Diesel Common Rail: Polluted Fuel Oil Damage

Many car manufacturers refuse warranty repair in case of injectors and high pressure pump failure due to water or debris present in fuel oil, i.e bad diesel quality.

A couple of questions:

Does the same manufacturer that makes the pressure pump and injectors make the filters?

Are the filters guaranteed to stop water?

If the answer to either of those questions is no, I think you're out of luck. Your only recourse would be to go after the diesel supplier. Based on my own experience with water fouled diesel, they will also tell you to get lost.

If this is an ongoing problem, I suspect that you will have to come up with your own method to pre-clean/dry the fuel before burning.

Hi, Kramarat

1) no: the car is a Peugeot 307 XSI; the pump/injectors maker is Bosh

2) I do not know of any guarantee about fuel filter retaining capacity vs water: no explicit indication in the service manual. BUT, BUT the secondary filter, the one just before HP pump, is the standard original filter choosen and istalled by the car manufactured itself, it is of MAHLE make/Austria. This is provided with a water collection bowl and it has also a fitting for a probe to detect "water in the filter" and generate an alarm, but Peugeot do not install it for the italian market! The reason is , probably, an abasive economy; officially they say that Italy is not a "third world market" and fuel quality at the pump station should be of decent standard. The fact is that, world over, fuel quality is getting worser...

For your information, I should be, in fact I am..., the consultant which ought to help the Court of Justice to judge on the matter!

I'm just collecting opinions and suggestions to confront and form my own opinion before to express my self in a wrong and inappropriate way.

Thank you! Jakob

Interesting.

I'm certainly no lawyer, but I'll say this.

Water gets into diesel fuel all over the world.............as well as other debris.

It sounds like a good system they have developed for "third world markets". I would not be very happy if I was an Italian customer and I didn't receive all of the safety features to prevent this from happening because Italian fuel "should" be good.

Could I win in court? I don't know. If we're talking a lot of money, I sure would try.

Was the water bowl and probe offered as an option and turned down, or was it not offered at all?

If it is not even an option in Italy, I would say the customer probably has a good case.

Well, the amount of money aint so much, perhaps 7-10.000 USD (about 5.000 USd for replacement of the complete "fuel system": fuel tank, primay fuel pump+primary filter, secondary filter, HP pump, common rail accumulator, 4 electronic injectors, piping, various detectors, they say its the standard protocol for avoiding residual sediments a extend warranty, + 2-5.000 USD for legal expences, lost working days of the customer and other collateral damages).

The secondary fuel filter, just before the high pressure pump, has a lower basket or housing which has an inferior section dedicated to water an debris collection. The filtering media is of the coalescent type, to arrest water, collect it in major drops and let them fall in the lower section of filter housing.

The filter housig , in plastic, has a lower valve which mast be manually operated to drain collected water. No instruction is given to the car owner about need periodical drain.

On the lateral side of the body there is a threaded socket, where the water detector device should be mounted. That socket is blind: before to fit any detector, one must drill a hole in it!!

Probably, it is possible in Italy to order the water detector and personally mount it.

The fact is that the absence of an alarm of "water in the fuel filter" is not obvious to the italian customer: in the use and maintenance guide one can see, among the instruments of the car front panel, the indication of such an alarm, but in another section there is a little (*) near the icone of the same alarm, saying "according to country".

Jakob

I think we're back to: The manufacturer is not going to want to take responsibility for bad fuel.

If it was a US lawyer and this was a frequent event that involved thousands of people, they might consider a class action lawsuit claiming that the probe and alarm system should have been standard equipment.

In this case, it could go either way in my opinion. If this was a one time incident, and the Italian system had proven to be adequate, even without the alarm, the manufacturer will likely win.

I'm glad I'm not the judge.

You are right, it ain't easy judgement!

1) The inconvenient is not so frequent with Peugeot cars, but it is not the first one, any way.

2) Also many owners of cars of different make complain the same problem, with huge costs on their own charge. It is sufficient to consult the web, about poor fuel consequences on modern engines.

The common rail diesel engine reaches fuel injection pressures up to 25,000 PSI and the mechanical tolerances are so strict that even a few micron rust particle may lock injectors or pump valves.

My doubt is that the fuel filters are not completely adequate to stop any trace of residual water, which therefore still passes in part through the filtering cartridge. This may be a design choice based on cost reduction reasons.

It's 10,25 PM here near Torino, better I leave the office and go home to sleep!

Good night and many thanks , Jakob

jakob, you said "No instruction is given to the car owner about need periodical drain."

Well, maybe yes and maybe no.

Here is a link to the Peugeot Maintenance schedule for the 307. Item #2 is "Bleed Fuel Filter (Diesel)". It came from the internet master manual here. This sounds like a scheduled maintenance item to me, along with 'Change engine oil', 'Change oil filter', 'Check and top off coolant'...

If this is actually printed in the manual delivered with the car or not I cannot say.

Hi Doorman,

thank for intervention!

It's true: I went to check the italian version of the service plan for Peugeot 307 (the english one is uncomplete, one cannot see the spots marking the occurrence of the operation at various service levels, lines are too thin).

As far as I understand, there are 3 service levels: "A", "C" and an "intermediate visit".

In the page showing the maintenance cicle they impose a service control level "A" at 20,000 and 40,000 Km, and a level "C" at 60,000Km (with no more than 2 years interval and other sub-conditions...). An additional control is suggested at 50,000 Km (Intermediate Visit)

The car we are talking about (bought in 2003) was standard serviced at 11,000 Km (year 2003), 22,000 Km (year 2004) and 42,000Km (year 2005), there are Peugeot maintenance invoices. The "accident", engine total stop due to possible water in polluted fuel, occurred at 56.000Km (year 2006), next planned visit level "C" ought to be at 60,000 Km.

It is true that an intermediate control could have been performed at 50,000 Km, too, but this level does not foresees a "filter bleeding" in my schedule.

Anyway, I must be careful before to speak. I'll think of it!

Good night, Jakob

Hello jakob, and welcome to our coffee table.

I must admit, with your new information, this seems quite an exercise.

A quick internet search of 2003 (I am assuming the car was bought new in 2003)Peugeot 307 XSI finds several in the $3,000 - 4,000 USD range. These are located in USA, and I see several the same price range in the UK. Is this car worth a lot more where you are?

This event unfolded in 2006 (let me see, 2011 take away 2006...) 5 years ago?

It may be worth a mention, that in the US, a manufacturer will never assume responsibility for bad fuel being put in a vehicle.

The only hope a person would have is to purchase a separate, very expensive, unconditional extended warranty. These are currently being written primarily by 3rd party interests.

I expect that the mfg will always say that contaminated fuel is beyond their control - which it is.

Not the manufacturers problem that the dealer is either lazy or crooked.

I have been driving a diesel pickup for years, my fuel filter is equipped with a water separator with an indicator, things I have cleaned out of my fuel system over the years include:

Large proportion of gasoline in my diesel fuel

Sludge resembling crude oil in my fuel

Paraffin in my diesel fuel

Water in my fuel

I have never lit the water detected light despite testing that it functions correctly. I have on occasion drained the water separator removing detectable amounts of water.

Not long ago along the Mexico border, thousands of diesel vehicles were severely disabled because Pemex has poor quality control and many people drive across the border to purchase diesel at much lower prices.

In no case, including vehicles under warranty, have I ever heard of anyone but the owner paying for repairs.

Under United States law.

I believe that the argument is that because the filters have a finite life and are service items the manufacturer cannot guarantee that the services have been performed as they specify in their maintenance manuals.

I have a friend who is a car wrecker and he has told me that he has seen quite a few cars which have only ended up in his yard because the scheduled maintenance was not performed - some of them have a glove box full of receipts where the owner has paid for maintenance which has not been performed by their chosen mechanic .......

I do my own maintenance ...... that way I know it has been done!

If its a problem, you need to say drain the water yourself say every 25,000 kms or so.....

Hi, all!

1) about the amount of the controversy: when the failure occurred (2006) the car was only 3 years old and still in the manufacturer's 3 years warrantee time. Cost of repairs was anyway comparable with car value and posed on total charge of the car owner. Therefore the customer went to the Court. Present (and very late!) expertise is related with those facts

2) please consider

- the owner regularily serviced the car at an official Peugeot workshop/dealer (and has receipts), see above

- the owner, in practice, cannot (and is not supposed to...) do self maintenance. The regular service at regular timing should be sufficient.

- the effective existence of a "water in filter alarm" is ambiguous, as I said above: in one page of the car user handbook it seems to be installed and operative, in a following page they say "according to country"

- the failure occurred at 56,000 Km, (next service programmed only at 60,000Km).

Consulting the service schedule of the car, it "seems" that, anyway, no "diesel filter bleeding" is foreseen between 40,000 and 60,000 Km.

Could not the customer object that, if the car was effectively provided with an efficient fuel filter and an efficient water filter alarm, the failure could possibly have not happened?? How can he be aware of danger, other ways?

Please note that the Peugeot 307 user manual says:

Quote

"Water in diesel filter warning light *(according to country).

Switching on of this warning light is accompanied by an audible signal and the message ''Water in diesel filter'' on the multifunction display. There is a risk of damage to the injection system. Contact a PEUGEOT dealer a soon as possible."

Unquote

Thanks all, Jakob

Problem is that the car manufacturer has no control over the fuel quality.

I remember getting really poor fuel in a number of countries around the world. Maybe if he could somehow prove all fuel came from first class service stations it might be more possible to go after the fuel supplier.

None of the car is warranted against abuse.

Thanks for your opinion.

Indeed, what I need is to provide the Court with reasonable information, then they will decide.

Jakob

The quality of the fuel is beyond the control of the vehicle manufacturer.

But the vehicle manufacturer is aware that fuel quality can be an issue, and should have and should have provided the vehicle owner the ability to prevent damage to the vehicle. As an example, If the fuel filter for an automobile can only capture particles as small as 4MM, and the fuel pump would be damaged by debris this big, then the manufacturer would be negligent. Similarly, if the fuel filter will only hold a few CC worth of debris, and the manufacturer recommends that the filter only be changed every 60,000 miles, that schedule would not be reasonable. So in this case, the manufacturer is clearly aware of the possibility of poor fuel quality. And the service schedule was not sufficient to detect the fuel contamination. It would seem to me that the vehicle manufacturer should have some of the responsibility of the repairs. The owner had just recently had the recommended service performed by the factory representatives, and shortly after had an engine failure that was rejected under the existing warranty.

They will have a standard set of conditions as reference I expect.

If one wants to pee into or otherwise put trash in the tank it is their own fault - not the fault of the manufacturer - regardless of time period.

Hi, Bob!

That is my doubt. In addition, I can say:

I'm not totally sure the water came from the pump station! Water may collect in the car tank for a recurrent condensation process of air humidity above fuel, i.e. a local phenomenon interior the car itself. The fuel specimen I have had analized shows a dissoved water content of 145 ppm, which is rather high but still within the European limits accordig to EN ISO 12937 (max 200 ppm); but, in cold weather, additional condensation can occur and the saturation point of fuel oil lowers: there may be water separation = water emulsified in fuel, if not sedimentation as "free water". That is to say, free water or dispersed emulsion of water particles may appear in the fuel after some years, just for internal condensation associated with high temperature of return fuel from HP pump to thetank.

RESUME

Poor fuel quality - Common rail failure - manufacturer warranty

Car: Peugeot 307 XSI HDI 110; propeller: diesel common-rail (i.e. very high injection pressures and strict mechanical tolerances; market: Italy. Build year 2003, failure 2006; still in warranty period at the time

Failure: jammed vanes of HP pump. Repair: replacement of whole injection system for a cost of about 60% of residual car value

My question is the following:

Many car manufacturers refuse warranty repair in case of failure due to water (or debris) for some reason present in fuel oil

I ask: those debris and water should not have been halted by the filter which is prior to the HP pump for that very purpose!?

I mean, is it not possible to object that a pump damage occurred because the fuel filters have not been engineered well enough to stop those pollutants? For sure, solid contaminants should be halted by the filters (and those micro-sediments which go through, anyway, just pass because they are smaller than the minimum mesh size of the retaining media, therefore must be taken into account in design and be harmless for the fuel system components): in the worst case, the engine could stop because of no fuel feed due to filter clogging, but no damage should occur...

The objection could be the same for the water.

Further information

The secondary filter, the one just before HP pump, is the standard original filter chosen and installed by PEUGEOT, it is of MAHLE make/Austria. It is provided with a water collecting bowl and it has also a socket for "potential" fitting for a probe to detect "water in the filter" and generate an alarm, but Peugeot do not install this probe in cars for the Italian market. Officially, they say that fuel quality at the Italian pump stations is of a decent standard. The fact is that, world over, fuel quality is getting worse ...

The above filter has a housing which lower section is dedicated to water and debris collection. The filtering media is of the coalescent type, to arrest water, cluster it in major drops and let them fall in the bottom of filter basket.

The plastic filter housing has also a lower tap which must be manually operated to drain the collected water.

On the lateral side of the body there is a threaded socket, where the water detector device should be mounted. That socket is blind: before to fit any detector, one must drill a hole in it, i.e. it is necessary to mechanically alter the filter housing connection!!

The fact is that the actual absence of an alarm of "water in the fuel filter" is not so obvious to the driver: in the car use and maintenance guide a picture shows , among alerts on the signal panel, the indication of such an alarm, but in another section there is a little (*) near the icon of the same alarm, saying "according to country".

1) The referred inconvenient (injection system failure for water in fuel) is not so frequent with Peugeot cars, but it is not the first one, anyway.

2) Many owners of cars of different make also complain the same problem, with huge costs on their own charge. It is sufficient to consult the web, about the consequences of bad fuel on modern diesel engines.

The common rail diesel engine reaches fuel injection pressures up to 25,000 PSI and the mechanical tolerances are so strict that even a few micron rust particle may lock injectors or pump valves.

My doubt is that the fuel filters are not completely adequate to stop any trace of residual water, which therefore still passes in part through the filtering cartridge. This may be a design choice based on cost reduction reasons.

As far as I understand, there are 3 service levels: "A", "C" and an "intermediate visit".

In the page showing the maintenance cycle, they impose a service control "level A" at 20,000 and 40,000 Km, and a "level C" control at 60,000Km (with no more than 2 years interval and other sub-conditions...). An additional control is suggested at 50,000 Km ("Intermediate Visit")

The car we are talking about (bought in 2003) was standard serviced at 11,000 Km (year 2003), 22,000 Km (year 2004) and 42,000Km (year 2005), there are Peugeot maintenance invoices. The "accident", engine total stop due to possible water in polluted fuel, occurred at 56.000Km (year 2006), next planned visit level "C" ought to be at 60,000 Km.

It is true that an intermediate control could have been performed at 50,000 Km, too, but this level does not foresee an operation of "filter bleeding" in my schedule

Please consider

- the owner regularly serviced the car at an official Peugeot workshop/dealer (and has receipts), see above

- the owner, in practice, cannot (and he is not supposed to...) do self maintenance. The regular Peugeot service at regular timing "should" be sufficient.

- the effective existence of a "water in filter alarm" is ambiguous, as I said above: in one page of the car user handbook it seems to be installed and operative, in a following page they say "according to country"

- the failure occurred at 56,000 Km, (next service programmed only at 60,000Km).

Consulting the service schedule of the car, it "seems" that, anyway, no "diesel filter bleeding" is foreseen between 40,000 and 60,000 Km.

Could not the customer object that, if the car was effectively provided with an efficient fuel filter and an efficient water filter alarm, the failure could possibly have not happened?? How can he be aware of danger, other ways?

Please note that the Peugeot 307 user manual says:

Quote

"Water in diesel filter warning light *(according to country).

Switching on of this warning light is accompanied by an audible signal and the message ''Water in diesel filter'' on the multifunction display. There is a risk of damage to the injection system. Contact a PEUGEOT dealer a soon as possible."

Unquote

I'm just collecting suggestions to form my opinion, and report the Court for final judgement:

is it true that bad fuel is always a customer problem and that the car manufacturer never can be held responsible? Even if the water in fuel comes from condensation of air humidity in the car tank (!) and not from station pump??.

Thanks everyone for help and comments,

Regads Jakob

The car owner's case is becoming better as more details are revealed. If the fuel examined was within acceptable standards, it was NOT defective fuel. The vehicle should be able to operate during the stated warranty period as long as the recommended maintenance is performed. And this vehicle had that service performed by the factory recommended shop.

What was the industry standard for similar vehicles sold in your area? Is a similar vehicle sold equipped with a warning system? Would the amount of water present in the fuel filters be sufficient to register on the water detection systems used by other manufacturers? With the low water content your analysis showed, would having had the water detector installed even registered on it?

How was the 'fuel examined'? What was in the bowl and remaining in the tank was OK maybe.

The fuel specimen I have had analized shows a dissoved water content of 145 ppm, which is rather high but still within the European limits accordig to EN ISO 12937 (max 200 ppm);

This was the statement from the OP. The contents of the bottom of the bowl were not mentioned, but that info would be valuable to the case.

Hi, Bob.

a) about the fuel

- water content (merely dissolved water, no free water) was 145 ppm, inferior to the max 200 ppm allowed by the European Code.

-an "impressive" amount of sediments and debris was found in the bottom bowl of the secondary filter (the one right before HP Pump), where water and sediments shall collect, and in the "pre-filter", the one before the electric suction pump installed in a basket inside the fuel tank of the car.

- I have weighted those sediments = approximately 20 grams total, including residual solids in the tank. This figure seems relevant (it equals a cigarette pack, in volume!).

But, if we consider that the tolerated solids amount in petro-diesel is 24 mg/Kg (or ppm, according code EN 12662) and that during the car life until failure (56,000 Km) at least 3000 liters fuel were introduced inside the tank , we have a tolerable total amount of solids = 24 mg/kg x 3,000 lt x density 0,84kg/lt = 60,480 mg total solids = ca. 60 gr. This final figure is much more of the total solids that we have really found in the fuel system, before the HP pump. Please note that solids should not pass the filters, and what is collected in the sedimentation regions of the fuel system represents almost the complete amount of solids which enters the tank mixed with fuel, since date of purchase to date of failure: fuel is supposed to reach the cilynders and the sediments are expected to be almost completely stopped by filters, and stay there.

Anyway, it is not a matter of solids but of water.

What I found out by microscope investigation is a presumable locking/jamming of HP pump vanes (or valves) due to rust = water entered the high pressure circuit, and caused some rust collection in the zone of the micro-vanes. I said "presumable" because the internal inspection required dismantling of the components and it was performed 4 years after the facts: wet rust was found and it was indirect evidence of possible jamming or imperfect closing of the micro-vanes.

Well, about water detector or probe in the filter housing.

a) It is not a standard device of the 307 XSI for the Italian market (they install it only in "certain countries"): all the italian Peugeot 307 are sold without the detector. (Some models of different manufacturers, but probably also some higher class model of Peugeot , are equipped with a fuel in water alert, anyway).

b) I have not seen the Peugeot water detector (being not installed). Normally, I think, there is a float with a switch mounted inside the bottom of the filter housing, about 2-3 cm lower than the inferior part of the filtering cartrige. When the water separated by the filter and accumulated in that "reservoir" reaches a certain level, the switch closes an electric circuit. This solution is not reliable, modern cars are provided with an electric resistance meter: water is more conductive than fuel, when electrical resistance of the liquid in the lower part of the bowl diminishes under a certai level it means the amount of water is too high and it can lap the filter catridge, causing risk of water go through. Other probes are based on ultrasonic detectors etc etc.

I'm afraid that the most reliable detectors are rather expensive.

It is important to note that the detector does not control the amount of dissolved water in the fuel (the referred 145 ppm, in our case). It checks the presence and accumulation during months or years (and various tens of thousands Km) of the water arrested by the secondary filter and collected in the lower housing of the same (various cubic centimeters).

I must admit that the risk of false alarms is not "zero", only very expensive water detecting systems are reliable. I have read of someone who removed the device from his car, due to improper activation.

Good night, Jakob (and thanks)

What you have is the 'American problem' - that is too many people not wanting to accept responsibility for anything mixed up with shysters looking for some party with deep pockets to sue.

If the fuel contamination came from condensation then all other common rail engines in the area would have the potential for the same problem. If there is no general problem then there is no case.

Again, what stations was the fuel purchased at? Cut rate stations, Shell stations? Siphoned out of someone else's car on a midnight requisition?

My last three cars have been common rail diesels - I don't know of and have not heard of any common problem.

It would be interesting to hear what the manufacturer has to say in defense.

If you can find a common problem in 1% of common rail diesels using this pump and filter then maybe you have a case - so far it is fishing and wishing.

Hi, Russ! Sorry for late answer.

It's Ok, and it is difficult to remain above the parties.

- About the pump station where the last and "complete" refuelling was done, it has the logo and belongs directly to the major national company for hydrocarbons, locally considered the best. They gave also specimens of the fuel in their deposits, which where analized too (but correlation with the fuel of the car is not 100% sure, because the station samples were taken a couple of days later)

- the car manufacturer said first that there were engravings in the internal cam of the HP pump and that they were evidence of metal fragments inside. This came out to be not true: the pump manufacturer confirmed that those engravings were regular and generated during manufacturing, in parts of the cam which is in no contact with others and did not need better polishing.

- The car manufacturer insists very much on the amount of solid sediments found in the filters as cause of the pump/injectors failure (but the calculations shown in my former message on this forum seem to prove that they are still "acceptable" as mass amount, according to the european standard for diesel fuels: less than 24 ppm.

- The Car manufacturer insists, also, on bacterial growth due to some % of biodeiesel in the petrodiesel (up to 7% is tolerated). This bacterial growth may lead to algae and filter clogging, but this could cause the propeller stop for lack of fuel , not the immediate damage of pump and injectors. I measured the car fuel specimen density in 2011 and found it about 0.84 Kg/Lt, while the original was 0.83 in 2006: it could mean a certain amount of bacterial growth indeed. Both parties, anyway refuse additional fuel analisys, they are satisfied with what we have already.

- The car manufacturer say there was water and some "oily red sustance" in the fuel, come from the pump station: The specimens acquired do not confirm this hypothesis

- When the car stopped, the day of the failure, a cloud of white smoke came out of the exaust pipe. This could be evidence of water passed through the filter to the pump, I mean the water collected during at least 2 years of running in the basket of the fuel filter, which has not the water alarm (for local market).

- They say that the water alarm is not foreseen for our market, and that is written in the user guide (I already spoke of this), no complain should be done

- They say, ours is not a third world market and therefore we do not neeed such device, being our fuel of good standard quality

- I have to think of what they said more, in addition....

But the substance, from manufacturer point of view, is: bad fuel quality is not our busuiness. The possibility (very known) of an increase of water content in the car fuel tank, and with that the growth of additional bacteria is not considered. The same, the possibilty of a foulty filtering media has not even been mentionned by them.

This is most of what I know, up to now, but they will probably send me their additional critical comments after the expertise.

Good night, Jakob

This incident, that might cost a customer dear, depending upon the outcome of the court case, shows you with one example why I won't touch French cars for nearly 40 years....

By the way, have you looked on the internet for similar cases? Have you found a Peogeot forum where you might find similar cases, perhaps you can build a case with more than just yourself.....

I feel that morally you have been screwed, but what a judge will make of it is another thing......best of luck!!

I had a similar situation with a Dodge Diesel and during one arbitration hearing the Chrysler engineers stated that they found dirt in the injection pump that they claimed caused the problem.. I asked them how the dirt got past THEIR filter system and that was the end of their BS. on that topic. They paid for replacement even though the pump was ok and problem was not dirt but an air leak at the tank. You would have a good case in small claims court if in North America and especially in Ontario Canada. By leaving off a needed device to protect this diesel under common law they are vulnerable but it depends on the intelligence of the magistrate.

Absolutely OK, Thanks.

But I must be careful, I should be above both the litigants: the customer and Peugeot, being the court consultant

Everybopdy is very kind on this forum, Jakob

Local time: 17,50 Ext. temp. 28°c , sunny, it is like the indian summer in these days!

Hi all!

Quote Jakob

"Could not the customer object that, if the car was effectively provided with an efficient fuel filter and an efficient water filter alarm, the failure could possibly have not happened?? How can he be aware of danger, other ways? "

The filter is efficient between some limits. It's absolutely normal that the system will fail if these limits are passed.

I will explain.

In basic lines when something (machinery or building) it is engineered, the calculation are made for some given conditions that will be considered normal for it and afterwards the results will be increased for safety with an amount of 5 up to 200% or even more.

Ex: from the calculation results that it's needed a locking pin with a diameter of 8mm:

- If it is used to hold the entrance door form your house, the dimension will be increased with 5%;

- If it is used in the construction of a crane, it will be increased with 100%

- If it is used for a space craft, it will be increased with 200%. (maybe some of the values are exaggerated, but it is just for the sake of the demonstration)

- Conclusion: like nobody will increase with 200% the diameter of the pin used for an entrance door, nobody will create a fuel filter with a mesh so fine that almost nothing should pass (maybe not even diesel? J)

So… let's take it logically.

1 - The manufacturer should describe, in the user manual, the normal conditions (in your case the properties that the fuel should have), how to operate and how to maintain the system in normal conditions to prevent damages and/or injuries. If those are not met, the manufacturer is to blame for any damage of the system, since the owner had none or limited information about what he should do or not. If those are met… lets pass to step 2.

2 - Now the condition in which the system operated should be tested to see if they were normal conditions (all the properties of the fuel were according to the manufacturer specification). In the entire discussion nobody mentioned about the lubricity of the fuel, which is very important. The components of the fuel system are lubricated by the fuel itself, so never should be disregarded the lubricity of the fuel. So this is proofing to be hard to test because if the owner used for 2 years clean fuel but with bad lubricity, the wear that resulted shorted greatly the live of all components from the fuel system and if afterwards for the 3^rd year he uses fuel with the correct properties then when the fail occurs he will have the correct fuel in the tank, but still the fail is caused by the fuel. Let's conclude: if the fuel was ok we pass to step 3, if not there two possibilities:

2.1 - the owner had disregarded the manufacturer indications

2.2 - the fuel supplier had sold fuel with different properties that those specified in the product sheet

3 - If none of above applies, there was a fault in the manufacturing of one of the components that could be a filter or the component that broke

Strictly logically and technical the odds for whom to blame are 50-50; I've given an example at step 2 why it's so hard to demonstrate which one is to be blamed. Now… from my experience (I'm a mechanical engineer, I'm repairing tractors, tractors are equipped with diesel engines), but not only like a technician, but more from my experience with people, more than 90% of the owners pays enough attention to the user manuals only after a problem occurs (usually it's too late). So I estimate that 98% of cases the problem is a combination of 2.1 (the owner had disregarded the manufacturer indication) and 2.2 (the fuel supplier had sold fuel with different properties (all properties are to be considered) that those specified in the product sheet). The other 2% are more likely faults in the manufacturing of the components. Those are estimations based on personal experience and feeling, not on scientific experiments, so I could be wrong J.

In some cases could be engineering faults of one component, but those are the easiest to proof because those cases have a high occurrence rate and big distribution area, meaning that the same component brakes after approximately the same time(or km/miles) regardless the region where the product it is used.

Hi, MikeyR

Your answer is relevant, I must try to comprehend it seriously. In the meanwhile I thank you!

May I reply tomorrow? It's really very late now, and I'm still at the office!

Good night, Jakob

Here I am, MikeyR!

Ref. yr pt 1):

In the Peugeot 307XSI HDI user guide I only read: combustibile GASOLIO (= diesel = fuel oil)

I do not find any mention of a Code or standard Rule

I suppose the diesel fuel oil should conform with "road diesel" Italian standards for use in private cars. That standard ( in 2006) in Italy was (and is) the Rule: UNI EN590 year 2004. I have acquired only a chemical analisis of the car fuel performed in 2006. All the parameters, including distillation diagram, conform with that rule, with the only exception of sulfur content, wich came out to be 57 ppm, instead of 50 ppm max of the Norm.

In addition, traces of calcium and zinc were found. On the base of those traces and sulfur content, it is possible to suspect that the residual fuel in the car tank contained around 1% of added lube oil (from some pump station? perhaps some used oil was added in the deposits of some unknown refinery or pump station, but it's just a hypothesis).

I do not know exactly, but an hypothetical 1% lube oil in diesel fuel should be harmless. Anyway, the residual fuel comes out to contain sulfur at a rather high ppm, this, at least, could lead to the conclusion that the fuel was not of the "low sulfur type": as a tumb rule, only low sulfur diesels show LUBRICITY problems...

Unfortunately, I have no data about lubricity of the fuel we are dealing with. Re-testing now fuel oil after 4-5 years storing could give misleading results.

What I can say is that, performing a microscope examination, I found and I have photographed, traces of wet rust in the seats of the micro-vanes of the HP pump (I mean the small spider cages containing a metal sphere of about 1,5 mm in diameter). That rust could be the reason of locking of the vanes or irregular closing of the same: i.e. leaks or malfunction of the pump, not sufficient generated pressure and injection system failure.

I mean: water in the HP pump body could be the reason of the failure, and that water must have come in through the secondary filter.

I agree that water in fuel is dangerous:

- lubricity reduction (and , indeed, fuel is the lubrificant, in this case)

- corrosion for friction of the metal seats

- occurring of rust

- rust is abrasive

- acidity

- algae, microbiological growth etc etc

Ref. point 2)

I agree, nobody knows and can proove where the car user really purchased fuel during former 3 years of car life. He says, he usually purchases from same station (the major national hydrocarbons company, considered the best local supplier). At least, the last refuelling before failure, total tank filling, was done at that major company pump station, the representative of the station does not denies it, fuel in the pump station tank has been analised and found OK, but sampling was performed only few days later, so no sure or objective correlation may be done.

In general, I can suspect that some bad refuelling occurred in the last months before failure, but there is no clear evidence: no free water in the fuel samples (extracted through a hole drilled on the bottom of car tank), sediments and deposits were high but still 1/3 only of the tolerated solid contaminants according to specific Rule (24 ppm). I have detailed this particular aspect in my anser to Russ on this forum (09/28/2011 7:32 PM) and in another answer to Bob (09/28/2011 6:35 PM).

3) About user responsability: theoretically he is not expected to make self maintenance, he had his car serviced according to maintenance shedule, one cannot self drain manually the fuel filter , it is rather complicated for a non mechanic.

In addition:

- the state of the parts has been altered: the injection system has been totally dismantled in 2006 (from fuel tank to injectors) and completely replaced with new components

- the storing of the dismantled parts in the following 4 years was not performed in proper environnement

- in 2011 I have found 4 injectors locked and the HP pump could not be manually rotated. This locking could be due to oxidation because of air humidity during storing. Ligh hammering has unlocked the parts.

- during internal dismantling of pump and injectors micro debrises are inevitablely generated, but I think to recognise them because they are bright and new (at least, I belive to be able to distinguish them...)

- The evidence of still wet rust in the seats of pump vanes, and pistons springs, consolidates my suspects about water inside high pressure circuits.

Ins absence of an absolute evidence of polluted fuel from the pump station, the suspect of water accumulation in the tank for a condensation phenomenon remains of some relevance, at least as co-responsible of the failure.

I'll be curious to know the physical mechanism by which water and solids may pass through an apparently intact fuel cartridge (I've also made a pneumatic test: air flow through filtering media is rather uniform and occurs under 1/20 PSI or less: no holes, no leacks, no visible damage, robust constructio of the filtering section, clogging not relevant, apparently fool proof mounting).

By, Jakob

Hi Jakob I like the systematic and scientific base you pursue in this matter. I had a Hyundai with a common rail diesel engine, that lost three injectors due to "dirty" fuel at 130 000 km. My position was that I found it strange that the fourth one was still OK. I also felt that the filter systems should cater for the typically expected use of the engine, which includes the fuel, temperatures, altitude, speed, etc., typically found in South Africa in my case. I never ventured further north where fuel is much worse. Also, my vehicle was religiously serviced at Hyundai every 10 000 km, and i paid for a new fuel filter each time (+- US$200 each, around five times more than petrol fuel filters). As I bought the veicle second hand with 90000 km on the clock, I took an extended warranty upon purchase. After much arguing, the warranty provider decided to pay (at US$1000 per injector it was not cheap). What I do find strange is that the complete fuel system had to be replaced - it seems rather extreme! But then I just drive the vehicle, I'm not a mechanical expert.

Hi, Gideon!

1) With some effort I can even comprehend the position of the car Manufacturer and its workshop:

- if they have to grant a warranty extention after repair, they have to replace ALL components of the fuel system which were fouled or dirtied by bad diesel , or what ever the polluting substance was. That is to say: tank, primary filter, el-suction pump, secondary fuel filter, HP pump, comm-rail chamber, injectors, piping, el-control vane etc. Indeed, we are talking of polluting particles which are few microns in diameter, it is almost impossible to perform a proper "flushing" of the system, you can't even see with your eyes the microscopic imperfections in HP pump and injectors, which ought to be the evidence of damage. Usually you perceive the "macroscopic" effect: the engine does not work well or does not run at all! Afterall, dismantlig pump and injectors is a delicate job, you shoul treat them with a level of cleanliness similar to that of a surgical operation, and usually mechanic men are not so subtle! I.e.: there is a risk of impurities left in the circuit and the car may show again the same problerms, if you do not substitute all parts (and this must be done under quality assurance procedure).

2) Anyway, at least in the 50% of the cases, a careful flushing of the entire fuel system, together with the refurbishing of pump or some of the injectors "can be sufficient" and could cost less than 50% of total new replacement of the system, in my opinion.

3) why only 3 injectors and not 4?. You where lucky, fouling, water or rust damaged or locked only 3 units, they had not the time to complete their negative job.

4) FOR ALL WHO CARE!

- I have nearly found the reason why water goes through the fuel-oil filter, I made a test:

-If you seal the lower central hole of a filter cartridge and immerse the lower part of it in water (for a couple of cm only), after 15 -30 minutes you will see (from the top central hole) that water has passed the filtering medium and it is flooding the interior of the filter!

- That is to say: if you do not drain systematically (at least once every six months) the fuel filter bowl, the accumulated water (if any) may reach and exceed the basis of the filter cartridge and flood its interior: water will reach, then, pump and injectors.

- indeed, the mechanisms is more sophisticated. I made a second test: first I saturated the filter medium of the cartridge with fuel oil, to simulate normal operation: I sealed, as before, the bottom hole of the cartridge, I put it in a small basin, then I added in the recipient (around the filter) fuel oil for approx 5 cm height. When the fuel appeared inside the filter conduit, and stabilized, I poured water in the lower level of the basin (water remains under the fuel, having higher density). I waited for half a day then I extracted with a syringe the "liquid" which was in the lower interior of the filter. I put that liquid in glass test tube and let it sedimentate for some hours: the liquid , initially was cloudy (it was an emulsion of fuel oil and water), then it become more transparent and few drops fo water appeared in the bottom of the test tube.

Conclusion: when saturated with fuel, the filtering medium is much more effective against water, but, in any case, water may pass and make an emulsion (if not free water) in the line after the filter!! So, it is dangerous to allow the water separated in the filter bowl to exceed the base of the cartridge: service ( or self service) must be done, on a periodicakl basis.

Good night, Jakob

That is to say: if you do not drain systematically (at least once every six months) the fuel filter bowl, the accumulated water (if any) may reach and exceed the basis of the filter cartridge and flood its interior: water will reach, then, pump and injectors.

Who established this schedule?

Whoever is putting water and dirt in the diesel fuel.....HeH HeH HeH

Hi Bob!

That is the Hamlet's question!!!!

In present case (reasonable failure due to water reachig fuel punmp and injectors, despite water separating fuel filter), I think I would say:

it should be sufficient to meet Car Manufacturer recommendations, i.e. regular servicing at an authorised workshop according to maintenance schedule. No extra, personal or private service should be done.

- The car was last serviced at 42,000 Km (corresponding to 40.000 Km scheduled maintenance). This service level does not foresees filter cartridge replacement (due , first time, only at 60,000 Km). At the 40,000 Km level, only diesel filter bleeding must be done at workshop (to drain possible watwer accumulated in the bottom of filter housing)

- the failure occurred at 56,000 Km (i.e. only 4,000 Km before new service and 12,000 km, and a year, after last filter draining).

If the customer can prove that in 12,000 Km it is possible that a fuel-oil meeting the standards of Rule EN ISO 590 may "loose" water up to ca. 115 cubic centimeters (which is the capacity of the water bowl under the filter, before water licks the cartridge), then there is a possibility to claim refoundig of expences for the repair of the car, being it still in the warranty period.

Making the necessary calculations, based on 0,84 Kg/lt fuel density and 16 Km/lt average comsumption, it comes out that the fuel ought to "loose" an average of 180 ppm (against a rated max 200 ppm water content as per Rule). It seem a little bit too much. But one should not forget that additional water may enter the fuel due to air humity condensation inside the tank, high temperature of return fuel etc etc. More investigation must be done, before to blaim the Car Manufacturer for not having foreseen a "bigger bowl" for water collection or adequate filter ...

I'm thinking of it right now.

One must not forget that the peculiar car HAS NOT a "water in fuel filter detector/alert", not for the italian market, at least.

It becomes a "splitting hairs" matter, a lawyer business rather than an engineer question... I can only advise the Court.

To conclude, if you can proove that the fuel you used was conforming with accepted standards (in a year period....) and you have a water in injectors /pump problem, you can get warranty coverage, I think.

In general, the suggestion of a rather frequent drain of the water from filter bowl (more frequent than that foreseen by the manufacturer itself) is a desirable precaution if there is hazard of bad fuel quality in your area (a risk which may be rejected by warranty conditions and also by the FIE association , Fuel Ingecting Equipment manufacturers cartel).

Salutations, Jakob.

My question to you is this: does the manufacturer recommend that water be drained every 6 months? And, what is the time in months between the 40,000 km servicing, and the 56,000km failure?

a) Accordig to Manufacturer's maintenance schedule:filter bleeding at 40,000 Km ; filter bleeding and fuel cartridge substitution at 60,000 Km (no additional prescriptions)

b) failure occurred in june 2006 (56,000 Km)

c) The car was, indeed, serviced at 42,000 Km (not 40,000); it was June 2005

d) The Km driven between the 42,000 Km servicing and the failure were 14,000 in total. The corresponding elapsed time was approximately of 12 months

Jakob

So, if the manufacturer recommends the draining of the fuel filter bowl every six months, the owner was lax in his maintenance. But if the manufacturer only recommends the 40,000km and 60,000 km servicing, then the owner has fulfilled his obligations to the manufacturer.

The difference between 40,000 and 42,000 km should not have made significant difference or the dealership would have been obligated to inform the owner that their warranty was in question.