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

[Huntindog]

NewsW wrote:

Huntindog wrote:
I saw a post on another forum where Gieco is charging 66.99 for 6 months for MBI on Ford 6.7s....My GM is only 16.96 for the same coverage.

While both of these premiums are reasonable, there is a huge difference. Gieco must be aware of Fords warranty policy and is pricing their coverage accordingly.

Couple of issues here.

That can itself be a very interesting red flag, because we know there could not be many payouts of Ford 6.7s (for a claims history) unless they are basing it on 6.0 and 6.4.

With 5 year 100,000mile coverage, there are still a lot of 6.0s made in late 2007 that is covered under the emissions warranty.

It would be real interesting to know if they did base it on their payouts on comprehensive claims (eg for bad fuel, etc.)


Hunting: Can you see if there is a big difference in Comprehensive rates?

The way to do it is to get a bud in the underwriting business at a major firm to pull the rate book.. and see the rating class.

Pick 2 vehicles basically virtual identical, except GM / Ford / Chrysler, then see the rating codes for MBI and Comp.

Also get the Fire and Theft to see if there is an anomaly.




An interesting twist of the law essentially exempts insurers from Federal anti-trust, and leave it to state Anti-trust law, which in practice mean most states have no antitrust protection against the insurers.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/6701

Now, on the fuel pump issue, they will be paying out on either the MBI or the Comp.

They will then take the claims... and if it is irregular... subrogate it back to Ford.

Innnnnnteresting.

From the way the agent was talking when I bought policy, MBI is a fairly new product for Gieco. I think that they are the only company offering it so far. There is a age restriction. The vehicle has to be pretty new 15-18 months ( I forget exactly) to qualify for enrollment.
That would likely leave out the 6.0-6.4s.

Coverage is for 7 years or 100,000 miles.

[NewsW]

BenK wrote:
With my limited experience, still think a gear pump the best for this application

Think Bosch is stuck protecting their patents and that piston pump.

Screw pumps can provide much higher PSI's and GPH's 24/7 and deal with all kinds
of cruddy fluids.

If I recall the cost factors for a screw pump right... you are into mucho mooola.

The part have to sell for $200 or so x factory.

That means Bosch can afford to spend $50 per unit to make it.

[BenK]

With my limited experience, still think a gear pump the best for this application

Think Bosch is stuck protecting their patents and that piston pump.

Screw pumps can provide much higher PSI's and GPH's 24/7 and deal with all kinds
of cruddy fluids.

[BenK]

NewsW wrote:
The plot is thickening fast..

We now have documented evidence on several issues.

Not IN ORDER OF PRIORITY

Filtration

Lubricity

Reactivivity

Operating temperature



And the band played on...

Bet the list will continue to grow till they solve the root cause(s)

See that list moving down the typical specification sheet for the
design team, which seems now to be putting the cart before the horse

IMHO, the various world class designers are working in their own
company vacuums and someone/thing needs to get them all into one
room to discuss this without politics or NIH

Have seen this type of scenario and it is about time for one of the
major players blocked by patents to do a clean room/sheet design
based on just the specifications

[I_m_Rick_James]

Capt Skup wrote:
Back to aviation for a second. Had me wondering about jet fuel in conventional diesel engines. Each morning or before each flight I would take fuel samples from all the low point drains of the aircraft I was about to go for a ride in. Half fill a mason jar, do the swirl test and if the sample was clear and no contaminents present, the norm would be to dump the fuel into the tow tractor's fuel tank. Usually I would guess I poured probably 2-3 gallons. Which by the way aboard the aircraft carrier would be powered by JP-5 anyway. I believe those tow tractors were powered by 2-cycle Detroit Diesel engines, and they seemed quite happy to be running on the jet fuel. Just find it interesting in regard to lubiticity of the fuel.

I ran jet fuel in my '02 7.3 for years without problems. The difference between my 7.3, your Navy tow tractors, and current generation trucks is simply fuel pressure. Our older equipment was more tolerant of poor fuel simply due to the relatively low fuel pressure requirements of the engines. The lubricity is not as critical for lower fuel pressure pumps.

[NewsW]

Huntindog wrote:
I saw a post on another forum where Gieco is charging 66.99 for 6 months for MBI on Ford 6.7s....My GM is only 16.96 for the same coverage.

While both of these premiums are reasonable, there is a huge difference. Gieco must be aware of Fords warranty policy and is pricing their coverage accordingly.

Couple of issues here.

That can itself be a very interesting red flag, because we know there could not be many payouts of Ford 6.7s (for a claims history) unless they are basing it on 6.0 and 6.4.

With 5 year 100,000mile coverage, there are still a lot of 6.0s made in late 2007 that is covered under the emissions warranty.

It would be real interesting to know if they did base it on their payouts on comprehensive claims (eg for bad fuel, etc.)


Hunting: Can you see if there is a big difference in Comprehensive rates?

The way to do it is to get a bud in the underwriting business at a major firm to pull the rate book.. and see the rating class.

Pick 2 vehicles basically virtual identical, except GM / Ford / Chrysler, then see the rating codes for MBI and Comp.

Also get the Fire and Theft to see if there is an anomaly.




An interesting twist of the law essentially exempts insurers from Federal anti-trust, and leave it to state Anti-trust law, which in practice mean most states have no antitrust protection against the insurers.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/6701

Now, on the fuel pump issue, they will be paying out on either the MBI or the Comp.

They will then take the claims... and if it is irregular... subrogate it back to Ford.

Innnnnnteresting.

[NewsW]

hawkeye-08 wrote:
patented shoe...

Clicky link
http://delphi.com/shared/pdf/ppd/pwrtrn/multec-light-duty-diesel-common-rail-system.pdf

DFP6 roller cam shoe mechanism optimized for reduced torque, dynamic mass and noise via the patented Delphi
static shoe guide

Now that is helpful --- lets get a picture of the shoe by a patent search, and see if it has any relevance.

[NewsW]

The plot is thickening fast..

We now have documented evidence on several issues.

Not IN ORDER OF PRIORITY

Filtration

Lubricity

Reactivivity

Operating temperature



And the band played on...

[hawkeye-08]

patented shoe...

Clicky link
http://delphi.com/shared/pdf/ppd/pwrtrn/multec-light-duty-diesel-common-rail-system.pdf

DFP6 roller cam shoe mechanism optimized for reduced torque, dynamic mass and noise via the patented Delphi
static shoe guide

[Huntindog]

I saw a post on another forum where Gieco is charging 66.99 for 6 months for MBI on Ford 6.7s....My GM is only 16.96 for the same coverage.

While both of these premiums are reasonable, there is a huge difference. Gieco must be aware of Fords warranty policy and is pricing their coverage accordingly.

[hawkeye-08]

I wonder if the "first fill" may be a major contributor to the failures.

Common statement

Lubricity: It is essential that the lubricity of the fuel as measured by the HFRR test specified in ISO
12156-1 meets the requirement of a wear scar diameter not greater than 460 microns. In addition, it is
recommended by the Diesel FIE manufacturers, that “first fill” of the fuel tank should be with fuel with
good lubricity characteristics (HFRR < 400 µm) in order to guarantee good “run-in” of the injection system
components. The US diesel specification (ASTM D 975-09) includes a lubricity value of 520 µm maximum
(according to ASTM D 6079). It is expected that the useful operating lifetime of any mechanical
component will be adversely affected by fuel with a lubricity exceeding 460 microns.

[NewsW]

durallymax wrote:

if they are blowing black smoke then a lot of the fuel is obviously exiting the engine, however excess unburned fuel will cause cylinder wash

The GM warranty post had a rather good discussion of what it took for GM to improve HP / Torque output without compromising engine life.

[durallymax]

Jarlaxle wrote:

NewsW wrote:

durallymax wrote:
All the kids out blowing smoke are experiencing the cylinder washing effect, where the diesel fuel "washes" the oil film off the wall.

All the more reasons why a former "coaling" machine, or a tuner equipped machine is basically worth its NADA wholesale price subtracting the full cost of drivetrain, brakes and tires and suspension replacement at retail.

Assuming they have not damaged the frame, interior, steering gear...

Please stop posting bs. We both know the quoted post is nonsense.

What is nonsense about it? It was a generalized statement yes. There is much more to the story. if they are blowing black smoke then a lot of the fuel is obviously exiting the engine, however excess unburned fuel will cause cylinder wash

[NewsW]

Looking at raising cylinder pressures..



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

Development of a Structurally Optimized Heavy Duty Diesel Cylinder Head Design Capable of 250 Bar Peak Cylinder Pressure Operation
Number: 2011-01-2232

Published: 2011-09-13




Publisher: SAE International

Language: English
DOI: 10.4271/2011-01-2232
Author(s): Marc Megel - Southwest Research Institute; Barry Westmoreland - Southwest Research Institute; Guy Jones - Southwest Research Institute; Ford Phillips - Southwest Research Institute; Douglas Eberle - Southwest Research Institute; Mark Tussing - Southwest Research Institute; NIgel Yeomans - Grainger & Worrall Ltd
Citation:
Megel, M., Westmoreland, B., Jones, G., Phillips, F. et al., "Development of a Structurally Optimized Heavy Duty Diesel Cylinder Head Design Capable of 250 Bar Peak Cylinder Pressure Operation," SAE Int. J. Engines 4(3):2736-2755, 2011, doi:10.4271/2011-01-2232.




Abstract:

Historically, heavy-duty diesel (HDD) engine designs have evolved along the path of increased power output, improved fuel efficiency and reduced exhaust gas emissions, driven both by regulatory and market requirements. The various technologies employed to achieve this evolution have resulted in ever-increasing engine operating cylinder pressures, higher than for any other class of internal combustion engine. Traditional HDD engine design architecture limits peak cylinder pressure (PCP) to about 200 bar (2900 psi). HDD PCP had steadily increased from the early 1970's until the mid 2000's, at which point the structural limit was reached using traditional methods and materials. Specific power output reversed its historical trend and fell at this time as a result of technologies employed to satisfy new emissions requirements, most notably exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). While future incremental improvements to specific power are predicted to occur through refinements in existing technology, a significant change in HDD structural architecture is required to allow higher PCP operation. Many proposed combustion, emissions reduction and high efficiency technologies for the future are also pointing to the need for increased PCP. Once higher PCP operation can be achieved, HDD performance can return to its historical trends and enable much of the advanced diesel combustion research ongoing throughout the world today to become more commercially viable. The challenge is to determine what this structural architecture must be.

Southwest Research Institute® (SwRI®) has undertaken an applied research and development program with the goal of evaluating key design features which limit PCP for modern HDD engines and to analytically derive structural solutions that would extend the limit to what is predicted to be required for high specific power model year (MY) 2015 (and beyond) engines. This program focused on identifying combinations of structural parameters and feasible material options in the cylinder head to achieve commercially viable 250 bar PCP capability with minimal impact on existing machining lines. This paper reviews the multi-phase/multi-year program approach and results as well as discusses a new casting method developed for HDD cylinder head manufacture.

[NewsW]

More research on fuel filtration:



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


Innovative Water Separation Technology and Electrostatic Discharge System Developed and Validated for the Diesel Fuel Filtration Module of the Ford F-Series Next Generation
Number: 2009-01-1459

Published: 2009-04-20


Publisher: SAE International

Language: English
DOI: 10.4271/2009-01-1459
Author(s): Mathieu Petiteaux - SOGEFI Filter Division
Citation:
Petiteaux, M., "Innovative Water Separation Technology and Electrostatic Discharge System Developed and Validated for the Diesel Fuel Filtration Module of the Ford F-Series Next Generation," SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-1459, 2009, doi:10.4271/2009-01-1459.



Abstract:

A significant increase of diesel vehicles commercialization is expected in North America in the next years, especially in Full Size segments (Pick Up, CUV, SUV, Van, …) and new high performances common rail turbo charged diesel engines are in development with excellent balance between power, torque and fuel consumption.

New diesel fuels as Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and Bio Diesel Blends (2% to 20%) are now a reality in US gas stations to help to reach EPA emissions targets and CO2 foot prints of vehicles but these new fuels are showing undesired impacts on fuel line and fuel injection system components as deposits or corrosion and seizing risks.

The fuel filter is THE safety component of the diesel fuel line by cleaning the fuel from particles, water droplets and other organic contaminants and is by this way one of the most impacted by new fuels.

SOGEFI Filter Division has been selected by Ford to develop the diesel fuel conditioning module of the F-Series next generation and has created an innovative product combining European top-ranking filtration technologies with specific solutions dedicated to North American needs of water separation and electrostatic charges dissipation that are presented in this paper.