I'll 2nd what you stated, and I have been using the PM-22 for years.

 

You Have a NEW 6.7????

These are different MFG's......Did you know that?

I will state my name on my numbers.

Shane

 

Interesting. Nearly the same specs.
Your truck has a bit more weight though as a CC.

I'm glad you have the extra MPG (I certainly wouldn't turn it down) but I can't make it happen with my truck.

 

I use it in my 6.0 and 6.4

 

I agree w kper . . . . . I do not see an improvement in MPG using PM-22. In fact, if anything, I see a decrease in MPG. For about 8000 miles I used to get 10.0 MPG while towing. I have been using PM-22 for 2,000 miles I am getting 9.5 to 9.7 MPG.

Do we need an additive for water seperation???

ken

 

This is to show that these failures are due to a DEFECT in manufacturing or a clasic warentee item.

 

Hey guys,

I received some very good information today from a credible source. I am paraphrasing the information as I can't directly quote it, but this should answer many questions asked here.

First of all as we all know that the warranty procedures/policy for failed high-pressure fuel systems due to fuel contamination really are not designed to protect the consumer. This partially stems from the 6.4L engine as the many high-dollar warranty repairs that Ford covered were billed back to Navistar. There was a lawsuit for non-payment, and during the course of this Ford was accused of over-repairing engines to satisfy their customers. The results of this suit aren't public as I'm aware of, but rumor has it that Ford had to write a huge check to Navistar when all was said and done. In my opinion Navistar was protecting themselves from a relatively failure-prone product, and both Ford and it's customers took it in the shorts because of these failures.

Fast forward to today, and it appears that the warranty repair processes still exist from the 6.4L era. Obviously the systems are completely different, but these rare failures that do occur are subject to these processes. Apparently the industry as a whole is working towards driving diesel fuel standards that take the issue of obvious variability in fuel quality out of the equation.

For those inquiring to the lifespan of the Bosch CP4.2 pump in the 6.7L engine, here are some details:

First of all, the lifespan is rated at a minimum of 250,000 miles or 10 years provided it's been run on quality fuel. I say at a minimum because there is a program in which Ford is testing this engine where the minimum requirement is 500,000 mile lifecycle. I would guess that this project is for heavier duty applications(read: Medium duty) with a much higher lifecycle is required. This is my guess, and hasn't been confirmed either way. But the pump should easily last as long as the truck.

Secondly, it is the same base CP4.2 hp pump that the Duramax uses. There are some differences however, and from what I hear it provides an advantage to the Scorpion engine. First of all GM uses a mechanical boost pump to provide the minimum ~45 PSI to the high-pressure to the pump. Apparently this low-pressure pump is more prone to damage than the HPFP, and has a habit of sending metal bits into the HPFP and causing its subsequent destruction. GM recently started installing a metal filter between the HPFP and the low-pressure mechanical pump. There is also an additional fuel line on the Duramax for injector backpressure for engine starting, as well as a low-pressure line for the 9th injector for the regen function.

In summary, the Duramax pump may be nearly identical, but the overall system is relatively complex and expensive compared to the system used on the Scorpion 6.7L, and apparently, not nearly as reliable as the 6.7L Scorpion is.

 

Thanks for the information, Tom.

 

Thanks Tom. Now i wish someone in Ford would say use addatives yes or no. I am all over the fence on this. as everywhere i read is pretty much a yes. and dont even need one thing to crap in the wheaty bowl if there ever is a problem. I believe they do need it. The thought of being in Ricks situation is very bad for him,and bad for all of us that are trying to gather all the info we can to protect our investmant.

 

Tom. Saying that the Duramax pump is not reliable is just not true. The Duramaxes are not having HPFP problems. In fact the only reported case of a suspected failure turned out to be a sensor. GM first replaced the pump under warranty and it did not fix the problem.

If this were really the case, it would be big news, and helpful in this discussion.
Not to mention that it was a question I posed when starting this thread.
Do you have any verifiable info to the contrary?

Links, etc.

 

In a way Ford does say to use an additive.
On the care tips sheet, it says to use PM-22-A to improve cetane numbers.
It's been discussed enough here to gather ULSD in the USA isn't great fuel so I lean to the side that we need to improve it ourselves the best we can.
I choose to use the Motorcraft product so I can argue better with Ford when something happens and an excuse gets pulled out of the hat.

 

This conversation tracks way too well with the VW HPFP failure discussion (though this one is much younger). The CP4.2 is also used on the 3.0L TDI in the Touareg.
However, the TDI community is seeing many HPFP failures on 09-11 2.0L TDIs (Jetta and Golf) that use the Bosch CP4.1.

If any of you are looking for additional information, we have a number of threads dealing with the HPFP failures here; I also linked to this thread at TDI Club.

I certainly don't want to threadjack, just wanted to share something potentially helpful to another diesel community

 

Tom, thanks for the info. I have an issue on the stated life expectancy of the pump. Your statement is qualified by stating "quality fuel". I agree that if the pump manufacture's specs were used, i.e. Wear Scar of less than 460 then that information may be true, however, we know the real world fuel supply is not there translating to advanced wear and sooner breakdown. It's kind of like saying under ideal conditions.

Look at the cooperative statement and the Bosch graph of wear versus life expectancy. To me it is very clear. Unless someone can show us that Ford has somehow modified the pump it remains a Bosch and will be susceptible to premature failure based on the real world fuel quality.

 

Corntruckdriver ..... I am not saying there is a defect. The pump is what it is and it is not defective in any way. Unless I'm reading your post wrong.

 

What I am saying isif the usa fuel has a rquirement of x lubricity,less than the european standard. And the pump used in the truck requires a higher quality fuel than is available in the country where the truck is sold then the use of that pump is in itself is a manufacturing defect. It would be simalar to those sensors that were replaced because a bad batch came through causing the check engine light.