I think comparing a pump that is built with an appropriate design margin to N+1 redundancy is a stretch. I am not asking for 2 pumps. Just one that is built well enough to live through the variability in the fuel supply that we all know is present. It would not cost much more. I just don't think Ford wanted to wait around for a proper pump design and hold up their new engine.

This whole thing is like building a truck with 1-ply thin crappy tires and blaming the customer when every little pot-hole blows out the tire. Did the driver hit the little pot hole? Yes. Could it have been avoided? Yes. I ask who's fault is the blowout? The driver who hit the pothole or the bean counter at the manufacturer that specced out tires that were not up to the task of handling what should be expected in normal driving in the US?

I pulled out my 2012 Superduty brochure. Here are some statements Ford makes there:

"This truck endured more torture testing than any generation of Ford trucks before it"
"...put this Super Duty through a groundbreaking battery of tests...running it for thousands of hours on end in extreme conditions..."
"Super Duty is built to be the best..."
"It's the most tested Power Stroke engine ever"
"You can rest assured every Super Duty is built on a solid foundation - one engineered to get the job done even under the most challenging conditions"


Now, we may disagree on how bad of a problem this HPFP really is, BUT, based on all the data that we have that Bosch and others has published, does anyone really think the fuel system lives up to the above statements made by Ford to prospective customers? I don't think so.

I have 2 gallons of Optilube on their way. I hope it is enough to keep the pump happy.

---Aaron

 

well said...it is all about the engineering margin...or in this case the lack of one

Regards

 

It's also about real DATA. Can anyone come up with actual numbers of failures instead of just predictions based on a few failures that are known here? Is Ford actually experiencing a high number of failures? I've heard all sorts of stuff, but am waiting for some information that actually proves there is a wide spread problem here. I'm not interested in VWs, just Ford 6.7Ls.

 

Amen. <fillllllllllllllllllll>

 

And also, just for the record, can someone please post the link showing the lubricity requirements for the CP4.2 pump?

 

I know I haven't seen specifications for the CP4.2 published and given the situation I believe there's good reason not to make the spec public. However, given the well known 2003 Bosch presentation most of us have been referencing and the Sep. 2009 "Fuel Requirements for Diesel Fuel Injection Systems Common Position Statement 2009", a joint statement by Delphi, Bosch, Stanadyne, Denso and Continetal, things hadn't changed in 2009. Additionally, physical inspection reveals that the CP4.2 is little more than a CP4.1 with an second piston and the CP4.1 predates the 2009 position statement. I therefore believe it is reasonable to assume that the statements made by these manufacturers about the necessity of HFRR < 460 micron at that time is still applicable today with the CP4.2 until such a time as I see evidence to the contrary.

 

...FACTS...

For those who have not seen what a 6.7L HPFP looks like...








biz

 

Well, good stuff for sure. I only have a position here that I have clung to because I have not been convinced otherwise.

I think the pump failure issue is simply a defect in manufacture, effecting a small number of pumps. Let's say that to date 500,000 pumps for the 6.7 have been put into service. Let's assume that there is going to be a failure rate. What's a normal failure rating for this industry? .01%? Would that equate to 50 bad pumps?

 

Your right on track..... Thanks for posting this.

 

Always a possibility, since we continue to not know the answer.
If this were true, Ford should cover the failures.
That's +/- $600,000 additional customers might have to pay Ford.

 

Have you used this in your truck? Has anyone? Not familiar with this fuel additive. Any harmful downsides to it that anyone knows?

 

You have to go back and read that GM Duramax which use the same pump are not having problems on the LML motor. There was 1 reported pump failure on a Duramax back in 2010 which turned out to be something else as the truck with the new pump was experiencing the same issues. The problem was finally solved, but it was not a pump failure. The GM owners drive the same miles, use the same sources of fuel, tow the same loads, so why no failures?

 

There's a couple of things to be aware of in this question. We're assuming the GMs are not having failures and the Fords are having lots. Neither of these positions can be substantiated by any data. Just a lot of talk.

Someone please... real data...

 

Those math figures are off somewhat .01% of a 1/2 million is 5,000 pumps, maybe something like .0001% failures.

 

Go to the Chevy/duramax forum and do a search in the 2011 duramax powertrain LML section and see if you find a pump failure, I can save you the trouble, there ain't none. I started a thread titled "high pressure fuel pump failures" and there's about 3-4 pages of posts, but not 1 known failure. The only difference between the trucks is GM uses a lower micron fuel filter, and the urea fill is not by the fuel tank fill.