Fuel Pump recalls - 2020-2022 Models

[R32GT-R]

door jam says 8/21 and window sticker says 8/20/21, my fuel rail temp is 63 - 70 degrees, ambient temp was 37 deg.

I am in Canada, no recall note in the application.

 

[HeavyAssault]

And don’t forget to add all the CP4 failures that were never reported to Ford because they were done by independent shops. I’ve talked to numerous shop owners who say they’ve replaced more CP4s than the rate Ford is reporting. The 4% number is reported by Ford. Those numbers are logged when taken into a dealership so there are far more failures than 4%. Is it significantly more? No one knows since they aren’t tracked but I assure you it happens more than 4%. Talk to any shop owner that replaces them.

To which you cannot make any claims that the owners were/were not the responsible party to their HPFP failure.
We cannot possibly gather REAL data to your comment. So keep asking....we aren't EVER going to know. SO even suggesting the percentage is SO MUCH HIGHER is an elementary argument.
When you decide to undertake the work to gather the real world failure rate at the small shop (non-dealer shop) level please go do it. Gather the REAL evidence that shows the small shop failure that were related to the HPFP just dropping out. I'm all ears to hear/read your evidence.
Anything short of that is just picking the pepper out of chicken shit.

 

[Lunch Box]

To which you cannot make any claims that the owners were/were not the responsible party to their HPFP failure.
We cannot possibly gather REAL data to your comment. So keep asking....we aren't EVER going to know. SO even suggesting the percentage is SO MUCH HIGHER is an elementary argument.
When you decide to undertake the work to gather the real world failure rate at the small shop (non-dealer shop) level please go do it. Gather the REAL evidence that shows the small shop failure that were related to the HPFP just dropping out. I'm all ears to hear/read your evidence.
Anything short of that is just picking the pepper out of chicken shit.

You are definitely at your best early in the morning!! This is absolutely the best analogy to date. My point exactly. I do concur the cp4 is a flawed design but does and will function properly if maintained and not exposed to water, def, gasoline or other foreign materials.

 

[ShockGobble]

To which you cannot make any claims that the owners were/were not the responsible party to their HPFP failure.
We cannot possibly gather REAL data to your comment. So keep asking....we aren't EVER going to know. SO even suggesting the percentage is SO MUCH HIGHER is an elementary argument.
When you decide to undertake the work to gather the real world failure rate at the small shop (non-dealer shop) level please go do it. Gather the REAL evidence that shows the small shop failure that were related to the HPFP just dropping out. I'm all ears to hear/read your evidence.
Anything short of that is just picking the pepper out of chicken shit.

You don’t think it’s even remotely conceivable that the rates are higher? Even if we assume that only a portion of pump failures swapped at shops are from pump design and the rest are from user error then it’s still a significant number. If Ford knows the ratio of design failures to user error and if we apply that same ratio to the number of failures done at shops then you can come to a rough number. It’s really not that difficult to arbitrate without doing some experiment like you’re suggesting. But to completely dismiss the possibility of a higher number because “there’s no real evidence” is laughable. Just use some deductive reasoning. I’m not suggesting it’s some massive number. But it’s higher than 4%. It may not be significantly higher and I’m not suggesting to anyone to do anything about it other than do what’s best for their situation. You’re acting like I’m suggesting that everyone is f&cked and that’s just not true.

 

[HeavyAssault]

Okay, let me say my point a different way.

You suggest :

Even if we assume that only a portion of pump failures swapped at shops are from pump design and the rest are from user error then it’s still a significant number.

I read you think the number is still "significant". What is that number??? I don't recall you expressing a value.

If Ford knows the ratio of design failures to user error

Which we will not know that either since they don't/didn't release that info. Are we doing math or just creating a formula?

if we apply that same ratio to the number of failures done at shops

Well......we can't so how do we "agree" to that ratio. So let's get some REAL data to see what we find.

I’m not suggesting it’s some massive number. But it’s higher than 4%.

Well.....show us what number you THINK it is.

In the end all I can say is that IF using what data elements Ford has given us, you could DOUBLE that number and it still a VERY EXTREMELY low percentage of trucks for the current recall years of 2020-2021.

I've never said there's no evidence. I've suggested GO GET THAT evidence cause by your own word it WILL be more than 4%. DUH!!! MATH tells us that by the way it works.

I'm not here to dispute WHAT we don't know. Sure it's fun, but it doesn't resolve or answer anything. IF you think you can find any additional data from small shops....GO GET IT. Cause we can pick it apart just like we can pick apart the Ford data.

I say all this as the owner who KNOWS they used bad/suspect fuel, poured in DEF, will never admit THEY caused the problem. They will want to blame Ford #1. They will go to Ford first, get denied, so to a small shop, blame the fuel at the pump, blame Ford, then pay out of pocket.

Trust me I hate the way Ford has gone with using EVEN the smallest "defect" as an owner problem. Just look at their criteria for the side view mirrors for damage. Just a SIMPLE rub from a tree limb on the plastic is what plenty of people are hearing while getting refused for a poor operating mirror motor.

 

[Lunch Box]

Okay, let me say my point a different way.

You suggest :

I read you think the number is still "significant". What is that number??? I don't recall you expressing a value.

Which we will not know that either since they don't/didn't release that info. Are we doing math or just creating a formula?

Well......we can't so how do we "agree" to that ratio. So let's get some REAL data to see what we find.

Well.....show us what number you THINK it is.

In the end all I can say is that IF using what data elements Ford has given us, you could DOUBLE that number and it still a VERY EXTREMELY low percentage of trucks for the current recall years of 2020-2021.

I've never said there's no evidence. I've suggested GO GET THAT evidence cause by your own word it WILL be more than 4%. DUH!!! MATH tells us that by the way it works.

I'm not here to dispute WHAT we don't know. Sure it's fun, but it doesn't resolve or answer anything. IF you think you can find any additional data from small shops....GO GET IT. Cause we can pick it apart just like we can pick apart the Ford data.

I say all this as the owner who KNOWS they used bad/suspect fuel, poured in DEF, will never admit THEY caused the problem. They will want to blame Ford #1. They will go to Ford first, get denied, so to a small shop, blame the fuel at the pump, blame Ford, then pay out of pocket.

Trust me I hate the way Ford has gone with using EVEN the smallest "defect" as an owner problem. Just look at their criteria for the side view mirrors for damage. Just a SIMPLE rub from a tree limb on the plastic is what plenty of people are hearing while getting refused for a poor operating mirror motor.

Once again, nice articulation!!

 

[HeavyAssault]

Not to mention the following from the NHTSA report :

149,180 2020 model year F-250, F-350, F-450, F-550 and F-600 vehicles are affected.
120,597 2021 model year F-250, F-350, F-450, F-550 and F-600 vehicles are affected.
16,361 2022 model year F-250, F-350, F-450, F-550 and F-600 vehicles are affected.
5,361 2021 model year F-650 and F-750 vehicles are affected.
3,950 2022 model year F-650 and F-750 vehicles are affected.

So even IF the overall total of the reported 4% was to double to 8% :
>>Reference : Number of potentially involved : 295,449 Estimated percentage with defect : 4 %

Let's say it's 300,000 and 8% : That would be 24,000 vehicles.
Let's say it's ONLY the lower 48 states : That would be 500 vehicles PER state.

500 vehicles....NOT 500 Super Duty F250 pickups. As the above 7 vehicle models are using the 6.7L motor. Of course if we lump in ALL the production years of the 6.7L motor we would see a higher trend, but at what value?? We can't say the HPFP failure values over those years. Can we guess ??? SURE.

Let's agree that this problem effected at least 150k vehicles PER MODEL YEAR. Okay.
2011-2021 (as above reports) says 10 years.
10 years x 150k = 1,500,000 vehicles/motors. At an 8% failure (HPFP failures ONLY) shows 120,000 vehicles effected. 120k / 48 states = 2,500 PER state.

If all that math is acceptable and correct where are we.
So 2,500 vehicles per lower 48 state OVER 10 years... all this IF we want to try to make this a "bigger" problem.
I gave you DOUBLE the reported rate. I gave PLENTY of additional motor production years.

Finally I'll say this I'm pretty damn sure there's some big time volume dealers that sell 2,500 trucks alone in a given model year.

Now....you can do your math. Show me HOW much more there is on the bone with this issue.

 

[Lunch Box]

Not to mention the following from the NHTSA report :

149,180 2020 model year F-250, F-350, F-450, F-550 and F-600 vehicles are affected.
120,597 2021 model year F-250, F-350, F-450, F-550 and F-600 vehicles are affected.
16,361 2022 model year F-250, F-350, F-450, F-550 and F-600 vehicles are affected.
5,361 2021 model year F-650 and F-750 vehicles are affected.
3,950 2022 model year F-650 and F-750 vehicles are affected.

So even IF the overall total of the reported 4% was to double to 8% :
>>Reference : Number of potentially involved : 295,449 Estimated percentage with defect : 4 %

Let's say it's 300,000 and 8% : That would be 24,000 vehicles.
Let's say it's ONLY the lower 48 states : That would be 500 vehicles PER state.

500 vehicles....NOT 500 Super Duty F250 pickups. As the above 7 vehicle models are using the 6.7L motor. Of course if we lump in ALL the production years of the 6.7L motor we would see a higher trend, but at what value?? We can't say the HPFP failure values over those years. Can we guess ??? SURE.

Let's agree that this problem effected at least 150k vehicles PER MODEL YEAR. Okay.
2011-2021 (as above reports) says 10 years.
10 years x 150k = 1,500,000 vehicles/motors. At an 8% failure (HPFP failures ONLY) shows 120,000 vehicles effected. 120k / 48 states = 2,500 PER state.

If all that math is acceptable and correct where are we.
So 2,500 vehicles per lower 48 state OVER 10 years... all this IF we want to try to make this a "bigger" problem.
I gave you DOUBLE the reported rate. I gave PLENTY of additional motor production years.

Finally I'll say this I'm pretty damn sure there's some big time volume dealers that sell 2,500 trucks alone in a given model year.

Now....you can do your math. Show me HOW much more there is on the bone with this issue.

This is just like our phone calls, long and involved! LOVE IT.....

 

[ShockGobble]

Okay, let me say my point a different way.

You suggest :

I read you think the number is still "significant". What is that number??? I don't recall you expressing a value.

Which we will not know that either since they don't/didn't release that info. Are we doing math or just creating a formula?

Well......we can't so how do we "agree" to that ratio. So let's get some REAL data to see what we find.

Well.....show us what number you THINK it is.

In the end all I can say is that IF using what data elements Ford has given us, you could DOUBLE that number and it still a VERY EXTREMELY low percentage of trucks for the current recall years of 2020-2021.

I've never said there's no evidence. I've suggested GO GET THAT evidence cause by your own word it WILL be more than 4%. DUH!!! MATH tells us that by the way it works.

I'm not here to dispute WHAT we don't know. Sure it's fun, but it doesn't resolve or answer anything. IF you think you can find any additional data from small shops....GO GET IT. Cause we can pick it apart just like we can pick apart the Ford data.

I say all this as the owner who KNOWS they used bad/suspect fuel, poured in DEF, will never admit THEY caused the problem. They will want to blame Ford #1. They will go to Ford first, get denied, so to a small shop, blame the fuel at the pump, blame Ford, then pay out of pocket.

Trust me I hate the way Ford has gone with using EVEN the smallest "defect" as an owner problem. Just look at their criteria for the side view mirrors for damage. Just a SIMPLE rub from a tree limb on the plastic is what plenty of people are hearing while getting refused for a poor operating mirror motor.

I’ve never seen a more emotional guy on a forum. If anyone at all refutes or challenges anything you say you blow a gasket. Get some fresh air.

 

[Bullpine]

Regardless of the hows and whys and how many CP4 failures exist, I am curious about those folks who have installed the DCR pump on a 2020 and newer 6.7. I am aware that those with 2019 and older trucks have had good luck with them with no downside as far as power output etc. However, the 2020 model year brought increased injection pressure from somewhere around 28,000 to 30,000 psi for the 19 and older trucks, to somewhere around 36,000psi for the 2020 and newer trucks. I am aware that the DCR pump produces increased (and sufficient) volume for 2020 and newer trucks. But are the DCR pumps for 2020 and newer applications capable of producing the increased fuel PRESSURE called for by the newer trucks? So basically, to those with 2020 and newer trucks with DCR installs, have you seen any decrease in power or fuel mileage after the change? Injection pressure increase is one of the redesigns responsible for the power increase of rhe 2020 and up 6.7 trucks. I would argue one of the most important. When people mention that the DCR’s are “over” a certain percentage, that “over” is a function of volume, not pressure, from what I can gather.

 

[HeavyAssault]

I’ve never seen a more emotional guy on a forum. If anyone at all refutes or challenges anything you say you blow a gasket. Get some fresh air.

Cause you ain't saying shit anymore. You tapped out with a choke hold. Nice talk.

 

[Lunch Box]

I’ve never seen a more emotional guy on a forum. If anyone at all refutes or challenges anything you say you blow a gasket. Get some fresh air.

Not emotional at all, he is passionate, also very knowledgeable. He's a retired veteran with many military aircraft mechanical certifications. Has owned numerous Ford diesel trucks, presently a '22 6.7.

 

[ShockGobble]

Not emotional at all, he is passionate, also very knowledgeable. He's a retired veteran with many military aircraft mechanical certifications. Has owned numerous Ford diesel trucks, presently a '22 6.7.

He’s very emotional. Passionate would be having a conversation about something that we mutually love. Overreacting if he challenges or provides additional context is being emotional. Just the other day he asked about cp4 failures and DPK kits and he freaked out. You don’t think that’s being a tad emotional?

 

[Lunch Box]

He’s very emotional. Passionate would be having a conversation about something that we mutually love. Overreacting if he challenges or provides additional context is being emotional. Just the other day he asked about cp4 failures and DPK kits and he freaked out. You don’t think that’s being a tad emotional?

I will only add this, speaking in this type of format/venue, just like texting, email etc, anything other than a face to face conversation it's extremely easy to misconstrue a persons meaning or intent, or the manner which they are explaining. I myself have been guilty of this on both ends and I strive to do better. It's a new year, I want to do better on everything I do.

 

[HeavyAssault]

He’s very emotional. Passionate would be having a conversation about something that we mutually love. Overreacting if he challenges or provides additional context is being emotional. Just the other day he asked about cp4 failures and DPK kits and he freaked out. You don’t think that’s being a tad emotional?

You need to go back and read who you were talking to. I never asked about CP4 and DPK kits....that was someone else.

 

[adrummingdude]

You need to go back and read who you were talking to. I never asked about CP4 and DPK kits....that was someone else.

I think he means me, and if that’s what he thinks “freak out” looks like, I hope he never sees a real one.

BTW, since he brought it up, my faux freak out is still waiting on that data of how much more reliable DCR is than CP4. Oh, that’s right, there isn’t any. Just a bunch of hope and BS.

 

[HeavyAssault]

is still waiting on that data of how much more reliable DCR is than CP4.

I do agree in the big scheme of things. I need to go back to S&S discussing why they used that particular HPFP. I don't know the specifics myself, elsewhere it was said the DCR has different internals that prevent the bigger problems.

 

[ShockGobble]

I think he means me, and if that’s what he thinks “freak out” looks like, I hope he never sees a real one.

BTW, since he brought it up, my faux freak out is still waiting on that data of how much more reliable DCR is than CP4. Oh, that’s right, there isn’t any. Just a bunch of hope and BS.

Not you. And apologies Heavy Assault - it wasn’t you! Carry on!

 

[TremorKR]

I do agree in the big scheme of things. I need to go back to S&S discussing why they used that particular HPFP. I don't know the specifics myself, elsewhere it was said the DCR has different internals that prevent the bigger problems.

S&S went with the DCR because it was a proven pump used for many years. They did not give failure rate data but do claim it's less suseptible to damage from water and contamination. I don't think they mentioned an improvement from trapped air but one could hope. I believw they mentioned the DCR have some low friction coating on some internal parts as well. One of the biggest difference i noticed in their explanation was how each "piston" was only driven once per revolution. Vs the CP4 pistons which are each driven twice per revolution. With that in mind alone, one could make a gross generalization and say the CP4 will wear twice as fast even if we take out other factors.

Another promising factor was the improved flow rate of the DCR over the 11-14 R90(cp4) and 15-22 R99(cp4). However according to the chart they posted i believe the 23+ R113(cp4) has a greater potential flow rate over the DCR.

I'm still not quite convinced on the DCR, as any pump can fail and I don't have all the information. But it does look promising on the surface.

 

[adrummingdude]

S&S went with the DCR because it was a proven pump used for many years. They did not give failure rate data but do claim it's less suseptible to damage from water and contamination. I don't think they mentioned an improvement from trapped air but one could hope. I believw they mentioned the DCR have some low friction coating on some internal parts as well. One of the biggest difference i noticed in their explanation was how each "piston" was only driven once per revolution. Vs the CP4 pistons which are each driven twice per revolution. With that in mind alone, one could make a gross generalization and say the CP4 will wear twice as fast even if we take out other factors.

Another promising factor was the improved flow rate of the DCR over the 11-14 R90(cp4) and 15-22 R99(cp4). However according to the chart they posted i believe the 23+ R113(cp4) has a greater potential flow rate over the DCR.

I'm still not quite convinced on the DCR, as any pump can fail and I don't have all the information. But it does look promising on the surface.

I was watching the TFL guys talk about the new HD Ram last night, and one of the interesting bits was Andre mentioning that it no longer uses CP4. I wonder which pump they’ve gone with.