How big should it be? One gallon? two gallons? If you have more than the 8 ounces that it takes to set off the WIF sensor in your tank, then there is a serious problem.

If Ford failed to build a truck that can surivive normal conditions in the USA then why are 300,000 vehicles and counting still being sold?

 

I will try to answer all your questions. But, first, a bit about the Number one truck. I have no illusions that telling my story of dissatisfaction with Ford over the way they treat their customers will result in Ford losing enough sales to fall from first place. I do not have the market coverage to make that happen. I can tell you that I have emails and phone calls from 53 different people who bought something other than a Ford because of the shameful treatment given to me by Ford. That equates to around $530,000 of lost profits to Ford on new truck sales alone. I expect time will slow the number of buyers who see the potential for problems with the Ford 6.7 and the rate of sales loss will diminish. It may not be a lot of money to Ford but to Joe average, it surely is a big number.

The problem is really two fold...and Ford is taking advantage of the confusion. Lubricity is the issue. The pump has a difficult enough time surviving under constant use of the 520 scar rated fuel we have n the US. Bosch has told us so. Then you mix, no pun intended, in the whole emulsified water problem. Emulsified water, non-detectable in normal engine operations, reduces the lubricity of the already deficient US diesel fuel. The WIF light does not warn you of emulsified water. How does one even know if they have received the "bad batch" of fuel? They do not know...and because the truck runs perfectly until the second it dies, the owner has no idea of when he may have gotten the phantom "emulsified water" purchase.

Like Ninerbikes has said, this is not a new problem. It is also a problem that Ford and Bosch should have resolved before installing a marginal at best HPFP in it's last best chance to sell a reliable diesel pickup truck. There is not one buyer of these $50,000 trucks who would have not purchased the truck if it was $50,500 and instead came with a bulletproof HPFP. If given the choice, would anyone take the $50,000 truck with the marginal pump and dubious warranty coverage over the $50,500 truck with the pump designed to handle the fuel available in the US? Ford gambled, took our money and when the bet fails, they welch on the payment. Shameful...

I have never said the truck was "no good". It is a fine truck. I drive mine every day. The problem is the company that built it cut corners and compromised on the HPFP in what otherwise has been a great new model introduction. The "what if" question has been answered by the many experienced mechanics and diesel engineers that have seen the destroyed internals of the HPFP. There is absolutely no evidence of water infiltration inside of the HPFP. Emulsified water is said to leave evidence on internal parts of the pump. Again, no sign of water, emulsified or otherwise inside the pump.

You did not ask me that question but I will give my answer. First, if the fuel has emulsified water in it, the truck would still run fine...right up until it quit. If there was enough of it in the tank and Ford wanted to pay for the analysis, the burden would fall on the owner or the fuel stop. To my knowledge, this much emulsified water has not been seen...and Ford will just deny the warranty and tell the owner to prove them wrong...BTDT...If the water separator has been overwhelmed by water, the WIF light should come on.t takes about 8 ounces of water to activate the switch. If the WIF warning system does it's job and the owner drains the water, all should be well with the fuel system. If not, the WIF system has a design shortfall. Ford does not try to determine if that system works. My warranty was denied before anyone competent enough to know better had a chance to look at the truck. They told me the burden of proof was mine.

If an operator runs the truck after receiving a WIF indication and causes the HPFP damage, he or the fuel supplier is responsible for the repairs.

1. No, because I already know the answer. The fuel suppliers will provide fuel that meets the 520 scar rating for lubricity. They are under no obligation to add more lubricity at a higher cost. I think we can all agree the oil company's will always look out for their bottom line...not ours.

2. It is becoming more clear that GM has had some issues. While their forums have seen minimal numbers of complaints, I am not the only one on FTE that knows there was a pallet full of failed Bosch pumps off GM DuraMax's sitting in the Bosch warehouse. The source asked to remain anonymous and his wishes have been respected. It has been posted in this thread that a member here is aware of more than one GM HPFP failure. My take on the lack of GM outrage is that GM is fixing their failures under warranty. The aforementioned poster stated the same position. When GM does this, it shows the customer that GM recognizes their obligation to provide a reliable truck for their buyer.

It also gives the appearance that GM knows there is an issue and is likely looking for a solution. This scenario is comforting to the afflicted GM customer. He is not insulted or lectured. He is treated with respect and dignity. Compare that scene with the one that Ford depicts. They are night and day different. Ford's customer is thrown out in the trash right next to all his failed parts. He does not get to leave the dealership feeling like he is important to Fprd. He just gets to leave with a $10,000 bill.

Shame on Ford

Regards

 

But you never ruled out the possibility that emulsified water or the wrong fuel got put in your tank. Does you fuel supplier make fuel with 520 scar rating? You don't know that. Sure they are supposed to, but do they? I dont know. I think the fact you never had the fuel sent in for analysis is sketchy. If Ford was denying my warranty then that would be my first move to make.

So in reality you ASSUMING that the station provided you with good diesel so you can rule that problem out, which is totally unfair to Ford and to this community. If you really wanted to go on a rampage about how the Bosch pump can't take the US fuel, then I would provide test results that you actually had US standars fuel in your tank at the time of failure. The way I see it in your case is there are two possible reasons your pump failed....


1. Improper fuel in your tank. Water, kerosene, gasonline, alcohol, emulsified water, whatever....

if that turned out good, which we dont know.....

2. bad pump. Be it design or cant take the 520 scar rating of US fuel (which I dont believe being there are 100,000's of trucks running it everyday) or just a manufacturing defect.

If it was number two, then you have a valid point to go on your "mission." But I don't think you have enough facts to say what you say on here...... Sure engineers have looked at your pump and say bad fuel or whatever, but what if it that fuel did not meet the US standards? Who do you blame then? Definately not Ford.


Just my thinking.... I think others will agree.

 

Sounds like a lot of foks around these parts bow down to their Ford truck like the natives to the volcano god

 

I am curious about what your fuel testing shows for a lubricity scar rating. It is my understanding that the additive testing performed over at the DieselStop in 2008 cost $400 per test run.

I would also like to know where to buy this high quality American fuel that exceeds the US standards for lubricity. The fuel suppliers can claim high standards as soon as they meet the standard. I have never bought fuel anywhere but at National Retailers. Is the fuel at Flying J, Pilot, Loves, Shell and Speedway truck stops a sub-quality fuel not blended in America?

In a perfect world, we would all have our trucks break down right in front of our favorite dealer. In the real world, the truck breaks where it breaks...in my case 75 miles from home. Hindsight is 20/20 and unfortunately my debacle provided corrective lenses for everyone. Ford refused to tow my truck anywhere but to an open Ford service facility within 35 miles. If no one was open, they would tow to a "safe' place, whatever that means. Without the benefit of hindsight, the truck was towed to dealer number one. They were eager to help and got right on the job. Before I could determine the ignorance at this dealership, I was already into the repair process. With no past experience to tell me to be suspicious of a possible warranty denial, I had no reason to pull the truck out of the shop. It is important to remember that this POS dealer told me on Day 1 that they had found the reason the truck had shut off and had ordered the part under warranty. Two days later, another part ordered, again under warranty. The no warranty nonsense only started after they failed twice to repair the truck "under warranty".

I am pleased that there has been some good that has come out of my " Shameful Ford Event'. The owner base that has read my story is able to make several decisions in a different manner than mine. Many are running fuel additives for the first time. The importance of the quality of the dealership has risen to a new level. Owners are protecting themselves by never letting their truck near a dealership without draining the DFCM.

Sadly, all this knowledge does not change the most important fact. According to Bosch, their CP4.xx series pump needs better fuel than can be reliably purchased in the US. Ford shirked their obligation to protect the buyers of this truck from HPFP failures. They bet...they lost...and they welched on the bet...

Shame on Ford

Peace

 

There's somewhere around 300,000 trucks between GM and Ford on the road that use the same pump, all owners are using this so called sub standard diesel fuel. Why aren't there 1,000's of reported cases of failures? If Bosch published data that states their pump will only last 1,000 hours if it runs on the available diesel fuel in this country which translates to between 30,000-40,000 miles of driving, then there should be 1,000's of failures so far. You do the math because somebodies figures are not adding up. I started a thread on the chevy/duramax forum in the 2011 Duramax powertrain section titled "high pressure fuel pump failure" this morning, I have yet to get any feedback with a problem on their pumps. 1 poster claims the GM filtration system is better then Fords.

 

For what its worth, I drained my water separator for the first time last night into a glass jar and let it settle for about 24hours. NO WATER, zero, not even a drop. I have just over 22,000 miles on my truck purchased in November of 2010. These miles include diesel from all over the country as we towed the travel trailer. Some stations were truck stops, others were mom and pop places in the middle of Wyoming or Georgia. I have never used any type of fuel additive and I have the stock 38 gal. tank on my long bed crew. Nothing but oil changes (when the light indicates with Rotella t6 5w40) and tire rotations.

Maybe I am a lucky one, but father in law has two trucks just like mine, no issues. Same service records and stock all the way around. He has over 80k miles between the two trucks.

Thanks for reading a little positive

 

Instead of posing useless stuff like you do, provide some feedback of my rebuttle or the reasons that you think the 6.7 will fail....

 

SSDD...

I think NHTSA will prove most all of us wrong, except those that have actually opened up a BOSCH HPFP and seen the guts inside. They will probably determine that the design is defective... their investigation is already pointing at VW working in conjunction with Delphi, due to the Bosch short life, a patented design, some heated questions and something worked out.

Based on my observations, hand on the pump, tearing them apart, and looking at what happens from a failure... I'm going with defective design... someone went on the cheap, less amount of parts, less material, cheap, easy to machine soft material and poor engineering as the cause of failure.

The pump turns twice as fast as the old models, at crank speed instead of 1/2 crank speed, and has 1/4 the amount of rollers as the old model, operates at higher pressure, and operates at 4000 rpm in the Ford, over 5000 in the VW models. All of that, cumulative, where E =mv squared, means there is 4x the amount of stress on this due to increase in rpm, and another factory x 4 times for one roller doing the work of 4 rollers as in the past. That is a factor of 16x more stress on one roller and cam surface, before you even add in the additional stress of 2000 bar fuel pressure in the common rail.

IMHO, it's a design failure of epic proportions.

 

We test for contamination, not scar ratings.

I dont want to get into the dealer debate because that did not cause your pump to fail. I would proably agree with you on some dealers are horrble.

I'm not saying that there is better than US standard fuel out there. What I am saying is you possibly purchased fuel that was no up to US standards. I've been around trucking for a long time and I can tell you that namebrand pumps are just as capable of screwing up as your mom and pop store. Because really most of the fuel comes from the same place in your region. Then people like Pilot or Loves transport it to their store and "possibly" add stuff to it. But this adding stuff could also be leftover gasoline or kerosene? Ever made a mistake, but thought "nobody will know that i just dumped 100 gallons of gasoline in the tank of diesel."

Like I stated earlier, if it was my truck I would of paid however much it was to get my fuel tested in my truck. If the test came back bad, then off to the filling station for some payback. If the test came back good, then we all might be agreeing with you.....

 

It sounds like you know some facts, but my one question is why are there not mass failures of these pumps? Why do some people have breakdowns and others don't? If it is a design flaw then everybody should be breaking down.

 

lexus

The fuel was tested by my insurance company. It was diesel fuel with less than one ounce of water in the bottom of a 20 ounce drinking water bottle. The source of that water is dubious seeing there was no water found anywhere in the fuel system. The insurance company did not test lubricity.

I do not need to test the fuel for lubricity. Even if the fuel tested to US standards, the 520 scar rating is 13% deficient to the minimum standards published by Bosch. Refer to Ninerbike's link to the industry leaders in HPF systems for diesels around the world. Bosch's management participated in that research and has signed the report. Ford knew the Bosch pump needed 460 scar to be reliable. They knew the fuel standard in the US is 520 scar. Bosch published in their statement that 520 fuel would measurably shorten pump life. Ford still used the pump. This is why Ford is responsible for the low lubricity pump failures...It seems rather obvious to me...the "Enthusiasts" likely disagree...but I have the numbers in my favor. Until Ford provides a better quality pump that can meet the fuel standards...or the Federal Government mandates more fuel lubricity, this issue will not go away...and neither will Ricatic...

Shame on Ford

Peace

 

Ok, lets say you had a full tank of fuel.... that would mean if the ratio stays the same you would have 2.5 gallons water and 47.5 gallons of diesel. But you say those results are not valid for some reason.

Lets move on then. Why I'm asking about the lubricity in your tank of fuel is what if you got fuel that had a scar rating of 700? Is the Bosch pump supposed to handle that crappy fuel? I understand that Bosch has documents saying 460 is the number they like, but why do so many pumps run on the 520 scar that the US provides?

I'm not trying to debate you, I want to get to the facts. I just think you and the insurance company left a huge stone unturned in not checking the fuel for contamination or scar rating. Can you explain why the insurance sample of almost 1 ounce of water in 20 ounces of diesel is invalid?

 

Who is "WE"??? We...we...you sound like a corporation? Or small business?


biz

 

WE is a business. Not a corporation. Guess you are out of arguments.....