durallymax
Explorer
Joined 15 years ago
User Profile
User Widgets
All Activity
Re: Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation
BenK wrote: My controls DB hairs raised reading that there are *TWO* regulators and/or relief valves to the return?!?!? A huge tell-tale that they had a problem, chased it and solved it to some level of confidence with the addition of another set of regulators/valves Not good engineering, IMHO...worse if there is a 3rd set. There is still the same regulator on the pump that there has always been, and they swapped the relief valve for a regulator. My guess is to allow more precise control. The Relief valve is simply a spring and is either all or nothing. The regulator would allow better control. From what I have been told the CP4 pumps on these trucks have a lot less capacity then the CP3s did.280Views0likes0CommentsRe: Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation
Below are some links to the LML fuel system that Henry posted up. The Piezo injectors are fired from 160-240v @20amps according to the GM documents. Thats a lot of juice and is why you see the orange harnesses now on the duramax. There is also a valve used to keep pressure in the return system which is supposed to aid in firing the injectors. The CP4 pump is timed so that its pulses match up with injection events. A pressure regulator is still mounted on the pump but an additional one was added to control how much fuel is bled off into the return system from the high pressure system. Essentially replacing the fuel pressure relief valve. Fuel Routing parts listing306Views0likes0CommentsRe: Diesel vs gas......................
Hannibal wrote: Ah, now I see the red marks in the video. My F250 doesn't have those. Aside from the diesel fuel note, my gauge cluster looks like yours. It also has a huge radiator and a good size transmission cooler for the TS transmission. Probably why I have no issues. The outside temp gauge is one of the things I miss the most from my Rams. Even a Prius has an outside temp display. Good luck with that IH/Navistar. :B My farm tractor and wheel loader both have outside air temp gauges too.268Views0likes0CommentsRe: Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation
The gear pump on the backside of the CP3 is what draws the fuel from the fuel tank to the pump. There always have been relief valves located throughout the system on the common rails. A high pressure on either in the rail or junction block, the pumps internal regulation and the injectors themselves. I do not know how the Cp4 pump/system is working. on the CP3 setups fuel was only commanded when needed. If the ECM was commanding 23,000psi and the rail was at 23,000psi the pump would only work to maintain 23,000psi. I did read somewhere about the CP4 needing to be timed. Could be misinformation though. The CP3 never needed timing.369Views0likes0CommentsRe: Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation
BenK wrote: Wonder how much more you folks would pay to NOT have this problem(s) with the fuel pumps...that is a question they should also be asking... Lets see. $8,400 diesel option added to $40,000 base truck with no frills. Sure whats more money, by 2020 we should hit 6 figures for diesel trucks. There comes a point where the cost gets so high that the funds dry up to develop better products. There is no cost advantage to owning a diesel for most people. You need to do some serious hauling, or haul for a lot of miles to even justify it. I'm Rick James wrote: I ran jet fuel in my '02 7.3 for years without problems. The difference between my 7.3, your Navy tow tractors, and current generation trucks is simply fuel pressure. Our older equipment was more tolerant of poor fuel simply due to the relatively low fuel pressure requirements of the engines. The lubricity is not as critical for lower fuel pressure pumps. A few more differences than fuel pressure. The 7.3 runs on HUEI. Fuel is supplied to the injectors under low pressure (4,000psi IIRC), a high pressure oil pump is then used to fire the injector (2?,???psi IIRC). So yes your system runs at the high pressures of the CP3 common rail setups but off of a different concept.382Views0likes0CommentsRe: Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation
Jarlaxle wrote: NewsW wrote: durallymax wrote: All the kids out blowing smoke are experiencing the cylinder washing effect, where the diesel fuel "washes" the oil film off the wall. All the more reasons why a former "coaling" machine, or a tuner equipped machine is basically worth its NADA wholesale price subtracting the full cost of drivetrain, brakes and tires and suspension replacement at retail. Assuming they have not damaged the frame, interior, steering gear... Please stop posting bs. We both know the quoted post is nonsense. What is nonsense about it? It was a generalized statement yes. There is much more to the story. if they are blowing black smoke then a lot of the fuel is obviously exiting the engine, however excess unburned fuel will cause cylinder wash193Views0likes0CommentsRe: Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation
2003silverado wrote: I know that it isn't good on any diesel to be dry cranked because the diesel is used to lubricate more than just the fuel pump, such as the cylinder walls. Not quite, raw fuel in the cylinder is no good. That's referred to as "washing" the cylinder walls and causes premature wear. All the kids out blowing smoke are experiencing the cylinder washing effect, where the diesel fuel "washes" the oil film off the wall.227Views0likes0CommentsRe: Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation
hoopers wrote: NewsW wrote: Now we find out about filtration: Filtration Technology Challenges for Common-Rail Diesel Engine Fuel Systems Number: 2009-01-0874 Published: 2009-04-20 Publisher: SAE International Language: English DOI: 10.4271/2009-01-0874 Author(s): Christopher J. Salvador - Caterpillar Inc. Citation: Salvador, C., "Filtration Technology Challenges for Common-Rail Diesel Engine Fuel Systems," SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-0874, 2009, doi:10.4271/2009-01-0874. Citation Abstract: The focus of this study was to determine the role of liquid filtration in controlling debris in fuel and maintaining common-rail fuel system life for off-highway diesel engine applications. Three key areas of filtration design surfaced as most important areas of focus – basic filtration efficiency, robustness of filter manufacturing, and filter assembly cleanliness from production (before and during installation into fuel system). The study also revealed the importance of designing fuel filtration systems consisting of primary filtration (suction-side water separation and particulate filtration) combined with pressure-side particulate filtration. The performance characteristics of the filtration system as a whole were found to be extremely critical in optimum fuel system performance and life goals, especially in severe-duty applications. The study analyzed two filter systems – the Control System that consisted of pre-common-rail technology and the Proposed System that included all of the improvements designed to adequately protect the fuel system. The Control System consisted of B 20(c) = 75 primary filtration and B 8(c) = 75 secondary filtration. The results of the study recommended the Proposed System consist of B 10(c) = 75 primary filtration and B 4(c) = 200 secondary filtration. This system improved fuel system life by 20× in normal applications and nearly 10× in heavy-duty applications. Several test methods were used to generate data including the multipass test (ISO 4548-12), fabrication integrity ( ISO 2942 ) test, and specially developed production cleanliness and fuel system simulation tests. The study examined the adequacy of existing filtration technology in protecting common-rail fuel systems (benchmarking) and determined acceptable design requirements in the previously mentioned areas for individual fuel filters (pressure-side filtration) and filter systems (combining suction-side and pressure-side filtration). From what I have read, GM filters down to a smaller particle level than Ford (no idea about VW filtration). I don't completely understand where the filter is located, but I would guess it is before the pump, thus filtration should play an important role in pump protection...this seems obvious to me. Is lubricity the culprit? How does filtered particle size affect lubricity? I have seen no statements or data proving lubricity is the culprit. Just supposition and assumptions, really. I am not saying its not lubricity, just that it could be something else, and lubricity is a red herring at this point. The fact Canadian fuel meets the ASTM specs, and yet there are failures? This is a glaring exception that makes me question the lubricity spec and how it might play into the pump failures. This makes me think ASTM lubricity might play a minor role, and there is a larger factor out there. But that is just my thoughts.... As to people claiming the failure rates are similar between GM and Ford (and what about VW?), I would question how accurate this data really is? Is EVERY pump failure included in the sample lots? What is the nature of the pump failures included in these samples...are they the same? I did call a couple duramax dealers today regarding adding diesel additives on my 2011 duramax. One dealer seemed to understand my concern and said GM does not support ANY additives. Though he did say customers are adding it, but again, the official position is NO additive. My 2011 owners manual makes no mention of any supported additive, except to consult your local dealer. The other dealer seemed to be confused on the subject and really didn't have any advice except one doesn't really need additives. However, the GM first dealer said my 100000 mile warranty would cover any fuel pump issues, so for me, I might just go with standard fuel, and if I am one of the unlucky ones, I will just count on GM fixing my fuel pump. I doubt I will keep my truck past 100000 miles. still on the passenger side valvecover, before pump. It would take a hell of a filter to hold up to that much PSI.212Views0likes0CommentsRe: Ford's answers to the NHTSA 6.7 Investigation
FishOnOne wrote: ricatic wrote: fishonone wrote: I would be very surprised if GM's policy when reviewing a HPFP failure under warrenty is simply put the blind fold on and replace the HPFP and tell the customer sorry for the inconvience. Just so you know we have 2 Chevrolet DMAX's in my family so I know how some of the issues were handled or not handled quite like you explain in your post above. Troy Good KoolAid...but you never answer the simple questions...ones that actually have the proof clearly defined. In this instance you want a document that likely does not exist. You fail to understand why. The facts speak for themselves. GM is seeing Bosch CP4 failure in equal percentages to Ford. There is no discussion anywhere that indicates anything but GM's warranting of these repairs. Gm has not bothered to harass their customers with an inquisition, backed with a "look at this" document, when their HPFP fails...they just fix the truck. Is that too difficult to understand? Regards I simply asked for the document (like the one the Ford techs use)the GM techs use to determine if a warrenty repair is covered or not based on your assumptions and you again cannot provide. Taking the position that this document likely does not exist is pure speculation. But then again I'm not surprised of your response. Anybody tell you that you would be a terrible lawyer. Here we have all did our research and homework finding the documents to prove you wrong. Now you want us to find the documents to prove our case wrong? Newsflash, doesn't work that way. We have looked and provided GM's policy towards modified trucks which is what is known to cause warranty denial. They do not get pissy about bad fuel. If there is such a document out there, then go find it. None of us have. If you want to prove everybody wrong do your own homework and find the info you want. Rick is a Ford owner. Why would he have any "connections" with anyone in GM to find any of these documents. The Ford stuff has been posted and raved about time and time again. Are there two sides to the story? yes. However the fact remains that Ford is not playing nice about the issue whereas GM is. You find people complaining about Ford everywhere, not GM. Ford scrambled to come up with a policy later on that gave them a grey enough area to deny the claims. GM hasn't to anyones knowledge done so. If they did I am sure we would be hearing plenty of complaints. Is there some Kool-Aid/Bandwagon stuff going on here? Definatley, there always will be people who just like to bash anything. Everybody across the US thinks the state of wisconsin hates scott walker. Not true, we love him, the city of madison hates him, just so happens to be the most liberal town around, and his office is in the middle of it, so naturally it gets all of the press. The folks from outside madison and up north dont get the publicity. The Recall was a big deal, big press about it. Obviously the people against the recall are pretty boring to do a news story on because we arent doing anything new or crazy. There just hasn't been many complaints of GMs customer service on the HPFP issues. Heck GM is still replacing injectors on trucks that are way out of the special service policy "in good faith" for prices reduced 50-90%. Is Ford replacing Turbos, EGR coolers and headgaskets on the 6.oh no in good faith? Heck they won't even fix the new trucks why would they be doing "in good faith" repairs. Oh but all of GM's money is the tax payers money, blah, so go buy one then and stop complaining, at least you own something you payed for. I'm fine with my taxes going to help a company that treats customers well, not the other way around though. Do I think GM is the almighty, hell no I think they are retarded enough days. They have a damn good powertrain program, but their advertisements are lame. Seriously "Dave drove a Ford". Wow whats next two guys with their trucks yelling "my dad can beat up your dad". Although I will say Fords bed bolt commercials have to be the lamest.248Views0likes0Comments
Groups
Travel Trailer Group
Prefer to camp in a travel trailer? You're not alone.Mar 04, 202544,027 Posts
