CP3 in Ram verses CP4 in Ford and GM

Thanks Ben, even information on there that I spoke of, fuel additives....:)

labren wrote:
Is there someone that could possible explain the difference in the cp3 system that is in a Ram verses the cp4 system that is in a Ford? The high pressure Fuel Pump, is it just a brand difference or an older version? Thanks for any input on this.

For the OP...here are some links from my archives on the topic. Learned
a lot from these threads

This one in particular to one of my Skunk Works at the Labs...we invented
diamond foam from CVD (chemical vapor deposition) diamond and is a
man made 'real diamond'...why DLC isn't really 'diamond', so named 'like diamond'...

NewsW wrote:
Posted: 02/10/12 09:54am

Just received confirmation from an expert in the field that Bosch may have overlooked something in the design and testing of the Bosch CP 4.x pump.

The pump is believed to use a Diamond Like Carbon Coating to lower friction and to withstand the intense pressure / temperature / wear.

While DLC coatings are normally believed to be inert and highly stable in automobile applications, research done in late 2007s suggest that the coating is not as inert / stable as originally believed.

This research was not public until late 2008, well after the design of the CP 4 pump was "frozen" and testing / validation done.

In fact, DLC coatings (tested in the above research) is now known to be reactive with common petroleum based lubricating oil additives.

It is highly likely that chemically similar compounds are found in diesel fuel normally sold in the USA.

Diesel fuel in the USA require considerably more refinery processing and use of additives to bring it "to spec" compared to European Spec Diesel fuel.

It is not just lubricity --- but chemical reactivity with DLC that is the prime suspect now in Bosch CP 4.x pump failures.


Bosch need to roll up their sleeves and get to work with some good science.


At present, we have a hypothesis.... not proven facts.



Side Note:

It is known that certain people will try to "home brew" fixes to the CP4 pump problem by adding lubricity additives (commercially sold or home made) to their diesel fuel. At least a few have publicly said they are doing so.

If this reseach is right... addition of lubricating oil (loaded with EXACTLY the stuff tested) in a vain attempt to improve "lubricity" of North American diesel will ACCELERATE, not RETARD the failure of the DLC coating (if it is similar to the one tested).

The poor jokers who have no background in petroleum chemistry, tribology, DLCs, etc. trying to "home brew" a fix for what is a very high tech, difficult to solve issue....

* This post was edited 02/10/12 10:05am by NewsW *

Note: I'm not a diesel guy, just a gear head, boy racer who loves
anything automotive. Almost went over, but decided the, then new
SMOG rules were going to be too onerous and a few years before they
settle down on what doesn't work to what does work

Here are the hot links for many days of reading up on this topic :B

Highly VOLATILE and opinions flew...but if you read past that...informative
Where NewsW and learned about each other. Smart guy...just too many
didn't like his style...we must have crossed paths many times during
our early careers...but never bumped into each other.


Ford 6.7 debacle just gets crazier


Warning...Warning...More Blue KoolAid needed ASAP


Ford HPFP vs. GM HPFP


More 6.7 Ford HPFP fun


2013 Rams using CP3 HPFP?


Anybody use the Motorcraft Cetane Booster?


2011 Ford Diesel


I think I stumbled upon some specs for the 2013 RAM HDs


Ford 6.0 Superduty


Another CP4 only this one is Canadian


Another case of dreaded 2011 Ford 6.7L HPFP failure?


Beware of Diesel Fuel Additives with DLC coated components


I'll ask again -anyone had any GM HPFP Fuel System Problems


Has YOUR Ford 6.7 Diesel HP Fuel Pump failed?


Ford PSD 6.7L


My Ford 6.0 PSD dead for good!


Ford Canada tells me to pound sand

NC Hauler wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

steve-n-vicki wrote:
Cummins 8.9 ISL = I Still Leak or In Shop Longer, for the leak

???????????????????

:h...Yeah, I didn't get that either...I know I haven't kept the three Rams I've had to date very long, but I thought our engine was the 6.7 6 banger. (8.9ISL?????),..but never had a leak of any sort anywhere on any of them and I now have almost 27,000 miles on this truck, ( will have had truck 2 years May 9th), and still zero leaks of any kind...

I have to say I was very impressed crawling around under my 11RAM removing airbags, MagHytec trans pan and rear diff cover to get it ready to trade in on my long awaited 15 on order that at 60K the truck is bone dry.

OK back to the debate!

Cummins12V98 wrote:

steve-n-vicki wrote:
Cummins 8.9 ISL = I Still Leak or In Shop Longer, for the leak

???????????????????

:h...Yeah, I didn't get that either...I know I haven't kept the three Rams I've had to date very long, but I thought our engine was the 6.7 6 banger. (8.9ISL?????),..but never had a leak of any sort anywhere on any of them and I now have almost 27,000 miles on this truck, ( will have had truck 2 years May 9th), and still zero leaks of any kind...

steve-n-vicki wrote:
Cummins 8.9 ISL = I Still Leak or In Shop Longer, for the leak

???????????????????

Garry&Gayle wrote:
There is a thread on the DieselStop forum about documented HPFP failures, been open for quite some time and there are not that many cases that are documented. I would think from this thread that the CP4 pump grenades on a regular basis but that's not the case; since GM and Ford outsells the Ram by several percentages points we are going to hear about more issues with these trucks. When you rely on fuel lubrication for the pump it just becomes necessary to use a quality fuel additive to increase that lubricity along with proper maintenance plus draining your water separator, don't wait for the idiot light to come on. JMO
Got a 2015 Ford F350 Platinum CCDRW 4X4 on order after giving the Ram considerable test driving

Odd, that contradicts what is said about ULSD by the manufacturers of these vehicles....no additives necessary....now understand, that's not "MY" stand, but I've read it about the GM/Chevy Ram trucks in their owners manuals...It's stated that IF ONE chooses to use an additive, THEN there is a recommendation, I believe for GM it's Stanadyne, (sp?)

BUT again, I don't know about Ford, but when I owned Chevy that took ULSD, no where in my owners manual did it recommend using a fuel additive, in fact, in some manuals, it states, "no fuel additives needed"....same with Ram...it's there for the research....again, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with using a fuel additive, BUT I see no where FROM THE MANUFACTURER that it is HIGHLY recommended, if recommended at all for one to use a fuel additive to help with lubricity to help keep the HFPF in great working condition....just saying, IF it was THAT important to the care of the injectors, fuel pump, etc.....to keep from having warranty issues with the fuel system...you would think it would stick out like a sore thumb in the manufacturers owners manual that fuel additives are a MUST......Haven't seen that.

I would think that when BOSCH was doing R&D on their CP4 HPFP, part of the testing would have to take into consideration the lubricity of the USLD fuel and how it would affect the HPFP over a certain length of time, (at least 3/36)....I mean, they HAVE to cover themselves for any possible failures...So one would think that "IF" a fuel additive HAS to be used to maintain the integrity of the CP4 fuel pump....it would have been passed on to the manufacturer of the engine/manufacturer of the vehicle....but I've NEVER seen a "CAUTION", or a "YOU MUST USE", type of information in the owners manual that states you MUST use a fuel additive to maintain the integrity of our (BOSCH) CP4 fuel pump. Should have been thought out in the manufacturing process of the pump itself.

....and the water in the fuel, yeah, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what can happen in that case..if water get's in, then yeah, big issue, but having owned diesels for almost 14 years, I've never had the first water issue to date...I know one can, but it never happened with any Chevy or Dodge/Ram I've owned...

Again, someone show me where it is RECOMMENDED by the truck manufacturer that a fuel additive is a MUST....it HAS to be used.....I'm talking Ford, GM or Ram, and show where it states it's needed to keep the fuel pump lubed properly to help it last longer than the short time frames we've read about failures in...and for as much as it can cost, one would think the information to use fuel additives would be written on a sheet of paper and announced when vehicle is purchased.

I know about all the other research and all the arguments on how ULSD needs an additive and how low the lubricity is, but again...that's "others" discussing the merits of fuel additives...heck, it's what they sell, what do you expect from them? I'm talking about the actual manufacturer/warranter of the vehicle.....what is THEIR take on it...If it was that important, I would think in an owners manual it would be stated to add a fuel additive "X" amount of times a year, a month, a week, at fill ups etc...not seen it...BUT that is extra money which manufacturers would have to pass onto the consumer....sort of like extra cost of DEF, BUT that isn't anywhere near as costly as adding a fuel additive every other tank fill up or more or less often...to me ONE would be too many.

There is a thread on the DieselStop forum about documented HPFP failures, been open for quite some time and there are not that many cases that are documented. I would think from this thread that the CP4 pump grenades on a regular basis but that's not the case; since GM and Ford outsells the Ram by several percentages points we are going to hear about more issues with these trucks. When you rely on fuel lubrication for the pump it just becomes necessary to use a quality fuel additive to increase that lubricity along with proper maintenance plus draining your water separator, don't wait for the idiot light to come on. JMO
Got a 2015 Ford F350 Platinum CCDRW 4X4 on order after giving the Ram considerable test driving

gmcsmoke wrote:
define a lot

I agree also, a lot is so very vague. Besides, how many owners either have the ability to do it, or the very deep pockets to pay for it being done.

Plus, I do suspect that the emissions certification for that engine goes POOF once the pump is changed. After all, they were rated with the CP 4.2 as pump.

As far as fuel mileage, I am actually getting better with my new truck Cummins than I was with my 2011 Ford with the CP 4.2 Not a huge amount, but still consistently higher with the Ram at the same speeds. And this is taking the winter fuel blend into consideration.

Lastly, not sure of this, but isn't the CP 3 a gear driven pump?????

Not sure about CP 4.2. BenK, the infamous and now departed NewsW, I and others were in on a thread on this about a year or so back that must have gone on for at least 15 pages or better.

They (I just followed along mostly) got into the different mechanical aspects of the pump, the DLC coating, fuel lubricity issues, and others. It was good reading, but very very long.

I just have hopes that whatever changes Ford made for the 2015 model year will put this pump issue to rest. I did like my Ford, and would honestly get another.

First gotta put some miles on what I have now. :B Truck payments are a pain. I gotta learn to stop doing this.

Cummins 8.9 ISL = I Still Leak or In Shop Longer, for the leak

As for why the ISB 6.7 motor still uses the CP3? I'm betting it's emissions credits. Cummins has always been good about gaining emissions credits. This is largely why their 5.9 motor never needed to use an EGR system (except in California) while the Duramax and Powerstroke motors did. I'm sure they're now using the credits they gained with the 2007-2010 ISB motors as the ISB motors made in that time period exceeded emissions requirements and allowed them to build credits. I'm pretty sure that the reason Ford and Chevy are both using the CP4 is because of that extra 3,000 psi of injection pressure to get finer atomization and reduce particulate emissions and help with other exhaust strategies that I'm probably not aware of. But be assured, once they run out of emissions credits, they will eventually move up to a higher injection pressure unit. With the 5.0 adopting the Bosch CP4, I can guess that the ISB may eventually see the same pump. Otherwise, Maybe they'll use their XPI pump on the 6.7 since it has nearly the same bones as the 8.9 ISL motor. That's what I'd like to see, as we've never really had issues with the XPI injection pumps we have on our municipal fleet(s).