Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation

Huntindog wrote:

The Ford doc was actually posted by a Ford engineer some time before HPFPs became a known issue to the public.


There is a paper that Ford wants signed at delivery (dealer follow thru is inconsistant) it states the need to drain the water seperator monthly, and strongly suggests the use of specific fuel treatments...Which are Ford products.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the tone is vastly different between the two companys in terms of warranty coverage and ownership experience.

Ford takes a combative stance with their customers,,,even on issues that they know they have a problem with.

To a certain extent, I can understand the hard line against aftermarket mods, chips, and things customers do to their trucks that should automatically void the warranty.

Ford got mugged by the 6.0 and all of this is understandable.

Having said that:

Recommend / require a monthly Water Drain / Check is patently absurd.

The basic design parameter of water separation in diesels is that there should be a warning light / warning that gives a reasonably early and obvious warning of a problem, enabling the operator to take corrective action before harm is done.

In commercial diesel operations, that can involve both a light, a filter with a water blocking membrane, and a clear water separator window that is visible to the operator.

Now, if you put several gallons of water through (exceeding the water holding capacity of the separator, that will not save you.

But the idea is small amounts of water should be trapped by this method and give operators a reasonable opportunity to respond.

I think rickatic posted that the water separator capacity is 7 oz.

That should be sufficient for all cases where the pump did not deliver large quantities (over 1 gallon) of water in the fuel ---- where it is by any fair stretch of industry standard --- defined as contaminated. (Whether one single contaminated tank can immediately cause massive fuel system failure without an automatic, emergency fuel quality triggered shutdown, is another story).

Whoever wrote that dealer memo is exhibiting knowledge of the intense water sensitivity of this device --- and to me would be Exhibit 1 in any engineering examination of design flaws.

Exhibit 2 would be the DEF port next to the fuel fill and the bingo Ford engineer that put it there.

These are examples of bad engineering.

As for recommending fuel treatments --- that is a dangerous thing because the implied is that similar compatible fuel treatments work.

That opens the door to ask what is in the fuel treatments and whether there is a reactivity problem in there... as I suspect.

Hunting is right that the general tone of the Ford fuel contamination document is absurd, and the finding of a few drops of water in the WIF is sufficient to deny warranty coverage.

Did Ford adopt the "one drop rule"? Does this also apply to gasoline engines?


Finally, I come back to the GMC treatment of customers.

I posted the GM procedures for denying warranty for customer modded vehicles.

Think there is a general industry practice now to do that.


For those who don't think forums matter, think Ford Doctors, the Ford Engineer that posted that document, and a few other examples is showing that this stuff gets read.

Now... back to my Diamond Like Carbon Coatings aka lipstick on this pig.