Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation

ricatic wrote:

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.

mil...

I tried to send you a PM today. It appears you have that feature disabled.

My best attempt at plain English.

520 scar equals a 520 micron scratch developed on a test part during a test run

460 scar equals a 460 micron scratch developed on a test part during a test run

The bigger the number, the bigger the scratch. The bigger the scratch, the sooner the part fails. It is like sandpaper. The bigger the aggregate on the paper, the faster material is removed.

Lubricity is the slipperiness of the fuel when applied to the wear factors shown in the scar rating test. The lower the number, the slipperier the fuel. The slipperier the fuel, the less wear there is on the internals of the pump. Minimum lubricity fuel at Canadian standards is 11% slipperier than the US fuel.

I am not going to attempt to explain Cetane other than the higher the Cetane number, the better the fuel works. US fuel must be at 40 Cetane...Ford says 45 Cetane for the 6.7. Again, the fuel specs are intruding on an engineering margin...:S:S:S

I use the Ford PM22A additive. I could not care less about it's chemical makeup. I use it so if I lose another pump I can at least jam the receipts up Ford's behind during the battle for warranty coverage. Ford claims the product raises Cetane levels and increases lubricity. Increased lubricity lowers the scar rating number...hopefully into the design criteria range. Of course, Ford wants you to believe that water is the cause of all the HPFP failures and we know that is not true...tread carefully and at your own risk

Water in the fuel and lowered lubricity...think of another activity that if water is introduced into the event, slipperiness decreases...dramatically...:B:B:B..it ties in nicely with a product Ford 6.7 owners need when they go to the Ford dealer with a HPFP failure...:W:W:W

Regards

Ricatic, thank you very much for taking your valuable time and explaining things in very simple terms. I've been following lots of different threads regarding Ford HPFP system and their issues, but sometimes much talk about technical aspects I failed to understand fully (due to lack my my basic fundamental knowledge about diesels). I am trying to learn as much as I can from all posters here on this thread, and it's been a very informative experience.