Keeping your CRD HPFP alive

[bluey]

After doing some reading on misfuelling failures, found this fascinating post further along dweisel's original thread on HPFP failures.

VW TDI forum and Audi TDI forum - myturbodiesel.com - View Single Post - dweisel's HPFP Analogy of a Failure

It seems that specific HPFP run in procedures may be beneficial, specifically avoiding high rpm for up to 5000 miles . Lubricity is critical for low-sulphur (?all diesel now) diesels. Biodiesel has higher lubricity and some people are advocating adding biodiesel routinely. Running a low fuel tank apparently results in hotter fuel due to fuel recirculation and less lubricity for the pump. Water in the fuel tank is a considerable risk.

The full post is well worth a read.

So at this point, I'm going to stick to Vortex diesel (has biodiesel in it) + Morey's Diesel Smoke Killer, fill up much earlier, and avoid the rpms and keep my fingers crossed for a long-lived CRD HPFP.

[Diesel_vert]

The European and Australian standard for diesel fuel stipulates a maximum wear scar diameter of 460 μm for lubricity.

The American diesel fuel standard allows a higher (worse) limit of 520 μm.

Diesel Fuel Injection Equipment (FIE) manufacturers state that, "it is expected the useful operating lifetime of any mechanical component will be adversely affected by fuel with a lubricity exceeding 460 microns."

The technical data sheet of Shell Diesel says it has a typical lubricity value of 400 μm, as does the the TDS for BP Ultimate Diesel. I suspect that most of our diesel has a typical lubricity value of less than 460 μm.

Click for the link to their "Common Position Statement 2009" from the five Diesel Fuel Injection Equipment Manufacturers.

So at this point, I'm going to stick to Vortex diesel (has biodiesel in it) + Morey's Diesel Smoke Killer, fill up much earlier, and avoid the rpms and keep my fingers crossed for a long-lived CRD HPFP.

So in light of what I've said above, I personally don't bother with any additives, and don't fill up at dodgy looking pumps.

I'm not aware that Caltex Vortex Diesel has any biodiesel in it, but would be a nice touch if it were true, as biodiesel makes for an excellent lubricity additive (even in small amounts like 2%).

Caltex also sell B5 and B20 diesel, but are only available to commercial customers.

[bluey]

Caltex Vortex Diesel specification as sent to me by Caltex seems to indicate cetane number and cetane index being equivalent:

(Formatting is a bit of a mess but that's how it was sent to me)

Approved

Product Sales Specification Extra Low Sulfur Diesel

This product conforms to: *AS 3570 - 1988 Amendment no. 1, Qld Environmental Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2000 (in Qld only), SA Environment Protection (Motor Vehicle Fuel Quality) Policy, WA Clean Fuels Regulations 1999 (in WA only), Fuel Standard (Diesel) Amendment Determination 2002 (No. 1) , Diesel Operability Standards endorsed June 2002

Effective Date: * 19.10.2010


Property Unit Limit Method
Note
PHYSICAL
Density at 15 °C kg/L 0.820 - 0.850 ASTM D1298 or D4052
Colour 2 max. ASTM D1500 or D6045
Visual inspection at 25 °C 1 max. ASTM D4176 procedure 2
COMPOSITION
Sulfur
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons mg/kg
mass % 10 max.
11% max. ASTM D2622 or D5453
IP 391
CORROSION & WEAR *

Copper strip (3 h at 50 °C) 1 max. ASTM D130
Acidity ASTM D664 or D974
*Strong mg KOH/g nil
*Total mg KOH/g 0.30 max.
Lubricity (wsd 1.4) at 60 °C µm (mm) 460 (0.46) max. IP 450 VOLATILITY
Distillation 95% recovered °C 360 max. ASTM D86
Flash point °C 61.5 min. ASTM D93
STABILITY
Oxidation stability mg/L 25 max. ASTM D2274
COMBUSTION
Ash mg/kg 100 max. ASTM D482
Carbon residue (on 10% dist. residue) mass % 0.2 max.
ASTM D4530
Cetane index or number 46 min. ASTM D4737 or Calculated
5
FLUIDITY
Cloud point °C notes 1,2,3 ASTM D2500, D5773 or D5772
1,2,3
Viscosity at 40 °C mm2/s
(cSt) 2.0 - 4.5 ASTM D445
CONTAMINANTS
Filter blocking tendency 2.0 max. IP 387 or ASTM D2068
Water and sediment volume % 0.05 max. ASTM D2709 or D1796
ADDITIVES
Static dissipating mg/L proprietary
Lubricity
FAME mg/L
volume % proprietary
5% max.
4
6


1. *Cloud point specification, °C maximum:
Region
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
AUC
15
10
5
2
1
1
1
4
7
11
14
15
AUN
15
15
12
9
8
8
8
10
14
15
15
15
NSW
9
5
2
0
-1
-1
-1
0
2
5
7
9
QC
15
12
7
4
2
2
2
4
7
12
15
15
QCN
15
15
11
7
6
6
6
8
11
15
15
15
QFNE
15
15
12
7
7
7
7
9
12
15
15
15
QS
11
7
3
0
-1
-1
-1
0
2
7
9
13
SAS
8
6
4
2
1
1
1
2
4
5
6
9
TAS
3
1
-1
-2
-3
-3
-3
-3
-1
0
2
3
VIC
9
6
3
1
0
0
0
1
2
4
6
8
WAC
15
15
9
6
5
5
5
7
11
15
15
15
WAS
10
6
4
3
2
2
2
2
3
5
8
10

2. *Regions and supply points:
Region
Supply Points
AUC Australia Central Adelaide, Darwin (to Alice Springs & Yulara) AUN Australia North Darwin, Wyndham, Broome, Gove, Groote Eylant, Karumba, Weipa NSW New South Wales Sydney, Newcastle QC Queensland Central Mackay, Gladstone QCN Queensland Central North Townsville QFNE Queensland Far North East Cairns QS Queensland South Brisbane, Bundaberg SAS South Australia South Adelaide, Port Lincoln, Port Pirie TAS Tasmania Hobart, Devonport VIC Victoria Melbourne, Geelong WAC West Australia Central Dampier, Port Hedland WAS West Australia South Perth, Fremantle, Geraldton, Esperance

3. *Cloud point may be relaxed according to the table below.
Both the cold filter plugging point and the cloud point will be reported when this relaxation applies; otherwise cold filter plugging point is not a specification control.
CP/CFPP differential, °C
0,1,2,3
4
5,6
7,8
9
>9
CP relaxation, °C
0
1
2
3
4
4

4. *Lubricity improver is only included if the lubricity test would not otherwise be met.

5. *Caltex's Brisbane refinery has an Approval under the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 to certify Diesel by cetane number. *

6. *FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Ester) content of up to 5% maximum.

I presume the up to 5% FAME is biodiesel. Typical lubricity is not quoted.

The problem is that one can't depend on a quoted "typical" characteristic.

According to @AUDI5000TDI in post linked in my last post, "Bosch recommends fuel with a new HPFP have a 400 micron or lower wear scar."

So we'd be better off with a fuel with better lubricity performance than "typical" in Australia and certainly significantly better than specification just like the DPF-equipped diesels require cetane number minimum 51, which may or may not be achieved by typical diesel. I suspect that explains why there are so many DPF-related problems and complaints.

Your engine only has to last as long as the warranty for VWA to be happy with its longevity. Beyond that we're largely on our own. At $3500 for a DPF and perhaps $4k for parts related to a HPFP failure, a bit of cetane improver and lubricity additive could be very cheap insurance (as long as there aren't side effects).

[Diesel_vert]

Caltex Vortex Diesel specification as sent to me by Caltex seems to indicate cetane number and cetane index being equivalent

Well, how the CN and CI numbers correlate for their fuel is for them to determine (it may well be that their CN and CI values are very close) but there is definitely a technical difference between CN and CI.

I presume the up to 5% FAME is biodiesel. Typical lubricity is not quoted.

Standard diesel fuel in Australia is allowed up to 5% biodiesel without being labelled on the pump (in Europe its 7%).

I've read one study where just 2% biodiesel drastically improved the lubricity value of untreated American diesel (Google spicer lubricity additive test). So any addition of 2% to 5% biodiesel to standard diesel is welcome, but that is up to the fuel companies.

The problem is that one can't depend on a quoted "typical" characteristic.

You are correct of course.

It is nice to see that humdrum diesel from Shell has a typical lubricity value 400 μm, but of course, that will vary depending on each batch of fuel.

But it is also nice to know that maximum limit is 460 μm - just like it is in Europe (see EN590), and as long as it doesn't exceed it (which is very illegal) I personally remain satisfied of its quality level.

According to @AUDI5000TDI in post linked in my last post, "Bosch recommends fuel with a new HPFP have a 400 micron or lower wear scar."

See above statement. Up to you if you feel more additives is justified.

So we'd be better off with a fuel with better lubricity performance than "typical" in Australia and certainly significantly better than specification just like the DPF-equipped diesels require cetane number minimum 51, which may or may not be achieved by typical diesel. I suspect that explains why there are so many DPF-related problems and complaints.

As I've said before in another post, the effect of CN on PM emissions is not linear, and does not have a significant impact on PM emissions.

Your engine only has to last as long as the warranty for VWA to be happy with its longevity. Beyond that we're largely on our own. At $3500 for a DPF and perhaps $4k for parts related to a HPFP failure, a bit of cetane improver and lubricity additive could be very cheap insurance (as long as there aren't side effects).

May I remind you that these problems are largely based on American experiences, and their diesel fuel is renowned for being terrible at times, even allowing for their lamentable fuel standard: min. CI 40 (!) max. lubricity value 520 μm (!).

I am not aware of HPFP failures occurring here to the same extent as that in the U.S. (well that, or we are just too quiet on the subject!).

Personally, given the evidence before me, I am satisfied that our diesel won't adversely affect the HPFP's operation or longevity without using any additional additives.

You are of course free to do or think otherwise - this is only my opinion on the matter.

[bluey]

According to this thread, failures may be limited to certain "batches" of HPFP, both in Europe and overseas.
HPFP Failure- Info from Germany - TDIClub Forums

TDIClub's official HPFP failure thread runs 100 pages. It may be that US fuel is known to be not so good cetane-wise (IIRC typically CN40-45), but that is separate from lubricity.
CR engine HPFP analysis - TDIClub Forums

Surely our vehicle numbers in Oz are just too low to really know much.

That Bosch is quoted recommending 400 micron or better must be worth something....

EN590 specifies max 5% biodiesel.

While the effect of CN on PM emissions is not linear, we have VAG clearly specifying a standard which *cannot* be deemed to be met by most out of the pump diesel here. So we can reasonably safely presume that VAG has test data to support that recommendation. Note VAG only specifies 49CN for non-DPF vehicles. The smoke in the rear vision mirror at night test is clear evidence that lower cetane of standard diesel does significantly increase PM emissions on a non-DPF vehicle.

Surely most diesel consumption in Oz is by commercial vehicles (trucks). So there is no major incentive to change the standard of diesel available to meet the higher requirements of a small number of TDI CRD cars.

Maybe the cost of failures/warranty is built into the higher price of CRD engines????

---------- Post added at 07:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 PM ----------

Post with links to Bosch HFRR study. Slide 10 shows approximate linear relationship of wear and lubricity (HFRR).

TDIClub Forums - View Single Post - CR engine HPFP analysis

Slide 23 of Bosch HFRR study:
"All high-pressure fuel-lubricated injection systems are exceedingly lubricity-sensitive"

[Diesel_vert]

According to this thread, failures may be limited to certain "batches" of HPFP, both in Europe and overseas.
HPFP Failure- Info from Germany - TDIClub Forums

Oh good, it looks as if quality control for VW and their suppliers is crap all over the world. Not in the least bit surprising, but top marks for consistency!

If it's happening in Europe, perhaps it's their shoddy workmanship rather than the quality of their fuel that's the main contributor of these failures (though I can't imagine that the fuel situation in America doesn't exacerbate the problem).

TDIClub's official HPFP failure thread runs 100 pages. It may be that US fuel is known to be not so good cetane-wise (IIRC typically CN40-45), but that is separate from lubricity.
CR engine HPFP analysis - TDIClub Forums

You are correct, the low CN or CI of their fuel has little to do lubricity.

It is their maximum lubricity value of 520 μm, as per the U.S. standard, that plays a major role in component wear.

That Bosch is quoted recommending 400 micron or better must be worth something....

Taken as is, that statement is implying that Bosch recommend 400 mircons or better - which isn't quite precisely what they're saying...

I've already posted the link of the Diesel FIE manufacturer's Common Position Paper 2009, but perhaps I should quote the entire passage relating to lubricity here:

It is essential that the lubricity of the fuel as measured by the HFRR test specified in ISO 12156-1 meets the requirement of a wear scar diameter not greater than 460 microns. In addition, it is recommended by the Diesel FIE manufacturers, that “first fill” of the fuel tank should be with fuel with good lubricity characteristics (HFRR < 400 μm) in order to guarantee good “run-in” of the injection system components. The US diesel specification (ASTM D 975-09) includes a lubricity value of 520 μm maximum (according to ASTM D 6079). It is expected that the useful operating lifetime of any mechanical component will be adversely affected by fuel with a lubricity exceeding 460 microns.

EN590 specifies max 5% biodiesel.

Was 5%. New limit is 7% as per EN590:2009

Diesel FIE manufacturers also have no qualms about the increase.

While the effect of CN on PM emissions is not linear, we have VAG clearly specifying a standard which *cannot* be deemed to be met by most out of the pump diesel here. So we can reasonably safely presume that VAG has test data to support that recommendation. Note VAG only specifies 49CN for non-DPF vehicles. The smoke in the rear vision mirror at night test is clear evidence that lower cetane of standard diesel does significantly increase PM emissions on a non-DPF vehicle.

The impact that sulphur has on PM emissions is by far greater than that of CN alone.

Also, your claim, that the presence of visible smoke emissions is a clear indicator of fuel with a low CN, is not concrete, and can also be explained by other means.

I think you should do more research and digest a wider range of studies into the relationship between CN and PM emissions. Bear in mind the dates of these studies and the introduction of sulphur limits for each major region.

Surely most diesel consumption in Oz is by commercial vehicles (trucks). So there is no major incentive to change the standard of diesel available to meet the higher requirements of a small number of TDI CRD cars.

If you compare the Australian and European diesel fuel standard, you'll find that they aren't as different as you might think.

Maybe the cost of failures/warranty is built into the higher price of CRD engines????

No way - their finance department would have an absolute field day if that were the case!

Post with links to Bosch HFRR study. Slide 10 shows approximate linear relationship of wear and lubricity (HFRR).

TDIClub Forums - View Single Post - CR engine HPFP analysis

Slide 23 of Bosch HFRR study:
"All high-pressure fuel-lubricated injection systems are exceedingly lubricity-sensitive"

All I can say is, thank god we don't live in America!

[bluey]

Quoted failure rates in USA for CRD HPFP in this post TDIClub Forums - View Single Post - CR engine HPFP analysis
"0.53% for MY 2009 vehicles and 0.11% for MY 2010 vehicles" as at mid-2011. 270 vehicles with officially reported failures. TDIClub Forums - View Single Post - CR engine HPFP analysis

Impression from US suggested about half of the failures were caused by misfuelling with gasoline. TDIClub Forums - View Single Post - CR engine HPFP analysis

Failures by age of vehicle TDIClub Forums - View Single Post - CR engine HPFP analysis

So how many CRD diesels are there in Australia??? How many will fail by the time they are 3 years old???

The impression is that the aluminium body HPFP is a mechanically borderline design possibly with a service life of 150000km. Bosch also makes a Mercedes HPFP with a steel design. http://forums.tdiclub.com/showpost.p...postcount=1485

Possibly a good solution is a filter to stop HPFP failure killing the rest of the fuel system - such would be much more valuable than the Provent. Repair cost in US around USD8-9k.


On a lighter note, Common Rail CP 4 HPFP Diesel Fuel Injection Pump Failure Borscht Management Conference
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-EbvKDzWMo

[Transporter]

I said that before, that with the growing numbers of diesel cars sold, I'm getting more and more phone calls for help when people put petrol in the tank. But what about the contaminated fuels sold by dodgy servos, how many cars are affected by that and don't know until the engine stops thousands of kms later?

The misfueling or contaminated fuels are well known causes of the HPFP failures. A good fuel additive that increases lubricity and CN are more important today than ever before. The time will tell.

Keep in mind that CR system is around for some time, so it would be said that they can't make the reliable fuel pumps for it.

---------- Post added at 08:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:28 AM ----------

Yes, that youtube video is good isn't it?

[Diesel_vert]

We do appreciate you bringing to our attention these HPFP failures, and it's not like I'm trying to defend VW or Bosch here (far from it), but assuming that this is an issue of fuel quality, and given the differences between here and the States, I personally remain cautiously optimistic that we will avoid similar failure rates.

But of course, it doesn't simply end there. The other half of the problem (according to TDIForums) is just down to poor engineering/design or manufacturing fault/crappy quality control (or all three) - in which no amount of lubricity will save it.

In which case, I'd actually want it to fail sooner rather than later, so it be replaced under warranty.



As for misfuelling, well, that's just down to user error and not really the manufacturer's fault. It would be considered very generous of them to offer any sort warranty coverage in that scenario.

I said that before, that with the growing numbers of diesel cars sold, I'm getting more and more phone calls for help when people put petrol in the tank. But what about the contaminated fuels sold by dodgy servos, how many cars are affected by that and don't know until the engine stops thousands of kms later?

The misfueling or contaminated fuels are well known causes of the HPFP failures. A good fuel additive that increases lubricity and CN are more important today than ever before. The time will tell.

Perhaps.
But if VW didn't specify such delicate pumps, maybe this wouldn't be such a big issue.
So once again, the onus falls on the owner to compensate for another design fault.

I still maintain that CN is not a significant issue in Australia.
Also, I personally don't feel the need to use aftermarket additives.

Keep in mind that CR system is around for some time, so it would be said that they can't make the reliable fuel pumps for it.

Correct - methinks VW just tried to push the limits of cost vs reliability.

Didn't exactly work out too well for their customers, but it did do wonders for their bottom line!

[bluey]

If the design life of the HPFP happens to be 150,000km, then anyone with a long-term ownership perspective may be interested in ways not to play russian roulette with several thousand dolllars worth of CRD injection repairs long after the warranty has expired.

Hopefully newer Bosch HPFP designs will be better, but the design weakness remains with the aluminium body and diesel lubrication.