Joining the Diesel world

no not yet. lol I get it tomorrow. but maybe I will look into an extended warranty past the factory 100K mileage. Do people add a product like stanadyne or is it not needed inthe newer truck since the article I see about CP 4 failure are from 2013 and 2014

Grit dog wrote:
Well hope campinfan hasn't been scared into selling his sweet new diesel after these 8 pages!

Why would he... I sleep good at night with 4.5 years and 104k miles to date on my 6.7 Power Stroke. The power, fuel economy, and reliability is very impressive.

The ram mafia has an agenda and I'm sure campinfan can see that.

no not yet. lol I get it tomorrow. but maybe I will look into an extended warranty past the factory 100K mileage.

Well hope campinfan hasn't been scared into selling his sweet new diesel after these 8 pages!

ShinerBock wrote:
I think what Drittal is also trying to say is that the CP4 is more sensitive to contamination and wear over the CP3.

The CP4 has two pistons pushing out less volume of fuel at 29,000 psi while the CP3 has three pistons pushing out more volume of fuel at 24,000 psi. With more pressure, even the smallest of particles can wreak havoc on the fuel system. Add in the fact that the amount of pressure is being pushed by two pistons instead of three with less fuel to carry off the heat. Common sense will tell you which would be more sensitive to contamination and wear out quicker. That is like putting 20 psi of boost on a 4 cylinder engine versus just 15 psi on a V6. With that much psi in a small package, it is also a no brainer to believe that it going to grenade when it finally does go.

This. Go to the BMW, VW, GM truck, and Ford truck forums and just look at all the CP4 issues and CP4 failures.

You don't find near the amount of CP3 failures.

All are susceptible to dry fuel, contamination and water failure, but the CP4 much more so.

demiles wrote:
As a new diesel owner just as the OP where is the proof that current diesel fuel doesn't meet the Bosch requirements? Is there any testing that indicates the Denso pump in the new Duramax is less sensitive to contamination then the Bosch? Test samples from 2002 mean nothing in 2016 that's history. There's no doubt that there were issues in the past during the transition to ULSD, many hard lessons learned. I'm reading that there are many 2012-2016 stock diesel trucks doing 100k miles plus without issues on the CP4 system now. This indicates that today's fuel for the most part is better, and manufactures have improved filtering and delivery. I'm still amazed to read in the forums that some have not changed a fuel filter in 50k plus miles. One admits to running his Duramax filter monitor all the way down to 0 and still drove several thousand miles before he had it changed.

Infineum did a winter fuel quality test in 2014. East coast fuel was better than fuel in Midwest and West.

East had mean of 325, 432 max, 186 min.
Midwest mean of 378, 561 max, 176 min.
West. Mean of 456, 556 max, 340 min.



From the graph you can see the world wide picture for fuel lubricity has deteriorated in the years that the CP4 has become common.

"Lubricity
In 2012 we reported a worsening picture for global average diesel fuel
lubricity, which we attributed to a combination of the backing off of FAME
use, the tough economic climate and variations in sampling...

...In 2014 we have seen a continuation of this global average trend, and from
a situation in 2010 where most samples were below the Worldwide Fuel
Charter recommendation of 400 microns."

As a new diesel owner just as the OP where is the proof that current diesel fuel doesn't meet the Bosch requirements? Is there any testing that indicates the Denso pump in the new Duramax is less sensitive to contamination then the Bosch? Test samples from 2002 mean nothing in 2016 that's history. There's no doubt that there were issues in the past during the transition to ULSD, many hard lessons learned. I'm reading that there are many 2012-2016 stock diesel trucks doing 100k miles plus without issues on the CP4 system now. This indicates that today's fuel for the most part is better, and manufactures have improved filtering and delivery. I'm still amazed to read in the forums that some have not changed a fuel filter in 50k plus miles. One admits to running his Duramax filter monitor all the way down to 0 and still drove several thousand miles before he had it changed.

ShinerBock wrote:
I think what Drittal is also trying to say is that the CP4 is more sensitive to contamination and wear over the CP3.

The CP4 has two pistons pushing out less volume of fuel at 29,000 psi while the CP3 has three pistons pushing out more volume of fuel at 24,000 psi. With more pressure, even the smallest of particles can wreak havoc on the fuel system. Add in the fact that the amount of pressure is being pushed by two pistons instead of three with less fuel to carry off the heat. Common sense will tell you which would be more sensitive to contamination and wear out quicker. That is like putting 20 psi of boost on a 4 cylinder engine versus just 15 psi on a V6. With that much psi in a small package, it is also a no brainer to believe that it going to grenade when it finally does go.

I agree that the CP3 is more forgiving without a doubt, but again dritals statements are typical mafia fanfare. I posted a link a while back to a person who works in warranty at Ford and his statement was Ford covers more warranty repairs than they reject. Having said that there has been some occasions that the dealer tech tried to void the warranty to get more $$$ money on the repair vs a warranty repair.

In addition I believe the CP4.2 is a more reliable pump than the CP4.1 simple because it has 2X the amount of diesel flowing through the pump providing more lubrication to the cam and the DLC coating.

I think what Drittal is also trying to say is that the CP4 is more sensitive to contamination and wear over the CP3.

The CP4 has two pistons pushing out less volume of fuel at 29,000 psi while the CP3 has three pistons pushing out more volume of fuel at 24,000 psi. With more pressure, even the smallest of particles can wreak havoc on the fuel system. Add in the fact that the amount of pressure is being pushed by two pistons instead of three with less fuel to carry off the heat. Common sense will tell you which would be more sensitive to contamination and wear out quicker. That is like putting 20 psi of boost on a 4 cylinder engine versus just 15 psi on a V6. With that much psi in a small package, it is also a no brainer to believe that it going to grenade when it finally does go.

FishOnOne wrote:
A failure from wear and contamination are two different failure modes but your such a fan boy your simply spewing standard mafia fan fare.

Fish, you are free to provide evidence to the contrary, but the fact remains that at least 4 major manufacturers have experienced similar failures with the CP4.1 and CP4.2 fuel pumps since 2009. I have provided excerpts from Ford's response to the NHTSA investigation into cp4 failures and Bosch literature about fuel quality and pump life. VW also did a comprehensive investigation as well as having a NHTSA investigain into their own CP4 failures.

This isn't a Ford thing. This is a Bosch CP4 issue.

You calling me a fan boy is the kettle calling the pot black.