NHTSA Update on CR HPFP failure investigation

[Mrrogers1]

So when or if VW replaces the HPFP and the entire fuel system. There is still a good chance that it will fail again?

If this is the case, then there has to be a way to prevent this from ever happening. Otherwise why keep the car???!

I truly feel like the only way is to guarantee the quality of your fuel. I had already used additives in every tank in my older TDI so doing the same here, in my 09 wasn't a big deal. Hard to say if guaranteed fully lubricated full is what is saving me BUT I haven't seen anyone that religiously used lubricant report failure.

It would seem to be a combo (unluck of the draw) of the sensitive fuel pump and fuel that can have an acceptable range for "most" pumps but not ours.

 

[Hayter]

I truly feel like the only way is to guarantee the quality of your fuel. I had already used additives in every tank in my older TDI so doing the same here, in my 09 wasn't a big deal. Hard to say if guaranteed fully lubricated full is what is saving me BUT I haven't seen anyone that religiously used lubricant report failure.
It would seem to be a combo (unluck of the draw) of the sensitive fuel pump and fuel that can have an acceptable range for "most" pumps but not ours.

I really like the car when its running and running right. However if it has these flaws, i don't understand the popularity of the vehicle or the TDI.

Personally, I think I will still be jumping ship from the TDI due to the MANY engineering flaws the motor appears to have. I hope that for everyone else's sake that really continues to love the TDI, that it doesn't happen to you.

I did notice the similarities in the huge list of people that have had this happen. No additive, and buying fuel all over the place instead of a good location. (myself included in that group). Perhaps it is just a simple issue of manditory fuel filter replacement at every 10K miles, one specific brand of fuel at all times, along with a mandatory use of the Opti-Lube fuel additive.

 

[Mrrogers1]

I really like the car when its running and running right. However if it has these flaws, i don't understand the popularity of the vehicle or the TDI.

Personally, I think I will still be jumping ship from the TDI due to the MANY engineering flaws the motor appears to have. I hope that for everyone else's sake that really continues to love the TDI, that it doesn't happen to you.

I did notice the similarities in the huge list of people that have had this happen. No additive, and buying fuel all over the place instead of a good location. (myself included in that group). Perhaps it is just a simple issue of manditory fuel filter replacement at every 10K miles, one specific brand of fuel at all times, along with a mandatory use of the Opti-Lube fuel additive.

I'll buy another 2009-2013 TDI Jetta as I have had no serious issues to speak of in almost 165k.the fuel pump is the weakest link and our fuel supply in the states exacerbates to weakness. We (VW TDI folks) aren't the only ones seeing pump failure.

You are probably right about filling up at many different places and the no lube. I fill at 4 different stations, 2 Shell and 2 BP depending on where I am and I use 8oz of Howes Lube/anti-gel and 2oz Howes Meaner Kleener in every tank. Small price to pay (though Indian this same cocktail in my 2006 TDI) for a little piece of mind that could prove to be misplaced trust but my Jetta TDI has been very good to me.

Sent from my SM-T217S using Tapatalk

 

[bluey]

So when or if VW replaces the HPFP and the entire fuel system. There is still a good chance that it will fail again?

If this is the case, then there has to be a way to prevent this from ever happening. Otherwise why keep the car???!

As far as I can glean from reading about this problem, it is probably caused by the low lubricity of diesel fuel available in USA. There is a Bosch presentation - slide 12 clearly shows HPFP wear related to lubricity or lack of it. www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/meeting/2003/022003bosch.pdf

So the simple answer is to make sure to add a lubricity improver. IIRC 2% biodiesel is as good as any. With acceptable fuel lubricity, there should be no major issue.

And keep the gasoline away from the diesel tank. While it is reported that a link could not be found to misfuels, it seems likely that a misfuel and driving the vehicle until it stops must cause some additional wear to the HPFP. How long that would take to result in an HPFP failure should be the subject of someone's research. Probably VW is using the excuse of misfuelling to try to escape liability for letting people run the TDIs in a low lubricity diesel environment without recommending a lubricity improver.

 

[tadawson]

Note that the Bosch paper is fron 2003 - pre ULSD in the US, so not sure how relevant the sample figures are at this point . . .

- Tim

 

[bluey]

Note that the Bosch paper is fron 2003 - pre ULSD in the US, so not sure how relevant the sample figures are at this point . . .

- Tim

The "Pump Wear vs. Lubricity over Lifetime" data applies to lubricity. Doesn't care what causes the lubricity value. You'd like to have a lubricity value better than HFRR 450.

This paper describes various additives which can be used to improve the lubricity of ULSD. See the 2% bio reduces the HFRR to 221.
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/76.../177728-lubricity-additive-study-results.html

 

[tditom]

I truly feel like the only way is to guarantee the quality of your fuel. I had already used additives in every tank in my older TDI so doing the same here, in my 09 wasn't a big deal. Hard to say if guaranteed fully lubricated full is what is saving me BUT I haven't seen anyone that religiously used lubricant report failure.
It would seem to be a combo (unluck of the draw) of the sensitive fuel pump and fuel that can have an acceptable range for "most" pumps but not ours.

As far as I can glean from reading about this problem, it is probably caused by the low lubricity of diesel fuel available in USA. There is a Bosch presentation - slide 12 clearly shows HPFP wear related to lubricity or lack of it. www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/meeting/2003/022003bosch.pdf
So the simple answer is to make sure to add a lubricity improver. IIRC 2% biodiesel is as good as any. With acceptable fuel lubricity, there should be no major issue...

While I don't disagree with the wisdom of ensuring adequate lubricity (see link in my sig), I have to disagree with the notion that there is a "simple guarantee" to avoiding this problem. There are plenty of folks on the HPFP failure thread who did use lubricity additives regularly and still had failures. This tells me that it is more than a lubricity issue.

 

[tditom]

Note that the Bosch paper is fron 2003 - pre ULSD in the US, so not sure how relevant the sample figures are at this point . . .

- Tim

The "Pump Wear vs. Lubricity over Lifetime" data applies to lubricity. Doesn't care what causes the lubricity value. You'd like to have a lubricity value better than HFRR 450.
This paper describes various additives which can be used to improve the lubricity of ULSD. See the 2% bio reduces the HFRR to 221.
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/76.../177728-lubricity-additive-study-results.html

I agree with bluey. Lubricity is an important factor in component life.

We did not have a lubricity standard in the US before 2005. That 2003 Bosch paper was the argument for compliance with the 460 micron max wear scar employed by the rest of the civilized world. I talked to one of the authors of that presentation and he told me that ultimately Bosch went along with the other parties in that discussion and settled on the 520 micron max wear scar for US fuel.

I agree with Bosch and the other fuel injection manufacturers that you really want the wear scar <400 micron for max service life on these systems.

 

[boomer1]

Has anyone correlated the failures with states that require/don't require biodiesel additives. Here in PA we require 2% biodiesel and I am wondering what the failure rate of the HPFPs are in this stae because of that?

Does anyone have this information?? I presume VWofA has it.

 

[tadawson]

I never disagreed with the concept, just the observations on US fuel lubricity, since that fuel (LSD) is no longer legal for sale . . . I have seen test data here for ULSD, which is far more relevant than 12 year old test data . . .

- Tim

 

[tditom]

I never disagreed with the concept, just the observations on US fuel lubricity, since that fuel (LSD) is no longer legal for sale . . . I have seen test data here for ULSD, which is far more relevant than 12 year old test data . . .

- Tim

The difference is that the data you've seen from the Infineum reports gives us a snapshot in time of how the lubricity is at a given time, and general trends. The Bosch report tells us WHY lubricity is important. Especially now that all we have standing between the ravages of ULSD and your fuel injection components is the lubricity additive loaded onto the tanker at the fuel distribution terminal loading rack.

 

[Lightflyer1]

and if the fuel (lubricity or lack thereof) were actually as bad as some make it out to be here in the US (now), these things should be failing like gangbusters. But they aren't. I would venture to say that lubricity has some part in the overall failures but something else is happening as well. That something plays a much larger role in the failure scheme. If misfueling with small percentages of gasoline (low lubricity) doesn't kill the pump as they tested it in the NHTSA case, I would assume that low lubricity straight D2 probably won't either, at least in the short term. It is as of yet undetermined what is killing the pumps.

 

[bluey]

There are plenty of folks on the HPFP failure thread who did use lubricity additives regularly and still had failures. This tells me that it is more than a lubricity issue.

Looking at the dieselplace research, many lubricity improvers did not reduce the lubricity of the base fuel sufficiently to get HFRR below 450-460 - only the top 5 are in the ballpark. And one made it worse!
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/76.../177728-lubricity-additive-study-results.html

So to be systematic we'd need to look at all the failure cases in particular for those using additives - history of misfuels, fuel sources, exact additive used.

Has anyone using 2% biodiesel reported a HPFP failure?

 

[tditom]

Looking at the dieselplace research, many lubricity improvers did not reduce the lubricity of the base fuel sufficiently to get HFRR below 450-460 - only the top 5 are in the ballpark. And one made it worse!
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/76-...y-results.html

So to be systematic we'd need to look at all the failure cases in particular for those using additives - history of misfuels, fuel sources, exact additive used.

Has anyone using 2% biodiesel reported a HPFP failure?

I'd take that study with a large grain of salt. It's been discussed at length here and the weaknesses are well known. Not to say it isn't helpful but since only one sample was tested on each type it certainly cannot be viewed as scientific proof.

I do believe we've seen documented failures in states that have mandatory biodiesel content.

 

[waltzconmigo]

So when or if VW replaces the HPFP and the entire fuel system. There is still a good chance that it will fail again?

If this is the case, then there has to be a way to prevent this from ever happening. Otherwise why keep the car???!

Hayter---read the thread linked below, there is a way to limit the collateral damage. I am not sure what availability is for 2micron's product or what the wait time would be.

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=375803

 

[atc98002]

Has anyone using 2% biodiesel reported a HPFP failure?

Here in WA, all D2 contains at least 2%. There have been some reports from our state.

On the other hand, my daughter accidentally filled her Jetta with RUG, and drove it 7-8 miles. It wouldn't restart, and it was towed to the dealer. After draining the tank and flushing all the lines, it's been fine for 3 years now. The mechanic pulled the head off the HPFP to check for damage (any flaking metal or other signs of failure) and found none. So even a mis-fuel isn't guaranteed to destroy the pump. Yeah, she may have just lucked out, but that car has about 90,000 miles on it now. Not sure the mileage when it happened, but in three years I'm sure they've put at least 35,000 on it.

 

[roostre]

......
Has anyone using 2% biodiesel reported a HPFP failure?

Here in WA, all D2 contains at least 2%. There have been some reports from our state.
......

From what I understand, Washington State's 2% Biodiesel mandate does not mean we have B2 at all or any fueling stations. The mandate is based on the annual sales volumes of all blends of diesel type fuels and does not mandate any specific fuel blend. It just requires that out of the total amount of diesel type fuels sold, that after calculating the biodiesel component, that the amount of biodiesel must be at least 2% of the total amount of diesel type fuel sold that year. So in essence if enough straight 100% biodiesel can be sold, then no B2, B5, B20, or B99 fuel blends would ever need to be sold.

From the Revised Code of Washington State RCW 19.112.110

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.112.110

"at least two percent of the total annual diesel fuel sold in Washington is biodiesel or renewable diesel fuel"

 

[atc98002]

From what I understand, Washington State's 2% Biodiesel mandate does not mean we have B2 at all or any fueling stations. The mandate is based on the annual sales volumes of all blends of diesel type fuels and does not mandate any specific fuel blend. It just requires that out of the total amount of diesel type fuels sold, that after calculating the biodiesel component, that the amount of biodiesel must be at least 2% of the total amount of diesel type fuel sold that year. So in essence if enough straight 100% biodiesel can be sold, then no B2, B5, B20, or B99 fuel blends would ever need to be sold.

From the Revised Code of Washington State RCW 19.112.110

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.112.110

"at least two percent of the total annual diesel fuel sold in Washington is biodiesel or renewable diesel fuel"

Very possible. However, at every station I purchase D2 from there is a sticker on the pump "claiming" that the fuel contains at least 2% BD. No idea if your info is correct and overrides what is listed on the pump. I would love to know the answer for sure.

I don't know how much B100 is still available around here. There used to be a station near me that had it, but their price was always at least $1 higher than D2 and they don't carry it any more. The next closest pump was in Fife, but I haven't checked it in years, since I haven't had a B100 capable engine for about 7 years. Somehow I doubt the total B100 sales in this state amount to much!

 

[Lightflyer1]

Probably the phrase "at least" will come into play here. It says nothing about selling more than 2%, which is probably the case.

 

[bluey]

[...]Not to say it isn't helpful but since only one sample was tested on each type it certainly cannot be viewed as scientific proof.
I do believe we've seen documented failures in states that have mandatory biodiesel content.

Is there a better study with contrary results?

I'm not aware that any other countries (which have better diesel lubricity standards) are reporting high rates of HPFP failures.

 

[tditom]

Is there a better study with contrary results?..

I'm unaware of any such study, but I was referring to the Spicer results that had an FPPF product making lubricity worse. That manufacturer has previously shared data on their product that is contrary to the Spicer test.

...I'm not aware that any other countries (which have better diesel lubricity standards) are reporting high rates of HPFP failures.

I don't know how anyone would track the occurrence of such a failure in all countries. That's not to say that lubricity doesn't play a role in the failures reported here. My point was that it is not as simple as guaranteeing <460 micron wear scar. There are too many occurrences of failure where folks did ensure fuel lubricity.
Take a look at the Infineum fuel report. It shows fuel sample data from all over the world. The US isn't as bad as I'd feared. There are other countries with fuel as bad or worse. Again- I support diesel additives when one can't be sure that their fuel is up to snuff. I just don't think doing so will guarantee the CR tdi HPFP will stay intact.

 

[ATR]

I posted about the importance of filtration a while ago...

Here's my thread on the issue:
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=410062

 

[Lightflyer1]

You and Smokin_Joe seemed to have a discussion anyways. Not many others buying in to the idea that our already heavily filtered fuel needs more filtering.

 

[JSWTDI09]

Theories and studies aside, I think one of the most telling "clues" as to HPFP failures is in the data we have here at TDIClub. We have many Canadian members and VW sells lots of TDIs in Canada. We have reports of well over 200 HPFP failures in the US and under a dozen reports of HPFP failures in Canada (last time I checked). Our cars (US & Canada) come out of the exact same factory with the exact same pumps. The only significant differences between the US cars and the Canadian ones are ambient average temperature (its colder up north) and fuel lubricity specifications (Canada requires better lubricity). Fuel temperature might be a factor, but most of the focus is on lubricity because of what Bosch says (they make our HPFPs) about lubricity vs. pump life.
The sad part is that US fuel is often not bad. The problem is the very high variability in fuel. One tanker truck might have excellent lubricity and the next tanker truck to deliver to a station might have terrible lubricity. When they did fuel samples from all over the country - many tested very good and a few tested frighteningly bad. When you pull up at a pump, you just never know what you are getting. Even filling up at the same station all the time, the fuel quality could vary significantly from one week to the next.

Have Fun!

Don

 

[Smokin_Joe]

You and Smokin_Joe seemed to have a discussion anyways. Not many others buying in to the idea that our already heavily filtered fuel needs more filtering.

Key thing to remember is containment.
Nothing wrong with protecting your investment. If you can remove contaminants right before it goes into the HPFP or from circulating throughout the fuel system you will be further ahead in the long run.

If many others were not buying into the idea of filtration being better for long life and secure motoring. Fass and many others like it would be out of business.
You mentioned heavily filtered fuel?
Could you please expand on exactly how we are supposed to interpret that?
Heavily filtered fuel is only as good as the last container it was in....
Old advert used to say:
"You can pay me now or you can pay me later"

 

[ATR]

You and Smokin_Joe seemed to have a discussion anyways. Not many others buying in to the idea that our already heavily filtered fuel needs more filtering.

Have you even bothered to read the articles I linked to???

Some good reading to see exactly why excellent fuel filtration is a requirement for diesels:
Part 1:
http://nicktane.com/osc/images/HDT_article_10-10-03.pdf
Part 2:
http://nicktane.com/osc/images/February HDT Fuel Article Part II.pdf

I'm going to stand firm in my opinion that upgrading fuel filtration is a very good idea. Please read those articles to see why I believe this.

 

[Smokin_Joe]

Theories and studies aside, I think one of the most telling "clues" as to HPFP failures is in the data we have here at TDIClub. We have many Canadian members and VW sells lots of TDIs in Canada. We have reports of well over 200 HPFP failures in the US and under a dozen reports of HPFP failures in Canada (last time I checked). Our cars (US & Canada) come out of the exact same factory with the exact same pumps. The only significant differences between the US cars and the Canadian ones are ambient average temperature (its colder up north) and fuel lubricity specifications (Canada requires better lubricity). Fuel temperature might be a factor, but most of the focus is on lubricity because of what Bosch says (they make our HPFPs) about lubricity vs. pump life.
The sad part is that US fuel is often not bad. The problem is the very high variability in fuel. One tanker truck might have excellent lubricity and the next tanker truck to deliver to a station might have terrible lubricity. When they did fuel samples from all over the country - many tested very good and a few tested frighteningly bad. When you pull up at a pump, you just never know what you are getting. Even filling up at the same station all the time, the fuel quality could vary significantly from one week to the next.

Have Fun!

Don

This is true Don.
I personally think it is a flaw in the design, supply chain, and manufacture of the HPFP pump and related fuel system.
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=410742
(My lift pump had rusting rods in the fuel tank.)
This flaw (or flaws) makes it .....more susceptible to imperfections in the quality of the fuel as well as moisture in the air.
You don't see components rusting, within the fuel system, on highway tractors.
If you did it would be corrected ASAP.
IMO.... I feel better components would have eliminated these problems.

 

[Mrrogers1]

While I don't disagree with the wisdom of ensuring adequate lubricity (see link in my sig), I have to disagree with the notion that there is a "simple guarantee" to avoiding this problem. There are plenty of folks on the HPFP failure thread who did use lubricity additives regularly and still had failures. This tells me that it is more than a lubricity issue.

Not saying there is ANY 100% guarantee (beside a different car with another set of low risk, high cost issues) but "Regularly" OR "Religiously"? Since we know residual effects are out the door (every other tank use), just wondering where the report of someone who *religiously* used additives were. I don't recall seeing them though this is one long thread, I've been following for awhile, years awhile.

 

[JSWTDI09]

This is true Don.
I personally think it is a flaw in the design, supply chain, and manufacture of the HPFP pump and related fuel system.

Oh, there is no doubt that there are weaknesses in the design (and perhaps manufacturing) of our fuel systems. This is why my car has the 2micron fuel sysem mods installed. It is also why I am glad I live in a place where moisture (in any form) is rare.

Design engineers are almost never allowed to design things the way they would like. There are always compromises. Most commonly these compromises boil down to quality vs. cost. That rod in the tank is a good example. I am fairly certain that the design engineers originally specified stainless steel for that rod, but along the way in the design process it was decided that cheaper alternative materials would work. The bean counter who made this decision probably never met the design engineer or the people who designed the rest of the fuel system. The downstream effects of his change never occured to him/her. The sad part is that in the end, cutting a dollar or two off the cost of manufacturing the fuel sender unit probably earned some guy a raise or a promotion. I have seen similar processes occur over and over in my career. Sometimes they work out OK and sometimes they result in serious problems.

Have Fun!

Don

 

[tditom]

Not saying there is ANY 100% guarantee (beside a different car with another set of low risk, high cost issues) but "Regularly" OR "Religiously"? Since we know residual effects are out the door (every other tank use), just wondering where the report of someone who *religiously* used additives were. I don't recall seeing them though this is one long thread, I've been following for awhile, years awhile.

Well that's not how I read your previous post:

I truly feel like the only way is to guarantee the quality of your fuel. I had already used additives in every tank in my older TDI so doing the same here, in my 09 wasn't a big deal. Hard to say if guaranteed fully lubricated full is what is saving me BUT I haven't seen anyone that religiously used lubricant report failure.
It would seem to be a combo (unluck of the draw) of the sensitive fuel pump and fuel that can have an acceptable range for "most" pumps but not ours.

I looked through the the first few hundred posts (out of around 770) on the failure list thread and found 15 folks who claimed to have used additives or biodiesel regularly. (I did not count the ones who used them occasionally). I'm just saying that since additives were used on more than one or two of these, then we cannot conclude that additives are any sort of guarantee against HPFP failure. It's good practice but certainly no guarantee.