Forum Discussion

fivecodys's avatar
fivecodys
Explorer
Jul 29, 2013

2013 Ford PowerStroke 6.7L

I'm starting to 'kick the tires' and I really like the F-350 Ford.
What are you guys hearing about their new 6.7L PowerStroke?
Did they get it right this time?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Bill
Tow Vehicles

72 Replies

Show More
  • 45Ricochet's avatar
    45Ricochet
    Explorer
    Jul 31, 2013
    Bird Freak wrote:
    To the OP. All you have to do is start a thread about a Ford and the same folks come out strong against them. Most are very biased and bash when they get a chance.


    Not really, I was just enjoying the thread from the sidelines :B
  • RedRocket204's avatar
    RedRocket204
    Explorer
    Jul 31, 2013
    Turtle n Peeps wrote:
    The fuel quality (lubricity) in the USA is the reason I'm running PM-22A. And since the pump is used by other manufacturers besides Ford, I would advise everyone to use some sort of additive that adds lubricity. We all use the same fuel. And notice that the pump is not only used by Ford !


    Since you use PM-22A and recommend everybody "use some sort of additive that adds lubricity," do you know what exactly is in PM-22A that adds lubricity?


    You've played this game before with your one-up-manship on those who use the PM22A. You could just say it but you have your ego to flex.

    Kerosene - https://www.fcsdchemicalsandlubricants.com/main/msds/us178699us.pdf


    Hmmm... http://forums.snowgoer.com/Index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/25990894/page/2.cfm
  • The_Mad_Norsky's avatar
    The_Mad_Norsky
    Explorer
    Jul 31, 2013
    Huntindog:

    I was busy posting, and did not see your recent post until I was finished.

    A question for you. Since your vehicle is a 2011 Duramax, I must assume it does NOT have the problematic Bosch CP 4.2 pump.

    It is my understanding that Duramax didn't get this pump until the 2012 model year.

    Am I correct or misinformed here?????
  • The_Mad_Norsky's avatar
    The_Mad_Norsky
    Explorer
    Jul 31, 2013
    Turtle n Peeps wrote:
    Since you use PM-22A and recommend everybody "use some sort of additive that adds lubricity," do you know what exactly is in PM-22A that adds lubricity?


    Not directed at me, but I'll take a stab at this one anyway.

    Best answer is no, I have no idea what does add the lubricity. However, it is advertised right on the bottle that it does add lubricity, so I guess I must take Ford at their word on this one. It is also listed on the so called document in question, of which I have a copy on my computer.

    In my mind, considering:

    a) the admittedly small number of failures, and

    b) also considering that two failures from just members here on the forum were subject to Ford's attempts to weasel out from warranty(Ricatics was denied warranty, a Canadian forum member told me in a PM that Ford tried the same with his, but had to warranty it since they had just done a fuel filter change service on his vehicle at Ford)

    then at the least using a Ford approved product is not something that would be a mark against me in the event of a similar warranty claim on my part.

    That said, it would have been nice had the Ford PM-22A stuff been tested in the old Diesel Place lubricity study done some years back.
    Stanadyne, Schaeffers, and Opti-Lube XPD products did extremely well in those testings.

    In fairness, some here have seen an exceptionally long thread on the Ford 6.7L diesel, where some "intelligent" types tried to figure out what was going wrong with the pump.

    The one point relevant from that thread is the unknown affects diesel fuel and diesel with additives undergoes within the pump itself due to the very high operating temperatures and pressures produced in the pump.

    It would certainly be a shame should an operator, like myself, in an attempt to increase lubricity of the fuel, actually cause more harm due to the interaction of the additive with the pressures and temperatures in the pump. One must consider that this pump is generally always running twice the RPM's that the engine is under most all conditions.

    It is a situation impossible for someone like me to know for sure. But, given the certainty that the fuel in the US is too dry for this pump right from any filling station, I will err on the side of trying to do something better for my vehicle and continue to use lubricity additive.
  • Huntindog's avatar
    Huntindog
    Explorer
    Jul 31, 2013
    The Mad Norsky wrote:
    I've seen the referenced document also.

    I did NOT have this presented to me nor did I sign one when I purchased my 2011 6.7L diesel Ford.

    Perhaps this is something Ford started after my purchase. Unknown to me.

    My biggest concern with the Ford 6.7L is the HPFP Bosch 4.2. It has been described as "delicate" by other manufacturers using various versions of this same pump. (IE there are both single and twin cylinder versions used today, CP 4.1 single and CP 4.2 twin cylinder pumps).

    But, this concern is tempered by the so far shown history of these pumps being 97 percent trouble free. However, if one is unlucky enough to be within the 3 percent to have problems, then you do have a very major problem.

    Don't be complacent with today's diesel fuel, no matter which brand of diesel you choose or drive. It is an extremely dry fuel in the United States, with lubricity standards 25 percent lower than what used to exist in the old, high sulfur fuel once made. Old sulfur fuel in the 420 wear scar rating, current US ULSD is at a 520 wear scar rating.

    And, considering Bosch designed the fuel pump to work best at European and Canadian standards of a 460 wear scar rating then it becomes obvious more lubricity is needed to make these pumps run at optimal conditions. After all, the only lubrication these pumps get is from the fuel.

    So I do use the Ford lubricity additive in each tank, Ford part number PM-22A.

    Yes, I realize neither Ford or GM (which now use this very same pump in the Duramax) say that one absolutely has to use a lubricity additive.

    But tell me, how many of these trucks would they sell if they actually told potential customers that a major problem existed with the US fuel supply and to get best results, one better use a lubricity additive?????

    They'd scare off more than they could sell.


    GM has a totally different take on additives. They specifically say that they DO NOT recommend them.

    And from what I have read on the Ford sites, if one is going to use them, then the FIRST tank of fuel is the most critical one.

    Since I was far past that when I first heard of the issue, I still don't use any. I will keep my extra warranty in place, and am considering a premptive pump replacement down the road.

    The pump itself is about 800.00. The 10K bill is mostly from all the stuff that the pump ruins when it destructs.

    I figure in a few years when I am ready to do this, that much more will be known, the pumps may be better etc.... All these trucks on the road will not just head for the crusher. A solution will be found.

    YMMV.
  • Turtle_n_Peeps's avatar
    Turtle_n_Peeps
    Explorer
    Jul 31, 2013
    The fuel quality (lubricity) in the USA is the reason I'm running PM-22A. And since the pump is used by other manufacturers besides Ford, I would advise everyone to use some sort of additive that adds lubricity. We all use the same fuel. And notice that the pump is not only used by Ford !


    Since you use PM-22A and recommend everybody "use some sort of additive that adds lubricity," do you know what exactly is in PM-22A that adds lubricity?
  • RedRocket204's avatar
    RedRocket204
    Explorer
    Jul 31, 2013
    GoPackGo wrote:
    And - Add me to the list of those who did not have to sign any ridiculous document as mentioned by Huntindog. I also ordered my truck - as I always do. Let's get real. Just because some rogue dealer's lawyer conjured up a document for the uninformed to sign doesn't mean it's the norm. This is laughable.


    Huntindog tends to be a bit dramatic with his pointing out the Ford problems, as are a good many others who post here, but the document he is referring to does exist and can be downloaded from Ford's own website. It didn't come from an independent rogue dealer. Here is the link but you must be logged in to access it:

    http://www.motorcraftservice.com/pubs/content/~WOBF23/~MUS~LEN/37/1160ldt1e.pdf

    I also did not have to sign one of those forms but it sure makes it more interesting, kind of like today's news, if you slightly embellish, don't check your facts, reference your "facts" or make a mistake posting information to degrade the "story". I've yet to see the catastrophic failures that were suppose to happen with the 6.7L HPFP...even for the original MY '11.

    How about this for you Duramax owners. IF you say Ford is loony with warrantys concerning the HPFP, what are you going to do when your GM warranty runs out? Seems we will all be in the same boat then. Maybe you will sell it before problems happen? Well, if the word is out that your Duramax is junk because the warranty is gone and you have a HPFP that is "known" to be junk, guess you'll also have to live with a value that has taken a huge hit. Maybe it is about time to come down to Earth concerning this whole HPFP issue.
  • GoPackGo's avatar
    GoPackGo
    Explorer
    Jul 31, 2013
    Mad Norsky is spot on and the point of my earlier post. The fuel quality (lubricity) in the USA is the reason I'm running PM-22A. And since the pump is used by other manufacturers besides Ford, I would advise everyone to use some sort of additive that adds lubricity. We all use the same fuel. And notice that the pump is not only used by Ford !

    And - Add me to the list of those who did not have to sign any ridiculous document as mentioned by Huntindog. I also ordered my truck - as I always do. Let's get real. Just because some rogue dealer's lawyer conjured up a document for the uninformed to sign doesn't mean it's the norm. This is laughable.

    And - According to my 2013 F350 diesel, 4X4, CC, LB, Platinum's 600 page owner's manual, and also the (almost) 100 page diesel supplement, both of which I have read, the statements made by Huntindog are nowhere near accurate. But it is fun to stir the pot isn't it ?

    "it's on the internet - it must be true".
  • The_Mad_Norsky's avatar
    The_Mad_Norsky
    Explorer
    Jul 31, 2013
    I've seen the referenced document also.

    I did NOT have this presented to me nor did I sign one when I purchased my 2011 6.7L diesel Ford.

    Perhaps this is something Ford started after my purchase. Unknown to me.

    My biggest concern with the Ford 6.7L is the HPFP Bosch 4.2. It has been described as "delicate" by other manufacturers using various versions of this same pump. (IE there are both single and twin cylinder versions used today, CP 4.1 single and CP 4.2 twin cylinder pumps).

    But, this concern is tempered by the so far shown history of these pumps being 97 percent trouble free. However, if one is unlucky enough to be within the 3 percent to have problems, then you do have a very major problem.

    Don't be complacent with today's diesel fuel, no matter which brand of diesel you choose or drive. It is an extremely dry fuel in the United States, with lubricity standards 25 percent lower than what used to exist in the old, high sulfur fuel once made. Old sulfur fuel in the 420 wear scar rating, current US ULSD is at a 520 wear scar rating.

    And, considering Bosch designed the fuel pump to work best at European and Canadian standards of a 460 wear scar rating then it becomes obvious more lubricity is needed to make these pumps run at optimal conditions. After all, the only lubrication these pumps get is from the fuel.

    So I do use the Ford lubricity additive in each tank, Ford part number PM-22A.

    Yes, I realize neither Ford or GM (which now use this very same pump in the Duramax) say that one absolutely has to use a lubricity additive.

    But tell me, how many of these trucks would they sell if they actually told potential customers that a major problem existed with the US fuel supply and to get best results, one better use a lubricity additive?????

    They'd scare off more than they could sell.
  • Huntindog's avatar
    Huntindog
    Explorer
    Jul 31, 2013
    TucsonJim wrote:
    I purchased my new '13 F350 6.7L a couple of weeks ago. I did not have to sign any document that was referenced above. I've been a GM guy my whole life, but switched to the Ford because I just liked it's appearance and features more. I liked my previous Chevy trucks, and don't have anything bad to say about them. My '04 had nearly 140K miles, and it only let me down one time with a failed fuel pump at 98k miles. My wife and I will be hitting the road after the first of the year for some extended travel when I retire. I'll keep posting on my experience with the F350.

    .Whether one has to sign the "document or not seems to be all over the map. Some have had to sign it, others not. Don't know why.

    To me it is a red flag that it even exists. And I'm not sure what I would do if it were presented to me for signing at delivery time after I had waited for my ordered truck to arrive. (I have always ordered my vehicles)

    I hope your new truck treats you well.

About Travel Trailer Group

44,044 PostsLatest Activity: Jul 29, 2025