Good news Cp4 to Cp3

[TFucili]

Just heard there are 2 new tsbs relating to injection pump changes. One warns of different calibrations for old pump and new pump the other points out the old has asymmetrical lobes vs new with symmetrical lobes and how to identify pumps. No mention of pump model nomenclature. No part numbers shown

That makes it sound like it might just be a revised CP4. Time will tell, I guess.

 

[Ram4Sam]

Just heard there are 2 new tsbs relating to injection pump changes. One warns of different calibrations for old pump and new pump the other points out the old has asymmetrical lobes vs new with symmetrical lobes and how to identify pumps. No mention of pump model nomenclature. No part numbers shown

Bob....I thought you retired from all this.....??

Sam

 

[sag2]

The TSB is published, 18-060-20. It addresses the changes to the revised pump and the need for the proper calibration. No mention of a CP3.

 

[Bob4x4]

Bob....I thought you retired from all this.....??

Sam

I did.Just keep in touch a little bit from time to time.Dont want to interfere to much with my Marathon training

 

[cumminsturbofreak]

So I had my login still active from checking something on TechAuthority...

Looks like it is still a CP4.2.
Well it was a good thread guys.

 

[Ozymandias]

Interesting, so in the future when people starts to change their pumps DIY we will hear about strange noise and why.
I keep that in mind for reference.

 

[UglyViking]

OK, I did some research on the fuel standards for both the European and US diesel fuel used. The US standard is ASTM D975 and the European is EN590 they both state what are the requirements for diesel fuel to be sold to the end user, as the minimum requirements. There are several difference in the fuel standard but the biggest one is the Lubricity requirement. The US standard allows a wear scar of 520um Max and the European allows a wear scar of 460um Max, under the three ball wear test. Both fuels are tested to 60 Deg's C for the lubricity test.

With that information, I guess as "dieselshadow" stated you could use a product like OPTILUBE or STANDYNE fuel additives if your are worried about your CP4.2 pump life. In a Chevron paper that was part of my review, under diesel fuel additives a statement was made and I quote " Engine and Fuel Delivery System Performance Additives
This class of additives can improve engine or injection system performance. The effects of different members of the class are seen in different time frames. Any benefit provided by a cetane number improver is immediate, whereas that provided by detergent additives or lubricity additives is typically seen over the long term, often measured in thousands or tens of thousands of miles and under "Lubricity" the final sentence states: Most ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels need a lubricity additive to meet the ASTM D 975 and EN 590 lubricity specifications. " end quote

Another item that was pointed out was that the fuel terminals were responsible for adding the additives package to fuels. Not the refinery since different fuels are sent through the same pipeline and some additives could be harmful to the different fuel sent such as gas, jet fuel, heating fuel and so forth. So, it is up to the fuel terminals to insure that the proper additives package is added to the diesel fuel.

There is a lot of good information here. Not that I don't trust you but can you cite your sources here? I'm interested in the differences in diesel standards and additives and a more thorough read on the topic.

 

[troverman]

R.T. So sorry for your loss. Whoever made that Covid comment is a shallow asshat.

That would be me. I stand by my statement from a macro level; however...R Taylor, my condolences. I'm certainly not hoping for people to be harmed by this, just like I hope nobody's CP4 fails. Not on the same level of importance of course.

OOOOOKKKKK TDickerson.... Had you ever thought that maybe that's why I am not worried?? Go figure. Been running lube since 2007 on all my CTD's regardless, It's called "Taking care of your stuff".

In a similar vein, I've owned four Ford 6.7L Powerstroke trucks...none failed...no additives on two out of four of them either. We still have an F-550 6.7L from 2011 in the family...over a hundred thousand miles and no issues with the fuel system. 2011 was the first year of the CP4 in a Ford, and 2011 was the year with the most problems with the Ford 6.7L. So maybe coming from this perspective is why "I'm not worried" about the RAM 6.7L with the CP4.

For the naysayers,the news has been published.Since I’ve been retired for a number of years the last thing I want to do is loose my inside source.
Just thought I would pass on some info that may help those uneasy with the current fuel system and not let some potential shoppers from jumping ship.

I have no reason to not believe you, but I still need to see proof they are doing this...and also that they plan to make a change in production. If this is true, perhaps they are retrofitting CP3's simply because there is an unacceptable wait time to get a new CP4.

Longevity conjecture aside, what REALLY makes the CP4 a bad design is that when it fails it sends metallic particles through the entire fuel system, turning a simple component replacement into a catastrophic system-wide failure. That is my definition of a *&^%-poor design.

Just so you know, if an engine main bearing fails, it sends metallic particles through the entire engine oiling system, "turning a simple component replacement into a catastrophic system-wide failure." I guess that makes the internal combustion engine "a *&^%-poor design" by your definition.

 

[troverman]

The main source of failure is the roller lifters on the piston assemblies. Materials and QC have a huge effect on them because they are an asymmetrical design with really sharp ramps on the lobes, the faster it spins the more chance for failure. Lack of lube will effect them also and the CP-4 works the same way as a CP-3 in that it prioritizes fuel to the rail robbing the body of cooling and lube. What I have seen are burn marks on the lobes and rollers, either roller failure or lube failure. Only way to address that is more fuel for cooling\lube and better parts or they have a very finite lifetime and early failures are more common.

How do you explain the fact that some engines will go 200k+ and still be on the original pump, yet others (but very few) fail early on? Especially trucks sold in the same area getting fuel from the same places?

Output of the pump is up around 30k psi, not a lot of components let alone filters for that pressure.

The design of the CP routes lube and cooling fuel back thru the same galleries that feed the rail side for safety reasons. If case pressure exceeds 250 psi it close in coming fuel and use cooling\lube fuel to feed the rail. If the pistons break or case cracks or something happens the high pressure fuel is not routed back thru the tank thru lines not meant for pressure. That stops a failure in the pump from blowing return lines and tanks spreading diesel everywhere that could easily ignite. Imagine a fog of diesel fuel from broken lines hitting a hot CAT or the pump seizing and spitting hot metal out into a fuel fog. Be like stacking fireworks on ammonium nitrate and a the fireworks catching fire, BIG boom potential.

Downside is contaminated fuel from poorly designed or bad metallurgy ends up in the downstream fuel system. The kits segregate the fuel in the case so return always goes back to the tank and fresh fuel is routed to the rail supply side, they do not mix in the pump. Also disables the case overpressure failsafe.

Diesel doesn't ignite easily - it might find a hot enough ignition source under the hood, or it might not. The cooling fan would still be spinning and helping prevent a lot of settling in one area. Either way, it wouldn't be a "big boom" in my opinion.

 

[cumminsturbofreak]

In a similar vein, I've owned four Ford 6.7L Powerstroke trucks...none failed...no additives on two out of four of them either. We still have an F-550 6.7L from 2011 in the family...over a hundred thousand miles and no issues with the fuel system. 2011 was the first year of the CP4 in a Ford, and 2011 was the year with the most problems with the Ford 6.7L. So maybe coming from this perspective is why "I'm not worried" about the RAM 6.7L with the CP4.

A hundred thousand miles is not a lot of miles for a 2011. That aside, maybe you have the special edition sprinkled with the Ford pixie dust IDK.

And good for you if your not worried, however you will not change the minds of people who have been burned or have friends who’ve been burned by Bosch.

I have no reason to not believe you, but I still need to see proof they are doing this...and also that they plan to make a change in production. If this is true, perhaps they are retrofitting CP3's simply because there is an unacceptable wait time to get a new CP4.

The new pumps are still a CP4.2 but with a different cam. No CP3 swap as that would require the old timing case to fit a factory CP3.

Also no wait to get CP4s. FCA just takes forever approving costly repairs.

Just so you know, if an engine main bearing fails, it sends metallic particles through the entire engine oiling system, "turning a simple component replacement into a catastrophic system-wide failure." I guess that makes the internal combustion engine "a *&^%-poor design" by your definition.

I really don’t see why you stand behind Bosch so much. Investor?

 

[troverman]

A hundred thousand miles is not a lot of miles for a 2011. That aside, maybe you have the special edition sprinkled with the Ford pixie dust IDK.

And good for you if your not worried, however you will not change the minds of people who have been burned or have friends who’ve been burned by Bosch.


The new pumps are still a CP4.2 but with a different cam. No CP3 swap as that would require the old timing case to fit a factory CP3.

Also no wait to get CP4s. FCA just takes forever approving costly repairs.

I really don’t see why you stand behind Bosch so much. Investor?

Thanks for the info - I replied before completely reading out the the end of this thread. I see its just a revised CP4. I guess my skepticism that this was in fact the case turned out to be correct.

I have no relationship with Bosch in any way. Its just in my experience I haven't had problems. Funny you mention the Ford pixie dust...I'm far more concerned the ceramic bearings in the 550's turbo will in fact turn to dust that a fuel pump failure. The 2011-2014 Powerstrokes certainly had that problem.

 

[HVAC2]

My takeaway after 6 pages is buying the left over 2018 vs a new 19 back in November might have been a good decision. I still like how quiet the 19 and 20s are compared to mine. I find in drive thrus, shutting it off is best for all involved. Especially when she is cold.

 

[TFucili]

[QUOTE="troverman, post: 2646359, member:



Just so you know, if an engine main bearing fails, it sends metallic particles through the entire engine oiling system, "turning a simple component replacement into a catastrophic system-wide failure." I guess that makes the internal combustion engine "a *&^%-poor design" by your definition.[/QUOTE]

Wow, I'm glad you told me that. I had no idea. When was the last time you saw a reasonably maintained 5.9 or 6.7 Cummins spin a main? Asking for a friend.

 

[JR]

The difference in ASTM standards is that it is just that...a recommendation. There is no real regulatory body that ensures adhesion to the standards. Further compounding the problem is the transportation and storage industry where water, dust, and dirt have the likelihood of contaminating the fuel to substandard grades.

A quote from Parker Racor that always stood out from a study they performed a few years back.

Diesel filtration balances pressure drop, useful life and efficiency. However the real long term effect on fuel system life is often not adequately considered; as much of the engine durability testing performed is done using high quality fuel that doesn’t represent the range of fuels seen in the market. Consideration of filtration performance under less than ideal conditions is necessary to develop an acceptable level of protection.

A good read if anyone is interested.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw0Ud9dnvQP9BpgtjmIG2LeW&cshid=1596843189654


if you look up the lawsuit against Ford and the CP4 it specifically alleges Ford used the CP4 in NA based on it's track record with Euro fuel standards and knew they would be problematic with ULSD.

And this is the main reason I have had fuel delivered to the house for many years now, I run everything through a two stage system including a
water blocking filter (Zinga) that will stop 100% of the flow in the event of water contamination vs internal combustion engine filters that are required to pass once saturated. I've seen the Zingas work as advertised.

 

[troverman]

[QUOTE="troverman, post: 2646359, member:



Just so you know, if an engine main bearing fails, it sends metallic particles through the entire engine oiling system, "turning a simple component replacement into a catastrophic system-wide failure." I guess that makes the internal combustion engine "a *&^%-poor design" by your definition.

Wow, I'm glad you told me that. I had no idea. When was the last time you saw a reasonably maintained 5.9 or 6.7 Cummins spin a main? Asking for a friend.[/QUOTE]

The failure rate of pumps isn't much higher. That's my point. How many failures do you know for certain have occurred? 5? 10? Somebody estimate 190k trucks have been sold in 2019.

 

[Jim W]

There is a lot of good information here. Not that I don't trust you but can you cite your sources here? I'm interested in the differences in diesel standards and additives and a more thorough read on the topic.

I provided this information in my post they are; ASTM D975, which is the American Society for Testing and Materials, this is now an international organization. The other is the European standard for testing diesel fuel which is EN590. Both of these can be found on line, but will cost $$ to download for your use. I did not research the ISO standards which should be very similar to the EN standards.

Another source is a white paper from Chevron called "Diesel Fuels Technical Review" which can be downloaded for free.
The three ball test and wear scar information is from my study as an engineer, in my heat treatment class that I took in the 70's.

 

[troverman]

...if you look up the lawsuit against Ford and the CP4 it specifically alleges Ford used the CP4 in NA based on it's track record with Euro fuel standards and knew they would be problematic with ULSD.

This is another money-grab lawsuit with little real grounding. Ford "knew" the CP4 would fail? Hmm. Did GM know it would fail too? What about the various Euro-diesels from VAG group being sold in the US for some years? Were they all failing too?

 

[cumminsturbofreak]

This is another money-grab lawsuit with little real grounding. Ford "knew" the CP4 would fail? Hmm. Did GM know it would fail too? What about the various Euro-diesels from VAG group being sold in the US for some years? Were they all failing too?

Yes. They have a ton of failures of the CP4.1.

If you don’t know, don’t argue.

 

[TFucili]

Wow, I'm glad you told me that. I had no idea. When was the last time you saw a reasonably maintained 5.9 or 6.7 Cummins spin a main? Asking for a friend.

The failure rate of pumps isn't much higher. That's my point. How many failures do you know for certain have occurred? 5? 10? Somebody estimate 190k trucks have been sold in 2019.[/QUOTE]

Very interesting, and I am not an advocate of lawyers by any stretch of the imagination, but if the failure rate of the CP4 is no worse than the CP3, then why didn't the greedy, money-grubbing lawyers include the CP3 in their action? As to contamination, it absolutely happens, but, again, I have not seen any pumps labeled "Clean Fuel For CP3 Pumps ONLY", have you? You can make excuses for the CP4 'til the cows come home. It is an inferior design from day one, and still is.

 

[Jim W]

And this is the main reason I have had fuel delivered to the house for many years now, I run everything through a two stage system including a
water blocking filter (Zinga) that will stop 100% of the flow in the event of water contamination vs internal combustion engine filters that are required to pass once saturated. I've seen the Zingas work as advertised.

JR, question?
Do you store your fuel above ground or in the ground?

The reason I ask is when Cat changed from pre-combustion chambers diesel engines to direct injected engine designs. The corporation had a rash of injector failures from water in the fuel. This was around the mid 70's if I remember correctly. Cat had to provide water separators in the fuel system as standard and retro fit them to machines that had the DI engines.

Cat figured out if you store your fuel above ground. The owner would run the risk of increase water infusion into your diesel fuel as temperature changes in the climate. The temperature change will produce water in above ground storage fuel tanks over a period of time.

So, my question is where is your water separator placed? Is it placed in line before you fuel your vehicles or is it place before the fuel enters your storage tank.