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

[sloopdog_1]

NinerBikes wrote:

TSeck wrote:
Looooove my 7.3. Never going to sell this truck. :B

I think it's cause y'all can't afford a new truck, or you'd probably be rolling in one. :B

Don't know about TSeck, but mine has only 66K miles on it, and it's main job is to pull the 5er, with an occasional trip to Lowes to get garden soil or something similar.I don't need anything to drive that cost more than my first house.I have no need to show that mine is bigger,better,newer,faster,etc,etc.I am comfortable with my life.:)

[NinerBikes]

TSeck wrote:
Looooove my 7.3. Never going to sell this truck. :B

I think it's cause y'all can't afford a new truck, or you'd probably be rolling in one. :B

[sloopdog_1]

TSeck wrote:
Looooove my 7.3. Never going to sell this truck. :B

X2

[TSeck]

Looooove my 7.3. Never going to sell this truck. :B

[NewsW]

NinerBikes wrote:


You can't meet emissions without a proper 2000 bar fully functioning HPFP... I get that part. Therefore, yes, it would be an emissions violation by the manufacturer for your fuel rail pressure being too low to combust the fuel cleanly and properly. So if you see that P0087 code from your OBD II port, that is an emissions violation. :B If your vehicle stalls, pull the codes and log them down in ink, always, every single time, before it goes in to the stealership for repair.

Confirm that low fuel pressure (injection) will raise emissions, and cause it to fail the warranty.

The value proposition for high pressure injection is that the more spent on high pressure at the front end (fuel injection) the less spent on the tail end (after treatment).


Now, that is assuming everything stayed the same...


And it is not staying the same with the maintenance cost side of the equation.

[NinerBikes]

NewsW wrote:

NinerBikes wrote:
VW has stated in writing, via emails and such, to the effect that it is covered for 60,000 miles or 5 years, which ever comes first. However, I should add that there have been individuals covered out to 86k, to another example of 105k miles here in California, under "goodwill" gestures. Doesn't mean that in the future they will do the same for someone else, but it is in there as on the record.

This is, from a diesel ownership standpoint, completely unacceptable, as TDI's and diesels in general have a case history and track record of going 300,000 miles or more on pumps that are maintained, fueled, and operated on all kinds of diesel fuel all over the USA. So, that is the durability expectation which must be met by previous VW diesel and TDI owners. 60 k miles with an $8000 out of pocket failure isn't going to cut it. If VW continues to do that, the resale prices on these vehicles will drop like a stone. A $5000 upgrade premium for a diesel motor option that will require a potential $8000 out of pocket repair after 60k miles would be a double whammy unacceptable to savvy consumers.

Emissions is the warranty that they are not mentioning.

Read it.

Ford's owners manual 2012 is online, and it specifically names the Fuel Injection System, Injectors and HPFP as specificed emissions parts covered under the warranty.


www.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/2012Warranty.pdf

You can't meet emissions without a proper 2000 bar fully functioning HPFP... I get that part. Therefore, yes, it would be an emissions violation by the manufacturer for your fuel rail pressure being too low to combust the fuel cleanly and properly. So if you see that P0087 code from your OBD II port, that is an emissions violation. :B If your vehicle stalls, pull the codes and log them down in ink, always, every single time, before it goes in to the stealership for repair.

[NewsW]

NinerBikes wrote:
VW has stated in writing, via emails and such, to the effect that it is covered for 60,000 miles or 5 years, which ever comes first. However, I should add that there have been individuals covered out to 86k, to another example of 105k miles here in California, under "goodwill" gestures. Doesn't mean that in the future they will do the same for someone else, but it is in there as on the record.

This is, from a diesel ownership standpoint, completely unacceptable, as TDI's and diesels in general have a case history and track record of going 300,000 miles or more on pumps that are maintained, fueled, and operated on all kinds of diesel fuel all over the USA. So, that is the durability expectation which must be met by previous VW diesel and TDI owners. 60 k miles with an $8000 out of pocket failure isn't going to cut it. If VW continues to do that, the resale prices on these vehicles will drop like a stone. A $5000 upgrade premium for a diesel motor option that will require a potential $8000 out of pocket repair after 60k miles would be a double whammy unacceptable to savvy consumers.

Emissions is the warranty that they are not mentioning.

Read it.

Ford's owners manual 2012 is online, and it specifically names the Fuel Injection System, Injectors and HPFP as specificed emissions parts covered under the warranty.


www.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/2012Warranty.pdf

[NinerBikes]

VW has stated in writing, via emails and such, to the effect that it is covered for 60,000 miles or 5 years, which ever comes first. However, I should add that there have been individuals covered out to 86k, to another example of 105k miles here in California, under "goodwill" gestures. Doesn't mean that in the future they will do the same for someone else, but it is in there as on the record.

This is, from a diesel ownership standpoint, completely unacceptable, as TDI's and diesels in general have a case history and track record of going 300,000 miles or more on pumps that are maintained, fueled, and operated on all kinds of diesel fuel all over the USA. So, that is the durability expectation which must be met by previous VW diesel and TDI owners. 60 k miles with an $8000 out of pocket failure isn't going to cut it. If VW continues to do that, the resale prices on these vehicles will drop like a stone. A $5000 upgrade premium for a diesel motor option that will require a potential $8000 out of pocket repair after 60k miles would be a double whammy unacceptable to savvy consumers.

[NewsW]

niner

There is some confusion under which warranties the HPFP and Injectors are covered under.

Here is the scoop:

Bumper to Bumper

Then Powertrain

THEN Emissions

Performance / Failure

Either Federal or California


The longest one by time / mileage is the emissions.


That warranty is the killer in terms of sticking manufacturers with fixing it.

A defective HPFP / Fuel Injection system mean they cannot pass emissions.

[NewsW]

Weibull wrote:

NewsW wrote:



Have you been in touch with NHTSA?

Your data set is material enough to alter the course of their investigation.

I haven't no, it is possible my boss has though. I will mention it.

NHTSA will assign the cases a unique ID so the complaint can be looked up (with certain details deleted).

[Weibull]

NewsW wrote:



Have you been in touch with NHTSA?

Your data set is material enough to alter the course of their investigation.

I haven't no, it is possible my boss has though. I will mention it.

[NewsW]

Weibull wrote:

NewsW wrote:



Lets verify the data set before we even think of trying to chart.

Sure thing, I was just trying to show how the x and y axis advance so the data will be linear if the distribution is appropriate.

Have you been in touch with NHTSA?

Your data set is material enough to alter the course of their investigation.

[NewsW]

Rick will want to know a sample of the VINs, and he should be able to OASIS the data to show pump replacement, regardless of who paid.

[Weibull]

NewsW wrote:



Lets verify the data set before we even think of trying to chart.

Sure thing, I was just trying to show how the x and y axis advance so the data will be linear if the distribution is appropriate.

[NewsW]

Weibull wrote:

NewsW wrote:
@weibull

I think we are at the point where the credibility of the claim of double digit failure rates on a 2 year old 6.7 pumps you experienced need to be verified.

Suggest you PM ricatic, and then arrange a time to chat with him.

The entire forum do not need to know who it is, but to have the data set credibly believed, it need to pass the smell test.

The data is so discrepant with the NHTSA data that I would not put it out until it is at least, minimally verified.

Yes I agree that the issue we are seeing is not reflective of all 6.7L pumps. To me, the most telling thing from all that NHTSA data were the records of 110 warranty replacements at the very end of one of those gigantic documents. The majority of them had the pumps sent back to Bosch and you could see the comments from Bosch after they did tear downs and what they deemed to be root cause. Reading through those, you can see them referencing known batch issues like split shaft seals or double heat treatment of the fuel pump cyl head which cause it to crack. We did not know about either one of those things until we saw it there yesterday. We may have a 105 trucks which fell into a bad batch range. At least now we can figure that out.

Contact rick by PM, and have a chat.

Let him have some VINs and do some due diligence.