TDR ROAR of the Day

[TDRComm]

Accepted definition:

roar: verb - express in a loud tone
​

TDR definition

roar: round of absolutely ridiculous
​

Today's TDR ROAR, GM Lawsuit: Reportedly Sold Non-U.S. Fuel Compatible Diesel Trucks, comes to us from Artie Maupin at Diesel Army.

I can see both sides of this argument.

If GM was in "cost cutting" mode and consciously chose a CP3 without the "super coated internal spyder flinger," then I argue one way.

If it is another frivolous lawyer grab-bag for money, I argue another way.

Final observation: When will there be another line item on the Monroney sticker for litigation and recall expense.

Robert Patton
TDR Writer

GM Lawsuit: Reportedly Sold Non-U.S. Fuel Compatible Diesel Trucks​

Lawsuits. It’s a word that usually never ends well and for a company as big as General Motors, you know the numbers will be high. GM has been hit with a lawsuit recently for allegedly selling GMC and Chevrolet diesel trucks that are not compatible with American diesel fuel. That oh-so-loved 6.6-Liter Duramax engines in the 2011-2016 range apparently weren’t designed for our fuel.

In a Detroit-based federal court, the lawsuit was presented where details were provided on the faulty fuel systems where hundreds of thousands of trucks are affected. Apparently, the high-pressure injection pumps are designed by Bosch, a German auto supplier, and pumps metal shavings into the fuel injection system and damaged said systems and even the engines.

#ad
​

What they are explaining is American diesel fuel is thinner than European diesel fuel and doesn’t obtain as much lubricity. The metal shavings are a result of the air pockets forming internally and causing metal on metal contact.

“The pump secretly deposits metal shavings and debris throughout the fuel injection system and the engine until it suddenly and catastrophically fails without warning,” the lawsuit claims. “Such catastrophic failure often causes the vehicle to shut off while in motion and renders it unable to be restarted because the vehicle’s fuel injection system and engine component parts have been completely contaminated and destroyed.”

“GM promised consumers the continued reliability of their diesel engines, but with increased fuel efficiency and power at greater fuel efficiency.”

The lawsuit involves:

• 2011–2016 2500HD Silverado 6.6L V8 Duramax diesel trucks with LML engines
• 2011–2016 3500HD Silverado 6.6L V8 Duramax diesel trucks with LML engines
• 2011–2016 2500HD Sierra 6.6L V8 Duramax diesel trucks with LML engines
• 2011–2016 3500HD Sierra 6.6L V8 Duramax diesel trucks with LML engines
• 2010–2011 Chevrolet Express vans with Duramax LGH engines
• 2010–2011 GMC Savana vans with Duramax LGH engines
• 2010–2011 GMC Sierra trucks with RPO ZW9 (chassis cabs or trucks with pickup box deleted) with Duramax LGH engines
• 2011–2012 Chevrolet 2500HD Silverado 6.6L V8 Duramax diesel trucks with LGH engines
• 2011–2012 Chevrolet 3500HD Silverado 6.6L V8 Duramax diesel trucks with LGH engines
• 2011–2012 Chevrolet 2500HD Sierra 6.6L V8 Duramax diesel trucks with LGH engines
• 2011–2012 Chevrolet 3500HD Sierra 6.6L V8 Duramax diesel trucks with LGH engines.

It isn’t anything new to be under fire for the performance of diesel vehicles. As you may know, Volkswagon has already been involved with their own issues lately with emissions testing. In fact, after it was all said and done, Volkswagon was forced to pay $2.8 billion in criminal fines in relation to evade U.S emission standards.

Who knows what is next for GM as they undergo this investigation. Do you own a truck in this year range? Have you had similar issues? Stay tuned to Diesel Army as we will keep you up to date with the latest news on the subject.

 

[Tuesdak]

So we should just "Lie Down" and let corporate cost cutting greed come out of our pockets in sudden and unexpected thousand dollar repair bills?

The OEM "consumer vehicle" diesel fuel system is already famous for pushing design defects, poor design, lack of filtration, and lack of effective water separators on the consumer. In short "What Diesel Fuel System Warranty?" as you keep your fuel receipts to let the fuel station, fuel supplier, and your insurance company work out Five Figure injection system repair bills and HOPE the bad design of two very close fill holes (DEF and Diesel) wasn't the cause of your problem. Now enter LSD, ULSD, and diesel laced with Biodiesel and it's ever increasing hygroscopic nature. (Ability to adsorb and suspend water over old fashioned non-LSD diesel.) If the water itself doesn't get you bugs in the fuel that LOVE the additional water may.

With all due respect before you, Robert Patton, wish to snark (Monroney sticker line item) defend GM diesels from well deserved litigation you need to recall the sole reason Lemon Laws are on the books today is from the very GM Oldsmobile 5.7 Diesel Hand Grenade. At some point the corporate bean counters need to be held to a reliable product. With engine design disasters littering the landscape in both gasoline and diesel versions: the only difference is the Denied Warranty on fuel system problems due to bad fuel and by association lack of water separators and fuel filters worth a damn. The first Olds 5.7 diesel cars had to be recalled to equip them with a basic Water In Fuel warning light! ( Just like: DUH!!! ) GM's Low Bidder Bean Counter (use of same gasoline engine production tools by way of lacking adequate headbolt count and wishing to omit WIF lights, filters, and water separators...) Olds 5.7 Diesel Hand Grenade ruined the U.S.A. diesel market for 20 years, period. FWIW: Other diesel engines were proposed at GM aside of the 5.7 that put lemon laws on the books. Ford's 6.0 diesel did give the 5.7 a good run for worst engine ever title. GM's Duramax LLY overheater could be out run by 1990' era Cummins because the LLY couldn't keep it's cool long enough to "keep up". The EPIC FAIL video of the LLY getting it's overheating ass embarrassingly kicked by the 1990's era Cummins pickup walking away hauling an RV was the star in the owner's GM Lemon Lawsuit.

GM never fixed the Duramax LLY's overheating problem. Older Duramax engines were so famous for injector problems and poor filter specs to the point GM moved the later Duramax engine injectors outside the valve covers for warranty cost cutting among other reasons. GM isn't using the CP4 anymore...

And sadly guess who else couldn't resist the low bidder! Bluntly when choosing a 2019 and 2018 RAM Cummins diesel truck ... The 2019 roller or 2018- flat tappet cam is covered by warranty. The "proven a POS" reputation of the CP4 injection pump (2019) by way of class action lawsuits (That Cummins ignored the memo's from other OEM's about) APPARENTLY ISN'T COVERED BY WARRANTY! I have seen a pile of ruined camshafts for Cummins engines at the rebuild shop: you takes your chances with modern engine oil spec changes, but, it appears warranty would be easier for a camshaft failure than a CP4 "Bad Fuel Lawsuit" coming out of your pocket.

With unobtainable diesel emissions our own EPA can't hardly even test for you will find many have a hard time continuing to want diesels. A Hemi screaming up the mountain pass with an RV in tow IMO is an easy warranty claim when something blows vs. diesel injection system "Bad Fuel" denial excuses. MPG towing? A modern diesel fuel system replacement, especially if the fuel system failure took the engine out as well, will buy you a tanker truck load of premium unleaded gasoline.

Yeah your fuel supplier will step right up and cover your Diesel fuel system, and scrap metal from stuck injector engine, etc. I have already posted up on how well that went with the ignorant lot and their Biodiesel. The state of AZ tested them and they failed badly for awhile. Lucky it was only a cheaper IDI fuel system it trashed.

No, Robert Patton: The litigation for the CP4 on GM diesels doesn't go far enough. One is still stuck with a questionable warranty on a value engineered CP4. Only aftermarket CP3 conversions have hope for the CP4 owners. In general class action litigation does very little for the consumer by way of fixing the original dammed problem.

 

[Wayne M.]

I’ve been watching “new age engineering” with CAD modeling, combined with bean counting cost cutting measures really take hold in the last 10-15 years. I’ve seen some great ideas come out of modern design, but when combined with stranglehold budgetary motives, it spews disaster.
Now I ask, why was the CP3 abandoned for this CP4? I really haven’t studied the evolution of these devices. Is it rising rail pressures/ rising volumes? Just plain ‘ol cost cutting? Why did they have to get away from that successful pump?

 

[Jim W]

I am a retired engineer from Cat. My last 16 years at Cat were spent in Hydraulic system designs work mainly working with High Pressure Piston pumps being used on mining machines. Just like the CP4 pump that is used in the Ford, GMC, VW and now the Ram Diesel fuel systems. There is nothing wrong with the CP4 Pump, the pump works fine as it is designed. The pump is design is to supply high pressure fuel to the fuel injectors. I looked at the European use of the CP4 Pump and the failure rate seems very low compared to the US failure rate! Why is this?

I also looked at the lawsuit that is being filed against GM for the use of the CP4 pump. The lawsuit states that the fuel quality in the US is not on par with the rest of the world! Air is entering the fuel system and destroying the pump IE cavitation! The lawsuit states the lubricity of the ULSD fuel is one of the causes to the failure rate! Then why aren't the CP3 pumps failing at the same rate due to the ULSD fuel? They too would at the same issue with lubricity of the ULSD fuel as CP4 is to have, as they both are rotating piston pumps. I would love to see the swash plate and or pistons heads that rotate on the swash plate to see if they are smeared due to no lubrication! Now as to cavitation this could be the cause of CP4 pump failures! But why is this? Air is entering the fuel system somehow and when the air is entrained in the fuel and compressed the results is cavitation in the pump. I have seen this in the high-pressure pumps that have failed on Cat machines. But this would also be an issue with the CP3 pumps since they too are a rotating high-pressure piston pump along with the CP4 Pumps used in European diesel vehicles. They do not fail because of this do they?

My thinking as to why the high failure rate in the US on the GMC/Chevy and Ford trucks is due to no lift pump in the fuel tank! For whatever reason Dodge/Ram has chosen to provide a lift pump in their fuel tank to supply the high-pressure fuel pump such as the CP3 or CP4. This has a two-fold advantage. The first being a continuously supply of low-pressure fuel to the high- pressure fuel pump thus the pump will not cavate due to no fuel. Which I think is the real reason for pump failure! The other being that since fuel is continuously supplied lubricity should not be an issue! I believe this only occurs with no fuel being supplied to the pump!

Just my $0.02

 

[seafish]

^^^^ All that said, and according to specs, the CP4 flows LESS fuel through it while still producing HIGHER pressures then the CP3,

Wouldn't those design specs inherently lead to more cavitation??

 

[TFucili]

I saw a video of a CP3 and CP4 being disassembled side by side. The CP3 was very obviously a more durable design. I can't locate it just now.

There is no doubt that fuel supply and filtration plays a role in keeping the HP pump healthy.

I keep reading about water in fuel, and there is no doubt that bad fuel can ruin anything, no argument there. And I am not saying the CP3 NEVER fails, but I think it is safe to say the CP3 failure rate is considerably lower, not zero, but lower. So does that mean by some freak of nature that ONLY CP4 equipped trucks get bad fuel? Are CP3 owners that much smarter, or just lucky?

There are many factors and variables involved here, but I truly believe the CP4 is flat-out an inferior component. I look forward to sag2's upcoming information on the "improvements" made to the CP4 in my 2019.

 

[RVTRKN]

I think the point is, that is isn't fuel contamination, they just blame it on fuel contamination to escape the warranty. That being said, doesn't Cummins have a say in the fuel pump used (CP4)? I would assume Cummins has a say in that to protect their reputation.

 

[TFucili]

The 5.0 in the Nissan also has a CP4.

At last year's World of Concrete show in Vegas, Cummins had a large display, and I struck up a conversation with three different reps, and when I asked about the CP4, one had no idea what I was talking about, or was a convincing actor, one made the gesture of zipping your lip and throwing away the key, and one, who owned a Second Gen CTD, very quietly expressed his own concern with the decision, and hinting the CP4 costs substantially less.

 

[TDRGuy]

Tuesdak, mine is not a snarky comment: When will they add a line item to the Moroney sticker for litigation and recalls? Ultimately you and I pay for it. ( "It" being the poor design/cost cutting, the legal payments or the product recall.)

I can see both sides of the story, and my thanks to the TDR audience for the professional insights that I've seen in response to this news item.

RP

 

[EDankievitch]

Isn't the CP3 pump the same used in RAM trucks???

 

[TDRGuy]

Isn't the CP3 pump the same used in RAM trucks???

Nope.

RP

 

[DieselLady]

I understand the idea that lack of a lift pump may cause this problem, but ford has the same issue and that truck has a lift pump. I actually had a 2011 come into the shop with a blown cp4. After we got the truck running I decided to open up the CP4 and take a look for myself. There is no keyway to keep the pistons from turning in the bore. And with a roller on the bottom,,,, much like the ford 7.3 lifters roll over the cam shaft, this pump also rolls over a cam lobe that is driven by the gear. But you can very clearly see that the piston has turned 90 degrees and now the cam is sliding over the roller sideways. And it proceeds to chew up the roller as it can't turn once it is 90 degrees to the cam. I also believe that the lack of lubricity contributes to the demise of the pump, but you can't deny that a turning piston with no key way to keep it in the proper position is the main cause.
I am willing to bet that in Europe they still have pretty much the same failures just not as often due to the oily fuel. I will see if I can't dig up a pic of the pump and post it up here.

 

[tecumseh]

Jim W, I too am a mechanical and systems engineer and I agree with you logic and what seems to be a summation where that having a low pressure lift pump supplying the high pressure lift pump reduces or eliminates the risk of cavitation. ...your assessment I feel is right on! ...in parallel, i'd like to see some improvements to the quality of US Diesel fuel but the tree-huggers will not allow that to happen. Btw, I use to do engineering on many of the CAT off-highway equipment, swing frames, track links, booms, sticks, buckets, etc. I loved engineering on CAT and Cummins stuff!

I am a retired engineer from Cat. My last 16 years at Cat were spent in Hydraulic system designs work mainly working with High Pressure Piston pumps being used on mining machines. Just like the CP4 pump that is used in the Ford, GMC, VW and now the Ram Diesel fuel systems. There is nothing wrong with the CP4 Pump, the pump works fine as it is designed. The pump is design is to supply high pressure fuel to the fuel injectors. I looked at the European use of the CP4 Pump and the failure rate seems very low compared to the US failure rate! Why is this?

I also looked at the lawsuit that is being filed against GM for the use of the CP4 pump. The lawsuit states that the fuel quality in the US is not on par with the rest of the world! Air is entering the fuel system and destroying the pump IE cavitation! The lawsuit states the lubricity of the ULSD fuel is one of the causes to the failure rate! Then why aren't the CP3 pumps failing at the same rate due to the ULSD fuel? They too would at the same issue with lubricity of the ULSD fuel as CP4 is to have, as they both are rotating piston pumps. I would love to see the swash plate and or pistons heads that rotate on the swash plate to see if they are smeared due to no lubrication! Now as to cavitation this could be the cause of CP4 pump failures! But why is this? Air is entering the fuel system somehow and when the air is entrained in the fuel and compressed the results is cavitation in the pump. I have seen this in the high-pressure pumps that have failed on Cat machines. But this would also be an issue with the CP3 pumps since they too are a rotating high-pressure piston pump along with the CP4 Pumps used in European diesel vehicles. They do not fail because of this do they?

My thinking as to why the high failure rate in the US on the GMC/Chevy and Ford trucks is due to no lift pump in the fuel tank! For whatever reason Dodge/Ram has chosen to provide a lift pump in their fuel tank to supply the high-pressure fuel pump such as the CP3 or CP4. This has a two-fold advantage. The first being a continuously supply of low-pressure fuel to the high- pressure fuel pump thus the pump will not cavate due to no fuel. Which I think is the real reason for pump failure! The other being that since fuel is continuously supplied lubricity should not be an issue! I believe this only occurs with no fuel being supplied to the pump!

Just my $0.02

 

[Rick Reichert]

To counter-act the effect of using low-sulfur fuel in my 2005 LLY, I add a 50/50 mix of TCW3 2-stroke outboard motor oil and Diesel Kleen to the tank every time I fuel up. I use 2/3 ounces of the 50/50 mix per gallon. So far, so good with 82,000 miles on the clock.

As documented elsewhere on the Internet, I solved the LLY overheating issue by installing an AFE turbo intake tube, adding a home-made ram air intake coming up from the right fog light hole and into the bottom of the air filter box. I also reduced the size of the side opening on the air filter box, and added a piece of 2-inch by 2-inch foam strategically placed around the edges of the air filter box to block some of the hot air coming off the engine. Making these changes made a huge difference in how the truck performs. The radiator fan rarely engages, and when it does it quickly brings the temperature back down to normal.

 

[Miller]

Please, Dodge would feel left out.Eco-gate continues!!!!

 

[JR]

S&S Diesel sells a bypass kit for the CP4. Apparently the bottom end of the pump is where the majority of these failures begin. The contaminated fuel passes into the high pressure side of the pump and on to the injectors. The bypass kit reroutes the fuel from the bottom end of the pump through the bypass and back into the high pressure side. This way if/when it fails the debris is prevented from entering the rail and injectors.

 

[Belchos]

Patton: Don’t you get it yet why you think lawsuits are bad, that lawyers are just greedy and do not good, blah, blah, blah? Don’t you think it is possible that millions of dollars have been spent to precondition potential jurors and potential voters against lawsuits and lawyers? In the 1970s, jurors were returning costly awards in cases like the Corvair cases. Judges were not overturning verdicts, and appellate courts were not ruling against strict liability case holdings. Manufacturers and other verdict regulated entities turned to Madison Avenue techniques to precondition jurors and voters. The first ad I saw was around 1974, and was a two page ad in Time Magazine showing a courtroom, and the message was that injured persons and their lawyers were just greedy, and you could lower your expenses for insurance premiums and products by voting against injured persons. Simple. Pound that theme and pound it. Many years and lots of money spent on this later, you write, "If it is another frivolous lawyer grab-bag for money.” It worked pretty well for them, didn’t it.

 

[TDRGuy]

Lawsuits aren't bad.

Frivolous and greedy are bad. Tort reform is need.
Engineered cost cutting can backfire.

Big picture stuffiesel-gate ECU workaround of exhaust emissions...not a good idea (However none of us know the work atmosphere under VW's Piech.)

I do not have an answer for this GM problem, nor do I have one for tort reform.

When will there be a separate line item on the Moroney decal for litigation and recalls?

RP

 

[surfbeetle]

GM also had trouble with the Standadyne Injection Pumps on the 6.5 liter diesels in the late 1990's to early 2000's. I had a '97 Diesel Suburban with the 6.5 which went through 7+ injection pumps that I'm aware of. We bought it used and had to deal with that nonsense. The pumps needed good clean fuel to keep it going is what we were told. My sister in law had the exact same truck, theirs was white, mine was black. They never had an issue with their injection pump and we fueled at the same station. Hmmm, seems more heat related and poor design. Don't forget the issues Dodge owners of 24 valve trucks had with their injection pumps...

 

[GAmes]

As much as I hate to see litigation lawyers getting richer, there could be an upside here. Whoever initiated the lawsuit will have to prove that ULSD doesn't have sufficient lubricity. Perhaps they will reveal that illusive scientific study that the pro-additive congregation claim is out there. As I see it there will be a group calculating how much money they have wasted or a group, that includes me, that will be eating a healthy serving of crow.