HPFP failures
Lead Driver
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,600
Likes: 84
So what fuel is Ford using in their lab when they run the 250,000 durability test?
Would they have replaced the HPFP at least once at that mileage?
First Look: Ford's All-New 6.7-Liter V-8 Power Stroke Diesel Engine - PickupTrucks.com News
Would they have replaced the HPFP at least once at that mileage?
First Look: Ford's All-New 6.7-Liter V-8 Power Stroke Diesel Engine - PickupTrucks.com News
“We’ve protected the customer if they want to use B20,” said Gryglak “Biodiesel blends can sometimes vary in quality, so on our low-pressure feed lines into the high-pressure fuel pump there’s a pressure switch. If there’s a bad batch of fuel, sensors will immediately notify the customer they have an issue [through] the trip computer.”
A 250,000 mile durability test looks for structural fatigue points. It simulates the driving habits of 95th percentile Super Duty customers who pull the heaviest loads. The engines are placed in a dyno cell where they spend nearly 6 hours running continuously at peak torque and then 3.5 hours at peak grade power to prove out connecting rod and rotating mass strength. The cycle repeats for 1,200 hours, or 50 days of running.
Mountain Pass
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
It would be interesting to see what kind of failures are being experience in Canada. Our Scar is 460 which is the minimum that Bosch reccommends. I add to that with the addition of the Ford Cetane/lubricant booster. Any one know how much of a boost the Ford Additives give?
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 25,479
Likes: 742
From: Isanti, MN
Okay, I just cleaned it up again. This will be the last time before it gets closed for good.
This has gone just about every direction possible BUT relating to the issue. It simply doesn't matter what Ford's business practices were that caused the creation of the 6.7L engine. Nor does it matter who's Googler is better. This is going too far.
This thread, last time I checked, was about the causes of failure of the high pressure fuel pump used on the 6.7L Powerstroke engine. That's it. If we'd like to discuss other topics please post them in a separate thread in the appropriate forum. If there is one.
Thanks!
This has gone just about every direction possible BUT relating to the issue. It simply doesn't matter what Ford's business practices were that caused the creation of the 6.7L engine. Nor does it matter who's Googler is better. This is going too far.
This thread, last time I checked, was about the causes of failure of the high pressure fuel pump used on the 6.7L Powerstroke engine. That's it. If we'd like to discuss other topics please post them in a separate thread in the appropriate forum. If there is one.
Thanks!
Senior User
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Causes of failure, in my opinion.
1 Design... Ability for cam roller follower to rotate out of alignment of cam surface if built into the design parameter. The "self alignment" Bosch designed in is failing, it's not staying self aligned.
2. Materials not suitable to long term durability. Piston is steel and has a DLC like coating for wear, that shows loss of material in 210 hours. Bore is aluminum. Reminds me of those Chevy Vega motors from the 1970's with aluminum blocks. The Bosch CP3.3
previous generation was made out of steel/iron for the block.
3. Bringing a 460 micron fuel requirement pump and commercially selling it in a country where the fuel standard is lesser or lower, with 520 micron wear scar fuel is the standard.
That's how I see it. Do I worry about it? No. I don't worry about earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes or fires either.
Drive more, worry less, if it's your turn, it's your turn.
1 Design... Ability for cam roller follower to rotate out of alignment of cam surface if built into the design parameter. The "self alignment" Bosch designed in is failing, it's not staying self aligned.
2. Materials not suitable to long term durability. Piston is steel and has a DLC like coating for wear, that shows loss of material in 210 hours. Bore is aluminum. Reminds me of those Chevy Vega motors from the 1970's with aluminum blocks. The Bosch CP3.3
previous generation was made out of steel/iron for the block.
3. Bringing a 460 micron fuel requirement pump and commercially selling it in a country where the fuel standard is lesser or lower, with 520 micron wear scar fuel is the standard.
That's how I see it. Do I worry about it? No. I don't worry about earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes or fires either.
Drive more, worry less, if it's your turn, it's your turn.
Junior User
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Causes of failure, in my opinion.
1 Design... Ability for cam roller follower to rotate out of alignment of cam surface if built into the design parameter. The "self alignment" Bosch designed in is failing, it's not staying self aligned.
2. Materials not suitable to long term durability. Piston is steel and has a DLC like coating for wear, that shows loss of material in 210 hours. Bore is aluminum. Reminds me of those Chevy Vega motors from the 1970's with aluminum blocks. The Bosch CP3.3
previous generation was made out of steel/iron for the block.
3. Bringing a 460 micron fuel requirement pump and commercially selling it in a country where the fuel standard is lesser or lower, with 520 micron wear scar fuel is the standard.
That's how I see it. Do I worry about it? No. I don't worry about earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes or fires either.
Drive more, worry less, if it's your turn, it's your turn.
1 Design... Ability for cam roller follower to rotate out of alignment of cam surface if built into the design parameter. The "self alignment" Bosch designed in is failing, it's not staying self aligned.
2. Materials not suitable to long term durability. Piston is steel and has a DLC like coating for wear, that shows loss of material in 210 hours. Bore is aluminum. Reminds me of those Chevy Vega motors from the 1970's with aluminum blocks. The Bosch CP3.3
previous generation was made out of steel/iron for the block.
3. Bringing a 460 micron fuel requirement pump and commercially selling it in a country where the fuel standard is lesser or lower, with 520 micron wear scar fuel is the standard.
That's how I see it. Do I worry about it? No. I don't worry about earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes or fires either.
Drive more, worry less, if it's your turn, it's your turn.
Point #2 - That's what they said about using aluminum heads on cars and trucks right, guess those are a bad design's too. I guess the engineers were wrong in thinking in choosing an aluminum housing because of its ability to dissipate heat better which reduces warping enabling it to hold closer tolerance's for better efficiency under hi pressures to produce longevity but, hey what would an engineer know.
Can you please show me any pictures of a piece of metal that does not have any signs of wear after being spun at up to 4000 rpm's and pushing up to 29,000 psi of liquid through it even after 5 hours.
Your point #3- Wrong, same U.S. spec diesel was used to test a motor to 250,000 miles without a failure.
Frankly I'm quite honored that you choose to single me out in this discussion , I enjoy challenges
when they stay on the subject at hand.Jay
Senior User
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Starting with your point #1 Even if the cam roller could not rotate in the sleeve it would still not solve the problem of enough wear occuring though the use of low lubricity fuel that the pump would just seize or send metal shaving's occurring during the seizing process contaminating the fuel system. Still a bad design ,if the cam roller can't rotate?
Point #2 - That's what they said about using aluminum heads on cars and trucks right, guess those are a bad design's too. I guess the engineers were wrong in thinking in choosing an aluminum housing because of its ability to dissipate heat better which reduces warping enabling it to hold closer tolerance's for better efficiency under hi pressures to produce longevity but, hey what would an engineer know.
Can you please show me any pictures of a piece of metal that does not have any signs of wear after being spun at up to 4000 rpm's and pushing up to 29,000 psi of liquid through it even after 5 hours.
Your point #3- Wrong, same U.S. spec diesel was used to test a motor to 250,000 miles without a failure.
Frankly I'm quite honored that you choose to single me out in this discussion , I enjoy challenges when they stay on the subject at hand.
Jay
Point #2 - That's what they said about using aluminum heads on cars and trucks right, guess those are a bad design's too. I guess the engineers were wrong in thinking in choosing an aluminum housing because of its ability to dissipate heat better which reduces warping enabling it to hold closer tolerance's for better efficiency under hi pressures to produce longevity but, hey what would an engineer know.
Can you please show me any pictures of a piece of metal that does not have any signs of wear after being spun at up to 4000 rpm's and pushing up to 29,000 psi of liquid through it even after 5 hours.
Your point #3- Wrong, same U.S. spec diesel was used to test a motor to 250,000 miles without a failure.
Frankly I'm quite honored that you choose to single me out in this discussion , I enjoy challenges
when they stay on the subject at hand.Jay
Point #2... There's a huge difference in wear on an aluminum head, and an aluminum bore with a piston running inside it. I am very familiar with bores, wear, glazing, and failure, as well as rebuilding bores and sealing surfaces, having been in management at BRM, makers of the Flex Hone, many years ago.
Point #3, this is not about 250k miles on a motor, this about 250k miles on the same HPFP without a rebuild on the HPFP.... but I like your idea, do you have data available that's been published publicly on the internet, and had peer review, on this 250k 6.7 scorpion diesel motor, specifically it's fuel injection system and the results after tear down? Differentiate between HPF Pumps and motors, for the time being. We are not talking about the block or head design, we are discussing soley the Fuel Injection system.
Jäger
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,491
Likes: 5
From: Northern Arizona
3. Bringing a 460 micron fuel requirement pump and commercially selling it in a country where the fuel standard is lesser or lower, with 520 micron wear scar fuel is the standard.
That's how I see it. Do I worry about it? No. I don't worry about earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes or fires either.
Drive more, worry less, if it's your turn, it's your turn.
That's how I see it. Do I worry about it? No. I don't worry about earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes or fires either.
Drive more, worry less, if it's your turn, it's your turn.
I completely agree with your points below #3. I'm reasonably prepared for earthquakes and fires, but I don't spend unnecessary time worrying about them. I use Optilube XPD in every tank of Diesel fuel for the added lubricity and demulsifying, and will change the fuel filters every 10K and see what does or does not happen.
Junior User
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Chep, this is more of a link for you because you asked about additives and reducing scar ratings .
Here is another link that further pushes my point about how critical it is to use an additive ,not because your required to use one its because you just can't trust fuel suppliers. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...NGYS3g&cad=rja
We all know know under current U.S. standards 15ppm ULSD diesel is rated at 520 scar and your Bosch pump will live a happy life at that. The problem is, read the above link and you will understand why any current diesel HPFP fuel system won't . Anything starting to climb over 520 your greatly reducing your pump life.If you read or search you will find studies of random samples of diesel fuel taken from current fuel filling stations that have had ratings as high as 680 scar which would destroy a pump in one tank without the owner ever knowing he was putting it in there.
Again there is no U.S. law stating additives have to be added to diesel fuel sold in the U.S. that is supposed to keep the rating to 520 due to the refining processes of ULSD
Jay
Here is another link that further pushes my point about how critical it is to use an additive ,not because your required to use one its because you just can't trust fuel suppliers. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...NGYS3g&cad=rja
We all know know under current U.S. standards 15ppm ULSD diesel is rated at 520 scar and your Bosch pump will live a happy life at that. The problem is, read the above link and you will understand why any current diesel HPFP fuel system won't . Anything starting to climb over 520 your greatly reducing your pump life.If you read or search you will find studies of random samples of diesel fuel taken from current fuel filling stations that have had ratings as high as 680 scar which would destroy a pump in one tank without the owner ever knowing he was putting it in there.
Again there is no U.S. law stating additives have to be added to diesel fuel sold in the U.S. that is supposed to keep the rating to 520 due to the refining processes of ULSD
Jay
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Senior User
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Chep, this is more of a link for you because you asked about additives and reducing scar ratings .
Here is another link that further pushes my point about how critical it is to use an additive ,not because your required to use one its because you just can't trust fuel suppliers. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...NGYS3g&cad=rja
We all know know under current U.S. standards 15ppm USLD diesel is rated at 520 scar and your Bosch pump will live a happy life at that. The problem is, read the above link and you will understand why any current diesel HPFP fuel system won't . Anything starting to climb over 520 your greatly reducing your pump life.If you read or search you will find studies of random samples of diesel fuel taken from current fuel filling stations that have had ratings as high as 680 scar which would destroy a pump in one tank without the owner ever knowing he was putting it in there.
Again there is no U.S. law stating additives have to be added to diesel fuel sold in the U.S. that is supposed to keep the rating to 520 due to the refining processes of USLD
Jay
Here is another link that further pushes my point about how critical it is to use an additive ,not because your required to use one its because you just can't trust fuel suppliers. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...NGYS3g&cad=rja
We all know know under current U.S. standards 15ppm USLD diesel is rated at 520 scar and your Bosch pump will live a happy life at that. The problem is, read the above link and you will understand why any current diesel HPFP fuel system won't . Anything starting to climb over 520 your greatly reducing your pump life.If you read or search you will find studies of random samples of diesel fuel taken from current fuel filling stations that have had ratings as high as 680 scar which would destroy a pump in one tank without the owner ever knowing he was putting it in there.
Again there is no U.S. law stating additives have to be added to diesel fuel sold in the U.S. that is supposed to keep the rating to 520 due to the refining processes of USLD
Jay
Anything climbing over 460 microns causes accelerated wear, according to Bosch. Run it at 520 to 575 wear scar and the life is reduced exponentially shorter.
Fuel in the USA needs to be at ASTM D975 spec. which does require less than 520 micron wear scar fuel, however, enforcement is another issue, kind of like folks that mod their trucks with chips or tunes. It's legal to do so for off road racing use only. Yet enforcing it is another matter, both, fuel lubricity and cetane standards and chips or tunes that modify engine performance and pollution levels.
I can tell you that my scan gauge will detect loss of mpg, and lower cetane quite quickly if I fill up with rot gut diesel at a Flying J or Rotten Robbie, where all the truckers care about is price per gallon of fuel, not cetane or quality... plenty of 40 cetane quality fuel at those big rig stops. A dose of Power Kleen Diesel Supplement to bump the cetane up to 6 points pays for itself easily when fuel like that gets in my tanks. But if I was going for lubricity, I'd run B1, by adding a qt of biodiesel to 24 gallons or a pt to 12 gallons.
Posting Guru
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 1
From: Green Lane, Pa.
The Spicer Report is well known in Common Rail circles, as well as alternative "Devil's Tea" free fuel circles.
Anything climbing over 460 microns causes accelerated wear, according to Bosch. Run it at 520 to 575 wear scar and the life is reduced exponentially shorter.
Fuel in the USA needs to be at ASTM D975 spec. which does require less than 520 micron wear scar fuel, however, enforcement is another issue, kind of like folks that mod their trucks with chips or tunes. It's legal to do so for off road racing use only. Yet enforcing it is another matter, both, fuel lubricity and cetane standards and chips or tunes that modify engine performance and pollution levels.
I can tell you that my scan gauge will detect loss of mpg, and lower cetane quite quickly if I fill up with rot gut diesel at a Flying J or Rotten Robbie, where all the truckers care about is price per gallon of fuel, not cetane or quality... plenty of 40 cetane quality fuel at those big rig stops. A dose of Power Kleen Diesel Supplement to bump the cetane up to 6 points pays for itself easily when fuel like that gets in my tanks. But if I was going for lubricity, I'd run B1, by adding a qt of biodiesel to 24 gallons or a pt to 12 gallons.
Anything climbing over 460 microns causes accelerated wear, according to Bosch. Run it at 520 to 575 wear scar and the life is reduced exponentially shorter.
Fuel in the USA needs to be at ASTM D975 spec. which does require less than 520 micron wear scar fuel, however, enforcement is another issue, kind of like folks that mod their trucks with chips or tunes. It's legal to do so for off road racing use only. Yet enforcing it is another matter, both, fuel lubricity and cetane standards and chips or tunes that modify engine performance and pollution levels.
I can tell you that my scan gauge will detect loss of mpg, and lower cetane quite quickly if I fill up with rot gut diesel at a Flying J or Rotten Robbie, where all the truckers care about is price per gallon of fuel, not cetane or quality... plenty of 40 cetane quality fuel at those big rig stops. A dose of Power Kleen Diesel Supplement to bump the cetane up to 6 points pays for itself easily when fuel like that gets in my tanks. But if I was going for lubricity, I'd run B1, by adding a qt of biodiesel to 24 gallons or a pt to 12 gallons.
You mentioned bumping the cetane rating up to 6 points by using power kleen, show us independent research where X amount of cetane additive raised the diesel to X figure of cetane.
Senior User
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
I would really like to see the Cetane boost and improvement Ford additive gives.. once i run out I am thinking about trying some opti Lube you can order direct from company its like 40 bucks a gallon... and will by the study bring any fuel into proper lubricity standards.
Postmaster
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,839
Likes: 2