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

[ricatic]

Easy now guy's, in the effort to unsaddle the current Ford site posse leader, sent to defend the honor of the Brand, we do not want the flow of facts to be interrupted by a closed thread.

Civil...informative...factual

Regards

[NewsW]

FishOnOne wrote:


I simply asked for the document (like the one the Ford techs use)the GM techs use to determine if a warrenty repair is covered or not based on your assumptions and you again cannot provide.

Taking the position that this document likely does not exist is pure speculation. But then again I'm not surprised of your response.

So you are asking for the owner of a Ford, with no relationship to GM, to produce an internal GM document that would be proprietary, and more than likely confidential to the GM dealer / GM.

And then you are dismissing Rickatic (the Ford owner, with no relationship to GM) because he cannot do this?


Let me try your strategy on you:

I want to see if you are for real.

Can you produce for me the current report on attempts to counterfeit US Currency put out by the US Secret Service?

I am sure this document exist, as that report is given to POTUS regularly.

Since you cannot produce that document, there is no reason to believe anything you say.



The information you seek --- failures of HPFP on GMs similarly equipped, and the fact that GM warranted them vs. ones GM did not, is in the NHTSA submission by GM. Those submissions also contain a wealth of information on failures.

The so called GM warranty policy document on HPFP, if it exists, can be had from GM.

The normal way the auto industry works is there is a diagnostics procedure laid out by the OEM, techs follow that, and then figure out the problem, and make the repair.

Warranty denials due to mods and tuner chips and so on. --- FYI --- that GM document IS in fact posted in this thread.

Here is the GM warranty policy document for tuners and mods:

http://www.duramaxforum.com/forum/performance-upgrades/18609-will-tuner-void-my-warranty.html

[Huntindog]

FishOnOne wrote:

ricatic wrote:

fishonone wrote:

I would be very surprised if GM's policy when reviewing a HPFP failure under warrenty is simply put the blind fold on and replace the HPFP and tell the customer sorry for the inconvience.

Just so you know we have 2 Chevrolet DMAX's in my family so I know how some of the issues were handled or not handled quite like you explain in your post above.

Troy

Good KoolAid...but you never answer the simple questions...ones that actually have the proof clearly defined.

In this instance you want a document that likely does not exist. You fail to understand why. The facts speak for themselves. GM is seeing Bosch CP4 failure in equal percentages to Ford. There is no discussion anywhere that indicates anything but GM's warranting of these repairs. Gm has not bothered to harass their customers with an inquisition, backed with a "look at this" document, when their HPFP fails...they just fix the truck.

Is that too difficult to understand?

Regards

I simply asked for the document (like the one the Ford techs use)the GM techs use to determine if a warrenty repair is covered or not based on your assumptions and you again cannot provide.

Taking the position that this document likely does not exist is pure speculation. But then again I'm not surprised of your response.

If you are so insistant in seeing this suppossed "document". Then you need to produce it. Asking others for something (unimportant) that we have no knowledge of it existing is like asking us to jump over the moon....We can't do it, so in your mind, we are not credible.

If YOU can produce such a document, along with it's realavence in GM HPFP warranty denials.....I am willing to listen.

Otherwise.......Go away kid, you bother me.:B

[ricatic]

FishOnOne wrote:

ricatic wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ricatic wrote:




Loss of credibility?...where?..at FTE?...the argument there rages on despite my vacation from the site...Are all the guy's that question the quality of the pump also trying to scare people away from the truck...or are they trying to get Ford to stop the shameful treatment of loyal customers who bought the 6.7 truck even after the last 2 Ford diesel disasters?

My emails and PM's from several sites also tell me that my credibility with truck owners of all brands is alive and well. Today the number of confirmed Ford 6.7 truck sales kills rose to 68. Not bad for one little guy who tells the truth about the 6.7 HPFP warranty situation at Ford...might be some credibility demonstrated in that number...:B:B:B

Have a Great Evening

Regards

I think there's two sides that are recieving PM's Rick... The other's you don't see! Get it...

The negative PM's over at FTE do not concern me. The viciousness of the personal attacks that have been allowed over there have been so disappointing. That is what is great about this site...those that disagree do not snipe behind my back...they post on the public side.

I have had my say as far as arguing with you is concerned. The members here can decide what is important. I will not engage in further mindless bickering. It is a popular tactic used to get threads closed...

May we now return to the pertinent discussion

Regards

[FishOnOne]

ricatic wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ricatic wrote:




Loss of credibility?...where?..at FTE?...the argument there rages on despite my vacation from the site...Are all the guy's that question the quality of the pump also trying to scare people away from the truck...or are they trying to get Ford to stop the shameful treatment of loyal customers who bought the 6.7 truck even after the last 2 Ford diesel disasters?

My emails and PM's from several sites also tell me that my credibility with truck owners of all brands is alive and well. Today the number of confirmed Ford 6.7 truck sales kills rose to 68. Not bad for one little guy who tells the truth about the 6.7 HPFP warranty situation at Ford...might be some credibility demonstrated in that number...:B:B:B

Have a Great Evening

Regards

I think there's two sides that are recieving PM's Rick... The other's you don't see! Get it...

[FishOnOne]

ricatic wrote:

fishonone wrote:

I would be very surprised if GM's policy when reviewing a HPFP failure under warrenty is simply put the blind fold on and replace the HPFP and tell the customer sorry for the inconvience.

Just so you know we have 2 Chevrolet DMAX's in my family so I know how some of the issues were handled or not handled quite like you explain in your post above.

Troy

Good KoolAid...but you never answer the simple questions...ones that actually have the proof clearly defined.

In this instance you want a document that likely does not exist. You fail to understand why. The facts speak for themselves. GM is seeing Bosch CP4 failure in equal percentages to Ford. There is no discussion anywhere that indicates anything but GM's warranting of these repairs. Gm has not bothered to harass their customers with an inquisition, backed with a "look at this" document, when their HPFP fails...they just fix the truck.

Is that too difficult to understand?

Regards

I simply asked for the document (like the one the Ford techs use)the GM techs use to determine if a warrenty repair is covered or not based on your assumptions and you again cannot provide.

Taking the position that this document likely does not exist is pure speculation. But then again I'm not surprised of your response.

[ricatic]

FishOnOne wrote:

ricatic wrote:


Huntindog

Thanks for taking care of my light work. Troy must be the FTE fan boy's new KoolAid mixer.

His standard line over there has been demanding information that has already been produced or does not exist in the form he approves. The diagnosis document from Ford was issued after my debacle with what one might call interesting timing.

I do not see the relevance of his demand for producing a similar document from GM or Dodge. The complete lack of any discussion regarding either GM or Dodge HPF system problems tells the story quite nicely.Dodge uses the well proven and reliable CP3 HPFP. GM used this pump until 2011. Bet they wish they had stayed with it.GM is now using the same marginally capable CP4.2 as Ford with very similar failure issues. GM fixes their CP4 HPFP failures under warranty. It is called Customer Service. This is beyond dispute but garners no respect from the Blue KoolAid drinkers. They prefer to drag out nonsense like the "Government owns GM so it is not GM's money" to shore up their lack of an argument.Dodge uses a diffeent pump with great reliability so their inclusion in the discussion is not germane.

The Blue KoolAid bunch ask for all kinds of irrelevant information to hide the basic facts of the situation. The fact is that the Bosch CP4 Series pump requires 460 Scar diesel fuel. Bosch has been publishing this specification for several years. They also participated in an announcement in September of 2009 with Siemens, Stanadyne and others that clearly outlines the longevity issues with HPFP's operated on diesel fuel with a higher scar rating than 460. They have published documentation that shows HPFP pump life to shrink to 1000 hours using fuel rated at 500 scar. They ignore the fact that US diesel fuel is standardized at 520 scar, well outside the published specifications from Bosch. KoolAid drinkers minimize Ford's decision to use the CP4.2series HPFP despite the fact that Ford violated a cardinal rule in design by forcing the use of a product that is at best operating in the sacred ground of "engineering margin".

All of the above comments are now well grounded in fact. Ford's answers to the NHTSA investigation prove the points. There is a significantly lower percentage of failures of Canadian Ford CP4 HPFP than their US brothers. It is not insignificant that the Canadian trucks are operated on the Canadian mandated 460 Scar fuel. It is not coincidence that the Canadian fuel matches Bosch's published fuel specification requirements.

Owners should not be required to provide the necessary additves to the fuel to raise the lubricity standards to the pump manufacturers specifications for long term HPFP success. Ford does not tell you when you buy the truck that it has a HPFP that does not meet US standards for fuel. They do not tell you that you need to run additive in the hope that it will protect the delicate HPFP. They will sell you a Ford additive, for additional cost to the owner and profits to Ford, that may raise the fuel specifications to Bosch's standards.

GM has taken the high road to customer satisfaction. With the known deficiency of the fuel standards and the growing number of failures, GM has stood tall behind it's product. They have repaired all of the Failed HPFP's under warranty. They will work out their problem with Bosch without asking the customer to pay the bill.

Ford has taken to the gutter in their trip to customer service. Their treatment of loyal customers is deplorable. After their last two diesel endeavors, they should know better.

Shame on Ford

Regards

Just for the record here no one has ever denied that Rick drew the short straw for his warrenty denial and alot of folks myself included were very disapointed about his treatment. There's no question Rick's treatment was unacceptable.

But the fact that Rick has began a crusade to cast as much negative publicity at every potential opportunity and when I would ask for specific documents/specifications/data from Rick he unfortunetly couldn't back them up and as a result he started to loose credibility with some folks since they wanted to see real data as well. Having said that Rick could be spot on with his position and his crusade, but I've yet to see any credible data.

Now Rick can tought about the KoolAid all he want's, but I will continue to make informed decisions based on real data and facts and I will attempt to make a well informed decision on my next truck purchased based on these facts. No Ford drum here!

I think Rick's crusade to apply scare tactics to the good folks who has taken their hard earned $$$ and purchased a new truck is unnacceptable and disapointing to say the least. This is Ricks contribution and no one buying the Koolaid he want's to serve!

No KoolAid on my side...the facts about the CP4 series pump operating outside the Bosch specifications on US fuel are published and field verified. Canadian trucks running on the very fuel specification that Bosch specifies for their common rail systems fail at a significantly smaller rate than the US trucks. There is no denying that statement...unless Ford and GM lied on the answers...I guess with enough KoolAid one could see that as possible...

Need another fact...GM has not saddled their owners with the cost of their HPFP failures...no KoolAid with this fact either.

Loss of credibility?...where?..at FTE?...the argument there rages on despite my vacation from the site...Are all the guy's that question the quality of the pump also trying to scare people away from the truck...or are they trying to get Ford to stop the shameful treatment of loyal customers who bought the 6.7 truck even after the last 2 Ford diesel disasters?

My emails and PM's from several sites also tell me that my credibility with truck owners of all brands is alive and well. Today the number of confirmed Ford 6.7 truck sales kills rose to 68. Not bad for one little guy who tells the truth about the 6.7 HPFP warranty situation at Ford...might be some credibility demonstrated in that number...:B:B:B

Have a Great Evening

Regards

[NewsW]

FishOnOne wrote:

But the fact that Rick has began a crusade to cast as much negative publicity at every potential opportunity and when I would ask for specific documents/specifications/data from Rick he unfortunetly couldn't back them up

State in clear, plain english, what are you asking for?

What is your standard for "acceptable proof"?

Do you want to do this in accordance with FRCP?

ricatic wrote:


Troy

Good KoolAid...but you never answer the simple questions...ones that actually have the proof clearly defined.

In this instance you want a document that likely does not exist. You fail to understand why.

Is the public data GM gave to NHTSA not valid according to this Trojan?

A rule in evidence is production cannot be compelled for evidence that a respondent do not possess or have custody or control of.

If such a document is to be requested, the proper party is GM: go ask GM who is the likely party that has such a document to produce it --- if it exist at all.

[ricatic]

fishonone wrote:

I would be very surprised if GM's policy when reviewing a HPFP failure under warrenty is simply put the blind fold on and replace the HPFP and tell the customer sorry for the inconvience.

Just so you know we have 2 Chevrolet DMAX's in my family so I know how some of the issues were handled or not handled quite like you explain in your post above.

Troy

Good KoolAid...but you never answer the simple questions...ones that actually have the proof clearly defined.

In this instance you want a document that likely does not exist. You fail to understand why. The facts speak for themselves. GM is seeing Bosch CP4 failure in equal percentages to Ford. There is no discussion anywhere that indicates anything but GM's warranting of these repairs. Gm has not bothered to harass their customers with an inquisition, backed with a "look at this" document, when their HPFP fails...they just fix the truck.

Is that too difficult to understand?

Regards

[FishOnOne]

ricatic wrote:


Huntindog

Thanks for taking care of my light work. Troy must be the FTE fan boy's new KoolAid mixer.

His standard line over there has been demanding information that has already been produced or does not exist in the form he approves. The diagnosis document from Ford was issued after my debacle with what one might call interesting timing.

I do not see the relevance of his demand for producing a similar document from GM or Dodge. The complete lack of any discussion regarding either GM or Dodge HPF system problems tells the story quite nicely.Dodge uses the well proven and reliable CP3 HPFP. GM used this pump until 2011. Bet they wish they had stayed with it.GM is now using the same marginally capable CP4.2 as Ford with very similar failure issues. GM fixes their CP4 HPFP failures under warranty. It is called Customer Service. This is beyond dispute but garners no respect from the Blue KoolAid drinkers. They prefer to drag out nonsense like the "Government owns GM so it is not GM's money" to shore up their lack of an argument.Dodge uses a diffeent pump with great reliability so their inclusion in the discussion is not germane.

The Blue KoolAid bunch ask for all kinds of irrelevant information to hide the basic facts of the situation. The fact is that the Bosch CP4 Series pump requires 460 Scar diesel fuel. Bosch has been publishing this specification for several years. They also participated in an announcement in September of 2009 with Siemens, Stanadyne and others that clearly outlines the longevity issues with HPFP's operated on diesel fuel with a higher scar rating than 460. They have published documentation that shows HPFP pump life to shrink to 1000 hours using fuel rated at 500 scar. They ignore the fact that US diesel fuel is standardized at 520 scar, well outside the published specifications from Bosch. KoolAid drinkers minimize Ford's decision to use the CP4.2series HPFP despite the fact that Ford violated a cardinal rule in design by forcing the use of a product that is at best operating in the sacred ground of "engineering margin".

All of the above comments are now well grounded in fact. Ford's answers to the NHTSA investigation prove the points. There is a significantly lower percentage of failures of Canadian Ford CP4 HPFP than their US brothers. It is not insignificant that the Canadian trucks are operated on the Canadian mandated 460 Scar fuel. It is not coincidence that the Canadian fuel matches Bosch's published fuel specification requirements.

Owners should not be required to provide the necessary additves to the fuel to raise the lubricity standards to the pump manufacturers specifications for long term HPFP success. Ford does not tell you when you buy the truck that it has a HPFP that does not meet US standards for fuel. They do not tell you that you need to run additive in the hope that it will protect the delicate HPFP. They will sell you a Ford additive, for additional cost to the owner and profits to Ford, that may raise the fuel specifications to Bosch's standards.

GM has taken the high road to customer satisfaction. With the known deficiency of the fuel standards and the growing number of failures, GM has stood tall behind it's product. They have repaired all of the Failed HPFP's under warranty. They will work out their problem with Bosch without asking the customer to pay the bill.

Ford has taken to the gutter in their trip to customer service. Their treatment of loyal customers is deplorable. After their last two diesel endeavors, they should know better.

Shame on Ford

Regards

Just for the record here no one has ever denied that Rick drew the short straw for his warrenty denial and alot of folks myself included were very disapointed about his treatment. There's no question Rick's treatment was unacceptable.

But the fact that Rick has began a crusade to cast as much negative publicity at every potential opportunity and when I would ask for specific documents/specifications/data from Rick he unfortunetly couldn't back them up and as a result he started to loose credibility with some folks since they wanted to see real data as well. Having said that Rick could be spot on with his position and his crusade, but I've yet to see any credible data.

Now Rick can tought about the KoolAid all he want's, but I will continue to make informed decisions based on real data and facts and I will attempt to make a well informed decision on my next truck purchased based on these facts. No Ford drum here!

I think Rick's crusade to apply scare tactics to the good folks who has taken their hard earned $$$ and purchased a new truck is unnacceptable and disapointing to say the least. This is Ricks contribution and no one buying the Koolaid he want's to serve!

[FishOnOne]

Huntindog wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

rick83864 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Ford has a documented procedure for the techs to inspect different components of the fuel system including inspecting the filters for DEF comtamination. It's really a basic procedure that should catch any gross contaminants and/or owner neglect for maintenance.

Something like this?? C&P sorry I lost the link.


This is very important & somewhat controversial, but in being a believer that an informed customer is a better customer, I'm posting a portion of a publication that was recently made available to the Ford Technicians regarding fuel quality and the implications that poor diesel fuel quality/contamination has on the diesel high pressure fuel system. This is not altogether new news, however the implications are significant.

Engineering investigation into the impact of poor diesel fuel quality has determined that there are a number of fuel system related failures tied directly to poor fuel. The OEM Automotive industry appears to be taking a position that the Petroleum Industry and Fuel Distributors/Suppliers/Sellers must take control of the quality of the product (in this case diesel fuel) they are providing.

In short, please talk with your diesel fuel providers/stations/etc. where possible to discuss diesel fuel quality. The result of poor fuel is a very expensive repair (pump, injectors, lines and rails), the techs when there is an issue, will be visually inspecting components and comparing them with known failed components where root cause was fuel quality causing internal corrosion of the fuel system.


Fuel system contamination on 6.7L diesel engines can damage the fuel system components including the High Pressure (HP) fuel injection pump and fuel injectors. Engine operation on fuels and additives that do not meet the lubrication, cooling and anti-corrosion properties required by the HP fuel system components may cause symptoms including, but not limited to, the following:
· Crank No Start
· Long Crank/Hard Start
· Runs Rough
· Low Power
· Engine Knocking
· Exhaust Smoke
· Fuel Rail Pressure (FRP) slow to build
Follow the appropriate service procedure depending on whether the engine has been started with contaminated fuel, or not.


NOTE:

Failure to follow these procedures may result in fuel system and/or engine damage and may require vehicle warranty cancellation submission. Repairs required due to the use of improper fluids and fuel are not covered by the New Vehicle Limited Warranty.


NOTE: The most common sources of contaminated fuel are:
· Auxiliary vehicle mounted tanks
· Local storage tanks
· Other infrequently used fuel sources
· Refueling errors
The best action that can be taken to avoid concerns with the fuel system is to ensure vehicles are only fueled from sources with known quality diesel fuels verified to be free from water and other contaminants

It's called "prove it pal" or "gotch guy". JFYI Chebie is honoring there warranty.

Like I asked Ricatic... Where's GM's documented policy?

BTW remember that bad quality diesel can include diesel without the lubricity additive

And since there's alot of KookAid drinking going on here, put Dodge's documented procedure next to the KoolAid as well.

As a GM owner that has been following this closely from the begining....I can tell you that I have never seen a GM doc. like you are requesting. It may well not exist. If it does, it is not important as GM doesn't deny warranties like Ford does on HPFPs.

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

GM has never posted anything like it on a public forum.

Ford also has other requirements that GM does not.

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.

GM has no scheduled draining of the water seperator required, and actually discourages the use of fuel additives!

Not related to HPFPs, but Ford also require coolant testing at 15K.

Ford also seems to still be having trouble with radiators leaking.

GM has no radiator problems,,,,,and no coolant testing requirements.

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.

Gm wants their customers experience to be a positive one. They don't want their customers to feel like they are playing russian roulette every time they purchase fuel. Thus, HPFPs are covered.
No need to test coolant all the time. No radiator problems. If it happens it will be covered.

I would be very surprised if GM's policy when reviewing a HPFP failure under warrenty is simply put the blind fold on and replace the HPFP and tell the customer sorry for the inconvience.

Just so you know we have 2 Chevrolet DMAX's in my family so I know how some of the issues were handled or not handled quite like you explain in your post above.

[NewsW]

The Mad Norsky wrote:
Reactivity as a possible problem has been mentioned several times here, with the source being mentioned as after market lubricity additives being added by owners to bring US diesel up to the 460 scar standard.

The source is not so limited.

It can be in any component of fuel, including impurities etc. normally found in fuel.

Contaminants caused by outgassing of compounds and decay / breakdown / oxidation products from fuel lines, tanks, etc. need to be considered.

It can even be not in the fuel or additives added together, but formed as a compound under the pressures / temperatures inside the pump.

In other words, cannot rule out the pump make its own contaminant.

Lots of avenues to investigate, few answers.


All that can be ruled out at this time is something so severe that feed it in, and pump blows (e.g. water or DEF (mostly water)).

It is something that takes its time to work, not an instant cause and effect, which makes detective work harder.


In the absence of good science, all that can be done is to suggest ways of limiting risk and enhancing warranty / insurance coverage.

[The_Mad_Norsky]

Reactivity as a possible problem has been mentioned several times here, with the source being mentioned as after market lubricity additives being added by owners to bring US diesel up to the 460 scar standard.

These products include, but are not limited to, brands such as the Ford PM-22-A, Stanadyne, Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000, and Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost.

What if the reactivity problem, if it so exists, is caused by the lubricity additives added at the refinery or terminal to bring US diesel to its 520 scar standard??????

I find I am not comforted by the idea of lubricity additives being added at the terminal level. I suppose there is no way to get around this, as it appears to be business as normal. But I do suspect the guess work and amount of additive to add at the terminal level is much less exact than compared to refinery level.

[thomasmnile]

rick83864 wrote:


Since your a petro guy, what is the magic ingredient added to the final fuel after refining to raise the lubrication of ULSD? Maybe we could start using the Canadian measuring cups 🙂

Me in petro? My wife says I'm in gas, especially after Mexican food. :B
Oh, sorry, you were asking NewsW! :S:o

[durallymax]

The CP4 is cheaper numbers dont lie. price them, its not much but its about $50-100 less money to buy a replacement.

i forgot the ford fan boys name. but to him i say this.


Gm has always had a good warranty. They dont tell the customer to go fly a kite, they just fix it.

Now if you modify to vehicle to make it perform outside of its design limits then GM will start to raise the red flag. But if its just from poor fuel, they do the right thing.