Why I will never buy a Ford again

[touchdown]

There is another thread in this forum posted by an individual who will never buy a Ford again. It has so far resulted in 5 pages of some interesting views (and a bit of flaming and sniping). I have also come to the conclusion that I will never buy a Ford again but for somewhat different reasons. I do not buy into the generalization that American cars always suffer from poor quality or that foreign cars are always defect free. I have had a lot of cars over 30 plus years of driving and have had some foreign cars that were great in terms of quality and reliability, and some that stunk – same with domestics.

 

But the thing that soured me forever with Ford is my experience with Ford’s response to the well known Ford Windstar headgasket flaw. I do not mind that Ford had a defect – a lot of types of cars experienced headgasket failures when they moved to aluminum heads. After a lot of complaints, Ford offered their extended service warranty to address the problem. After a lot more complaints as well as a class action lawsuit, they extended the service warranty again. I am sure the headgasket issue was beat to death a long time ago but it is fresh to me because we lost our last appeal of a small claims lawsuit against Ford just last year. (Amazing how long the legal process takes – but that’s a complaint for another forum!) We lost the lawsuit on technicalities – not on the merits – because we are not lawyers and made some dumb mistakes in filing our case.

 

Here is what ticks me off and why I will not buy a Ford again. Ford demonstrated deceptive business practices in the way it handled its service recall. By collecting information to file a small claims action, I learned a lot (unfortunately – one of the things I learned is that I should have hired a lawyer) and a lot specifically about how Ford knew a lot about its problems but told its customers very little about the problems that Ford caused. The more I learned – the madder I got at Ford’s deceptive practices.

 

As background, my mother owned a 1995 Ford Windstar. She is the classic little old lady that only drives about 3000 miles per year but religiously takes her cars to the Ford dealer for every scheduled service and twice a year oil changes. She got the notice about the problem in 1998 (98M01), when the car had 22,000 miles, and took it in. The Ford dealer noted low compression in cylinder #4 and replaced one of the two head gaskets under the extended service warranty (5 years OR 60,000 miles – with no conditions about which ever comes first).

 

She got the second notice in 2000 (00M09) and warranty letter (70,000 or 7 years) when it was issued and determined that no action was needed on our part at that time. We determined that no action was needed because the service specified in the letter), which calls for replacing the head gasket, had been performed. The letter instructs the owners to determine whether certain symptoms exist, such as overheating white smoke, or loss of coolant. At that time, we had not noted any of the listed symptoms. The letter is quite clear in that owners should bring their vehicle in IF the symptoms exist. Because none of the symptoms were noticed at the time the plaintiff received the second extended warranty letter, we believed that no action was needed. At this point, the vehicle had less than 26,000 miles on it. It is important to note that the engine had only been driven about 4000 miles between the time the head gasket was replaced under the first extended warranty program and the time we received the second letter.

 

In September 2003, with the vehicle at the 38,000 mile mark, the car was taken for a routine oil change and the mechanic called reported a knocking sound in the engine that was characteristic of problems with the piston bearings and that engine failure was imminent. At this point in time, the vehicle was 8 year old (outside the time limit but well within the mileage limits of the two extended warranties).

 

I did all the normal stuff of taking to a dealer, calling the Ford complaint line etc. The Ford response was always that the warranty was expired so Ford had not responsibility. On several occasions, I pointed out that the first extended warranty was not expired. The letter from Ford to Ford Windstar owners in June 1998 that describes a Ford extended warranty coverage Service Program, which Ford has labeled as 98M01, was applicable to 1995 Ford Windstars and some other Ford vehicles equipped with their 3.8 liter front wheel drive engine. This warranty good for 5 years or 60,000 miles. The five years has elapsed but the 60000 miles has not. The warranty does not specify “whichever comes first†or any similar conditions. Thus, the first extended warranty is not expired but Ford refused to honor their extended service warranty terms and refused to let me even talk to a representative. They kept repeating that the call center person had looked at the situation and made a decision (neglecting of course that the call center person did not know what a head gasket was and the only thing she did is repeat the mantra that the warranty was expired).

 

At one point the Ford customer service (and I use this term loosely) admitted that my perspective on the warranty was correct but said that, regardless of the words in the warranty, that it was Ford’s position that the warranty is expired. On several occasions, I requested to speak with supervisors, the legal department, the Ford zone manager, or other individuals in a decision making role. In all instances, my requests were denied by the Ford Customer Relations Center.

 

I believe that Ford should have issued a warranty with no time limit in the first place because the problems with the head gasket will manifest as a function of wear of engine use (mileage not time). They did not. But they did issue a warranty with no clause for whichever comes first. Ford should have honored their warranty as written; they did not. Maybe the warranty was mis-stated and they meant to say “whichever comes first.†Ford never issued a clarification to the warranty; they just ignored their own terms.

 

OK – I will now stop being a jailhouse lawyer and tell how Ford was really deceptive and unethical. Ford knew about problems it had with its maintenance procedure for replacing head gaskets but hid information from its customers/Ford owners.

 

Let’s go back to 2000 when Ford issued 00M09. What did Ford know then? At the time Ford issued its second extended warranty, the service procedure used in 2000 under the second warranty states that their “internal audits have revealed problems in following the procedures.†It states that “some engine assemblies replaced under warranty have been found with internal contamination and that Ford states the scuffed pistons and camshaft bearing damage can result from improper engine gasket preparation.†In short, Ford knew that its service procedure caused engine failures.

 

But what did Ford tell its customers. Nowhere in the letter to the owners does it say anything like there have been quality control problems in previous warranty service that may cause engine damage. Ford tells the dealers this but conveniently omits this information from the owner letter. If Ford had told the plaintiff in the 2000 letter that the warranty service provided in 1998 had problems then we would have taken a very different course of action. However, there is no information whatsoever in the 2000 letter that tells the plaintiff that she could be affected by the quality control problems and her engine could be ruined. When it extended the warranty to 100000 miles and 7 years - Ford knew that its defective service procedures were the cause of engine failures but it did not mention this at all in its second letter to owners.

 

Now – at the time that we experienced engine failure in 2003, what did Ford know? In another service bulletin issued by Ford in January 2002, Ford specifically acknowledges that overheating can cause a head to warp or be damaged, and that resurfacing will not correct the damage. It also has strong language against a wide range of techniques for preparing the surface because they could result in scratching and thus leaks. There are warnings against abrasives and sharp objects in capital letters for emphasis. There were no such warnings in 1998 in the service procedure used for our car. It is likely that techniques such as grinders were used when the head gasket was replaced on the plaintiff’s car in 1998 because there were not prominent warnings against their use. There are also specific directions and materials for surface cleaners. These warnings and directions were not evident use in the 1998 procedure.

 

In still another service bulletin issued by Ford in June 2002, Ford identifies yet another potential problem associated with residue preventing an adequate seal on a new head gasket. It also has strong language cautioning against a wide range of techniques for preparing the surface because they could result in scratching and thus leaks. There were no such warnings in 1998 in the service procedure used for my mother’s car. It is possible and likely that techniques such as grinders were used when the head gasket was replaced on the plaintiff’s car in 1998 because there were not prominent warnings against their use.

 

In short, the service procedure, replacement components, and/or installation process used by Ford in the 98M01 service program were not adequate to prevent contamination or to ensure an effective repair. There is a strong likelihood that a subsequent failure of the replacement head gaskets resulted from inadequate surface cleaning, surface preparation, or contamination control, or that parts were damaged during the service due the use of improper tools or procedures.

 

Ford’s own documents prove that they knew all of this. Yet, when a customer complains to the customer service line – the only mantra is that the warranty is expired (which it was not). Even when taken to small claims court, Ford did not step an acknowledge that they were responsible for engine damage.

 

While this is old news, I just wanted Ford to know that I will never buy a Ford again because Ford hides problems from customers, refuses to acknowledge that its defective service procedures caused damage to vehicles, and does not honor its extended warranty.

[NickF1011]

I thought EVERYBODY knew that the warranty expiration based on time or milage always refers to whichever occurs FIRST? I knew that when I was like 7 years old.

[ilovemoney]

I thought EVERYBODY knew that the warranty expiration based on time or milage always refers to whichever occurs FIRST? I knew that when I was like 7 years old.

yes its EITHER 5 years OR 60,000 miles whichever comes FIRST! but otherwise Ford should have handled this without all the issues.

 

There is another thread in this forum posted by an individual who will never buy a Ford again. It has so far resulted in 5 pages of some interesting views (and a bit of flaming and sniping). I have also come to the conclusion that I will never buy a Ford again but for somewhat different reasons. I do not buy into the generalization that American cars always suffer from poor quality or that foreign cars are always defect free. I have had a lot of cars over 30 plus years of driving and have had some foreign cars that were great in terms of quality and reliability, and some that stunk – same with domestics.

 

But the thing that soured me forever with Ford is my experience with Ford’s response to the well known Ford Windstar headgasket flaw. I do not mind that Ford had a defect – a lot of types of cars experienced headgasket failures when they moved to aluminum heads. After a lot of complaints, Ford offered their extended service warranty to address the problem. After a lot more complaints as well as a class action lawsuit, they extended the service warranty again. I am sure the headgasket issue was beat to death a long time ago but it is fresh to me because we lost our last appeal of a small claims lawsuit against Ford just last year. (Amazing how long the legal process takes – but that’s a complaint for another forum!) We lost the lawsuit on technicalities – not on the merits – because we are not lawyers and made some dumb mistakes in filing our case.

 

Here is what ticks me off and why I will not buy a Ford again. Ford demonstrated deceptive business practices in the way it handled its service recall. By collecting information to file a small claims action, I learned a lot (unfortunately – one of the things I learned is that I should have hired a lawyer) and a lot specifically about how Ford knew a lot about its problems but told its customers very little about the problems that Ford caused. The more I learned – the madder I got at Ford’s deceptive practices.

 

As background, my mother owned a 1995 Ford Windstar. She is the classic little old lady that only drives about 3000 miles per year but religiously takes her cars to the Ford dealer for every scheduled service and twice a year oil changes. She got the notice about the problem in 1998 (98M01), when the car had 22,000 miles, and took it in. The Ford dealer noted low compression in cylinder #4 and replaced one of the two head gaskets under the extended service warranty (5 years OR 60,000 miles – with no conditions about which ever comes first).

 

She got the second notice in 2000 (00M09) and warranty letter (70,000 or 7 years) when it was issued and determined that no action was needed on our part at that time. We determined that no action was needed because the service specified in the letter), which calls for replacing the head gasket, had been performed. The letter instructs the owners to determine whether certain symptoms exist, such as overheating white smoke, or loss of coolant. At that time, we had not noted any of the listed symptoms. The letter is quite clear in that owners should bring their vehicle in IF the symptoms exist. Because none of the symptoms were noticed at the time the plaintiff received the second extended warranty letter, we believed that no action was needed. At this point, the vehicle had less than 26,000 miles on it. It is important to note that the engine had only been driven about 4000 miles between the time the head gasket was replaced under the first extended warranty program and the time we received the second letter.

 

In September 2003, with the vehicle at the 38,000 mile mark, the car was taken for a routine oil change and the mechanic called reported a knocking sound in the engine that was characteristic of problems with the piston bearings and that engine failure was imminent. At this point in time, the vehicle was 8 year old (outside the time limit but well within the mileage limits of the two extended warranties).

 

I did all the normal stuff of taking to a dealer, calling the Ford complaint line etc. The Ford response was always that the warranty was expired so Ford had not responsibility. On several occasions, I pointed out that the first extended warranty was not expired. The letter from Ford to Ford Windstar owners in June 1998 that describes a Ford extended warranty coverage Service Program, which Ford has labeled as 98M01, was applicable to 1995 Ford Windstars and some other Ford vehicles equipped with their 3.8 liter front wheel drive engine. This warranty good for 5 years or 60,000 miles. The five years has elapsed but the 60000 miles has not. The warranty does not specify “whichever comes first†or any similar conditions. Thus, the first extended warranty is not expired but Ford refused to honor their extended service warranty terms and refused to let me even talk to a representative. They kept repeating that the call center person had looked at the situation and made a decision (neglecting of course that the call center person did not know what a head gasket was and the only thing she did is repeat the mantra that the warranty was expired).

 

At one point the Ford customer service (and I use this term loosely) admitted that my perspective on the warranty was correct but said that, regardless of the words in the warranty, that it was Ford’s position that the warranty is expired. On several occasions, I requested to speak with supervisors, the legal department, the Ford zone manager, or other individuals in a decision making role. In all instances, my requests were denied by the Ford Customer Relations Center.

 

I believe that Ford should have issued a warranty with no time limit in the first place because the problems with the head gasket will manifest as a function of wear of engine use (mileage not time). They did not. But they did issue a warranty with no clause for whichever comes first. Ford should have honored their warranty as written; they did not. Maybe the warranty was mis-stated and they meant to say “whichever comes first.†Ford never issued a clarification to the warranty; they just ignored their own terms.

 

OK – I will now stop being a jailhouse lawyer and tell how Ford was really deceptive and unethical. Ford knew about problems it had with its maintenance procedure for replacing head gaskets but hid information from its customers/Ford owners.

 

Let’s go back to 2000 when Ford issued 00M09. What did Ford know then? At the time Ford issued its second extended warranty, the service procedure used in 2000 under the second warranty states that their “internal audits have revealed problems in following the procedures.†It states that “some engine assemblies replaced under warranty have been found with internal contamination and that Ford states the scuffed pistons and camshaft bearing damage can result from improper engine gasket preparation.†In short, Ford knew that its service procedure caused engine failures.

 

But what did Ford tell its customers. Nowhere in the letter to the owners does it say anything like there have been quality control problems in previous warranty service that may cause engine damage. Ford tells the dealers this but conveniently omits this information from the owner letter. If Ford had told the plaintiff in the 2000 letter that the warranty service provided in 1998 had problems then we would have taken a very different course of action. However, there is no information whatsoever in the 2000 letter that tells the plaintiff that she could be affected by the quality control problems and her engine could be ruined. When it extended the warranty to 100000 miles and 7 years - Ford knew that its defective service procedures were the cause of engine failures but it did not mention this at all in its second letter to owners.

 

Now – at the time that we experienced engine failure in 2003, what did Ford know? In another service bulletin issued by Ford in January 2002, Ford specifically acknowledges that overheating can cause a head to warp or be damaged, and that resurfacing will not correct the damage. It also has strong language against a wide range of techniques for preparing the surface because they could result in scratching and thus leaks. There are warnings against abrasives and sharp objects in capital letters for emphasis. There were no such warnings in 1998 in the service procedure used for our car. It is likely that techniques such as grinders were used when the head gasket was replaced on the plaintiff’s car in 1998 because there were not prominent warnings against their use. There are also specific directions and materials for surface cleaners. These warnings and directions were not evident use in the 1998 procedure.

 

In still another service bulletin issued by Ford in June 2002, Ford identifies yet another potential problem associated with residue preventing an adequate seal on a new head gasket. It also has strong language cautioning against a wide range of techniques for preparing the surface because they could result in scratching and thus leaks. There were no such warnings in 1998 in the service procedure used for my mother’s car. It is possible and likely that techniques such as grinders were used when the head gasket was replaced on the plaintiff’s car in 1998 because there were not prominent warnings against their use.

 

In short, the service procedure, replacement components, and/or installation process used by Ford in the 98M01 service program were not adequate to prevent contamination or to ensure an effective repair. There is a strong likelihood that a subsequent failure of the replacement head gaskets resulted from inadequate surface cleaning, surface preparation, or contamination control, or that parts were damaged during the service due the use of improper tools or procedures.

 

Ford’s own documents prove that they knew all of this. Yet, when a customer complains to the customer service line – the only mantra is that the warranty is expired (which it was not). Even when taken to small claims court, Ford did not step an acknowledge that they were responsible for engine damage.

 

While this is old news, I just wanted Ford to know that I will never buy a Ford again because Ford hides problems from customers, refuses to acknowledge that its defective service procedures caused damage to vehicles, and does not honor its extended warranty.

Was the vehicle under any recall?

[touchdown]

Gentlemen

Thank you for your opinions on the interpretation of warranty terms

 

I am not a lawyer - do not play one on TV - and did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night - so I acknowledge that I am not the definitive authority.

 

However, I was told by a real lawyer that the phrase "whichever comes first" should not automatically assumed to be the case unless it is explicit in the warranty language.

 

I have read a report from another complainer that they won their small claims court case in part because a judge/magistrate/court ruled that the warranty was still in effect. I read it in an Internet web page (now defunct) so I have no way of knowing if it is true or not. (Amazingly enough, not everything posted by an anonymous internet poster is the gospel truth - can ya believe it?)

 

It is true that almost all auto warranties include a time (e.g, 5 years) and a mileage (e.g., 60,000) limit and include the clause "whichever comes first". In fact, the second Ford warranty 00M09 - specifically stated 7 years or 10000 miles and included the clause "which ever comes first." Auto manufacturers put the phrase in for a reason. However, the indisputable fact is that the 98M01 warranty did NOT include the phrase "which ever comes first" or any similar phrase (this is true and you can check it). One should not assume it is there.

 

Without the "whichever comes first phrase" the offer is a time OR a mileage and the choice is up to the customer. It is like going to a restaurant and you are offered "soup OR salad" - the choice is up to yours.

 

When a warranty is offered as x miles OR y years with no conditions - it is up to the owner which applies

The normal warranty is set up so that for a typical driver the mileage and time would expire about the same time (if one drives 12,000 miles a year - a typical average - the 60000 and 5 years are equivalent). However, as mentioned, my mother is not a "normal" driver and drives way less. There are other people that drive way more and might put in the 60,000 in over a year or two. The "whichever comes first" is a clause that protects the company providing the warranty (Ford in this case). Without this clause, the company is not protected and the literal interpretation is that the car owner has a warranty for 60000 miles OR for five years. I am not the contract law expert but that is how it was explained to me by a contract lawyer. Maybe these things vary from state to state - I am not sure.

 

A good question to ask is why did Ford not include the phrase "whichever comes first" - did they forget? I would assume that Ford had an army of lawyers look at the warranty terms and you would think that they would put in the standard clause - but maybe not. I do not know.

 

Anyhow, thanks for your support on the actions that Ford should have taken (in my opinion) and for your opinions on the legalese. I may disagree but I respect your views.

 

TD

Edited April 27, 2006 by touchdown

[touchdown]

One more point

 

At the small claims court hearing - the Ford representative (not a lawyer - a zone manager type) read a statement that I believe was prepared by a Ford lawyer.

Ford asserted that the 98 warranty was superceded by the 2000 warranty - Ford never tried to argue that the 98 warranty was not in effect because "whichever comes first" was explicit. I am guessing that Ford has lost on this point before in court but that is just my guess for what its worth.

 

Also, car warranties do not always have a time and mileage limit. Toyota had a similar head gasket issue (I think with the 4 Runner ). Toyota hemmed and hawed at first but eventually acknowleged a design flaw. There extended service was provided for a number of years (I can't remember how many) with no mileage limit. I thought that was curious because it seems as though the "right" way to do from an engineering perspective is to set a mileage limit but no time limit. The engine does not really experience degradation from time in the garage (as long as maintained properly) and the degradation is a funciton of mileage. But the accountants rule at car companies (foreign and domestic) and I guess the accountants wanted to set a time when their liability would be over and they could write off the loss.

 

Anyhow - I appreciate the opportunity to vent a bit.

 

TD

[NickF1011]

yes its EITHER 5 years OR 60,000 miles whichever comes FIRST! but otherwise Ford should have handled this without all the issues.

 

Oh I know. The rest of the case he made was pretty clear-cut and coherent. I would agree with his right to be pissed about the overall way things were handled.

[touchdown]

I thought EVERYBODY knew that the warranty expiration based on time or milage always refers to whichever occurs FIRST? I knew that when I was like 7 years old.

 

 

NickF1011,

 

I am impressed - when I was seven I was still struggling with the readin, riting, and rithmetic stuff (still am). My second grade class did not teach much contract law (or maybe I slept through that part).

 

TD

[NickF1011]

NickF1011,

 

I am impressed - when I was seven I was still struggling with the readin, riting, and rithmetic stuff (still am). My second grade class did not teach much contract law (or maybe I slept through that part).

 

TD

 

I guess I was just ahead of the curve. :P

[F250]

Also, car warranties do not always have a time and mileage limit. Toyota had a similar head gasket issue (I think with the 4 Runner ). Toyota hemmed and hawed at first but eventually acknowleged a design flaw. There extended service was provided for a number of years (I can't remember how many) with no mileage limit. I thought that was curious because it seems as though the "right" way to do from an engineering perspective is to set a mileage limit but no time limit. The engine does not really experience degradation from time in the garage (as long as maintained properly) and the degradation is a funciton of mileage. But the accountants rule at car companies (foreign and domestic) and I guess the accountants wanted to set a time when their liability would be over and they could write off the loss.

 

Anyhow - I appreciate the opportunity to vent a bit.

 

TD

 

100,000 miles was the limit on the Toyota 3.0L truck/4Runner head gasket program. Those 3.0Ls were pigs, ran like a 4 and drank like an 8. Ironically the replacment for that engine was the all new 3.4L and it suffered head gasket recalls for the first few years also. The 3.0L would suck coolant into the combustion chamber, usually #6 while the 3.4L just peed it out on the ground which is an improvment of sorts.

 

Toyota, like Ford, discovered the same problems with head gaskets done under the warranty extension. The problem is not a "defective service procedure" from the manufacturer it is thousands of different dealership technicians replacing head gaskets as fast as possable trying to beat the low warranty time paid to do the job. The simple truth is some techs do not follow the already published procedures for the job so the manufacturer has new problems develop from a previous repair and in the update emphasizes the proper methods for the repair. This was not done originally because the manufacturer assumed the tech would do a clean by-the-book job, which unfortunately is not always the case. Since it is in the manufacture's best interrest to pay only once for a warranty repair they want the job done right the first time.

[WingBender]

There are definitely different corporate attitudes toward warranty expiration. I once had a Honda with a busted seat belt clasp. The Honda dealer replaced it for free, even though the car was past warranty, citing the fact that it was a safety item and thus was not subject to warranty limitations. When I had a similar problem with one of my Fords, the dealer just said, "Sorry, it's out of warranty, you'll have to pay for it."

[Ron W.]

Now, with that being said, I think your problem is not unique. There has to be a reason why Ford sales are down, and import sales are up. This is one reason. The transplants are standing behind their product, while Ford gives their customers the run around.

 

I have on more than one web site and more than one forum stated that if Ford takes care of their customers Fords numbers will take care of themselves.

[touchdown]

100,000 miles was the limit on the Toyota 3.0L truck/4Runner head gasket program. Those 3.0Ls were pigs, ran like a 4 and drank like an 8. Ironically the replacment for that engine was the all new 3.4L and it suffered head gasket recalls for the first few years also. The 3.0L would suck coolant into the combustion chamber, usually #6 while the 3.4L just peed it out on the ground which is an improvment of sorts.

 

Toyota, like Ford, discovered the same problems with head gaskets done under the warranty extension. The problem is not a "defective service procedure" from the manufacturer it is thousands of different dealership technicians replacing head gaskets as fast as possable trying to beat the low warranty time paid to do the job. The simple truth is some techs do not follow the already published procedures for the job so the manufacturer has new problems develop from a previous repair and in the update emphasizes the proper methods for the repair. This was not done originally because the manufacturer assumed the tech would do a clean by-the-book job, which unfortunately is not always the case. Since it is in the manufacture's best interrest to pay only once for a warranty repair they want the job done right the first time.

 

F250

Thank you for the info on the Toyota

 

You raise a very good point on the time pressure that techs face under the alloted warranty time. I believe that this time pressure can be a factor. If I recall, in 1998, at the time our car was "repaired" under the first extended warranty, Ford was in the midst of a major campaign to reduce warranty costs and a major element of the program was a fairly dramatic and sudden reduction in the time alloted for many warranty jobs. I think that the time alloted for a had gasket job was reduced significantly in this period. I am not sure of te details.

 

However, I still believe that the service procedure was defective and that I can not assume that poor workmanship was a factor (it may have been - I guess I will never know). As a general rule, however, I do not blame the techs if the procedure is bad in the first place.

 

Some of the reasons that I think the service procedure was inadequate are as follows:

 

1. The 98M01 service procedure (which was used on our car) did not specify use of shop air to remove debris. The later (00M09 issued in 2000) procedure specified use of shop air and stated “this is critical in order to prevent even small amounts of foreign material from entering the engine upon teardown, which may jeopardize the proper functioning of the engine after repairs are completed.†You may argue that a good tech would have used shop air to remove debris even if not specified in the procedure. You may be right. But if a tech is working under time pressure, can you (or Ford) count on him/her doing something not specified in the procedure? I would not.

 

2. The 98M01 procedure only calls for a compression test. it does not even specify a coolant flush (although our dealer did one). The 00M09 procedure also calls for "Check for white smoke, persistent coolant loss, low coolant indicator light, chronic overheating." Maybe this is basic and a good tech should have done these steps anyhow.

 

3. The 98M01 procedure states only "clean head per Manual". The 00M09 adds important additional controls. (1) Place a clean towel…to prevent contamination…(2) Refer to technical service bulletin 93-23-14 for approved surface cleaning procedures (3) do not use surface reconditioning disk ….fibers from the disk could get into the oil and oil pan and the fibers will migrate and clog the oil bypass valve and cause major engine failure. Item 3 is particularly notable. I beileve that a good and conscientious tech may have used a reconditioning disk in 1998 in the absense of any instructions to the contrary.

 

4. Ford service procedure for the 00M09 program also indicates that “some engine assemblies replaced under warranty have been found with internal contamination. This condition may be traceable to a previous repair involving removal of the … cylinder head…. Scuffed pistons/bores, worn crankshaft/camshaft bearings, … engine knocking… can result. As I mentioned in the original post, Ford knew that the repair of the head gasket under the 1998 warranty was done improperly (whether one blames the procedure or the tech) but hid this fact from its customers. By the time the effects were evident, the warranty had expired for us (and many other owners).

 

5. Additional controls were subsequently issued in January 2002 TSB which stated in CAPITAL LETTERS for emphasis “UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE ARE ANY ALUMINUM GASKET SURFACES TO BE CLEANED USING RAZOR BLADES, …ABRASIVES ….. THESE TOOLS ARE PROVEN TO CUT AND DAMAGE ALUMINUM….AND ABRASIVE PARTICLES ARE ALSO SUSCEPTIBLE TO ENTERING THE ENGINE CAVITY AND MAY CAUSE INTERNAL ENGIEN DAMAGE. THE ONLY TOOLS ACCEPTABLE ARE PLASTIC AND WOOD SCRAPERS. This tells me that Ford knew that it had a bad procedure in 1998 and did not convey to the techs how easily that aluminum heads could be scratched and how much damage could result.

 

 

You make the valid point that "The simple truth is some techs do not follow the already published procedures for the job so the manufacturer has new problems develop from a previous repair and in the update emphasizes the proper methods for the repair. This was not done originally because the manufacturer assumed the tech would do a clean by-the-book job, which unfortunately is not always the case." I agree but still feel that Ford should have acknowledged responsibility in either case. From the legal perspective, the extended service warranty was issued by Ford and the dealer was acting as Ford's agent. Ford is responsible for the actions of its agents so whether the tech was lazy or the service procedure was defective should be a moot point.

 

In fairness, aluminum heads were a relatively new thing at that time and I do not blame Ford for scrwing up the 1998 procedure (well - not too much) and I do not blame the techs for not treating aluminum more gently than the iron heads that most were accustomed to workin with. However, I do blame Ford for hiding this information from its owners and then failing to take responsibility for the damage they caused. Ford only came out with the 2000 extension to the warranty after a class action lawsuit was file and after some intense customer compliants (even though Ford's own documents show conclusively that Ford knew it had a problem and that its intial warranty fix caused a lot of engine failures). Ford knew or should have known that some of its customer's would experience engine failure after the 2000 warranty time limit expired (which was only 7 years from car purchase date). In our case, only about 18 months were left on the second extended warranty when we got the notice and due to some health issues with my mother the car was only driven 4000 miles in this time).

 

You also state that "Since it is in the manufacture's best interrest to pay only once for a warranty repair they want the job done right the first time." I agree this should be true. However, I think that Ford underestimated how easily that aluminum heads could be scratched and did not reflect the appropriate cautions and controls in its procedure. Once they realized that they had screwed up the service procedure and caused, in many cases, major damage to engines, it is my belief that Ford tried to minimize its liability for the fix by deliberately withholding info from its Ford owners under the assumption that the warranty would expire before the engine damage was manifested. Maybe this was a good business decision from the standpoint of minimizing the cost of the extended warranty. Remember, this was an expensive mistake (somewhere in the 1 million affected cars needed a head gasket check and many of those needed a replacement). If Ford would have told a million customers that there was a good chance that their poor procedure would cause engine contamination and possibly catastrophic engine failure, I would bet that may owners would have not been happy and demanded that the engine be checked, replaced, or put on extended 100,000 warranty (no time limits).

 

I know I would have. But Ford chose to hide this info, possibly as a business decision that it was cheaper to hide info and make customers mad than to pay the price for their mistakes.

 

 

Enjoy the day and thanks for your views.

 

TD

[bec5150]

You have to throw all of the legal beagle stuff out the window and ask one question: What is the net effect on Ford sales in the long term by not making this right? I bet in real dollars it's more than a $200 gasket set or even a $3000 short block, even including labor.

 

My father's Windstar situation was with a 1996 which was NOT covered by any sort of extended warranties or recalls. The justification was that the engine was sufficiently redesigned so fix the problem. Any Ford tech will tell you that while it was an improvement, it was not a fix. Short story is that the van was sold after $4000 of engine repairs and Ford's answer was "PACK SAND" after numerous calls to customer service and three dealers.

 

So, who got screwed here? My father, who at the time had a Ford and a Dodge, now has three Hondas (as well as a Honda motorcycle). He will tell everyone his story and there is no lawyer to find a technicality when he is preaching anti-Ford to whoever will listen.

 

Now I have been told that the Ford product is better nowadays and, to be true, the 2002 Ford Ranger that I bought new has proven to be every bit as reliable as my wife's 2003 CR-V. In fact, it's more so.

 

But Ford hasn't done "dick" with it's dealers and customer service. While the issues of piss poor product have been fixed, the dealer and customer service after the sale are every bit as bad now as they were 10 years ago.

 

So my Ranger has only had three warranty issues...so what? They took 7 trips to the dealer and one didn't ever get fixed right. It goes further than that. When I had a ball joint fail, I took the truck to the local "do it all garage" because my Ford dealer proved they literally cannot change a lightbulb correctly. There's more lost money right there.

 

I always say it like a broken record. This whole take care of the customer thing, it ain't brain surgery.

Edited May 2, 2006 by bec5150

[OTISFORDSUCKS]

touchdown: You are right! Feel free to visit: http://www.otisfordsucks.com Thank you.

[96towncarcartier]

ALL warranties expire, either after the passage of time, or after mileage is reached to a certain point. This is practical, and a business decision. In fact... Manufacturers are only required to provide parts for vehicles for up to TEN years after build date. So if your car is a 1995, dont be surprised if it gets harder to find parts. Think about it, what good is it to keep making parts for a 1974 Dodge Dart? How many still exist anymore??

 

Same with warranties. Actually, that term needs to be clarified. The ONLY warranty you get is what comes from the manufacturer when you buy it new...and it is valid from the BUILD DATE, *not* the day you buy the car. What you purchase separately from the dealer is an EXTENDED SERVICE PLAN. Basically, it's a health insurance policy. You may never need it (just like you MAY never need to see a doctor) but if you do, it's a good thing to have. ESP's can be bought to cover up to 7 years or 100,000 miles.

 

ALL plans come with a mileage OR year expiration. That's because some people drive a lot, while others drive just a little. This either/or expiration covers both situations since we all drive differently, and gives a reasonable and balanced amount of coverage.

 

Recalls also come with expirations! Would you REALLY expect a store to give you a refund 10 years after you bought something? Of course not. So why expect a dealer to fix something that went bad 2 years after the ESP expired? If they did, they'd go out of business!!!

 

Simply put, your car was 8 years old when this happened. There isn't a manufacturer on earth that covers something that far out as of 1996. (Dont be fooled by Hyundai's 10/100 warranty either, that thing ONLY covers the powertrain, nothing else)

 

Chrysler discontinued the 7 year 70,000 mile warranty (DID YOU NOTICE?) over a year ago, because nobody was interested in it!!! It didn't make business sense to offer something nobody was buying. The truth is, people don't keep cars for 10-15 years like they used to. The average person trades in every 4 years nowadays. So huge warranties don't make much sense like they used to.

 

As for my own personal experience, my family has NEVER had a SINGLE problem with getting work done on ANY of our cars. Our dealer has been wonderful, and gone above and beyond in service and customer satisfaction.

 

We've owned Fords for over 50 years, starting with my grandfather who today drives a 2003 Taurus. Since 1978, we've logged over a million miles on all of our vehicles combined. Never a major failure, never an engine/transmission problem, never a safety recall, never an irrepairable defect. Never.

 

If you want to blame Ford for making a sound business decision, well, I can't stop you. Go ahead and carry that anger with you till it gives you a heart attack. Sorry you think you got a bad deal. But there is a facet to vehicle ownership that requires responsibility on the part of the owner, not everything is somebody else's fault... though that seems to be the mantra of American society these days.

Edited May 11, 2006 by 96TownCarCartier

[touchdown]

ALL warranties expire, either after the passage of time, or after mileage is reached to a certain point. This is practical, and a business decision. In fact... Manufacturers are only required to provide parts for vehicles for up to TEN years after build date. So if your car is a 1995, dont be surprised if it gets harder to find parts. Think about it, what good is it to keep making parts for a 1974 Dodge Dart? How many still exist anymore??

 

Same with warranties. Actually, that term needs to be clarified. The ONLY warranty you get is what comes from the manufacturer when you buy it new...and it is valid from the BUILD DATE, *not* the day you buy the car. What you purchase separately from the dealer is an EXTENDED SERVICE PLAN. Basically, it's a health insurance policy. You may never need it (just like you MAY never need to see a doctor) but if you do, it's a good thing to have. ESP's can be bought to cover up to 7 years or 100,000 miles.

 

ALL plans come with a mileage OR year expiration. That's because some people drive a lot, while others drive just a little. This either/or expiration covers both situations since we all drive differently, and gives a reasonable and balanced amount of coverage.

 

Recalls also come with expirations! Would you REALLY expect a store to give you a refund 10 years after you bought something? Of course not. So why expect a dealer to fix something that went bad 2 years after the ESP expired? If they did, they'd go out of business!!!

 

Simply put, your car was 8 years old when this happened. There isn't a manufacturer on earth that covers something that far out as of 1996. (Dont be fooled by Hyundai's 10/100 warranty either, that thing ONLY covers the powertrain, nothing else)

 

Chrysler discontinued the 7 year 70,000 mile warranty (DID YOU NOTICE?) over a year ago, because nobody was interested in it!!! It didn't make business sense to offer something nobody was buying. The truth is, people don't keep cars for 10-15 years like they used to. The average person trades in every 4 years nowadays. So huge warranties don't make much sense like they used to.

 

As for my own personal experience, my family has NEVER had a SINGLE problem with getting work done on ANY of our cars. Our dealer has been wonderful, and gone above and beyond in service and customer satisfaction.

 

We've owned Fords for over 50 years, starting with my grandfather who today drives a 2003 Taurus. Since 1978, we've logged over a million miles on all of our vehicles combined. Never a major failure, never an engine/transmission problem, never a safety recall, never an irrepairable defect. Never.

 

If you want to blame Ford for making a sound business decision, well, I can't stop you. Go ahead and carry that anger with you till it gives you a heart attack. Sorry you think you got a bad deal. But there is a facet to vehicle ownership that requires responsibility on the part of the owner, not everything is somebody else's fault... though that seems to be the mantra of American society these days.

 

 

96 - thank you for your input and thoughts and clarification of warranty terminology

 

I agree with you main point that warranties are not infinite - I acknowledge that the new car 3 year warranty was expired and would not expect Ford to fix any problem OTHER THAN the problem that FORD CAUSED because of its defective service procedure.

 

You make a good point that long warranties are not a good business decision - while I think that a long warranty would be attractive to many and would provide incentives to make a quality car - I cannot argue with your point - consumers do not seem to care too much so a long warranty may well be a bad business decision. I did not advocate a blanket warranty although other posters have. l

 

A few points of clarification

 

We did not purchase an extended service plan and it was not technically a recall - the warranty in question was issued by Ford and called an "extended service programs."

 

First, the extended warranty/service program was issued in 1998 adn labeled as 98M01. This extended warranty coverage was applicable to 1995 Ford Windstars and some other Ford vehicles equipped with their 3.8 liter front wheel drive engine. The plaintiff’s vehicle is covered by the 1998 warranty, which is good for 5 years OR 60,000 miles. The legal point that I am making is that this program, unlike any other car warranty I have seen, did not include the words "whichever comes first" - it is true - you can check on All Data.com. The five years has elapsed but the 60000 miles has not - thus the car is still covered by the warranty so I am not asking Ford do cover anything that they have not promised to cover. Legally, I believe they were obligated to cover the vehicle until 60000 (and it is nowhere close). You can argue that Ford meant to say whatever came first or that it was understood. I can see this point of view but the indisputable fact is that the terms as stated do not include a "whichever comes first" provision and I bleive that that contract language should be interpreted as written. I will grant you that this is a legalese point but I respectfully disagree with your contention that I asked Ford to do something outside there warranty period or that I was asking for special treatment.

 

Second, we did everything that Ford asked on the 1998 extended warranty. We took the car in an got a head gasket replaced as soon as notified. Ford's own documents provide very convincing evidence that they engine failure was a direct result of the poor service procedure - the head was likely scratched during the service or stuff was dropped in the cylinders. Ford's documents prove this was a big problem - resulting is at least three more TSBs to correct practices that were common when the maintenance was done on our car. - These subsequent TSBs may have helped subsequent customers but not us and Ford did nothing to inform owners of the vehicles that they has some problems in there service procedure that could ruin engines. If Ford would have told us, we would have done something. The engine failure occurred five years after the service procedure - but only 16000 miles after the service procedure - a very credible amount of milage for a scratched head gasket to manifest as engine failure.

 

Also - thanks for your concern about my anger and my heart.

 

Am I mad? Yep.

 

Do I think that Ford was deceptive and dishonest? Yep.

 

Do I think everything is someone else's fault? Nope. But I am almost certain that the engine failure we experienced in ths case was Ford's fault and Ford's own documents confirm it.

 

Do I carry anger with me? Yeah - a little - I believe in fighting back when a big company screws you and does not acknolwedge responsibility (even when it admits the problem in internal documents).

 

Will my anger cause a heart attack? Not likely - I took my best shot in small claims court and lost (not on the merits - because I goofed on the technicalities). I am glad I did it and learned a lot - the money was never really that important. I can live with what happened. I chose to post the info so that others will know my experience and so Ford will know that they have lost a customer. You and your family clearly had better experience -congratulations. Based on what I can see - all car makers have some technical problems - but Ford is worse than most at dealing with them. They lose customers because of it. They certainly lost me.

 

Anyhow, I will probably have a heart attack some day because of my love for beer and pizza - not because of a headgasket.

 

Thanks for caring though :poke:

 

Touchdown

Edited May 12, 2006 by touchdown

[bri719]

Um, no. The 3 year/36,000 mile warranty begins on the date you take delivery, not to mention the miles that are already on the car when you take possession do not count toward the 36,000 miles.

 

 

good point

 

by the way speaking of warranties, everyone should know the price on an extended warranty (ESP) is negotiable and you can buy one from any dealer anytime before the original warranty expires. just be sure what they're selling you (not from "Joe's Warranty Service")

[Roadrunner]

I think one important thing to think of for the either/or on warranties is that if they didn't put in a time limit, then the rare person who drives very little might bring in a very old car with less than the stated miles and still be covered.

 

Imagine if I came in to a dealer with a Ford Elite and said, "fix that, it's under warranty." He probably wouldn't even know what a Ford Elite was.

[Mr. KABC]

I think one important thing to think of for the either/or on warranties is that if they didn't put in a time limit, then the rare person who drives very little might bring in a very old car with less than the stated miles and still be covered.

 

Imagine if I came in to a dealer with a Ford Elite and said, "fix that, it's under warranty." He probably wouldn't even know what a Ford Elite was.

 

What is a Ford Elite??? :bandance:

[oldracer]

I worked for Ford as a Service Writer for 2 yrs in 2000 & 2001....

 

The extended warranties available are all very different, the Ford ESP, which is the same as the Factory and goes to 100K is excellent, but very pricey.

 

What I did was buy an extended warranty from my credit union.

It is Republic Warranty I believe, for the 2002 SVT Focus it was $1700 for 5 yrs/100K, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.

 

So far we have had $1350 worth of warranty work done since Nov, for a total out-of-pocket of $100, $50 ded each visit regardless of the # of items repaired.

 

The items are:

Rt/s mirror heating element inop

Radio/CD player cuts out and shuts off randomly...new radio still does that.

Horns were inop

Fuel gauge was inop

O2 sensors were NG

Cruise control was inop.

 

This car had 25K when we bought it and all these failures happened before 30K...iles were OK, time was expired.

 

Quality is JOB 12 apparently......

 

I expect things to break, I also expect the Mfr and dealer to realize that how they handle that will determine their future sales, or lack thereof....

 

Ford's Customer Relations hotline is a bunch of phone room idiots with no authority, or even desire to do anything except get you to go away and stop calling.......it is a disgrace and extremely frustrating to deal with customers who have called them and are more pissed off than before they called.

 

If the whole concept of how they do business doesn't improve, people will continue to go elsewhere if thy get less hassle and frustration.

Hyundai's are a piece of shit, dead last in the J.D. Powers initial quality survey, yet people are buying them for some reason I can't figure out......

 

later

[touchdown]

......

 

I expect things to break, I also expect the Mfr and dealer to realize that how they handle that will determine their future sales, or lack thereof....

 

Ford's Customer Relations hotline is a bunch of phone room idiots with no authority, or even desire to do anything except get you to go away and stop calling.......it is a disgrace and extremely frustrating to deal with customers who have called them and are more pissed off than before they called.

 

If the whole concept of how they do business doesn't improve, people will continue to go elsewhere if thy get less hassle and frustration.

Hyundai's are a piece of shit, dead last in the J.D. Powers initial quality survey, yet people are buying them for some reason I can't figure out......

 

later

 

Maybe people buy Hundai's because their customer service is better than Ford's.

I don't know - never had a Hundai but it can not be worse than Ford's

TD

[Ovaltine]

If the whole concept of how they do business doesn't improve, people will continue to go elsewhere if thy get less hassle and frustration.

Hyundai's are a piece of shit, dead last in the J.D. Powers initial quality survey, yet people are buying them for some reason I can't figure out......

 

Oldracer:

 

While I admire your candor about your Ford warranty experiences (they mirror many of my own), I'm really scratching my head based on your comments above.

 

I know that you originally posted your thoughts before the recent announcement of Hyundai leaping to #2 in the IQS study, but last year Hyundai was at least mid-pack.... not dead last. KIA even made a noticeable jump in this year's IQS. In fact, SEVERAL individual Hyundai's were ranked #2 in IQS in their vehicle class, and the new KIA Rio was ranked #1 in IQS in the sub-compact class. Even my KIA Spectra took #2 last year in the compact class. So your claim that Hyundai's (and KIA's) are excretement is more suitable for a posting dated several years back.

 

And yes.... the 60K/5 year bumper-to-bumper and 100k/10 year drivetraine warranties are very attractive to people. Couple all that with reasonable cost, and I think you'll find the answer to your question above.

 

And as far as the dealership experience goes, my KIA dealer here in Michigan is KIA exclusive, and has treated me exceptionally well during my service and couple of warranty work experiences.

 

-Ovaltine

Edited June 16, 2006 by Ovaltine

[touchdown]

ALL warranties expire, either after the passage of time, or after mileage is reached to a certain point.

Recalls also come with expirations! Would you REALLY expect a store to give you a refund 10 years after you bought something? Of course not. So why expect a dealer to fix something that went bad 2 years after the ESP expired? If they did, they'd go out of business!!!

 

Simply put, your car was 8 years old when this happened. There isn't a manufacturer on earth that covers something that far out as of 1996. (Dont be fooled by Hyundai's 10/100 warranty either, that thing ONLY covers the powertrain, nothing else)

 

Chrysler discontinued the 7 year 70,000 mile warranty (DID YOU NOTICE?) over a year ago, because nobody was interested in it!!! It didn't make business sense to offer something nobody was buying. The truth is, people don't keep cars for 10-15 years like they used to. The average person trades in every 4 years nowadays. So huge warranties don't make much sense like they used to.

 

New car warranties usually have a time and mileage limit, typically 3 years and 36,000 miles, whichever comes first. Some people are very low mileage drivers and hit the time limit first. They do not get the benefits of free warranty service for parts that wear out as a function of mileage. They get the short end of the stick when an engine fails after three years even if the engine fails with very low milage.

 

Some people are very high mileage drivers and may hit the 36000 mileage limit in a year. They get the short end of the stick when parts - such as paint - go bad earlier than one would expect.

 

When you buy a new car - you know what you are getting and the warranty length is a factor in your purchase decision.

 

I do not see a reason that recalls (or extended service plans) need to have a time and mileage limit and a which ever comes first provsion. In a recall, the manufacturer (Ford) is admiting that they screwed up and are trying to make it right. (Or trying to head off class action lawsuits)

 

If the problem is a headgasket, why do they need a time limit at all? Ford could - and in my opinion should - warranty the part for a reasonable mileage limit, say 100,000 miles for an engine part. I am not saying the whole car should be covered for 100,000 - only the part that Ford acknowledges has a defect.

It would even be fair to prorate Ford's liability based on mileage - if a car had a headgaskey falure at 10,000 miles Ford pays 90 percent - if it fails at 90,000, Ford pays 10 percent. Time should be irrelevant.

 

Conversely, if Ford had a recall for a paint problem, the recall/extended warranty should be based on a time limit only, say 7 or 10 years. Mileage has little to do with paint bubbles. If a car has paint bubbles and Ford acknwledges a defect and issues an extended warranty (for example say for 5 years or 50000 miles) why should a car that sits outside for four years and has few miles on it be covered while a car that is driven a lot and has 60000 miles in two years not be covered. Mileage should not be a factor in the "recall" warranty.

 

Also, Headline today on Oval is: Ford's 2007 Models To Include 5 Year, 60K Warranty

 

Apparently Mr Ford thinks that longer warranties are a good idea (at least for now - we will see how long it lasts)

 

TD

[ebritt]

good point

 

by the way speaking of warranties, everyone should know the price on an extended warranty (ESP) is negotiable and you can buy one from any dealer anytime before the original warranty expires. just be sure what they're selling you (not from "Joe's Warranty Service")

The extended warranty is only as good as the dealer that issues it. A friend of mine bought a brand new Camaro in 95 and paid $700 for the extended warranty. At 50000 miles the engine blew, it was covered under the extended warranty. The dealer handed him $700 tore up the warranty and said the engine would cost him $3500. What a bastard.

[fllcobra]

With all the competition out there, the one key thing that helps retain customers anymore is service. But unfortunately, there are limits.

 

My mother gave me her 1979 Chevy Malibu when I went to college in 1991. The car only had 45,000 miles on it and I was thankful to get it. But I quickly learned that the engine was completely shot. One cylinder head failed due to a blown piston ring and bad oil gaskets contributed to the consumption of 1 quart of oil each month. I didn't need to take a class to figure out that time does indeed cause engine parts to go bad. Scorching summer heat and freezing winters do a number on seals and gaskets as they expand and contract with engine heat. In addition, short driving trips likely left acid build-up in the oil from unburned hydrocarbons from the fuel. Once the oil was saturated, the engine just corroded from the inside out. A lot of factors caused that car to crap out even with relatively few miles.

 

Do I blame GM? No, not really.

 

The question is would I every buy another GM vehicle?

 

No.... No, I would not.

 

Why? Because my car shouldn't have crapped out at 45,000 miles. And frankly, since there are so many other choices out there, why take a chance on GM again?

 

And that's my point.

 

Ford should have done a better job in doing its cost-benefit analysis on the head gasket issue because of the significant number of customers affected by it. Abandoning this group left a lot of folks with little reason to consider Ford vehicles for their next purchase. Ford at the very least could have offered an additional trade in discount for the affected vehicles that could be used towards the purchase of a new Ford product. Then both parties would benefit and Ford has a second chance to retain customer loyalty.

Edited July 18, 2006 by fllcobra