"I blew up my 2008 F350 on biodiesel"
A biodiesel user who is part of the San Francisco Biofuels group recently blew up his truck, a brand-new Ford F350. It's quite a story, and he's given AutoblogGreen permission to relay his tale to our readers, who I think will enjoy this heartbreaker. Here's Peterson in his own words:
"I supposedly blew up my brand new $55k truck, with just 200 miles on it, running B99. I say supposedly, because I can't believe it was a fuel problem-but Ford is sticking me with $17k bill for a new engine (major labor required to remove cab etc..). They tested the fuel at two labs and said I violated the warranty (which says no more than B5). I am meeting with the engineer that was flown out from Dearborn to examine the problem today, so I hope to get some technical background on this. ... I have been running B99 in my other cars for 2 years. I'm a farm kid, and fairly comfortable around machinery, and have never had any problems with them. To my understanding, biodiesel has a higher flash point and I can't understand how one blows up an engine on a vegetable-based fuel. Ford markets the ultra-low-sulfur engine as the cleanest in the industry. I ran B100 in my 2004 F25- for 2 years-a similar, high performance PowerStroke."
A bit later, he posted the coda:
"So here's the ending to the 'blown up' brand new truck saga I posted last week. ... Within minutes of posting, I received tons of helpful input ... to test fuel and eventually even legal documentation that Ford could not extend their warranty to cover third parties, and thus not honor (the now 20k) in warranty work. Armed with these questions, and the fact that as long as it was spec fuel, I was covered legally. I went in to siphon fuel out of the tank. Skip several interesting exchanges later, Ford scrambled and is now covering everything-and has even offered to take the truck back and sell me a new one (mine had only 200 miles on it). Next, I found out that Ford just offered a massive recall for injector problems that create a hydrolock that produces white smoke and can cause a massive bang-exactly what happened to me.... The whole things seems to have been a ploy to cover up something they eventually had to admit to on a massive scale. Go Ford."
UPDATE: OK, this story has gotten a lot of attention. Thanks for that. If you're interested to know more, the truck owner in question has been reading the comments and posted himself (see #24). Feel free to add your own if you have a question for him.
[Source: SF Biofuels]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Montana 12:10PM (5/02/2007)
I just bought a new 2008 F450, and I am looking into making my own biodiesel...do you think after the recall I will have any problems running B99 or 100 in it...If so what mods should be made to run on this? Thanks.
Reply
pdx 12:40PM (5/02/2007)
Montana:
If you make your own, I would be very very careful.
I would hesitate to put home-brew in such an expensive vehicle. In this guys case, he was lucky because the problem ended up being something that was big and hugely public.
But anything over B5 *does* void warranty for any *fuel related problems*. The burden of proof is on the manufacturer to *prove* it was the fuel that caused the problem.
That doesn't mean that it won't be an expensive battle and a long drawn out hassle on your part if something happens.
If you buy biodiesel from a reputable source, they become your ally in the issue - and many companies will even guarantee their fuel.
But if you make it your self, you have nothing of the sort. And making biodiesel can be very error prone, and it is best to use in a vehicle that is tolerant of fuel variances. Most new diesel engines are highly electronic and highly pressurized and less able to deal with a bad batch of fuel.
Until you have your processes down and tested your fuel better, I would stick to older less expensive "test" vehicles.
Having said that, there are millions of miles on B99 in modern high pressure electronic engines. The actual risk is quite low. Despite what manufacturers and the oil industry would have you believe - there is very little risk in using high blends of biodiesel and most likely more benefits than risks.
B20 would probably be a better bet until you have more experience...
Your mileage may vary. Use this as information only, at your own risk.
Reply
blogged to death 2:40PM (5/02/2007)
This is entertaining that Ford is so often involved in such warranty disputes and hiding things from the public. (Cruise control fires, ignition coil stalling, ignition switch fires, plastic manifold fires, Escape Fire problems, Explorer rollovers, all the way back to Pintos).
Yes these are built Ford Tough - but what does that really entail? How does Ford Tough compare to GM Tough or Toyota Tough? Is the constant fear of some defective fire related make them tough?
Reply
Bob Edwards 1:55PM (9/14/2008)
I have a 2005 Ford 500 LTD/AWD with one of those new transmissions: You can't feel the shift, and they're supposed to last 200,000 miles, and perform on the principle of a conveyor belt. Suposedly BMW designed the transmission. When Ford re-engineered it, according to one specialist, they failed to machine a part that needed additional "honing." This engineering oversight is causing the transmission to lose a bearing that performs in Park, and in Neutral; hence the trans needs expensive repair at around 100,000 miles. Since I have 104,000 miles on the vehicle (I love the car. Everything's working perfectly except for the transmission), Ford is making me pay for the work: $4,000 plus for the parts, and who knows what for the labor. Don't you think that if this was sold to me as an engine and trannie that could go trouble free for 200,000 miles, and that an expert engineer said it was a FORD problem, that Ford should go at least half with me on the cost? I'm willing to pay for my mileage, just help me out with your engineering problem!!!
XT6Wagon 9:01PM (5/02/2007)
Oh maybe you completely missed that you are NOT supposed to use Biodiesel with your Truck. One of the things that use of Bio-diesel does in these trucks is damage the injectors. Oh wait! You write that you DID know this before hand and just flat ignored it. GOOD JOB
I hope that someone at Ford reads what you wrote and drags your butt into court for Fraud for using fuel you shouldn't have been using, then claiming that you were not.
Reply
Don 9:03PM (5/02/2007)
No offense, but what the hell is wrong with these Navistars? They're turning out to be giant pieces of shit.
Reply
Brent 9:07PM (5/02/2007)
Thats why I buy chevy.
Reply
Pimby 9:22PM (5/02/2007)
F-O-R-D
Fix Or Repair Daily...
That saying didn't come about because they're such great vehicles.
Reply
LM 11:33AM (2/07/2009)
Ford = Found. On. Road. Dead
Steve 10:14PM (5/02/2007)
XT6 Wagon is 100% right, the owner used the wrong fuel. If it's stated in the owners manual or the owners information guide and Ford finds that the cause of your engine failure was fuel related your engine repair would not be covered under the manufacturers warranty. The OEM warranty protects the consumer from defect in material or workmanship, not a customer who decides to use a fuel which is outside of the parameters the engine was designed to work within.
The owner also mentions that the 6.4L engine is the cleanest in the industry and he is right, however that is chiefly due to the EGR system and particulate filter in the exhaust.
Finally the massive injector recall for 6.4L injectors is false. There has been no such recall or even a TSB (Technical Service Bulletin) relating to white smoke and a large bang causing any type of injector failure. Leaving 2 options:
1.)The owner mis-understood information relating to the injectors.
2.)The owner has mis-represented the situation to the readers.
That's my opinion for what it's worth. I work in the parts/service end of a Ford dealership and if I felt the poster was passing along informed relative information I wouldn't have posted anything but in this case the story does not add up.
*** Just a note to autobloggreen.com it would be great if you had more info than what one poster said as it really comes across as posting hearsay. ***
Reply
ken 10:23PM (5/02/2007)
f-o-r-d
from old recycled dodges
Reply
Chris Taylor 10:47PM (5/02/2007)
I thought it was illegal to attach conditions like that to a warranty? I thought they could not make specific fuel usage an attachment to a warranty. The same thing applies to inkjet printers. they can not void your warranty for using unapproved ink UNLESS they could prove it was the ink (or fuel) that caused the failure. IE ford would have to definitively prove that the B99 CAUSED the failure directly. I am assuming thats what happened here. Ford found out something else caused the failure.
Reply
jimmy 10:48PM (5/02/2007)
There are very very few among us that do not want something stupid and expensive to be someoen else's fault. The reality is that a lower level employee probably made the initial decision based on something that is routinely done when an engine fails, I.e., testing fuel and oil.
Gasoline put in a diesel will harm it, water in the fuel will harm injection system. Drawing a bit of fuel out and placing it in a glass tall slender bottle and pouring in a chemical test agent is a common field test. Dealer calls its field rep. with reports of murky, odd smelling fuel and the rep says "no warranty due to operation with fuel not withing recommendations", the dealer tells you its your baby to fix. Then you call dealer who calls rep who runs it by the tech rep or the tech hotline and they say we'll send tech rep and then tech rep now hears of it and says "The biodiesel may have been a contributing factor but the loose injector problems that could occur in this chassis range could cause this and there is no good way now to prove it one way or the other" and then the previous denial becomes an acceptance. Not necessarily a conspiracy to cover up nothing. I imagine every one of us has come to an opinion we later rescinded once we got more facts.
Reply
merp 12:05AM (5/03/2007)
Steve, if you think biodiesel can screw up diesel injectors, you're nuts. Unless the fuel was wildly mismanufactured (and it wouldn't have made it out of the refinery if so) it has almost identical chemical properties to mineral diesel. Some of the carbon chains are much shorter, or aren't completely hydrogenized. There may be left over lipid molecules in the mix. None of these differences is any more corrosive to the fuel system than mineral diesel.
I know for a fact that the Powerstroke has, in the past, had massive issues with the injectors and fuel system, which means while I'd like to hope that a problem at a major manufacturer would get fixed the first time, I know all too well how big companies work, and that it's likely in the extreme that the failure described above was due to design, engineering, or manufacturing defect, not because the guy used B99.
I'm kind of surprised that you're not aware of the problem with the new powerstrokes, the backfiring, the flames coming out the exhaust, etc. Tell you what. When you get that PhD in chemistry or engineering, I'll be happy to listen to your pontifications as to the root cause of this issue. Until then, how about sticking to looking up numbers in a book, and shafting the customer?
Reply
Tomas 2:27AM (5/03/2007)
"I thought it was illegal to attach conditions like that to a warranty? I thought they could not make specific fuel usage an attachment to a warranty."
Sorry, Chris, it is common to have specifications on fuels and lubricants that require only fuels or lubricants that meet certain specs or are within certain limits.
In my little 1.5L gas engine, for example, the manufacturer requires gasoline of 87 octane or better, and no more than 10% ethanol (E10). If I were to run it on E85 and cause a problem, the warranty would not cover me because I used something that was specifically forbidden. That's legit.
What a manufacturer CANNOT do is to tell you to only use specific brands. Saying to use only a specific Ford transmission fluid is not legit, but saying to use a specific Ford transmission fluid OR EQUIVALENT meeting such-and-such spec is OK. (The first is considered "tie-in sales" under federal law.)
See the Magnuson-Moss Warranty act for details: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty.shtm
Tomas
ScionLife.com
Reply
Manu Sharma 2:56AM (5/03/2007)
This is how fucked up American auto companies are today as to their commitment towards going green.
Reply
Jeremy 4:10AM (5/03/2007)
Tomas,
You are missing the point. Manufacturer still has to prove the fuel was at fault.
jeremy
Reply
Guenther 8:03AM (5/03/2007)
merp- IF (big IF) there are any any rubber parts in the injectors, they can be deteriorated by using B20 or higher. I doubt there were any rubber parts in there.
BTW, the 6.4l Powerstroke is NOT the cleanest diesel in the segment- those honors go to the 6.7l Cummins in the '07 Ram- its the only truck out there that currently meets 2010 NOx requirements.
Reply
Frank 8:07AM (5/03/2007)
Wha..? Why the hell does ord want to make such a ridiculous dinosaur anyway, and why do some dickheads want such a big hungry ugly piece of junk anyway.
Reply
fermitthekrog 8:39AM (5/03/2007)
"I violated the warranty (which says no more than B5)"
That's all the information I need right here. Don't be an asshat.
Reply