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
Niner...that is what used to be called their 'test mule' cycle...
Long gone the way of simulations driven by desk jockeys who are fresh out of
graduate school
'WE' are now those test mules...thanks to bean counter management
All of these rat holes has pointed back to the HPFP and that cam/follower. PSI
and then a bunch of ancillary and oblique tid-bits breaking the camel's back
Am now inclined to say the previous pump with the two stage (gear then piston),
along with the lower PSI was fine, as that was the basis specification for their
design.
Since they cost reduced it by removing the gear pump, that left the innards 'more
susceptible to cavitation.
Then the increase in PSI/BAR, which factors down to more PSI on that cam/follower.
Why need the piston dia, confirm it is the same as the previous and that the
cam/follower is also unchanged.
Meaning a much higher PSI on that cam/follower
Then the pump shaft bearing. Think the new, much higher PSI/BAR now is seen by
the shaft as 'impacts'.
Must be roller/needle or ball and they DO NOT like impact forces over the long
haul. Brinelling of their races to induce flaking and pitting.
Another highly likely contributing issue is the DLC and corrosion plating of
the pump innards.
That then has some chemical experiment cooking (most likey organic amines) that
attack or weaken the DLC.
Another potential is to ask where is the DLC plated? If only on the cam/follower
can see the failure mode(s) there. If plated inside the cylinder bore and piston,
then ask what is the cylinder's aspect ratio...as ion beam deposition likes to
shoot straight and can't/won't bend easily (without mucho $$$$)
Another position of strength for the consumers and very, very weak position for
the OEMs is H20 in the system. With the barrier/filter/etc in the particulate
filter (some have two filters), H2O separator, etc and their efficiencies (not
any one has been confirmed to be 100% effective, yet) and I see some huge changes
in positioning for both sides (OEM and their customers)
Off to some meetings and maybe more tonite and for sure tomorrow
Long gone the way of simulations driven by desk jockeys who are fresh out of
graduate school
'WE' are now those test mules...thanks to bean counter management
All of these rat holes has pointed back to the HPFP and that cam/follower. PSI
and then a bunch of ancillary and oblique tid-bits breaking the camel's back
Am now inclined to say the previous pump with the two stage (gear then piston),
along with the lower PSI was fine, as that was the basis specification for their
design.
Since they cost reduced it by removing the gear pump, that left the innards 'more
susceptible to cavitation.
Then the increase in PSI/BAR, which factors down to more PSI on that cam/follower.
Why need the piston dia, confirm it is the same as the previous and that the
cam/follower is also unchanged.
Meaning a much higher PSI on that cam/follower
Then the pump shaft bearing. Think the new, much higher PSI/BAR now is seen by
the shaft as 'impacts'.
Must be roller/needle or ball and they DO NOT like impact forces over the long
haul. Brinelling of their races to induce flaking and pitting.
Another highly likely contributing issue is the DLC and corrosion plating of
the pump innards.
That then has some chemical experiment cooking (most likey organic amines) that
attack or weaken the DLC.
Another potential is to ask where is the DLC plated? If only on the cam/follower
can see the failure mode(s) there. If plated inside the cylinder bore and piston,
then ask what is the cylinder's aspect ratio...as ion beam deposition likes to
shoot straight and can't/won't bend easily (without mucho $$$$)
Another position of strength for the consumers and very, very weak position for
the OEMs is H20 in the system. With the barrier/filter/etc in the particulate
filter (some have two filters), H2O separator, etc and their efficiencies (not
any one has been confirmed to be 100% effective, yet) and I see some huge changes
in positioning for both sides (OEM and their customers)
Off to some meetings and maybe more tonite and for sure tomorrow
