Mar-01-2012 05:53 AM
Mar-02-2012 05:40 PM
NewsW wrote:milsuperdoc wrote:
Does anyone know if there's any other studies or attempts to replicate or discredit the Spicer report since it was done?
Yup.
The test done has no relevance to operating conditions of 2,000 bar and 150C normally experienced in a Diesel fuel pump circa Bosch CP 4.2
Same reservations noted in ASTM D975
And other studies I posted.
Mar-02-2012 05:34 PM
NewsW wrote:milsuperdoc wrote:
ricatic, could you explain to us, in plain English, the definition of scar, cetane, lubricity? And, what the effects of Motorcraft PM 22A to the scar, cetane, and lubricity? Can you also explain to us how the water in diesel can affect the scar, cetane, or lubricity? Thanks.
Rick's info is good.
Supplemental:
Cetane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetane_number
Lubricity is done by 2 common tests referenced in Diesel Fuel Standard ASTM D975.
See this for a quick description in plain english.
www.epa.gov/diesel/presentations/lubricityupdate.pdf
The test are criticized as having little relevance to the reality of high pressure fuel injection pumps circa 2010. However, more tested lubricity is still better than less.
Don't let the propaganda put out by biodiesel people that their stuff tests higher in lubricity fool you.
That is under laboratory test conditions.
They don't tell you how the stuff behave in a Bosch CP 4.2 pump at 2,000 times atmospheric pressure and 150 degrees Celsius.
Water in diesel --- all diesel contain a tiny amount. Biodiesel absorbs water and contain more. Bad to have water so it is specified to no more than....
Enough water gets in.. it collects in the Water separator.
In the uncertain climate over the 6.7, do not use any additives except Ford labeled, recommended for the 6.7 sold by Ford.
Do not use biodiesel, and if unavoidable, smallest possible percentage blend.
Buy only name brand fuel from name brand stations that move a lot of diesel.
Save all receipts.
You will be fine.
Mar-02-2012 05:26 PM
ricatic wrote:milsuperdoc wrote:ricatic wrote:hawkeye-08 wrote:
Ric, question for you.
If Ford had covered your repair under warranty, would you have jumped off the band wagon?
I know there are issues with the first dealer and how they handled it, but Ford could have changed their mind and covered it.
I have been asked this question before. The answer is not as simple as it may seem. Even when I was a huge fan of the 6.7 Ford, I lived through multiple problems with the engine. The fan clutch locked up at 3500 miles. It was back multiple times for phantom CEL's, a new fuel injector was needed at 24000 miles and the NOX sensor has failed twice. This has been the least reliable new truck I have ever owned.
The HPFP debacle was the final straw. If Ford would have stepped forward as GM has done, taken care of the deserved warranty repair, I would not have had the opportunity to learn all that I have about the limited life span of the Bosch CP4.x series pumps.The owners of these trucks would not know the depth of the problem or the extremely high cost of repairing not only the HPFP but all the other parts taken out by friendly fire. So the tempered answer is this. I was very aggravated that the truck had to be in the shop again. I was not as happy as I was at first. Had Ford fixed the truck, I would not have had any reason to take the road I have traveled. After the battle I had with Ford over the first crooked dealership, the damage had been done. I was treated so poorly that recovery would have been difficult.
I am starting to think that these pumps are generally right at the threshold, some are below the threshold and "don't last", but most are above the threshold and will survive the warranty period and beyond.. I am in the computer industry and we call it infant mortality rate (for example, there are a certain percentage of disks that will fail in the first several months of operation). This does not mean the disks are all bad, just that some failed... and as long as the percentages stay within the acceptable limits, life is good.
No need to start thinking that the pumps are "on the edge". Bosch has told us that 460 scar fuel is the performance minimum for their pumps. With 520 scar fuel in the US, owners are already into the engineering margin...or have exceeded it. The fact that we have not had an epidemic of failures tells me we are well into the margin but not past the total failure numbers.
Regards
ricatic, could you explain to us, in plain English, the definition of scar, cetane, lubricity? And, what the effects of Motorcraft PM 22A to the scar, cetane, and lubricity? Can you also explain to us how the water in diesel can affect the scar, cetane, or lubricity? Thanks.
mil...
I tried to send you a PM today. It appears you have that feature disabled.
My best attempt at plain English.
520 scar equals a 520 micron scratch developed on a test part during a test run
460 scar equals a 460 micron scratch developed on a test part during a test run
The bigger the number, the bigger the scratch. The bigger the scratch, the sooner the part fails. It is like sandpaper. The bigger the aggregate on the paper, the faster material is removed.
Lubricity is the slipperiness of the fuel when applied to the wear factors shown in the scar rating test. The lower the number, the slipperier the fuel. The slipperier the fuel, the less wear there is on the internals of the pump. Minimum lubricity fuel at Canadian standards is 11% slipperier than the US fuel.
I am not going to attempt to explain Cetane other than the higher the Cetane number, the better the fuel works. US fuel must be at 40 Cetane...Ford says 45 Cetane for the 6.7. Again, the fuel specs are intruding on an engineering margin...:S:S:S
I use the Ford PM22A additive. I could not care less about it's chemical makeup. I use it so if I lose another pump I can at least jam the receipts up Ford's behind during the battle for warranty coverage. Ford claims the product raises Cetane levels and increases lubricity. Increased lubricity lowers the scar rating number...hopefully into the design criteria range. Of course, Ford wants you to believe that water is the cause of all the HPFP failures and we know that is not true...tread carefully and at your own risk
Water in the fuel and lowered lubricity...think of another activity that if water is introduced into the event, slipperiness decreases...dramatically...:B:B:B..it ties in nicely with a product Ford 6.7 owners need when they go to the Ford dealer with a HPFP failure...:W:W:W
Regards
Mar-02-2012 04:50 PM
Mar-02-2012 04:48 PM
blackeyed1 wrote:
What a great thread in my opinion. Always something new to learn. And 13 pages already!
Mar-02-2012 04:14 PM
Mar-02-2012 03:55 PM
Huntindog wrote:
Rick is quoting me correctly. But what I have since noticed in comparing Ford and GMs responses, is that GM broke out their figures a little better. They have a table that lists the numbers of SUSPECTED cases of misfuels/contaminated fuel issues. What I noticed was that if I subtracted this number from GMs total was that the result was almost the same as Fords warrantied numbers.. So I am surmising that since GM hasn't been shown to deny warranty, that their rotal numbers look worse than Fords until they are corrected for what Ford would have refused to warranty.
It makes sense to me anyways.
Now I have not read any of the appendices attached to either Ford or GM's responses, so my opinion may change as this info comes out. (Fords is over 800 pages! Don't know about GM.) Reading this will take awhile. Others are doing it. I'd give it a shot but my computers programing won't allow it.
Mar-02-2012 03:32 PM
Huntindog wrote:
Rick is quoting me correctly. But what I have since noticed in comparing Ford and GMs responses, is that GM broke out their figures a little better. They have a table that lists the numbers of SUSPECTED cases of misfuels/contaminated fuel issues. What I noticed was that if I subtracted this number from GMs total was that the result was almost the same as Fords warrantied numbers.. So I am surmising that since GM hasn't been shown to deny warranty, that their rotal numbers look worse than Fords until they are corrected for what Ford would have refused to warranty.
It makes sense to me anyways.
Now I have not read any of the appendices attached to either Ford or GM's responses, so my opinion may change as this info comes out. (Fords is over 800 pages! Don't know about GM.) Reading this will take awhile. Others are doing it. I'd give it a shot but my computers programing won't allow it.
Mar-02-2012 03:30 PM
milsuperdoc wrote:
ricatic, could you explain to us, in plain English, the definition of scar, cetane, lubricity? And, what the effects of Motorcraft PM 22A to the scar, cetane, and lubricity? Can you also explain to us how the water in diesel can affect the scar, cetane, or lubricity? Thanks.
Mar-02-2012 03:26 PM
ricatic wrote:hawkeye-08 wrote:ricatic wrote:
No need to start thinking that the pumps are "on the edge". Bosch has told us that 460 scar fuel is the performance minimum for their pumps. With 520 scar fuel in the US, owners are already into the engineering margin...or have exceeded it. The fact that we have not had an epidemic of failures tells me we are well into the margin but not past the total failure numbers.
Regards
I agree that 460 scar is the requirement, but I also know the pumps will not fail immediately at 461 scar. There are engineering margins built into most everything properly designed so the real threshold is somewhat different than the 460 scar. Ford learned from the Navistar engines that if you outsource and your supplier denies warranty claims, you lose alot of money unless you also deny warranty claims. I would venture to say that Bosch is denying Ford warranty claims and Ford is in turn denying customer warranty claims. Problem is, it is not the customer's fault that the HPFP cannot handle the fuel available in the US.
This is certainly a ticking time bomb, Ford is gambling that it will be solved before it blows up and really hurts sales.
Remember the Hubble space telescope? The big mirror was ground wrong (seems there was a mix up in the measurements, something about metric vs SAE). I wonder if some Ford engineer signed off on the fuel system requiring 460 scar fuel because US fuel is 520 scar, thinking that 520 is better than 460, with greater than 10% margin...
The very fact that Ford stepped into the engineering margin is a huge mistake. The small engineering margin of the Bosch CP4 series pumps is being demonstrated quite nicely, but inadvertently, in Ford's answers to the NHTSA inquiry. The difference in Canadian to US failures, 63% less IIRC, clearly points to an engineering margin that has been compromised. 11% poorer lubricity in US fuels has resulted in a big increase in US HPFP failures. GM knows they underestimated the engineering margin and is holding Bosch to their promise of no problems with the pump.
The argument that GM is not having similar issues with their CP4.2 Bosch pumps is nonsense. Until the NHTSA answers were released, there was a stubborn group of GM owners that wanted hold that position. When I posted, months ago, that there was a pallet full of failed GM pumps at Bosch, I was challenged to prove it. My challenger, and GM's biggest supporter in this argument, Huntindog has provided the GM information that proves beyond a doubt that there are even more HPFP failures at GM, as a percentage of sales, than at Ford. The hard data has spoken and both manufacturers are seeing HPFP failures.
Rick is quoting me correctly. But what I have since noticed in comparing Ford and GMs responses, is that GM broke out their figures a little better. They have a table that lists the numbers of SUSPECTED cases of misfuels/contaminated fuel issues. What I noticed was that if I subtracted this number from GMs total was that the result was almost the same as Fords warrantied numbers.. So I am surmising that since GM hasn't been shown to deny warranty, that their rotal numbers look worse than Fords until they are corrected for what Ford would have refused to warranty.
It makes sense to me anyways.
Now I have not read any of the appendices attached to either Ford or GM's responses, so my opinion may change as this info comes out. (Fords is over 800 pages! Don't know about GM.) Reading this will take awhile. Others are doing it. I'd give it a shot but my computers programing won't allow it.
The difference is simple. GM is fixing their problem under warranty. Ford is screwing their customers. Bosch sold both manufacturers the pumps. They are paying for the claims. Why does GM warranty theirs and Ford will not? I suspect the answer is tied to the previous Ford failures at the diesel engine pickup market. Ford is so desperate to have success, they will sacrifice a few unlucky owners to keep the warranty claims rate low. They did not bank on the NHTSA getting involved, GM telling the truth about their issues and subsequently blowing the lid off the coverup.
Bravo to GM...they are taking care of their customers
Shame on Ford...they need some lessons on public relations...again
Regards
Mar-02-2012 02:56 PM
Mar-02-2012 02:48 PM
milsuperdoc wrote:
Does anyone know if there's any other studies or attempts to replicate or discredit the Spicer report since it was done?
Mar-02-2012 02:45 PM
ricatic wrote:milsuperdoc wrote:ricatic wrote:hawkeye-08 wrote:
Ric, question for you.
If Ford had covered your repair under warranty, would you have jumped off the band wagon?
I know there are issues with the first dealer and how they handled it, but Ford could have changed their mind and covered it.
I have been asked this question before. The answer is not as simple as it may seem. Even when I was a huge fan of the 6.7 Ford, I lived through multiple problems with the engine. The fan clutch locked up at 3500 miles. It was back multiple times for phantom CEL's, a new fuel injector was needed at 24000 miles and the NOX sensor has failed twice. This has been the least reliable new truck I have ever owned.
The HPFP debacle was the final straw. If Ford would have stepped forward as GM has done, taken care of the deserved warranty repair, I would not have had the opportunity to learn all that I have about the limited life span of the Bosch CP4.x series pumps.The owners of these trucks would not know the depth of the problem or the extremely high cost of repairing not only the HPFP but all the other parts taken out by friendly fire. So the tempered answer is this. I was very aggravated that the truck had to be in the shop again. I was not as happy as I was at first. Had Ford fixed the truck, I would not have had any reason to take the road I have traveled. After the battle I had with Ford over the first crooked dealership, the damage had been done. I was treated so poorly that recovery would have been difficult.
I am starting to think that these pumps are generally right at the threshold, some are below the threshold and "don't last", but most are above the threshold and will survive the warranty period and beyond.. I am in the computer industry and we call it infant mortality rate (for example, there are a certain percentage of disks that will fail in the first several months of operation). This does not mean the disks are all bad, just that some failed... and as long as the percentages stay within the acceptable limits, life is good.
No need to start thinking that the pumps are "on the edge". Bosch has told us that 460 scar fuel is the performance minimum for their pumps. With 520 scar fuel in the US, owners are already into the engineering margin...or have exceeded it. The fact that we have not had an epidemic of failures tells me we are well into the margin but not past the total failure numbers.
Regards
ricatic, could you explain to us, in plain English, the definition of scar, cetane, lubricity? And, what the effects of Motorcraft PM 22A to the scar, cetane, and lubricity? Can you also explain to us how the water in diesel can affect the scar, cetane, or lubricity? Thanks.
I use the Ford PM22A additive.
Regards
Mar-02-2012 02:41 PM
milsuperdoc wrote:ricatic wrote:hawkeye-08 wrote:
Ric, question for you.
If Ford had covered your repair under warranty, would you have jumped off the band wagon?
I know there are issues with the first dealer and how they handled it, but Ford could have changed their mind and covered it.
I have been asked this question before. The answer is not as simple as it may seem. Even when I was a huge fan of the 6.7 Ford, I lived through multiple problems with the engine. The fan clutch locked up at 3500 miles. It was back multiple times for phantom CEL's, a new fuel injector was needed at 24000 miles and the NOX sensor has failed twice. This has been the least reliable new truck I have ever owned.
The HPFP debacle was the final straw. If Ford would have stepped forward as GM has done, taken care of the deserved warranty repair, I would not have had the opportunity to learn all that I have about the limited life span of the Bosch CP4.x series pumps.The owners of these trucks would not know the depth of the problem or the extremely high cost of repairing not only the HPFP but all the other parts taken out by friendly fire. So the tempered answer is this. I was very aggravated that the truck had to be in the shop again. I was not as happy as I was at first. Had Ford fixed the truck, I would not have had any reason to take the road I have traveled. After the battle I had with Ford over the first crooked dealership, the damage had been done. I was treated so poorly that recovery would have been difficult.
I am starting to think that these pumps are generally right at the threshold, some are below the threshold and "don't last", but most are above the threshold and will survive the warranty period and beyond.. I am in the computer industry and we call it infant mortality rate (for example, there are a certain percentage of disks that will fail in the first several months of operation). This does not mean the disks are all bad, just that some failed... and as long as the percentages stay within the acceptable limits, life is good.
No need to start thinking that the pumps are "on the edge". Bosch has told us that 460 scar fuel is the performance minimum for their pumps. With 520 scar fuel in the US, owners are already into the engineering margin...or have exceeded it. The fact that we have not had an epidemic of failures tells me we are well into the margin but not past the total failure numbers.
Regards
ricatic, could you explain to us, in plain English, the definition of scar, cetane, lubricity? And, what the effects of Motorcraft PM 22A to the scar, cetane, and lubricity? Can you also explain to us how the water in diesel can affect the scar, cetane, or lubricity? Thanks.
Mar-02-2012 02:40 PM
rick83864 wrote:milsuperdoc wrote:
ricatic, could you explain to us, in plain English, the definition of scar, cetane, lubricity? And, what the effects of Motorcraft PM 22A to the scar, cetane, and lubricity? Can you also explain to us how the water in diesel can affect the scar, cetane, or lubricity? Thanks.
This link might help you out.
Spicer report