Isn't this topic the result of 2 trucks? One truck? I don't remember. We are all wound up over 1or 2 failures.

It's interesting and unfortunate for the ones that had it happen but really, we have found less than five failures?

I'm trying to learn from it and also enjoying the information because it is interesting but I am not worried. If it happens to me I will at least know what's going on.

 

That is a very valid point but we also need to remember that this is 2-3 trucks out of a relatively small sample size. A very very very small percentage of 6.7L owners are members of this forum.

---Aaron

 

That is true. I do think the number of trucks represented is much larger that the number of members. I, For one, know 14 people with these trucks and would report any issues they had.

I know is is still only a percentage of the trucks on the road.................

 

That's the nice thing about opinions. We've all got them and.....well you know the rest.

True but there's no need to try to stir up knee-jerk type hysteria over mass failures that have yet to be proven. Although this may be a very small sample of the 6.7 owners out there, no one has been able to provide any statistics or figures showing massive failure rates. Even one of our member techs here has said he doesn't know of any mass failures.

Have a 6.7 in your 2005 Econoline do you? Oh that's right.......you claim to have a 2013 F-150.

 

This sums up the dilemma for owners.

 

Talked to my buddy about these two issues the other day being that he is not a member on this forum. He said while it sucked Ford wouldn't go to bat for them, the majority of the fault is on the techs. In the two years these motors have been out, he has done to date two motors due to dropped valves (4 and 550) trucks and one turbo. He said at the dealership where there are three diesel techs, the topic of job security has come up between them with the 6.7s current track record at this point. Said they may be going back to the 7.3 days where all you did was change fluids and brake jobs. Moral of the story? Enjoy your trucks guys. They have been off to a great start so far!

 

While I appreciate the commentary, can I get your opinions on my original point?

Have you ever drained your oil on a motor (or trans) that had a magnetic plug or magnet in the pan and found metal shavings? (I have.) Did you freak out because you found metal shavings? (I didn't.) Now if I take my reasoning for my reation to this, it is based on the fact that the magnet is there to keep the silver sparklies out of the moving (read delicate/expensive) parts of the machine.

So am I wrong in assuming that just through the process of normal wear, that we are all looking at a 10K repair bill at some point in our future?

If I were granted a wish for today (it's only money and a truck, it's not like my health, just so you know I have things in perspective) it would be that Ford engineering explain to us why the could have designed a system with such an apparent flaw or why our perception is not a flaw at all.

 

Completely understand your feelings. I just bought a 6.4 last week and on its first oil change i did Saturday, it's already making oil as of yesterday. Not nearly your problem, but I do plan to own this truck outside of warranty and wonder with all the diesel in the oil, how bad have my bearings in everything been washed down. My answer to my problem? I have a diesel tech that I know will make anything right that's under warranty. I wish it was like that for everyone.

 

Herman

Not only do I understand your question, I am baffled by the apparent lack of concern by some here that have to know better. Ford has violated one of the most basic principles of engineering and design. They surrendered the engineering margin. As an engineer, you see this clearly...for some reason, others choose to turn a blind eye.

Interesting thread...in less than one page I have been slammed three or four times for posting factual information...lets see...

I have been called a fear monger and told to STFU. First, I have only told the facts. If you have facts that refute mine, post them. Here are the facts:

ULS diesel fuel in the US has a minimum requirement of 520 micron scar rating for lubricity. Where are the opposing facts to this fact?

Bosch has published information that clearly says that their HPFP's require 460 micron scar rating for lubricity to operate successfully for the long term. Again, opposing facts please...

Bosch has also published information that clearly says that 500 micron scar rating fuel considerably lowers the lifespan of the pump...as much as 80% reduction in lifespan is mentioned. Please provide facts to the contrary....

Using Bosch's own publishing's, it is a certainty that Ford has decided to install a HPFP that when exposed to industry standard fuel quality in the US, is below the minimum standards specified by the pumps manufacturer. If there are facts out there to refute this, please provide them...

The Bosch CP4.2 HPFP is only one model of pump on the CP4.xx series. The pumps are identical across the series in both design and operation. It matters not whether the CP4.xx pump is a single piston pump found on a VW TDI or a two piston design as Found on the Ford 6.7. Except for housing mount alterations and the single versus twin cylinder cam, the internals of the CP4.xx series pumps are identical. This makes the history of other brands failures relevant to the conversation. They have had a much longer period of time in the field than the Ford 6.7. Claiming that the facts in other brands arena have no relevance is ignoring many sound engineering principles. Facts that show difference in internal operating parts between the various CP4.xx pumps are welcome.

The engineering facts have been presented. Hopefully, the gamble Ford took with this HPFP will not affect a large number of owners. The small sample of failures to date, much larger than some here want to admit, is not relevant to the engineering discussion. Only time will tell if the engineers are smarter than the bean counters.

How is the presentation of the above facts considered bovine excrement? How is it considered "sky is falling" mentality? Where has it been written that these failures are widespread? Why is pointing out the truth that Ford is avoiding warranty coverage whenever possible on HPFP repairs considered a bad thing? If you disagree with the assertion that none of the owners of a 6.7 Ford diesel are immune to this unfortunate failure and the subsequent warranty denial, please tell us how you can be so sure?

Broken record...funny...I provide facts and I am a broken record. The argument from the other side has no refuting presentation but their constant pounding of my reputation is less a broken record.

For the record again, the sky is not falling...yet. It may never fall...but the soundest of engineering principles tell us that operating "in the margin" is never a good thing. Ford has put owners in the position that they have to worry about an engineering decision that could have been avoided. If this does not bother some here...I suggest they ignore the HPFP threads. If you do not like the facts I post...refute me or ignore me...I won't mind...but if you think I am going to STFU...you are dreaming. The truth about the decisions by Ford that led to these discussions needs to be told...and I will help tell it...

Herman,

Thanks for the thread...and enjoy the new truck...I drive mine every day and smile

Peace

 

I must respectfully disagree on the conjecture part...The ULS Diesel Fuel specifications have been around longer than the CP4.xx series pumps. Bosch's own published documentation clearly shows that in 2009, they were concerned with the lifespan of their HPFP's when exposed to lubricity levels above 460 scar. I find it difficult to believe that Ford did not have any conversations with Bosch over the specification shortfall let alone not read the publishing's...otherwise, we are in agreement

I sent you a PM with my email address

Regards

 

Something to think about......

Let's say in 4-5 years some of us want to trade in our 6.7's and we take it to the dealer and try to trade it in on a new one and they tell us that it is not worth that much because "you have one with a bad fuel pump and we are going to have to change the fuel system out" therefore your trade value will reflect that. I for one saved alot of money and traded in a paid off truck to get this truck and to now find out that Ford built it with substandard parts pisses me off. If I would have known about this issue before I bought it I would be rolling around in a 2007 SD 6.0 and still had my money I saved. This is the one thing I have not heard is what is this HPFP issue going to do later to the trade in or resale value. All one has to do is look at the value of the 2003-2005 6.0's they suck and after paying 60,000 dollars for a truck that pisses me off.

I realize that there are a small number of failures but what is scary is the few people that are reporting the metal in their fuel filters. Time will tell whether we have a big issue or just premature worry for nothing.

Just my .02

Tom

 

I agree we should give them time but the fact remains it effected 3 years worth of trucks values and durability before they fixed it. They have it fixed and you still can not get the same money for those years of trucks it still effects the value. How much in value we are going to lose remains to be seen and for how many model years is it going to last?

 

Sell the truck then before you give yourself an ulcer worrying about it.

I'm sure someone will be glad to take it off your hands...

 

I would like to see what their fix was assuming they came up with something. I do not want to bash on anyone but the fact remains something is just not right.

 

It is interesting where we are on this one. I am very sure Ford just didn't ***** nilly a pump from Bosch without fore knowledge of specifications, use, deployment and so on. Most importantly I'm sure they didnt select it without an actuary of costs on risks. I also fail to beleive that Bosch just sat there and did a fist pump on selling 500,000 CP4.2's, (and 50,000 plus for failures and ongoing revenue stream) to Ford without providing clarity on the use, application, and life expectancy.

Truth is we will never know the symantecs behind the decision to use this pump from this manufacturer. To think otherwise would be totally unfounded speculation for which there would never be an answer unless there was a FordGate/BoschGate.

I'm starting to feel that hammer coming again ....... the wild and crazy guy is swinging it now ....... going once....... going twice ......... (Tom: enter comment here)