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

[NewsW]

The GM Answer:


You tune it, you own it!



===================

#08-06-04-006H: Identifying Non-GM ECM Calibration Usages for Duramax Diesel Engines and Power-up Hardware Detection - (Feb 7, 2011)

Subject:

Information on Identifying Non-GM ECM Calibration Usages for Duramax™ Diesel Engines RPOs LBZ, LLY, LMM, LML, LGH and Power-up Hardware Detection for Duramax™ Diesel Engine RPO LMM — Photograph Tech 2® Calibration IDs and Calibration Verification Numbers (CVNs) and Transmission Data Screen Before Removing Engine/Transmission/Drivetrain Components

Models:

2006-2011 Chevrolet Express, Kodiak, Silverado

2006-2011 GMC Savana, Sierra, TopKick

Equipped With Duramax™ Diesel Engine RPOs LBZ, LLY, LMM, LML, LGH

Please Refer to GMVIS

In order to process an engine/transmission/drivetrain hard part WARRANTY CLAIM, you MUST photograph the required Tech 2® screen information
BEFORE disassembly or removing engine/transmission/drivetrain components from the vehicle. This bulletin is being revised to update the model years and RPOs. Please discard Corporate Bulletin Number 08-06-04-006G (Section 06 – Engine/Propulsion System).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Motors is identifying an increasing number of engine, transmission, diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) and exhaust particulate filter failures that are the result of non-GM (aftermarket Power-up Kits) engine and transmission control calibrations being used. When alteration to the GM-released engine or transmission control calibrations occurs, it subjects powertrain and driveline components (engine , transmission, transfer case, driveshaft and rear axle) to stresses that were not tested by General Motors. It is because of these unknown stresses, and the potential to alter reliability, durability and emissions performance, that GM has adopted a policy that prevents any UNAUTHORIZED dealer warranty claim submissions to any remaining warranty coverage to the powertrain and driveline components whenever the presence of a non-GM calibration is confirmed - even if the non-GM control module calibration is subsequently removed.

Warranty coverage is based on the equipment and calibrations that were released on the vehicle at time of first sale, or subsequently updated by GM or its dealers with approved calibrations. That’s because GM testing and validation matches the calibration to a host of criteria that is essential to assure reliability, durability and emissions performance over the life of the warranty coverage and beyond. Stresses resulting from calibrations different than those tested and released by GM can damage or weaken components, leading to poor performance and or shortened life. Additionally, non-GM issued engine control modifications do not meet the same emissions performance standards as GM issued calibrations. Depending on state statutes, individuals who install engine control module calibrations that put the vehicle outside the parameters of emissions certification standards may be subject to fines and/or penalties.

This bulletin outlines procedures to identify the presence of non-GM (aftermarket) calibrations. GM recommends performing this check whenever a hard part failure is seen on internal engine, transmission, transfer case or rear axle components, and before disassembly, repair or replacement of an engine, transmission, transfer case or rear axle assembly under warranty. It is also recommended that the engine calibration verification procedure be performed whenever diagnostics indicate that the diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) needs replacement.

Note: BEFORE authorizing any Duramax™ diesel engine or transmission replacement, the PQC will require digital photographs of the following Tech 2® screens:

For RPOs LLY and LBZ only: Calibration ID Numbers and Verification Numbers from the Vehicle Information screen
For RPO LMM only: Calibration ID Numbers and Verification Numbers from the Vehicle Information AND the Programming History screen.
For RPO LMM only: Transmission Data screen containing the Max Transmission Calc Engine Torque parameter.


Symptoms Caused by Aftermarket Power-up Kit
Some customers may have reprogrammed the engine control module (ECM) with a non-GM released calibration. The Power-Up Kit engine calibration changes fueling and timing parameters and likely contributes to the following vehicle conditions:

Poor performance
Driveability concerns
Increased emissions
Black smoke (This symptom is not valid for the Duramax™ diesel engine RPO LMM equipped with the exhaust particulate filter. The filter will trap black smoke unless it is cracked, melted or has been removed from the exhaust system.)
Knocking noise
Engine damage (Refer to Corporate Bulletin Number 06-06-01-007C for additional information.)


#04-06-04-054B: Information - Non-GM Parts and Accessories (Aftermarket) - (Nov 18, 2010)

Subject: Info - Non-GM Parts and Accessories (Aftermarket)



Models: 2011 and Prior GM Passenger Cars and Trucks



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bulletin is being revised to add model years and update to the new U.S. Fixed Operation Manager (FOM) and Canada Warranty Manager (WM) names. Please discard Corporate Bulletin Number 04-06-04-054A (Section 06 – Engine/Propulsion System).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The recent rise and expansion of companies selling non-GM parts and accessories has made it necessary to issue this reminder to dealers regarding GM's policy on the use and installation of these aftermarket components.

When a dealer is performing a repair under the New Vehicle Limited Warranty, they are required to use only genuine GM or GM-approved parts and accessories. This applies to all warranty repairs, special policy repairs or any repairs paid for by GM. Parts and accessories advertised as being “the same” as parts manufactured by GM, but not sold through GM, do not qualify for use in warranty repairs, special policy repairs or any repairs paid for by GM.

During a warranty repair, if a GM original equipment part is not available through GM Customer Care and Aftersales (GM CC&A), ACDelco® distributors, other GM dealers or approved sources, the dealer is to obtain comparable, non-GM parts and clearly indicate, in detail, on the repair order the circumstances surrounding why non-GM parts were used. The dealer must give customers written notice, prior to the sale or service, that such parts or accessories are not marketed or warranted by General Motors.

It should also be noted that dealers modifying new vehicles and installing equipment, parts and accessories obtained from sources not authorized by GM are responsible for complying with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Certain non-approved parts or assemblies, installed by the dealer or its agent not authorized by GM, may result in a change to the vehicle's design characteristics and may affect the vehicle's ability to conform to federal law. Dealers must fully understand that non-GM approved parts may not have been validated, tested or certified for use. This puts the dealer at risk for potential liability in the event of a part or vehicle failure. If a GM part failure occurs as the result of the installation or use of a non-GM approved part, the warranty will not be honored.

A good example of non-authorized modification of vehicles is the result of an ever increasing supply of aftermarket devices available to the customer, which claim to increase the horsepower and torque of the Duramax™ Diesel Engines. These include the addition of, but are not limited to one or more of the following modifications:

Propane injection
Nitrous oxide injection
Additional modules (black boxes) that connect to the vehicle wiring systems
Revised engine calibrations downloaded for the engine control module
Calibration modules which connect to the vehicle diagnostic connector
Modification to the engine turbocharger waste gate

Although the installation of these devices, or modification of vehicle components, can increase engine horsepower and torque, they may also negatively affect the engine emissions, reliability and/or durability. In addition, other powertrain components, such as transmissions, universal joints, drive shafts, and front/rear axle components, can be stressed beyond design safety limits by the installation of these devices.

General Motors does not support or endorse the use of devices or modifications that, when installed, increase the engine horsepower and torque. It is because of these unknown stresses, and the potential to alter reliability, durability and emissions performance, that GM has adopted a policy that prevents any UNAUTHORIZED dealer warranty claim submissions to any remaining warranty coverage, to the powertrain and driveline components whenever the presence of a non-GM (aftermarket) calibration is confirmed - even if the non-GM control module calibration is subsequently removed. Refer to the latest version of Bulletin 09-06-04-026 (V8 Gas Engines) or 06-06-01-007 (Duramax™ Diesel Engines) for more information on dealer requirements for calibration verification.

These same policies apply as they relate to the use of non-GM accessories. Damage or failure from the use or installation of a non-GM accessory will not be covered under warranty. Failure resulting from the alteration or modification of the vehicle, including the cutting, welding or disconnecting of the vehicle's original equipment parts and components will void the warranty.

Additionally, dealers will NOT be reimbursed or compensated by GM in the event of any legal inquiry at either the local, state or federal level that results from the alteration or modification of a vehicle using non-GM approved parts or accessories.

Dealers should be especially cautious of accessory companies that claim the installation of their product will not void the factory warranty. Many times these companies have even given direction on how to quickly disassemble the accessory in an attempt to preclude the manufacturer from finding out that is has been installed.

Any suspect repairs should be reviewed by the Fixed Operations Manager (FOM), and in Canada by the Warranty Manager (WM) for appropriate repair direction. If it is decided that a goodwill repair is to be made on the vehicle, even with the installation of such non-GM approved components, the customer is to be made aware of General Motors position on this issue and is to sign the appropriate goodwill documentation required by General Motors.

It is imperative for dealers to understand that by installing such devices, they are jeopardizing not only the warranty coverage, but also the performance and reliability of the customer's vehicle.


-----------

#09-06-04-026C: Identifying Non-GM (Aftermarket) Engine and Transmission Calibrations for V8 Gas Engines Using Tech 2 or Global Diagnostic System (GDS) - (Aug 13, 2010)
Subject:

Identifying Non-GM (Aftermarket) Engine and Transmission Calibrations for V8 Gas Engines Using Tech 2® or Global Diagnostic System (GDS)

Models:

2006–2011 GM Passenger Cars and Light Duty Trucks (Excluding Saab 9-7X)
2006–2009 HUMMER H2
2006–2010 HUMMER H3
Equipped with V8 Gas Powered Engines Only

This bulletin applies to V8 gas powered engines ONLY.

General Motors is identifying an increasing number of engine, transmission and catalytic converter part failures that are the result of non-GM (aftermarket) engine and transmission control calibrations being used.

When alteration to the GM-released engine or transmission control calibrations occurs, it subjects powertrain and driveline components (engine , transmission, transfer case, driveshaft and rear axle) to stresses that were not tested by General Motors. It is because of these unknown stresses, and the potential to alter reliability, durability and emissions performance, that GM has adopted a policy that prevents any UNAUTHORIZED dealer warranty claim submissions to any remaining warranty coverage, to the powertrain and driveline components whenever the presence of a non-GM (aftermarket) calibration is confirmed – even if the non-GM control module calibration is subsequently removed.

Warranty coverage is based on the equipment and calibrations that were released on the vehicle at time of sale, or subsequently updated by GM. That’s because GM testing and validation matches the calibration to a host of criteria that is essential to assure reliability, durability and emissions performance over the life of the warranty coverage and beyond. Stresses resulting from calibrations different from those tested and released by GM can damage or weaken components, leading to poor performance and or shortened life.
Additionally, non-GM (aftermarket) issued engine control modifications often do not meet the same emissions performance standards as GM issued calibrations. Depending on state statutes, individuals who install engine control module calibrations that put the vehicle outside the parameters of emissions certification standards may be subject to fines and/or penalties.
This bulletin outlines a procedure to identify the presence of non-GM (aftermarket) calibrations. GM recommends performing this check whenever a hard part failure is seen on internal engine or transmission components, or before an engine assembly or transmission assembly is being replaced under warranty. It is also recommended that the engine calibration verification procedure be performed whenever diagnostics indicate that catalytic converter replacement is indicated.

The PQC has a process to confirm the ECM/PCM calibration is GM issued. The PQC will require a picture of the engine calibration verification screen, as outlined in this bulletin, before authorizing any V8 gas powered engine replacement.

If a non-GM calibration is found and verification has taken place through GM, the remaining powertrain and driveline warranty will be blocked and notated in GMVIS and the dealership will be notified. This block prevents any
UNAUTHORIZED warranty claim submission.

Connect the Tech 2® to the vehicle.
Go to: Diagnostics and build the vehicle.
Select: Powertrain.
Select: Engine.
*Select: Engine Control Module or PCM.
*Select: Module ID Information or I/M Information System if the Module ID Information selection is not available.
*If "I/M information System" was selected, it may be necessary to select "Vehicle Information" in order to display the calibration information.

If the CVN information is displayed as “N/A”, it will be necessary to contact the TCSC to obtain the CVN information.

Take a CLEAR digital picture of the Tech 2® Vehicle Information screen showing the engine Calibration IDs and Verification Numbers as shown above. Retain the printout information and the Tech 2® screen photograph with the repair order.

Note: All pictures must be sent as a .jpg file.

E-mail a copy of the picture to ?@gm.com. In the subject line of the e-mail include the phrase “V8 Cal” as well as the complete VIN and Dealer BAC. In the body of the e-mail, include the VIN, mileage, R.O. number and BAC. Include a brief description of the customer concern and cause of the concern.

Note: The dealer will receive an e-mail reply after the calibrations have been validated. The e-mail reply will advise the dealer if the calibrations are OEM.

Allow two hours for the PQC to verify the calibrations and set up the case details.

If the PQC determines that the calibrations
ARE aftermarket calibrations,
DO NOT contact GM Technical Assistance to discuss warranty concerns on the aftermarket calibrations.
ALL questions and concerns about warranty should be directed to the dealers Fixed Operations Manager.

You may call the PQC two hours after submitting the e-mail for authorization to replace the assembly. This will provide them time to receive, review and set up a case on the request. Please be prepared to provide all the usual documentation that is normally required when requesting an assembly authorization from the PQC.


Tech 2® Displaying All Zeroes for the Verification Numbers on the Calibration ID and Verification Number Screen

If the Tech 2® that you are using displays all zeroes for the Verification Numbers as shown, then perform the following steps:

Update the Tech 2® with the latest software from TIS2WEB.
Turn OFF the ignition for 90 seconds.
Connect the Tech 2® to the vehicle.
Turn ON the ignition, and build the vehicle. Observe the Tech 2® Calibration ID and Verification Number screen for proper operation.

If the Tech 2® screen still does not display properly, then turn OFF the ignition for 90 seconds again. Turn ON the ignition and observe the same screen for proper operation.

Retrieving Calibrations From a Global A Vehicle
This information applies to the 2010 Camaro and is typical of the procedure that will be used on Global A vehicles.

Turn OFF the ignition.
Connect the MDI to the Data Link Connector (DLC) of the vehicle.

Note: Use the USB port to make the following MDI connection:

Connect the MDI to a PC or laptop that has been downloaded with the GDS application from TIS2WEB.

Note: At least one Diagnostic Package must be installed on the PC to perform diagnostics. If GDS was just installed, select: Add New Diagnostic Package and then select: a Diagnostic Package to download.

Click: On the GDS icon on the PC.
The Login Page will appear.
Select: A User.
The ID Screen will appear.
Select: The serial number of the MDI being used.
Select: Connect.
Verify that the system status is ready by observing for a flashing PC light icon on the MDI.
Select: Make, Model and Model Year, in order to build the vehicle.

Click: Upload VIN, to allow the VIN to be reported to the PC.

At: The Verification step, turn ON the ignition, with the engine OFF.
Select: Next Action.
The Home Page will appear.
Select: Next.
The Diagnostic Screen will appear.

Note: Due to vehicle build, software

and RPO variations, GDS may ask for additional information in Step 18.
Select: Engine ID, if prompted.
Select: Module Diagnostics.
Select: ECM.
Select: ID Information.
The Diagnostics page will appear.
Typical View of GDS Calibration History Screen

Note: GDS is capable of displaying up to 10 Calibration History events.

Select: Calibration History from the drop down menu in order to display the following items on the screen:
Calibration History Buffer
Number of Calibration History Events Stored
Calibration Part Number History
Calibration Verification Number History
Select: Screenshot.
Name and save the file in an appropriate folder.
Select : Print, and retain a copy of the screenshot with the repair order.

Note: All pictures must be sent as a .jpg file

E-mail a copy of the screenshot to ?@gm.com. In the subject line of the e-mail include the phrase “V8 Cal” as well as the complete VIN and Dealer BAC. In the body of the e-mail, include the VIN, mileage, R.O. number and BAC. Include a brief description of the customer concern and cause of the concern.

Note: The dealer will receive an e-mail reply after the calibrations have been validated. The e-mail reply will advise the dealer if the calibrations are OEM

Allow two hours for the PQC to verify the calibrations and set up the case details.

If the PQC determines that the calibrations
ARE aftermarket calibrations,
DO NOT contact GM Technical Assistance to discuss warranty concerns on the aftermarket calibrations.
ALL questions and concerns about warranty should be directed to the dealers Fixed Operations Manager,

You may call the PQC two hours after submitting the e-mail for authorization to replace the assembly. This will provide them time to receive, review and set up a case on the request. Please be prepared to provide all the usual documentation that is normally required when requesting an assembly authorization from the PQC.


---------------

[NewsW]

ricatic wrote:

How many potential buyers of the Ford 6.7 diesel would actually purchase the truck if they knew about the HPFP issue? This is Ford's dirty little secret.

How many guy's here have noticed that when the pump fails, the cost to repair far exceeds the cost of the old 6.0 HG,EGR cooler and oil cooler repairs? While the 6.7 numbers are not approaching the level of 6.0, the chance of having this nightmare is real...and very expensive.

Regards

Courtesy of the wonders of the internet, we now know GM adopted a different ECM strategy --- they have the Bosch ECM that basically makes it very hard to mod the system.

See:

durallymax wrote:
What they did on the new LML was install the new "feared" Bosch ECM that does not allow the calibration to be read through the OBDII port. In doing this, they were able to gain legal power against tuners and such because the only legal way for any tuner to be able to tune the truck would be for the truck owner themselves to pull the tune and then alter it, anyone else who would gain access to a tune other than the trucks owner would be committing fraud. They also put a hold on the ECMs for 6 months, and any replacement ECMs require a lot of documenting before being sent out.

The CP4 pump itself is less than $1000 through GM.

In other words, the people that should be screwed over are being done in properly at GM with this neat trick. Imagine... a six month wait for a part!

No doubt that Bosch and GM have a different warranty deal, whereby Bosch was willing to warrant the part more comprehensively if GM locked up the module.

Ford, on the other hand, from the first day of the 6.0, insisted on complete control over the ECM and tuning and also on the turbo, etc. on the 6.0. That meant that Navistar was basically hapless against the kind of abuses that was done by 6.x owners -- and they got dinged for the bill regardless. Understandably Navistar was upset.

At the same time, Ford thought it was good clean fun to see their customers tune it, mod it, and play games with emissions until the 6.0 bills came home.

The fact is, technically, as of 2005 or so, Ford had the capability to lock up the ECM, but for different reasons (some right, like legal, they waited until 2008 to take the first step --- hence the legalise change in the owners manual).

In the mean time, Ford so PO the regulators (like the CARB) that discussions between them and Ford got rather, warm, or should I say, heated, resulting in the nasties like the software disable of vehicle if DEF is out.

The problem is, Ford still wanted to play the wiggle game, and want to let the tuners and modders have their fun, as long as Ford doesn't have to pay the bill.

So they instituted a very tight warranty denial policy, when they could have locked up the ECM (as GM did) and take the lumps in the market.

Now we have lots of 6.7 Fords running around that are non EPA 2010 compliant, and the bills are starting to come in for the non-locked up ECM (which I suspect allow Bosch to wiggle out of much of the bills, and Ford is left with an omelet on their face.

I shudder to think what is going to happen when this mess hits the Ford corporate program manager.

Thumbnail is that Ford sold a couple million or so of 6.0s, but they paid out $1 billion or so in warranty costs, or say $500 per unit.

Do the math, and it is not clear that the engine portion of the vehicle ever made any money for Ford net of costs.

The truck portion made money, but that would have been made if it had a gas motor in it.

If the CP 4 is as I fear it is, it may be an incredibly expensive bill for somebody to eat.

[ricatic]

coolbreeze01 wrote:

hawkeye-08 wrote:
perhaps Ford should consider putting brochure in the glovebox stating the fuel system is not covered by Ford warranty, contact Bosch for warranty coverage. Treat the fuel system like tires.

I agree, good idea 😉

How many potential buyers of the Ford 6.7 diesel would actually purchase the truck if they knew about the HPFP issue? This is Ford's dirty little secret.

How many guy's here have noticed that when the pump fails, the cost to repair far exceeds the cost of the old 6.0 HG,EGR cooler and oil cooler repairs? While the 6.7 numbers are not approaching the level of 6.0, the chance of having this nightmare is real...and very expensive.

Regards

[durallymax]

gmcsmoke wrote:

For once I'd love to see you back up the false info you spew; show me a case or cases of HPFP failing on Gm's.

I will try to sell everybody on the duramax everyday of the week as it is the best powertrain in my opinion, however I don't have blinders. Ill tell anybody straight up to not buy a diesel because it will never cash flow unless you do some serious towing. I also wont hide any problems they have. These pumps are failing on the Duramax engines as well. The reason you dont hear about it is because GM does the right thing and just fixes them. Does GM have as many failures? That I do not know.

Ever hear the saying good news doesn't make good news? Same holds true here. Not very many people get on the interwebby and complain about their pump failing if GM replaces it for them. The people that complain are when it isn't covered. Which is now why everybody you talk to seems to think ford will coid your warrenty if you hang a naked girl from your rearview mirror, and they think GM will fix anything on your vehicle "in good faith" no matter what. Two very out there conclusions but it shows in the publics eye GMs warranty looks good and Fords looks bad.



As for the guy worried about new diesels. They actually are running very very good compared to older years. Fords 6.7 is the best since their 7.3 and the LML duramax is flawless aside from this HPFP issue and the DEF sensor calibration.

This HPFP issue is common, but nothing on a large scale yet. Time will tell. Like I said earlier. Internet research is skewed. People like to complain more than they like to complement when they get on here. Not many start a thread to say thanks for replacing my pump or injectors , they start a thread to complain about them not being covered or failing in the first place. and nobody starts a thread to say "hey my truck has no problems".

[NewsW]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
BTW a third grader can make a clicky link. :W :B

Just tryin' not t'overtax his comprehension. 'S coo', bro.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

NewsW wrote:

gmcsmoke wrote:


For once I'd love to see you back up the false info you spew; show me a case or cases of HPFP failing on Gm's.

Link to the document below, provided to NHTSA ODI by GM:

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416387/INRD-EA11003-50068P.zip

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416382/INRD-EA11003-50069P.zip

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416383/INRD-EA11003-50070P.pdf

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416383/INRD-EA11003-50070P.pdf

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416384/INRD-EA11003-50071P.zip

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416385/INRD-EA11003-50072P.zip

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416386/INRD-EA11003-50073P.pdf

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/documentList.xhtml?docId=EA11003&docType=INV


Material above require (should read, would require or use requires. just saying :W) basic English and math above Grade 10 level to comprehend. was that really needed? BTW a third grader can make a clicky link. :W :B



Presumably, you think the same of GM who must have spewed "false info" to NHTSA.

[NewsW]

gmcsmoke wrote:


For once I'd love to see you back up the false info you spew; show me a case or cases of HPFP failing on Gm's.

Link to the document below, provided to NHTSA ODI by GM:

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416387/INRD-EA11003-50068P.zip

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416382/INRD-EA11003-50069P.zip

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416383/INRD-EA11003-50070P.pdf

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416383/INRD-EA11003-50070P.pdf

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416384/INRD-EA11003-50071P.zip

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416385/INRD-EA11003-50072P.zip

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM416386/INRD-EA11003-50073P.pdf


http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/documentList.xhtml?docId=EA11003&docType=INV

Material above require basic English and math above Grade 10 level to comprehend.



Presumably, you think the same of GM who must have spewed "false info" to NHTSA.

[coolbreeze01]

hawkeye-08 wrote:
perhaps Ford should consider putting brochure in the glovebox stating the fuel system is not covered by Ford warranty, contact Bosch for warranty coverage. Treat the fuel system like tires.

I agree, good idea 😉

[gmcsmoke]

NewsW wrote:
The key here is what seems to be incredibly bad engineering practice.

Whoever got through to the fuel subsystem designers for Ford, GM, VW, etc. basically sold them a bill of goods,

For once I'd love to see you back up the false info you spew; show me a case or cases of HPFP failing on Gm's.

[NewsW]

durallymax wrote:

Thats their own mistake in many ways. Every other brand of diesel truck gets misused just as much. Fords engine wasn't built to handle the added stress. The way they handled it caused a lot of bad publicity even though yes in the end Ford was right for denying a lot of customers claims.

GM went about it a different way, they never really put up a stink, but also never really had as many issues either. They also have no money so maybe they aren't the smarter ones. What they did on the new LML was install the new "feared" Bosch ECM that does not allow the calibration to be read through the OBDII port. In doing this, they were able to gain legal power against tuners and such because the only legal way for any tuner to be able to tune the truck would be for the truck owner themselves to pull the tune and then alter it, anyone else who would gain access to a tune other than the trucks owner would be committing fraud. They also put a hold on the ECMs for 6 months, and any replacement ECMs require a lot of documenting before being sent out.

The CP4 pump itself is less than $1000 through GM.

The key here is what seems to be incredibly bad engineering practice.

Engineers are taught to think through the consequence of failure. If it is a "high consequence" failure, it needs to be both made unlikely to happen (high safety margins) and when it does, mitigated.

For a bit of perspective, we are not talking about something as severe as airbags going off for no reason at 80mph randomly at a rate of 1 incident per 1,000 units in use annually. That is high priority on anyone's measure.

This is a moderate consequence event (mostly financial, low likelihood of personal injury and 3rd party property damage, and at present, low probability.

However, on a customer satisfaction level --- it is right up there.

Whoever got through to the fuel subsystem designers for Ford, GM, VW, etc. basically sold them a bill of goods,

"it never fails, durability exceed xxxxx million km, ja, ja, you can bomb zee factory or drive over IED und it will still work!"

So no engineering was done for mitigating failure --- namely, detection of metal particles / filtering / proactive shut down.

There is one pressure transducer in the pump --- that is the only system warning not counting the low fuel pressure sensor (if equipped) and the fuel tank empty signal.

Something need to be engineered for proactive shutdown of the engine before harm is done!

Or a stop gap filtering of fuel returned to tank to limit / mitigate damage from $1,000 plus labor to $10,000.


Oh yes, the Bosch "ECM", lol... We can have another thread discussing anti tampering features of the new generation of ECMs.

Whether to do it in software / firmware, or to do it in hardware, how it is done, how tuners are detected, etc.

The people who think tuners can't be detected are the same ones who don't have a clue that when they buy any printer (ANY) except for large newspaper or offset presses, it has built in circuitry to put a microsignature on each page it prints. Or every batch of explosive made in OECD is microtagged....

[ib516]

Wow. Shopping for a new truck is seemingly much more of a minefield than it should be. I'm keeping mine for a while yet.

[durallymax]

NewsW wrote:

BenK wrote:


Detroit still doesn't get it...

I am rather sympathetic to Ford because they were (as a company) traumatized by the 6.0 debacle.

When all the shooting is done, Ford ended up paying out a lot of warranty claims that should never have been paid.

Warranty fraud on the 6.0 was rampant.

It is not clear to me that the product ever made money for them.

As a result, Ford developed elaborate enhancements and procedures to cut warranty costs.

A lot of that is in the software that since 2008, closely monitor what the customer is doing, logging everything, and quietly feeds the data back to Ford every time the vehicle is plugged in to a dealer computer.

Don't believe me? Just read the manual from the 2008 and later models and note the explicit advice to owners that Ford is collecting data (and authorization).

As a result of the new enhancements, it can be fairly said that a majority of claims involving tuners, emission tampering, etc. have been denied --- fairly.

A Ford tech today, on any major warranty claim, have to spend hours not fixing --- but documenting the repair with a elaborate ritual that is intended to limit (not eliminate) warranty fraud and abuse.

The problem is, sometimes, this hard line approach can make a mistake --- where the customer is right, and Ford and the dealers buggered up.

That is what happened in some cases with the CP 4 pump.

Thats their own mistake in many ways. Every other brand of diesel truck gets misused just as much. Fords engine wasn't built to handle the added stress. The way they handled it caused a lot of bad publicity even though yes in the end Ford was right for denying a lot of customers claims.

GM went about it a different way, they never really put up a stink, but also never really had as many issues either. They also have no money so maybe they aren't the smarter ones. What they did on the new LML was install the new "feared" Bosch ECM that does not allow the calibration to be read through the OBDII port. In doing this, they were able to gain legal power against tuners and such because the only legal way for any tuner to be able to tune the truck would be for the truck owner themselves to pull the tune and then alter it, anyone else who would gain access to a tune other than the trucks owner would be committing fraud. They also put a hold on the ECMs for 6 months, and any replacement ECMs require a lot of documenting before being sent out.

Needless to say, there are a few programmers out there today for it. GM has their butt covered, and nobody is out bashing GM for not covering their warranty claims. They continue to be very good about replacing parts unless it is obvious the aftermarket part caused the failure. GM builds a good powertrain, so they don't have to worry about going broke with warranty claims like Ford seems to be. Look at how much the injector issue caused GM. GM themselves wouldn't deny modified trucks because they knew the issue lied in their product, the injectors. The injectors were Bosch, so did GM blame Bosch? Not entirely, they knew it was a joint failure, internal parts of the injector were part of the issue, and the other half were the systems controlling the injectors and the environment they were in. Speaking of which, I need to get back to replacing the set I am working on now.

blackeyed1 wrote:
Keep beating the horse, be it either alive or dead, until the truth comes out. I have a 2008 6.4L that is alive and well for now, but I'll never know for sure it stays that way. some of you think it's no big deal, but if Ford or my insurance denies repairs or payment based on this pump or fuel issues, I for one could not afford $10-12,000 for a new engine. I do the draining, filters, etc regularly per the diesel supplement. But there is a fear each day I take it out that it could be my last. Would you like that feeling? I doubt it.
I do have a back up plan should I have a catastrophic failure that my insurance or Ford will not cover. But I sure won't say it here.

The 6.4s use a completely different siemens system.


The CP4 pump itself is less than $1000 through GM.

[Targa]

In my opinion it is very cut and dry regardless of how others try and spin it in Ford's favor. If there is a legit warranty issue, which Ricatic's and others certainly were, Ford needs to stand by there products. You shouldn't need a warranty to cover your warranty..:h. Other's can justify Ford's actions however they want and still continue to support them, to each there own but I just purchased a new truck without Ford even being in the equation, simply because they are not honoring there warranties and I will not give them my business. It's a shame too, I really like the look of the Ford HD's, the outward visibilty, payload and 6.2 motor.

[gmcsmoke]

I'm Rick James wrote:

rick83864 wrote:
I really thought I clicked onto a hot thread with a high hit count till I realized one poster had 68% of the posts :H
Enough typing already, maybe take a break and eat something :B
.

You must be referring to the newb that's averaging 28 posts per day. That guy has got some serious spare time.

yet can't figure out how to post a freakin' link.

jees.

[ForestGump]

NewsW wrote:

2003silverado wrote:
I don't understand why ford is denying there is a problem. On the first page of the article it states "Ford understands that there is no alleged defect with respect to any of its vehicles and is
providing this information as part of the agency's investigation of another manufacturer's
vehicles."

Give Ford a break.

That is the lawyering that has to go on the first sentence.

If they KNOW there is a defect, they have a finite period of time when they are legally required to report the defect to NHTSA or they are fined.

Based on evidence to date, there is no clear evidence that they know there is a problem yet.

Now, lets help everyone along to understand what the problem is.

I'm with you dude!