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
Wow, called by a few on this thread !
If that OP didn't go bio-diesel, then can one deduce the number of
condensation cycles to create the H2O issue?
Guess it also applies to the station tank, to the distribution tanks (trucks)
and finally the refinery storage tanks
Noteworthy is that this OP's truck is one of the newest to have been
reported here on this thread and ask if he can post the pump rev #
If that pump rev # is new with the latest Bosch updates/band-aids would
be telling on how close they are coming to a solution or that they are
clueless on the root cause
IIRC, so far...
What am trying to map out Bosch/etc's band-aid path to this current
failure.
For now, seems like they have missed with all, as this OP's failure
is so familiar to Rick's...the original post for me (not a diesel guy)
Cause-effect...
What happened to lab testing? Do they have a true representation of
the real world in their labs (both simulation and hardware) ?
Are they really dissecting the failed unites? How? Who? That stuff
is golden in the 'right' hands/eyeballs. Now think both their designers
and forensics engineering groups are clueless.
Or are they stuck with this form factor that then dictates, but that
would be blindly throwing money/resources at a hopeless form factor
(been there done that with a boss being penny wise/pound foolish)
Am always saying they should separate the crank/cam cavity from the
fuel follow routing. The crank/cam should have proper, pressurized,
lubrication, not fuel which is primarily 'fuel' and lube secondary
to even not even a consideration of the diesel engineers who designed
the refinery processes
While at that, change from a non-captive cam follower to a true crank
setup with a captured crank to rod to piston. That would then remove
the lose piston that hammers the cam follower issue and also remove
the need for DLC, which I've never thought a good idea for this design
and just a band-aid that is NOT doing the job
That might not be possible in the current form factory.
Very interesting stuff !, but sad that the OEMs are using their
customers as test mules
If that OP didn't go bio-diesel, then can one deduce the number of
condensation cycles to create the H2O issue?
Guess it also applies to the station tank, to the distribution tanks (trucks)
and finally the refinery storage tanks
Noteworthy is that this OP's truck is one of the newest to have been
reported here on this thread and ask if he can post the pump rev #
If that pump rev # is new with the latest Bosch updates/band-aids would
be telling on how close they are coming to a solution or that they are
clueless on the root cause
IIRC, so far...
- Switched to only one side DLC coating...which part is now coated?
- Piezo injector failures
- any more?
What am trying to map out Bosch/etc's band-aid path to this current
failure.
For now, seems like they have missed with all, as this OP's failure
is so familiar to Rick's...the original post for me (not a diesel guy)
Cause-effect...
What happened to lab testing? Do they have a true representation of
the real world in their labs (both simulation and hardware) ?
Are they really dissecting the failed unites? How? Who? That stuff
is golden in the 'right' hands/eyeballs. Now think both their designers
and forensics engineering groups are clueless.
Or are they stuck with this form factor that then dictates, but that
would be blindly throwing money/resources at a hopeless form factor
(been there done that with a boss being penny wise/pound foolish)
Am always saying they should separate the crank/cam cavity from the
fuel follow routing. The crank/cam should have proper, pressurized,
lubrication, not fuel which is primarily 'fuel' and lube secondary
to even not even a consideration of the diesel engineers who designed
the refinery processes
While at that, change from a non-captive cam follower to a true crank
setup with a captured crank to rod to piston. That would then remove
the lose piston that hammers the cam follower issue and also remove
the need for DLC, which I've never thought a good idea for this design
and just a band-aid that is NOT doing the job
That might not be possible in the current form factory.
Very interesting stuff !, but sad that the OEMs are using their
customers as test mules
and not supporting their customers
....Ford in this case
