mikeo56 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Was it really a fix, or was time passing by and they were getting short on answeres? Did the fix just keep the engine cooler and the warning lights coming on sooner thus releiveing the fire threat somewhat. How do we really know that we will not have to worry in the future about the 1.6ltr. I guess we will just have to keep our eyes on the warning lights a little more. Any experts out there that can help us out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I guess you have to trust that Ford engineers know what they're doing. Sounds to me like you don't. If you're going to have anxiety for the life of the car, I'd consider the $2500 offer and get youself into something you can trust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rscalzo Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 You make it sound like the first and only use of the 1.6 has been in the Escape. It has been installed in both ford and Volvo products since 09 and if any major issues were involved in the basic design they would have come to the surface. While it wouldn't be my first choice, it wouldn't be because of the issues here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escapism Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) Its not like all the other manufacturers aren't having problems. Hell, my wifes 08 Honda accord had a recall last years for the rear brakes. My beloved 01 Toyota Rav4 had a recall on the catalytic converter when I first got it. Of course, that was the only thing ever wrong with it, and its parked out front right now. Still have it. Seems like every day I'm hearing of some recall from someone, except the ones that never change anything. And of course those folks will get left behind without change, innovation and the risk that goes along with it. Edited December 17, 2012 by Escapism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtenthusiast Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Does seem like a stop gap fix and it doesn't address why it's a fire risk if the engine is simply overheated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Does seem like a stop gap fix and it doesn't address why it's a fire risk if the engine is simply overheated. It does if the valve programming was causing leaks in locations that wouldn't normally be subjected to pressure rises otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inswva Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) I doubt Ford would intentionally risk the massive liability by not actually fixing the problem. They would be absolutely screwed if they willingly neglected to fix a fire hazard and folks started getting hurt as a result. edit: typo fix Edited December 17, 2012 by inswva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Does seem like a stop gap fix and it doesn't address why it's a fire risk if the engine is simply overheated. Why would they only have a stop gap repair and have to call all these vehicle back in for a permanent repair? The media would have a field day with that as well as piss of thousands of customers. If I understand, it's not just the overheating, it's when the lines burst in the rear of the engine, dump the coolant mixture on the exhaust and when the water evaporates off the glycol can ignite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtenthusiast Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) It does if the valve programming was causing leaks in locations that wouldn't normally be subjected to pressure rises otherwise. That's the best theory yet and it could very well be the case. Wish they would discribe it as such then, because it makes us wonder otherwise. Edited December 17, 2012 by svtenthusiast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 That's the best theory yet and it could very well be the case. Wish they would discribe it as such then, because it makes us wonder otherwise. Seems to be the problem when engineers word the problem/solution. We get it all the time at work when infosec sends out warnings to our general user base. We get flooded with calls because they can't make heads or tails of what the geeks were trying to say. :D 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rscalzo Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I doubt Ford would intentionally risk the massive liability by not actually fixing the problem They did just that with the known issues of the power steering pumps in early 90's era Crown Vics. After several incidents and at least one death, they made no changes until they lost a multi-million dollar law suit from a widow. The power-steering problems hark back to similar failures in the early 1990s, when four deaths and several more crashes were blamed on power-steering lockups. In 2003, a jury awarded nearly $1.9 million to the wife of a Paramus, N.J., police officer who was killed in 1993. The jury found that Ford knew about the steering defect and had "failed to warn" drivers. The 1.9 million was a bit misleading. Having known the lawyers handling the case, I learned that that number was from the day of the incident plus interest over the several years it took to get the case completed. Ford was more concerned over the press than the award. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escapism Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 They did just that with the known issues of the power steering pumps in early 90's era Crown Vics. After several incidents and at least one death, they made no changes until they lost a multi-million dollar law suit from a widow. The 1.9 million was a bit misleading. Having known the lawyers handling the case, I learned that that number was from the day of the incident plus interest over the several years it took to get the case completed. Ford was more concerned over the press than the award. Hmmm, It might be safe to say that Ford, along with every other company, is not the same company that it was 20 years ago. Are they better or worse? That is the real question. From what we have seen with these recalls I would have to say better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeo56 Posted December 18, 2012 Author Share Posted December 18, 2012 Seems to be the problem when engineers word the problem/solution. We get it all the time at work when infosec sends out warnings to our general user base. We get flooded with calls because they can't make heads or tails of what the geeks were trying to say. :D One of the better explaination I have read is here. The problem, it turns out, was a combination of two issues, says Raj Nair, Ford's vice president of global product development. "We had a sequence of events that caused the cooling system software to restrict coolant flow," he says. Normally, he says that occurrance wouldn't be that big a deal. But if a car has another coolant issue that could result in low pressure, like a loose filler cap or a pinhole-sized puncture in a hose, the coolant could boil. If the coolant boils over, it starts streaming into the engine where it can catch on fire if it comes in contact with the hot exhaust system. Engine fires could result, and Ford said it had seen 12 of them in Escape and one in Fusion. The problem stems from how coolant is needed in different parts of an engine depending on conditions, such as cold weather or during warm up. Ford engineers found that in certain conditions, water was being directed to the radiator, but a closed valve prevented from momentarily returning back into the engine for a short period, like 15 seconds. Again, normally not a problem because the engine can easily handle the very short term without coolant. But when pressure is also as well, the coolant never makes it back. The software flash will ensure that water is not sent to the radiator unless the electronically controlled return value is ready to take it back. Nair says the repair will take about a half day. Mechanics will check customers' cooling systems to make sure they have not overheated already. He says he has full faith in the 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine. More than 80,000 have been made in Europe, where it uses a different cooling system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeo56 Posted December 18, 2012 Author Share Posted December 18, 2012 Seems to be the problem when engineers word the problem/solution. We get it all the time at work when infosec sends out warnings to our general user base. We get flooded with calls because they can't make heads or tails of what the geeks were trying to say. :D EVEN BETTER. http://www.at.ford.com/news/cn/Pages/QA%20with%20Raj%20Nair%20Regarding%20Fix%20in%20Voluntary%20Safety%20Recall%20of%202013%20Escapes%20and%202013%20Fusions%20with%201-6-liter%20Engines.aspx Q&A with Raj Nair Regarding Fix in Voluntary Safety Recall of 2013 Escapes and 2013 Fusions with 1.6-liter Engines Dec-10-2012 1:00 PM ET DEARBORN - @Ford recently interviewed Raj Nair, group vice president, Global Product Development regarding the fix in the voluntary safety recall of the 2013 Escapes and 2013 Fusions with 1.6-liter engines. Q. What is today’s announcement? A. Today, we announced corrective action to address potential engine overheating that could result in engine fires in 2013 Ford Escape and Ford Fusion models equipped with 1.6-liter engines. The vehicles were subjects of a voluntary safety recall announced Nov. 30, 2012. We are making updates to the cooling system software to better manage engine temperatures during a unique overheating condition. The original cooling system design was not able to address a loss of coolant system pressure under certain operating conditions. The new software will resolve this issue. The software update fix is to approximately 73,500 2013 model year Escapes and 15,800 2013 model year Fusions equipped with the 1.6-liter engine. Q. Why did it take more than a full week to find out what was wrong and to find a fix? A. We took the time that was necessary to conduct a detailed engineering analysis to find the root cause and to find and validate the remedy. The timing of the remedy was fully dependent on conducting the proper analysis and fully validating the solution. We recalled the vehicles before having the fix identify because it was in the best interest of our customers. Q. Is this the same issue as earlier this year when we recalled 2013 Escapes for potential fires? A. The prior recalls addressed specific root causes that are not related to this recall. We are making updates to the cooling system software to better manage engine temperatures during this unique condition. Our software was not robust to a loss of coolant system pressure under certain operating conditions. The new software will resolve this issue. Q. Are these changes you made to fix the issue in North America going to be implemented in the 1.6 liter engines in Europe? A. No. We conducted a thorough investigation in Europe with the 1.6-liter engine and have determined there is no similar issue in Europe and no need for a recall. Q. Do EcoBoost engines run hotter than non turbo charged engines. Is this a problem with all EcoBoost engines? A. No. All internal combustion engines have components that run hot. This cooling issue is unique to the North American 1.6-liter engine. Our data shows that the European 1.6-liter and our other EcoBoost engines are not affected. Q. Are we concerned about multiple recalls? A. Our focus is on providing the highest-quality vehicles to our customers and responding quickly when we identify potential issues. The recalls are part of our process and our commitment to quality and to customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffdemoss Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 It does if the valve programming was causing leaks in locations that wouldn't normally be subjected to pressure rises otherwise. If you read the bulletin, it seems to really focus on checking cooling lines going to and from the turbo charger. It has the technician check other items as well but I could see these lines being vulnerable to overheat and then burst which would cause direct coolant contact with hot exhaust. These are pretty small lines too so I'm guessing the coolant flow actually helps protect them. If water leaves the engine but doesn't return and these lines loose their collant flow...they could overheat and cause a leak. Then the system looses pressure and boils which cause vapors and a fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 If you read the bulletin, it seems to really focus on checking cooling lines going to and from the turbo charger. It has the technician check other items as well but I could see these lines being vulnerable to overheat and then burst which would cause direct coolant contact with hot exhaust. These are pretty small lines too so I'm guessing the coolant flow actually helps protect them. If water leaves the engine but doesn't return and these lines loose their collant flow...they could overheat and cause a leak. Then the system looses pressure and boils which cause vapors and a fire. Well, since those lines were possibly being subjected to higher pressures prior to the software patch being applied an inspection would make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I guess you have to trust that Ford engineers know what they're doing. Sounds to me like you don't. If you're going to have anxiety for the life of the car, I'd consider the $2500 offer and get youself into something you can trust. I think the trust was there to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rscalzo Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 is not the same company that it was 20 years ago Probably not. But I was in a position to hear the behind the scenes prep for the case and at that time ford thought it was simply cheaper to pay out for the deaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M-88 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I doubt Ford would intentionally risk the massive liability by not actually fixing the problem. They would be absolutely screwed if they willingly neglected to fix a fire hazard and folks started getting hurt as a result. edit: typo fix Ever heard of the Pinto? Someone was quoted as saying it would be cheaper to pay for lawsuits from those killed than it would be to fix the problem. If it's cheaper to turn the cooling fans on 3 degress cooler , and it might solve the problem, they're going to do that instead of actualyl fixing the problem. Any automaker does that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escapism Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Probably not. But I was in a position to hear the behind the scenes prep for the case and at that time ford thought it was simply cheaper to pay out for the deaths. Not any more. Back then the payout was a fraction of what it would be now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rscalzo Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) Not any more. Back then the payout was a fraction of what it would be now. No, not really. the 2nd. Chair attorney was asked that same question by me when the case was won. There are limits to what the award can be in those types of suits. That's when she explained about the methods for determining the actual award and the interest involved. It was fascinating sitting in on the discussions between the motor vehicle expert and the attorney. If I would have thought about it I would have attended a few of the court sessions. Edited December 21, 2012 by rscalzo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escapism Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 No, not really. There are limits to what the award can be in those types of suits. You go right ahead and keep telling yourself that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rscalzo Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) As that info was coming from the attorney handling the case, I take it as fact. You also don't seem to understand the basics of the awards as the widow received other monetary settlements from other areas. Ford also had other civil suits to deal with in the same area and same time frame. Ford settled because they knew they were going to have a slew of cases coming their way.Four deaths and more than a few injuries. You also seem to be forgetting the 1.9 million actually resulted in a payment of almost 3.0 million plus the legal fees of the plaintiffs. As I doubt you were involved in the actual case, you're theory is worthless. Edited December 22, 2012 by rscalzo 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.