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

[Jarlaxle]

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.

[hoopers]

Hmmm, there is some post deletion going on here, by the way. I have had a at least one post deleted, possibly two.
And they were not controversial or anything....

Maybe this post will be deleted also???




no it won't
marty

[NewsW]

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.

The CP4 pump happens to be one of the more interesting problems to come along in a long time, nearly as elusive as the Cruise Control Deact Switch Fires, or the 737 rudder actuation issue, or the runaway vehicle issue.

Then the fortune that it is right up the alley that I am doing daily homework assignments on --- sort of like getting someone to read over your homework for free.

The tractor you worked with is an old diesel, not smogged, not EPA 2010, and generally greatly tolerant of many things.

If you are military, then it is also because DoD use "single fuel" at least while deployed to simplify logistics.

http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MarApr05/reality.html

That got your gear mostly working fine with just about anything tossed at it.

And also strange beasts like Kawasaki KLR 650s converted to run on diesel.

Lubricity is just a lot less of an issue with pre 2003 and non-smogged engines.

[Capt_Skup]

Wow! 28.93 per day. That has to be some kind of record on this forum. Gratefully the writings are interesting and informative, unlike many who post negative narratives and useless comments.

[Capt_Skup]

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.

[NewsW]

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...

[durallymax]

2003silverado wrote:
I know that it isn't good on any diesel to be dry cranked because the diesel is used to lubricate more than just the fuel pump, such as the cylinder walls.

Not quite, raw fuel in the cylinder is no good. That's referred to as "washing" the cylinder walls and causes premature wear. All the kids out blowing smoke are experiencing the cylinder washing effect, where the diesel fuel "washes" the oil film off the wall.

[NewsW]

hawkeye-08 wrote:

Look it up your self, I provided 2 links, you can search for more after you have a read on those. The first link talks about a new Delphi pump that has a patented shoe that certainly appears to fix the problem of the shoe turning and caused issues in the Bosch pump..

I figured if I left it at that, perhaps NewsW would find the patent mentioned in the article and copy it here.

Based on my read of the announcement, there is no reference to Bosch, and nothing to suggest Delphi solved a show stopper problem at Bosch, or the problem at hand here: pump failures with no obvious contamination issue.

Patents are often worthless, or done for no other reason than to make it troublesome for potential competitors.

I did not reproduce the Bosch patent for the connector to the HPFP, which they patented --- solely to make it harder for a competitor to clone the pump.

Nor would I pay attention to the patent for a certain oil filter attachment... used to jack up filter prices by an extra $15 a unit.

Sifting patents through to find the interesting ones vs. the "me too" paper takes reading... the whole document more often than not.

[NewsW]

Capt Skup wrote:
I for one enjoy reading the posts our new friend has kindly shared. I was a gas turbine engine mechanic for many years, so I am able to digest most of the texts. Basically I find that automotive fuel injection is catching up with aviation. Thankfully our high pressure fuel pumps while pumping dry JP-5, I never had a pump fail. I do have to wonder if our friend maybe in violation of some copyright laws, ie "No part of this document may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher".

The only instance that applies is to the GM document, which was posted on another site. Patents granted are public documents.

Where ASTM specs were cited, they were only quoted in parts to ensure that their copyrights are respected.

Copyright laws include a "fair use" provision and the portion so reproduced is an extract of the set of documents in accordance with 17 U.S.C. § 107, solely for noncommercial, nonprofit, educational purposes and it is widely disseminated elsewhere on other forums, have no effect on the potential market for or the value of the work.


Very nice to have an aviation turbine fella around, though aviation fuel is made to different ASTM specs.

One of the key complaints about ULSD and lubricity improvers is that they contaminated jet fuel.




Back to the subject of the GM document.

While I cannot speak for the GM legal department, one of the finest ones in the auto industry, I dare say that I am doing GM a great favor disseminating information about their warranty policies on aftermarket modifications, tuners.

Funny how we get so few posters on any forum telling us that GM/Ford/Chrysler/Toyota/Honda/Hyundai etc. denied them warranty coverage because of their tuner or other performance mods!

[thomasmnile]

Capt Skup wrote:
"No part of this document may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher".

Shouldn't that include "Without the express written permission of Major League Baseball is strictly prohibited"? :B

[hawkeye-08]

FishOnOne wrote:

NewsW wrote:

hawkeye-08 wrote:
I think Delphi has the answer to this Bosch pump problem. I had read that they patented the fix to the CP4 pumps and they also came out with a new pump that incorporated their patents. Bosch is too stubborn to pay Delphi the license fees for the better pump...

New VW with Delphi HPFS pump

... and of course the poster over on FTE that posted this..

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/do...003-45604P.pdf

The Bosch CP 4.X series of pumps are a family of pumps, with the same inherent design flaw, such that a law firm in Texas has a class action lawsuit against VW/ Bosch for it, you can find it at the end of the NHSTA pdf above on pages 316 to 333.

There is no factual evidence documenting the "design flaw" that have yet been made public.

I have as much faith in a law firm making such allegations as I have with FTE.

If there is a Delphi patent, give me the number or publish it --- lets examine the patent to see if it has any validity to the issues at hand.

Wow... Asking for legitimate data to back up such statement. Amazing!

Look it up your self, I provided 2 links, you can search for more after you have a read on those. The first link talks about a new Delphi pump that has a patented shoe that certainly appears to fix the problem of the shoe turning and caused issues in the Bosch pump..

I figured if I left it at that, perhaps NewsW would find the patent mentioned in the article and copy it here.

[mapguy]

Capt Skup wrote:
I for one enjoy reading the posts our new friend has kindly shared. I was a gas turbine engine mechanic for many years, so I am able to digest most of the texts. Basically I find that automotive fuel injection is catching up with aviation. Thankfully our high pressure fuel pumps while pumping dry JP-5, I never had a pump fail. I do have to wonder if our friend maybe in violation of some copyright laws, ie "No part of this document may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher".

Abstracts are not saddled with those full conditions of usage as they are published as a catalogging/research tool for libraries of all kinds.

Minor extracts can be also be used without violating CR laws too. Context of delivery has great implications on what is acceptable or not based on a wealth of court rulings.

[Capt_Skup]

I for one enjoy reading the posts our new friend has kindly shared. I was a gas turbine engine mechanic for many years, so I am able to digest most of the texts. Basically I find that automotive fuel injection is catching up with aviation. Thankfully our high pressure fuel pumps while pumping dry JP-5, I never had a pump fail. I do have to wonder if our friend maybe in violation of some copyright laws, ie "No part of this document may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher".

[I_m_Rick_James]

NewsW wrote:
Let's take a look at Delphi's next generation solution .

Let's not!

[I_m_Rick_James]

NewsW wrote:
Here is the German Patent for Bosch that eliminates the need for a helper low pressure pump.

MASSIVE SNIP

Do you honestly believe that anyone can make heads, or tails, out of all this crap? Did you notice that the original text (not that I care to read it) has illustrations? Here's a hint, those illustrations are there for a reason.