TDIMeister
Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
BMW 123d (N47D20B) uses CP4.1 and operates at 2000 bar. This from a source so official I cannot post it.
Not familiar with that model here in North America... are they running piezo injectors on that model? What I am interested in is a model that runs the solenoid injectors and the fuel pressures that they operate at, preferably with blue tech technology also to clean up emissions. something close to Vw passat specs by Bosch.BMW 123d (N47D20B) uses CP4.1 and operates at 2000 bar. This from a source so official I cannot post it.
It was winter. In the picture there is snow on the ground. Perhaps this car had the iced intercooler issue and ingested a slug of ice water. BAM!Does anyone think this was actually an HPFP failure made by VWoA to look like an oil-starvation-and-engine-seizing problem? The description of the moments before the engine died sure sounds like it could be... Maybe someone can do some sleuthing and follow-up on the car.
Thank you! that's even newer data release from Bosch than what I last viewed, circa 2006 I believe.Yes, piezo for the 123d.
Solenoid up to 1800 bar for light-duty, 2000 bar for medium-duty, 2200 bar for heavy-duty:
http://bit.ly/P6Cz3b (Bosch pdf)
I note the life of the equipment:Yes, piezo for the 123d.
Solenoid up to 1800 bar for light-duty, 2000 bar for medium-duty, 2200 bar for heavy-duty:
http://bit.ly/P6Cz3b (Bosch pdf)
Lifetime15,000 h (off-highway)
Medium-duty sector(MD): 750,000 km (on-highway)
12,000 h (off-highway)
Heavy-duty sector (HD): 1.6 million km (on-highway)
Agree, the second filter may likely be before the fuel metering valve and the HP chamber which would then likely prevent system contamination should the HPFP shred metal. Where's eddif when we need him.Light-duty sector(LD): between 0 - 750,000 km (on-highway), we just aren't sure
The ONE big stumbling block on retro fitting a filter system to prevent system contamination from a failing/failed hpfp is: Who is going to test it? Too much risk. Almost no one would be willing to put their fuel sytem at risk by installing such a filter. Even someone that has had a failure isn't going to risk another failure by installing a secondary filter. The risk is just too high. So, although you can think about, hope for,design and actually make some sort of secondary fuel filtering to mitigate damage. Who is will to take the risk of testing?The second filter may likely be between the fuel metering valve and the HP chamber which would then likely prevent system contamination should the HPFP shred metal. Where's eddif when we need him.
Gooubrizol Be Gone, Of course!Amazingly good oil or something if the engine lasted two-and-a-half months after the incident in the hands of auto journalists with no engine oil... Slick 50googolplex?
I installed a 5 micron filter in the return line.The ONE big stumbling block on retro fitting a filter system to prevent system contamination from a failing/failed hpfp is: Who is going to test it? Too much risk. Almost no one would be willing to put their fuel sytem at risk by installing such a filter. Even someone that has had a failure isn't going to risk another failure by installing a secondary filter. The risk is just too high. So, although you can think about, hope for,design and actually make some sort of secondary fuel filtering to mitigate damage. Who is will to take the risk of testing?
I was refering to a filtering system that would protect the entire fuel system from contamination with an adapter at the fuel quantity regulator and not just a filter installed in the fuel return line.I installed a 5 micron filter in the return line.
Wouldn't this only catch particles coming out of the HPFP? Why not a filter on the feed line to the HPFP?I installed a 5 micron filter in the return line.
Did everyone get their stickers today? Wonder if this is part of some pending NHTSA agreement?
I seriously doubt that ANY CR hpfp has much tolerance for gas contamination. The pumps are lubricated with fuel. Even small amounts of GAS adversely affect the lubricity of fuel..
"Even small amounts can cause engine damage."
Translation: you folks with existing CRs may expect NO other recall involving replacement components for the fuel system.
An interesting question is whether new production cars have them as well. It would be a pretty clear statement that the current CP4 still has no tolerance for RUG, and probably won't get any soon.
"Diesel Fuel Only" Sticker Recall (20R9) posted here.Stickers?
Thank You!!!"Diesel Fuel Only" Sticker Recall (20R9) posted here.
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=357767
No one knows whether this is intended to close out the NHTSA investigation. But, the NHTSA investigation will only close when NHTSA decides they should close it - not VW. If failures continue to happen, stickers or not, then people should keep on reporting them.
A high pressure filter on the pump output would be ideal but difficult to implement. The return line filter on my car will hopefuly prevent damage to the difficult to replace parts. In case of HPFP failure only the pump an injectors should need to be replaced.I was refering to a filtering system that would protect the entire fuel system from contamination with an adapter at the fuel quantity regulator and not just a filter installed in the fuel return line.
The letters that accompanied the stickers certainly indicated this is the case.tico27464: > ... If years of NHTSA investigation (at the expense of the taxpayer), and years of VW bamboozling (at the expense of CR owners) results in a f$@*in9 sticker of all things, it will truly have been a monumental waste of time and money, ...
The stickers themselves are probably not a waste of money. It likely cost VW only $10-20,000 dollars to design, print and mail the stickers. If they prevent only three fuel system implosions due to mis-fueling, it will be worth it.
> ...and likely will not solve the problem.
That depends on the definition of "problem", and from whose point of view. If, for example, VW thinks the problem is not the failures per se, but that so many are happening IN WARRANTY, then the sticker campaign may not solve the "problem", but will certainly reduce the impact (to VW).
> Hopefully there's a more substantial remedy coming.
Had the sticker campaign been part of a concluded settlement with NHTSA, I suspect that one or both parties would have said something. The economics alone suggest that it could be a purely VW-initiated action, but it could be part of a not yet fully agreed campaign.
> I for one am not holding my breath.
Everyone who did that died over two years ago.
All the southern tier states... Florida, Alabama, Mississipi, Texas, Arizona, and California are high in failure rates in ratio to cars sold. New Mexico is a continental divide state, very high in overall altitude, and much cooler than the other southern tier states. Is heat a problem? Or is the fuel crappier in all those hot southern tier states, or does the heat aggravate the lack of lubricity?Okay back on topic, I took dweisel's state failure list and did some analysis based on sales data provided by VW to NHTSA. I wanted to see what the data looked like if I computed the failures ratio based on sales ratio data by state. Of course we know that state sales data will not correspond to where the owners may actually reside and the state sales ratios may be different now as the sales data is almost 1 1/2 years old. But for states with large sales, a variance in the data will not affect the results very much. The table below shows the actual data. The ratio column indicates the (% of failures) / (% of sales) for that state. I have also colored coded the ratio data: pink > 1.2 ratio, green < 0.8, and 1.2 >= yellow >= 0.8
When looking at the data, one should also be aware that one failure in a state with a small % of the total sales of about 139k, can affect the ratio significantly. So, I'd ignore the ratio in any state with less than around 4000 sales. But for the states above 5000 sales, I'd say one can make inferences from the data. So why do some states above 5000 in sales have such a wide range in the ratio. Could it be related to the lubricity of the fuel? When looking at the data above 5000 sales, there seems to be a significantly less likelihood of HPFP failure in states that have a bio mandate or where bio is widely available (PA, IL, WA). The ratio for the pink / yellow states is in the 1.1 - 1.8 range while the green states are in the 0.2 - 0.4 range. Is this evidence that increasing lubricity to say a 300 micron wear scar level with the additon of at least B2 results in a lower HPFP failure rate by a factor of maybe 3-5 times? You can look at the data and draw your own conclusion.