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

[DirtyOil]

gmcsmoke wrote:
you're link doesn't work.

oh, that's right, they never do.

Up here they've been running on the telly... a show called Canada's Greatest Know it All... so far these know-it-alls really know jack...

but, these once called "know-it-alls" finally have acknowledged their defeat and retreat with heads dropped and tails between their legs.


Would be nice to see it here... dang post #$ores!

[gmcsmoke]

you're link doesn't work.

oh, that's right, they never do.

[NewsW]

Rick and others... please have a quick read of this thread:

http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/25882370/gotomsg/25882385/p/1.cfm#25882385

6.4 fuel pump failure, metal shavings, warranty... you heard the song before.

But it is a totally different pump!


EDIT:

Reading additional posts, I think I am now of the view that this rash of pump failures is caused by the use of unapproved fuel / additives.

Bioweasel is high on the suspect list.

[NewsW]

durallymax wrote:


There is still the same regulator on the pump that there has always been, and they swapped the relief valve for a regulator. My guess is to allow more precise control. The Relief valve is simply a spring and is either all or nothing. The regulator would allow better control.

From what I have been told the CP4 pumps on these trucks have a lot less capacity then the CP3s did.

Can you get us some drawings of the CP3 vs. CP4 showing the valves?



Any additional info on the capacity of the CP4 vs. CP3 and technical data would be real helpful.

[NewsW]

BenK wrote:


Sounds like they should have used Tungsten Disulphide. Used to have
my stuff plated by Diversified Dry Lube out of Tulsa OK, but they
no longer there

Cold process that plated 4-5 micron's and did NOT change the surface
finish. IIRC, inert and FDA approved (food grade surface), non-stick,
very low co-efficient of friction and very low cost. Really wanted to
coat everything inside one of my engines, but never got around to it


Again, ask why DLC is needed and what is the problem being solved?
Is it the piston and cylinder wall? Is it the cam and follower? or ???

Tungsten disulfide will not have worked. The number of cycles and the stress the surfaces are under mean it took a coating with durability and slipperiness that far exceed Tungsten disulfide.

DLC is needed because it offered unimaginable properties relative to the old coatings.

I know for sure it is on the cam and contact surface, suspect it is on the piston and sidewalls, but have no independent confirmation.

A critical issue is surface prep --- as whatever defects tend to be faithfully replicated.

In the old days, before you coated, a part is blue printed.

AFAIK, that is not good enough for the tolerances in the CP4 series, where tolerances require surfaces to be extremely tight in terms of spec and smoothness, etc.

What I do not know:


Is the part even machined to "round" or "flat" or is there a bag of tricks involved at the level of microns?

Hypothetically, the piston cylinder could have a face that is machined ever so slightly from flat at the cam end, so it turns ever so slightly to equalize wear on the round bore.

Or, the cam lobe can be ever so slightly inclined, to force the shaft back toward a pressure seal.

Many of these things are possible, but without knowing the engineering data, we can only speculate --- very hard to see this kind of tweaks from sample reverse engineering.

[The_Mad_Norsky]

rick83864 wrote:
A guy over on FTE has a really nice video cutting one apart. No link

Here is the YouTube link to the video mentioned by Rick. This gentleman is also a member here at RV.net, but I cannot think of his user name.

From what I read, he was looking for any signs of metal shavings in the filters. He has a Ford with the 6.7L diesel.

Anyway, the link: 6.7L Filter Inspection

[BenK]

Huntindog wrote:

NewsW wrote:
VW filters... do they have a water block membrane?

GM?

Ford?

Need some help here from our peanut gallery!

Probably the silence is caused by nobody being "sure" of the facts.

GM has used basically the same screw on (single) filter body since 2001. But the internals have been upgraded numerous times. The consensous opinion is that the GM is now a 2 micron filter.
What is fact is that it is made by RACOR and contains their exclusive "aquablock" membrane. GM is very proud of it's water blocking abilities....Though I do think water can get thru under the right circumstances. The latest GM filter is backwards compatible with all previous years Duramaxes.

Ford,,,until 2011 used a similar Racor filter with the aquablock.

But now uses a 2 filter setup. A primary which most say is 10 micron and a secondary which most say is 4 micron. One person says it has a water block membrane. Most everyone else agrees that it does not. The pics that I have seen of a cut open one did not have one visible..So IMO it does not.

I am puzzled by the fact that Ford with 2 seperate filters is said to be inferior (by most) to the GMs single filter.
The Ford seems to have no water block, filters to 4 micron vs GM's 2 micron,,and needs filter changes more often.

Excactly the opposite of what I would expect.

Ford,,,until 2011 used a similar Racor filter with the aquablock.

Doesn't Rick's have that filter ?

If so, then how can Ford deny his claim, even if there was water
in his system (his did NOT have water) ????

Did Ford claim he modified/removed/etc the filter? Or if they said
filter failed...then it is the filter supplier that should be on the
hook, right?

Then the other comments of GM having the same failure rate(s)...then
does that then say this H2O membrane isn't working? or that there
is a pressure issue with the system creating too high a pressure
differential on that membrane?

[BenK]

NewsW wrote:

BenK wrote:


The pump surfaces are DLC plated, but don't know if every last square inch is.
Does anyone know and then ask if there is any data on corrosion of those non-plated
areas/components within the pump?
!!!

AFAIK, only the friction surfaces are coated as coating cost goes up exponentially when you are talking about 3D coating especially with inside surfaces.

Delphi, in one of their DLC bragging rights, talk about how they did a continuous process DLC coating that can coat 3D parts...


Think one of the "signs" of contaminated fuel used in the Ford TSB is corrosion inside the pump --- need to reread that TSB.

Almost certain large number of non-friction surfaces in the pump are not coated --- plain cost too much to do.

Sounds like they should have used Tungsten Disulphide. Used to have
my stuff plated by Diversified Dry Lube out of Tulsa OK, but they
no longer there

Cold process that plated 4-5 micron's and did NOT change the surface
finish. IIRC, inert and FDA approved (food grade surface), non-stick,
very low co-efficient of friction and very low cost. Really wanted to
coat everything inside one of my engines, but never got around to it

Found that stuff to solve a problem with some disc brakes designed for
a steel mill. Flakes of iron scale and iron oxide dust every where. The
caliper slides were sticking and this stuff solved that

Haven't been that kind of designer for over 3 decades, so lost touch
and don't know enough about DLC.

CVD diamond I know a bit as invented (or directed it's invention after
hatching the idea) diamond foam. Problem with CVD is that it is tough
to direct every molecule's placement. So rough surface finish. That
rough finish is exactly what we wanted for CVD foam heat sinks.

Again, ask why DLC is needed and what is the problem being solved?
Is it the piston and cylinder wall? Is it the cam and follower? or ???

Another topic to bone up on and don't have the time at this time...

[NewsW]

Huntindog wrote:

GM has used basically the same screw on (single) filter body since 2001. But the internals have been upgraded numerous times. The consensous opinion is that the GM is now a 2 micron filter.
What is fact is that it is made by RACOR and contains their exclusive "aquablock" membrane. GM is very proud of it's water blocking abilities....Though I do think water can get thru under the right circumstances. The latest GM filter is backwards compatible with all previous years Duramaxes.

Let me guess, the new GM part have superseded previous part numbers, and the older one is no longer available.

As in, you cannot buy the old style GM filter without the Aquablock membrane.

Me think there was a spec / design change.. and someone at GM said "oppsie daisy".



As for Ford.... read the SAE etc. articles on filtration, and clearly where there are publications, there is fire.

[Huntindog]

NewsW wrote:
VW filters... do they have a water block membrane?

GM?

Ford?

Need some help here from our peanut gallery!

Probably the silence is caused by nobody being "sure" of the facts.

GM has used basically the same screw on (single) filter body since 2001. But the internals have been upgraded numerous times. The consensous opinion is that the GM is now a 2 micron filter.
What is fact is that it is made by RACOR and contains their exclusive "aquablock" membrane. GM is very proud of it's water blocking abilities....Though I do think water can get thru under the right circumstances. The latest GM filter is backwards compatible with all previous years Duramaxes.

Ford,,,until 2011 used a similar Racor filter with the aquablock.
But now uses a 2 filter setup. A primary which most say is 10 micron and a secondary which most say is 4 micron. One person says it has a water block membrane. Most everyone else agrees that it does not. The pics that I have seen of a cut open one did not have one visible..So IMO it does not.

I am puzzled by the fact that Ford with 2 seperate filters is said to be inferior (by most) to the GMs single filter.
The Ford seems to have no water block, filters to 4 micron vs GM's 2 micron,,and needs filter changes more often.

Excactly the opposite of what I would expect.

[NewsW]

BenK wrote:


The pump surfaces are DLC plated, but don't know if every last square inch is.
Does anyone know and then ask if there is any data on corrosion of those non-plated
areas/components within the pump?
!!!

AFAIK, only the friction surfaces are coated as coating cost goes up exponentially when you are talking about 3D coating especially with inside surfaces.

Delphi, in one of their DLC bragging rights, talk about how they did a continuous process DLC coating that can coat 3D parts...


Think one of the "signs" of contaminated fuel used in the Ford TSB is corrosion inside the pump --- need to reread that TSB.

Almost certain large number of non-friction surfaces in the pump are not coated --- plain cost too much to do.

[45Ricochet]

A guy over on FTE has a really nice video cutting one apart. No link

[NewsW]

Anyone dissected a brand new set of fuel filters to see what kind of a membrane it has (if any)?

It is possible for such a membrane to be built into the fuel pick up area.

[durallymax]

BenK wrote:



My controls DB hairs raised reading that there are *TWO* regulators
and/or relief valves to the return?!?!?

A huge tell-tale that they had a problem, chased it and solved it to
some level of confidence with the addition of another set of regulators/valves

Not good engineering, IMHO...worse if there is a 3rd set.

There is still the same regulator on the pump that there has always been, and they swapped the relief valve for a regulator. My guess is to allow more precise control. The Relief valve is simply a spring and is either all or nothing. The regulator would allow better control.

From what I have been told the CP4 pumps on these trucks have a lot less capacity then the CP3s did.

[BenK]

NewsW wrote:
snip...
High enough pressure, and it will get through.

Ultimate PSI from the differential at the membrane...then consider tossing
heated, return fuel to a closed system.

That will increase the PSI inside the tank with the feed line back
to the pump creating a low pressure side of the membrane

Even creating a cycling PSI across that membrane dependent on the
tank cooling capacity dictated by the ambient temps around the tank

Need to know that membrane's PSI rating (range) is