Ford Ram GM

[4x4ord]

When I bought my first F350 back in 2011 I felt there were a number of little things that made Ford a better choice for me than what GM and Ram were offering. Things like power tow mirrors, tail gate step, storage compartments, power acc outlets, a much more heavy duty front end. I haven't kept up with all the changes in the new trucks but I know there are fewer things now that Ford has that the others don't. What I'm aware of is the dual panel sun roof and power mirrors. Ram has the air ride suspension and nicer hips on the dually and the mega cab ... does it have a tailgate step? All three manufacturers offer incredible powertrains. Is there anything that GM has the others don't? In the latest HD diesel 1 tons from the big three what features are available or missing on the different brands?

[Bedlam]

I thought the arrows were for power fold in/out? My Tradesman does not have this, but the main mirror surface is powered and heated.

[BigToe]

A lot of good points brought up here, too many to repeat as quotes.

There definitely is a difference between folks who trade in for a new vehicle every 1 - 5 years, versus folks who buy and hold for 10 - 20 years. I'm in the latter camp, where any problem that anyone reports on a given vehicle of interest, could potentially become my problem to have to pay for at some point, without benefit of a warranty, if I chose to buy that vehicle.

So when I see a vehicle fixed under warranty, I check to see if the fix involves a change of parts design, that addresses the root cause of the problem, or if the fix is simply another re-installation of the same failure prone system, repeated until the warranty times out. If newly designed parts are involved, that provides some hope for me being able to afford that vehicle, because at some point I will be shouldering all the cost to keep that vehicle running.

When I see a manufacturer accuse the customer, blame the customer, deny the customer warranty coverage where due, and repeatedly get away with it... my hopes for the root cause of the problem ever being fixed with an improved design diminish for that specific year/model/make of vehicle, because the manufacturer is not incentivized to incur the costs to re-engineer a retrofitable solution, when the more profitable solution is to simply keep building them the same way and use the same excuse to deny coverage. I can't afford that, either while within or outside of warranty.

Many of the regular names on this thread have read, contemporaneously, in real time as it was happening, on various forums, the stories about Ford denying coverage for CP4 pump failures. We are all smart enough to recognize the difference between a customer who inadvertantly put DEF in their fuel tank, versus a customer whose fuel system failed through no fault of their own.

No reasonable person would expect Ford to pay for fuel system failures due to DEF being put into the tank, so to try and lump that category of failure in the same bucket as the pure C4 failures... is simply a brand biased defense that doesn't hold water, so to speak. We already understand the difference.

We also get the difference between how GM handled CP4 failures, versus how Ford handled them, because again, we were here, reading the reports contemporaneously as they were happening in real time. Yes, they were anecdotal, not statistical. But you know, where there is smoke, there is usually a fire, and the take away of too many people here is plainly too consistent to ignore.

We also understand that many folks are personally incentivized to vigorously defend the resale value of the year/brand/model of vehicle that they currently own, so when it comes time for them to sell or trade out of it, the negative points about their vehicle found in online chatter are dampened with counterpoints to invalidate those claims and uphold the perceived value. We see through that too.

On a different note, but related to a tangent of this thread, does anyone know if the blind spot mirror to the new 2020 Ram HD is electrically adjustable? I saw a diagram with two red arrows referring to each segment of the 2020 Ram towing mirror that seemed to imply a new feature... suggesting by illustration that both sections of mirror were adjustable by remote control. If that were the case, then that would make the Ram's antlers more useful in the down position, would it not? Again, this is a question, not a statement. I can no longer find the marketing illustration that had those red arrows by each segment of mirror, but I'm sure one of the Ram experts here can find it.

[blofgren]

The other thing I find interesting is that Bosch claims the CP4 pump is "improved" but I have yet to see any information on the details of the improvements.

For me there is way too much of a lack of transparency on the issue for me to even remotely consider a CP4 equipped truck. People with deep pockets that trade their trucks off every few years are in a different scenario than I am. I'm at a point in my life where preparing to put my son through post secondary education and setting myself up for retirement is much more important than spending an obscene amount of money on a new truck every few years.

There have been several news stories in my area over the last couple of years of VW diesel owners who had the CP4 pump grenade on them and received no warranty coverage from VW. Interestingly enough, when the media reported on them, all of a sudden VW changed their mind and covered them, at least partially.

Also, getting a bad tank of fuel can happen to anyone; as much as I haven't seen any water in the separators in any of my trucks, I have been able to recognize a few bad tanks over the years because the power of the truck was way down and the fuel economy was as well. The filtration system on the vehicle needs to be able to deal with this at least to a reasonable level.

The problem is real; some people just choose to ignore it. I truly believe it is not a matter of if but when it happens to all CP4 pumps.

[mich800]

Huntindog wrote:


Only Ford and GM know their failure rates.

NHSTA tracks what was warrantied.

So saying that GM and Ford had similar failure rates as fish did is unsubstantiated. GM actually reported a higher percentage of warranty claims than Ford... Which is consistent with GM covering the repairs, and Ford had a lower percentage of reported warrantied failures.... Which is consistent with Ford denying coverage..... Though I strongly suspect the actual total failure rates were indeed similar..... There is no data to support it.

All we can say for sure, is that GM DID pay to fix a higher percentage of trucks than Ford did.
I actually had these reports on my computer back then.... That computer has been long gone though

First you say only Ford and GM know their failure rates. But then claim Ford has a higher denial rate base on a figure you do not have by admission. If we do not know GM and Ford's actual failure rate how are you attributing any percentages?

[Huntindog]

Bionic Man wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

lenr wrote:
Fundamentally warranty coverage and warranty repair approval comes down to a marketing decision. Ford is the largest seller and GM was just coming out of bankruptcy when the CP4 pumps came on the scene--both their marketing departments were doing the math and making a decision. I have read of (supposedly) actual cases over on www.thedieselstop.com (Ford forum) where the Ma and Pa station had algae and water in their fuel and another where the lazy delivery truck driver didn't adequately flush the ethanol out of the truck tank before loading diesel. Doesn't matter--water, DEF, gasoline, or ethanol in the fuel is going to blow the pump. From memory the NHSTA numbers were .06%, 6 in 10,000--and Ford repaired some of those. Yes, it would suck if it happened to you. But, I give every fuel stop the 10 second fresh fuel evaluation--does it look high volume and how desperate am I for fuel? And, I get a receipt for every tank of fuel so I could go back on station insurance if there is a problem. Also, some have gotten the repair paid for by comprehensive vehicle insurance when warranty was denied.

IIRCC, NHSTA figures are warranty numbers. At least that is what it seems to read, and I DO remember some discussion as to just what that would do to the numbers of GM failures compared to Fords. Of course since Ford was denying claims, and GM was not.... That would show up in GMs higher failure rate that the NHSTA numbers showed.... We had a big discussion about it, but could never nail down just what the impact was.... Only that there was an impact.

Your living in a alternate universe if you think GM or any other manufacturer will cover fuel contamination damage under warranty.

GM should have installed a lift pump that many have recommended and their failure rate would have been lower.

Did I say that? NOPE.

But there were tons of reports of Ford denying warranty... And practically zero from GM owners. You seem to be saying that Ford owners have a tendancy to buy bad fuel..... And GM owners only buy good fuel.... That is warped logic. They all buy the same fuel. As for the lift pump comment.... Many think that the Ford filtration system was inferior to GMs in that it passed water to the pump. Both Ford and GM have revamped their filtration system.... But bottom line is, If the filtration system was NOT doing it's job.... Then that is on Ford and GM. Not the customer. The customer should not have to do fuel tests at every fill up to ensure good fuel.... That is what the filters are for.
GM understood that. Ford did not.

I never said the owners of one brand purchased bad quality fuel and another brand purchased good quality fuel. They all get fuel from the same supply chain... good or bad. Both brands should be statistically the same although one brand sells a lot more diesel trucks than the other brand.

Also being that both GM and Ford had similar failure rates of the CP4.2Also being that both GM and Ford had similar failure rates of the CP4.2 pump one cannot connect the dots and say one brand simply quietly fixed all failures while the other voided the warranty unless one has an agenda. Do you know if these fuel pumps failed from infant mortality or fuel contamination? You seam like you know the answer but I can assure you that you don't.

I've had on a couple of occasions drained water from my fuel filter (remember the massive flooding from hurricanes around this region) and with 163k miles my fuel system is all original.

Also ask a diesel tech that works on these trucks. I have... My cousin has worked both in the Ford and Ram shops. I while back I asked him point blank does Ford pressure you to void a fuel system warranty and his response was simply no and the same answer for Chrysler warranty coverage which includes both CP3 and CP4.2 trucks. He did mention that some dealers were caught not inspecting the fuel system and was simply quoting the full repair bill to the customer.

Just another tidbit we were camping at a state park a couple years ago, and I was filling my parents Chevy truck with DEF under the hood as I always have for my dad, and the guy across the street saw me doing this. He came by to visit us later and jokingly said he wished he had someone fill his def tank because the Chevy dealer did not mention anything to him about def and where to fill it. He found out the hard way with the repair bill due to DEF fuel contamination by that same dealer that sold him his truck.

Not taking sides on this one but how do you know the failure rate?

Only Ford and GM know their failure rates.

NHSTA tracks what was warrantied.

So saying that GM and Ford had similar failure rates as fish did is unsubstantiated. GM actually reported a higher percentage of warranty claims than Ford... Which is consistent with GM covering the repairs, and Ford had a lower percentage of reported warrantied failures.... Which is consistent with Ford denying coverage..... Though I strongly suspect the actual total failure rates were indeed similar..... There is no data to support it.

All we can say for sure, is that GM DID pay to fix a higher percentage of trucks than Ford did.
I actually had these reports on my computer back then.... That computer has been long gone though.

[FishOnOne]

Cummins12V98 wrote:
"I've had on a couple of occasions drained water from my fuel filter"

Did your water in fuel light come on?

With a combined 340k miles on my 05 and my 12 I had the water light come on once. With all the flooding along the Texas coast from Harvey it was no surprise.

[Cummins12V98]

"I've had on a couple of occasions drained water from my fuel filter"

Did your water in fuel light come on?

[Bionic_Man]

FishOnOne wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

lenr wrote:
Fundamentally warranty coverage and warranty repair approval comes down to a marketing decision. Ford is the largest seller and GM was just coming out of bankruptcy when the CP4 pumps came on the scene--both their marketing departments were doing the math and making a decision. I have read of (supposedly) actual cases over on www.thedieselstop.com (Ford forum) where the Ma and Pa station had algae and water in their fuel and another where the lazy delivery truck driver didn't adequately flush the ethanol out of the truck tank before loading diesel. Doesn't matter--water, DEF, gasoline, or ethanol in the fuel is going to blow the pump. From memory the NHSTA numbers were .06%, 6 in 10,000--and Ford repaired some of those. Yes, it would suck if it happened to you. But, I give every fuel stop the 10 second fresh fuel evaluation--does it look high volume and how desperate am I for fuel? And, I get a receipt for every tank of fuel so I could go back on station insurance if there is a problem. Also, some have gotten the repair paid for by comprehensive vehicle insurance when warranty was denied.

IIRCC, NHSTA figures are warranty numbers. At least that is what it seems to read, and I DO remember some discussion as to just what that would do to the numbers of GM failures compared to Fords. Of course since Ford was denying claims, and GM was not.... That would show up in GMs higher failure rate that the NHSTA numbers showed.... We had a big discussion about it, but could never nail down just what the impact was.... Only that there was an impact.

Your living in a alternate universe if you think GM or any other manufacturer will cover fuel contamination damage under warranty.

GM should have installed a lift pump that many have recommended and their failure rate would have been lower.

Did I say that? NOPE.

But there were tons of reports of Ford denying warranty... And practically zero from GM owners. You seem to be saying that Ford owners have a tendancy to buy bad fuel..... And GM owners only buy good fuel.... That is warped logic. They all buy the same fuel. As for the lift pump comment.... Many think that the Ford filtration system was inferior to GMs in that it passed water to the pump. Both Ford and GM have revamped their filtration system.... But bottom line is, If the filtration system was NOT doing it's job.... Then that is on Ford and GM. Not the customer. The customer should not have to do fuel tests at every fill up to ensure good fuel.... That is what the filters are for.
GM understood that. Ford did not.

I never said the owners of one brand purchased bad quality fuel and another brand purchased good quality fuel. They all get fuel from the same supply chain... good or bad. Both brands should be statistically the same although one brand sells a lot more diesel trucks than the other brand.

Also being that both GM and Ford had similar failure rates of the CP4.2Also being that both GM and Ford had similar failure rates of the CP4.2 pump one cannot connect the dots and say one brand simply quietly fixed all failures while the other voided the warranty unless one has an agenda. Do you know if these fuel pumps failed from infant mortality or fuel contamination? You seam like you know the answer but I can assure you that you don't.

I've had on a couple of occasions drained water from my fuel filter (remember the massive flooding from hurricanes around this region) and with 163k miles my fuel system is all original.

Also ask a diesel tech that works on these trucks. I have... My cousin has worked both in the Ford and Ram shops. I while back I asked him point blank does Ford pressure you to void a fuel system warranty and his response was simply no and the same answer for Chrysler warranty coverage which includes both CP3 and CP4.2 trucks. He did mention that some dealers were caught not inspecting the fuel system and was simply quoting the full repair bill to the customer.

Just another tidbit we were camping at a state park a couple years ago, and I was filling my parents Chevy truck with DEF under the hood as I always have for my dad, and the guy across the street saw me doing this. He came by to visit us later and jokingly said he wished he had someone fill his def tank because the Chevy dealer did not mention anything to him about def and where to fill it. He found out the hard way with the repair bill due to DEF fuel contamination by that same dealer that sold him his truck.

Not taking sides on this one but how do you know the failure rate?

[FishOnOne]

Huntindog wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

lenr wrote:
Fundamentally warranty coverage and warranty repair approval comes down to a marketing decision. Ford is the largest seller and GM was just coming out of bankruptcy when the CP4 pumps came on the scene--both their marketing departments were doing the math and making a decision. I have read of (supposedly) actual cases over on www.thedieselstop.com (Ford forum) where the Ma and Pa station had algae and water in their fuel and another where the lazy delivery truck driver didn't adequately flush the ethanol out of the truck tank before loading diesel. Doesn't matter--water, DEF, gasoline, or ethanol in the fuel is going to blow the pump. From memory the NHSTA numbers were .06%, 6 in 10,000--and Ford repaired some of those. Yes, it would suck if it happened to you. But, I give every fuel stop the 10 second fresh fuel evaluation--does it look high volume and how desperate am I for fuel? And, I get a receipt for every tank of fuel so I could go back on station insurance if there is a problem. Also, some have gotten the repair paid for by comprehensive vehicle insurance when warranty was denied.

IIRCC, NHSTA figures are warranty numbers. At least that is what it seems to read, and I DO remember some discussion as to just what that would do to the numbers of GM failures compared to Fords. Of course since Ford was denying claims, and GM was not.... That would show up in GMs higher failure rate that the NHSTA numbers showed.... We had a big discussion about it, but could never nail down just what the impact was.... Only that there was an impact.

Your living in a alternate universe if you think GM or any other manufacturer will cover fuel contamination damage under warranty.

GM should have installed a lift pump that many have recommended and their failure rate would have been lower.

Did I say that? NOPE.

But there were tons of reports of Ford denying warranty... And practically zero from GM owners. You seem to be saying that Ford owners have a tendancy to buy bad fuel..... And GM owners only buy good fuel.... That is warped logic. They all buy the same fuel. As for the lift pump comment.... Many think that the Ford filtration system was inferior to GMs in that it passed water to the pump. Both Ford and GM have revamped their filtration system.... But bottom line is, If the filtration system was NOT doing it's job.... Then that is on Ford and GM. Not the customer. The customer should not have to do fuel tests at every fill up to ensure good fuel.... That is what the filters are for.
GM understood that. Ford did not.

I never said the owners of one brand purchased bad quality fuel and another brand purchased good quality fuel. They all get fuel from the same supply chain... good or bad. Both brands should be statistically the same although one brand sells a lot more diesel trucks than the other brand.

Also being that both GM and Ford had similar failure rates of the CP4.2 pump one cannot connect the dots and say one brand simply quietly fixed all failures while the other voided the warranty unless one has an agenda. Do you know if these fuel pumps failed from infant mortality or fuel contamination? You seam like you know the answer but I can assure you that you don't.

I've had on a couple of occasions drained water from my fuel filter (remember the massive flooding from hurricanes around this region) and with 163k miles my fuel system is all original.

Also ask a diesel tech that works on these trucks. I have... My cousin has worked both in the Ford and Ram shops. I while back I asked him point blank does Ford pressure you to void a fuel system warranty and his response was simply no and the same answer for Chrysler warranty coverage which includes both CP3 and CP4.2 trucks. He did mention that some dealers were caught not inspecting the fuel system and was simply quoting the full repair bill to the customer.

Just another tidbit we were camping at a state park a couple years ago, and I was filling my parents Chevy truck with DEF under the hood as I always have for my dad, and the guy across the street saw me doing this. He came by to visit us later and jokingly said he wished he had someone fill his def tank because the Chevy dealer did not mention anything to him about def and where to fill it. He found out the hard way with the repair bill due to DEF fuel contamination by that same dealer that sold him his truck.

[Huntindog]

FishOnOne wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

lenr wrote:
Fundamentally warranty coverage and warranty repair approval comes down to a marketing decision. Ford is the largest seller and GM was just coming out of bankruptcy when the CP4 pumps came on the scene--both their marketing departments were doing the math and making a decision. I have read of (supposedly) actual cases over on www.thedieselstop.com (Ford forum) where the Ma and Pa station had algae and water in their fuel and another where the lazy delivery truck driver didn't adequately flush the ethanol out of the truck tank before loading diesel. Doesn't matter--water, DEF, gasoline, or ethanol in the fuel is going to blow the pump. From memory the NHSTA numbers were .06%, 6 in 10,000--and Ford repaired some of those. Yes, it would suck if it happened to you. But, I give every fuel stop the 10 second fresh fuel evaluation--does it look high volume and how desperate am I for fuel? And, I get a receipt for every tank of fuel so I could go back on station insurance if there is a problem. Also, some have gotten the repair paid for by comprehensive vehicle insurance when warranty was denied.

IIRCC, NHSTA figures are warranty numbers. At least that is what it seems to read, and I DO remember some discussion as to just what that would do to the numbers of GM failures compared to Fords. Of course since Ford was denying claims, and GM was not.... That would show up in GMs higher failure rate that the NHSTA numbers showed.... We had a big discussion about it, but could never nail down just what the impact was.... Only that there was an impact.

Your living in a alternate universe if you think GM or any other manufacturer will cover fuel contamination damage under warranty.

GM should have installed a lift pump that many have recommended and their failure rate would have been lower.

Did I say that? NOPE.

But there were tons of reports of Ford denying warranty... And practically zero from GM owners. You seem to be saying that Ford owners have a tendancy to buy bad fuel..... And GM owners only buy good fuel.... That is warped logic. They all buy the same fuel. As for the lift pump comment.... Many think that the Ford filtration system was inferior to GMs in that it passed water to the pump. Both Ford and GM have revamped their filtration system.... But bottom line is, If the filtration system was NOT doing it's job.... Then that is on Ford and GM. Not the customer. The customer should not have to do fuel tests at every fill up to ensure good fuel.... That is what the filters are for.
GM understood that. Ford did not.

[FishOnOne]

Lantley wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

lenr wrote:
Fundamentally warranty coverage and warranty repair approval comes down to a marketing decision. Ford is the largest seller and GM was just coming out of bankruptcy when the CP4 pumps came on the scene--both their marketing departments were doing the math and making a decision. I have read of (supposedly) actual cases over on www.thedieselstop.com (Ford forum) where the Ma and Pa station had algae and water in their fuel and another where the lazy delivery truck driver didn't adequately flush the ethanol out of the truck tank before loading diesel. Doesn't matter--water, DEF, gasoline, or ethanol in the fuel is going to blow the pump. From memory the NHSTA numbers were .06%, 6 in 10,000--and Ford repaired some of those. Yes, it would suck if it happened to you. But, I give every fuel stop the 10 second fresh fuel evaluation--does it look high volume and how desperate am I for fuel? And, I get a receipt for every tank of fuel so I could go back on station insurance if there is a problem. Also, some have gotten the repair paid for by comprehensive vehicle insurance when warranty was denied.

IIRCC, NHSTA figures are warranty numbers. At least that is what it seems to read, and I DO remember some discussion as to just what that would do to the numbers of GM failures compared to Fords. Of course since Ford was denying claims, and GM was not.... That would show up in GMs higher failure rate that the NHSTA numbers showed.... We had a big discussion about it, but could never nail down just what the impact was.... Only that there was an impact.

Your living in a alternate universe if you think GM or any other manufacturer will cover fuel contamination damage under warranty.

GM should have installed a lift pump that many have recommended and their failure rate would have been lower.

In this universe the issue is Ford was denying the claims under the guise of fuel contamination however GM was paying the claims under the same circumstances.
Still reeling from the 6.0 fiasco Ford bean counters were more concerned with controlling warranty cost vs. standing behind their products.
Forum member Ricatic can fill in the details of Ford'd bogus denial of his claim.
We know the pumps had issues, we also know GM stepped up to the plate and Ford did not.

So are you saying GM replaced fuel system failures that had DEF crystals, gasoline in fuel system, or rust in the HPFP?

I remember Ford covered a CP4.2 failure for a member on this site last year that had no fuel contamination!

Just a reminder we've seen Ford's documented procedure for identifying fuel contamination and it's a pretty simple and no brainer document.

[Cummins12V98]

blofgren wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

ExxWhy wrote:
Perfect if they would slide back in towards the door and stay vertical. Bet you a hamburger they change them on the 5th gen redesign in a few years. 🙂

Mine already do.

I can say without absolutely any doubt that the large trailer tow mirrors on my 2012 F150 XLT work truck are MUCH better than the ones on my 2013 Ram 3500. The rest of the Ram is awesome so I’m quite confused and disappointed that they haven’t come up with something better.

I have not used the Ford mirrors. I am sure they are great. I can honestly say I have ever wished for bigger mirrors. I am completely happy with mine.

[Cummins12V98]

Me Again wrote:

ExxWhy wrote:
Perfect if they would slide back in towards the door and stay vertical. Bet you a hamburger they change them on the 5th gen redesign in a few years. 🙂

All they need to do is bring back the 3rd gen heads as they worked better in the down position.

Power folding works great, I do it all the time in parking lots and in the car port. Chris

Spot mirrors are too small on late second and third gen.

[Lantley]

FishOnOne wrote:

Huntindog wrote:

lenr wrote:
Fundamentally warranty coverage and warranty repair approval comes down to a marketing decision. Ford is the largest seller and GM was just coming out of bankruptcy when the CP4 pumps came on the scene--both their marketing departments were doing the math and making a decision. I have read of (supposedly) actual cases over on www.thedieselstop.com (Ford forum) where the Ma and Pa station had algae and water in their fuel and another where the lazy delivery truck driver didn't adequately flush the ethanol out of the truck tank before loading diesel. Doesn't matter--water, DEF, gasoline, or ethanol in the fuel is going to blow the pump. From memory the NHSTA numbers were .06%, 6 in 10,000--and Ford repaired some of those. Yes, it would suck if it happened to you. But, I give every fuel stop the 10 second fresh fuel evaluation--does it look high volume and how desperate am I for fuel? And, I get a receipt for every tank of fuel so I could go back on station insurance if there is a problem. Also, some have gotten the repair paid for by comprehensive vehicle insurance when warranty was denied.

IIRCC, NHSTA figures are warranty numbers. At least that is what it seems to read, and I DO remember some discussion as to just what that would do to the numbers of GM failures compared to Fords. Of course since Ford was denying claims, and GM was not.... That would show up in GMs higher failure rate that the NHSTA numbers showed.... We had a big discussion about it, but could never nail down just what the impact was.... Only that there was an impact.

Your living in a alternate universe if you think GM or any other manufacturer will cover fuel contamination damage under warranty.

GM should have installed a lift pump that many have recommended and their failure rate would have been lower.

In this universe the issue is Ford was denying the claims under the guise of fuel contamination however GM was paying the claims under the same circumstances.
Still reeling from the 6.0 fiasco Ford bean counters were more concerned with controlling warranty cost vs. standing behind their products.
Forum member Ricatic can fill in the details of Ford'd bogus denial of his claim.
We know the pumps had issues, we also know GM stepped up to the plate and Ford did not.

[FishOnOne]

Huntindog wrote:

lenr wrote:
Fundamentally warranty coverage and warranty repair approval comes down to a marketing decision. Ford is the largest seller and GM was just coming out of bankruptcy when the CP4 pumps came on the scene--both their marketing departments were doing the math and making a decision. I have read of (supposedly) actual cases over on www.thedieselstop.com (Ford forum) where the Ma and Pa station had algae and water in their fuel and another where the lazy delivery truck driver didn't adequately flush the ethanol out of the truck tank before loading diesel. Doesn't matter--water, DEF, gasoline, or ethanol in the fuel is going to blow the pump. From memory the NHSTA numbers were .06%, 6 in 10,000--and Ford repaired some of those. Yes, it would suck if it happened to you. But, I give every fuel stop the 10 second fresh fuel evaluation--does it look high volume and how desperate am I for fuel? And, I get a receipt for every tank of fuel so I could go back on station insurance if there is a problem. Also, some have gotten the repair paid for by comprehensive vehicle insurance when warranty was denied.

IIRCC, NHSTA figures are warranty numbers. At least that is what it seems to read, and I DO remember some discussion as to just what that would do to the numbers of GM failures compared to Fords. Of course since Ford was denying claims, and GM was not.... That would show up in GMs higher failure rate that the NHSTA numbers showed.... We had a big discussion about it, but could never nail down just what the impact was.... Only that there was an impact.

Your living in a alternate universe if you think GM or any other manufacturer will cover fuel contamination damage under warranty.

GM should have installed a lift pump that many have recommended and their failure rate would have been lower.