CP4 Implosion!!! CRAP! CRAP! CRAP!
Lead Driver
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 8,482
Likes: 4,974
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.
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.
As the others stopped using the pump, the total number of pumps being used falls off sharply, for the overall average to continue at 7%, then the lone user would have to have a higher failure rate to maintain that overall average.
The thing is we do not have all the numbers, and many failures are not considered in these numbers because they are repaired without being reported so are not included.
Cargo Master
Joined: Mar 2021
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 1,336
WRONG
As the others stopped using the pump, the total number of pumps being used falls off sharply, for the overall average to continue at 7%, then the lone user would have to have a higher failure rate to maintain that overall average.
The thing is we do not have all the numbers, and many failures are not considered in these numbers because they are repaired without being reported so are not included.
As the others stopped using the pump, the total number of pumps being used falls off sharply, for the overall average to continue at 7%, then the lone user would have to have a higher failure rate to maintain that overall average.
The thing is we do not have all the numbers, and many failures are not considered in these numbers because they are repaired without being reported so are not included.
what if the overall failure rate was 10% and year by year it has gone down since GM & RAM stopped running it because they had worst luck?
you’re confusing the overall failure rate to the share of over all failures.
due to how long ford has used it I’d say they probably have the largest share of over all failures but it doesn’t mean their RATE of failure was higher than anyone else’s.
I don’t think GM would’ve stopped using it if they had a 2% failure rate. Something tells me theirs was pretty high in comparison.
Lead Driver
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,978
Likes: 2,670
From: The Great State of Texas
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.
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.
Laughing Gas
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 794
Likes: 232
getting better every year, especiallyif earlier pumps are getting more mileage.
Not enough info.
Hotshot
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 14,301
Likes: 2,197
true…with the DPK, when the cp4 fails…the cost will be just the pump cost and the cost of the return filter.
with out the DPK, the cost is everything lus the crazy labor for everything in the fuel transport and injection path.
Logistics Pro
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 4,042
Likes: 2,350
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.
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.
Cargo Master
Joined: Mar 2021
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 1,336
Are you saying there is no way the ford cp4 failure rate isn’t/wasn’t lower than ram or gm when they used the pump?
Banned
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 3,541
Likes: 458
Precisely why I have zero interest in ever owning a 6.7 Powerstroke. Or any other rig with a CP4 for that matter. But ya'll do what you want.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 6 Best Deals Available on New Fords & Lincolns Right Now
Brett Foote
This Hennessey Takes the Expedition Tremor's Off-Roading Capability to the Next Level
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Super Moderator
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 37,384
Likes: 1,868
From: Frederick, MD
I am sure your 7.3 does fine for small trailers.
Banned
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 3,541
Likes: 458
It does okay for what I need it to do most of the time. Even the occasional medium sized one! Okay you guys have fun now and try not to lose too much sleep over that fuel pump.
Cargo Master
Joined: Mar 2021
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 1,336
if I have to change the fuel pump once during ownership and DPK does it’s job then I’ll gladly take it over the 7.3. I’d rather enjoy the other 99% of the time towing with it before settling for a lot less power to pull things in a gasser.
it’s always funny the folks with gas trucks are the ones who care most. I’ll never understand it.
Lead Driver
Joined: Feb 2022
Posts: 7,984
Likes: 4,058
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.
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.
Also that 7% had nothing to back it up that I could find, they were just numbers put out there. On the GM forums, when the CP4 was used though, the majority of it spoke to at least a 5% per year failure rate. No other stats were found though as to how many of those engines were produced, which matters. The number of Powerstroke engines produced is speculation based on the average production could put out per year since 2011, which is supposedly 200K.
Cargo Master
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,873
Likes: 952
From: Kaufman TX
Hey, thanks for wandering in here and giving us permission. There's a few dozen other subforums of products you don't own that could use your wisdom too, be sure not to leave them hanging.
Thread Starter
|
Laughing Gas
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 904
Likes: 112
From: Austin, Texas
I was doing a little research on the 6.7 last - specifically any future directions eluded to by Ford, etc... Found this article and I found it interesting that it calls out the CP4.
What's Coming from Ford: 1,200 Foot Pounds of Torque
What's Coming from Ford: 1,200 Foot Pounds of Torque