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

[Jarlaxle]

NewsW wrote:

thomasmnile wrote:

NewsW wrote:


We got users (Rick for example) saying "I got a real problem"

And THATis the bottom line! The man spent a bunch o' money on what he thought was a reliable vehicle, only to be blown off by its manufacturer and a dealer, with a claim (not clearly substantiated to him) of water in the vehicle's fuel.

With a much touted and newly launched vehicle, seems to me that Ford which apparently doesn't have a firm understanding of what's going on, should repair the vehicles with this problem, thoroughly analyze the problem to identify it, correct what can be corrected, and if there is a problem with the Bosch components, take it up with Bosch and not drill the customer.

Ford can't afford another 6.0 chapter in their history..............

I have said it before, but I am trying to find a solution to this issue that do not require Ford being a villain.

You can't. That is simplky not possible, because Ford IS a villain here!

I honestly think they were misled by Bosch into how reliable the pump is and how it is "impossible" for it to go bad if fed proper fuel.

Quite possible...of course, that being the case, GM was duped the same way. However, GM is standing behind their trucks, while Ford seems to be claiming, "Our engine is perfect, therefore it's your fault."

[Jarlaxle]

ksss wrote:

The Mad Norsky wrote:
You know, all this info about the 6.7L Ford is just nauseating - for me.

I can look out the window and see my truck sitting in the driveway. Honestly, if the HPFP dumps in mine AND my insurance won't pay, its gonna sit. I just don't have a spare $12,000 or so sitting around to fix it.

Some folks talk about getting new goodies for their truck. Nerf bars, tool boxes, grill guards and so on.

Think I'm gonna get a headstone for mine. :B It'll look good in the lawn next to my driveway.

There is a guy in Jamestown, ND (friend of mine) who has a 60K King Ranch that is now yard art. Fuel system went down, Ford tech claimed bad fuel, no warranty coverage. He is now driving an S-10 and has been for months.

Did his comprehensive insurance not cover it, or did he not HAVE comprehensive insurance?

I'd part the thing out...or park it near the street with a 6' lemopn graphic!

[NewsW]

thomasmnile wrote:

NewsW wrote:


We got users (Rick for example) saying "I got a real problem"

And THATis the bottom line! The man spent a bunch o' money on what he thought was a reliable vehicle, only to be blown off by its manufacturer and a dealer, with a claim (not clearly substantiated to him) of water in the vehicle's fuel.

With a much touted and newly launched vehicle, seems to me that Ford which apparently doesn't have a firm understanding of what's going on, should repair the vehicles with this problem, thoroughly analyze the problem to identify it, correct what can be corrected, and if there is a problem with the Bosch components, take it up with Bosch and not drill the customer.

Ford can't afford another 6.0 chapter in their history..............

I have said it before, but I am trying to find a solution to this issue that do not require Ford being a villain.

I honestly think they were misled by Bosch into how reliable the pump is and how it is "impossible" for it to go bad if fed proper fuel.

The scientific evidence in hand suggest otherwise.

That is why I am trying to talk science to Bosch, and hopefully, via the wonders of the internet, to some brilliant failure analysis engineer at Ford into doing some R&D.

[NewsW]

Engineer9860 wrote:

In the fuel was a large glob of what I believe to be algae. It was a nasty green glob. This plastic container was not contaminated before I saved this fuel from the frame filter (primary) on my 2008 6.4L work truck.

So, was this algae? What effects would something like this have on these newer fuel systems?

If it is algae, it is pretty routinely found in diesel storage tanks.

It is just filtered out with a standard filter / water blocker membrane and the fuel used.

Dino diesel (not biodiesel) is relatively stable in storage, unlike gasoline.

[NewsW]

For those who care to know, Ford did put out this diagnostics bulletin:

http://www.forddoctorsdts.com/technicalresources/download.php?f=67L_Fuel_System_revised.pdf

The average Ford techs may have a community college degree, but no formal engineering training, may have Ford training or certification (or may not) for 6.7 diesel. This kind of a person is asked to make a diagnostics call on which a five figure sum of money rides on what they see:

What this bulletin directs the Ford Tech to do is to:

Find signs of water or other contamination (WIF light or water drained.)

Find evidence of misfueling (gasoline, kerosene, etc.)

Identify telltales of filling of Diesel Exhaust Fluid into Fuel tank.

Filter maintenance, etc.


Where does this document talk about the "none of the above case"?


How does it teach the tech to look for evidence that can suggest "none of the above"?

How does it address the issue that when the CP 4 self destructs, it leaves a trail of metal particles in the entire fuel system to find?

Would that metal particles be used as evidence of "contamination"?


Should the customer, knowing this bulletin is out there, insist on having the vehicle only inspected with their own independent forensic engineer to be present, take samples and assays, and prevent tampering of the evidence?

This is not right.

It was wrong for the cabal of customers and dealers that mugged Ford over the 6.0.

This kind of "counterattack" by Ford is just as wrong.

[Engineer9860]

Alright, since nobody wants to sell me their 6.7L PSD truck by the lb., let me ask a serious question.......

I haven't seen any discussion on this, but I have had some thoughts after something that happened to me recently.

A while back I dumped out some older diesel fuel that I had stored in a sealed plastic container.

In the fuel was a large glob of what I believe to be algae. It was a nasty green glob. This plastic container was not contaminated before I saved this fuel from the frame filter (primary) on my 2008 6.4L work truck.

So, was this algae? What effects would something like this have on these newer fuel systems?

[thomasmnile]

NewsW wrote:


We got users (Rick for example) saying "I got a real problem"

And THATis the bottom line! The man spent a bunch o' money on what he thought was a reliable vehicle, only to be blown off by its manufacturer and a dealer, with a claim (not clearly substantiated to him) of water in the vehicle's fuel.

With a much touted and newly launched vehicle, seems to me that Ford which apparently doesn't have a firm understanding of what's going on, should repair the vehicles with this problem, thoroughly analyze the problem to identify it, correct what can be corrected, and if there is a problem with the Bosch components, take it up with Bosch and not drill the customer.

Ford can't afford another 6.0 chapter in their history..............

[ricatic]

Jarlaxle wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

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.

Says it right on the badge, in fact!

Dont they come from Ford with B10 in the tank?

...some came from the factory with water in the tank....I have not heard that the delivery fuel is biodiesel.

I do know that the common question asked of all inductees into the "Shameful Ford Event" club is did you use biodiesel in the truck? Then the no warranty dance begins...BTDT...

The ambiguities in the owners manual regarding biodiesel only muddy the waters...

There is a solution to the whole mess. Ford, follow GM's lead, fix the trucks for the hard working owners who trusted you when they bought the truck...and fix the problem on your dollars...If Bosch is working with GM to fix their problem, they will work with Ford

Shame on Ford

Regards

[ksss]

The Mad Norsky wrote:
You know, all this info about the 6.7L Ford is just nauseating - for me.

I can look out the window and see my truck sitting in the driveway. Honestly, if the HPFP dumps in mine AND my insurance won't pay, its gonna sit. I just don't have a spare $12,000 or so sitting around to fix it.

Some folks talk about getting new goodies for their truck. Nerf bars, tool boxes, grill guards and so on.

Think I'm gonna get a headstone for mine. :B It'll look good in the lawn next to my driveway.

There is a guy in Jamestown, ND (friend of mine) who has a 60K King Ranch that is now yard art. Fuel system went down, Ford tech claimed bad fuel, no warranty coverage. He is now driving an S-10 and has been for months.

[NewsW]

8iron wrote:

And another thing, we are not all scientists or engineers, most here and other forums are hard working people who just want to learn, like to tinker, enjoy life, and drive our vehicles....sorry if we have an opinion. Speaking down to us is why most hold engineers and other know it alls in such contempt.

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, and what you do with your business / vehicle / self is your problem.

There is plenty wrong with what I have seen happen to Rickatic, being shouted down, harassed, because he said something someone doesn't like to hear.

Hear out his facts, if not his opinion.

Rick may not be an expert in any particular field of engineering, and then neither am I, but Rickatic demonstrated a keen ability to look, see, and accurately and faithfully report facts to all of us, which allowed experts who do know something to make a go at understanding what is going on.

I am still not sure or, in disagreement with Rickatic about lubricity being the concern. The issue, based on what I know, is in the high tech coatings.

Yet, over and over, I have seen forum participants insist that it can't be something they cannot touch, feel, see causing a problem.

Instead of letting him report, they have chosen to shut him down --- on the theory that if he is silenced (as if it can be done), the problem goes away.

Rick may not have access to the engineering /technical community, but he sure is the kind of person I would rely on as a test site because I trust his reports will be factual, accurate, and complete.

So why should anyone shout him down? Unless they have other agendas?


As for the disconnect between the customers (like Rick) and the engineers buried in Bosch...


Dare we say there is a big disconnect between the technical and engineering community and the average user? In fact, the gap is hardly any less between Ford certified technicians and the specialist engineers and technicians that handle as esoteric a field as high pressure common rail injection systems.

That is a matter of fact.

There is no "talking down" and no more than a statement that the two communities (users/field techs) and OEM engineers are basically talking different languages, and essentially, not making themselves understood.

We got users (Rick for example) saying "I got a real problem"

Ford (relying on Bosch) says "you caused it because it is impossible otherwise".


I am trying to help these two communities talk to each other --- without either having to raise their voice.

[ricatic]

8iron wrote:

NewsW wrote:

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.

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.

Sorry but ricatic WAS one of those Ford fan boys he now detests. He was not however part of the "same bunch" who do extreme mods (don't Chev or Ram have any modders?). Ricatic is a guy who bought a truck to drive and got screwed through no fault of his own...hence him now being a Ford terrorist.

Users of the site that he is referring to generated such a backlash towards Ford's unwillingness to cover one of their members HPFP failures through media and directh e-mail to Ford that the dealer did an about face and tore up the cheque that covered the repairs…In this case "bellyaching" did have an effect on enforcement and certainly has the policy makers attention. Only the foolish and the extremely arrogant ignore the power of public opinion. Think BP’s Tony Hayward, AIG and every US Bank exec.



And another thing, we are not all scientists or engineers, most here and other forums are hard working people who just want to learn, like to tinker, enjoy life, and drive our vehicles....sorry if we have an opinion. Speaking down to us is why most hold engineers and other know it alls in such contempt.

.. did I just get called a terrorist??????

You are quite correct on the "used to be" part. There is big difference though. My fervent support for Ford was based on the fact that Ford was selling lots of trucks with only minor but annoying issues. Ford worked with their customers to fix the NOX and transmission issues. They also covered the repairs under warranty.

Big difference when you receive the shameful treatment we got from Ford. It is even more shameful when you see that GM is standing by their identical failures.

There is deserved and genuine concern out there among 6.7 Ford owners that they may be the next member to join the "Shameful Ford Event" club. Yes, the number is small at this time, but it is growing by the week and mile. The thought of having a $ 1O,OOO bill,after spending $ 50,000 for the truck is scary and sickening. Ford has put the owners in this position by ruthlessly denying warranty coverage for HPF system problems. Many of these customers were completely blind sided by this despicable practice. They paid for a warranty when they bought the truck. They were certainly not told that they had to buy fuel additives to ensure long service life from their engine.

Shame on Ford

Regards

[Jarlaxle]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

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.

Says it right on the badge, in fact!

Dont they come from Ford with B10 in the tank?

[8iron]

NewsW wrote:

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.

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.

Sorry but ricatic WAS one of those Ford fan boys he now detests. He was not however part of the "same bunch" who do extreme mods (don't Chev or Ram have any modders?). Ricatic is a guy who bought a truck to drive and got screwed through no fault of his own...hence him now being a Ford terrorist.

Users of the site that he is referring to generated such a backlash towards Ford's unwillingness to cover one of their members HPFP failures through media and direct e-mail to Ford that the dealer did an about face and tore up the cheque that covered the repairs…In this case "bellyaching" did have an effect on enforcement and certainly has the policy makers attention. Only the foolish and the extremely arrogant ignore the power of public opinion. Think BP’s Tony Hayward, AIG and every US Bank exec.

And another thing, we are not all scientists or engineers, most here and other forums are hard working people who just want to learn, like to tinker, enjoy life, and drive our vehicles....sorry if we have an opinion. Speaking down to us is why most hold engineers and other know it alls in such contempt.

[gmcsmoke]

NewsW wrote:

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.

right because after 3 months he couldn't get anywhere with the responsible parties

So much for your theories.

Since you like to spout off with endless rambling, how about posting up some cases where big oil paid for bad fuel.

[NewsW]

ricatic wrote:
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

The same bunch that promote:

- EGR delete
- "hot" FICM
- Tuners
- CCV vent to atmosphere

And many utterly useless at best, or damaging mods.

There is no connection in their mind between deleting the EGR and raising combustion temperature, which in turn, raises the cooling system load (not even talking of NOx), which in turn had to be corrected by the ECM by derating the engine (mild limp) which then cripples mileage and performance, that in turn, have to be "corrected" by a tuner which then spoofs the motor into power output way beyond the reliability zone (and legal emission zone), and in turn, more stresses on the cooling system, head gaskets, etc. which in turn need to be fixed by ARPs, which in turn has to be fixed by...