Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation
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 i...
Forum Discussion
Coming to Conclusions
We are at the point where indisputable evidence of a problem is there.
Running design changes are normal, and should not be taken as anything but that --- a better way to do something that wasn't evident when a part is first conceived.
But what we have here is not evidence of a "running change", but a substantial, major rework of the pump --- that involve major retooling and is only slightly short of a "clean sheet" redesign.
Given the evidence at hand, I believe that the customers of this pump (and that is not the end user), but GM, Ford, VW, etc. should be quietly having a conversation with Bosch about covering their warranty costs, and with an agreement in place, addressing the units out in the field in a fair and equitable manner.
Since only a small percentage of pumps have been failing, a fair way to go about it is to extend the warranty on the CP4 pumps in the field to 150,000 miles /7 years or more, and the warranty extension shall include consequential damage.
Warranty coverage on pump failures should not be unreasonably denied, unless there is good evidence of misfueling (e.g. fuel sample with gasoline in excess of 25% by volume, DEF, or other evidence of contaminated fuel that squarely place the liability elsewhere).
Contamination in fuel cases should be handled in a fair manner with the benefit of doubt for the customer unless evidence of misfueling with DEF, or willful ignorance of Water in Fuel indicator or willful failure to maintain filters, etc. were found.
The above policy shall be retroactively applied as appropriate.
This problem has cast a shadow on many reputable brands, and it is time for the industry to put the issue behind them.
More drastic action, such as a recall of all units in the field, is at present, not warranted by the facts.
We are at the point where indisputable evidence of a problem is there.
Running design changes are normal, and should not be taken as anything but that --- a better way to do something that wasn't evident when a part is first conceived.
But what we have here is not evidence of a "running change", but a substantial, major rework of the pump --- that involve major retooling and is only slightly short of a "clean sheet" redesign.
Given the evidence at hand, I believe that the customers of this pump (and that is not the end user), but GM, Ford, VW, etc. should be quietly having a conversation with Bosch about covering their warranty costs, and with an agreement in place, addressing the units out in the field in a fair and equitable manner.
Since only a small percentage of pumps have been failing, a fair way to go about it is to extend the warranty on the CP4 pumps in the field to 150,000 miles /7 years or more, and the warranty extension shall include consequential damage.
Warranty coverage on pump failures should not be unreasonably denied, unless there is good evidence of misfueling (e.g. fuel sample with gasoline in excess of 25% by volume, DEF, or other evidence of contaminated fuel that squarely place the liability elsewhere).
Contamination in fuel cases should be handled in a fair manner with the benefit of doubt for the customer unless evidence of misfueling with DEF, or willful ignorance of Water in Fuel indicator or willful failure to maintain filters, etc. were found.
The above policy shall be retroactively applied as appropriate.
This problem has cast a shadow on many reputable brands, and it is time for the industry to put the issue behind them.
More drastic action, such as a recall of all units in the field, is at present, not warranted by the facts.
