Aftermarket fuel pumps
06-02-2012, 06:57 AM
#16
I think the one thing people need to understand about Pureflow is they are no longer the same company that they were when all the satisfied customers were so bountiful......It is now owned by a different company and different management and the down hill slide is becoming quite obvious to those of us that deal with this stuff on a daily basis.
Sadly it happens all too often.....a great product becomes junk when the new owners don't put things like Honesty, Integrity and Customer Service at the top of list. Add to that a new manufacturing process that clearly does not put Quality above the bottom line and you end up with customers all experiencing failures that did not exist just a few short years ago.
I don't want nor expect my customers to have to replace a new pump that fails the same week they install it due to faulty parts installed during manufacture. A scenario like that reeks of failed testing and quality control on the assembly line.
Couple that with the attitude that the customer base should weed out the bad pumps so they can fix them one at a time at their leisure instead of the company pulling them off the shelf from the suppliers in a recall and you end up right where we are today.
This is not a new way of doing business, unfortunately it happens all too often these days....but it sure does show how a company going bigger isn't necessarily better for the consumer.
I have seen more Pureflow failures in the last 6 months than I have seen in the first 6 years I sold them, it appears to me they simply are no longer the same product they used to be. These are just my personal observations, yours may vary..........
Sadly it happens all too often.....a great product becomes junk when the new owners don't put things like Honesty, Integrity and Customer Service at the top of list. Add to that a new manufacturing process that clearly does not put Quality above the bottom line and you end up with customers all experiencing failures that did not exist just a few short years ago.
I don't want nor expect my customers to have to replace a new pump that fails the same week they install it due to faulty parts installed during manufacture. A scenario like that reeks of failed testing and quality control on the assembly line.
Couple that with the attitude that the customer base should weed out the bad pumps so they can fix them one at a time at their leisure instead of the company pulling them off the shelf from the suppliers in a recall and you end up right where we are today.
This is not a new way of doing business, unfortunately it happens all too often these days....but it sure does show how a company going bigger isn't necessarily better for the consumer.
I have seen more Pureflow failures in the last 6 months than I have seen in the first 6 years I sold them, it appears to me they simply are no longer the same product they used to be. These are just my personal observations, yours may vary..........
06-02-2012, 12:27 PM
#17
Registered User
Interesting post Lary. Anymore details on their situation? Why did they sell and who took them over? Is FASS still owned by the same individuals?
06-03-2012, 05:44 PM
#18
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Pemberton NJ
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just reading through this thread again and was going to post on the fact that all the happy people seemed to be from 4 or 5 year back. Seems Larry has verified that for me.
Rick
Rick
06-12-2012, 09:32 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been through 3-4 Carters, some not making 5k.
Have switched to Airtex. I did put a 80 micron prefilter, been working fine with big line kit. 19 idle. above 15 most of the time. At $130 you can keep a spare. I was told the prefilter is the key to longer life.
Have switched to Airtex. I did put a 80 micron prefilter, been working fine with big line kit. 19 idle. above 15 most of the time. At $130 you can keep a spare. I was told the prefilter is the key to longer life.
06-13-2012, 05:24 PM
#24
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Pemberton NJ
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the same company that tells you there is nothing wrong with the VP44 and the "53" block.
Yes it will work per the original specifications but we all know now that those spec's were not realistic.
Rick
Yes it will work per the original specifications but we all know now that those spec's were not realistic.
Rick
06-13-2012, 05:41 PM
#25
Registered User
You're more than welcome to follow those Cummins/Dodge/Bosch guidelines but as mentioned, 10 psi is unrealistic for maximum VP reliability. Will your VP work with 10 psi, sure but for how long..... There is plenty of threads and personal experience to confirm this so if you care to know more then you can do a forum search and read years of threads on this topic.
06-14-2012, 08:37 PM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cummins Technical Center, IN
Posts: 6,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
5 Posts
You're more than welcome to follow those Cummins/Dodge/Bosch guidelines but as mentioned, 10 psi is unrealistic for maximum VP reliability. Will your VP work with 10 psi, sure but for how long..... There is plenty of threads and personal experience to confirm this so if you care to know more then you can do a forum search and read years of threads on this topic.
That said, my truck has not had a lot of mileage or extended operation at high fuel temps.
I am fortunate enough to be able to talk to people who had a lot of experience with the VP as it was being developed, and who worked with Bosch on testing it and calibrating it.
My impression is that the overall sense is this:
Nothing a person can do in terms of additives, fuel pressure, and even temperature will guarantee a reliable VP44. Yes, those factors all affect reliability, but none of them is a silver bullet-- and even if you address them all, you still don't have a guarantee.
06-15-2012, 12:13 AM
#28
Registered User
My VP has been fed around 10psi (usually less) since 2006. It's still going.
That said, my truck has not had a lot of mileage or extended operation at high fuel temps.
I am fortunate enough to be able to talk to people who had a lot of experience with the VP as it was being developed, and who worked with Bosch on testing it and calibrating it.
My impression is that the overall sense is this:
Nothing a person can do in terms of additives, fuel pressure, and even temperature will guarantee a reliable VP44. Yes, those factors all affect reliability, but none of them is a silver bullet-- and even if you address them all, you still don't have a guarantee.
That said, my truck has not had a lot of mileage or extended operation at high fuel temps.
I am fortunate enough to be able to talk to people who had a lot of experience with the VP as it was being developed, and who worked with Bosch on testing it and calibrating it.
My impression is that the overall sense is this:
Nothing a person can do in terms of additives, fuel pressure, and even temperature will guarantee a reliable VP44. Yes, those factors all affect reliability, but none of them is a silver bullet-- and even if you address them all, you still don't have a guarantee.
I've been a strong advocate of trying to understand the VP and after a decade of research and personal experience, I certainly dont claim to be any smarter than anyone regarding such, but.....I am convinced that if a re-manufactured VP (with ALL current upgrades), which has never seen fuel temps above 160*, has never seen fuel pressure below 15 psi through JIC fittings, and has never run out of fuel, will last just as long as any other fuel injection pump.
In saying that, are there VP's which will fail just because they're mechanical devices impervious to error and faulty components?.....absolutely. But is the VP the only Cummins fuel injection pump thats failed?.....absolutely not. Will we ever fully understand the VP?.....hardly.
If there's ANY new modification to the VP I'd like to see someone achieve, it would be a way to relocate the VP's computer to a safer, cooler location. Possibly in the cab. That would stop most hot fuel issues right there since I believe the mechanical portion of the VP easily withstands most if not all issues, but the computer still remains the weak link. Having it mounted to the top of the VP was not the best design.
06-15-2012, 08:30 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cummins Technical Center, IN
Posts: 6,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
5 Posts
Agreed on all points, especially the computer point.
Having the FPCM on the pump where it sees a lot of heat and (worse yet, vibration), is asking for computer failure. Electronics don't like heat or vibration, and combination is killer.
I suspect that a good portion of the reason my pumps have lasted so long is that I have run Mach 4s for so long.
The with big injectors that have lowish pop pressure (around 200 bar), you don't get the big spikes in cylinder pressure. That's why Mach 4s are so much quieter than stock injectors. 2nd gen HO trucks are easily the loudest stock CTDs of all, but with big injectors they can almost pass for a 12v.
It's to the point now where I would recommend larger injectors as a reliability *improvement* to almost anyone. Something like an old Mach 2 or bigger should be in every truck!
Since I have been working at Cummins, I have gotten the education of a lifetime. It's been fun (and also kept me from posting much here anymore).
One of the biggest lessons learned so far is just how important vibration is.
I'm convinced that vibration is the THE reason that lift pumps fail. I've seen it myself using that same crappy FM pump on several other Cummins engines. You'll notice the 2010 ISX no longer has a FM priming pump on it like the 2007 generation did. I just happened to be doing fuel system engineering on that product.
Vibration is also the top of the list for why VP44s die, also.
JMO
Having the FPCM on the pump where it sees a lot of heat and (worse yet, vibration), is asking for computer failure. Electronics don't like heat or vibration, and combination is killer.
I suspect that a good portion of the reason my pumps have lasted so long is that I have run Mach 4s for so long.
The with big injectors that have lowish pop pressure (around 200 bar), you don't get the big spikes in cylinder pressure. That's why Mach 4s are so much quieter than stock injectors. 2nd gen HO trucks are easily the loudest stock CTDs of all, but with big injectors they can almost pass for a 12v.
It's to the point now where I would recommend larger injectors as a reliability *improvement* to almost anyone. Something like an old Mach 2 or bigger should be in every truck!
Since I have been working at Cummins, I have gotten the education of a lifetime. It's been fun (and also kept me from posting much here anymore).
One of the biggest lessons learned so far is just how important vibration is.
I'm convinced that vibration is the THE reason that lift pumps fail. I've seen it myself using that same crappy FM pump on several other Cummins engines. You'll notice the 2010 ISX no longer has a FM priming pump on it like the 2007 generation did. I just happened to be doing fuel system engineering on that product.
Vibration is also the top of the list for why VP44s die, also.
JMO
06-15-2012, 04:14 PM
#30
Registered User
HOHN you're a smart fellow and I agree with most of what you said. I especially like the part about the larger injectors. That certainly is one of the variables in VP reliability since reducing the VP's work load reduces heat.
I plan on larger injectors soon but making sure I can pay for an upgraded clutch at the same time is necessary. I'm not sure I'd want Mach 2's though. Maybe to big? I thought possibly 275's or Mach 1.
As for the OEM lift pump, after being a believer that the OEM lift pump "could" work, I found that the most common reason the lift pump fails is because of restrictive fuel lines. Not because it "pulls" instead of pushes fuel. The lift pump is regulated at 15 psi but with so little volume running through the fuel lines the regulator check ball eventually beats itself into the lift pump housing whereby over time the pressure over regulates and the pressure drops. So increasing the fuel line diameter or even simply getting rid of the banjo fittings helps greatly. But even with that, the OEM lift pump is built too inexpensively and has other poor quality issues, like using "glue" to hold the impeller to the pump shaft with plastic which eventually comes loose. Also, on my truck I found a section of fuel line between the VP and fuel filter that measured 1/8" ID. Unbelievably small but the only reason anyone could think of for this would be Cummins attempting to reduce VP dynamic fluid pulses from reaching the lift pump. Who knows but it was also clear that not all trucks had this 1/8" section.
I plan on larger injectors soon but making sure I can pay for an upgraded clutch at the same time is necessary. I'm not sure I'd want Mach 2's though. Maybe to big? I thought possibly 275's or Mach 1.
As for the OEM lift pump, after being a believer that the OEM lift pump "could" work, I found that the most common reason the lift pump fails is because of restrictive fuel lines. Not because it "pulls" instead of pushes fuel. The lift pump is regulated at 15 psi but with so little volume running through the fuel lines the regulator check ball eventually beats itself into the lift pump housing whereby over time the pressure over regulates and the pressure drops. So increasing the fuel line diameter or even simply getting rid of the banjo fittings helps greatly. But even with that, the OEM lift pump is built too inexpensively and has other poor quality issues, like using "glue" to hold the impeller to the pump shaft with plastic which eventually comes loose. Also, on my truck I found a section of fuel line between the VP and fuel filter that measured 1/8" ID. Unbelievably small but the only reason anyone could think of for this would be Cummins attempting to reduce VP dynamic fluid pulses from reaching the lift pump. Who knows but it was also clear that not all trucks had this 1/8" section.