D4D Fuel System – What I have Learnt

Submitted: Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:51
ThreadID: 108876 Views:11290 Replies:12 FollowUps:29
This Thread has been Archived
Hi All,

I have an ’08 KDJ120R and as I was approaching 150,000 Kms I had read a bit about the D4D injector and fuel issues on here, Pradopoint and a few other sites. The engine was still running fine although I had noticed more of a clunk on cold start and that idle was not as smooth as it once was, also that annoying buzz around 2500 rpm under load. I bought the car 4 years ago with 50,000 on the clock and it has always been serviced on schedule (with Toyota). We tow a camper trailer periodically but overall the car has not had a hard life.

The consistent issue I turned up in reading about it was that water seems to be the No.1 killer in CRD engines (not confined to the D4D either). So having read into it a bit, I decided to get a Water Watch alarm fitted. Before fitting, the mechanic wanted to check the injector feedback which he did quickly and the news was not good. There is a technical term, but he used one starting with the letter F. So I took it to Cooma Diesel in Canberra and they kept the car overnight so they could do the full diagnostic check. The results pretty much confirmed the initial analysis as follows (excuse the table spacing):

Cylinder Cold Start 10 Sec 30 Sec 2 Mins After Test Drive
1 -2.7 -3.0 -3.2 -3.3 -3.3
2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.7
3 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3 -1.6 -1.5
4 2.3 2.6 2.8 3.2 2.0

What is interesting is that apparently Toyota allows for a maximum of 3.0, although Denso (the injector manufacturer) recommends a maximum of 2.0. Either way it was not good. They also took fuel samples (pre and post filter) which showed clear evidence of algae and metal fragments.

Having always had the vehicle serviced with Toyota, it is disappointing that they had not picked this up (just had it for 150K service) as one or two of the injectors are outside their own stated tolerances, and this issue (if I can call it that) is not unknown with the D4D engine. However, Toyota servicing standards are a separate topic.

I had been toying with the idea of getting a new car, so a bit of a decision point I guess. It still runs fine, so sell it now or fork out a substantial sum to have it overhauled and hang onto it for a while to come. Alternatively, I could have asked Toyota to fit new injectors, which would buy some time but doesn’t address the root cause of the problem (likely water contamination). As with many of us, the car is set up exactly as I want it and when you add the costs of retro fitting all the bits and pieces on top of trade in price, I decided to get it fixed as I do like the car and at least it is a known quantity in all other respects.

So off it goes for the following:

Compression, leakage and valve clearance tests (all good fortunately)
Remove and clean both fuel tanks
Pipe cleaner check all lines
Replace both fuel filters (news to me, there are two)
Replace fuel pump
Replace injectors
Replace rail assembly
Fit tank breather
Re-assemble and initialise pump, code injectors
Fit Water Watch alarm.

The cost was painful to say the least (enough to seriously consider the trade in). But having got it back now I am delighted with the way it runs. No knock on cold start (minus temps here at the moment), it settles down to a very smooth idle instantly on cold start and no discernible buzz in the 2500 rpm range. Hard to tell a power difference and haven’t had it back long enough to see if fuel economy is affected or not. But it does feel like a new car.

The interesting things I picked up from this, or things I didn’t know which may be of interest?

Of the two fuel tanks in the 120, the front one is plastic (good) and the rear is steel (not so good).
The rear tank has a drain plug, but the front one needs to be removed to drain/clean.
There is a second filter (10 micron) between the two tanks which (if they even know it exists) Toyota has never changed in six years of servicing.
The tank breather sits in the rear drive shaft well just above the shaft. Lousy placement in terms of dust and water ingress.
Toyota will use 3.0 as max feedback variance for the injectors, the manufacturer recommends 2.0 which is quite a difference.

Anyhow, will see how it goes from here, but thought that might be of some interest to D4D owners.

Cheers,

Matt.
Back Expand Un-Read 1 Moderator

Reply By: Emerging I.T. - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 13:23

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 13:23
Hi Matt, I am around 100,000kms down the track from this. This happened to my D4D at around 110,000kms. I don't believe many Toyota dealers can test injectors properly. They can diagnose a failed injector but not the current status. Typically if one has failed the other 3 have to be done if you are realistic. On the fix what I will recommend is that you can buy the injectors a lot cheaper nowadays if you shop them around, check out Ebay for example. (You need the injector part number to be best prepared). I replaced all 4 injectors but re-used my fuel rail system as was.

Since then I believe the injectors I have now are an improved model over the originals. I do not buy fuel from individual service stations. In fact today I only use Caltex Vortex Premium and I use a range of cleaning additives including Castrol 2T Jaso approved oil at 200:1 when possible. Water and other contaminants are one thing but the other is todays diesel is low sulphur and low on lubricity.

My cold start is only really evident when really cold overnight temps have been recorded. I have clocked around 110,000kms since having all injector replaced and being diligent with what fuel I put in the vehicle.

Good luck with the future.
AnswerID: 536577

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:21

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:21
Indeed. Should have mentioned that I never used additives up to this point but that is part of the landscape now. For both contaminants (algae) and lubrication.

I am a bit disappointed that the dealer doesn't check this. A full diagnostic is one thing, but the check initially was a handheld scanner and took 5 minutes. Enough to alert that there were problems and surely within Mr T's capabilities.

Fuel quality can be hit and miss, I try to use well populated recognised suppliers, but sometimes you can have bad luck I guess.

Cheers,

Matt.
0
FollowupID: 820731

Follow Up By: Steve D1 - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:42

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:42
I think you'll find a scan check is done, after the valve clearance service, in your case, the next service. 160K.
But no. Any testing beyond that is always sent out to the pros'.

Steve
1
FollowupID: 820734

Reply By: Bazooka - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:08

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:08
An interesting read. Thanks for the detail and info Matt. Really not good enough for an expensive truck, especially one from a "tough" company which apparently makes indestructible 4WDs.
AnswerID: 536579

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:24

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:24
True Bazooka. Not sure of the D4D is any better or worse than other CRD modern variants (sure there will be opinions). Always going to be a balance between technology (power, economy, emissions, etc.) and the ability for any system to withstand a wide range of operating parameters (in this case fuel quality and contaminants).

In all other respects I love the car though.

Cheers,

Matt.
0
FollowupID: 820732

Reply By: Steve - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:13

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:13
thanks for that Matt - mine is exactly the same car, same year + a bit more mileage.

I probably won't sleep tonight ;)

I know there have been issues and I've looked on Pradopoint and these problems are clearly more the exception than the rule but .....it's a dilemma whether to sell or sort the problem out and even then, how much longer will it be before you need major surgery again or even end up trading anyway?

AnswerID: 536580

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:30

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:30
Hi Steve,

Yes, exactly the arguments I went through in my head in deciding whether to keep it or not. In the end, I think I talked to enough people who suggested that it comes down to maintenance and changing a few things (water monitoring, more regular tank cleans, etc.)

I could have gone a lot cheaper option in just replacing injectors, but in the end I really like this car and having made the decision to keep it decided to get the job done end to end. A Hilux ('08 D4D) in the workshop for a routine service when I was there with 400,000 on the clock. But an owner who had always been conscious of some additional precautions with the fuel system. Shouldn't have to in a perfect world, but maybe just awareness.

Time will tell if that is a dumb decision or not (and I have made a few in my life).

Cheers,

Matt.
0
FollowupID: 820733

Reply By: Ross M - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:50

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 14:50
G'day Matt
It isn't unusual for the servicing system to not change filters. Not sure how they keep getting away with not doing an industry standard service.

You mentioned the two filters on the vehicle. ie one between the tanks.
You would probably benefit by having two filters in the line to the pump.
The OE filter but before it a filter which will at least attempt to clean the fuel of contaminants, globs of water which are visible, and also has the ability to remove as much dissolved water in the fuel as possible. That dewatering feature is a very nice feature to have in the filters action. many filters are this type. It pays to check if they do or don't.

The Water Watch is a good product and it does detect water in the fuel, But, in no way does it stop the water in the fuel from going through the system. It tells you it is there, but besides catching the big stuff it may not eliminate much of the microscopic water held between the fuel molecules. That is the stuff you don't want in the fuel inj system.

If the WW yodels at you then you must act immediately to rectify the situation but the dissolved stuff has already gone further before you can stop.
AnswerID: 536584

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 15:05

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 15:05
Thanks Ross. Will have a look at the 2nd filter. Yes, understand that WW doesn't remove the water, guess the idea is to know when it is present and do something fairly quickly.

Cheers,

Matt.
0
FollowupID: 820737

Follow Up By: Ross M - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 17:34

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 17:34
You have to stop the emulsified water or at least try, for any sort of water protection. That is why I mentioned the dewatering filter because the WW doesn't stop it at all. That is why/how some damage can be happening or done before the WW says to do something.
IMHO, To rely solely on the WW for that protection isn't sufficient if you are serious about it all.
0
FollowupID: 820746

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 19:51

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 19:51
Agree with you Ross, and I will investigate. I guess the best option (aside from not getting any water in the first place) is having a filter capable of stopping some or most of the water, and an alarm to let you know it is there.

Cheers,

Matt.
0
FollowupID: 820753

Follow Up By: Ross M - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 20:28

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 20:28
The owner of a new Dmax on another forum lives in Darwin, read, moisture and humidity there.
He has a WW, then a dewatering Fuel Manager filter of relatively small micron size, and then the OE filter.
1
FollowupID: 820765

Reply By: Member - Odog - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 15:22

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 15:22
Hi Matt, agree totally with Ross... In reguard to the water watch and also the original filters.. Can't understand why the fuel filter under the bonnet never gets changed, check in your service manual, the filter between the tanks gets done every 20000 km, the other doesn't get a mention. Surely, a filter is a filter, designed to catch contaminates, how could it catch particles , and not get more restrictive over time, and reduce fuel flow.. Mate I'm no rocket scientist, not that mechanically minded either, but it makes sence to me... There fore, every service I tell them to change the fuel filters, just had it done today actually.
I also have the water watch fitted, maybe better options out there, but I'm happy..
I drive a 2012 prado 150 manual by the way.. But must be a lot of people out there that don't realize that the filter under the bonnet never gets done, they only drain it. Hope fully a bit of extra coin spent on preventative maintenance will save headaches later on.. Time will tell. All the best n safe travels. Cheers Odog
Some people want it to happen, some people wish it could happen, others make it happen!

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 536587

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 15:25

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 15:25
Thanks Odog. I make sure the under bonnet filter gets changed, it is the one between the tanks which I suspect has not been changed. Hell, I never knew it was there and suspect that Mr T hasn't either. Could be wrong though.

Cheers,

Matt.
0
FollowupID: 820738

Reply By: Member - graeme W (WA) - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 17:00

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 17:00
Hi Matt. Very informative post. Mines one of the early ones , September 2005 and done 170,000klms. When they first came out there was no service period in the book for changing the fuel filter and you were meant to drive until the light came on then head to the nearest dealer. I had a battle getting them to change mine before a long trip . I always try to keep an eye on things by pumping out a bit from the drain on the filter into a container every few thousand klms. Had actually spoken to the local Toyota guy today about injectors in the hilux (mine did a bearing in the alternator yesterday) before reading your post and he said most of the problems he had seen was actually rust in the injector pipes caused by water.
cheers Graeme.
AnswerID: 536591

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 17:26

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 17:26
Water does seem to be the killer Graeme.
0
FollowupID: 820744

Reply By: masterA - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 17:17

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 17:17
I believe that Baileys do a replacement for the Denso with double the warranty, blue printed and twice as cheap as the Denso for most CRD including the hiluxes, prados and the 'new' VDJ series V8s
AnswerID: 536592

Reply By: Slow one - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 19:19

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 19:19
Matt,
there will always be water in the system and unless you have a very sophisticated system it will go through the injectors. I thing Cummins look at filtering out anything above 200 parts per million. The waterwatch will pick that up and tell you to stop and drain, if it happens again call a tilt tray.

Standard diesel has a standard of 50 parts per million so the best thing you can do is talk to your insurance company about how you can be covered. Mine said you must have fuel receipts, I have kept those from the first vehicle fill along with K's travelled and odometer readings.

Emulsified diesel is not the norm as it settles out fairly quickly after transportation and filling of a servos tanks. Most times it will just be a gut full of water from the servos tanks, above ground diesel tanks are the worst off all for this if they don't have a good turn over.
AnswerID: 536595

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 19:56

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 19:56
Thanks Slow one,

Suspect in my case it was probably not a gutful in one hit, but probably an undetected buildup over time. Just a feeling though.

As I mentioned earlier, the placement of the tank breather is just asking for trouble IMHO. I keep fuel receipts, but I suspect it would be very difficult to point to one incident, there was no noticeable drop off anywhere. If it does happen in future though, would hope the WW alarm would provide a rapid indication.

Cheers,

Matt.
0
FollowupID: 820754

Reply By: Echucan Bob - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 21:38

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 21:38
Matt,

I hope the Prado is good for a few k's after that cash infusion. I just poured a similar amount into the Disco (at 200,000) instead of getting a new vehicle. You never know that you have made the right call. The Disco just took me to the Pilbara and back but still needs a few more minor tweaks.

Bob
AnswerID: 536608

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M - Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 21:42

Friday, Jul 25, 2014 at 21:42
Thanks Bob. I know ho much you love Prados too, Hope you guys are well.

Cheers,

Matt.
0
FollowupID: 820767

Reply By: Ozhumvee - Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 08:03

Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 08:03
The big thing that gets me with a lot of these late model diesels, mainly Toyota but hey they have the most on the ground, is that if the injection system cannot tolerate a certain size or content of contanimant then why do they not fit a filtration system that can do the job.
If the filters that are fitted are serviced at the required intervals, the owner only puts clean fuel in the tank from a fuel distributor (no old drums of dirty fuel etc) then how can these manufacturers get away from responsibility for fuel injection system damage if THEIR filters fitted from the factory CANNOT filter the fuel adequately.
To turn around and tell the customer it is their fault for putting dirty fuel in the vehicle when it is clearly the factory filtration system that is not up to task is IMHO completely wrong.
If they then turn around and try to say that it would be more expensive etc etc than yes that may be the case and could possibly add a couple of $K to initial vehicle price but it must be cheaper in the long run.
Meanwhile we all pay higher insurance premiums to cover claims for "dirty fuel" claims.
The onus should be on the vehicle manufacturers not the oil companies and vehicle owners.
Peter
1996 Oka Motorhome

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 536617

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M - Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 08:49

Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 08:49
Could not agree more Peter. You generally accept that you have to make modifications to a 4WD in terms of compromised tyres, suspension, etc. but not something as critical as the fuel system.

Cheers,

Matt
0
FollowupID: 820783

Follow Up By: Axle - Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 10:17

Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 10:17
G/Day Peter, The most sensible answer to this ever on going saga with fuel issues with the new generation small diesels to date !


Cheers Axle.
0
FollowupID: 820790

Follow Up By: The Bantam - Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 10:47

Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 10:47
It is a known fact that there IS and always will be a water issue with diesel.

Unlike petrol ( even no alcahol mix petrol) which will absorb a significant amount of moisture, diesel is heavier and more oily and even the smallest amount of moisture is no absorbed into the greater mass of fuel and burned with little event.

SO..diesel velicels have always been fitted with large filters with water traps and some sort of water allarm.

So what makes the vehicle manufacturers think they can put a product on the market that will not cope with small amounts of water from whatever source appearing in the fuel.

I've mentioned it before & I'll mention t again.
There was a poster on another forume who had recently baught a new common rail ute and a new common rail mini excivator.......they both had near identical motors.....they where both of comparable price.

The excivator came with a pretty damn good multi-stage fuel filtration system....where the ute had what most people here are talking about..a poor excuse for fuel filtration.

To say the least this bloke was not happy withe the state of play in common rail passenger cars.

cheers
0
FollowupID: 820791

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 16:19

Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 16:19
"Meanwhile we all pay higher insurance premiums to cover claims for "dirty fuel" claims."

I think the number of claims for dirty fuel would have no impact on premiums.

It would be interesting to see how many older pre CRD engines had problems and compare them to the problems of the CRD engines and work it out as a percentage per 100% vehicles, they may not be as bigger difference as one thinks.

It has only been since high powered CRD engines appeared on the market that the number of diesel engined vehicles in the passenger market has grown significantly.

And to fuel the fire; the internet is the biggest breeding ground for misinterpretation of fact...... the only CRD problems you here about are the ones with the problems and not the ones that are good.

20 people complaining in a large geographical location on a problem all of a sudden seems like 20,000...... but you never hear about the 100,000's who have no problems.

If there was such a BIG problem those in power would act and I am sure Toyota would as well.

Have a look on this forum and many others the number of people who have CRD and in particular the D4D CRD engines and compare then to the number of people who have had problems, the gap is very big.

With the number of D4D engines so called failing I would expect a much bigger outcry and more people posting on forums.
0
FollowupID: 820821

Follow Up By: Slow one - Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 16:39

Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 16:39
olcoolone,
I have seen my fair share of inline and rotary pumps that have failed prematurely, also injectors having to be rebuilt at less than 100,000K before it became cheaper to buy new ones.

As you said it would be interesting to see the failure rate between old style and crd engines balanced on a per 1,000 vehicle rate.

Guess it won't happen though.


0
FollowupID: 820822

Follow Up By: Member - Peter R (QLD) - Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 17:16

Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 17:16
I fitted a diesel water separator, which has an alarm when water detected in it which looks like this



The filter looks like this


Obtained this from Alan at Gold Coast Diesel
Gold Coast Diesel

Pedro
1
FollowupID: 820825

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 21:10

Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 21:10
Taking into account that we are a much better informed society now (social media, forums etc) and there are far more diesel 4WDs on the road I'd still hazard a guess that there are proportionately many more problems with more expensive CRDs than there were with naturally aspirated diesels like my old SD33 Patrol. The old diesels certainly were not anywhere near as touchy in regard to water in the fuel in my experience. I did eventually fit an additional CAV filter on mine after consulting a diesel mechanic and regularly drained off water and muck but I don't recall ever hearing from him or friends about motors, pumps and injectors being damaged.
0
FollowupID: 820836

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Sunday, Jul 27, 2014 at 08:18

Sunday, Jul 27, 2014 at 08:18
We have 5 CRD vehicles and 3 get driven pretty hard at maximum weight and clock up about 1000 k per week..... We have never had a problem so I must be one of the lucky ones.

As for old diesels........there has always been specialised diesel repair places and 20+ years ago we were not clocking the K's the average family does now, we see 20 year old 4x4 diesels come in often having between 200~ 300 thousand K on them but we also see a hell of a lot of 5~7 year old's that have done 150~200 thousand K with very little wrong.

It seems there are many out their in the world wide web who have never owned a CRD engine but the seem to know about or have 75% of the problems.

Jump on any of the CRD related forums who have 1000's of tech savvy members, I would expect 100's and 100's of pages of problems...... Funny how all these 1000's who according to some have problems seem to remain very quiet and only a hand full voice their concerns...... It just doesn't add up.

Look at EO and their large membership with many who own CRD engined vehicles...... Again strange you never hear from the so called many who have problems and again it is always the non CRD brigade who contributes more to the discussion then those who actually own CRD engined vehicles.

Slow One would be able to relate to this....... In the late 80's heavy truck manufactures started introducing electronic controlled engine and the Series 60 Detroit was one of the most advanced engines of it's time followed by Cummins with their Red Head N14E, we had many long term operators say they would never trust an electronic engine as the would be unreliable and if you broke down in the middle of odnawoopwoop you would be stranded for years.......

Gulf Transport ran a New high tech Cummins N14/525E along side there trusty 600hp Cummins K19, the N14 used less fuel, pulled harder and over the years proved to be just as reliable as the K19 that weighed. 3rd more....... And as they say the rest is history.

The new electronic engines had their fair share of teething problems in the earlier years but no prove very reliable with reduced emissions and running costs.
0
FollowupID: 820843

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Sunday, Jul 27, 2014 at 13:52

Sunday, Jul 27, 2014 at 13:52
Mate had a Prado CRD which was one of a number of victims of bad fuel which knocked out their fuel systems a couple of years ago. Whether fuel companies are simply slacker these days than they used to be who knows but CRD's intolerance to fuel impurities is well known and it appears that vehicle designers have simply washed their hands of the issue. Contamination leading to catastrophic damage can and does happen at any age and mileage so distance travelled is hardly relevant. On top of that the cost of CRD injectors and pumps is FAR higher than for na diesels. Modern diesels are better all round but the technology obviously has it's drawbacks.
0
FollowupID: 820858

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Sunday, Jul 27, 2014 at 18:06

Sunday, Jul 27, 2014 at 18:06
These modern CRD motors are built to Euro standard fuel quality which we are supposed to be getting here in Australia, somebody is not regulating the fuel industry properly to ensure they deliver the quality of fuel they are legislated to deliver

Ask any if the euro diesel specialists and they will tel, you the same thing, it is not a Toyota specific problem
0
FollowupID: 820883

Follow Up By: Slow one - Sunday, Jul 27, 2014 at 20:16

Sunday, Jul 27, 2014 at 20:16
olcoolone,
what you say is very right and I remember it well. DDEC had a top system from the start and it wasn't long before the others got there act together. Red head was a great engine.

I don't know why people blame fuel companies for the quality of the diesel they put in their tanks, probably 99% of the contamination comes after they deliver it to the servo. These days we get good quality diesel in Australia which many don't believe. I remember the bad days well, with brown diesel, low power and the smell when it burnt.
0
FollowupID: 820902

Follow Up By: olcoolone - Monday, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:51

Monday, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:51
Good to see Logic...... yes and what about the days where it was common for fuel station proprietors to add and blend thier own fuel to save money.

If you have a look at the history of vehicles every new model that had major upgrades had problems but many seem to forget.

Maybe in another 20 years making it 35 years since the introduction of CRD; people might get asked the same question and they will say "I would stay away from these new fandangle DPRTF engines, we never had any problems with the old CRD engines...... don't know why they changed it.

I think there is a big misconception about CRD and those causing it are the ones not on the front line.
0
FollowupID: 820920

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Monday, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:37

Monday, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:37
Most 4WDers I know (many are latecomers to the advantage of diesel) have no misconception about CRD at all. They love their engines while simultaneously acknowledging the issues I mentioned earlier. Nothing more "front line" than private owners as far as I can see and they're the very same people relating their problems but still voting with their wallets at the dealer. Water watch is doing a roaring trade.
0
FollowupID: 820929

Follow Up By: Alan S (WA) - Monday, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:33

Monday, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:33
Hi all

It has been touched on above, that most contamination comes from the Servo.

The vehicle manufacturers make a product that is designed to run fuel that is made to a high standard. Modern diesel is made to a high standard, which is one reason diesel is now more expensive than unleaded instead of the reverse.

It is delivered from the refinery meeting this specification to servo's and then sold.
As the majority of people will never have a problem I believe demanding auto manufacturers fit better filters to all vehicles (and it will cost) when you are already paying for quality fuel is a rip off.

There needs to be more emphasis on the retailers to ensure you get what you are paying for.
0
FollowupID: 820932

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Monday, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:20

Monday, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:20
I agree with you Alan, the finger should be pointed more at the fuel supplier, why do they not have an adequate filtration system pre bowser pump to ensure they supply the product that they advertise and we pay for, I dont think the onus is on the vehicle manufacturer to correct a problem that is not theirs.
Alan on the east coast, diesel is usually about 10 cents a litre cheaper than the premium unleaded's that most modern vehicles specify.

Bantam with regard to the excavator as acomparable, as they are refuelled mostly via drums and portable fuel containers, often in dubious conditions and locations it is probably fair enough that the manufacturers has taken that into account with their filtration systems fitted
0
FollowupID: 820933

Follow Up By: Alan S (WA) - Monday, Jul 28, 2014 at 14:06

Monday, Jul 28, 2014 at 14:06
Alby

Similalry the approach of Insurers covering engine damage due to fuel contamination, although it may only be a small cost, you as a a consumer are paying. Instead of Servo's or retailers paying insurance to cover damage caused by their failures.

If retailers were forced to cover damage you watch the insurers up their premiums to them or enforce better fuel storage and delivery systems.

To use an anology, if your local pub sells tap beer that is watered down, do you blame the brewery or the pub.
0
FollowupID: 820939

Follow Up By: AlbyNSW - Monday, Jul 28, 2014 at 14:32

Monday, Jul 28, 2014 at 14:32
Yes agree, just the same with the current state of play I am happy to pay a bit more for my insurance to cover it as it is big $$$. I make sure it is covered under the policy before taking it up
I don't know but I assumed that your insurer after making a payout to you would in turn seek reinbursement from the fuel company at fault?
A fellow I know had both of his diesel cars damaged by fuel on the same day at the local servo. The fuel company paid up for the damage which was over $10,000 in total
I guess the fuel suppliers look at the cost to upgrade their fuel delivery systems verses the payouts they have to make when backed into a corner and it is cheaper to pay out the odd disgruntled retailer.
0
FollowupID: 820940

Reply By: pop2jocem - Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 18:13

Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 18:13
I wonder how long the fuel system on the new CRD engines would last if they were all fed clean pure diesel fuel as per manufacturers specs?

Cheers
Pop
AnswerID: 536643

Reply By: Bigfish - Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 18:28

Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 at 18:28
It would not cost very much at all for vehicle manufacturers to install a system that could virtually capture all contaminants. If they can have vehicles that park themselves, turn lights on automatically, brake when travelling too close to another vehicle and turn wipers on when needed, the issue of a better filtration system would be easy. BUT.....this would mean that with top quality oil and regular servicing, motors would last twice as long. NOT VERY BENEFICIAL TO A VEHICLE MANUFACTURER EH?
Toyota MAKE MILLION DOLLAR RACE MOTORS AND VERY WELL KNOW THAT THE FUEL GOING INTO A STREET CAR NEEDS EXTRA SPECIAL FILTRATION DUE TO THE SERVCIE STATION BEING AN UNKNOWN SUPPLIER OF FUEL.

Vehicles aren't made to last, they are classed as disposable.
AnswerID: 536644

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)