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

[1jeep]

Wow 26 pages and still going...who is running this thread the enegizer bunny?

[hoopers]

NewsW wrote:
Now we find out about filtration:

Filtration Technology Challenges for Common-Rail Diesel Engine Fuel Systems
Number: 2009-01-0874

Published: 2009-04-20


Publisher: SAE International

Language: English
DOI: 10.4271/2009-01-0874
Author(s): Christopher J. Salvador - Caterpillar Inc.
Citation:
Salvador, C., "Filtration Technology Challenges for Common-Rail Diesel Engine Fuel Systems," SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-0874, 2009, doi:10.4271/2009-01-0874.


Citation

Abstract:

The focus of this study was to determine the role of liquid filtration in controlling debris in fuel and maintaining common-rail fuel system life for off-highway diesel engine applications. Three key areas of filtration design surfaced as most important areas of focus – basic filtration efficiency, robustness of filter manufacturing, and filter assembly cleanliness from production (before and during installation into fuel system). The study also revealed the importance of designing fuel filtration systems consisting of primary filtration (suction-side water separation and particulate filtration) combined with pressure-side particulate filtration. The performance characteristics of the filtration system as a whole were found to be extremely critical in optimum fuel system performance and life goals, especially in severe-duty applications.

The study analyzed two filter systems – the Control System that consisted of pre-common-rail technology and the Proposed System that included all of the improvements designed to adequately protect the fuel system. The Control System consisted of B 20(c) = 75 primary filtration and B 8(c) = 75 secondary filtration. The results of the study recommended the Proposed System consist of B 10(c) = 75 primary filtration and B 4(c) = 200 secondary filtration. This system improved fuel system life by 20× in normal applications and nearly 10× in heavy-duty applications.

Several test methods were used to generate data including the multipass test (ISO 4548-12), fabrication integrity ( ISO 2942 ) test, and specially developed production cleanliness and fuel system simulation tests. The study examined the adequacy of existing filtration technology in protecting common-rail fuel systems (benchmarking) and determined acceptable design requirements in the previously mentioned areas for individual fuel filters (pressure-side filtration) and filter systems (combining suction-side and pressure-side filtration).

From what I have read, GM filters down to a smaller particle level than Ford (no idea about VW filtration). I don't completely understand where the filter is located, but I would guess it is before the pump, thus filtration should play an important role in pump protection...this seems obvious to me.

Is lubricity the culprit? How does filtered particle size affect lubricity?

I have seen no statements or data proving lubricity is the culprit. Just supposition and assumptions, really. I am not saying its not lubricity, just that it could be something else, and lubricity is a red herring at this point. The fact Canadian fuel meets the ASTM specs, and yet there are failures? This is a glaring exception that makes me question the lubricity spec and how it might play into the pump failures.

This makes me think ASTM lubricity might play a minor role, and there is a larger factor out there. But that is just my thoughts....

As to people claiming the failure rates are similar between GM and Ford (and what about VW?), I would question how accurate this data really is? Is EVERY pump failure included in the sample lots? What is the nature of the pump failures included in these samples...are they the same?

I did call a couple duramax dealers today regarding adding diesel additives on my 2011 duramax. One dealer seemed to understand my concern and said GM does not support ANY additives. Though he did say customers are adding it, but again, the official position is NO additive. My 2011 owners manual makes no mention of any supported additive, except to consult your local dealer.
The other dealer seemed to be confused on the subject and really didn't have any advice except one doesn't really need additives.
However, the GM first dealer said my 100000 mile warranty would cover any fuel pump issues, so for me, I might just go with standard fuel, and if I am one of the unlucky ones, I will just count on GM fixing my fuel pump. I doubt I will keep my truck past 100000 miles.

[NewsW]

Now we find out about filtration:

Filtration Technology Challenges for Common-Rail Diesel Engine Fuel Systems
Number: 2009-01-0874

Published: 2009-04-20


Publisher: SAE International

Language: English
DOI: 10.4271/2009-01-0874
Author(s): Christopher J. Salvador - Caterpillar Inc.
Citation:
Salvador, C., "Filtration Technology Challenges for Common-Rail Diesel Engine Fuel Systems," SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-0874, 2009, doi:10.4271/2009-01-0874.


Citation

Abstract:

The focus of this study was to determine the role of liquid filtration in controlling debris in fuel and maintaining common-rail fuel system life for off-highway diesel engine applications. Three key areas of filtration design surfaced as most important areas of focus – basic filtration efficiency, robustness of filter manufacturing, and filter assembly cleanliness from production (before and during installation into fuel system). The study also revealed the importance of designing fuel filtration systems consisting of primary filtration (suction-side water separation and particulate filtration) combined with pressure-side particulate filtration. The performance characteristics of the filtration system as a whole were found to be extremely critical in optimum fuel system performance and life goals, especially in severe-duty applications.

The study analyzed two filter systems – the Control System that consisted of pre-common-rail technology and the Proposed System that included all of the improvements designed to adequately protect the fuel system. The Control System consisted of B 20(c) = 75 primary filtration and B 8(c) = 75 secondary filtration. The results of the study recommended the Proposed System consist of B 10(c) = 75 primary filtration and B 4(c) = 200 secondary filtration. This system improved fuel system life by 20× in normal applications and nearly 10× in heavy-duty applications.

Several test methods were used to generate data including the multipass test (ISO 4548-12), fabrication integrity ( ISO 2942 ) test, and specially developed production cleanliness and fuel system simulation tests. The study examined the adequacy of existing filtration technology in protecting common-rail fuel systems (benchmarking) and determined acceptable design requirements in the previously mentioned areas for individual fuel filters (pressure-side filtration) and filter systems (combining suction-side and pressure-side filtration).

[NewsW]

Onto the subject of biodiesel... and the issue of biodiesels and HPFP... and why avoid bioweasel as much as possible:


------------------


Biodiesel Fuel Effects on Injection System and Establishment of the Evaluation Method
Number: 2011-28-0057

Published: 2011-10-06



Publisher: The Automotie Research Association of India, Pune, India

Language: English
DOI: 10.4271/2011-28-0057
Author(s): Toshihiko Omori - DENSO CORP.; Akio Tanaka - DENSO CORP.; Koichi Yamada - DENSO CORP.; Satoshi Bunne - DENSO CORP.
Citation:
Omori, T., Tanaka, A., Yamada, K., and Bunne, S., "Biodiesel Fuel Effects on Injection System and Establishment of the Evaluation Method," SAE Technical Paper 2011-28-0057, 2011, doi:10.4271/2011-28-0057.


Abstract:

As exhaust emissions regulations are becoming increasingly stringent year by year, common rail system, which is capable of injecting high-pressure fuel, is already becoming mainstream in the field of diesel injection equipment. On the other hand, market fuels tend to diversify. From the viewpoint of global warming prevention in particular, biodiesel fuels are attracting attention as renewable fuel. Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) contained in biodiesel fuel is liable to aging and tends to generate deposits, thus, there is a concern about not only deposit adhesion to diesel injection equipment but also corrosion occurrence due to free water presence.

This paper reports that an accelerated re-production test method which simulates real-world market environment successfully clarified the effects of DLC coating on control of deposit adhesion to diesel injection equipment as well as its mechanism and the corrosion mechanism was understood.

[I_m_Rick_James]

NewsW wrote:

durallymax wrote:

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.

Anybody tell you that you would be a terrible lawyer.

Any qualified lawyer or law student past first year might know what FRCP is, particularly Rule 26.

:S

Has anyone ever told you that basic grammar is not one of your strong suits, "Doctor"?

[NewsW]

durallymax wrote:

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.

Anybody tell you that you would be a terrible lawyer.

Any qualified lawyer or law student past first year might know what FRCP is, particularly Rule 26.

:S

[durallymax]

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.

Anybody tell you that you would be a terrible lawyer.

Here we have all did our research and homework finding the documents to prove you wrong. Now you want us to find the documents to prove our case wrong?

Newsflash, doesn't work that way. We have looked and provided GM's policy towards modified trucks which is what is known to cause warranty denial. They do not get pissy about bad fuel. If there is such a document out there, then go find it. None of us have. If you want to prove everybody wrong do your own homework and find the info you want. Rick is a Ford owner. Why would he have any "connections" with anyone in GM to find any of these documents.

The Ford stuff has been posted and raved about time and time again. Are there two sides to the story? yes. However the fact remains that Ford is not playing nice about the issue whereas GM is. You find people complaining about Ford everywhere, not GM. Ford scrambled to come up with a policy later on that gave them a grey enough area to deny the claims. GM hasn't to anyones knowledge done so. If they did I am sure we would be hearing plenty of complaints.

Is there some Kool-Aid/Bandwagon stuff going on here? Definatley, there always will be people who just like to bash anything. Everybody across the US thinks the state of wisconsin hates scott walker. Not true, we love him, the city of madison hates him, just so happens to be the most liberal town around, and his office is in the middle of it, so naturally it gets all of the press. The folks from outside madison and up north dont get the publicity. The Recall was a big deal, big press about it. Obviously the people against the recall are pretty boring to do a news story on because we arent doing anything new or crazy.

There just hasn't been many complaints of GMs customer service on the HPFP issues.

Heck GM is still replacing injectors on trucks that are way out of the special service policy "in good faith" for prices reduced 50-90%. Is Ford replacing Turbos, EGR coolers and headgaskets on the 6.oh no in good faith? Heck they won't even fix the new trucks why would they be doing "in good faith" repairs. Oh but all of GM's money is the tax payers money, blah, so go buy one then and stop complaining, at least you own something you payed for. I'm fine with my taxes going to help a company that treats customers well, not the other way around though. Do I think GM is the almighty, hell no I think they are retarded enough days. They have a damn good powertrain program, but their advertisements are lame. Seriously "Dave drove a Ford". Wow whats next two guys with their trucks yelling "my dad can beat up your dad". Although I will say Fords bed bolt commercials have to be the lamest.

[NewsW]

thomasmnile wrote:

Are you concerned that Ford might hit you with a "SLAPP" suit over this?

IMHO, Ford is an honorable company, and to my knowledge, they have never filed a single SLAPP suit.

The closest example is a suit against "fordreallysucks.com" which failed.

Believe it or not, there are good people working at Ford, and in this case, I am willing to say it is a mistake in good faith --- until I see evidence otherwise.

Ford did make good the 6.0 eventually --- though it took time.

I have seen PLENTY of people trashing Ford unfairly --- and trashing Ford defenders.


I contrast Ford's behavior with a certain formerly Japanese controlled auto company that filed a suit against a computer firm to grab their registered domain name.

[NewsW]

The Canadian data is also messed up by an entirely different set of rules and regs, the fact that a lot of units are deployed in the field in extreme temps, kept idling all the time, and very different fuel blends to handle the temperatures commonly found in Canada.

Did you know you can get top grade 0w-40 diesel grade oil in Canada?

[thomasmnile]

ricatic wrote:


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

Ric,

Are you concerned that Ford might hit you with a "SLAPP" suit over this? Increasingly common tool used by companies who think they are being publicly wronged (and I am NOTsuggesting you weren't wronged by Ford). But, seems they could hurt you a lot more.........

I am sympathetic to your situation and sure don't believe there was any abuse of the vehicle on your part, but be careful out there! 😉

[raleighdogguy]

Ricatic: You've mentioned a few times now that the rate of failure in Canada is significantly different than in the US. When I munged the numbers using the NHTSA document from Ford, they seemed to be essentially the same: 0.6 failures per thousand vehicles in the U.S. vs. 0.4 failures per thousand vehicles in Canada. I'll admit that 0.6 = 150% of 0.4 and that I didn't do a Student's t-test to verify significance of the difference. Are those the numbers you are referring to?

[NewsW]

ricatic wrote:
Easy now guy's,

The moderator already think my mind is in the black water tank.

:E

:B




Remember rick... tie the body to the Ford and drag it around for 9 days.

[NewsW]

ricatic wrote:

Maybe the most interesting information yet...Ford uses any and all of the tricks to avoid the HPFP issue...GM follows the Moss-Magnuson requirements.

Regards

The general Moss-Magnuson rule is aftermarket devices / fluids / supplies that meet the OEM specs are permitted.

No non-Ford branded additive I know of have openly certified their stuff as expressly safe on the Bosch CP4 pump, nor do I believe they did endurance / reliability testing with Bosch. If any brand did so, feel free to chime in.

They are certified as "generally" safe. I posted a procedure used by a refinery /terminal additive firm as to how they test for safety.

Note the procedure is, IMHO, obsolete for the CP 4 pump.

That is why I am alerting everyone to beware of non FORD additives until more is known.


I find it astonishing that even a small amount of water found in the water separator is sufficient to trigger the warranty denial.

[ricatic]

NewsW wrote:
GM's warranty denial procedures on tuners is here.

The procedure for denial of warranty for HPFP would be very similar.


-----------------------

INFORMATION

Bulletin No.: 06-06-01-007B

Date: June 27, 2008
Subject:
Information On Identifying Duramax(TM) Diesel LB7, LLY, LMM, LBZ Overpower Engine Breakdown or Non-Function Due to Aftermarket Power-Up Devices vs. Non Overpower Engine Non-Function of Pistons, Cylinders, and Valvetrain Components

Models:
2001-2008 Chevrolet Silverado
2003-2008 Chevrolet Kodiak
2006-2008 Chevrolet Express
2001-2008 GMC Sierra
2003-2008 GMC TopKick
2006-2008 GMC Savana

with Duramax(TM) 6.6L V8 Turbo Diesel Engine (VINs 1, 2, 6, D - RPOs LB7, LLY, LMM, LBZ)

Supercede:

This bulletin is being revised to add additional information on identifying fuel related Aftermarket Power-Up Devices. Also a Caution statement was added regarding likely Powertrain damage and warranty. Please discard Corporate Bulletin Number 06-06-01-007A (Section 06 - Engine/Propulsion System).
Caution: Customers should be informed if a hard part failure is observed in the engine, transmission, transfer case and/or other driveline components, it is likely that powertrain components were weakened to the point of premature failure, while subjected to the higher stresses from Aftermarket Power-Up Devices. Failures associated with the installation of Aftermarket Power-Up Devices, which have been verified, are not covered under the terms of the New Vehicle Warranty.

General Motors Position On Aftermarket Power-Up Devices
Important: General Motors does not support or endorse the use of devices or modifications that, when installed, increase the engine horsepower and torque. Refer to bulletin number 04-06-04-054 - Warranty Admin. - Non-GM Parts and Accessories (Aftermarket).

Important: For further information on aftermarket power-up kits, refer to February 2006 Emerging Issues Course Number 10206.02D. In Canada, information on aftermarket power-up kits will be covered in the April 2006 TAC TALK program.

Aftermarket power-up devices are non-approved by General Motors. These devices are usually piggy-backed in the main engine harness or remain connected to the diagnostic connector to upload the calibration to the ECM. Recent warranty reviews of returned engines show engine breakdown or non-function due to power-up devices that are utilized for increased horsepower and torque. The following information will assist technicians in identifying overpower engine breakdown or non-function due to aftermarket power-up devices vs. non overpower engine breakdown or non-function.

Non-GM parts can alter the design of the vehicle. GM dealers need to be aware of the quality of parts being installed on vehicles. If failure occurs as a result of installation of sub-par parts, warranty coverage may be denied. Refer to Service Bulletin Number 04-06-04-054 Warranty Admin. Non-GM Parts and Accessories (Aftermarket).

Installed Power-Up Kit

Aftermarket power-up kits have become a very popular add on for performance-minded customers. These devices can add horsepower and torque and can add additional stress to the engine. These aftermarket calibrations take the Duramax powertrain outside of its design torque and horsepower rating. They do this by altering air/fuel ratios and injector timing, resulting in excessive cylinder pressure and temperature. When these calibrated parameters are altered, it will upset the design balance and can lead to a reduction of engine life expectancy. Generally, in inspection of Duramax engine failure due to power-up failures, two or more cylinders will be affected.

Installed Power-Up Kit
^ Once installed, the calibration may mask itself with the factory original calibration ID and may remain the same.

^ A Tech 2(R) will not positively enable you to identify the use of a power-up device.

^ Some companies that offer power-up devices claim increases of 150 or more horsepower and 300 or more lb/ft pounds of torque.

^ A vehicle that is used to the power-up device potential 100% of the time will see earlier engine wear and breakdown.

^ A vehicle that takes advantage of additional power, but on a less frequent basis, may not see premature engine wear and breakdown until later in the engine's life.

^ A vehicle not pushed to its limits of the power-up device often may not encounter premature wear and breakdown until after the engine is out of warranty.

Duramax(TM) Powertrain Horsepower / Torque Ratings

The following horsepower and torque increase over the past years required new internal components to accommodate the increase.
^ LB7 - 300 hp with 520 ft/lb of torque for model years 2000-2004

^ LLY - 310 hp with 605 ft/lb of torque for model years 2004-2008

^ LBZ - 360 hp with 650 ft/lb of torque for model year 2006-2008

^ LMM - 365 hp with 660 ft/lb of torque for model year 2007-2008

LBZ Improvements

To reliably achieve an increase in 50 horsepower with 45 ft/lb torque, the Duramax(TM) diesel had to be revised in many areas. A few of the revisions on the 2006 LBZ were:
^ New pistons with a revised compression ratio.

^ Wrist pins that are larger in diameter.

^ Connecting rods with added material to increase the I section strength.

^ Engine block and machining changes.

^ Cylinder heads.

Duramax(TM) Life Expectancy
The Duramax 6.6L V8 Turbo Diesel Engine is sold with a warranty of 100,000 miles/160,000 kilometers. The Duramax has been tested to survive upwards of 200,000 miles/320,000 kilometers. The Duramax powertrain is designed for reliability, peak horsepower and torque within its design limits. When a customer installs a power-up device, it drastically reduces the mileage
ratings.

Important: Cylinder Wall Spotting (commonly referred to leopard spots) is from the induction hardening process of the top 1/3 of the cylinder wall. This is normal for the Duramax(TM) Diesel.

Identifying Fuel Related Aftermarket Power-Up Device



Aftermarket companies have developed a performance pressure relief fuel valve for Duramax diesel engines. Refer to above graphic illustration. The performance pressure relief fuel valve attaches to the fuel rail in place of the OEM valve and will not allow any fuel return to the tank, giving 100% of the fuel to be available for additional engine performance. This may cause additional fuel related driveability concerns and may set the following DTC'S:
^ DTC P1093 Fuel Rail Pressure (FRP) Low During Power Enrichment

^ DTC P0087 Fuel Rail Pressure (FRP) Too Low



Aftermarket companies have developed a replacement performance/economy fuel injector nozzle. Refer to above graphic illustration. The performance/economy fuel injector nozzles replace the OEM fuel injection nozzles. The aftermarket companies claim increased horsepower, improved fuel atomization, lower exhaust gas temperatures and increase fuel economy. This may cause additional fuel related driveability concerns and may cause internal engine damage to the pistons and fuel injector nozzles.

Identifying Overpower Engine Premature Wear and Breakdown

When premature wear and breakdown is encountered due to an aftermarket power-up device, it has some very specific characteristics to the internal engine components. The following list will assist in identifying these characteristics as you tear down the engine.


^ Pistons will be cracked in the lip area, or a hole in the pistons.


^ Pistons can also be melted on the lip of the combustion bowl, or the top of the pistons can be melted.


^ Crosshatch will be polished off the cylinder wall in the major thrust face of cylinder below ring belt travel.


^ Piston pin bore will show signs of scoring, the wrist pins will be discolored, and can have oil coking on them. The connecting rod bushing surface will have accelerated wear. The above illustration shows a connecting rod bushing.


^ Oil coking on the underside of the piston between the wrist pin bosses.


^ Signs of bearing fretting will also be noticed on the connecting rod and main bearing caps. Refer to the above illustration for fretting of main bearing cap 1 and back side of connection rod bearing 2.


^ Excessive heat in engine compartment caused by overpower device. Refer to above illustration (1).

Non Overpower Engine Premature Wear and Breakdown

The following pictures show results of overheat, overspeed, low/no oil pressure or injector breakdown and how they differ from aftermarket power-up device premature wear and breakdown.

Engine Overheat

Overheat can be caused by a loss of coolant or a general cooling system failure. Some of the indicators of overheat are:


^ Melted pistons.

^ Head gasket breakdown or non-function.

^ Warped cylinder heads.

^ Crankshaft and connecting rod discolored.

Engine Overspeed Causes
If an engine has been run faster than design capability (redline), and has caused damage as a result, it may be a result of one of the following
conditions:

Leaking or failed turbo oil seals.
^ Oil evident in the intake runners and compressor side of the turbo.

^ Starting fluid use or alternative fuel added to the engine such as ether.

Engine Overspeed Results



The images shown above are indicators that an overspeed event took place.

Lack of Oil Pressure



Lack of lubrication causes rapid bearing wear or bearing to seize as shown above.

Engine Premature Wear and Breakdown Due to Improper Function of Fuel Injector

A fuel injector may fracture a piston or melt a piston but the damage will be limited to that cylinder only and all other pistons and cylinder walls are OK. In some cases hydraulic lock will occur on the suspected cylinder with an over-fueling fuel injector. Hydraulic lock on the suspected cylinder will cause a bent connecting rod. This can be verified with piston protrusion measurements.
Important: Copy aftermarket power-up kit check list when performing an engine disassembly investigation of overpower engine breakdown or non-function.

Aftermarket Power-Up Kit Check List
1. Piston cracked parallel to wrist pin.

^ Piston cracked in lip area.

^ Hole in piston connecting top of piston to oil cooling channel.

2. Melted Pistons.

^ Lip of combustion bowl melted.

^ Top of piston melted / missing.

3. Cross hatching polished off cylinder wall. Cylinder wall missing crosshatch on major thrust face of cylinder below ring belt travel.

4. Piston pin bore, Wrist pin, and Rod bushing.

^ Scoring in upper piston pin boss/black discoloration/oil coking.

^ Wrist Pin Wear

^ Rod bushing surface worn and discolored.

5. Carbon coking to underside of piston.

^ Discoloration of underside of Piston.

^ Discoloration and carbon coking buildup on underside of piston between piston pin bosses.

6. Accelerated rod / Main Bearing wear.

^ Fretting on backside of bearing.

^ Bearing surface distressed.

How to handle an engine failure suspected due to a power up Device

Dealers should not automatically decline warranty assistance on engine failures due to the fact that a power-up device or modification is evident or suspected. The technician must identify that the failure is due to a power-up device by teardown analysis and diagnosis of the engine components. The following steps should be taken if an engine failure occurs and it is suspected that the modification or addition of a power-up device maybe the cause of the engine failure. If unclear of this process or direction feel free to contact your District Service Manager (DVM) (in Canada, DSM) for further support.

1. The technician should use proper engine diagnostics to lead him/her to the failed engine components. The attached check sheet should be followed and if it is determined that at least three of the check sheet items match the engine component failures then it can be decided that the failure is not a warrantable claim.

2. Engine failures that meet at least three criteria of the check sheet are considered failures that are not manufacturers defects in workmanship or materials.

3. The dealership should contact the PQC, open a case to review the findings and make the final decision on warranty coverage. The DVM (in Canada, DSM) should be notified of the PQC decision.

4. Denied claims should be documented as follows:

a. The check sheet completed with the technicians detailed written findings of his diagnosis on the repair order.

b. Photographs of the failed parts should be maintained in the RO file.

5. The customer should be advised that the failure of their engine was not due to a manufacturer's defect in workmanship or materials and therefore the warranty claim is denied on this failure.

Maybe the most interesting information yet...Ford uses any and all of the tricks to avoid the HPFP issue...GM follows the Moss-Magnuson requirements.

Regards

[NewsW]

GM's warranty denial procedures on tuners is here.

The procedure for denial of warranty for HPFP would be very similar.


-----------------------

INFORMATION

Bulletin No.: 06-06-01-007B

Date: June 27, 2008
Subject:
Information On Identifying Duramax(TM) Diesel LB7, LLY, LMM, LBZ Overpower Engine Breakdown or Non-Function Due to Aftermarket Power-Up Devices vs. Non Overpower Engine Non-Function of Pistons, Cylinders, and Valvetrain Components

Models:
2001-2008 Chevrolet Silverado
2003-2008 Chevrolet Kodiak
2006-2008 Chevrolet Express
2001-2008 GMC Sierra
2003-2008 GMC TopKick
2006-2008 GMC Savana

with Duramax(TM) 6.6L V8 Turbo Diesel Engine (VINs 1, 2, 6, D - RPOs LB7, LLY, LMM, LBZ)

Supercede:

This bulletin is being revised to add additional information on identifying fuel related Aftermarket Power-Up Devices. Also a Caution statement was added regarding likely Powertrain damage and warranty. Please discard Corporate Bulletin Number 06-06-01-007A (Section 06 - Engine/Propulsion System).
Caution: Customers should be informed if a hard part failure is observed in the engine, transmission, transfer case and/or other driveline components, it is likely that powertrain components were weakened to the point of premature failure, while subjected to the higher stresses from Aftermarket Power-Up Devices. Failures associated with the installation of Aftermarket Power-Up Devices, which have been verified, are not covered under the terms of the New Vehicle Warranty.

General Motors Position On Aftermarket Power-Up Devices
Important: General Motors does not support or endorse the use of devices or modifications that, when installed, increase the engine horsepower and torque. Refer to bulletin number 04-06-04-054 - Warranty Admin. - Non-GM Parts and Accessories (Aftermarket).

Important: For further information on aftermarket power-up kits, refer to February 2006 Emerging Issues Course Number 10206.02D. In Canada, information on aftermarket power-up kits will be covered in the April 2006 TAC TALK program.

Aftermarket power-up devices are non-approved by General Motors. These devices are usually piggy-backed in the main engine harness or remain connected to the diagnostic connector to upload the calibration to the ECM. Recent warranty reviews of returned engines show engine breakdown or non-function due to power-up devices that are utilized for increased horsepower and torque. The following information will assist technicians in identifying overpower engine breakdown or non-function due to aftermarket power-up devices vs. non overpower engine breakdown or non-function.

Non-GM parts can alter the design of the vehicle. GM dealers need to be aware of the quality of parts being installed on vehicles. If failure occurs as a result of installation of sub-par parts, warranty coverage may be denied. Refer to Service Bulletin Number 04-06-04-054 Warranty Admin. Non-GM Parts and Accessories (Aftermarket).

Installed Power-Up Kit

Aftermarket power-up kits have become a very popular add on for performance-minded customers. These devices can add horsepower and torque and can add additional stress to the engine. These aftermarket calibrations take the Duramax powertrain outside of its design torque and horsepower rating. They do this by altering air/fuel ratios and injector timing, resulting in excessive cylinder pressure and temperature. When these calibrated parameters are altered, it will upset the design balance and can lead to a reduction of engine life expectancy. Generally, in inspection of Duramax engine failure due to power-up failures, two or more cylinders will be affected.

Installed Power-Up Kit
^ Once installed, the calibration may mask itself with the factory original calibration ID and may remain the same.

^ A Tech 2(R) will not positively enable you to identify the use of a power-up device.

^ Some companies that offer power-up devices claim increases of 150 or more horsepower and 300 or more lb/ft pounds of torque.

^ A vehicle that is used to the power-up device potential 100% of the time will see earlier engine wear and breakdown.

^ A vehicle that takes advantage of additional power, but on a less frequent basis, may not see premature engine wear and breakdown until later in the engine's life.

^ A vehicle not pushed to its limits of the power-up device often may not encounter premature wear and breakdown until after the engine is out of warranty.

Duramax(TM) Powertrain Horsepower / Torque Ratings

The following horsepower and torque increase over the past years required new internal components to accommodate the increase.
^ LB7 - 300 hp with 520 ft/lb of torque for model years 2000-2004

^ LLY - 310 hp with 605 ft/lb of torque for model years 2004-2008

^ LBZ - 360 hp with 650 ft/lb of torque for model year 2006-2008

^ LMM - 365 hp with 660 ft/lb of torque for model year 2007-2008

LBZ Improvements

To reliably achieve an increase in 50 horsepower with 45 ft/lb torque, the Duramax(TM) diesel had to be revised in many areas. A few of the revisions on the 2006 LBZ were:
^ New pistons with a revised compression ratio.

^ Wrist pins that are larger in diameter.

^ Connecting rods with added material to increase the I section strength.

^ Engine block and machining changes.

^ Cylinder heads.

Duramax(TM) Life Expectancy
The Duramax 6.6L V8 Turbo Diesel Engine is sold with a warranty of 100,000 miles/160,000 kilometers. The Duramax has been tested to survive upwards of 200,000 miles/320,000 kilometers. The Duramax powertrain is designed for reliability, peak horsepower and torque within its design limits. When a customer installs a power-up device, it drastically reduces the mileage
ratings.

Important: Cylinder Wall Spotting (commonly referred to leopard spots) is from the induction hardening process of the top 1/3 of the cylinder wall. This is normal for the Duramax(TM) Diesel.

Identifying Fuel Related Aftermarket Power-Up Device



Aftermarket companies have developed a performance pressure relief fuel valve for Duramax diesel engines. Refer to above graphic illustration. The performance pressure relief fuel valve attaches to the fuel rail in place of the OEM valve and will not allow any fuel return to the tank, giving 100% of the fuel to be available for additional engine performance. This may cause additional fuel related driveability concerns and may set the following DTC'S:
^ DTC P1093 Fuel Rail Pressure (FRP) Low During Power Enrichment

^ DTC P0087 Fuel Rail Pressure (FRP) Too Low



Aftermarket companies have developed a replacement performance/economy fuel injector nozzle. Refer to above graphic illustration. The performance/economy fuel injector nozzles replace the OEM fuel injection nozzles. The aftermarket companies claim increased horsepower, improved fuel atomization, lower exhaust gas temperatures and increase fuel economy. This may cause additional fuel related driveability concerns and may cause internal engine damage to the pistons and fuel injector nozzles.

Identifying Overpower Engine Premature Wear and Breakdown

When premature wear and breakdown is encountered due to an aftermarket power-up device, it has some very specific characteristics to the internal engine components. The following list will assist in identifying these characteristics as you tear down the engine.


^ Pistons will be cracked in the lip area, or a hole in the pistons.


^ Pistons can also be melted on the lip of the combustion bowl, or the top of the pistons can be melted.


^ Crosshatch will be polished off the cylinder wall in the major thrust face of cylinder below ring belt travel.


^ Piston pin bore will show signs of scoring, the wrist pins will be discolored, and can have oil coking on them. The connecting rod bushing surface will have accelerated wear. The above illustration shows a connecting rod bushing.


^ Oil coking on the underside of the piston between the wrist pin bosses.


^ Signs of bearing fretting will also be noticed on the connecting rod and main bearing caps. Refer to the above illustration for fretting of main bearing cap 1 and back side of connection rod bearing 2.


^ Excessive heat in engine compartment caused by overpower device. Refer to above illustration (1).

Non Overpower Engine Premature Wear and Breakdown

The following pictures show results of overheat, overspeed, low/no oil pressure or injector breakdown and how they differ from aftermarket power-up device premature wear and breakdown.

Engine Overheat

Overheat can be caused by a loss of coolant or a general cooling system failure. Some of the indicators of overheat are:


^ Melted pistons.

^ Head gasket breakdown or non-function.

^ Warped cylinder heads.

^ Crankshaft and connecting rod discolored.

Engine Overspeed Causes
If an engine has been run faster than design capability (redline), and has caused damage as a result, it may be a result of one of the following
conditions:

Leaking or failed turbo oil seals.
^ Oil evident in the intake runners and compressor side of the turbo.

^ Starting fluid use or alternative fuel added to the engine such as ether.

Engine Overspeed Results



The images shown above are indicators that an overspeed event took place.

Lack of Oil Pressure



Lack of lubrication causes rapid bearing wear or bearing to seize as shown above.

Engine Premature Wear and Breakdown Due to Improper Function of Fuel Injector

A fuel injector may fracture a piston or melt a piston but the damage will be limited to that cylinder only and all other pistons and cylinder walls are OK. In some cases hydraulic lock will occur on the suspected cylinder with an over-fueling fuel injector. Hydraulic lock on the suspected cylinder will cause a bent connecting rod. This can be verified with piston protrusion measurements.
Important: Copy aftermarket power-up kit check list when performing an engine disassembly investigation of overpower engine breakdown or non-function.

Aftermarket Power-Up Kit Check List
1. Piston cracked parallel to wrist pin.

^ Piston cracked in lip area.

^ Hole in piston connecting top of piston to oil cooling channel.

2. Melted Pistons.

^ Lip of combustion bowl melted.

^ Top of piston melted / missing.

3. Cross hatching polished off cylinder wall. Cylinder wall missing crosshatch on major thrust face of cylinder below ring belt travel.

4. Piston pin bore, Wrist pin, and Rod bushing.

^ Scoring in upper piston pin boss/black discoloration/oil coking.

^ Wrist Pin Wear

^ Rod bushing surface worn and discolored.

5. Carbon coking to underside of piston.

^ Discoloration of underside of Piston.

^ Discoloration and carbon coking buildup on underside of piston between piston pin bosses.

6. Accelerated rod / Main Bearing wear.

^ Fretting on backside of bearing.

^ Bearing surface distressed.

How to handle an engine failure suspected due to a power up Device

Dealers should not automatically decline warranty assistance on engine failures due to the fact that a power-up device or modification is evident or suspected. The technician must identify that the failure is due to a power-up device by teardown analysis and diagnosis of the engine components. The following steps should be taken if an engine failure occurs and it is suspected that the modification or addition of a power-up device maybe the cause of the engine failure. If unclear of this process or direction feel free to contact your District Service Manager (DVM) (in Canada, DSM) for further support.

1. The technician should use proper engine diagnostics to lead him/her to the failed engine components. The attached check sheet should be followed and if it is determined that at least three of the check sheet items match the engine component failures then it can be decided that the failure is not a warrantable claim.

2. Engine failures that meet at least three criteria of the check sheet are considered failures that are not manufacturers defects in workmanship or materials.

3. The dealership should contact the PQC, open a case to review the findings and make the final decision on warranty coverage. The DVM (in Canada, DSM) should be notified of the PQC decision.

4. Denied claims should be documented as follows:

a. The check sheet completed with the technicians detailed written findings of his diagnosis on the repair order.

b. Photographs of the failed parts should be maintained in the RO file.

5. The customer should be advised that the failure of their engine was not due to a manufacturer's defect in workmanship or materials and therefore the warranty claim is denied on this failure.