Well like I said before alot of cities , counties, states , and emergency services use the superduty platform. If it's a bad design these people are gonna see failures too and they won't roll over and take a 10000 dollar repair bill without a fight. Believe me an ambulance with a pt disabled on the side of the road is gonna get some attention.

 

The failures that we do know about, they all seem to be job 1 correct? I believe someone said they were revised for job
2 the pumps. Is this correct

 

Might be, because there are tons of them around here (built here in town) and they are not on tow trucks or sitting on the side of the road.

 

Okay guys, I just cleaned things up again. This thread is about the high pressure fuel system of a 6.7L powerstroke diesel. Not the turbocharges and other semantics.

Now back to the regularly scheduled programming...

Hi Mike! I know you're new here, but I do not like the way this is starting to sound. I caution you to DO NOT attempt to find, solicit, or organize any sort of class-action or other legal matter here on FTE. This is not what we are here for, and is expressly against the site guidelines. I'm not sure of your intent, but I just wanted to let you know.

Here we go again. I have asked you before several times to turn down the rhetoric, and yet here we see it again. You are attempting to pump the hysteria as high as possible by referencing more anecdotal evidence for diesel vehicles by another manufacturer. I know, the pumps are very similar, but they are NOT the same, and the failure patterns certainly haven't given any credibility to this argument.

Please stop confusing the issue here unless you can bring something to the table that demonstrates the issues that you are insisting are present.

Your "not if...but when" is nothing but a scare tactic from someone who has never owned one of these trucks nor possessed the knowledge to make such a claim.

 

Intersting question....
Anyone know?

 

If the pumps are different between Job 1 and Job 2, that would indicate that Ford realized there was a shortfall in the Job 1 design. Why would they refuse warranty on a Job 1 truck? They would look ridiculous trying to explain that one away.

Regards

 

Yes, that would be "true" to an extent.

Remember they changed TURBO's between '99 and '99.5 ('99 was introduction year of the 7.3 PSD and had a 18 month production run). No mention of relialability, just better air flow,,,,, etc

 

Could it not also be the result of their desire to increase manufacturing & assembly efficiencies? Does it necessarily have to be the result of a "design shortfall?"

 

Ok , I'm going to try to put this all together and make it relevant to everything that has been posted in this thread about this bosch cp4.2 HPFP pump.

1-here is a link CP4.2 EXPLODED............view - Competition Diesel.Com - Bringing The BEST Together to what our pump looks like internally on the 6.7 motor ,now to clarify you'll have to register at the site to see the picture and its of a current duramax bosch4.2 pump which is the same as our's just with different mounting holes and connections.
The only part is shares with the bosch 4.1 pump is the body,THAT'S IT,the internal structure is not the same and has been improved over the 4.1 design.
"Caution the title in this thread says EXPLODED VIEW the pump is not damaged it just means an enlarged picture."

2-I want to make reference to the first post made by NinerBikes in his NHTSA thread. Look at where the year's start for the investigation being conducted for all the manufacturer's it starts with 2007 cars and trucks ,ok still with me , lets keep going - now reference the cheveron fuel document I posted on page 9 of this thread , that document was written when ,you guessed it 2007 the same year USLD was introduced to the U.S . I will point you again to chapter 7 page 90 3rd paragraph It states there are NO legal requirements that diesel fuel require additives ,(you will have to read most of the chapters and tie them all together to understand my point here)now it states the fuel should already meet the requirements without additives. Which brings me to my third point of discussion.


3-Variables, Lets say XYZ supplier gets enough fuel to fill 15 stations .Well XYZ supplier feels like, hey its summer I'll skip the additives an increase my profit for a quarter so i can get a bonus , now that fuel goes to (1st variable) 15 different locations (2nd variable) all in different tanker trucks. Now each filling station can't possibly be brand new with new current spec'd inground diesel tanks. So now we have the (3rd variable) tanks that have inadequate filtering systems ,whether its a tank that had gas in it before that is now used for a diesel pump,or a tank that is old that has ground water leaking into it. Now we have the (4th variable) Human error, a person not paying attention and putting gas or, def or ,bluetec additive in their tank and destroys their fuel system.


4- Filtering systems , the current filtering system on the ford 6.7 is plenty sufficient enough,(unless you taking fuel from an above ground tank on a job site and happen to put 80% water in it.You guys know what i mean-stealing). I believe the secondary filter is now lowered to 2 microns for the 12 model year according to ford's fuel schematic. Again the only thing that the ford system does not do is provide lubricity.I personally do not have any info on the VW filtering system ,nor do i care because it is irrelevant to a 6.7 motor.


5- Manufacturing Error, every type of a mass produced mechanical part has a failure rate built in that is acceptable in any standard practice of mass production. Nothing is perfect and things break,it just stinks to be the one that it breaks on.

I believe the information I provided with the set variables in place correlate to the related problems out there in the real world vs. the mass failures constantly stated by a "said " poster. I stand behind my argument and i will not change my stance until i see visual proof of 1000's of pumps from a 6.7 ford diesel, not a VW then i will believe there is a design problem.

Some people may hate me or not agree with how I reply to a post ,but that's just who I'am. Since i have been a member on this site i have learned alot from many different people that live through out this great country in their posts. Although i don't have a high post count, in return i try my best to Help,Educate,and Inform people to the best of my knowledge.



Jay

 

I'll take quality over quantity any day....reps to ya.

 

I repped him as well. It's great to read a well written post free of drama, innuendo, and speculation.

 

+1 Jayman! Excellent post.

 

jayman2.... ULSD was introduced in California in 2000, in Los Angeles, Orange County and the Bay Area. It was announced by BP /Arco in December of 1999. Please don't state falsities saying it just "happened" in 2007. It just happened then in your neck of the woods.

BP begins selling ultra low sulphur diesel in California — Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections

This is when Arco began selling it in ALL of its retail outlets, not just select test markets, in the link above.

Bosch was doing presentations on fuel lubricity needs for Bosch pumps back in 2003 to the California Air Resources Board, the folks that are giving us these clean diesel engines, that some folks around here tend to disregard with getting tunes and boxes on their trucks, or modifying the exhaust or EGR functions, which is clearly illegal.



http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline...22003bosch.pdf


Based on your above posts, you are not yet up to speed on the developments with ULSD diesel fuel or Bosch. California is a trend setter, a leader, the rest of the country follows along later. 40 million people here have a right to breathe clean air.

I'd suggest that before you put things together for all of use, you start off with tearing something apart, like a failed CP4 pump, like I have. You might learn a thing or two instead of shooting from the hip at me and my posts.

From my perspective, I am years ahead of you in these developments. My Googler just flat out works better than yours.

A Ford truck is only as good as it's weakest component in the fuel and drivetrain system. I'll let the folks here do some critical reasoning on what I think the weakest link is currently.


Based on the Bosch PDF, from 2003, one can look at it two ways... Bosch can tell petroleum refiners and sellers here in the USA that we have a fuel lubricity problem for their pumps, or the petroleum industry and it's lobbyists here keep the same ASTM standards and kindly suggest that Bosch design a fuel pump around our standards for fuel. That's if you believe it's a lubricity problem. Bosch predicts 1000 hour run time in their chart, on their pump. Heck of a lot of vehicles, trucks, big rigs, farm equipment run fine on ULSD, all made in America, on this US standard fuel without failures. You gonna let some German company tell an American how to make diesel fuel? I don't think so. Not when we beat them twice in 2 wars.

That clearly indicates to me, that Bosch has been skirting this issue with fuel here in the USA for 8 full years with their CR designs. Comment removed. Political content is not allowed outside of ClubFTE

So, whatcha gonna do?

 

 

From my recollection, ULSD was required at all Diesel pumps in Kali effective 2007. That requirement coincides with the date requested by the NHTSA.