theVengineguy Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36MCcRPRTcPCM reflash my ass... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Oval Guide Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Oliver Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Take THAT Tundra! Best. Marketing. Ever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueblood Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 How the hell did they not see this during testing?? That could burn your house down or start brush fires, Ford needs to dump Navistar now... Unbelievable.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertlane Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 That particular clip has been viewed 50,000 times on that one channel. It's on other channels too, so the total is much higher. Maybe a re-flash will take care of this, but Ford has already taken another pie in the face. :fan: And this coming off of the tarnished 6.0L Powerstroke :gang: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 (edited) Well looks like another diesel disaster from Navistar. Ford needs to be throwing every resource they have at dumping that company. It is their own fault because they should have known that this new 6.4L would be a complete dud after the completely worthless 6.0L. Navistar has never made a good diesel. All gutless duds that never worked right even after a million alterations. I am rarely negative on Ford, but when it comes to the Navistar engine it has only been one piece of junk after another. Ford NEEDS to be working OVERTIME and then some on finding a replacement for this POS engine. There is no reason why they cannot build their own diesel or import one from Europe. Navistar could care less so that is why they need to be dumped as the diesel engine supplier as soon as possible. Volvo? Cat? Ford? I am not sure, but anything other then Navistar!!! Edited March 27, 2007 by 2005Explorer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I love how all the uninformed on youtube say ford sucks etc... they have no idea who really builds the engines... Ford just needs to move engine production inside.. there, another reason to keep a plant open somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I don't know, some of the bubbas around here would pay extra for that feature.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I love how all the uninformed on youtube say ford sucks etc... they have no idea who really builds the engines... Ford just needs to move engine production inside.. there, another reason to keep a plant open somewhere. You can blame the suppliers all you want, but in the end it's Ford who approves the use of the suppliers' parts. There's no one to blame for this but Ford. So yes, in this case, Ford does suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usa1mac Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 You can blame the suppliers all you want, but in the end it's Ford who approves the use of the suppliers' parts. There's no one to blame for this but Ford. So yes, in this case, Ford does suck. I have to agree with you. Ford let this POS leave THEIR factory in this condition. Pathetic. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 How the hell did they not see this during testing?? This is apparently due to a bad batch of either turbocharger turbines or fuel injectors (or both). This would not have appeared during testing, or if it did appear during testing, would've been chalked up to exactly what the problem is: a bad batch of parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 You can blame the suppliers all you want, but in the end it's Ford who approves the use of the suppliers' parts. There's no one to blame for this but Ford. So yes, in this case, Ford does suck. There are plenty of people to blame aside from Ford. You could start with the QC guy at the turbine mfg. plant, and the injector plant, that signed off on faulty goods. You could also blame the QC guy at Navistar who didn't catch the bad parts on arrival. Ultimately, these engines show up on Ford's doorstep in crates. Fully dressed, AFAIK. Undoubtedly, Ford tears down sample engines to inspect the parts, but here's the kicker: Ford cannot economically tear down EVERY engine that comes from Navistar, to inspect for faulty components. NOR should Ford be expected to do so. At a certain level, you have to trust that people down the chain of suppliers are doing THEIR jobs. In this case, they weren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 There are plenty of people to blame aside from Ford. You could start with the QC guy at the turbine mfg. plant, and the injector plant, that signed off on faulty goods. You could also blame the QC guy at Navistar who didn't catch the bad parts on arrival. Ultimately, these engines show up on Ford's doorstep in crates. Fully dressed, AFAIK. Undoubtedly, Ford tears down sample engines to inspect the parts, but here's the kicker: Ford cannot economically tear down EVERY engine that comes from Navistar, to inspect for faulty components. NOR should Ford be expected to do so. At a certain level, you have to trust that people down the chain of suppliers are doing THEIR jobs. In this case, they weren't. But in the end, Ford is responsible for what goes into their product. The customer only sees Ford. They don't see the suppliers and they don't blame the suppliers. They blame Ford. It's up to Ford to make sure their suppliers' QC is up to snuff. There's no excuse for this blunder on such an important product, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 You can blame the suppliers all you want, but in the end it's Ford who approves the use of the suppliers' parts. There's no one to blame for this but Ford. So yes, in this case, Ford does suck. Well, my bookmark says "for Ford Enthusiasts", so please get the hell off this forum forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 (edited) But in the end, Ford is responsible for what goes into their product. The customer only sees Ford. They don't see the suppliers and they don't blame the suppliers. They blame Ford. It's up to Ford to make sure their suppliers' QC is up to snuff. There's no excuse for this blunder on such an important product, period. Yes, in the end, Ford is responsible for what goes in their products. To the extent that Ford's suppliers do what Ford requires Put this way: I work for you. You instruct me to obtain information about what our biggest competitor has planned for future product offerings. I decide the easiest way to obtain this information is by breaking into the competition's office late at night. I then supply you with extremely detailed information, not telling you how I obtained the information. You act on this information and obtain a substantial advantage over our competition. Later what I did comes to light. Are YOU responsible for my decision to commit burglary? From a certain standpoint, yes, because you didn't ask how I obtained the information I provided you. But in a larger sense, you are not responsible. See, there's a company policy that requires me to comply with whatever laws are on the books, and I violated that policy. When I violated that policy, I exceeded the bounds under which the company was responsible for my actions. Companies that take reasonable measures to ensure compliance with policy are not responsible for employee breaches of that policy. ---- Applied to this instance: Ford tells its suppliers that they must ensure the integrity of their portion of the supply chain. They provide guidelines for inspections, tolerances, etc. However, in the same way that you, as my supervisor, cannot be expected to shadow my every move, Ford cannot be expected to supervise QC at every step of the supply chain. -- Ultimately Ford here pays the price for electing to use a bad supplier. However, that's as far as I'm willing to assign them blame and responsibility. Delivering inferior quality parts to Ford and then saying, "Well they should've caught them" is inexcusable. If you order a hamburger from McDonalds, and discover cockroaches in it, while eating, is this YOUR fault, because you didn't inspect the hamburger before you ate it? Edited March 27, 2007 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Well, my bookmark says "for Ford Enthusiasts", so please get the hell off this forum forever. That comment may be a bit over the top, Zan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 (edited) You can blame the suppliers all you want, but in the end it's Ford who approves the use of the suppliers' parts. There's no one to blame for this but Ford. So yes, in this case, Ford does suck. well, maybe this issue doesnt creap up when they fire up the truck and pull it out on the lot after assebley, maybe it takes a few starts or runs etc... iam not sure what QC process they have at plants, but i figure they cant put the truck thru vigorous tests because putting multple miles on at a factory wouldnt be good etc... its a supplier issue, like at work, we order parts to put comptuers together, we rely on our supply to give us good parts, we build them, fire them up but dont have the time to put them thru big tests... if the supplier fails, sure we fail as well, but who needs to take the brunt of the blame, the supplier for not properly doing their job... ford relies on navistar to build a reliable product, they dont have to time after a truck is build to drive it around to make sure it starts up and runs great... you get new vehicles and how many miles they have? low, they need to be for sales purpses... so ya, its not ford problem or fault, its navistars for using junky parts... same shit like the 6.0. this is it for navistar i feel, somebody should start looking at what plants can build some deisels for the super duty, bring it in house.. navi obviously has failed. Edited March 27, 2007 by MGallun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 That comment may be a bit over the top, Zan. I think it's miles and months past time to treat negatards at least as badly as they treat the site. They've essentially ruined it for me, so the worst thing I face is explusion from a place that's one long bitch-and-whine-fest about my favorite carmaker anyway. I liked Nick for a long time, but if he's joining the 'tard ranks...he-and they-can get bent. Preferably elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 This doesn't show up until the first PM filter cleaning cycle: about 700 miles (IIRC) into ownership. Apparently fuel is pooling in the PM filter, and when the engine goes to an ultra lean burn to vaporize the soot in the filter, it ignites the fuel that is in there as well, and voila! instant flame thrower. Ford can't be putting 700 miles on these things before they ship them to dealers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 they-can get bent. Preferably elsewhere. Look. Let me worry about that. You don't want to end up back in the 'box', do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I think it's miles and months past time to treat negatards at least as badly as they treat the site. They've essentially ruined it for me, so the worst thing I face is explusion from a place that's one long bitch-and-whine-fest about my favorite carmaker anyway. I liked Nick for a long time, but if he's joining the 'tard ranks...he-and they-can get bent. Preferably elsewhere. Well I'll stop my bitching when Ford stops doing things to piss me off as a once-loyal customer. They offer nothing I would want to buy at present, so why should I really support them? Ford needs to get it through their head that even die-hard Ford loyalists like myself are getting sick of the way things are going. I like the way things are headed so far under Mullaly, but even he may end up falling victim to the big corporate machine. Ford is making its last stand here, and so far, they are still demonstrating that the status quo is good enough, which frankly doesn't give me a whole heck of a lot of confidence in their ability to turn it around and start offering products that I love again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Yes, in the end, Ford is responsible for what goes in their products. To the extent that Ford's suppliers do what Ford requires Put this way: I work for you. You instruct me to obtain information about what our biggest competitor has planned for future product offerings. I decide the easiest way to obtain this information is by breaking into the competition's office late at night. I then supply you with extremely detailed information, not telling you how I obtained the information. You act on this information and obtain a substantial advantage over our competition. Later what I did comes to light. Are YOU responsible for my decision to commit burglary? From a certain standpoint, yes, because you didn't ask how I obtained the information I provided you. But in a larger sense, you are not responsible. See, there's a company policy that requires me to comply with whatever laws are on the books, and I violated that policy. When I violated that policy, I exceeded the bounds under which the company was responsible for my actions. Companies that take reasonable measures to ensure compliance with policy are not responsible for employee breaches of that policy. As an employer I would be 100% responsible for using the information you obtained incorrectly/illegally. It would be my job as management to verify the means you used to obtain the information I was planning to use. What the heck kind of manager would I be to take information at face value without considering the source? Applied to this instance: Ford tells its suppliers that they must ensure the integrity of their portion of the supply chain. They provide guidelines for inspections, tolerances, etc. However, in the same way that you, as my supervisor, cannot be expected to shadow my every move, Ford cannot be expected to supervise QC at every step of the supply chain. No, they can't shadow every move, but after a certain number of problems, you go find yourself a different supplier. Obviously Navistar's QC isn't meeting Ford's standards. If you order a hamburger from McDonalds, and discover cockroaches in it, while eating, is this YOUR fault, because you didn't inspect the hamburger before you ate it? No, it wouldn't be my fault....the first time. But if I had a history of getting cockroaches in my hamburgers from McDonald's and I continued to bite into them without checking for cockroaches, then yes, I'd say it would be my fault after the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc time it happened. Personally, I would stop buying McDonald's hamburgers altogether. Ford has problems from Navistar once, twice, three times, four, etc....yet they keep buying their burgers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 they are still demonstrating that the status quo is good enough The status quo was the Focus and Escape launches of 99 & 00. The status quo was squeezing maximum per unit profit out of every vehicle, regardless of its impact on whether the vehicle was competitive or not. The status quo was buck passing on quality. The status quo was little to no customer research before product launches. You won't change all of that overnight, but when you compare the launch of every single Ford product since 2004 with the exception of the 6.4L PSD, with the quality of Ford's 1999-2003 launches........ When you compare the Edge with the Fusion, the Fusion with the Five Hundred, and the Five Hundred with the 2000 Taurus, you tell me Ford hasn't made progress in its passenger cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 As an employer I would be 100% responsible for using the information you obtained incorrectly/illegally. It would be my job as management to verify the means you used to obtain the information I was planning to use. What the heck kind of manager would I be to take information at face value without considering the source? ----- No, they can't shadow every move, but after a certain number of problems, you go find yourself a different supplier. Obviously Navistar's QC isn't meeting Ford's standards. ----- No, it wouldn't be my fault....the first time. But if I had a history of getting cockroaches in my hamburgers from McDonald's and I continued to bite into them without checking for cockroaches, then yes, I'd say it would be my fault after the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc time it happened. Personally, I would stop buying McDonald's hamburgers altogether. Ford has problems from Navistar once, twice, three times, four, etc....yet they keep buying their burgers. 1) What if you asked me, and I lied about how I obtained the information? Whose fault then? 2) Given that the latter 6.0L PSDs have been bulletproof--should Ford have rolled the clock back to 2003 in its dealings with Navistar? Or should they have dealt with Navistar on the basis of their more recent performance? 3) Along with point 2: What if you got roaches in your burger once, back in 2003; and subsequently returned (this is where the analogy gets stretched--why would you ever go back? but for the sake of discussion, you do go back). At first examining every burger for roaches, then every other burger, then every tenth burger (you're eating a lot of burgers). All the sudden, one day, you try their new offering, and it's fine. The next day you go get another one, and BAM! Roaches. Yes, it's your fault you kept going back. But who's ultimately responsible for the roaches? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 The status quo was the Focus and Escape launches of 99 & 00. The status quo was squeezing maximum per unit profit out of every vehicle, regardless of its impact on whether the vehicle was competitive or not. The status quo was buck passing on quality. The status quo was little to no customer research before product launches. You won't change all of that overnight, but when you compare the launch of every single Ford product since 2004 with the exception of the 6.4L PSD, with the quality of Ford's 1999-2003 launches........ When you compare the Edge with the Fusion, the Fusion with the Five Hundred, and the Five Hundred with the 2000 Taurus, you tell me Ford hasn't made progress in its passenger cars. Progress has been made, no doubt, but that progress still doesn't appear to be keeping pace with the likes of Honda, Toyota, or even GM. All automakers have made huge strides in quality improvement over the past 6-7 years. It's not like the rest of the playing field has sat still while Ford decided to finally initiate some quality control programs that were desperately needed a decade earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.