NO! If you are talking about just swapping out the piston cup/follower. The new piston cup could actually wear out an old style pump bore FASTER than an the original piston cup. Its just not that simple.The hardness of both the pump bore and piston cup have to be compatable. Swapping out a Czech pump for and older revision pump shouldn't be a problem though.Should be an easy swap. No?
Yes,there was a 2012 Passat that was misfueled by the dealer and failed with just over 40 miles. 2Micron has a 12 Passat failed pump that also came off a car that was misfueled. I would think there are a few other misfuel failures,but those are the only two that I am aware of. NO failures have been reported here that have not been attributed to misfuels.I thought there was a passat that had a pump go due to misfueling ?
4000 miles on my 2012 passat... B2 since the moment I drove it off the lot, with 17 miles on it. PS White thrown in also 3 to 4 oz per fillup, to keep the fuel dry. Most fill ups around 10-14 gallons at most. Have my fingers crossed, running a 6M and not revving it hard, or high or near redline, hopefully helps it last.Yes,there was a 2012 Passat that was misfueled by the dealer and failed with just over 40 miles. 2Micron has a 12 Passat failed pump that also came off a car that was misfueled. I would think there are a few other misfuel failures,but those are the only two that I am aware of. NO failures have been reported here that have not been attributed to misfuels.
I have 8000 now on my Passat and 18000 on my Jetta, usually buy the cheapest, Walmart, that I can find.4000 miles on my 2012 passat... B2 since the moment I drove it off the lot, with 17 miles on it. PS White thrown in also 3 to 4 oz per fillup, to keep the fuel dry. Most fill ups around 10-14 gallons at most. Have my fingers crossed, running a 6M and not revving it hard, or high or near redline, hopefully helps it last.
Sooo the next logical question is, does the new pump turn into an IED like the previous model?Yes,there was a 2012 Passat that was misfueled by the dealer and failed with just over 40 miles. 2Micron has a 12 Passat failed pump that also came off a car that was misfueled. I would think there are a few other misfuel failures,but those are the only two that I am aware of. NO failures have been reported here that have not been attributed to misfuels.
An aluminum bore is an aluminum bore... starve it of lubrication, and it is a sacrificial metal, it's going to shed bits and pieces, everywhere. Does anyone remember the aluminum bored block failures from Chevy Vega's from the early 1970's? And that was with an oil batch for lubrication.Sooo the next logical question is, does the new pump turn into an IED like the previous model?
LOL! Well there have NEVER been ANY EXPLOSIONS yet in any VW CR hpfp. Bad choice of words IMO. Total fuel system contamination,YES. EXPLOSION, NO.Sooo the next logical question is, does the new pump turn into an IED like the previous model?
An aluminum bore is an aluminum bore...
As long as the housing and bore are made out of aluminum, I don't see this being a fuel pump capable of 300,000 + or more miles before failure, not like the older Bosch VE pumps, pre common rail, like in our A4's.
It's still a fragment bomb, like a grenade, with a real slow fuse, that eventually kills the pump and the whole fuel system in short order.LOL! Well there have NEVER been ANY EXPLOSIONS yet in any VW CR hpfp. Bad choice of words IMO. Total fuel system contamination,YES. EXPLOSION, NO.
I would suspect the Passat CR fuel system would be subject to the same fuel system contamination as the earlier VW CR's. As of yet we have not had a report here on the forum of a 2012 Passat CR having a hpfp failure that was not misfueled. Which is a good thing. Maybe Bosch has finally come up with the correct metallurgy to make this pump have a long service life. Only time will tell.
Not quite ... there are many, MANY alloys. Pure aluminum is not useful as a structural material. (Pure "substitute the name of any other metal" is generally not useful as a structural material.) All practical structural materials are alloys, and then there are countless choices plus many possible heat treatments plus many possible coatings on them.An aluminum bore is an aluminum bore...
Yep, and a good many modern engines use all-alloy "aluminum" blocks without the traditional cast-iron liners ... made of better alloys and with suitable cylinder bore coatings and finishes and with a better cooling system than the Vega had - the cooling system was a notorious weak point on those!Does anyone remember the aluminum bored block failures from Chevy Vega's from the early 1970's? And that was with an oil batch for lubrication.
Chevrolet Vega aluminum bore was a failure.As long as the housing and bore are made out of aluminum, I don't see this being a fuel pump capable of 300,000 + or more miles before failure, not like the older Bosch VE pumps, pre common rail, like in our A4's.
Nah,it just wears out and grinds itself to failure. No" fragment bomb" or grenade involved. I would agree that it "eventually kills the pump and the whole fuel system in short order."It's still a fragment bomb, like a grenade, with a real slow fuse, that eventually kills the pump and the whole fuel system in short order.
I agree. The pump is not a "cheap" pump because it's made of aluminum. If anything, it costs WAY more to make it out of aluminum alloy than cast iron. Again, steel pistons don't like cast iron bores, so the choice is really limited if a steel piston is going to be used (I'm talking about the steel plunger piston directly above the roller follower). Furthermore, steel is the only realistic choice for the piston due to the extreme reciprocating duty cycle of the pump.Not quite ... there are many, MANY alloys.
It's all in the details.
May not be either of those. Bosch data on lubricity and HPFP life is well known per the Bosch presentation. VAG knows what Bosch knows.It's not really they screwed up by making unrealistic assumptions about fuel, the problem is they failed to perform due diligence to ensure their design was suitable for the market.
... or the engineers made an assumption that North American fuel actually meets the standards set out for it, however lax those standard may be, and didn't account for "actual field conditions" occasionally giving lubricity considerably worse than specifications allow (and due to lack of enforcement, the situation never gets caught and no one ever gets penalized). It ain't like that in Germany. There, if there is a standard, you comply with the standard, or else. There is ample evidence that US fuel lubricity is all over the map with some of it not meeting the ASTM standards.May not be either of those. Bosch data on lubricity and HPFP life is well known per the Bosch presentation. VAG knows what Bosch knows.
More than likely, the beancounters determined the cost/benefit of re-engineering vs warranty claims, perhaps without adding in downstream parts failures as a cost to consider.
One would think, then, that Bosch would engineer around this by using fuel as fuel, not as a lubricity agent for the North American market. Bosch has been warning CARB, whose standards they've had to meet for years, since 2002, about this... which is pointless, as CARB isn't the governing standard for fuel Lubricity in the USA, ASTM is.... so someone has been barking up the wrong tree for a long time, the fuel pump manufacturers. Please point out to us somewhere where the fuel pump manufacturers have requested a change in the ASTM lubricity standards of US D2 fuel to a standard much closer to EN590 for wear scar, perhaps even under 300, not 460 or 520 micron.There is ample evidence that US fuel lubricity is all over the map with some of it not meeting the ASTM standards.
Don't apear to be any major issues with HPFP premature failure, apart from possible misfuelling damage but nobody on the local forums has reported HPFP failure due to misfuel yet that I can find.bluey, any problems with Bosch HPFPs on CR TDIs Down Under? What's your diesel fuel like, quality-wise?
It's interesting that adding 1% biodiesel improved the wear scar rating around 200 points. After that, there was little to no additional benefit.Back in 2003 MB was doing lubricity tests, so it's not like this was something new.
http://www.mbca.org/tech-talk-article/new-diesel-fuel-and-old-diesels
Actually, ASTM does not set the specs on anything. It stands for American Standard Test Methods. They develop and publish the test methods that others use to determine the pass or fail for most anything that can or will be tested. The specification determination and setting is up to the governing agencies.One would think, then, that Bosch would engineer around this by using fuel as fuel, not as a lubricity agent for the North American market. Bosch has been warning CARB, whose standards they've had to meet for years, since 2002, about this... which is pointless, as CARB isn't the governing standard for fuel Lubricity in the USA, ASTM is..
It is fairly typically for additives to have a plateau effect. Adding 0.5% may move the scar rating by 100 points and 1% by 200 points but 1.5% will only add another 10 point reduction.It's interesting that adding 1% biodiesel improved the wear scar rating around 200 points. After that, there was little to no additional benefit.
Thanks for that link. It's old data but it was still a good report.
One important thing you have to remember about lubricity numbers. Lubricity is tested at 60*F. Our fuel in NOT at 60*F in an operating fuel system. It would be interesting to know how much lubricity is affected by higher fuel temps.Actually, ASTM does not set the specs on anything. It stands for American Standard Test Methods. They develop and publish the test methods that others use to determine the pass or fail for most anything that can or will be tested. The specification determination and setting is up to the governing agencies.
ASTM tests are extremely wide and variable and subject to extreme interpretation.
It is fairly typically for additives to have a plateau effect. Adding 0.5% may move the scar rating by 100 points and 1% by 200 points but 1.5% will only add another 10 point reduction.
My numbers were not meant to have meaning, just illustrative.One important thing you have to remember about lubricity numbers. Lubricity is tested at 60*F. Our fuel in NOT at 60*F in an operating fuel system. It would be interesting to know how much lubricity is affected by higher fuel temps.
As far as the additives. I guess not only could you have a plateau affect by adding more than recommended,but maybe an opposite affect. Like when you increase the concentration of anti-freeze above 50 percent you actually reduce its cold temp protection. Pure anti-freeze and higher concentrations above 60 percent have a diminished affect and raise the temp at which it will freeze.
Likewise here, 4 oz, every 12 to 16 gallons, though with the Common Rail, I prefer the white bottle, not the gray bottle.Ya...tend to agree...if the additive guys had an advantage in selling "more" stuff..they would take that opp. probably staying within their suggestions is the best thing to do. I fill with 4oz of PS. never double dose.
Please explain what the white-bottle formula and having a CR engine have to do with each other.Likewise here, 4 oz, every 12 to 16 gallons, though with the Common Rail, I prefer the white bottle, not the gray bottle.
HPFP and water.Please explain what the white-bottle formula and having a CR engine have to do with each other.