YES,,,The one I have, and in the video says Improves lubricity to reduce engine wear.

Shane

 

The pdf document shown by Shane is the exact same pdf that was used in determining my warranty resolution...or should I say no warranty resolution. I have the pics of my parts. They do not remotely approach any of the levels of damage shown in these pics.

I have been told that the Ford technicians private website has a rather long and interesting discussion regarding my case. I have no access but have been told that the discussion has gotten heated at times.

I find it quite interesting after 4 weeks of discussion here about HPFP's and water and lubricity, the solution is still not clear. Do you add a non Ford product to your truck because the manufacturer says it works fine? Will Ford back you when the pump fails? Not likely. Same thing with the aftermarket water traps and filters. Use one but if you lose a pump, where do you think Ford will stand on that one? This is the tragedy of this whole situation. Unsuspecting owners spend $50,000 or more of their hard earned money to buy these trucks. There should be no need for ownership fears or discussions like this one.

Still truckless...

Regards

 

It is very difficult to pick up a sarcasm on the written word.

ken

 

About the "6.7L Diesel Fuel System Contamination Diagnosis
and Service Procedure Job Aid" document, I really the the part -
"The best action that can be taken to avoid concerns with the fuel system is to ensure vehicles are only fueled from sources with known quality diesel fuels verified to be free from water and other contaminants."

Now just how is a person supposed to verify that the fuel is free from water and contaminants? Even the good stations sometimes get crap fuel.

 

I still don't think water or contaminants are the problem. The systems in place to stop those things do their job just fine. The issue here is lack of lubrication. Thats what seems to make the most sense to me at least...

 

This is likely true, however, we don't even have very good information about actual lubricity of USA ULSD as found at the various stations. Nor do we have much information about how much lubricity is actually added by the various diesel additives. The one report often cited is a bit dated and was conducted using "dry" ULSD.
Nor do we really know how many actual hours we might expect from the CP4.2 HPFP, the chart shows something like 1500 hrs. for 520 HFRR fuel but we don't know at how many RPMs the pump was being driven. I don't even know how many RPMs my HPFP turns when the engine is at any given RPM.
So we have some info but not enough to really build any estimates average miles to failure.

 

Wow. This thread has certainly sparked a lot of conversation/ideas, and not all in the direction I thought when I started it.
This is likely because the reported GM HPFP failures turned out to be non existent. And the Ford failures have been too few to point to a signifignant problem.

Since it appears that both Ford and GM use the same or similar HPFPs, a look at the differences in maintenence recomendations may clear things up a little,,,,or confuse things even more.

Reading the Duramax supplement, GM pretty much frowns on additives, and I don't think they sell, or at least don't push their own.
They do state that Bio diesel is risky because it can emulsifiy water and allow it past the water seperator. (This goes hand in hand with what has been discussed here.) It does state the possibility of getting some water at a station that hasn't maintained it's filters etc. And that the water seperator is there for that purpose.

What I find most interesting is that periodic draining of the seperator is not recommended. Only when the WIF warning comes on. If the warning comes on when starting the truck and then goes out,,it means that the seperator is half full, and should be drained as soon as it is conveinient. If the warning stays on, then the seperator needs draining immeadiatly.

If after draining the warning comes again, it means a likely tank of bad fuel, and it should be purged.

The seperator and filter are the same for all years Duramaxes. Having seen pics of the Fords, they appear to be markedly different.

Reading some of what has been posted on this thread, and others, it appears that Ford is kinda paranoid about this issue. They actually have buyers sign a document about monthly draining of the seperator.

Think about that for a minute. Of all the maintenence that needs to be done,,,,,only one item rates a special sign off sheet?????

 

Ok guys help me out here. How much more info do we need to clarify the fact the diesel fuel supply does not contain the amount of lubricity clearly required by the Bosch HPFP. The PDF shown below is a common paper signed by the major pump manufacturers including Bosch and Standyne to name a few. The stated lubricity in the US is set to 520 and they want at least 460 or better to ensure longevity of the pump. If water was the leading cause of failure it would have said so. One other key point in the common paper: they want fuel at less than 400 Wear Scar for the break in period. I seriously doubt if that was done on any 6.7L.

Ford selected the wrong pump for this continent.

I agree we don't know the specifics on the pump rpm's run and can't with any certainty predict the useful life of a pump at 520. Keep in mind the number is the actual amount of wear incurred and not a measure of additives or the like. We can say that it is likely not a linear relationship and the fact is the fuel is not what is demanded by the pump selected.

Check the graph I previously posted and google the fuel standard for clarity.

http://www.globaldenso.com/en/topics...tion_paper.pdf

The implications go beyond Ford as this pump is used in many other trucks.

 

Nope, total of 9 posts, talking about 3 trucks nationwide.

 

SHane

 

Wow. I had a long day at work and came back to about 3-4 more pages in this thread. There is a lot of information in those pages too!

I would be curious if vloney is referring to the right thread in the dealer forums. I haven't seen them, nor do I have any access, but is there a chance there's another thread out there? Perhaps in another section? I also wouldn't be surprised if there was an "original" thread that magically disappeared from the forums. I've had that happen on my end before - detailed, probing, and perhaps long/drawn out I do have a saying though, it sits at the second to last line in my signature...

It would be very interesting to see a case study on the actual lubricity of fuel around the country. That might be a really neat project if we can get a good sample of members here around the country to go out and take a random sample of fuel in their area and, if there's an easy/non-lab intensive method to test lubricity, come up with a ball park range. Anyone else want to try that?

I think I am going to get some additive now after reading through this... Maybe I should have been doing that from day 1. I hope nothing is damaged too much in the fuel system.

 

Yep, right thread. The originator is the service manager at the dealer where Ricks truck is.

 

Can't hurt.

I see a difference.Well Worth The $. But IMO I'd stick with Ford just because of the NEw Engine,..so there is no question.

Unless Rick actually works for Ford and this is a Ruse to get us to buy Motorcraft Cetane.




Shane

 

I didn't use any additive when new for several thousand miles then switched to every other tank.
It's all tanks now.

I don't know how the PM-22-A can allow for a 2-3 MPG gain.
I might get 0.3-0.5 MPG better if I add 4 oz vs. several tanks without additive but it's hardly noticeable.

 

It's Crazy, I know...


18" Rims

3.31 rear end.

Every tank is all I have used, 100 gallons so far and YES 2-3 mpg difference.

I'm more than Happy.



Shane