Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation

Capt Skup wrote:
I for one enjoy reading the posts our new friend has kindly shared. I was a gas turbine engine mechanic for many years, so I am able to digest most of the texts. Basically I find that automotive fuel injection is catching up with aviation. Thankfully our high pressure fuel pumps while pumping dry JP-5, I never had a pump fail. I do have to wonder if our friend maybe in violation of some copyright laws, ie "No part of this document may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher".

The only instance that applies is to the GM document, which was posted on another site. Patents granted are public documents.

Where ASTM specs were cited, they were only quoted in parts to ensure that their copyrights are respected.

Copyright laws include a "fair use" provision and the portion so reproduced is an extract of the set of documents in accordance with 17 U.S.C. § 107, solely for noncommercial, nonprofit, educational purposes and it is widely disseminated elsewhere on other forums, have no effect on the potential market for or the value of the work.


Very nice to have an aviation turbine fella around, though aviation fuel is made to different ASTM specs.

One of the key complaints about ULSD and lubricity improvers is that they contaminated jet fuel.




Back to the subject of the GM document.

While I cannot speak for the GM legal department, one of the finest ones in the auto industry, I dare say that I am doing GM a great favor disseminating information about their warranty policies on aftermarket modifications, tuners.

Funny how we get so few posters on any forum telling us that GM/Ford/Chrysler/Toyota/Honda/Hyundai etc. denied them warranty coverage because of their tuner or other performance mods!