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.
NHTSA Update on CR HPFP failure investigation
- Thread starter dzcad90
- Start date
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.
TDIMeister
Phd of TDIClub Enthusiast, Moderator at Large
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)
Solenoid up to 1800 bar for light-duty, 2000 bar for medium-duty, 2200 bar for heavy-duty:
http://bit.ly/P6Cz3b (Bosch pdf)
quadrun1
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Location
- Fairfield County, CT
- TDI
- past: 2013 Passat TDI SE 6M, 2010 Jetta TDI DSG
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!
Seems to me that there are fewer HPFP failures in the winter.
Jason
Thank you! that's even newer data release from Bosch than what I last viewed, circa 2006 I believe.
Interesting development on this series of CRSN3-22 pump for medium and heavy duty applications of higher pressures.... note that there are 2 fuel filters... one that appears in the normal position to the HPFP, and the other filter is in line from the low pressure side of the pump (lower section where the cam is, that can grenade) to the high pressure side (where the plunger is and the final 2000, 2200 or 2400 bar pressure is generated).
Also note WATER FILTER SEPARATOR provided on filter or pre filters also! *** VW, have you been sleeping with all this development going on, or have you been screwing the end users with your cheapness and discontinuing this feature on VW's so that we do incure HPFP failures?
When will we get this same filtering feature on the CP4.1 pump, to catch the debris that contaminates our fuel and disintegretes our whole fuel system? Also, note that Bosch now calls the pump on our cars the CP4-20 series... is this a new development from the 2009 jetta series pumps in nomenclature?
Last edited:
Plus 3 Golfer
Veteran Member
I note the life of the equipment:
I guess the light-duty (LD) would be something like this:
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
Last edited:
dweisel
Top Post Dawg
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.
kjclow
Top Post Dawg
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2003
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
- TDI
- 2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
I noted that the Bosch literature also said "up to a 60% higher lifetime in injector system"
Gooubrizol Be Gone, Of course!
dweisel
Top Post Dawg
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.
Gilty_one
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Location
- Warman, Saskatchewan, Canada
- TDI
- 2016 Touareg Execline 3.0 V6 TDI; 2012 Jetta Highline TDI
Wouldn't this only catch particles coming out of the HPFP? Why not a filter on the feed line to the HPFP?
darrelld
Veteran Member
Did everyone get their stickers today? Wonder if this is part of some pending NHTSA agreement?
Second Turbo
Veteran Member
Sticker Shock
darrelld > Wonder if this is part of some pending NHTSA agreement?
Could be, or could be a pre-emptive negotiating ploy.
"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.
______
But sure, the historical DFO stickers, like on our ALH, are so subliminal that we tell people who borrow the car to not put ANY fuel in it under any circumstances.
darrelld > Wonder if this is part of some pending NHTSA agreement?
Could be, or could be a pre-emptive negotiating ploy.
"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.
______
But sure, the historical DFO stickers, like on our ALH, are so subliminal that we tell people who borrow the car to not put ANY fuel in it under any circumstances.
Last edited:
nyrussell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Location
- Orlando Fl and Weehawken NJ
- TDI
- 2009 TDI Loyal; 3208 Cat Marine and 8KW Onan
Stickers?
dweisel
Top Post Dawg
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.
bobt2382
Veteran Member - TDIClub Contributor
"Diesel Fuel Only" Sticker Recall (20R9) posted here.
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=357767
nyrussell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Location
- Orlando Fl and Weehawken NJ
- TDI
- 2009 TDI Loyal; 3208 Cat Marine and 8KW Onan
Thank You!!!
darrelld
Veteran Member
chudzikb
Veteran Member
There you have it folks, problem solved. Nothing to see here in this thread anymore! I think with those stickers installed on your cars you should be able to leap small buildings in a single bound, be more powerful than a locomotive, and of course be faster than a speeding bullet.
I truly do feel for you guys that currently own the sensitive generation of VW's.
I truly do feel for you guys that currently own the sensitive generation of VW's.
tico27464
Veteran Member
All I can say is this: 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$@*in9 sticker of all things, it will truly have been a monumental waste of time and money, and likely will not solve the problem. Hopefullly there's a more substantial remedy coming. I for one am not holding my breath.
~T
~T
GoFaster
Moderator at Large
No one knows whether this is intended to close out the NHTSA investigation. But, the NHTSA investigation will only close when NHTSA decides they should close it - not VW. If failures continue to happen, stickers or not, then people should keep on reporting them.
40X40
Experienced
Return Line Filter
A high pressure filter on the pump output would be ideal but difficult to implement. The return line filter on my car will hopefuly prevent damage to the difficult to replace parts. In case of HPFP failure only the pump an injectors should need to be replaced.
Second Turbo
Veteran Member
Stick Around
tico27464: > ... If years of NHTSA investigation (at the expense of the taxpayer), and years of VW bamboozling (at the expense of CR owners) results in a f$@*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 $10-20,000 dollars to design, print and mail the stickers. If they prevent only three fuel system implosions due to mis-fueling, it will be worth it.
> ...and likely will not solve the problem.
That depends on the definition of "problem", and from whose point of view. If, for example, VW thinks the problem is not the failures per se, but that so many are happening IN WARRANTY, then the sticker campaign may not solve the "problem", but will certainly reduce the impact (to VW).
> Hopefully there's a more substantial remedy coming.
Had the sticker campaign been part of a concluded settlement with NHTSA, I suspect that one or both parties would have said something. The economics alone suggest that it could be a purely VW-initiated action, but it could be part of a not yet fully agreed campaign.
> I for one am not holding my breath.
Everyone who did that died over two years ago.
tico27464: > ... If years of NHTSA investigation (at the expense of the taxpayer), and years of VW bamboozling (at the expense of CR owners) results in a f$@*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 $10-20,000 dollars to design, print and mail the stickers. If they prevent only three fuel system implosions due to mis-fueling, it will be worth it.
> ...and likely will not solve the problem.
That depends on the definition of "problem", and from whose point of view. If, for example, VW thinks the problem is not the failures per se, but that so many are happening IN WARRANTY, then the sticker campaign may not solve the "problem", but will certainly reduce the impact (to VW).
> Hopefully there's a more substantial remedy coming.
Had the sticker campaign been part of a concluded settlement with NHTSA, I suspect that one or both parties would have said something. The economics alone suggest that it could be a purely VW-initiated action, but it could be part of a not yet fully agreed campaign.
> I for one am not holding my breath.
Everyone who did that died over two years ago.
darrelld
Veteran Member
The letters that accompanied the stickers certainly indicated this is the case.tico27464: > ... If years of NHTSA investigation (at the expense of the taxpayer), and years of VW bamboozling (at the expense of CR owners) results in a f$@*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.
Folks, screw the stickers, lets keep on track here, HPFP failures. There is no way you can fix stupid people that misfuel with a sticker from inflicting self damage to their HPFP. We have stop lights that turn red, with a yellow to warn us before they turn red, and people still run red lights. They run stop signs also.... so what does that tell you?
This thread is about HPFP's that fail without ingression of gasoline, due to normal wear and tear.
This thread is about HPFP's that fail without ingression of gasoline, due to normal wear and tear.
Plus 3 Golfer
Veteran Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
Second Turbo
Veteran Member
Problem, what problem?
Niner: > This thread is about HPFP's that fail without ingression of gasoline, due to normal wear and tear.
No one is disputing that HPFPs fail without mis-fueling. But they do fail materially faster with a little RUG, and almost instantly with a lot of RUG.
This forum is for TDI news, which the sticker campaign is. We are just trying to read between the lines and see what the campaign implies. I suspect we've gleaned all that there is to read from these particular tea leaves.
This thread is about the HPFP, and the stickers are clearly intended to partially solve VW's problem with the HPFP, even if they do little or nothing to solve the CR's owner's problem.
______
... speaking as a potential CR owner, who is entirely unmoved by VW's stick it to the customer initiative.
Niner: > This thread is about HPFP's that fail without ingression of gasoline, due to normal wear and tear.
No one is disputing that HPFPs fail without mis-fueling. But they do fail materially faster with a little RUG, and almost instantly with a lot of RUG.
This forum is for TDI news, which the sticker campaign is. We are just trying to read between the lines and see what the campaign implies. I suspect we've gleaned all that there is to read from these particular tea leaves.
This thread is about the HPFP, and the stickers are clearly intended to partially solve VW's problem with the HPFP, even if they do little or nothing to solve the CR's owner's problem.
______
... speaking as a potential CR owner, who is entirely unmoved by VW's stick it to the customer initiative.
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.
Any commonality of brand of fuel used most consistently by those that had failures? Shell? chevron, Conoco Philips, Sinclair, Texaco, or base stock of crude oil that they refine? Texas, CA are oil producing states...