There, fixed it for you! Hate to say it, but unless you have some credentials that you haven't mentioned to us you are hardly qualified to make that determination. But unless I'm missing something, you don't have the failure data, cost data, pump specs, fuel filtration specs, and possibly the required engineering degree to make the statement that you just did.

 

I have ~ 160k miles on my 6.0psd with all original injectors, no coolant filter, no head gasket issues, original FICM, and it runs like a scalded dog.... No stigma here, Best truck I've owned to date! So far the only out of pocket repair cost has been a EGR valve, u joints on the drive shaft, seal on the secondary fuel filter and these happened past 100k miles.

The one problem I see with the 6.0 psd is oil leaks. Yes I have been very critical of the 6.0 psd in the past (you know we've been there) but you know it's turned out to be a pretty damn good truck.

I would'nt hesitate to pull the trigger on a 6.7 psd today!

 

My 6.0 was good as well. 120k miles and only did the egr valve for $900. Very good truck. The forums back in the day on the 6.0 were very negative.

And I did pull the trigger on the 6.7.

 

Well said jack_pine....

 

I believe we have already ascertained that the fuel pump is not up to the task given U.S. ULSD, that by Bosch specs. One might argue that the U.S. adopted a spec for fuel with a lubricity level too low for reasonably priced fuel pumps but the ULSD spec is what it is and I too would state that the Bosch CP4.2 fuel pump is not suited for U.S. vehicles based upon the Bosch specs we've seen.

 

And NEMOTORCARS and ruschejj have experience that contradicts this, both with over 80,000 miles and no fuel system problems.

I would further argue that 2/3rds of the folks who come on here with HPFP failures admit to having bad fuel at one point or another. If your statement is true just about everyone on this forum will suffer a HPFP failure, which simply hasn't happened yet. Even to our high-mileage members.

 

Two individual units have little to do with MTBF. Most of us have seen the chart showing the MTBF vs. HFRR scar. The 520 US fuel is far short of the HFRR < 460 recommended.

 

What's MTBF?

I still can't get past the same point Tom is making, contaminated fuel is always mentioned by the foks that have the fuel system failures. Either by unknowingly getting it at the pump or from complications via the Titan fuel tank.

I could easily pump water into my tank from a fuel pump without knowing it but until I do my truck seems to be running fine. There are no pure coincidences. There can be a manufacture defect or contaminated fuel. We probably have seen examples of both in recent months. The attemp to categorize these failures into one common factor is clouded with all the what ifs and opinions by dealers and owners. These failures are one or the other.

Kind of like the left hand is not talking to the right.

Furthermore, until I get water to drain out of my DFCM, I am not really convinced that it works. But I have no reason to believe it does not work. Just no evidence. I circulate well over 100 gallons of fuel through there every week and have never seen water.

I certainly don't have the answer here, or the last word. The posts on the forum that get people fired up and what not are the ones that attempt to give the answer, end the discussion.

 

Oh my, I came over here to the 6.7 forum to see how happy owners are with the new Ford engine... Wow! This has been a disturbing thread. However, I have to make sure I don't develop an opinion from reading this. Made that mistake when I bought my 2005 SD 6.0. Thought I had spent my hard earned money on a POS, when in fact it has turned out the be a pretty darned good truck. This site (on the 6.0 forum) had me cringing at what I had already invested in and I was seriously depressed about my purchase for most of the early years after laying down the cash, when I should have been thrilled at owning a new truck. Reading those threads REALLY took the joy out of owning that new truck, I can tell you. Point is, I think it is prudent to consider that people will come here to air their problems, and I would like to think that there are overwhelmingly many more owners who are enjoying a great 2011 truck... At least I hope so. This is a pretty scary thread and I think I will stay with my 6.0 quite a bit longer before considering trading in for new. Pretty disappointed reading here.
Good luck to you all with these new engines. I hope your concerns are rested soon.

 

\\

MTBF is an acronym for Mean Time between Failures. It is an important analysis tool for reliability of systems and parts. IIRC, Bosch has published specifications that put the lifespan of the CP4 series pumps at 1000 hours when subjected to fuel with lubricity scar ratings above 550. Seeing that US fuel standards are 520 scar, the diesel fuel that comes out the nozzle is not too far from that 550 standard. Is it just circumstance that my HPFP failed at 1200 hours...I do not think so...

One point that is being somewhat ignored here is the bad fuel versus water in fuel discussion. I can honestly say that to the best of my knowledge, I have never experienced any field operating conditions that indicate that my truck has ever seen any bad/contaminated fuel. My truck has always, even today, ran perfectly except when it just stopped like the key was turned off. Neither my servicing dealer or I have ever found any water in my fuel system or my fuel tank. The origin of the very small amount of water that was supposedly found by POS dealer number one is suspect at best. Subsequent DFCM maintenance has continued to show no presence of water.

I have never seen the WIF indicator. Ford has taken the grossly unfair position that a WIF indication is tantamount to warranty denial for fuel system problems. This is ridiculously preposterous. Ford absolutely states that if the WIF indicator appears, the operator needs to drain the DFCM asap. It does not say that you need to cease operations and have the truck towed to the dealership for a non-warranty HPF system replacement...for $10,000 of his own money.

To continue to say that these CP4.2 series Bosch pumps are not operating very close to the ragged edge of reliability is denial of the very specifications that have been presented by Bosch and verified by a growing number of owners that have had the "Shameful Ford Event". This does not mean the "sky is falling" or that every owner will have these issues. But if you have one of these trucks and think you are immune from the HPFP disaster, what makes you so sure you will not be the next one to be treated so shabbily by Ford? Are we back to: Do you feel lucky today?

Shame on Ford...for putting loyal owners in this situation

Peace

 

My truck has 15K on it with Motorcraft additive since new, it has not returned to the dealer except for the 400/800 flash. Other than some Regen problems, the engine has been perfect. I think most owners on this forum fall into this category so they pretend that everything is jolly and choose to call this a "non issue"

The fact is that this could become a major issue for anyone at anytime and Ford is not standing behind what they're putting out. We cannot control fuel quality this is why Ford puts filters in place to control the very real, not uncommon scenario of bad fuel.

If there is a fuel related failure and the owner has maintained their fuel filter schedule and drained the water separator when/if they got the message, then the failure should be covered under warranty no questions asked.

If there is a fuel related failure due to low lubricity of fuel, it should be covered under warranty no questions asked.

From what I have read from the owners claiming failure, they have all met the requirments set forth by Ford and warranty denial should have never even been mentioned.

These are trucks that are used for work, Ford markets and sells them knowing what the owners intentions are. Fuel contamination is a reality and it should NOT cost the owner 10K just because a little water gets in the tank. Furthermore it should DEFINITELY not cost owner if these failures are due to low lubricity when this has been a well known fact for years.

 

But the chart that I saw, that you and Rick are referring to, was copyrighted in 2002. Which happens to be long before the CP4 pumps ever existed. Do you have a different chart that specifically references the CP4 that I haven't seen?

 

The technology does exist to remove water. You could use a larger finer filter in the seperator. The larger seperator could use a larger resivoir and trigger a warning long before there is a problem. They should have a drain on the botom of the tank and a reserve aria where the water could settle too and be remove long before it made it to the pickup. Farmers have been doing this for decades with their fuel supply. You have to crawl under these handicapped vehicles to drain the seperater and it does no good or monthly. you might as well do sometheing that works. You probibly have to let it sit for a few days to get the smaller droplets to settle out but they will. Then the only way you wou,ld get water is a realy bad load of fuel which could be tied to a station along with the other 100s that got hit too, not the normal acumulation over time. This along with the larger resivoir with the head room over the warning should make this extremely rare. However this would cut into profits and they might not have their 2nd best year in history. As to lubricity , that is easy to deal with. I got my degree on the dairy farm where we did everything from making agricultural ponds to repairing tractors, payloaders and every other piece of equipment, to building, wiring and plumbing barns and producing a raw milk that would pass a bacteria test and qualify as pasturied. Ever wonder why the only person to escape his Iraqi captors on his own when he heard the distinctive sound of a diesel convoy was a dairy farmer. I didnt!

 

The statement still stands, although Bosch is a bit vague as to longevity of pump life in 2009, despite the fuel lubricity specs being the same for wear scar in 2002, 2003, and 2009.

They also are quite specific of the lubricity of the fuel requirements for the first fill up being UNDER 400 micron wear scar, for good break in /run in. Something Ford dealerships never note or make mention of on the first tank of fuel you get from the dealership.

Go ask your local dealership if they are aware of this, I've asked 4 of them locally, and every single one of them gave me the "Deer in the Headlight" look like I was a jackazz not knowing what I was talking about, along with the "no additives in the tank" preaching. Oh really.... young dumb whippersnapper salesmen.

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

 

.

If that chart was really from 2002,,,,,and ULSD wasn't even on the horizon then....I'm not seeing a connection. Why would this document even exist back when diesel didn't have lubrication issues?

And IIRC, NEWMOTORCARS recently had a catastrophic engine failure.

I think it was valves, but not sure. I think he was just out of warranty, and was intially denied help from Ford. Later they did step up, but he was still out of pocket a substantial amount.