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

[45Ricochet]

NewsW wrote:

thomasmnile wrote:
My question is: What is a proper lubricity additive? Have read the MSDS sheets on a lot of the current offerings in the market. Except for so called "proprietary" (and therefore not disclosed) ingredients,they all seem to be pretty much the same stuff, only the amount used seems to vary. Many of these ingredients are used as industrial solvents, how does that help? Finally, the dosing ratios are so small as a rule (additive to fuel ratio) does it even make a difference.

Beyond my pay grade so what do others think????????????

Based on current Warranty issues, if you introduce in a 3rd party product that is not Ford approved for the 6.7, you are playing Russian roulette.

Only use Ford 6.7 approved additives made by Ford and specifically recommended by Ford and only in specified amounts.

Keep your receipts, as you do for fuel, and if there is ever a dispute about the snake oil you used, you stick the Ford in their face.

Since your a petro guy, what is the magic ingredient added to the final fuel after refining to raise the lubrication of ULSD? Maybe we could start using the Canadian measuring cups 🙂

[NewsW]

kirbybear wrote:


Just for information. On gasoline engines the fuel membrane will suck fuel in preference to water until the entire surface area is exposed to water. When only water is left the engine will starve of fuel and shut down. This was tested for in tank fuel socks on fuel sender pick ups. Do not know if this is true for diesels.

How prevalent is water in fuel? I for one have never ( knock wood ) had a drop of water in 106,000 miles from diesel fuel purchased all over the USA/Canada including Alaska?

Think you are talking of a water blocker membrane.

That is standard equipment / off the shelf available for most diesel filters.

But Ford did not specify a filter with a water blocking membrane for the 6.7


I have drained my fuel / water separator every 8,000miles or so --- found not a drop of water in it.

But evidence of rust like brown deposits on the tank filler suggest there is something in it in the tank.

[kirbybear]

Is it possible to accumulate build dates for the HPFB failures on the various forums to determine if the failures are confined to specific dates ? Perhaps Ford/Bosch have implemented running design changes and the public would never know without tracking a lack of failures.

Just for information. On gasoline engines the fuel membrane will suck fuel in preference to water until the entire surface area is exposed to water. When only water is left the engine will starve of fuel and shut down. This was tested for in tank fuel socks on fuel sender pick ups. Do not know if this is true for diesels.

How prevalent is water in fuel? I for one have never ( knock wood ) had a drop of water in 106,000 miles from diesel fuel purchased all over the USA/Canada including Alaska?

I do not have a 6.7. I have a 6.0 04 F350. But I find this whole HPFB failure event rather interesting, fortunately only from an engineering view point.

[Jarlaxle]

thomasmnile wrote:
My question is: What is a proper lubricity additive? Have read the MSDS sheets on a lot of the current offerings in the market. Except for so called "proprietary" (and therefore not disclosed) ingredients,they all seem to be pretty much the same stuff, only the amount used seems to vary. Many of these ingredients are used as industrial solvents, how does that help? Finally, the dosing ratios are so small as a rule (additive to fuel ratio) does it even make a difference.

Beyond my pay grade so what do others think????????????

I think diesel power has jumped the shark. Gas power is looking better by the day!

[NewsW]

ricatic wrote:
Troy must be the FTE fan boy's new KoolAid mixer.

His standard line over there has been demanding information that has already been produced or does not exist in the form he approves. The diagnosis document from Ford was issued after my debacle with what one might call interesting timing.

Beware of Trojan horses that demand information from the horse's rear end.

:R


Suffice to say that I have an opinion of FTE and a few other similar forums very similar to what engineers at Bosch think.

:W

[NewsW]

thomasmnile wrote:
My question is: What is a proper lubricity additive? Have read the MSDS sheets on a lot of the current offerings in the market. Except for so called "proprietary" (and therefore not disclosed) ingredients,they all seem to be pretty much the same stuff, only the amount used seems to vary. Many of these ingredients are used as industrial solvents, how does that help? Finally, the dosing ratios are so small as a rule (additive to fuel ratio) does it even make a difference.

Beyond my pay grade so what do others think????????????

Based on current Warranty issues, if you introduce in a 3rd party product that is not Ford approved for the 6.7, you are playing Russian roulette.

Only use Ford 6.7 approved additives made by Ford and specifically recommended by Ford and only in specified amounts.

Keep your receipts, as you do for fuel, and if there is ever a dispute about the snake oil you used, you stick the Ford in their face.

[thomasmnile]

My question is: What is a proper lubricity additive? Have read the MSDS sheets on a lot of the current offerings in the market. Except for so called "proprietary" (and therefore not disclosed) ingredients,they all seem to be pretty much the same stuff, only the amount used seems to vary. Many of these ingredients are used as industrial solvents, how does that help? Finally, the dosing ratios are so small as a rule (additive to fuel ratio) does it even make a difference.

Beyond my pay grade so what do others think????????????

[NewsW]

Diesel Fuel Lubricity --- Situation back in mid 2000s.

Information need updating.

At the time ULSD was phased in, the question arose as to how to add lubricity additives to fuel in USA.

Pipeline makers objected to the lubricity additives as it may contaminate their other products (many different products are sent through one pipeline).

Some pipeline makers allowed refineries to have pre-mixed (lubricity additive added) diesel through.

Others said no --- and lubricity additive was done at the terminal just before the diesel is shipped on the truck.

This is very similar to how gasoline additives are added to "branded" fuel from a common batch.

Therefore, if you got fuel directly from the refinery, you probably have a high certainty that the refinery did its job.

If you got fuel from a location where additive is added at the terminal, it is a dependent on the operator.

Could diesel without additives be sold (especially at "off brand" stations).. the question is yes.

How is lubricity enforced? At the state level.

Here is the EPA slides on the issue dating from 2004.

http://www.epa.gov/diesel/presentations/lubricityupdate.pdf

[coolbreeze01]

Snip from my 2008 Ram Owner's Manual:

"Diesel fuel is seldom completely free of water. To prevent fuel system trouble, drain the accumulated water from the fuel/water separator using the fuel/water separator drain provided."

One of the reasons for topping off diesel equipment at shifts end, was to cut down on moisture forming in the tanks.........

[NewsW]

GM and Chrysler's documents for how to deal with warranty claims is not known to be public.

However, a glimpse can be seen in the GM documents submitted to NHTSA as to what claims were denied and what not.

[ricatic]

Huntindog wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

rick83864 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Ford has a documented procedure for the techs to inspect different components of the fuel system including inspecting the filters for DEF comtamination. It's really a basic procedure that should catch any gross contaminants and/or owner neglect for maintenance.

Something like this?? C&P sorry I lost the link.


This is very important & somewhat controversial, but in being a believer that an informed customer is a better customer, I'm posting a portion of a publication that was recently made available to the Ford Technicians regarding fuel quality and the implications that poor diesel fuel quality/contamination has on the diesel high pressure fuel system. This is not altogether new news, however the implications are significant.

Engineering investigation into the impact of poor diesel fuel quality has determined that there are a number of fuel system related failures tied directly to poor fuel. The OEM Automotive industry appears to be taking a position that the Petroleum Industry and Fuel Distributors/Suppliers/Sellers must take control of the quality of the product (in this case diesel fuel) they are providing.

In short, please talk with your diesel fuel providers/stations/etc. where possible to discuss diesel fuel quality. The result of poor fuel is a very expensive repair (pump, injectors, lines and rails), the techs when there is an issue, will be visually inspecting components and comparing them with known failed components where root cause was fuel quality causing internal corrosion of the fuel system.


Fuel system contamination on 6.7L diesel engines can damage the fuel system components including the High Pressure (HP) fuel injection pump and fuel injectors. Engine operation on fuels and additives that do not meet the lubrication, cooling and anti-corrosion properties required by the HP fuel system components may cause symptoms including, but not limited to, the following:
· Crank No Start
· Long Crank/Hard Start
· Runs Rough
· Low Power
· Engine Knocking
· Exhaust Smoke
· Fuel Rail Pressure (FRP) slow to build
Follow the appropriate service procedure depending on whether the engine has been started with contaminated fuel, or not.


NOTE:

Failure to follow these procedures may result in fuel system and/or engine damage and may require vehicle warranty cancellation submission. Repairs required due to the use of improper fluids and fuel are not covered by the New Vehicle Limited Warranty.


NOTE: The most common sources of contaminated fuel are:
· Auxiliary vehicle mounted tanks
· Local storage tanks
· Other infrequently used fuel sources
· Refueling errors
The best action that can be taken to avoid concerns with the fuel system is to ensure vehicles are only fueled from sources with known quality diesel fuels verified to be free from water and other contaminants

It's called "prove it pal" or "gotch guy". JFYI Chebie is honoring there warranty.

Like I asked Ricatic... Where's GM's documented policy?

BTW remember that bad quality diesel can include diesel without the lubricity additive

And since there's alot of KookAid drinking going on here, put Dodge's documented procedure next to the KoolAid as well.

As a GM owner that has been following this closely from the begining....I can tell you that I have never seen a GM doc. like you are requesting. It may well not exist. If it does, it is not important as GM doesn't deny warranties like Ford does on HPFPs.

The Ford doc was actually posted by a Ford engineer some time before HPFPs became a known issue to the public.

GM has never posted anything like it on a public forum.

Ford also has other requirements that GM does not.

There is a paper that Ford wants signed at delivery (dealer follow thru is inconsistant) it states the need to drain the water seperator monthly, and strongly suggests the use of specific fuel treatments...Which are Ford products.

GM has no scheduled draining of the water seperator required, and actually discourages the use of fuel additives!

Not related to HPFPs, but Ford also require coolant testing at 15K.

Ford also seems to still be having trouble with radiators leaking.

GM has no radiator problems,,,,,and no coolant testing requirements.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the tone is vastly different between the two companys in terms of warranty coverage and ownership experience.

Ford takes a combative stance with their customers,,,even on issues that they know they have a problem with.

Gm wants their customers experience to be a positive one. They don't want their customers to feel like they are playing russian roulette every time they purchase fuel. Thus, HPFPs are covered.
No need to test coolant all the time. No radiator problems. If it happens it will be covered.

Huntindog

Thanks for taking care of my light work. Troy must be the FTE fan boy's new KoolAid mixer.

His standard line over there has been demanding information that has already been produced or does not exist in the form he approves. The diagnosis document from Ford was issued after my debacle with what one might call interesting timing.

I do not see the relevance of his demand for producing a similar document from GM or Dodge. The complete lack of any discussion regarding either GM or Dodge HPF system problems tells the story quite nicely.Dodge uses the well proven and reliable CP3 HPFP. GM used this pump until 2011. Bet they wish they had stayed with it.GM is now using the same marginally capable CP4.2 as Ford with very similar failure issues. GM fixes their CP4 HPFP failures under warranty. It is called Customer Service. This is beyond dispute but garners no respect from the Blue KoolAid drinkers. They prefer to drag out nonsense like the "Government owns GM so it is not GM's money" to shore up their lack of an argument.Dodge uses a diffeent pump with great reliability so their inclusion in the discussion is not germane.

The Blue KoolAid bunch ask for all kinds of irrelevant information to hide the basic facts of the situation. The fact is that the Bosch CP4 Series pump requires 460 Scar diesel fuel. Bosch has been publishing this specification for several years. They also participated in an announcement in September of 2009 with Siemens, Stanadyne and others that clearly outlines the longevity issues with HPFP's operated on diesel fuel with a higher scar rating than 460. They have published documentation that shows HPFP pump life to shrink to 1000 hours using fuel rated at 500 scar. They ignore the fact that US diesel fuel is standardized at 520 scar, well outside the published specifications from Bosch. KoolAid drinkers minimize Ford's decision to use the CP4.2series HPFP despite the fact that Ford violated a cardinal rule in design by forcing the use of a product that is at best operating in the sacred ground of "engineering margin".

All of the above comments are now well grounded in fact. Ford's answers to the NHTSA investigation prove the points. There is a significantly lower percentage of failures of Canadian Ford CP4 HPFP than their US brothers. It is not insignificant that the Canadian trucks are operated on the Canadian mandated 460 Scar fuel. It is not coincidence that the Canadian fuel matches Bosch's published fuel specification requirements.

Owners should not be required to provide the necessary additves to the fuel to raise the lubricity standards to the pump manufacturers specifications for long term HPFP success. Ford does not tell you when you buy the truck that it has a HPFP that does not meet US standards for fuel. They do not tell you that you need to run additive in the hope that it will protect the delicate HPFP. They will sell you a Ford additive, for additional cost to the owner and profits to Ford, that may raise the fuel specifications to Bosch's standards.

GM has taken the high road to customer satisfaction. With the known deficiency of the fuel standards and the growing number of failures, GM has stood tall behind it's product. They have repaired all of the Failed HPFP's under warranty. They will work out their problem with Bosch without asking the customer to pay the bill.

Ford has taken to the gutter in their trip to customer service. Their treatment of loyal customers is deplorable. After their last two diesel endeavors, they should know better.

Shame on Ford

Regards

[NewsW]

Huntindog wrote:

The Ford doc was actually posted by a Ford engineer some time before HPFPs became a known issue to the public.


There is a paper that Ford wants signed at delivery (dealer follow thru is inconsistant) it states the need to drain the water seperator monthly, and strongly suggests the use of specific fuel treatments...Which are Ford products.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the tone is vastly different between the two companys in terms of warranty coverage and ownership experience.

Ford takes a combative stance with their customers,,,even on issues that they know they have a problem with.

To a certain extent, I can understand the hard line against aftermarket mods, chips, and things customers do to their trucks that should automatically void the warranty.

Ford got mugged by the 6.0 and all of this is understandable.

Having said that:

Recommend / require a monthly Water Drain / Check is patently absurd.

The basic design parameter of water separation in diesels is that there should be a warning light / warning that gives a reasonably early and obvious warning of a problem, enabling the operator to take corrective action before harm is done.

In commercial diesel operations, that can involve both a light, a filter with a water blocking membrane, and a clear water separator window that is visible to the operator.

Now, if you put several gallons of water through (exceeding the water holding capacity of the separator, that will not save you.

But the idea is small amounts of water should be trapped by this method and give operators a reasonable opportunity to respond.

I think rickatic posted that the water separator capacity is 7 oz.

That should be sufficient for all cases where the pump did not deliver large quantities (over 1 gallon) of water in the fuel ---- where it is by any fair stretch of industry standard --- defined as contaminated. (Whether one single contaminated tank can immediately cause massive fuel system failure without an automatic, emergency fuel quality triggered shutdown, is another story).

Whoever wrote that dealer memo is exhibiting knowledge of the intense water sensitivity of this device --- and to me would be Exhibit 1 in any engineering examination of design flaws.

Exhibit 2 would be the DEF port next to the fuel fill and the bingo Ford engineer that put it there.

These are examples of bad engineering.

As for recommending fuel treatments --- that is a dangerous thing because the implied is that similar compatible fuel treatments work.

That opens the door to ask what is in the fuel treatments and whether there is a reactivity problem in there... as I suspect.

Hunting is right that the general tone of the Ford fuel contamination document is absurd, and the finding of a few drops of water in the WIF is sufficient to deny warranty coverage.

Did Ford adopt the "one drop rule"? Does this also apply to gasoline engines?


Finally, I come back to the GMC treatment of customers.

I posted the GM procedures for denying warranty for customer modded vehicles.

Think there is a general industry practice now to do that.


For those who don't think forums matter, think Ford Doctors, the Ford Engineer that posted that document, and a few other examples is showing that this stuff gets read.

Now... back to my Diamond Like Carbon Coatings aka lipstick on this pig.

[NewsW]

ksss wrote:

Perhaps what is needed in the interm is an additive that can be added at each fill up that regardless of the existing fuel quality can bring at least that treated tank up to a level of lubricity that can protect the injection system (maybe there is one currently available that would provide this). What are the alternatives? Increase the quality of diesel fuel in the U.S? Thats not going to happen soon enough to help if it ever could happen. Bosch may alter their pumps to accomondate the poor fuel but not before many more fuel systems go down. If you could ensure a 400 scar type fuel lubricity with each fill up, this situation could be much better managed. What would be even better is if you could get Bosch to provide expertise and support of the product (which I doubt they would do).

IF the problem is just lubricity, then the proper lubricity additive might do the trick.

But we don't know that yet.

And, there is a huge issue of introducing additional variables.

Plus warranty coverage.

That is why only Ford branded and approved for the 6.7 additives should be used until we know more.

[Huntindog]

FishOnOne wrote:

rick83864 wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Ford has a documented procedure for the techs to inspect different components of the fuel system including inspecting the filters for DEF comtamination. It's really a basic procedure that should catch any gross contaminants and/or owner neglect for maintenance.

Something like this?? C&P sorry I lost the link.


This is very important & somewhat controversial, but in being a believer that an informed customer is a better customer, I'm posting a portion of a publication that was recently made available to the Ford Technicians regarding fuel quality and the implications that poor diesel fuel quality/contamination has on the diesel high pressure fuel system. This is not altogether new news, however the implications are significant.

Engineering investigation into the impact of poor diesel fuel quality has determined that there are a number of fuel system related failures tied directly to poor fuel. The OEM Automotive industry appears to be taking a position that the Petroleum Industry and Fuel Distributors/Suppliers/Sellers must take control of the quality of the product (in this case diesel fuel) they are providing.

In short, please talk with your diesel fuel providers/stations/etc. where possible to discuss diesel fuel quality. The result of poor fuel is a very expensive repair (pump, injectors, lines and rails), the techs when there is an issue, will be visually inspecting components and comparing them with known failed components where root cause was fuel quality causing internal corrosion of the fuel system.


Fuel system contamination on 6.7L diesel engines can damage the fuel system components including the High Pressure (HP) fuel injection pump and fuel injectors. Engine operation on fuels and additives that do not meet the lubrication, cooling and anti-corrosion properties required by the HP fuel system components may cause symptoms including, but not limited to, the following:
· Crank No Start
· Long Crank/Hard Start
· Runs Rough
· Low Power
· Engine Knocking
· Exhaust Smoke
· Fuel Rail Pressure (FRP) slow to build
Follow the appropriate service procedure depending on whether the engine has been started with contaminated fuel, or not.


NOTE:

Failure to follow these procedures may result in fuel system and/or engine damage and may require vehicle warranty cancellation submission. Repairs required due to the use of improper fluids and fuel are not covered by the New Vehicle Limited Warranty.


NOTE: The most common sources of contaminated fuel are:
· Auxiliary vehicle mounted tanks
· Local storage tanks
· Other infrequently used fuel sources
· Refueling errors
The best action that can be taken to avoid concerns with the fuel system is to ensure vehicles are only fueled from sources with known quality diesel fuels verified to be free from water and other contaminants

It's called "prove it pal" or "gotch guy". JFYI Chebie is honoring there warranty.

Like I asked Ricatic... Where's GM's documented policy?

BTW remember that bad quality diesel can include diesel without the lubricity additive

And since there's alot of KookAid drinking going on here, put Dodge's documented procedure next to the KoolAid as well.

As a GM owner that has been following this closely from the begining....I can tell you that I have never seen a GM doc. like you are requesting. It may well not exist. If it does, it is not important as GM doesn't deny warranties like Ford does on HPFPs.

The Ford doc was actually posted by a Ford engineer some time before HPFPs became a known issue to the public.

GM has never posted anything like it on a public forum.

Ford also has other requirements that GM does not.

There is a paper that Ford wants signed at delivery (dealer follow thru is inconsistant) it states the need to drain the water seperator monthly, and strongly suggests the use of specific fuel treatments...Which are Ford products.

GM has no scheduled draining of the water seperator required, and actually discourages the use of fuel additives!

Not related to HPFPs, but Ford also require coolant testing at 15K.

Ford also seems to still be having trouble with radiators leaking.

GM has no radiator problems,,,,,and no coolant testing requirements.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the tone is vastly different between the two companys in terms of warranty coverage and ownership experience.

Ford takes a combative stance with their customers,,,even on issues that they know they have a problem with.

Gm wants their customers experience to be a positive one. They don't want their customers to feel like they are playing russian roulette every time they purchase fuel. Thus, HPFPs are covered.
No need to test coolant all the time. No radiator problems. If it happens it will be covered.

[ksss]

coolbreeze01 wrote:
Sounds like Ford needs to brand their own diesel fuel......something good enough for their engine.
I'm still curious just how clean and pure the initial factory delivery gallons are.

Perhaps what is needed in the interm is an additive that can be added at each fill up that regardless of the existing fuel quality can bring at least that treated tank up to a level of lubricity that can protect the injection system (maybe there is one currently available that would provide this). What are the alternatives? Increase the quality of diesel fuel in the U.S? Thats not going to happen soon enough to help if it ever could happen. Bosch may alter their pumps to accomondate the poor fuel but not before many more fuel systems go down. If you could ensure a 400 scar type fuel lubricity with each fill up, this situation could be much better managed. What would be even better is if you could get Bosch to provide expertise and support of the product (which I doubt they would do).