Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation

[ricatic]

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 is over 20 pages long. There are some interesting statements contained in the documents. My favorite is the one where Ford says they buy the pump from Bosch as a "black box" and do no testing of the component. It is closely followed by the tantamount admission that the pump will not provide a long service life when exposed to the poor lubricity fuel found in the US. You will have to do the math using the sales versus failure tables for the US and Canadian trucks. Eye opening difference to say the least...

Regards

[NewsW]

ricatic wrote:
I have to laugh when the very documentation provided by Bosch and Ford is summarily dismissed by the fan boys on the Ford sites.

Never mind that the document Ford submitted in response to the NHTSA query is, I believe, under oath and also subject to the penalties of perjury. Plus the usual catch all statues of mail and wire fraud.

Civil and criminal... plus the penalties in law for lying to the DoT... plus... plus..

You bet a stack of high priced suits read that stuff before it went out.

Now if they only got the date right.


Rickatic:

The problem is people on forums you mentioned are so out of the science, technical, engineering, and government mainstream that they don't even know whats out there.

If they only know why their bellyaching have no impact on policy making and enforcement.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

That should be a red flag in front of a bull to never let biodiesel near your 6.7 if at all possible.

Ford says using up to B20 is fine with the 6.7.

[ricatic]

NewsW wrote:
From the Ford Report:

The diesel fuel properties that Ford considers regarding HPFP performance and durability are lubricity, viscosity, water content, total acid number, and oxidation stability.....


Additionally... biodiesel content is another property that Ford considers with regard to HPFP performance and durability. Biodiesel typically provides favorable lubricity properties; however, the fatty-acid methyl esters (FAME) of biodiesel can reduce the stability of the finished blend and oxidize easily, compared with petroleum diesel fuel. If biodiesel is permitted to oxidize, it produces reaction products (acids and peroxides) that can damage or degrade components.

That should be a red flag in front of a bull to never let biodiesel near your 6.7 if at all possible.

That red flag needs to be right next to the lubricity standards for US fuel. I have to laugh when the very documentation provided by Bosch and Ford is summarily dismissed by the fan boys on the Ford sites. On a major Ford site, the virtues of running 2% or higher biodiesel is the preventative measure for providing sufficient lubricity for the HPFP. This theory comes from the previously mentioned Spicer 2008 lubricity test. I guess just because one sample. at that period in time, provided good lubricity, all of today's current biodiesel recipes must also provide the same protection...whistling past the graveyard at it's best

Regards

[NewsW]

From the Ford Report:

The diesel fuel properties that Ford considers regarding HPFP performance and durability are lubricity, viscosity, water content, total acid number, and oxidation stability.....


Additionally... biodiesel content is another property that Ford considers with regard to HPFP performance and durability. Biodiesel typically provides favorable lubricity properties; however, the fatty-acid methyl esters (FAME) of biodiesel can reduce the stability of the finished blend and oxidize easily, compared with petroleum diesel fuel. If biodiesel is permitted to oxidize, it produces reaction products (acids and peroxides) that can damage or degrade components.

That should be a red flag in front of a bull to never let biodiesel near your 6.7 if at all possible.

[hoopers]

gmcsmoke wrote:

NewsW wrote:

gmcsmoke wrote:

You my friend need to wake up from the dream world you're living in. Because there's no way in BP or Exxon is going to pay a $12k repair bill because you claim "bad fuel".

My experience with major brands is, upon presentation of solid evidence, paid promptly.

FYI, I have also been paid promptly by major suppliers (e.g. Allied-Signal) when solid evidence of failure of their component was presented to them.

They were all more than fair.



Example of a solid "bad fuel" claim.

Tank nearly empty, XYZ pulls up to ABC Major Brand Diesel Station.

Engine, everything running fine.

Fills up with full tank of ABC Major Brand Diesel.

Engine starts, coughs, then dies, WIF light comes on.

Immediately towed to dealer, who discover 10+ gallons of water in fuel tank.

Contacted ABC Major Brand Corporate immediately.

(In background, ABC halts sale of suspect fuel from that pump, then sends out tech to check, and alas, find tank half full of water).

ABC Major Brands gulps...

And Pay.


What also helps:

No previous claims history (or similar claims).

No lawyer involved.

No claims for damages, etc.

Limited out of pocket claim (just the frigging bill, not padded).

No nonsense.

Ford claimed water is Ric's fuel...Did BP or Exxon pay the $12k for the repair?

I would question if there was any significant water in Ric's fuel. Maybe when the pump goes south, the water light comes on??? just wondering.

[NewsW]

gmcsmoke wrote:

Ford claimed water is Ric's fuel...Did BP or Exxon pay the $12k for the repair?

I believe his claim was paid by the comprehensive insurance policy.

Ask him if he went to the fuel supplier.

[gmcsmoke]

NewsW wrote:

gmcsmoke wrote:

You my friend need to wake up from the dream world you're living in. Because there's no way in BP or Exxon is going to pay a $12k repair bill because you claim "bad fuel".

My experience with major brands is, upon presentation of solid evidence, paid promptly.

FYI, I have also been paid promptly by major suppliers (e.g. Allied-Signal) when solid evidence of failure of their component was presented to them.

They were all more than fair.



Example of a solid "bad fuel" claim.

Tank nearly empty, XYZ pulls up to ABC Major Brand Diesel Station.

Engine, everything running fine.

Fills up with full tank of ABC Major Brand Diesel.

Engine starts, coughs, then dies, WIF light comes on.

Immediately towed to dealer, who discover 10+ gallons of water in fuel tank.

Contacted ABC Major Brand Corporate immediately.

(In background, ABC halts sale of suspect fuel from that pump, then sends out tech to check, and alas, find tank half full of water).

ABC Major Brands gulps...

And Pay.


What also helps:

No previous claims history (or similar claims).

No lawyer involved.

No claims for damages, etc.

Limited out of pocket claim (just the frigging bill, not padded).

No nonsense.

Ford claimed water is Ric's fuel...Did BP or Exxon pay the $12k for the repair?

[NewsW]

kmfvfr wrote:
So let me get this straight...on the very FIRST page of the document Ford has the wrong date???? At least it looks like that to me...I wonder if Ford can get anything right..........

You have to understand, the Ford Motor Company can't get it straight, but that cannot be held against them after their marriage with Navistar, which did break up, albeit without either party undergoing gender reassignment.

:B

Actually FMC have perfected time travel with the 6.7 Scorpion, and at a touch of the accelerator, they are launched into the twilight zone, where suppliers like Bosch are completely in charge of the Scorpion's manhood.

:B

[kmfvfr]

So let me get this straight...on the very FIRST page of the document Ford has the wrong date???? At least it looks like that to me...I wonder if Ford can get anything right..........

[NewsW]

The issue that came as a surprise to me (and many other tribologists - I am not one) is that DLCs are suppose to be non-reactive.

Then that fella did some tests (at basically room temp, 1 bar) of the reactivity of DLCs with organic amines commonly used as lubricating oil additives and came back positive.

OK, if it is reactive at that test, what does it do at 2,000bars, 150C or higher?

What do we know about diesel in the wild (not lab diesel) and what it does to DLCs?

What do we know about common additives? Or the practice of dumping 2 stroke oil or used motor oil in the fuel tank?

What is being used to bring up lubricity by the refiners? The biodiesel crowd?

What have we overlooked?

That is the crux of the question...

[BenK]

Electrically, BGA's are okay, but you are talking thermal management and why I
invented diamond foam (or my skunk works team did under my direction and idea)
Low inertia for vibration, thermal junctions reduced, etc. Also invented
solid state compressor (refrigeration) for this (no moving parts and
the only one or two are the one way valves so it will pump)

This then gets back to the OP's topic....the exotic coatings is wonderful for
a techie like me, but know enough to ask why needed here...it is to solve another
problem with a band aid

Am trying to find time to read up on the organic amines, but only find reference
to ammonia...is the urea some how involved in this brew?

[NewsW]

BenK wrote:
NewsW

Totally agree that automotive is one of the toughest nuts and then factor in
the idiot and gorilla (both user and advisers) out there who WILL use
it wrong and/or break it to then blame the OEM

BGA's are okay with just solder, but it is not in a high vibration
environment...the carrier takes that away, but for open contacts of
a switch, even with a designed in wipe, hard gold is the only way for me

They used BGAs in mission critical and safety critical systems??????

We had plenty of problems with BGAs in much less sensitive CE applications like Playstations and xBoxes, which as you know, both blew up on them because of excess heat, tin whiskering, and solder coming apart.

The whole move to de-lead was to me, not so smart and the transition poorly managed ---- with a drop dead deadline rather than a gradual phase in.

When I looked at the laboratory and prototype scale solutions put forward, I kept asking, "does this scale" and "what do we know long term" and I kept getting stonewalled.

That is, until the $$$ bills came in from the bright ideas.

If you recall, certain issues with that infamous accelerator pedal also was related to lead free solder, and the problem was never formally fixed per se.

What was fixed was a high level interrupt override that basically, overrode many other lower level commands.

I have my own theory as to what happened, as to how the failure cascaded, but it didn't earn me a place on the official investigation team.

[goducks10]

ricatic wrote:

Powerdude wrote:
Wow.

I dunno about you, but I like to understand how stuff works, before doing anything with it.

Did you link this to FTE too?

This has been posted at FTE more than once. It precipitated a hot discussion that required banning those that felt Ford was handling the issue poorly...you know... the Shame on Ford guy's.

to goducks, the "dead horse guy",

Why do you look upon the providing of requested information in that way? Is not the expansion of knowledge why this forum is so successful? I would say the failing of Ford to support their decision to use the Bosch CP4.2 HPFP in their 6.7 diesel engine and the subsequent discussion is far from dead...it has only just started. There are more failures, with the standard Ford warranty denial, happening weekly.

The insurance company's are not going to keep taking it on the chin. When that happens, owners are going start to fight back. Ford has been lucky to date that the majority of the owners have accepted the failure as water induced, found out that insurance will cover the damage and breathed a sigh of relief that it " whew, that only cost me my deductible". When the $10,000 to $12,000 repair bills begin to be denied by the insurance company's, the stuff will hit the fan.

Is this discussion relevant...you bet it is

Regards

I guess to a non diesel owner it's here we go again. Didn't mean to downgrade the problem with Fords fuel pump fiasco.

[BenK]

NewsW

Totally agree that automotive is one of the toughest nuts and then factor in
the idiot and gorilla (both user and advisers) out there who WILL use
it wrong and/or break it to then blame the OEM

BGA's are okay with just solder, but it is not in a high vibration
environment...the carrier takes that away, but for open contacts of
a switch, even with a designed in wipe, hard gold is the only way for me

[NewsW]

BenK

One of the most difficult thing for outsiders (even in the electronics biz) to understand is how hard the auto electronics business is.

Off hand, I cannot think of an application of equivalent volume where the harshness of the environment, number of cycles, longevity of components etc. have to live with at the price point that auto makers are willing to pay.

Then there is the liability trail --- recall the TI subsidiary that made the cruise control deact switch? They did exactly what they were speced to do, and ultimately, the risk to TI was such (even though they were indemnified and Ford honored the deal) that they unloaded the subsidiary.

The risk involved in making a $4 part just don't jive with the rewards.

Since we are on the subject of lemons... did you remember the FIA program? Some bingo speced regular tin or lead/tin solder on a project that must have silver... with predictable results.

So much of the times, the disconnect between the technicians and managers is so broad that it is very hard to manage the product well and still make reasonable ROI decisions.

I am never for gold plating, but I have a colleague who saw a major aerospace contractor in the 70s finding a much better way after the design has already been frozen, and the frozen design met specs. The engineering decision was to scrap everything, and go for the new from scratch.

Things can go out of hand from the technical direction too... that balance is very hard to achieve.