No problem. It's what I do. Welcome to the forum.

But I don't think it's the huge problem that it's not made out to be. With that said, sure, I still think about it. But I just drive my truck and use my additive at every fill up.

I like the new Gen 2 DPK from S&S Diesel Motorsports. I would go with that after I buy and install the AFE DFS780 filter/pump. My truck is a long term truck for me so I plan to try and make that fuel system and engine as long as I can (try)...

 

Exactly, same here. Bought it to keep it for the long haul.

And yeah, same here. It's not keeping me up at night but definitely something I think about every time I fill up and when I do filter changes.

Same plans, here! Until then, I'll sit back and watch everything play out, keep a lookout for FSA/recalls/court rulings lol.

 

Well i have the same questions on how widespread is this fuel pump issue.. has anyone gotten info from ford in any way shape of form that might put a % number on failures of units under warranty or after warranty expires. One of the site I lean on when looking for used vehicles is carcomplaints.com.. I have gone on there reading about issues with a specific year and model and when out and about was seeing some of the issues i was reading about.

When i go there i don't see many post about the fuel pump for the most part.. not like the EGR on the 03-05 6.0L truck of prior years. you see more in the 2011.

just wondering how widespread this fuel pump issues really are.

is the bypass system that reroute the fuel help with containment of the metal is the unthinkable happens.

 

ford sells a kit to support replacement of the fuel system when the pump fails. Will Ford tell you how many pumps fail...probally not....will they tell you how many kits they sell ....probally not. Do all vehicle manufactures offer a fuels system repair kit ....why not......why does Ford offer a fuel system repair kit.....why are third parties offering disaster prevention kits??






i saw a video about the color red

how many red cars did you see yesterday ?

count the red cars that you will see today

in other words, the recognition of the physical existence of the red cars has to do perception ......the cars are there.

you searched and did not find indications of how wide spread this problem is....but yet folks post their hofp disasters on a regular basis, there are class action lawsuits, etc.

 

I look at it this way. Ford has obviously made it known that you, as the owner, have to stay on top of the fuel you use and the maintenance of the fuel system. From all the discussions here, we know that it has happened and it can happen. We'll never know the numbers. We also know that these Bosch HPFPs are designed to run on Euro fuel which has a lower, or better rating in the lubricity tests than US fuel. That is why I run my additive winter and summer. I have seen the lab test results for my additive and it's in the 360 range I want to say, microns that is I believe. Someone correct me if I am wrong here for that unit of measurement.

I did a search on Bing and came across this:

Fuel Property Testing: Lubricity - DieselNet

https://dieselnet.com/tech/fuel_diesel_lubricity.phpThe US diesel fuel specification (ASTM D975) requires a 60°C WSD of 520 µm or less using the ASTM D6079 method, while the European diesel fuel specification (EN 590) requires a 60°C WSD of 460 µm …




There was also this:


https://blog.ducom.com/assessment-of...y-in-groningen
b

This shows that European Fuel provides much more lubrication value than our fuel here.


Ball Mean Wear Scar Diameter (MWSD): As shown in Figure 4, all the mean wear scar diameters (MWSD) reported in this research were within the highest MWSD limit for diesel fuel supplied in Netherlands However, the diesel fuel from gas station - G1 showed the highest MWSD value (i.e. 210 + 9 µm) and the standard deviation was significantly higher compared to the other diesels. The diesel G10 showed the lowest MWSD value (183 + 5 µm), followed by the diesel G3 and G4 (187 + 1 and 188 + 1, respectively). Please refer to Figure S3 for the wear scar images on the *****.


Look at how low those scar ratings are. Much better for a CP4.2 than what our fuel can offer.




Figure 4. Ball mean wear scar diameter (MWSD) values of all the diesel fuels tested using Ducom HFRR. All the diesel fuels are in compliance with the EN 590 /EU VI limits of acceptance i.e. MWSD < 234 µm.

Coefficient of Friction: As shown in Figure 5, the average coefficient of friction was not significantly different for diesel fuels Overall, the diesel fuel G1 and G5 showed the highest and lowest friction coefficient (0.176 + 0.004 and 0.167 + 0.004, respectively). Friction and wear were not in any relationship as shown in Figure 6.




Here's the HFRR test results:


Figure S1. HFRR study on Reference Fluid A. (A) Evolution of the friction coefficient for reference fluid A during the tests in Ducom High Frequency Reciprocating Rig. The reference fluid A was used to verify the accuracy and calibration of the HFRR after every five tests of diesel fuel. (B) Mean wear scar diameter values of the tested ***** are all in compliance with the limits of acceptance set by the ASTM D6079 (284 to 438 µm). (C) Optical microscopy images of the *****.



I think, as not know as I am not an expert here, that this shows Euro diesel is much kinder to our pumps than our own fuel. That is why I supplement my fuel with a quality additive that has a good lube improver in it. These fuel pumps are engineered in Germany where this is the fuel they use. Kind of crazy we use a less superior fuel than what these pumps were designed and tested with IMO.


Here's a good article on fuel and additives:


https://www.proboat.com/2018/04/dies...-and-fictions/

 

Um is micron

all the test data holds true ...euro fuel has higher lube value than us value

it lube is only 1 factor in co4 bearing failure

there are many

rotating bearing cup....no lube value can protect against that...cup needs to be keyed or pinned

dry starts....different senerio cause temp or perm dry starts...gelling of fuel....lift pump failure...ice from water in the lines...etc....no lube value will help there.


we do not know what percent of bearing failures is a result of which associated factor

when diesel fuel systems were hydraulically controlled and lubed with oil instead of fuel....the current style of fuel system failure was impossible.

but we moved to hydraulically controlled and lubed using fuel...and the problems began.

the cost of tighter emissions oriented fuel system performance.

 

Great input as usual fritz. You're right on the rotating bearing cup...

 

You're right about that. This is my first rodeo with my truck. Great point about that...

 

What a read!!!

Having attempted to digest everything you posted, might I ask which additive you use?

Power service is there only company mentioned by name (they have their own lab!) in the article.

 

this is the part of the whole pump that screams just plain stupid design.. if the bearing cups were slightly oval shaped or have some kinda way to at least prevent the turning to me sound like something that will eliminate at least 50% of the issue with water being the other.

Speaking of water I though the fuel filter were designed to collect, warn you and prevent water from entering the fuel system from the get go. is that not the case?? is the major cause of damage caused by water more than by the rotation of the roller?? I was hoping with all the guys that work at ford dealership in the shops would help shed some light on how many units they are seeing with pump issues.. 1-100 or 1-10..

to me it seems like the issues is not wide spread. just spread wide.. as in complaints.

 

Sure thing. I've been using K100D since my truck was new. One of the guys at my local Advance Auto Parts introduced me to it. I've been using it ever since.

Here's where they explain the background on it.

https://k-100.com/about-us-2/

 

Ah ok gotcha. Thanks for sharing!

While I'm under warranty, going to stick to non-alcohol demulsifiers only. Been doing quite a bit of reading on the subject tonight and will stick with either Motorcraft PM22/3 or maybe Hotshot's everyday formula for the 2020 truck.

 

I gotta be honest here and this is only my opinion and an educated guess, but Ford has been recommending not to use alcohol based additives since way back. This was probably referring to emergency use only additives that contain a form of ethanol that would cause a problem in modern common rail fuel injection systems because of a lack of lubrication in the system.

K100D has a component that adds lubricity to the fuel. That was one of the main reasons I started to use it besides an anti gel agent, fuel cleaner and also to deal with the moisture issue. To be honest, the only times I have drained the DFCM is when I've changed the filter. That's how much confidence I have in it. I'm approaching 70k miles. I live in a cold winter climate. IMO, if this stuff was so bad, the HPFP would have blown up already. Like I've said before, if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.

I notice that additives like Power Service and Amsoil make different additives to do different things when K100D does it all with one product. Most of all the other additive products are petroleum based but K100 is organic chemistry. I noticed that Power Services has an emergency use additive that has an alcohol in it. Their products are endorsed by Cummins.

My point is this: there are hundreds and hundreds of alcohols and combinations to make compounds. I've read white papers online about the testing of alcohols as fuels in diesel engines. Alcohol compounds can't all be bad if they are testing them as a future fuel for compression ignition engines.

I'm under warranty also... Until 125k miles. Ford will not warranty a HPFP failure if there is moisture detected in the fuel. I'm doing what I believe is the best thing for my truck and that's using K100D. YMMV...

Next up will be a plug and play AFE DFS780 to rid the fuel of air. That will get posted up in my new thread.

 

Yeah, I hear you. I read the other additive thread where some folks brought actual science up against the mostly-marketing claims on the x100d site.

True, about ford. They'll probably find any reason not to cover a hpfp warranty claim due to water in the tank but I feel weird about a product that claims it attaches to water and harmlessly burns off in the cylinder.

As I understand it, water and air are cp4 killers, too.

It's all good. Just for now, I'm hesitant about x100d.

 

Just read up on the K100D. Great information, even for us older dinosaur 7.3 trucks. Thanks for posting up!