Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation
There was a request for a link to Ford's answer's to the NHTSA investigation posted on a previous thread, since closed. Here is the link: Ford's NHTSA Answers to the 6.7 investigation This PDF i...
Forum Discussion
Evaluating the severity of the Bosch CP 4.x issue
How I would do it if I am at NHTSA:
Severity of problem:
Moderate --- failure do not involve REPORTED fatalities with the most likelihood being total loss of power at unexpected moments.
Total loss of power can mean no power for power brakes steering and difficulty bringing a heavily loaded truck trailer combo to a safe stop.
Cost / Inconvenience to owners:
Moderate (if covered by warranty). Parts and repairs require days / week to do.
If not covered by warranty, serious (not severe).
How big of an issue is it?
Mild (but well above threshold to open investigation).
Note: I believe (confirm please) this is an emissions part part of the emissions warranty -- therefore, the coverage extends much longer than powertrain warranty.
Issues:
Should a critical common component used across many different brands that have severe financial and economic consequences for failure (high cost of repair):
A) be not able to tolerate water in fuel (even if the owner acted immediately on WIF warning, stopped and drained it may not be good enough)
Ford TSB and interpretation means a single drop of water found in fuel bowl is sufficient evidence to deny a claim
B) should the DEF fill port (specific to Ford) location not be at the same location and contribute to the potential of error?
Should there not be a way to tolerate / warn of DEF misfueling and stop vehicle?
C) Is misfuel with gasoline sufficiently common that diesels sold in the USA should at least, tolerate some misfueling --- and light a warning / stop before severe damage is done?
See (F)
D) Is there a flaw somewhere else in the design of the pump (reactivity of diesels or Additives commonly used) that is part of the problem?
Is there a problem with common refinery additives?
Or a problem with lubricity standards or actual lubricity found in the field?
E) Are existing ASTM standards for fuel, and its enforcement / implementation by both refineries and state agencies, sufficient?
Do we need better tests? Better metrics?
How do we deal with the issue of reactivity?
Do fluid behavior change at high pressures / temperatures?
F) Is there a special issue with biiodiesel and its additives? What about material left in processing?
G) What about diesel additives and stuff used as additives commonly, from 2 stroke oil to lubricating oil, to any vendor's additive.
There is presently no testing or certification of safety of this additive, both formally sold and ad hoc.
A lot more questions than answers.
Depending on how you answer these questions --- you are going to have a very different take on how big a deal this issue is.
How I would do it if I am at NHTSA:
Severity of problem:
Moderate --- failure do not involve REPORTED fatalities with the most likelihood being total loss of power at unexpected moments.
Total loss of power can mean no power for power brakes steering and difficulty bringing a heavily loaded truck trailer combo to a safe stop.
Cost / Inconvenience to owners:
Moderate (if covered by warranty). Parts and repairs require days / week to do.
If not covered by warranty, serious (not severe).
How big of an issue is it?
Mild (but well above threshold to open investigation).
Note: I believe (confirm please) this is an emissions part part of the emissions warranty -- therefore, the coverage extends much longer than powertrain warranty.
Issues:
Should a critical common component used across many different brands that have severe financial and economic consequences for failure (high cost of repair):
A) be not able to tolerate water in fuel (even if the owner acted immediately on WIF warning, stopped and drained it may not be good enough)
Ford TSB and interpretation means a single drop of water found in fuel bowl is sufficient evidence to deny a claim
B) should the DEF fill port (specific to Ford) location not be at the same location and contribute to the potential of error?
Should there not be a way to tolerate / warn of DEF misfueling and stop vehicle?
C) Is misfuel with gasoline sufficiently common that diesels sold in the USA should at least, tolerate some misfueling --- and light a warning / stop before severe damage is done?
See (F)
D) Is there a flaw somewhere else in the design of the pump (reactivity of diesels or Additives commonly used) that is part of the problem?
Is there a problem with common refinery additives?
Or a problem with lubricity standards or actual lubricity found in the field?
E) Are existing ASTM standards for fuel, and its enforcement / implementation by both refineries and state agencies, sufficient?
Do we need better tests? Better metrics?
How do we deal with the issue of reactivity?
Do fluid behavior change at high pressures / temperatures?
F) Is there a special issue with biiodiesel and its additives? What about material left in processing?
G) What about diesel additives and stuff used as additives commonly, from 2 stroke oil to lubricating oil, to any vendor's additive.
There is presently no testing or certification of safety of this additive, both formally sold and ad hoc.
A lot more questions than answers.
Depending on how you answer these questions --- you are going to have a very different take on how big a deal this issue is.
