Diesel Jay

The standard fleet guides don't list anything about this, but the Vehicle Special Order (VSO) Department can do just about anything when it comes to specialty fleets. If you give your favorite parts guy enough doughnuts, he might be able to pull up some of the parts diagrams listing alternative aftertreatment components. - Jay

A lot of the EPA stuff is held strictly between the mfg'ers and the government. Very few of those issues makes it to the PR folks, for obvious reasons. Plus, it's all pretty complicated since the EPA can use discretion in how it views deficiencies, and the engine manufacturers can offset issues with credits. The documentation of it all is voluminous, but a lot of it is handled in face-to-face meetings and discussions. As far as the 6.4L, there are currently (4) deficiencies that are incurring fines. Each one is subject to a $100/defect/engine fine, so each engine is being fined $400. Of that, Ford is paying half and Nav is paying the other half. One of the big issues that triggered the audit has to do with why the Ford/Siemens aftertreatment logic is not catching all the failed DPF's. Plus, the logic itself is responsible for a high percentage of the failures. Because Nav has had issues with CARB/EPA in the past, they opted to fully audit the 6.4L, which is a monster expense to Ford/Nav. The audit has been going on for awhile now, and it's turning up other issues that need to be addressed. It may be awhile before everything is sorted out, but you'll end up seeing some "mandatory" reflashes at some point that address all of the emissions issues. - Jay

Background: Right now, CARB is conducting an exceptionally anal audit of the 6.4L, partly because it doesn't meet the emissions and diagnostics regs, and partly because they found another inadvertant "defeat device" in the 6.0L logic. As part of the audit, CARB wants Ford to tighten up the diagnostics regarding chips/tuners/whatever that attempt to alter or defeat the regen strategy. Once this is all ironed out, you're going to see some kind of mandatory emissions-related recall for all 6.4L's. So.... Here we are right now with the tuner guys scratching their head trying to understand the regen logic/strategy. By the time they get it figured out, Ford is going to change it all, which is going to really irritate those folks how have already purchased an aftermarket "defeat device." You can just imagine the howling that will stir up at that point.... - Jay

Quote: I am wondering if this is going to be a common problem??? You have no idea. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Thermal cycling and transients are killing the DPF. That's complicated by the fact that the 6.4L is fairly "dirty," and produces quite a bit of soot. To oxidize the soot via a regen, a bunch of fuel is needed for the reaction. But that large amount of fuel spikes temps in the DPF very quickly, which causes all sorts of things to fatigue in short order. It's not just the DPF, but rather, how Ford/Siemens are handling the aftertreatment strategy. Until both components are addressed, however, you'll probably see a high number of failed DPF's, which is not going to be cheap for Ford. - Jay

Until recently, I didn't realize that the EPA does not prohibit the use of a manual regen button in LD trucks. This actually common on MD trucks, but I thought that (for somewhat obvious reasons) the EPA would not certify it's use on the lighter trucks. Nope, it's 100% legal, but Ford/GM/Dodge have chosen not to use one. - Jay

Trust me, they want them back. With all the precious metals in them, they are not cheap. In fact, the OEM is trying to keep the aftermarket from making any sort of replacements by not releasing any of the specs. Your best bet is to troll the boneyards and find a guy willing to sell one. - Jay

Very, very, very slim chance that it makes it to production. When it comes to light-duty emissions, a diesel displacing any standard equipment gas engine must be as clean as the gasser in all categories. There is some wiggle room in there based on credits and such, but it's a very high hurdle for any diesel to meet. And the OBD-II diagnostics requirements are light years more complicated than the +8600lb GVWR engines. And Ford has zero, recent diesel experience. It will be a tall order... - Jay

When it comes to HPCR, if an injector tip breaks off or sticks open, the cylinder will overfuel and it becomes pretty easy to melt a piston and/or cause other kinds of damage. The trick is in crafting the diagnostics to quickly detect the condition and prevent damage, but it's far easier said than done. Beyond that, you have to rely on the QC of the injector mfg'er (Siemens) to prevent the injectors from failing. - Jay

I love that thread as a source of amusement. I wish I had more to offer on diagnostics for you guys, but Ford cut Nav completely out of the picture when it came to the aftertreatment system. Ford & Siemens worked on those controls, so we'll have to wait for the OBDII Theory and Operation details. - Jay

That sounds an awful lot like a bad injector that's leaking fuel into the cylinder, possibly even when the engine is off. No fuel knocks or anything that sounds odd? All other tests look normal? I'll run it by some Nav folks and see if they have any ideas. - Jay

Quote: He should know better than to take it personally.. I didn't take it personally, since this is just the "internets." I just happened to fit the described "mold" and didn't know in which direction the vitriol was aimed. Understand that I have no stake in TDS, nor in Ford or Nav. I have contacts & friends in all three, but that really means that I "serve no master." Mostly, I just try to clarify the things that get muddled when loyalties sway to one entity or the other. Heck, unlike most here, I derive no income from anything I relate -- I'm just the messenger. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif - Jay

Quote: Well I wonder how long it's going to take before some prick feels the need to leak this out to all of the diesel web sites like some kind of modern day Paul Fucking Revere! Hmmm...guess I know where I stand now. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif - Jay

Across (5) stores you've delivered 1500 6.4L's already? WOW!!! Your sales guys must be living high on the hog!! - Jay

You're lucky you didn't post this on TDS, otherwise we'd all be calling you a "troll" until you provided us the VIN of the truck. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rofl.gif - Jay

Quote: There is a rumour floating around that the 6.4L will be cancelled for 2009. This may sound stupid, but I've heard that NISSAN may be Ford's next diesel engine supplier. Naw, Nissan is actually working with Nav to use the V6 in their half-ton-equivalent truck. However, given the upcoming emissions and diagnostics standards, it's not a product [or engine] with a lot of promise. As for the 6.4L, Ford is hell-bent on canning the Nav relationship by '10 and designing their own 7.2L V8 diesel. Interestingly, though, they may sub-contract the production of the engine back to Nav. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shrug.gif Quote: The DuraMax has had over 20 years of in-house development. Jim, where'd you get that one? Dmax is a customer of mine, so I can ask them, but I know the company hasn't been around anywhere near that long! - Jay

Quote: I wish Ford would pay attention to what it is doing with these limits and the changes that are occurring. I am curious as to if this speed limit with the new calibration is real and if it was intentional or some kind of oversight. I suspect that mixups of this nature are going to get worse, not better. Ford & Nav engineers are no longer allowed to speak directly with each other, and all phone calls between the two companies are now recorded. The relationship is in uncharted waters. In spite of this, Ford has approached Nav about the contract for '10 [even though the current one runs to '12]. I don't have the details, but the rumor is that Ford has realized that producing 250-300K engines a year is hard to do, and few mfg'ers can accomodate that kind of capacity. Ford is dead set on designing their own engine, but the idea is that they may subcontract out the production to Nav so that Nav would be producing a Ford-designed engine. We'll see. How's the saying go, "may you live in interesting times?" - Jay

Maybe I'm missing something, but what legitimate gripe does an owner have if the speed limiter was dropped from 90+ to 85mph? Both exceed the speed limit in every state except some of the rural western areas. Basically, on what grounds is the customer going to complain, that Ford doesn't let them break the law by a large enough margin? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif - Jay

There's a solid chance that injector problems could end up being pretty common on the 6.4L. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

This will look vaguely familiar to those of you who wrenched through injector leaks on the 6.0L. Click Here - Jay

Quote: I removed the drivers side cylinder head to find why 2 holes had no, as in 0, compression. I have some pictures and will try to put together a post on the repair later. It may be a few days till the vehicle is back on the road, though. I'm guessing blown injector tips that either punched holes in the piston or seriously scoured up the cylinder walls? - Jay

Huh, you're right -- it's gone now! However, I did save a copy of the PDF, yesterday, if anyone wants a copy or if it can be posted here on the site. Let me know... - Jay

Hmmm.... They only give you guys (1) hour of labor for this new one. I haven't crawled around on a 6.4L to see how easy those down pipes are to get to. - Jay

Every engineer that I know at Nav, Dmax and CAT frowns upon any sort of fuel and/or oil supplements. They don't design the engines around anything other than commerically available fuel & lubes, nor do they test any of these aftermarket products. So, there are no assurances that they won't do any harm -- short term or long term. One engineer noted something that made a lot of sense to me -- if the refineries could put something in the fuel that decreased wear, or improved mileage or, <<insert snake oil salesman claims here>> why wouldn't they? It would cost them pennies per gallon for the volume they'd buy, and they could either jack up the price to cover it or market it as a special/premium product. So what keeps them from doing that? The answer is that, basically, any benefits to using these additives are dubious at best, and might be potentially harmful. In any event, I'd be sure to ask the rep about how the products mesh with the new '07 diesel injection and emissions systems. Will it alter the oil chemistry, and if so, in what way? Have they submitted anything to the oil companies to confirm compatibility? Has it been tested with the brand new Siemens injection system that no one up until Ford has used? If so, over how many miles? What happens to the products when they hit the DPF since, remember, raw fuel gets dumped into the exhaust now? Do they have any independent studies to back up the claims? Remind him that these are now $50K+ trucks that we're messing with, so just dumping gunk in the fuel tank could produce some expensive repair bills for the owner. Will Ford/GM/Dodge warrant all fuel system repairs if their products are found in the fuel? Etc... Honestly, I don't think you'll get anything but "slick" answers. But, if they're really above board and can provide independent studies/data, that gives us all something to evaluate. However, I wouldn't bet on anything of that nature being offered up. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif - Jay

I was told by some folks at Nav that the video originated from a dealer in the Indianapolis area. If anybody works there, or has fellow tech friends in that area, you might be able to get some add'l details as to the failure. As you might expect, the folks in Reliability at Nav are being pretty tight-lipped about the incident. - Jay

I just talked with a Nav buddy who has seen it. He was a little skeptical when I first asked him about the issue, but he's a believer now! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif