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.
This settlement includes drivers from seven U.S. states, with some eligible for up to $12,700 if they paid for repairs caused by a defective fuel pump.
"Caused by a defective fuel pump", or caused by low sulfur diesel?
This settlement includes drivers from seven U.S. states, with some eligible for up to $12,700 if they paid for repairs caused by a defective fuel pump.
"Caused by a defective fuel pump", or caused by low sulfur diesel?
Who cares? At least some of those owners are getting reimbursed
Think about this... Do we hear about CP3, Denso, or Seimens pumps grenading on forums and owners groups EVERY WEEK? No, we don't. There is one and only one fuel pump design that has ever been in this limelight and it's the Bosch CP4.
Ford should be ashamed for still using it. Ram and GM both jumped ship after only a few years of abnormally high warranty claims.
I am glad as you are that they are getting reimbursed but is it really a faulty design that caused the failure?
The CP4 is a flawed design at best, that said GM made matters worse but not having a lift pump in the system.
Originally Posted by WXboy
Yes, yes it is.
Think about this... Do we hear about CP3, Denso, or Seimens pumps grenading on forums and owners groups EVERY WEEK? No, we don't. There is one and only one fuel pump design that has ever been in this limelight and it's the Bosch CP4.
Ford should be ashamed for still using it. Ram and GM both jumped ship after only a few years of abnormally high warranty claims.
IIRC there are 60 million or so various flavors of Bosch CP4 floating around so it isn't just Ford still running the pump. VW, BMW, etc utilize it as well. I totally agree it does not belong in the same level as the CP3 or P-7100 but GM famously implemented it without a lift pump and dodge use the asymmetrical version of the CP4 with their suspect low pressure system. Further, the Siemens VDO K16 pump will seppuku itself just like a CP4, you don't hear about it as much since the 6.4s had a much shorter production run in Fords and the host of other issues with the engine. K16s might be even worse, if you believe it, since the pump is in the REAR of the engine, so cab off to work on it.
I do agree GM took the best route cutting bait with bosch and going with the Denso system, that said GM has been first to the punch on a lot of things (1st light duty common rail, 5 speed auto, 6 speed auto, 9th injector, etc etc.)
The CP4 is a flawed design at best, that said GM made matters worse but not having a lift pump in the system.
IIRC there are 60 million or so various flavors of Bosch CP4 floating around so it isn't just Ford still running the pump. VW, BMW, etc utilize it as well. I totally agree it does not belong in the same level as the CP3 or P-7100 but GM famously implemented it without a lift pump and dodge use the asymmetrical version of the CP4 with their suspect low pressure system. Further, the Siemens VDO K16 pump will seppuku itself just like a CP4, you don't hear about it as much since the 6.4s had a much shorter production run in Fords and the host of other issues with the engine. K16s might be even worse, if you believe it, since the pump is in the REAR of the engine, so cab off to work on it.
I do agree GM took the best route cutting bait with bosch and going with the Denso system, that said GM has been first to the punch on a lot of things (1st light duty common rail, 5 speed auto, 6 speed auto, 9th injector, etc etc.)
Plus Cummins setup their version of the CP4.2 pump that was over driven. Meaning that pump ran at a much higher rpm than compared to the CP3 pump setup.
I had an enlightening conversation with a diesel mechanic with over 30 years rebuilding engines and about the CP3 & CP4 pumps. He has only replaced 2 CP4’s in 200-450HP tractors, including AGCOs and CNH brands and only one was a failed pump. The same failure rate as CP3 pumps.
I asked him why so few CP4 failures in tractors and so many CP4s in pickups. He said most of the newer large AG tractors running CP4s have a very high GPM gear pump running behind them pushing fuel into them, whereas a pickup only has a low GPM small electric lift pump pushing fuel into them.
He's convinced the low gpm fuel lift pumps cause the CP4’s to fail. Large AG tractors rarely have CP4 failures.
I had an enlightening conversation with a diesel mechanic with over 30 years rebuilding engines and about the CP3 & CP4 pumps. He has only replaced 2 CP4’s in 200-450HP tractors, including AGCOs and CNH brands and only one was a failed pump. The same failure rate as CP3 pumps.
I asked him why so few CP4 failures in tractors and so many CP4s in pickups. He said most of the newer large AG tractors running CP4s have a very high GPM gear pump running behind them pushing fuel into them, whereas a pickup only has a low GPM small electric lift pump pushing fuel into them.
He's convinced the low gpm fuel lift pumps cause the CP4’s to fail. Large AG tractors rarely have CP4 failures.
Which makes perfect sense because we know GM's didn't have lift pumps in the tank at all, which was assumed to be why they had such rampant issues. And even with a small lift pump, air can still get into the system in certain ways.
That's why it's critically important IMO to prime the system really really well after filter changes before starting the engine. And, I also have gotten into the habit of turning the ignition on, waiting 3 to 5 seconds, then starting my engine every morning.
Think about this... Do we hear about CP3, Denso, or Seimens pumps grenading on forums and owners groups EVERY WEEK? No, we don't. There is one and only one fuel pump design that has ever been in this limelight and it's the Bosch CP4.
Ford should be ashamed for still using it. Ram and GM both jumped ship after only a few years of abnormally high warranty claims.
This is very simple. Ford has looked at what it would cost to change to something else versus warranty claims. As we're seeing with other things, Ford's primary concern seems to be cost cutting. They've determined it's costing them less to keep using the CP4, no concern about long term costs to their customers.
This is very simple. Ford has looked at what it would cost to change to something else versus warranty claims. As we're seeing with other things, Ford's primary concern seems to be cost cutting. They've determined it's costing them less to keep using the CP4, no concern about long term costs to their customers.
I mean these are the people that brought you the pinto.... are you surprised?
I find that the Current Ford CP4 failures are way over blown. Chevy/GM had more failures than Ford due to lack of a lift pump. Failure rates overseas where the CP4 has a more widespread use case is extremely low, mainly due to the fuel in use over there. Which is more than likely the reason Ford chose the CP4 when it designed the 6.7 Powerstroke. What Ford didn't factor in was the lower lubricating ULSD used here in the states. At the time it really was an unknown issue. By the time it was discovered that the CP4 was vulnerable to lower lubricity of ULSD, it was too late as it would require redesigning the block and fuel system. Ford COULD step it up with a minor redesign by adding the DPK to the factory engine, a simple fix.
What we do know is the CP4 is vulnerable to low lubricity since it relies solely on the fuel as lubrication. They also like high fuel flow. The solution is simple, just add some fuel additive with each tank. Need it for winter to prevent gelling and algae, so why not just do it every tank? Out of the big three, Ford has the lowest failure rate. Predicted failure rate of the CP4 has been between 5-7%, the majority being GM, then Ram, followed by Ford. Ford has made at least 2 1/2 million 6.7 engines since 2001, so even at 1% FR that would be 290,000 failures over 13 years, or roughly 22,000 CP4 failures per year. What we really don't know is what the actual failure rate is for just the Superduty engines. Break it down further, thats just 1800 per month across the US and Canada. It really is an insignificant number. The only real reason it becomes such a great issue is due to the cost of replacement when it does fail because it takes the entire fuel system with it. Since that is easy to resolve with a $400 DIY kit and a few hours in the garage, is the CP4 really that big of an issue anymore?
I little knowledge, a cheap insurance kit, and using good fuel and additives can go a long way to preventing an issue, and frankly, Ford still makes the best truck on the road, and with the CP4 set aside, is one of the most reliable engines in trucks today.
. What Ford didn't factor in was the lower lubricating ULSD used here in the states. At the time it really was an unknown issue. By the time it was discovered that the CP4 was vulnerable to lower lubricity of ULSD
Eh, ULSD had been in wide spread use in North America since 2006-2007 and Bosch was 100% aware of the lubricity issue going back to 2003..
VE rotary pump (89-93 Cummins) and VP44 pumps (98.5-02 Cummins) also had issues with ULSD and would drop fairly regularly but of course don't super nova the rest of the fuel system when they fail.
That said, Ford won't move on from the CP4 until they are economically incentivized to do so. As of now, the failure rate they are on the hook for requires less cash flow than switching to a standyne (who probably couldn't handle FoMoCo's volume), Denso or anyone else's high pressure fuel system. I do agree the internet greatly amplifies the amount of CP4 failures kicking around out there however the economic magnitude of the failures do tend to send a shiver up the spin of the end user but I agree it is a problem that can be mitigated to a degree. That is of no comfort to those who had a CP4 give up the ghost, who I fully understand their frustrations with the system.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.
