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
Agree and disagree
Disagree in that they will NOT talk, as there is too much money on the table. More
so in reference to the numbers or percentage of documented failures
I know these types, or was one of them in sheep's clothing. A technologist at
heart and tried or took that promotion thinking I could make a difference, but
so wrong in trying to be a bean counter. Just could NOT do it and one huge reason
got laid off the first chance my Ex-VP boss got.
It will either be a mandated recall or so much money leaving their table (bonuses
and options) that will 'force' those bean counters to do something.
Even then, most likely penny pinching to 'just enough' and not to solve, but to
placate whatever agency or public outcry (the public is NOT tech savvy and whatever
marketing verbiage works, will win out)
Personally think their hanging their hat on H2O is a misdirection and the general
public has swallowed it hook line and sinker
H2O can lead to a conducive environment for cavitation, which 'might' be a
leading cause of debris generation, but, IMHO, the real culprit is both the
poor or mistake choice of employing the fuel as the ONLY lubrication for the
cam cavity components and not securing the piston to the cam follower
H2O in the whole system has corrosion potentials, but I can not see how that
is the main issue with these pump failures. Again conducive to cavitation and
working with the organic amines on the DLC to become debris
The lack of a piston capture is plain dumb. No different than not capturing the
piston of an ICE. Heck, bet the PSI's are higher than any of our ICE's. Can you
imagine my big block's piston NOT being positively captured on the crank?!?!?
:S :S :S :S :S :S :S :S :S
The lack of a positive capture of the piston bottom to the cam follower
is then exacerbated by the way they managed deceleration/exhaust braking
with that metering valve/shut-off to the cylinder head. That creates
an even better separation of the piston bottom from the cam follower
Why, way back there, suggested to those who might consider disconnecting
that metering valve connection. Maybe that is the key, how much that
vehicle see's deceleration and that metering valve shutting off the
fuel flow
Once that piston bottom hammering the follower has enough cycles, it
then has debris spewed into that stagnant cavity, to further create
debris having those tiny bits in-between the piston bottom and follower
hammered some more
Everything else down stream is just that...down stream of the failure
point...the pump cam cavity. That is a secondary failure from debris
of the cam cavity failure
What is puzzling to me, is that the failure percentage is so small, for
now
This where I'm noodling other what if's...is/are there other contributing
factors?
H2O comes back but what is it about H2O in this fray ?
Is there a tolerance stack up condition that exacerbates the hammering?
Curious that the latest DLC posts says only one side of the union is
now plated... Is it that DLC on DLC not a good thing like I'm used to
with the other exotic coatings I'm familiar with ? Would a better lube
have solve that? Or better lube and proper flow solved that?
Back on the bean counter mentality...penny pinching will continue as
long as they make their quarterly bottom line (bonuses and options)
Only when a regulatory agency and/or public out cry forces their hand.
Then they will continue to penny pinch for a 'just good enough' solution...
Disagree in that they will NOT talk, as there is too much money on the table. More
so in reference to the numbers or percentage of documented failures
I know these types, or was one of them in sheep's clothing. A technologist at
heart and tried or took that promotion thinking I could make a difference, but
so wrong in trying to be a bean counter. Just could NOT do it and one huge reason
got laid off the first chance my Ex-VP boss got.
It will either be a mandated recall or so much money leaving their table (bonuses
and options) that will 'force' those bean counters to do something.
Even then, most likely penny pinching to 'just enough' and not to solve, but to
placate whatever agency or public outcry (the public is NOT tech savvy and whatever
marketing verbiage works, will win out)
Personally think their hanging their hat on H2O is a misdirection and the general
public has swallowed it hook line and sinker
H2O can lead to a conducive environment for cavitation, which 'might' be a
leading cause of debris generation, but, IMHO, the real culprit is both the
poor or mistake choice of employing the fuel as the ONLY lubrication for the
cam cavity components and not securing the piston to the cam follower
H2O in the whole system has corrosion potentials, but I can not see how that
is the main issue with these pump failures. Again conducive to cavitation and
working with the organic amines on the DLC to become debris
The lack of a piston capture is plain dumb. No different than not capturing the
piston of an ICE. Heck, bet the PSI's are higher than any of our ICE's. Can you
imagine my big block's piston NOT being positively captured on the crank?!?!?
:S :S :S :S :S :S :S :S :S
The lack of a positive capture of the piston bottom to the cam follower
is then exacerbated by the way they managed deceleration/exhaust braking
with that metering valve/shut-off to the cylinder head. That creates
an even better separation of the piston bottom from the cam follower
Why, way back there, suggested to those who might consider disconnecting
that metering valve connection. Maybe that is the key, how much that
vehicle see's deceleration and that metering valve shutting off the
fuel flow
Once that piston bottom hammering the follower has enough cycles, it
then has debris spewed into that stagnant cavity, to further create
debris having those tiny bits in-between the piston bottom and follower
hammered some more
Everything else down stream is just that...down stream of the failure
point...the pump cam cavity. That is a secondary failure from debris
of the cam cavity failure
What is puzzling to me, is that the failure percentage is so small, for
now
This where I'm noodling other what if's...is/are there other contributing
factors?
H2O comes back but what is it about H2O in this fray ?
Is there a tolerance stack up condition that exacerbates the hammering?
Curious that the latest DLC posts says only one side of the union is
now plated... Is it that DLC on DLC not a good thing like I'm used to
with the other exotic coatings I'm familiar with ? Would a better lube
have solve that? Or better lube and proper flow solved that?
Back on the bean counter mentality...penny pinching will continue as
long as they make their quarterly bottom line (bonuses and options)
Only when a regulatory agency and/or public out cry forces their hand.
Then they will continue to penny pinch for a 'just good enough' solution...
