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]

milsuperdoc wrote:
ricatic, I did not ask those questions to be cynical, in contrary to what other posters are making it out to be. I am relatively a newbie to diesels, and quite concerned about the current practice of Ford denying warranties when they really ought to take care of their best customers properly. I have the most utmost respect for your posts and thoughts since they intrigue my thought processes as well.

If you do not mind, please explain to us in plain language those questions that I asked earlier. I know how to google, but I'd like to know the most simple definition to understand the concepts in scar, cetane, lubricity, and their effects from additive (PM 22A) and water in diesel fuel.

Thanks, ricatic.

Mil...

I have been posting on those issues in plain english.

With many trashing the posts because they think it is mumbo jumbo.

So I decided to let Rick take a turn at it.

He has the information at hand.

The data is public, but often not free (you have to pay to get ASTM D975).

[Flashman]

ricatic wrote:


Shame on Ford...they need some lessons on public relations...again

Regards

Well good luck there - the 6.0 was a diaster but the faithful just keep coming back for more.

Is it genetic?

[milsuperdoc]

ricatic, I did not ask those questions to be cynical, in contrary to what other posters are making it out to be. I am relatively a newbie to diesels, and quite concerned about the current practice of Ford denying warranties when they really ought to take care of their best customers properly. I have the most utmost respect for your posts and thoughts since they intrigue my thought processes as well.

If you do not mind, please explain to us in plain language those questions that I asked earlier. I know how to google, but I'd like to know the most simple definition to understand the concepts in scar, cetane, lubricity, and their effects from additive (PM 22A) and water in diesel fuel.

Thanks, ricatic.

[45Ricochet]

milsuperdoc wrote:

ricatic, could you explain to us, in plain English, the definition of scar, cetane, lubricity? And, what the effects of Motorcraft PM 22A to the scar, cetane, and lubricity? Can you also explain to us how the water in diesel can affect the scar, cetane, or lubricity? Thanks.

This link might help you out.
Spicer report

[ricatic]

hawkeye-08 wrote:

ricatic wrote:

No need to start thinking that the pumps are "on the edge". Bosch has told us that 460 scar fuel is the performance minimum for their pumps. With 520 scar fuel in the US, owners are already into the engineering margin...or have exceeded it. The fact that we have not had an epidemic of failures tells me we are well into the margin but not past the total failure numbers.

Regards

I agree that 460 scar is the requirement, but I also know the pumps will not fail immediately at 461 scar. There are engineering margins built into most everything properly designed so the real threshold is somewhat different than the 460 scar. Ford learned from the Navistar engines that if you outsource and your supplier denies warranty claims, you lose alot of money unless you also deny warranty claims. I would venture to say that Bosch is denying Ford warranty claims and Ford is in turn denying customer warranty claims. Problem is, it is not the customer's fault that the HPFP cannot handle the fuel available in the US.

This is certainly a ticking time bomb, Ford is gambling that it will be solved before it blows up and really hurts sales.

Remember the Hubble space telescope? The big mirror was ground wrong (seems there was a mix up in the measurements, something about metric vs SAE). I wonder if some Ford engineer signed off on the fuel system requiring 460 scar fuel because US fuel is 520 scar, thinking that 520 is better than 460, with greater than 10% margin...

The very fact that Ford stepped into the engineering margin is a huge mistake. The small engineering margin of the Bosch CP4 series pumps is being demonstrated quite nicely, but inadvertently, in Ford's answers to the NHTSA inquiry. The difference in Canadian to US failures, 63% less IIRC, clearly points to an engineering margin that has been compromised. 11% poorer lubricity in US fuels has resulted in a big increase in US HPFP failures. GM knows they underestimated the engineering margin and is holding Bosch to their promise of no problems with the pump.

The argument that GM is not having similar issues with their CP4.2 Bosch pumps is nonsense. Until the NHTSA answers were released, there was a stubborn group of GM owners that wanted hold that position. When I posted, months ago, that there was a pallet full of failed GM pumps at Bosch, I was challenged to prove it. My challenger, and GM's biggest supporter in this argument, Huntindog has provided the GM information that proves beyond a doubt that there are even more HPFP failures at GM, as a percentage of sales, than at Ford. The hard data has spoken and both manufacturers are seeing HPFP failures.

The difference is simple. GM is fixing their problem under warranty. Ford is screwing their customers. Bosch sold both manufacturers the pumps. They are paying for the claims. Why does GM warranty theirs and Ford will not? I suspect the answer is tied to the previous Ford failures at the diesel engine pickup market. Ford is so desperate to have success, they will sacrifice a few unlucky owners to keep the warranty claims rate low. They did not bank on the NHTSA getting involved, GM telling the truth about their issues and subsequently blowing the lid off the coverup.

Bravo to GM...they are taking care of their customers

Shame on Ford...they need some lessons on public relations...again

Regards

[Flashman]

milsuperdoc wrote:

ricatic wrote:

hawkeye-08 wrote:
Ric, question for you.

If Ford had covered your repair under warranty, would you have jumped off the band wagon?

I know there are issues with the first dealer and how they handled it, but Ford could have changed their mind and covered it.

I have been asked this question before. The answer is not as simple as it may seem. Even when I was a huge fan of the 6.7 Ford, I lived through multiple problems with the engine. The fan clutch locked up at 3500 miles. It was back multiple times for phantom CEL's, a new fuel injector was needed at 24000 miles and the NOX sensor has failed twice. This has been the least reliable new truck I have ever owned.

The HPFP debacle was the final straw. If Ford would have stepped forward as GM has done, taken care of the deserved warranty repair, I would not have had the opportunity to learn all that I have about the limited life span of the Bosch CP4.x series pumps.The owners of these trucks would not know the depth of the problem or the extremely high cost of repairing not only the HPFP but all the other parts taken out by friendly fire. So the tempered answer is this. I was very aggravated that the truck had to be in the shop again. I was not as happy as I was at first. Had Ford fixed the truck, I would not have had any reason to take the road I have traveled. After the battle I had with Ford over the first crooked dealership, the damage had been done. I was treated so poorly that recovery would have been difficult.


I am starting to think that these pumps are generally right at the threshold, some are below the threshold and "don't last", but most are above the threshold and will survive the warranty period and beyond.. I am in the computer industry and we call it infant mortality rate (for example, there are a certain percentage of disks that will fail in the first several months of operation). This does not mean the disks are all bad, just that some failed... and as long as the percentages stay within the acceptable limits, life is good.

No need to start thinking that the pumps are "on the edge". Bosch has told us that 460 scar fuel is the performance minimum for their pumps. With 520 scar fuel in the US, owners are already into the engineering margin...or have exceeded it. The fact that we have not had an epidemic of failures tells me we are well into the margin but not past the total failure numbers.

Regards

ricatic, could you explain to us, in plain English, the definition of scar, cetane, lubricity? And, what the effects of Motorcraft PM 22A to the scar, cetane, and lubricity? Can you also explain to us how the water in diesel can affect the scar, cetane, or lubricity? Thanks.

google is your friend - look it up yourself!

[NewsW]

milsuperdoc wrote:

ricatic, could you explain to us, in plain English, the definition of scar, cetane, lubricity? And, what the effects of Motorcraft PM 22A to the scar, cetane, and lubricity? Can you also explain to us how the water in diesel can affect the scar, cetane, or lubricity? Thanks.

Rick;

That is one for you...

You are being told to go ASTM D975 yourself!

:B

[milsuperdoc]

ricatic wrote:

hawkeye-08 wrote:
Ric, question for you.

If Ford had covered your repair under warranty, would you have jumped off the band wagon?

I know there are issues with the first dealer and how they handled it, but Ford could have changed their mind and covered it.

I have been asked this question before. The answer is not as simple as it may seem. Even when I was a huge fan of the 6.7 Ford, I lived through multiple problems with the engine. The fan clutch locked up at 3500 miles. It was back multiple times for phantom CEL's, a new fuel injector was needed at 24000 miles and the NOX sensor has failed twice. This has been the least reliable new truck I have ever owned.

The HPFP debacle was the final straw. If Ford would have stepped forward as GM has done, taken care of the deserved warranty repair, I would not have had the opportunity to learn all that I have about the limited life span of the Bosch CP4.x series pumps.The owners of these trucks would not know the depth of the problem or the extremely high cost of repairing not only the HPFP but all the other parts taken out by friendly fire. So the tempered answer is this. I was very aggravated that the truck had to be in the shop again. I was not as happy as I was at first. Had Ford fixed the truck, I would not have had any reason to take the road I have traveled. After the battle I had with Ford over the first crooked dealership, the damage had been done. I was treated so poorly that recovery would have been difficult.


I am starting to think that these pumps are generally right at the threshold, some are below the threshold and "don't last", but most are above the threshold and will survive the warranty period and beyond.. I am in the computer industry and we call it infant mortality rate (for example, there are a certain percentage of disks that will fail in the first several months of operation). This does not mean the disks are all bad, just that some failed... and as long as the percentages stay within the acceptable limits, life is good.

No need to start thinking that the pumps are "on the edge". Bosch has told us that 460 scar fuel is the performance minimum for their pumps. With 520 scar fuel in the US, owners are already into the engineering margin...or have exceeded it. The fact that we have not had an epidemic of failures tells me we are well into the margin but not past the total failure numbers.

Regards

ricatic, could you explain to us, in plain English, the definition of scar, cetane, lubricity? And, what the effects of Motorcraft PM 22A to the scar, cetane, and lubricity? Can you also explain to us how the water in diesel can affect the scar, cetane, or lubricity? Thanks.

[Flashman]

NewsW wrote:

ricatic wrote:
I lived through multiple problems with the engine. The fan clutch locked up at 3500 miles. It was back multiple times for phantom CEL's, a new fuel injector was needed at 24000 miles and the NOX sensor has failed twice. This has been the least reliable new truck I have ever owned.

To me, that is pretty much the par for a 1st year Ford product.

Fixed up just for you

[Targa]

NewsW wrote:
The Cummins is a laggard in the HP race, and there is a lot of talk that the 6.7 6 will be replaced with a V8 in a few years.

Where did you get this from? I don't think Cummins will drop the inline 6 design in our life times. Are you talking about the 5.0 liter V8 Cummins that was slated to be released for the 1/2 tons a few years ago?

[NewsW]

ricatic wrote:
I lived through multiple problems with the engine. The fan clutch locked up at 3500 miles. It was back multiple times for phantom CEL's, a new fuel injector was needed at 24000 miles and the NOX sensor has failed twice. This has been the least reliable new truck I have ever owned.

Rick,

To me, that is pretty much the par for a 1st year product.

Knowing the circumstances under which you bought it --- IIRC a rather quick decision prompted by the untimely blow up of the 6.0 yet again, I can understand why you pulled the trigger when you did... but it is still not a proven product by any stretch of the imagination.

You may recall I did the diagnostics for the cold weather NOx sensor CEL, and the gyrations they had to go through (EPA and all) to get it fixed.

I hate to say this.. but the old engineering rule of pioneers:

"You can always tell the pioneers in the business, they are lying face down, with arrows sticking out of their backs..."

That is why I own old technology, not because I don't like shiny stuff, but because I have my pile of shiny duds in the garage.

[NewsW]

hawkeye-08 wrote:


Remember the Hubble space telescope? The big mirror was ground wrong (seems there was a mix up in the measurements, something about metric vs SAE). I wonder if some Ford engineer signed off on the fuel system requiring 460 scar fuel because US fuel is 520 scar, thinking that 520 is better than 460, with greater than 10% margin...

Actually, the flaw was in one instrument (null corrector) being wrong, and 2 other instruments (right) being ignored.

Kind of like being on forums like this where people like to ignore facts that are not in alignment with their opinion, no matter how well documented the facts are.

See:

Wiki Hubble Mirror Flaw wrote:

A commission headed by Lew Allen, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was established to determine how the error could have arisen. The Allen Commission found that the main null corrector, a device used to measure the exact shape of the mirror, had been incorrectly assembled—one lens was wrongly spaced by 1.3 mm. During the polishing of the mirror, Perkin-Elmer had analyzed its surface with two other null correctors, both of which correctly indicated that the mirror was suffering from spherical aberration. The company ignored these test results, as it believed that the two null correctors were less accurate than the primary device that was reporting that the mirror was perfectly figured

[Flashman]

hawkeye-08 wrote:

ricatic wrote:

No need to start thinking that the pumps are "on the edge". Bosch has told us that 460 scar fuel is the performance minimum for their pumps. With 520 scar fuel in the US, owners are already into the engineering margin...or have exceeded it. The fact that we have not had an epidemic of failures tells me we are well into the margin but not past the total failure numbers.

Regards

I agree that 460 scar is the requirement, but I also know the pumps will not fail immediately at 461 scar. There are engineering margins built into most everything properly designed so the real threshold is somewhat different than the 460 scar. Ford learned from the Navistar engines that if you outsource and your supplier denies warranty claims, you lose alot of money unless you also deny warranty claims. I would venture to say that Bosch is denying Ford warranty claims and Ford is in turn denying customer warranty claims. Problem is, it is not the customer's fault that the HPFP cannot handle the fuel available in the US.

This is certainly a ticking time bomb, Ford is gambling that it will be solved before it blows up and really hurts sales.

Remember the Hubble space telescope? The big mirror was ground wrong (seems there was a mix up in the measurements, something about metric vs SAE). I wonder if some Ford engineer signed off on the fuel system requiring 460 scar fuel because US fuel is 520 scar, thinking that 520 is better than 460, with greater than 10% margin...

Sounds just like Ford engineering - look at the 6.0 - what a cluster.

[NewsW]

For the cognoscendi who can read German, it will be interesting to see if there are filings with German security regulators on whether the CP 4 issues is a material event.

The same can be done on the SEC Edgar system for Ford, GM, etc.

[hawkeye-08]

ricatic wrote:

No need to start thinking that the pumps are "on the edge". Bosch has told us that 460 scar fuel is the performance minimum for their pumps. With 520 scar fuel in the US, owners are already into the engineering margin...or have exceeded it. The fact that we have not had an epidemic of failures tells me we are well into the margin but not past the total failure numbers.

Regards

I agree that 460 scar is the requirement, but I also know the pumps will not fail immediately at 461 scar. There are engineering margins built into most everything properly designed so the real threshold is somewhat different than the 460 scar. Ford learned from the Navistar engines that if you outsource and your supplier denies warranty claims, you lose alot of money unless you also deny warranty claims. I would venture to say that Bosch is denying Ford warranty claims and Ford is in turn denying customer warranty claims. Problem is, it is not the customer's fault that the HPFP cannot handle the fuel available in the US.

This is certainly a ticking time bomb, Ford is gambling that it will be solved before it blows up and really hurts sales.

Remember the Hubble space telescope? The big mirror was ground wrong (seems there was a mix up in the measurements, something about metric vs SAE). I wonder if some Ford engineer signed off on the fuel system requiring 460 scar fuel because US fuel is 520 scar, thinking that 520 is better than 460, with greater than 10% margin...