Technical 1.3 Diesel - P0089 and the fuel filter of doom...

Currently reading:
Technical 1.3 Diesel - P0089 and the fuel filter of doom...

In all honesty... an injector that was wildly off is the worst possible case. They're expensive, difficult to remove (require extra tools etc) and in any case: there are four of them! The big difficulty is finding some conclusive information that would help make sense of the data gathered so far.
There are tools needed to extract them and clean the seats up in the head if you get really serious about stripping and repairing them, I admit.
The first one I got involved with was on a Ford Focus 1.6 Diesel that failed Mot on leaking at the seat on the cylinder head, I had to buy the extractor /slide hammer to remove, then the tool to clean/ream the seat so a new copper washer could seal it, to add to the problems it wouldn't start afterwards as the extractor dislodged a critical ceramic ball valve in the injector (resulting in common rail line pressure being to low to activate the system)so an exchange injector @£175 at the time, was needed, after which it started straight away.
Subsequently on a 06 Fiat Grande Punto 1.3 Multijet I bought for one of my daughters I stripped and rebuilt all four injectors which was a mammoth job, involving a £80 Indian diesel pressure/pop off tool to test it, a ultrasonic cleaner and a lot of ingenuity.
So not a weekend DIY job, although I did loan the tools to @DaveMcT as he lived local when he was rebuilding his Fiat.
 
Quite so Mike; it's a place I don't want to go! ...To be honest, this may well be the last diesel car I buy. Diesel engines are supposed to be tough and reliable, this one has thrown the toys out of the pram over a wee bit chilly weather and some fuel waxing that shouldn't really have hurt anything once it thawed. - Modern technology eh? I wouldn't like to be caught out in the Australian bush or trundling around Alaska with one of these things! Actually: I'm not sure I want to risk the M8 in this thing now!

I'll certainly be avoiding anything with a JTD engine like the plague! The reason being that I am left frankly incandescent with both the lack of available basic information and the obfuscation of what little there is! - That complete tripe on Autodoc and other parts suppliers for example; about the water sensor being a pressure sensor. Similar nonsense surrounding the compatibility of fuel pressure regulators... Even at a major high street motoring store! The 'powerpoint' slides from a diesel expert running courses in the things; which canonically state something that - it turns out -is not necessarily the case! - The lack of data and specifications on things like expected rail/pump pressures and leak-back rates!

Getting back to the point in hand...

Other issues may well arise due to the imbalance seen on that test I did... However, it does seem that a leak back test is something that yields data in terms of a specific rate of flow over a period of time. What's more; depending on the make and model of car, there might be certain set timings and protocols to be taken into account. ...As I said; if this were a 2.4D volvo, 40ml/min wound be fine! And even taking at face value that random on the other forum who reckoned he worked in a 'diesel specialist' - 30ml/3minutes is about where the worst of these is at.

Certainly; gross imbalance and the sort of leak-back that can quarter-fill a 500ml 'pop' bottle in 3 minutes 40 seconds might start to persuade me that the pressure is collapsing rather than simply not being generated in the first place...



PopBottleTest.jpg

...For the avoidance of doubt; this video has nothing to do with me; I'm merely posting a still from it to make a point. Different engine.. different injection system - even the good injectors seem to be passing back far more than i got! The only common factor is that this test is run over about the same period of time. Notably; pressure collapse wasn't an issue here; nor in any of the other similar 'injector failure' leak back videos I could find -

The bottles in the kit I used have a capacity of about 60ml... about ⅛ of the capacity of one of those little 'pop' bottles.

Leak Back 25 01 24 Small.jpg


So, visually, yes, you might surmise there is a possible problem (variance) with injector 3 and possibly 4... but that's a completely different issue to the question in hand of whether the leak back is severe enough to cause the pressure on the rail to collapse and cause the car to stop running.

At the moment there is no sensible answer available to two key questions:

(1) Are the running pressure values within normal limits for this particular engine? (I'm not convinced they are!)

(2) Are the recorded leak back values within expected limits? (it seems so, from the limited data available! - 25ml/min they say)

Surely somewhere out there specifications for the pump are published? - If so, I can't find them! Likewise I would have thought 'expected values' for the car itself would be 'out there'.
 
Other issues may well arise due to the imbalance seen on that test I did... However, it does seem that a leak back test is something that yields data in terms of a specific

At the moment there is no sensible answer available to two key questions:

(1) Are the running pressure values within normal limits for this particular engine? (I'm not convinced they are!)

(2) Are the recorded leak back values within expected limits? (it seems so, from the limited data available! - 25ml/min they say)

Surely somewhere out there specifications for the pump are published? - If so, I can't find them! Likewise I would have thought 'expected values' for the car itself would be 'out there'.
Short of a safe way to blank off injectors or feed to common rail to get a max. pump delivery pressure to eliminate pump side, you are left with an inconclusive result re injectors I agree.
I have found in the past if you give the full serial number of Bosch products as in the CP3 pump and the full injector serial number, Bosch do have some fairly good product sheets with a bit of searching.
 
Short of a safe way to blank off injectors or feed to common rail to get a max. pump delivery pressure to eliminate pump side, you are left with an inconclusive result re injectors I agree.
I have found in the past if you give the full serial number of Bosch products as in the CP3 pump and the full injector serial number, Bosch do have some fairly good product sheets with a bit of searching.
I've searched 'till I'm blue in the face... and I'm not-exactly someone unused to computers or research. - Really haven't found anything of great help. Even after the fiasco with the FPR; and indeed referencing what little Bosch put out - I still can't really tell you whether this particular pump regulates on the low side of high side! - It could be either! not that it matters to me at this stage...

...Blanking off the fuel rail and measuring the pressure there would require more tools; which don't seem to be something anyone sells or a thing anyone does. A more rational approach is to find out what the figures are actually supposed to be! I think the pressure figures I have are too low; I'm expecting numbers climbing towards and over 1000BAR based on what I've 'heard'. - But the bottom line is that without relevant coherent data; I just have no way of knowing.

I don't even know anyone with a similar car - i.e. fitted with the 1.3JTD - that could perhaps plug into a scanner and record the data off theirs for comparison.

On the injector side; the data sheet from Merlin Diesel tends to indicate that acceptable leak back figures can, in some circumstances, be much much higher that those that I have... and it's logical to deduce from this that rail pressure is not expected to collapse in those circumstances. - Certainly, if the 25ml/minute limit is correct; none of my injectors are leaking back badly enough to cause a pressure drop. - If!

As always; I do appreciate the input Mike; thanks.
 
I've searched 'till I'm blue in the face... and I'm not-exactly someone unused to computers or research. - Really haven't found anything of great help. Even after the fiasco with the FPR; and indeed referencing what little Bosch put out - I still can't really tell you whether this particular pump regulates on the low side of high side! - It could be either! not that it matters to me at this stage...

...Blanking off the fuel rail and measuring the pressure there would require more tools; which don't seem to be something anyone sells or a thing anyone does. A more rational approach is to find out what the figures are actually supposed to be! I think the pressure figures I have are too low; I'm expecting numbers climbing towards and over 1000BAR based on what I've 'heard'. - But the bottom line is that without relevant coherent data; I just have no way of knowing.

I don't even know anyone with a similar car - i.e. fitted with the 1.3JTD - that could perhaps plug into a scanner and record the data off theirs for comparison.

On the injector side; the data sheet from Merlin Diesel tends to indicate that acceptable leak back figures can, in some circumstances, be much much higher that those that I have... and it's logical to deduce from this that rail pressure is not expected to collapse in those circumstances. - Certainly, if the 25ml/minute limit is correct; none of my injectors are leaking back badly enough to cause a pressure drop. - If!

As always; I do appreciate the input Mike; thanks.
I just hooked up a basic diagnostic tool to my 2010 Fiat Doblo 1.6 multijet and got this at idle 27,910 KPA and did get around 60,000 KPA @ 3000rpm for a short blip, but didn't want to pee off my neighbours too much seeing it's 9:30Pm.
So 279 Bar @ idle and approx 600 Bar @3000 rpm roughly. This vehicle starts easily and runs clean.
 

Attachments

  • DSCF2248.JPG
    DSCF2248.JPG
    2.6 MB · Views: 17
I just hooked up a basic diagnostic tool to my 2010 Fiat Doblo 1.6 multijet and got this at idle 27,910 KPA and did get around 60,000 KPA @ 3000rpm for a short blip, but didn't want to pee off my neighbours too much seeing it's 9:30Pm.
So 279 Bar @ idle and approx 600 Bar @3000 rpm roughly. This vehicle starts easily and runs clean.
That's greatly appreciated Mike; thank you. - Seems consistent/comparable with what I'm seeing up to about 3000rpm at least; the issue seems to lie further up the range. - The highest I've seen is approximately 800BAR@5000rpm - which must be damn-near maximum revs.

"A radial, 3-piston pump, with a gearotor pump attached to the back, is used as the high-pressure pump for common-rail fuel pressure generation - in this system it is capable of pressures between 300-1600 bar (4351-23206 psi)" - A statement you'll find repeated in various places.

"Bosch model CR / CP1H3 – this provides the appropriate pressure up to a maximum of 150 [MPa]." from - https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2016/05/e3sconf_seed2016_00126.pdf

150MPa is 1500BAR

I've posted another thread requesting data in the more general technical section; I think it would be useful (not just for me) to try and ingather some of these figures; maybe compile them into a spreadsheet - and leave them somewhere on the board for people to access. I might get some time/opportunity on Monday to investigate further...

Time to call it a night methinks.... however; I have just come across this thread while searching google for something else.


There are a couple of 'lines of enquiry there - but this caught my eye;

"With Car Scanner and the OBD dongle I saw fuel pressure between 300 bar and 1400 bar, revving the engine while idling,"

...Hmm. Time for bed, said Zebedee! Manyana manyana!
 
I have an older 1248 motor, in a 2008 Grande Punto,
I will try and get rail pressures when I am with my MES kit
Many thanks... I feel it may be useful to compile some readings gathered from various cars and perhaps assemble them into some sort of table or spreadsheet. - Perhaps 'publish' it here eventually so that nobody else has to stumble about in the dark in future.
 
Just as a matter of note... With respect to the symptoms discussed on the Ducato thread:


...these do seem to bear some significant similarity to those both Steve and myself seem to be experiencing.

So... check/replace the strainer seems like a logical next step.

There is (unsurprisingly) a difference between the CP1H3 pump fitted to my car (and I assume Steve's) and that fitted to the Ducato. On the 04450101266 and similar 'low height' versions of the pump, it is apparently the case that the strainer lurks beneath the fuel inlet pipe. Given that some version of this pump do seem to regulate fuel pressure by modulating the LP side (and some don't!) it's logical to deduce that any restriction in that strainer might limit flow and subsequently pressure; particularly at high rates of demand. It's also reasonable to speculate that any crud moving about, might giver intermittent/inconsistent symptoms.

The relevant items are numbered 81 (strainer) and 29 (inlet pipe) on the diagram below - which by some miracle I managed to find this morning whilst looking for something else! This is very-much at variance with the 'general' diagram for the CP1H3 that normally pops up and shows the 'long' version of the pump. Which means that whilst there is a strainer - plucking bits out of your pump body with a torx or hex bit (as shown in the Ducato thread) might be a really bad idea! - Especially as your 'flat' pump might have things (orifices) in the body that do look very-much like the access points for the strainer on a 'long' pump.

The thing I'm no wondering now is how one (correctly) removes the inlet pipe to access the strainer? The photo below the diagram is the actual pump in question here; the fitting has nothing on it to grip. - Not keen on just butchering it out of there!

I believe the actual strainer is about a fiver!

CP1H3 266 Diagram.jpg
 
From the thread in the non model specific section, requesting some info on how to remove the inlet pipe on the CP1H3 (in order to access the strainer) fitted to these cars.

...for various reasons (working on an assortment of very fine-scale mechanisms) I do have a supply of the soft disposable sampling swabs; of exactly the same kind you might recall were included as part of the COVID testing kits - Not only a safer bet but about the correct diameter and length to get down the inlet pipe and into the filter!

I might get a chance to do that this afternoon.

Earlier today I set about:

1: Extracting whatever (if any) fluid I could from the pipe/strainer - I'd intended to examine it, but that was a bust.
2: Taking a sample swab from inside the strainer in situ
3: Flushing out the area with some clean diesel - syringe, needle, rinse it out so the crud flushes out through the to end of the inlet pipe.

This was done using a 22ml syringe fitted with a wide-bore needle; the same sort of thing you might use for re-filling inkjet cartridges; and utilising flocked nasopharyngeal swabs to reach inside the inlet pipe/filter to clean/sample... The swabs used are exactly the same type as was supplied with COVID testing kits a year or two back. They do actually find other uses as general cleaners and oilers in various mechanisms. The big advantage of these (the flocked kind that is) is that they don't carry any risk of shedding cotton fibres.

Filter and Swabs.jpg

So... an almost imperceptible amount of diesel was sucked out of the inlet pipe; too little to see much. Swabbing the empty inlet pipe (swab 1 in the picture above) yielded a light smear of dirt. The pipe was then 'filled/flushed' with clean diesel (using the syringe) and swabbed round - this dislodged a small amount of dirt which can be seen on swab 2.

There were two or three 'flushings' done using the full capacity of the syringe each time. -There is a technique to doing this sort of thing (though it's the first time I've tried it with diesel!) where you pressurise the syringe as you withdraw it. - This has the effect of producing a tiny 'pressure washer' effect on bore walls.

Swab 3 was used to 'swab round' the flushed/full inlet after these few flushings... it emerged clean, as can be seen. Which suggests to me that a superficial layer of loose dirt will now have been displaced/removed. - This doesn't necessarily mean the filter is now clean or 'good as new'; but it will be 'less bad' than it once was.

What's interesting is that where previously I was beginning to doubt whether the cheap scanner I have was capable of displaying 'six digit' pressure figures... I now have a record of brief instances of as much as 135200 kPa - 135.2 Bar @ 4824rpm. I was limited in time/opportunity to explore this; and from the figures I do have it looks as though the pressure rises in response to the throttle and is then 'modulated down' in keeping with the (zero) load, to figures more consistent with what was seen before.

What is interesting (and relevant I think) is that pressures of that magnitude were simply not being seen before.

There is a picture of the brand new filter included. just 20mm long overall with an 'active' area of 15mm by (maybe) 4mm. <0.19ml! The flow area further reduced by the support straps - it's easy to see how any slight restriction might cause the problems experienced and how a tiny amount of foregn material might cause problems. It's also possible to reasonably speculate that if anything (dirt) in there was 'loose' it might give rise to intermittent symptoms as experienced by Steve.

I'll be interested to hear what the Diesel Specialist has to say with respect to Steve's car...

I'm still puzzling as to how to remove that inlet pipe and actually change the filter/strainer... which really has to happen I think.
 
Hoping to get my 2008 mj rail figures tonight 🙂

I am impressed you got it apart,👍
and a little confused by your "improved pressure" 🤔

...Well the thing is that I haven't got it apart! I'm still trying to figure out a way/improvise a tool to remove and refit the inlet pipe! The filter in the photograph is the brand-new one which awaits fitting. - There just to show how small it is. The original one is still in there!

On this particular version of the pump the filter is directly behind the inlet and so (for the purposes of flushing to some degree) 'accessible' with the long thin swabs that I used. Those swabs are designed to get right to the back of the human nasal cavity and swoosh around - the walls of a straight cylinder are no challenge to them; and they're actually quite close in size to the internal bore. - Almost like a miniature bottle brush!

Basically - the inside of the original strainer has had a wipe down with an oily rag and a slunge out with clean diesel; a bit like sticking a tall glass under a running tap and wiping the insides with a dish brush; not the idea way of washing up, but it would have an effect. - Most of what I managed to loosen with the swab would have went back out the way it came in. :)

As for the pressure... Well when they start to teach you electronics/electrics they draw attention to water/fluid analogies. That's because when electricity was discovered this was the first thing the scientists of the day latched on to; And in fact you'll find that many of the formulae used in 'electrics Vs hydraulics' are directly translatable...

Rail pressure - on at least some models of the CP1 family - is controlled and modulated by a solenoid valve which works on the inlet side... There are variations (and this might be one of them) that work the other way around; i.e. by bleeding off pressure. - However the point is that output pressure can be modulated by restricting the 'current flowing' into the pump.

As a paradigm, think of an LED which has very low internal resistance. Apply a voltage across it and, unless that voltage is very low and controlled (so that limited current flows anyway), the device will quickly cook itself - so we fit a resistor in series with it to limit the current. A restriction in a fluid pipe will have much the same effect.

Often in fault-finding (generally; with anything) it's useful to consider the history of the fault and mode(s) of failure...

In this case, directly after the 'thaw' and replacement of the 'killed' lift pump, the car would barely start, idle or rev. Winter diesel along with injector cleaner was added which didn't immediately improve things; it was only after the car had been left with this mix 'soaking' in the system for a couple of days, that things cleared enough for it to start relatively easily and rev relatively freely.

At that stage pressure readings seemed 'in the ballpark'; though the (expected) very high pressure readings (over 1000 Bar) were never seen. When the car was test-driven it effectively cut out under load and when ascending hills... Hindsight being 20:20, I should maybe have joined the dots at that point. But then the information which joins them has only just become available;

The Ducato thread and associated 'rabbit hole' was only discovered the other night while looking for something else. The same goes for the exploded diagram specific to the model of CP1H3 (there seem to be many variants) that I have.

The videos that thread leads you to, all seem to be in foreign language with 'AI' (Actually Imbecilic!) translations that amount to complete and utter gibberish. - It's not remotely clear (for example) on what side of the LP pump (feed or return) they're measuring pressure. And in that particular context it's probably important they make that test, because their pumps are relatively inaccessible. - Nor is it clear whether on those pumps, the strainer is placed on the feed or return side!

The thing is though - the symptoms experienced by the Ducato owners are quite relatable. And let's not forget, we have two 'Qubo/Fiorino' examples here, Steve's and my own.

...So back to that 'series resistor'. In a simple LED circuit that is put there as a current limiting device; i.e. it allows relatively low current to pass.

What I suggest I've seen is that the partially-blocked strainer has acted as a current (flow) limiter such that enough 'current' may flow to allow relatively acceptable pressures to be achieved at low/no load. Ultimately though when high demand was signalled - such as during the test drive, or other other night when I 'briefly floored' the accelerator in an attempt to replicated Mike's results - the engine simply died.

In fact - that incident was interesting (hindsight again) because the engine simply cut and threw up the MIL/P0089 when the accelerator was floored - it didn't even get as far as revving...

The supply 'current' (fuel flow) being limited by the 'resistance' imposed by a partially blocked inlet strainer; which would have much the same effect as an FPR working on the inlet side. Purely theory of course at this stage. But consider too the consistent P0089 message; fuel pressure regulator performance. The ECU would have no way of 'knowing' that it was the blocked strainer which was restricting the inlet... when it 'called' for the FPR to deliver maximum pressure and it failed to do so; it simply did what it was meant to do.

There is much more checking and testing to be done (I only had a few minutes yesterday) before anything can really be 'called' on this; the pressures I'm seeing now at relatively low revs aren't entirely inconsistent with what went before; it's the fact that I'm now seeing those 'six figure' numbers at higher revs where they were absent before.

Hope that clarifies things a bit. And thanks for offering to gather those pressure figures. - It would be particularly interesting to hear if you see those very high figures when you 'blip' the throttle and if they seem to fall away once the engine 'realises' it's not under load.
 
I have been trying to think of a way of removing the pipe without damage and have been thinking along the lines of a brake pipe flaring tool using a pair of split collets to grip the pipe and then use something else to apply extraction force. My Sykes Pickavant tool is unsuitable as collets too long. The nearest I could find is the cheap brake pipe flaring tool on eBay which has a selection of holes in two plates that clamp together. The rest of the kit is no use and pretty poor quality anyway so I wouldn't advise it for making brake pipes either when compared with the professional tool.
Did you get a replacement inlet pipe as some suppliers provide or just the filter, as I suspect it may not seal well if reused as photos don't appear to show seal as an O ring style exactly?
1706703177292.png
 
Funnily enough I have a 'dud' brake flaring tool in the lock-up too - and yes, it did need to be replaced almost immediately with a better one from Machine Mart... and oddly enough the thought did cross my mind of using it to fashion 'something'. That idea may yet have traction!

I think it need to be some sort of short slide hammer - something that could be put around the pipe in order to grip it perhaps with some sort of fork arrangement. - I don't have a replacement pipe: but if we get to that stage, then some butchery of the old one might be an option.
 
One weird result though (I've not done much of this..)

BEFORE cranking, this was the screen shot:
THAT'S TEN TIMES..?
View attachment 437558

Thanks for doing all that... I wonder if the '3274'Bar figure, pre-cranking, is some sort of 'boot up' POST (power-on-self-test) test? - It's simply not possible if the engine isn't turning! - and would be terrifying if it were!
 
I did read somewhere that if the plug to the fuel pressure regulator was disconnected it became completely unregulated, resulting in a very loud injection noise and could damage injectors.
So lets hope it was just a software malfunction.:)
 
So lets hope it was just a software malfunction.:)
Given that the engine wasn't turning - and no pressure could possibly have been being generated - and it seems to have gone back to normal as soon as there actually was real pressure - there is unlikely to be anything to fret over. - Many devices with computer driven 'meters' do show full scale deflection as part of their boot-up sequence.

- You'd have to repeat the experiment a few times to see if it always happens or was just a glitch. But it's twice the 1600 Bar or so they say (some versions of) the pump is capable of; that may be significant in terms of how the software/hardware communicates (Nyquist sampling rate) with what might be an analogue sensor.
 
Well, funny or not; if a pump can produce a real figure of 3274 BAR at 0RPM that is a miracle of engineering 😁 you could run one of those 'zero point energy/perpetual motion machines off of that! :ROFLMAO:

Anyhoo... Speaking to a neighbour who is some sort of chemical engineer this morning. They've put forward the thought that 'something' might have precipitated out of the diesel when it frozen/waxed; and wasn't re-absorbed. Chemistry isn't my field so all I could do was nod dumbly at this; I certainly cannot dismiss what they are saying though.

Given that manually flushing out that filter seems to have done 'something' to improve matters; what are the general thoughts on using something like carb or brake cleaner to flush in in-situ filter out further? - I don't mean allowing it to circulate in the pump at all; but flushing the strainer through from the outside - with a final rinse of clean diesel. I seem to recall that carb/brake cleaner are quite volatile and 'flash off' quickly - so maybe left for an hour or so for that to happen before the final rinse? - Or perhaps putting some neat injector cleaner in the pipe and leaving it overnight?

Any thoughts/opinions?
 
Back
Top