All that testing of the fuel would prove is that the fuel in the tank at that TIME is good,,,or bad.
In reality a bad tank of fuel (ONE THAT DOESN'T MEET THE SPEC) can set the wheels of pump failure in motion, but the failure may not occur for quite some time.

So unless you test EVERY tank of fuel, then you will never know for certain if a bad tank of fuel caused a failure.

So I guess that if your HPFP ever fails, you will not even try to get it warrantied, as it may well be your fault.....Just sayin......

 

Interesting question...The option to test a sample of USLD treated with vegetable oil was certainly available when the Spicer tests were done. If the discussed program moves forward, maybe that should be one of the additives tested.

Your sunset analogy, while humorous, is not a true comparison. The sun has always set. We have more than a hundred Bosch HPFP failures to verify the possibility. As to turbo failures, there have been a few reported. Ford fixed them under warranty and there was no reason for owners to feel tha have been screwed by Ford. Again, not analogous.

The discussion revolves around two topics as well. The first, and most important is the ever rising number of loyal Ford customers who are being treated like criminals instead of victims in the ongoing denials of warranty coverage for failed HPFP's. This shameful behavior is made exponentially worse by the fact that GM is having similar issues but they are quietlyrepairing their failures under warranty. How do the "there is no issue with the pump" members here reconcile GM's "take care of our customer" approach with Ford's very destructive "screw the customer" approach? Is Ford so arrogant that the loss of many sale opportunities due to viable customer concerns over such reprehensible behavior is not important?

The second topic is the design of the HPFP. How does a manufacturer accept a design that when the main component fails, the collateral damage adds $8,000 of additional cost to the repair? The answer is likely in the sales pitch given by Bosch. Their mantra had to be "the HPFP is bulletproof". Well, we are seeing that the pump will fail.

Members are now posting their battle plans for dealing with Ford if their HPFP fails. If your confidence is as high as you project by your continuous denial that the shameful event will not happen to you, why have a plan? The answer is simple. Unfortunate owners of the 6.7 Ford diesel have lit the path for you. If we had been treated properly with deserved warranty coverage, this debate would have never happened. Plan on, but you will discover quickly that those plans will be meaningless when the Ford warranty denial team descends on you.

Kudo's to GM for standing behind their truck...Shame on Ford for screwing loyal customers...

Regards

 

You mean like every time the fuel filters are changed? Wondering if the third port on the factory engine mounted filter is there to pre-prime the system...

 

Rick, with all the topics on RV and this site, the only failure that has been treated so bad is yourself that I know of. I know there have been other failures, but they admit water in fuel or some other reason. Who are others that got the shaft like you? I see all these posts talking about you, but nobody else is named, yet there is this mass failure and bad treatment by ford?

 

Perhaps you should again check the procedure for changing fuel filters. The priming action is done by the low pressure pump as you cycle the key on six times before cranking the engine. That's the purpose for the six key cycles!

And you're exactly right, the third port on the factory secondary filter is there for priming, but the explanation was that it's there to cut down on time spent priming the system during assembly.

 

Crazy,

Familiar with the key cycles but susupect that there may still be air in the system on first start. Folks here have reported having to cycle more than 6 times to get it to start which would suggest an incomplete prime. Also wonder if every tech (no offense to those of you who are techs!) ALWAYS goes through all 6 cycles. Just another theory to throw into the conspiracy theory pot! Might be nice to make the factory filters available to after market so you could purge till you had air free fuel coming out of the third port before attempting a start.

 

Hrmm...

I know that some have had difficulty priming their engines, but I've never heard of that causing any problems. I do know that the fuel pressure switch that warns the system if pressure gets below 75 PSI causes changes in how the PCM controls the fuel system. I wonder if this would also prevent damage if the system wasn't primed?

 

The shameful treatment has been mentioned by others...I did not coin the "treated like a criminal" line, someone else who received the "treatment" posted the phrase.

Are you of the mindset that the WIF warning is tantamount to warranty denial for a fuel system failure? Do you really believe that this position accurately reflects the warranty intent presented to the owner when the truck was purchased? If so, why does the Ford manual tell you that if the WIF light comes on, pull over as soon as it is safe and drain the DFCM? It does not say "call the tow truck, you just voided the warranty on your fuel system...the repairs will be $10,000 please".

Mass failures...no...and I have never said there were. The Ford response to the NHTSA, obviously written by a politician, tells a story of more failures than just mine. The glaring difference between the US HPFP failure rate and the much lower, percentage wise, rate of HPFP failures in Canada should be raising the eyebrows of even the most fervent doubters of the "Ford Shameful Event".

The low lubricity of US fuel still remains the most likely villain in this saga. The Canadian numbers bear this out. Again, is it coincidence that the fuel standards for Scar in Canada are the same as the recommended minimum for pump survival posted by Bosch? The results of Ford's own statements point the other way. Is the knowledge of this incongruity between fuel standards and HPFP failures the driving force at GM for their decision to fix these failed pumps under warranty? They do this with no arguments or intimidation and as reported, a loaner truck for the displaced customer. Ahhh, customer service at it's best...Ford needs to take some notice of it's true meaning... this issue would then disappear

Shame on Ford

Regards

 

Come on man, you know ford is living up to its true meaning.
" Found On Road Dead" Of course others on this board believe that they are going for their second directive. "Fix Or Repair Daily"

 

What's this?

No ?

 

Who else has had a raw deal by Ford on the HPFP? There might be failures but who is to say Ford is denying every one? My whole thing is, we talk about this HUGE problem yet the only name ever brought about about a Ford screwing is Rickatic.

I think we are talking about a little problem, yet with all this conversation it looks like everyone is blowin' up!

Let's go through your possible failure reasons:

1. Additives caused DLC coating to wear off- You never used additives so that one is out.

2. Ran out of fuel- Don't know...

3. Water in fuel- although there was no visible water in the fuel. We do not know about emulsified water.

4. Sub-standard fuel- Don't know since the fuel was never tested.

5.Pump can not handle ULSD- Possible, but with so many trucks on the road and using the same fuel (ASTM SPEC.) I find this hard to believe.

6. MFG. Defect- Possible. That one is over my head on how to tell.

Now if either 1,2,3,4 were the cause of your failure then I think Ford was right. If 5,6 was the problem, then I totally agree that you got the Rod by Ford.


The WIF light is there so the customer knows that they have water in the fuel (duh) How Ford treats this light is beyond me. But my feeling is if the WIF light came on, and then it sucked water into the pump then there would be rust and signs everywhere that it happened. But if the WIF light comes on and you drain the water then there should not be a reason to take it into Ford. The pump should enver know there was water in the tank. Thats why the DCFM is there.

 

Well, at least my veggie oil thought made you think. I have about 500 gallons of transformer oil that burns very well in my John Deere too. I know it's not the same motor and fuel system.....but it is nice oil.

As for the rest? Don't lump me into a category. I'm not formulating and communicating a battle plan, never said I was. I used additive before your path lighting. Telling me that I have "continuous denial" builds the fence between you and I. Polite wave and a smile from here on out.

Be good.

 

My apologies...

I guess I should spend the effort to multi-quote on my posts...the denial statement was not directed at you....the battle planners know who they are...pull out those fence posts
Regards

 

Rick,

You said "The first, and most important is the ever rising number of loyal Ford customers who are being treated like criminals instead of victims in the ongoing denials of warranty coverage for failed HPFP's."

I've not read ALL of the volumes of data Ford provided to NHTSA but I have read a number of emails between engineers discussing the issue and the tech bulletins that were issued to assist in diagnosis of the cause of the failure. It appears to me that the only claims they are intent on not covering are those caused by bad fuel or operator error (wrong stuff in diesel tank). In my mind, those issues are not Ford's responsibility to cover. Thought I had read in a description of your failure that corrosion was found in the HPFP. If you built or sold that pump, and knew that if it was used as designed that no corrosion would be present in the pump, and a customer returned one with corrosion, would you cover it? Not suggesting YOU did anything intentionally to cause the failure, but if there was corrosion, it was cause by something that should not have been in the pump.

 

I cannot agree where Ford does not have an obligation towards the fuel that is available in the market place. While they did design to the ASTM spec due diligence would have shone that a significant amount of fuel in the market is not in spec. While the fuel not being inspec is not Ford's problem not taking into consideration out of spec fuel in their design is. This is a new system with a new fuel spec that would take time to displace all the non-spec fuel in the market and they should have taken that into consideration during design.