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:


It appears that the common rail systems that operate at significantly lower pressure are not having the problem. Dodge uses the Bosch CP3 series pump. IIRC, it operates at 1600BAR. IIRC, GM used the CP3 series pump until 2011. CP3 series pumps have an excellent track record. Is it coincidence that the 2012 VW diesels have dialed back the internal pressure from 2000BAR to 1600BAR? Not likely when they have been seeing these failures for 5 years...and they warranty their repairs.

Just a note from the free lunch department...

It is not just lower pressures, but a different, more complex, and expensive to build pump (CP3).

The CP4 was touted as cheaper to build, and yet did higher pressures.

Retrofitting CP3 is not an option for the manufacturer or individual users.

For one, emissions certification will have to be done from scratch, and it is not clear that the older pump can be used with the newer injectors.

Dropping the pressure on the CP4 is a stopgap --- and if the problem is reactivity --- then it might help.

If the problem is intolerance of common lubricant additives, the problem remains.

VW is basically trying to contain the problem in what is a very small part of their business that is costing them an arm and a leg.

[ricatic]

The Mad Norsky wrote:
Well, glad that my "W" tongue in cheek question did serve some purpose.

Now to add fuel to the fire, and give the 500 pound gorilla in the room a nuke to play with:

there have been some cryptic hints, but this has not been said or asked straight out, so I'll do it.

Is the Bosch CP 4.x pump trouble just the proverbial tip of the iceberg????

In other words, is it really just the first indicator, because of its higher pressures and temperatures, of a systematic failure coming in ALL diesel fueled vehicles due to some as yet unknown problem with the fuel supply available in North America?????

Thats the 500 pound gorilla no one seems to want to notice.

An outlandish question. Or is it????????????

Not outlandish at all...The poor US diesel fuel is a problem for all the manufacturers. The two Detroit Diesel engineers that inspected my failed pump both commented on issues they were seeing with fuel lubricity shortfall across their product line. The fuel systems engineer mentioned that he had seen similarly failed pumps "hundreds of times".

It appears that the common rail systems that operate at significantly lower pressure are not having the problem. Dodge uses the Bosch CP3 series pump. IIRC, it operates at 1600BAR. IIRC, GM used the CP3 series pump until 2011. CP3 series pumps have an excellent track record. Is it coincidence that the 2012 VW diesels have dialed back the internal pressure from 2000BAR to 1600BAR? Not likely when they have been seeing these failures for 5 years...and they warranty their repairs.

You asked about systemic failures. Not yet, but the fleet is relatively new. The better record of success with trucks running on Canada's 460 scar fuel, Bosch's published minimum standard for CP4.x pump lubricity, proves that the pump will last longer when operated within the engineering specifications. US fuel standards require operation outside the published Bosch specifications. AS the fleet get older and the miles pile up, these failures will grow in number. This will become a huge problem because the cost to repair the fuel system will be more than the truck is worth.

Someone asked about the "out of pocket" cost of the HPFP debacle. The repair bill on my truck was $10,030. Incidentally, that was the lowest cost I have seen to date. I have seen repair costs from $12000 to $18000. I am unsure of the intent of the ask er of this question but the money came out of the pocket of someone.

Regards

[NewsW]

Evaluating the severity of the Bosch CP 4.x issue

How I would do it if I am at NHTSA:

Severity of problem:

Moderate --- failure do not involve REPORTED fatalities with the most likelihood being total loss of power at unexpected moments.

Total loss of power can mean no power for power brakes steering and difficulty bringing a heavily loaded truck trailer combo to a safe stop.


Cost / Inconvenience to owners:

Moderate (if covered by warranty). Parts and repairs require days / week to do.

If not covered by warranty, serious (not severe).


How big of an issue is it?

Mild (but well above threshold to open investigation).


Note: I believe (confirm please) this is an emissions part part of the emissions warranty -- therefore, the coverage extends much longer than powertrain warranty.


Issues:

Should a critical common component used across many different brands that have severe financial and economic consequences for failure (high cost of repair):

A) be not able to tolerate water in fuel (even if the owner acted immediately on WIF warning, stopped and drained it may not be good enough)

Ford TSB and interpretation means a single drop of water found in fuel bowl is sufficient evidence to deny a claim


B) should the DEF fill port (specific to Ford) location not be at the same location and contribute to the potential of error?

Should there not be a way to tolerate / warn of DEF misfueling and stop vehicle?


C) Is misfuel with gasoline sufficiently common that diesels sold in the USA should at least, tolerate some misfueling --- and light a warning / stop before severe damage is done?

See (F)


D) Is there a flaw somewhere else in the design of the pump (reactivity of diesels or Additives commonly used) that is part of the problem?

Is there a problem with common refinery additives?

Or a problem with lubricity standards or actual lubricity found in the field?


E) Are existing ASTM standards for fuel, and its enforcement / implementation by both refineries and state agencies, sufficient?

Do we need better tests? Better metrics?

How do we deal with the issue of reactivity?

Do fluid behavior change at high pressures / temperatures?


F) Is there a special issue with biiodiesel and its additives? What about material left in processing?


G) What about diesel additives and stuff used as additives commonly, from 2 stroke oil to lubricating oil, to any vendor's additive.

There is presently no testing or certification of safety of this additive, both formally sold and ad hoc.


A lot more questions than answers.


Depending on how you answer these questions --- you are going to have a very different take on how big a deal this issue is.

[The_Mad_Norsky]

Well, glad that my "W" tongue in cheek question did serve some purpose.

Now to add fuel to the fire, and give the 500 pound gorilla in the room a nuke to play with:

there have been some cryptic hints, but this has not been said or asked straight out, so I'll do it.

Is the Bosch CP 4.x pump trouble just the proverbial tip of the iceberg????

In other words, is it really just the first indicator, because of its higher pressures and temperatures, of a systematic failure coming in ALL diesel fueled vehicles due to some as yet unknown problem with the fuel supply available in North America?????

Thats the 500 pound gorilla no one seems to want to notice.

An outlandish question. Or is it????????????

[milsuperdoc]

ricatic wrote:

coolbreeze01 wrote:

The Mad Norsky wrote:
A question here.

I bought the extended warranty for my Ford 6.7L diesel.

So if Ford won't warranty the warranty will the worthless warranty welcome willful woebegone warranty websites who watch for willing owners with warranties which were worthless?????


I remain so confused. :h

Speaking of warranties, any idea how much value the standard warranty factors into the retail price of a vehicle? There are new car buyers that knowingly void their warranties and would gladly pay less money for a non-warranted vehicle. Just curious.

Two good questions here.

As to extended warranty coverage from Ford, I do not see the value when we are discussing the HPFP debacle. Ford Motor Company is denying the 5 yr/100,000 mile warranty coverage on these repairs. Why would Ford Motor Company honor the Extended Warranty when they won't honor the base warranty?

As to the dollar value of the standard factory warranty, no one outside of Ford would know that number. But one thing is certain, when we buy our new trucks, we BUY the warranty. It is not free. Ford has built that mythical dollar amount into the manufacturing cost of the vehicle. It is more like an insurance policy that the owners are paying for up front. That fact certainly rubs salt in the wound when Ford pulls the weasel act and refuses to warranty the repair.

Regards

I'm expecting a delivery of new 2012 F-350 in about a week. I did entertain the idea of getting an extended warranty...but I'm not so sure at this point. There are some threads in different Ford forums about Ford denying warranties on items other than HPFP...such as premature failures on Chromes, paints, and so on (production quality defects)...always involving Ford citing owners failure.

[ricatic]

coolbreeze01 wrote:

The Mad Norsky wrote:
A question here.

I bought the extended warranty for my Ford 6.7L diesel.

So if Ford won't warranty the warranty will the worthless warranty welcome willful woebegone warranty websites who watch for willing owners with warranties which were worthless?????


I remain so confused. :h

Speaking of warranties, any idea how much value the standard warranty factors into the retail price of a vehicle? There are new car buyers that knowingly void their warranties and would gladly pay less money for a non-warranted vehicle. Just curious.

Two good questions here.

As to extended warranty coverage from Ford, I do not see the value when we are discussing the HPFP debacle. Ford Motor Company is denying the 5 yr/100,000 mile warranty coverage on these repairs. Why would Ford Motor Company honor the Extended Warranty when they won't honor the base warranty?

As to the dollar value of the standard factory warranty, no one outside of Ford would know that number. But one thing is certain, when we buy our new trucks, we BUY the warranty. It is not free. Ford has built that mythical dollar amount into the manufacturing cost of the vehicle. It is more like an insurance policy that the owners are paying for up front. That fact certainly rubs salt in the wound when Ford pulls the weasel act and refuses to warranty the repair.

Regards

[ricatic]

FishOnOne wrote:
Ford Doctor is a Ford diesel tech on TDS and feel he's calling a spade a spade. His experience like other Ford diesel techs have seen very few failures and yes some have been covererd by warranty when there is no evidence of contaminated diesel.

Gloom and Doom for the 6.7... I think not!

Hi Troy

Keep in mind there is not too much of that KoolAid at this site.

I read Ford Doctors post.In my post that followed, I agreed with him that the vandalized Ford 6.7 was not a warranty claim. No one would think that it would be. He never said whether there was any discussion with the owner of that truck about the non-warranty status.

The gloom and doom you speak of is not as much related to the failures of the HPFP but the failure of Ford Motor Company to adjudicate each case on it's own merits. The dealership can not just fix a failed HPFP under warranty. All HPFP failures that make it past the tech must be looked at by a Ford FSE. The few Ford HPFP's that were replaced under warranty were all done prior to the September edict from Ford... An edict that was issued after I started the discussion here and at other sites.

Ford has a policy of no warranty for HPFP failures. It is up to the owner to prove the HPFP repair should be warrantied. The dealerships are so afraid of a warranty kickback from Ford that they are not eager to help the customer. This policy position was told to me by a highly respected Ford tech that you and I both know personally. It is also what Shepherd's, the second dealer that actually fixed my truck told me. Their service manager had a discussion with the regional marketing manager regarding my truck. This guy told him to fix my truck under warranty. We discussed this possibility. The service manager told me he was scared to do the repair for fear of warranty kickback.

GM has a policy that puts the customer first. There have been zero reports of GM failing to warranty any failed CP4 HPFP. This despite the fact that there failure rate on the pump is statistically the same as Ford's. Maybe they actually understand the lubricity issue:E:E:E

If Bosch is warranting the GM pumps...why would they not do the same for Ford. The answer is simple...they would. The problem is Ford is scared stiff of yet another diesel black eye like the last two Navistar engines. Blaming owners for HPFP failures may be keeping Ford's warranty numbers down but it is causing a growing public relations nightmare.

Now that the NHTSA answers are out there, the truth is surfacing. The Bosch CP4 series pumps have shown their preference for the exact quality fuel that Bosch demands for them. The 460 scar fuel in Canada has produced a significantly lower failure rate than the poor 520 scar fuel that is available in the US. This is irrefutable...unless both GM and Ford lied in their answers to the NHTSA...or someone drank too much KoolAid...

Regards

[coolbreeze01]

The Mad Norsky wrote:
A question here.

I bought the extended warranty for my Ford 6.7L diesel.

So if Ford won't warranty the warranty will the worthless warranty welcome willful woebegone warranty websites who watch for willing owners with warranties which were worthless?????


I remain so confused. :h

Speaking of warranties, any idea how much value the standard warranty factors into the retail price of a vehicle? There are new car buyers that knowingly void their warranties and would gladly pay less money for a non-warranted vehicle. Just curious.

[NewsW]

8iron wrote:
Is it the sheer number of reported issues or the sheer number of posts by the same person/people that had the problem? How much out of pocket are these people with the problem? There may very well be a widespread issue eventually but the percentages don't show that right now do they?

The data supplied to NHTSA by GM, VW, Ford, etc. show it is a problem across brands that cannot be explained just by random chance.

This is a component that should have 250,000 miles or more of life, and should rarely (if at all fail).

Now it seems it is intolerant of many common abuses PLUS at least one unexplained case.

Certainly not the work of one rickatic.

Something is going on.

But we are not sure what yet.

[8iron]

Flashman wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Ford Doctor is a Ford diesel tech on TDS and feel he's calling a spade a spade. His experience like other Ford diesel techs have seen very few failures and yes some have been covererd by warranty when there is no evidence of contaminated diesel.

Gloom and Doom for the 6.7... I think not!

And as the miles on the 6.7 start to increase?? It seems to be a ticking bomb.

I'm curious why "It seems to be a ticking time bomb"? Is it the sheer number of reported issues or the sheer number of posts by the same person/people that had the problem? How much out of pocket are these people with the problem? There may very well be a widespread issue eventually but the percentages don't show that right now do they?

[NewsW]

I am not convinced it is a "ticking time bomb" yet.

We are still not sure it is a widespread failure that will expand to many units or a large % of units in field, or a small number of units.

The evidence of the same pump failing across a range of applications from different makers, all centered on the same manufacturer's pump is not good.

But the jury is out.

And no definitive cause has been made public --- Bosch may know, VW might, but Ford and GM, I seriously believe, do not know.

At least I take Ford at their word that they did not know in the NHTSA filing.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

rick83864 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:
Ford Doctor is a Ford diesel tech on TDS and feel he's calling a spade a spade. His experience like other Ford diesel techs have seen very few failures and yes some have been covererd by warranty when there is no evidence of contaminated diesel.

Gloom and Doom for the 6.7... I think not!

TDS is exactly what? I know of a few Ford forums and TDS doesn't ring a bell. Inquiring minds would like to know you source of information :W

This is the forum bashathon of the month. At least for some :B

[45Ricochet]

FishOnOne wrote:
Ford Doctor is a Ford diesel tech on TDS and feel he's calling a spade a spade. His experience like other Ford diesel techs have seen very few failures and yes some have been covererd by warranty when there is no evidence of contaminated diesel.

Gloom and Doom for the 6.7... I think not!

TDS is exactly what? I know of a few Ford forums and TDS doesn't ring a bell. Inquiring minds would like to know you source of information :W

[Flashman]

FishOnOne wrote:
Ford Doctor is a Ford diesel tech on TDS and feel he's calling a spade a spade. His experience like other Ford diesel techs have seen very few failures and yes some have been covererd by warranty when there is no evidence of contaminated diesel.

Gloom and Doom for the 6.7... I think not!

And as the miles on the 6.7 start to increase?? It seems to be a ticking bomb.

[NewsW]

FishOnOne wrote:
Ford Doctor is a Ford diesel tech on TDS and feel he's calling a spade a spade. His experience like other Ford diesel techs have seen very few failures and yes some have been covererd by warranty when there is no evidence of contaminated diesel.

Gloom and Doom for the 6.7... I think not!

What is the definition of "evidence"?


As I read the Ford TSB posted on that site, it does not allow for the possibility of failure that is unexplained.