common rail fuel pump failures

Submitted: Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 12:03
ThreadID: 106487 Views:8620 Replies:8 FollowUps:12
This Thread has been Archived
Hi All, I am new member today, have to discuss the complete failure of Mazda BT 50 Fuel pump and injectors at 11months, 42000K.
waiting on the outcome of fair trading hearing against Mazda for not warranting the failure, that has cost me 8500.00 to repair.
Had major investigation done by Bureau Veritas metallurgist company est 1828, yes 186 years in the business, Mazda say its contaminated fuel, and not covered by warranty, this was refuted by Shell whom supplied my fuel, as not being contaminated, this car was refilled every other day, For the record, I are an "A"Grade Automobile Engineer VACC and Practicing Diesel Fuel Injection Specialist AADS, Owning my own diesel service in the 1980's in Victoria.
the fuel pump plunger springs all shattered and caused massive internal damage to the pump and injectors, Mazda refused this argument, will find out next week what fair trading thinks re consumer laws etc. and the motor dealers act 1974, that are supposed to protect us folk.
has anyone had a successful claim against a vehicle maker re this failure.
the pump was a Siemens/ Continental Brand common rail fuel pump, fitted to the 2012, 2.2 ltr diesel motor.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - wicket - Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 13:02

Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 13:02
This is just another example of why we need the 'lemon law' in this country.
AnswerID: 527470

Follow Up By: Ross M - Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 13:52

Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 13:52
If we did, there would be many many dealers of all makes soaked in Lemon Juice.
FollowupID: 809864

Follow Up By: Shaker - Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 18:31

Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 18:31
I think it has to fail 3 times for the Lemon Law to come into effect.

FollowupID: 809892

Reply By: garrycol - Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 13:27

Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 13:27
Did you get an independent analysis of the fuel. Sounds like contaminated fuel - do you really believe the fuel supplier?

Seems like a he said, she said argument at the moment and in court you will have to prove the parts failed as you indicated and was not contaminated fuel.

If it had been me I would have gone with the contaminated fuel line and claimed on my comprehensive car insurance.

Would be cheaper and less hassle.

AnswerID: 527474

Follow Up By: Dave C2 - Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 15:14

Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 15:14
Thanks Garry, you were right, I re contacted my insurance company and they have indicated they will pay the claim, the first enquiry must have been misunderstood as a mechanical failure rather than contaminated fuel being the cause, so that was really worth heaps to register on this site and air my thoughts, well done., Dave
FollowupID: 809925

Follow Up By: garrycol - Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 17:50

Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 17:50
Dave - thats great. I also drive a CRD and the water in fuel issue is always in the back of my mind.


FollowupID: 809931

Reply By: Ross M - Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 13:51

Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 13:51
G'day Dave
Same Q's so not diesel fuel specialist though but now what you mean.
While anything can fail, if the springs do fatigue they will destroy the pump as you have found so that would be a warranty issue.

Nearly always, because they can, people begin to claim contaminated fuel.

If it was a solvent contamination the springs wouldn't be affected but the pump lubrication might. Solvent contamination is rare.

Particle contamination shouldn't be a problem IF the service people have replaced filters at a wise interval.

Drops of water also shouldn't be a problem as they should collect and be detected by the system.

The only item is Emulsified water in the fuel if entering the pump could cause microscopic pit and therefore fatigue points on the springs over time.

Not sure if Mazda filter IS/HAS a dewatering filter of just a filter.
additional dewatering filters are good to have.

So, apart from solvent contamination which apparently isn't there, and filters working properly, what contamination is MAZDA claiming is present????????

if it is anything apart from solvent, then the filter didn't do it's job. = warranty.

Has Mazda actually changed the fuel filter in the 42,000km? As you know, just because the item is marked religously in a service book, in no way means it HAS been changed.

Therein lies a problem. I can tick a box but I may not know where the filter is.

AnswerID: 527477

Reply By: John and Regina M - Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 15:05

Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 15:05
What has Bureau Veritas said? You haven't said. Mazda say this....BV say that and Shell say rubbish.

And Mazda refute the springs have shattered causing major internal damage...then what is the problem with the pump?

Sounds like, yes, a he said she said scenario looms. Good luck. I too would have made sure my insurance covered this scenario. And if, as you say, you have been in the game before, you will have known the risks and have known the necessity to cover yourself against them. The only people who win this sort of game are the legals.

Perhaps you should post on any Mazda related forums if you haven't already.
AnswerID: 527483

Follow Up By: Member - Boobook - Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 19:12

Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 19:12
Gawd you are reminding me of a ISO 2000 migrane.

I remember Bureau Veritas was our auditor in the 2000's.

We put in a process that guaranteed failure but Bureau Veritas were ok with it and passed it because the process was valid.

What crap.
FollowupID: 809940

Follow Up By: Slow one - Monday, Mar 03, 2014 at 06:18

Monday, Mar 03, 2014 at 06:18
When asked by an auditor what was the maintenance regime for a certain piece of equipment, I answered we run it to destruction.

He was fine with that, and gave it a tick because we had a plan. Ha.HA.
FollowupID: 809969

Reply By: Michael ( Moss Vale NSW) - Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 18:24

Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 18:24
So if the manufacturer says its contaminated fuel, have you confronted the servo that you last used before the failure? Have you asked your insurance company if you are covered for contaminated fuel? It sounds like you are taking the hard way out! Go with the flow, do the above first. Michael
Patrol 4.2TDi 2003

Retired 2016 and now Out and About!

Somewhere you want to explore ? There is no time like the present.

My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 527493

Reply By: Member - Geoff M (VIC) - Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 21:00

Saturday, Mar 01, 2014 at 21:00
Hi Dave,
I wish you luck with Mazda. As a previous Mazda BT50 owner (2007 Freestyle), which unfortunately had numerous major faults that Mazda Australia (and the dealer) didn't wish to know about, I hope you have more success than I had.

Cheers, Geoff
AnswerID: 527498

Reply By: Dave C2 - Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 14:33

Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 14:33
Thanks guys, insurance didn't cover it, tried that first, Shell test their fuel everyday, we had 4 other vehicles fill up at same pump each second day, they had no problems, shell assure me that they would pay the claim if they were at fault, but stated no other vehicle around the day before and after fell crook from contamination.
its clear mazda use this term to avoid warranty,
bureau veritas states flat spotting and wear marks caused by first and second coils rubbing against each other, and being 20% harder than the industry standard for springs of this type as the reason for failure, they made no mention as to corrosion, rust or pitting caused from water at all on the parts and springs, and failure was due to spring hardness and design allowing rubbing of the coils upon each other, hopefully fair trading will take this serious to award the costs against Mazda under consumer law act 2011 and motor dealers act 1974, where by the goods were not of merchantable quality or durable for their intended purpose. heres hoping
AnswerID: 527521

Reply By: Bazooka - Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 18:08

Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 18:08
I'm confused Dave. Is your insurance company paying for contaminated fuel damage or not and are you still pursuing Mazda? One wonders why they'd pay when the fuel company denies responsibility and your engineering report states mechanical failure.
AnswerID: 527530

Follow Up By: Ross M - Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 18:58

Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 18:58
Dave appears to have clear knowledge of the likely cause, that now being narrowed down to the valve spring and it's hardness characteristics.

Fuel not being the cause but the components suitability to perform the duties asked of it.
Therefore, a Mazda component failure. The spring isn't made by Mazda but they are the recipients and fitters of a pump containing that component.

I think he only inquired about Fuel warranty in the event IT was the problem.

Ross M
FollowupID: 809939

Follow Up By: garrycol - Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 19:14

Sunday, Mar 02, 2014 at 19:14
If you look at Daves latest post - FollowupID: 809925 he advises his insurance company will now pay. If this forum had a better layout his post would be at the bottom not hidden away in the thread.

His initial approach to the insurance company was unsuccessful as it was deemed to be a mechanical failure. It seems he again approached them this afternoon and they have agreed to pay his claim.

FollowupID: 809941

Follow Up By: Dave C2 - Monday, Mar 03, 2014 at 12:50

Monday, Mar 03, 2014 at 12:50
Thanks guys again, apparently my claim 12 months ago was denied by my car insurer as they misunderstood my initial enquiry, and deemed it mechanical breakdown which is not covered, now I have two reports stating mechanical failure caused by fuel contamination, that were instigated by Mazda to void the warranty presumably, tests were done by Sydney diesel service and AG diesel service Melbourne, they both clearly stated its was contaminated fuel, but not water damage, they said bio mass etc or chemical contamination, the insurer seems happy with that outcome, of course I did not tell them ( insurer) that shell had denied contamination, as that would contradict the earlier tests claiming contamination.
in my mind it was spring failure caused by incorrect spring design and tempering, and nothing to do with contamination or water. but I will run with the other idiots as that seems to work better for insurance claims, so lets call it contaminated fuel. Mazda gets off the hook as well, good for them, cheers dave
FollowupID: 809989

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Monday, Mar 03, 2014 at 14:20

Monday, Mar 03, 2014 at 14:20
Thanks Dave. Good outcome for you, and Mazda. Perhaps a good diesel mechanic can tell us how "chemical contamination" can so easily cause catastrophic pump failure in these CRDs. Seems in achieving better performance the engineers have introduced a significant downstream problem. I remember reading a discussion some time back elsewhere and two engineer/mechanics with obvious knowledge and experience had significantly different views. Seems to me insurance companies ought to be asking whether these contaminated fuel problems are greater in Australia, and if so, why. Perhaps the internet chatter is > the actual number of failures?
FollowupID: 809991

Follow Up By: landseka - Tuesday, Mar 04, 2014 at 16:27

Tuesday, Mar 04, 2014 at 16:27
Dave, can I ask who your insurance co is? I asked this question of mine, RACWA and they said "no way will we pay for contamination problems" but we "will pay if incorrect fuel put in by owner, ie petrol put in diesel car at refueling".

Cheers Neil
FollowupID: 810073

Follow Up By: garrycol - Tuesday, Mar 04, 2014 at 18:18

Tuesday, Mar 04, 2014 at 18:18
You need to consider changing insurance companies as most do cover it as they should. It is not the owners fault if a garage dishes up dodgy fuel.
FollowupID: 810080

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)