Kool_ZX3 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Why is everyone blaming navistar for this, or ford? Ford or navistar can't forsee injectors(being made by siemens i believe) leaking, and diesel pooling up in the particulate filter then catching fire.... The particulate filter i imagine must need to run at high temps(like a cat) to take all the harmful gases etc... out of the exhaust. We were bound to see some teeting problems here and there with this engine since it's new.... A few leaking injectors out of 67,200 injectors? Not bad.... If a engine has leaky injector now, atleast now the filter won't catch fire or shoot flames out the pipe. The problems have nothing to do with a poor navistar design.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5land Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Has to do with the new REGEN system for cleaning out the particulate filter. It's generating TOO much heat. Have had one customer describe the 3 foot flames from tailpipe so far. This regen system is supposed to operate as often as every 600 to 800km or at least every fuel fill! This flash is supposed to somehow drop the operating temp of the regen process. Is going to effect the regen and plug this filter more often? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 This is not a design flaw. This is a failure of QC. QC is ultimately on Ford, in the same way that the performance of Ford Motor Co. is on the shoulders of Alan Mulally. No one expects Mulally to do everyone else's job; no one should expect Ford QC reps to do all the QC work for their suppliers either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5land Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 This is not a design flaw. This is a failure of QC. QC is ultimately on Ford, in the same way that the performance of Ford Motor Co. is on the shoulders of Alan Mulally. No one expects Mulally to do everyone else's job; no one should expect Ford QC reps to do all the QC work for their suppliers either. A simple "flash" gonna FIX this problem? I think I lost count of the 6.0 flashes..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01FOCI Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Did Ford morgage the F-series plant? If so, better start packing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarepackard Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 (edited) Did Ford morgage the F-series plant? If so, better start packing... I think this is being blown out of proportion, this is being addressed very early on and will affect a total of three days worth of sells. Majority of SD owners I have heard from are extremely pleased with the performance of thier trucks with a few already logging considerable mileage. Teething problems I agree, but the sky is not falling and from all indications it can be fixed with the reflash. If you are not familiar with the regen process you might want to look into it, Dodge and Gm are doing the same thing with basically the same type of system. I'm going to speculate they too will have their teething problems. Edited March 22, 2007 by jarepackard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertlane Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 (edited) I think this is being blown out of proportion. . . I tend to agree with you. Most of us hate to see this kind of news tied to a new engine, which is installed in a product that is so critically important to Ford. Everyone has made really good arguments that show either Ford or Navistar is to blame. But you have to consider that a few weeks ago, we had Ford and Navistar in court trading punches and now a stop sale and safety recall have been issued. Coincidental, but it doesn't look good. Because of Ford's history with the 6.0L Powerstroke, from a general view, it doesn't matter if a few hundred or a few thousands trucks are involved. . .potential customers might be turned off by this....or at least suspicious. Edited March 22, 2007 by robertlane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I say 3 years from today. 18 months if it was really pushed. But that would not be a clean sheet engine but an existing one. As I have said numerous times, time to dump Navi. The Volvo Penta 5.5L is a viable replacement but will need work for road apps. Matthew Dump Navistar: Agreed. It is easier for Ford to control quality if they design and build an engine (or any other part) in-house. The Volvo Penta is a great marine diesel because it was designed to be a marine diesel, as such it may be very difficult to re-design it to get it to pass the tough new diesel emission requirements for road use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 If Ford owns the Power Stroke design, then they should take their design on the road and shop it to another manufacturer such as Aisin, Volvo, or one of the many other engine manufacturers that can build this engine to a higher degree of QC than Navistar can muster. Better yet, re-tool one of the plants slated for closure and VIOLA....built in house! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Why is everyone blaming navistar for this, or ford? Ford or navistar can't forsee injectors(being made by siemens i believe) leaking, and diesel pooling up in the particulate filter then catching fire.... The particulate filter i imagine must need to run at high temps(like a cat) to take all the harmful gases etc... out of the exhaust. We were bound to see some teeting problems here and there with this engine since it's new.... A few leaking injectors out of 67,200 injectors? Not bad.... If a engine has leaky injector now, atleast now the filter won't catch fire or shoot flames out the pipe. The problems have nothing to do with a poor navistar design.... This is the reason that American companies are losing sells. "It's not my fault." "A few out of 67K is not bad." "At least the filter won't catch fire now." If I used that mentality in my job, only a few people out of 67,000 would get killed. I guess I could reply, "Well, at least they didn't catch on fire!!" And we wonder why people don't trust or want to buy American. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 A simple "flash" gonna FIX this problem? I think I lost count of the 6.0 flashes..... I just had number four flash done last week on my '05 PSD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I tend to agree with you. Because of Ford's history with the 6.0L Powerstroke, from a general view, it doesn't matter if a few hundred or a few thousands trucks are involved. . .potential customers might be turned off by this....or at least suspicious. Bingo!!! If your buddy just got blown up in a mine field, you should take your time and make sure your next step it safe. Instead, it appears that Ford took off like, "A white guy trying to brake dance," through a mine field. How it should be done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordtech1 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I am sure this is due to the exhaust tempatures when the truck goes into regenerative mode. Its a mode to clean the particulate filter in the exhaust. The problem is when this happens, the exhaust temp in very very hot. I am sure this is just a reprogram to keep regenerative mode to only happen at highway speeds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilge Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 (edited) Are these trucks even tested before a release?? How can ya not catch flames shooting out of the tialpipe?? Every dang person involved in the QC should be fired. These trucks are the bulk of the oilfield at the moment, but two years from now I see a whole different truck landscape appearing. Can't wait to see what happens in a pasture full of grass and oil wells, can Ford afford to pay for a few dozen oilwells that cost anywhere from 1-3 million each to drill and install production equipment?? Just on a well location, there are several different sources of ignition to burn the well down, now lets add 2 foot flames shooting out of the exhaust on Ford trucks. This is lame to say the least. And customers will flock away from the truck now if they really work out of them and travel in a pasture or other combustible location. Edited March 22, 2007 by bilge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Quote RJ talking about the slow launch of the F-250(or making excuses for it) and as usual trying to deflect the blame to another of the Big 2.5. Wrong again as usual. "No, but it is a recent launch of a GM product that has had a recall within months of job 1. Ford's batch and hold launch strategy is, by its very nature, going to cause a supply disruption during launch. The decision to have such a shortfall was a conscious tradeoff made by Ford execs, in exchange for what has proved to be superb launch quality." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Quote RJ talking about the slow launch of the F-250(or making excuses for it) and as usual trying to deflect the blame to another of the Big 2.5. Wrong again as usual. "No, but it is a recent launch of a GM product that has had a recall within months of job 1. Ford's batch and hold launch strategy is, by its very nature, going to cause a supply disruption during launch. The decision to have such a shortfall was a conscious tradeoff made by Ford execs, in exchange for what has proved to be superb launch quality." Eh, to be fair, even "superb" quality doesn't mean perfect. Even you must admit that the launches (overall) have been a heck of a lot better in recent years for Ford. The Five Hundred, Mustang, and Fusion continue to roll along without many issues cropping up even after a couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Eh, to be fair, even "superb" quality doesn't mean perfect. Even you must admit that the launches (overall) have been a heck of a lot better in recent years for Ford. The Five Hundred, Mustang, and Fusion continue to roll along without many issues cropping up even after a couple of years. OK. So this utter disaster in what is probably Fords most important product is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 OK. So this utter disaster in what is probably Fords most important product is good. No. It's very very BAD news. And you obviously completely overlooked the intentional "(overall)" I put in my statement. This is BAD BAD BAD news. But looking at the BIG picture (come on, try it for once) you have to admit that the quality appears to be improving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeMac Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 QUOTEJarvis said the flames could only occur in engines with leaking fluids, which he said was very rare. Two of the complaints involved leaking fuel injectors and the other involved leaks coming from a crack in the turbocharger shaft. The automaker will have dealers upgrade software for the powertrain control module, which will power down the engine under higher-than-expected temperatures in the diesel particulate filter. Similar software updates will take place at the Louisville, Ky., plant where the trucks are built. That explains the flames. Fuel from the leaking injectors and/or oil leaking from the turbo would exo-therm off of the catalyzed PM trap. Even if the trap is not in active regen, throwing fuel at it will light it off if the trap's bed temperature is above about 250C. Throwing fuel at the trap IS active regeneration. Leaking fuel onto the trap does the same thing, but in an uncontrolled manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 22, 2007 Author Share Posted March 22, 2007 service dept STILL waiting on bulletins and instructions............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 22, 2007 Author Share Posted March 22, 2007 new advertisment.....Tony Soprano standing behind a Superduty unloading a clip from a 9mm into the tailgate, chuckles to himself and says aloud "Hah, Ford aint so Tough huh?"....then someone starts the truck....BOOM, pan out...charred Tony w no eyebrows and smouldering hair.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 22, 2007 Author Share Posted March 22, 2007 ..... :happy feet: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 (edited) Dump Navistar: Agreed. It is easier for Ford to control quality if they design and build an engine (or any other part) in-house. The Volvo Penta is a great marine diesel because it was designed to be a marine diesel, as such it may be very difficult to re-design it to get it to pass the tough new diesel emission requirements for road use. Marine Diesel yes that equals engines that would basically be indestructable in road use. Emmsion Problems NO. All the New Penta diesels are designed to be Euro 4 compliant and Euro 5 capable, the EU4 and EU5 ratings are equivelent to the US regs. Meeting Emmsions will not be an issue. Even with no cats the 5.5L is advertaized as being soot free even under acceleration. The engine was designed to meet future tightening emmision standards Volvo is years ahead of any NA manufacturer when it comes to Diesel tech and that includes emmsions . Hell they were gettng 285 hp out of the old 3.6L inline 6 that ended prodction in 2005. Seems to me the Auto manufactures are working hard to get the same HP out the equivelnetly sized V6 gas engines now. Hmm now there might be a cheap and easy way for Ford to get a Diesel in the F 150's buy the rights to the old Penta 3.6L and modernize it for use in the F-150. Matthew Edited March 23, 2007 by matthewq4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F250 Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Marine Diesel yes that equals engines that would basically be indestructable in road use. Emmsion Problems NO. All the New Penta diesels are designed to be Euro 4 compliant and Euro 5 capable, the EU4 and EU5 ratings are equivelent to the US regs. Meeting Emmsions will not be an issue. Even with no cats the 5.5L is advertaized as being soot free even under acceleration. I hope you aren't talking about marine emission standards because compaired to road vehicles they are a joke. The 2003 Mercruiser 250HP V8 (gasoline) in my boat has a carburetor with a PCV valve as the only emission control device and it scored a marine 3-star ultra low emission rating by the California Air Resource Board (CARB). Marine emission standards are very different, no cats, no EGR, no air pumps, and engines that are fuel injected don't even have closed loop operation (no 02 sensors) and they pass all 2007 emission standards. Marine manufacturers are finally phasing out carburetors next year. Besides, Ford only bought Volvo's automotive division, Ford has no interest in Volvo Penta or Volvo's truck division, so they would again be dealing with an outside company and have limited control. I think Ford should design and build their own diesel engines in-house where quality can be controlled. Like someone already said, keep one of the plants scheduled for closing open, invest the money INSIDE FORD for a change instead of sharing the development with an outside company and build the best damn diesel engines right here in America. But that makes sense so it cannot be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonPerson Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 It’s 1975 all over again. When Ford first starting using catalectic mufflers, they did not work; it took a full year of production to figure it out, and the customers suffered badly. The GM DPF system for diesels already had two full years and 60,000 units running in Japan. It appears (too early to tell really), that the highest percentage of bugs are “out” of their system. It appears they have really tested their new diesels. I have two close friends that work at the GM dealership level, in the shop…….and they still say “wait a year before you buy one”. Ford’s marketing hype for the new diesel is just that – hype. Ford is still at the bottom of the stack when it comes to “engineering” and “QA”. It’s just not there. Their so called “miles of testing” is a farce. Yes it is true they have made some significant improvements; but it is still way too little, way too late. I am happy to have gotten my 06 F250 out of the shop (after two weeks and three months of poop); because now they are completely overwhelmed with diesel work both old and new. Ford needs to offer: Value, First Class Engineering, First Class Quality; in order to be competitive. I know that I expect a lot more for my $50,000 purchase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.