When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
In my case they changed the whole fuel system. I reviewed Fords flow chart. It gives step by step the procedure. It took 3 days to do the complete job. Draining tanks and inspecting them. There are some bolts at the very back that can be very difficult to remove. If a stud breaks your screwed. That is why the cab is removed.
I'm not debating whats better or worse, but it is up to the technicians discretion as to how they want to complete the repair. I haven't personally done the job but there are plenty of techs who have openly shared whether they do, or do not remove the cab. Some do, some do not. I remember reading about the upper oil pan leaks and how some dealers were telling customers the cab had to be removed to do the repair. I don't think there are many techs that actually remove the cab for that repair. In the case of the fuel contamination repair, it's possible that most do remove the cab, I was just stating they don't have to, and some don't.
Took me right under 6 hours to swap the HPFP and LPFP. I think I could be around 3 hours on a HPFP with more experience. Not a terrible job, just a little tedious.
that’s if those are the only parts needing replacement. It seems more often than not, the failed CP4 send metal fragments through the entire fuel system requiring a complete new fuel system including rails and all injectors.
I traded a 35k mile '16 Chevy Duramax on my current '21 7.3 f250 because of the cp4 deal. The Duramax was about to go out of warranty due to years in service and I didn't want to chance the $10-$12k bill to replace the entire fuel system if the cps4 blew up and it was on my tab. I always had my Duramax serviced at my Chevy dealer and saw more than one truck with the cab up in the air while the whole fuel setup was being replaced. I owned two Duramaxes and loved them but no more diesels for this old boy.
well, that is odd. But a few courts decisions doesn’t make the pump “defective”, it does give fuel to failed pump owners though.
I’m approaching at least 500k on multiple cp4 across multiple trucks and never new there was an issue… or some failures other than water intrusion, but at very least it does make me think using an additive couldn’t be a bad thing.
well, that is odd. But a few courts decisions doesn’t make the pump “defective”, it does give fuel to failed pump owners though.
Yes the word "defective" is used, but I don't see the various lawsuit's trying to argue that the CP4 is "defective", rather that it is not a suitable part for the application and has a high probability of failure. More so it seems they are saying when it fails it becomes a hazard. It doesn't take too many complaints of a part being a hazard, causing a dangerous situation on the roadways to get on the NHTSA radar. I think in part a relatively small number of complaints, possibly along with these lawsuits, is what got the NHTSA interested in RAM and led to RAM initiating the recall. It is still TBD what RAM will actually do as a fix for this.
Yes the word "defective" is used, but I don't see the various lawsuit's trying to argue that the CP4 is "defective", rather that it is not a suitable part for the application and has a high probability of failure. More so it seems they are saying when it fails it becomes a hazard. It doesn't take too many complaints of a part being a hazard, causing a dangerous situation on the roadways to get on the NHTSA radar. I think in part a relatively small number of complaints, possibly along with these lawsuits, is what got the NHTSA interested in RAM and led to RAM initiating the recall. It is still TBD what RAM will actually do as a fix for this.
the court wrote defective fuel system, pretty black and white..according to that court. I’d say that word was used because fords warranty specifically accepts liability for defective parts. And good edit…proof reading is key.
the court wrote defective fuel system, pretty black and white..according to that court. I’d say that word was used because fords warranty specifically accepts liability for defective parts. And good edit…proof reading is key.
Fair enough. I guess the defect they argue is that the pump does not work well with our diesel, therefore it is defective? I believe there have been lawsuits involving the CP4 pumps going back several years, still not sure if any have been successful, or if they are just ongoing. Not sure if it was simply complaints to the NHTSA or the combination of that and lawsuit's, but it seems to have worked in getting RAM moving on some resolution. As far I can tell there were 22 (RAM) complaints to the NHTSA, a relatively small number that prompted an investigation. I wonder how many complaints they have involving Ford, and how the details of the complaints differ from those about RAM.
I'm on mobile about 99% of the time, pretty much just write and send it. Just about every post (mine) I'll find some kind of typo, auto-correct mishap or missed info. Not terribly concerned about it but it is nice to catch it quickly. Thankful for the edit button.
Fair enough. I guess the defect they argue is that the pump does not work well with our diesel, therefore it is defective? I believe there have been lawsuits involving the CP4 pumps going back several years, still not sure if any have been successful, or if they are just ongoing. Not sure if it was simply complaints to the NHTSA or the combination of that and lawsuit's, but it seems to have worked in getting RAM moving on some resolution. As far I can tell there were 22 (RAM) complaints to the NHTSA, a relatively small number that prompted an investigation. I wonder how many complaints they have involving Ford, and how the details of the complaints differ from those about RAM.
I'm on mobile about 99% of the time, pretty much just write and send it. Just about every post (mine) I'll find some kind of typo, auto-correct mishap or missed info. Not terribly concerned about it but it is nice to catch it quickly. Thankful for the edit button.
I’d be lost without edit buttons.
but my point is that the correct in their ruling used language that ford used in their warranty. Cp4 is hardly defective but in that case ford lost.
Bottom line I guess drain your water filter at least every 3000 mi. or so and run an additive for lubricity, I use Opti-Lube (read the test results) and keep your fingers crossed!!! Oh and yes I bought the extended warrenty for 2 g's.
Bottom line I guess drain your water filter at least every 3000 mi. or so and run an additive for lubricity, I use Opti-Lube (read the test results) and keep your fingers crossed!!! Oh and yes I bought the extended warrenty for 2 g's.
I hear people talk about draining it monthly, others say don't worry about it. The manual says the truck will warn you when it needs to be drained. Is there any concern about draining it too often and potential damage to the pump or does the key cycle priming make sure the pump is lubricated on startup after the procedure? I'm coming on 15K miles on mine and will be changing the filters but have never drained mine. I never found water in my filter the whole time I owned my Duramax.
Bottom line I guess drain your water filter at least every 3000 mi. or so....
What's magical about 3,000 miles? Why not 2,000? Or 1,000? Or every time you put a fuel nozzle in the tank? I'm not sure any of that is necessary, but you do whatever helps you sleep at night.
I never got more than a teaspoon out of a filter over the years between trucks and tractors until one time when I got the water in fuel light in a 2014 Ram (CP3) after I filled up and ended up having to drain it every couple of miles for an afternoon. Changed the rear filter twice and the front one once and it settled out and did fine for another 50K miles when I traded it in. Diesel fuel is fine until it isn't, so that is why I switched to the 7.3 gasser with the new truck.