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED WANs?
Warranty Action Notices (WANs) are issued on the second Thursday of each month: •WANs are published to FMCDealer.com and featured in the 'Message Center' area for several days following each release
There are 2 ways to search previously published WAN articles: 1.Warranty Action Notice Index ◦From the FMCDealer.com home page click Warranty Action Notices on the right side under My Top Spots or under Important Warranty Information on the Warranty tab
◦An index for each category is provided

2.Warranty Search
◦From the FMCDealer.com home page, click on the Warranty tab
◦Warranty search is available on the right side of the page directly above Important Warranty Information

 

Thanks for taking the time to post that, cheezit.

 

Thanks cheezit.

Now please correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like Ford is placing dealers on notice that burden of proof is now raised for warranty claims with fuel system failures.

 

pretty much what is going on and has been going on for sometime now. My only real point in posting the above it to show the issue is not comming from the dealer level but from FOMOCO. the dealers hands are pretty much tied.

 

So if there has only been two known failures... why would a company as big as Ford send out a Nationwide memo? Seems a bit excessive especially since both that we know about were paid by customer? Am I over analyzing this? Or is this a bigger issue than any of us think?

 

The later , is my guess. Two HPFP's failed here, one for sure Fomoco didn't cover. To issue a memo that stout, there has to be financial pain and bleeding at corporate before the higher ups feel that crisis management and notices need to be sent out nationwide. Every time a failed pump comes back to Bosch, for rebuild on that $100 core from Ford, the question becomes, who eats it, Ford or Bosch, on the warranty.

This is deja vu of what VW/Bosch has gone through, in summer of 2010. The techs have to check everything about the fuel first, then get approval to order parts, if everything checks out... this is a WHOLE NEW FUEL SYSTEM REPLACEMENT, not just a pump, that gets contaminated.

If Ric posts up his work order, with price of all the parts, and labor... well, let's wait and see.

In the mean time, drive more, worry less. If your number comes up... you'll get through it.

 

Also along the lines of the original thread - do we know the build dates of the trucks (the 3 that are known)? Or at least what job (perhaps as far as to what build of pump was used in that job)?

Rick's truck is a job 1, not sure of the build date (I think he posted it earlier, maybe in one of the other threads) so we know that much. What about the others?? If there was a way to track the non-reported failures we would have a whole lot more information to build this off of.

This may point to a trend.

 

I wonder if this type of fuel filter can be retrofitted in place of the current primary fuel filter - Separ Fuel Filter/Water Separator

Then on if you look on page 8 of the ford 6.7 fuel schematic provided here- http://www.motorcraftservice.com/vdi...DOBDSM1202.pdf
Ford could then add a injector nozzle like the urea system in line between the primary filter and the secondary fuel filter that would add a lubricity additive to the fuel before it gets to the HPFP pump .

That's my idea of a revised fuel system , That way you could eliminate fuel quality as a variable and start to determine if the HPFP is a faulty design.


Jay

 

I don't think very many people would buy these trucks if not only did it need urea, and diesel fuel, but no also a fuel additive tank. People buy these trucks cause they are strong, dependable, and durable. I know I would never buy one with that many tanks to fill.

 

There's quite a few that add a quart of B100 to every 12 gallons of D2 to get a 2% biodiesel blend, but tests have shown in the Spicer report that even 1% biodiesel, a quart to every 24 gallons will drop the micron wear score down to 320 or 330, far below Bosch's request for 460 wear scare micron fuel, or their "first tank wear in, or break in" requirement of 400 or less micron wear scare fuel.

 

I would honestly be happy with an additive tank but the disadvantage is more parts to fail and a computer module must manage perfectly.
You have to add the additive every tank now so doing it one time per 5,000 miles is easier, in my mind.

The DEF tank is simple. Fill it and keep driving.
The additive would be the same way as long as the tank was large enough to travel the same distance as DEF.

 

Based on recent reading in the related fuel/hpfp threads I am hearing that the odds are far more likely to dump gas or DEF fluid in the Diesel tank by accident than encounter a HPFP failure. I'm not saying I agree .... it's just the way it is coming across.

On the adding of another tank for additives topic ..... really. Like we dont have enough tanks and fluids to track and monitor. Ouch!

 

Seems like unneccessary complexity to me. Reminds me of oil injection on modern two-stroke outboards. Rather than bother the owner with mixing fuel these engines have a tank to fill which automatically injects oil into the gasoline in the correct mixture. These systems add complexity to already expensive engines and when they fail the engine self destructs. Simply mixing the oil with gasoline is foolproof and cheaper!

NOT that this is necessary like mixed gas is on a 2-stroke or anything. I had no trouble dumping some additive in every time I filled up.

 

The motors on these 6.7's must really sound weak or non existent for someone to fill up with RUG by mistake.

I'm not buying it. DEF fluid, perhaps, but if owners would RTFM, like they are supposed to, this wouldn't be happening, now would it?

Take a truck to a truck stop, fuel up, and let the weiners with their diesel sedans claim gas misfuels. One other thing, give fueling your 100% attention, and hang up the damn cell phone when around flammable fuels. Really, it's just common sense.