I am, also. Too many issues with the factory plastic set up. One of my company trucks already has a broken one.

 

My 614K mile RAM Cummins (NO "G"!!!) had all emissions intact and fully functioning, only issue ever was a bad cat in the SCR system that was replaced under recall. My truck even had the original UNTOUCHED egr, never was removed or required cleaning and also still functioning at time of my parting with it. And, the DEF system never gave me any issues either, so I call BS for most of the "issues" owners have with them, many are just looking for an excuse to delete.

As far as the GM electronics packages, that was one reason I looked to Ford when I ordered mine, but after two years with my 12" SYNC4 system in my truck, I am very disappointed in it overall, updates have made some improvements, some updates have made it worse IMO, so I would be very hopeful that GM will get the bugs worked out with theirs. The rest of the GM interior and the dash layout looks great to me, like it a lot, but as I said, I haven't actually seen it in person yet.

 

'15-'18 were good years for Rams. It's been downhill since.

 

the GM info system, and guages takes some getting used to. I couldn't work anything at first, becuase I was used to my ford. But I feel like anything else you get used to it. When I got my f450, I was used to the sync 3 8" in my f250 and I hated it. Now I like it.

The GMC is what I would buy. Looks so much better. The denali.

Downfall with GM is they pretty much sell at msrp. a dealer local to me will do 2k off. Also, truck prices have went through the roof again. I got my loaded f350 last October. If I build it currently its roughly 10k more. In a gm 88k, and mine was 78k and got it for 69k. Can't swallow that. I pretty much had an even trade for the Chevy a couple weeks ago (msrp 85). But wasn't long bed and wasn't cherry red. (That was a deal breaker not being red).

 

Until someone gets me true failure rates, the most I would do is some added fuel lubrication.
Other than that, if it blows up, it blows up. At some point I might weigh an upgraded pump
vs the 10 year warantee I will get.

I lived 18 years with the Dodge 48RE, which everyone told me could also blow up at any time (and a lot of them did). So be it I guess.

 

Your 2015 was not a 5th Generation - my comments were strictly about the 5 generation truck. It only takes a quick read of the Ram forums to see people with 2022 and 2023 models and the problems I outlined. We have one 2015 Dodge 3500 on the farm that has been a work horse. Great truck. (Now the transmission died on last week but that is a different story as this truck has towed heavy most of its entire life.)

 

Agree 100%

 

In a Google search, the consensus is that CP4.2 failure rates show as about 7% in the US, BUT, this is for ALL CP4.2, not just in Powerstrokes. CP4.2 rates for GM were 5%, which leaves the other 2% for Ram and Ford. When you consider Ford has manufactured around 2.6 million 6.7 Powerstroke engines since 2011, all of which use the CP4.2 pump, that is not as big an issue as it is made out to be.

Roughly 4 million Super Duty trucks have been built since 2011, I say roughly because the average month produced 26K-27K, but 2020-2023 have been screwed up with no true idea how many were actually built. 2% failures from that number is 80K. Seems like a lot, but remember thats 3,920,000 trucks without a failing CP4.2.

Would be nice to have actual numbers instead of speculation based on reports to go off of, but even at 5% that is still 3,800,000 CP4.2 non failures.

 

This is good to know but I think you are using some fuzzy math. First if 7% of the total CP4 units are failing that would be the total number for all US units in use. If GM's failure rate is 5% that would be 5% of the GM total units in use not 5% of the overall US units. Then you can't subtract the GM 5% from the overall 7%. You would have to subtract the GM failure number from the overall failure number to determine how many failures remain to be spread across the other users (Ford, Ram, etc.).

Then you can't apply the 2% or 5% to the 4 million Ford units produced because you stated just above that there were only 2.6 million 6.7's produced. The rest of those Ford units must be gas engines.

I would think it is reasonable to say that if GM has a 5% failure rate on their CP4 units that the other players probably also have a failure rate close to that same percentage. None of them are doing anything spectacular to significantly change their failure rate. So if we took a 5% failure rate against the 2.6 million Ford diesel production since 2011 that would give us something in the range of 130,000 failures over 12 years or about 10,800 Ford failures per year.

That doesn't look horrible unless you happen to be one of the failures. But even at under 11,000 per year it would seem like a formidable problem considering the cost to repair each of those failures.

But we are still left with a bag full of speculation without Ford being transparent about the failure rate.

edit: And we have no idea what part of the 5% failure rate is operator error which could lower the mechanical failure rate even more.

 

The articles I came across, but did not go into fully reading claimed that overall in the US, the CP4.2 failure rate was 7% compared to the EU at 1%. GM forums are showing it is 5%, but we do know GM did not put in a lift pump so their failure rate will be much higher than Fords because of it. The numbers given were just examples due to the fact no hard numbers are available to actually crunch. Overall though, the failure rates are no where near high enough to warrant not getting a Ford. IOW there is just as much likely hood of anything breaking, engine, transmission, axles, as there is for the CP4 to fail, and adding a DPK (which FORD should have integrated by now) can help reduce that number even lower. Also keep in mind that the 6.7 is not only in the F2/3/450 but in the 550-750 as well.

 

The disaster prevention kit has no bearing on cp4 failures, won't prevent them from happening, all they do is keep the shrapnel from the failed pump from getting into the rest of the high pressure side of the fuel system, pump will still be trash.

 

Agreed he might be slightly confused on what it does.

But pump failure with and without the S&S DPK is a night and day different kind of problem to have.

A pump swap is a fraction of the issue (time & money) that you’re faced with if you need a total fuel system replacement.

 

I'm no statistician but that doesn't pass the sniff test. If overall failure rate is 7% and GM's is 5%, that means the non GM users would have higher than 7% failure rate for the overall to be 7%.

Another thing to consider is Ford has been using the pump far longer than anyone else and continues to do so after GM and Ram stopped using it, so the sheer number of SDs sold with diesels would mean much of that 7% comes from Ford with some coming from Ram, and a very small amount from other users but these days diesels are very uncommon outside of class 2B and up pickups in the US.

 

Yup, without knowing the time period the 7% refers to, if it is talking about the overall total time the cp4 has been in use, from the beginning until today, then taking into account those manufacturers who stopped using it, then a current overall 7% would mean that Ford has had a higher percentage of failures than any other brand.

 

Wrong.

There is a statistic that 7% of all CP4’s fail. If we accept that as true, which it very well might be.

Then who used the pump longer doesn’t change the rate of failure for any given brand truck.




GM could have run the pump for just a single year and had a 25% failure rate.

RAM could run the pump for 2 years and had a 10% failure rate.

Ford could run it for 12 years and have a 4% failure rate.

The only thing changing as someone (Ford) continues to use the CP4 is their SHARE of the total number of pump failures.

Ford using it longer doesn’t make it impossible that they’ve had a lower RATE of failure than the others.

It’s totally plausible that Ford has had the lowest failure rate while the others had higher rates (which bring it up to 7% from their shorter time using it).





Look at it this way:

Ford has a 4% failure rate.

if they were the only ones to use the pump then that would be the overall rate. It’d be 4%.

now say others used it for a few years in between. They could raise the OVERALL rate if they had worst luck with lots of failures. Now it could go from 4% to 7% hypothetically.