Mach-E Recall

[HotRunrGuy]

8 minutes ago, CurtisH said:

Okay, I must have missed this.  What is the EB coolant issue?

 

2.0's too.  

 

HRG

[slemke]

13 hours ago, FR739 said:

But I did give them credit for doing so.  You quoted me doing so. 

I’m scratching my head as to what you wrote meant: “I don’t think anything about this issue and the subsequent recall is voluntary. “

 

I interpreted that as meaning Ford was forced to issue the recall, not that they issued the recall to do the right thing and thus that you were not giving them credit for a voluntary recall.  But then you stated you did give them credit.   I’m confused.

[MKII]

22 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

 

I think the "root cause" is more subtle than what you say. What I haven't seen anyone in this discussion question is Ford's quality procedures for assessing incoming parts - or in this case, it might be an entire subsystem. Presumably the supplier would be sending some sort of Certificate of Analysis (COA) confirming that the subsystem meets Ford specifications and showing the test values that demonstrate meeting the spec(s). How is it that the subsystem would presumably be reported to be in spec as delivered (with a COA confirming the appropriate tests were conducted and showing those test values), yet these didn't meet spec? Does Ford have some sort of statistically valid approach for randomly testing these bolts to make sure they are tightened to spec? Or is the supplier carrying some sort of ISO accreditation that should negate the need for Ford to do those tests? Did the supplier not perform the tests? Did the supplier provide false results on the COA? Did Ford knowingly accept parts with some failed spec values?

 

Who failed here? I have no idea. Perhaps there is shared blame. But I'm sympathetic to those who see Ford blaming the supplier in its press release; as I described above, Ford sets specs for incoming parts. Ford should be getting affirmation from each supplier in the form of COA's that the parts meet the specs. I think the issue here is Ford cannot 'call out' the supplier if indeed there was some sort of malfeasance on their part, because then the issue gets into the realm of legal issues - it's one thing to say the supplier 'may have' supplied a faulty subsystem, it's a much higher threshold to pin down exactly what they did (or didn't do) and air it in public. It seems to me like Ford tried to thread the needle here, but I am sympathetic to those unhappy with Ford 'blaming the supplier'. Ford owns the quality process for incoming parts, and they need to own the outcome of what that process did (or didn't) catch.

Excuse my assembly processing ignorance, but who puts this subframe piece with the loose bolts to the main structure of the vehicles?

 

I ask because in the article it states "The hazards: the subframe could become detached from the main structure of the vehicle if the bolts become loose over time."

Edited March 8, 2021 by MKII

[HotRunrGuy]

56 minutes ago, MKII said:

Excuse my assembly processing ignorance, but who puts this subframe piece with the loose bolts to the main structure of the vehicles?

 

I ask because in the article it states "The hazards: the subframe could become detached from the main structure of the vehicle if the bolts become loose over time."

 

According to this, it might be a loose component of the sub-frame, NOT the attachment of the sub-frame assembly to the body structure.

 

HRG

[MKII]

1 hour ago, HotRunrGuy said:

 

According to this, it might be a loose component of the sub-frame, NOT the attachment of the sub-frame assembly to the body structure.

 

HRG

 

So the wording in your notice the sub-frame won't detach from the main body, just that the sub-frame components could come apart?

 

[akirby]

7 minutes ago, MKII said:

 

So the wording in your notice the sub-frame won't detach from the main body, just that the sub-frame components could come apart?

 

That’s what it says and it makes sense because the supplier would not have attached the subframe to the vehicle that would have been Ford.

[FR739]

13 hours ago, slemke said:

I’m scratching my head as to what you wrote meant: “I don’t think anything about this issue and the subsequent recall is voluntary. “

 

I interpreted that as meaning Ford was forced to issue the recall, not that they issued the recall to do the right thing and thus that you were not giving them credit for a voluntary recall.  But then you stated you did give them credit.   I’m confused.

I think it’s reasonable to assume that if this issue had been ignored and allowed to grow the end result would have been a forced recall.  Things falling off the subframe would be a pretty serious issue.  I think it’s reasonable to assume Ford could read the writing on the wall and said “you know what?  It costs us very little to do a recall now, it makes us look good and gives us some good PR, we have to file this with the feds anyway, so let’s get out ahead of it and just do it now”. 
 

I give them credit for the timing of the recall. Doing it now is obviously voluntary but had it been left to grow they would have been forced to do a recall anyway. So, in a way, I guess it’s quasi voluntary.  

Edited March 8, 2021 by FR739

[akirby]

[92merc]

For those hating on Ford for this recall, just compare that to Tesla's recent recall.

 

Tesla had been CR darling for reliability.  Some of us on BON had been calling that BS.  CR is finally agreeing.

Tesla has now been having issues with faulty touch screen displays.  It was to the point where the Feds were one step away from making Tesla have a mandatory recall.  So Tesla agreed to the recall.  But the recall goes all the way back to 2012 vehicles.  So vehicles that are now 9 years old.

The recall is covering 135k vehicles.  So 10 times what Ford's recall is.

 

So get a grip.  Ford did decided to do a recall before it became a major issue.  I give Ford praise for not hiding it, and stepping forward.

[akirby]

31 minutes ago, 92merc said:

The recall is covering 135k vehicles.  So 10 times what Ford's recall is.

 

It's actually 100 times more vehicles (1200 vs 135000)

[HotRunrGuy]

5 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

It's actually 100 times more vehicles (1200 vs 135000)

 

Actually, it's only 75 Mach-E's that have made it into consumers hands.

 

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2021/03/05/ford-motor-company-to-address-subframe-bolt-issue.html

 

HRG

[FordBuyer]

1 hour ago, 92merc said:

For those hating on Ford for this recall, just compare that to Tesla's recent recall.

 

Tesla had been CR darling for reliability.  Some of us on BON had been calling that BS.  CR is finally agreeing.

Tesla has now been having issues with faulty touch screen displays.  It was to the point where the Feds were one step away from making Tesla have a mandatory recall.  So Tesla agreed to the recall.  But the recall goes all the way back to 2012 vehicles.  So vehicles that are now 9 years old.

The recall is covering 135k vehicles.  So 10 times what Ford's recall is.

 

So get a grip.  Ford did decided to do a recall before it became a major issue.  I give Ford praise for not hiding it, and stepping forward.

 

With no real brick and mortar service network, how is Tesla going to carry out huge recalls as they sell more and more vehicles? They would need to hire huge workforce to visit hundreds of thousands homes as they do now. Not every fix can be done over the air.

[paintguy]

5 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

 

With no real brick and mortar service network, how is Tesla going to carry out huge recalls as they sell more and more vehicles? They would need to hire huge workforce to visit hundreds of thousands homes as they do now. Not every fix can be done over the air.

But without an ICE it will not require maintenance or repair, just like my cell phone and PC. I'm sure subframe bolts on Tesla's speak directly to Elon Musk and his magic wrench tightens them to torque over the air. LOL

[rmc523]

1 hour ago, FordBuyer said:

 

With no real brick and mortar service network, how is Tesla going to carry out huge recalls as they sell more and more vehicles? They would need to hire huge workforce to visit hundreds of thousands homes as they do now. Not every fix can be done over the air.

 

They do have brick and mortar service locations, they're just far fewer and more spread out than other brands.

 

Here locally, Tesla just opened a new store/service center that was a former Best Buy (which moved to a different location).   They cut a hole in the front for a service garage door, and made the old entrance area a showroom, while the rest of the building is service, and a lot of Tesla vehicles parked in the parking lot like a typical dealer would have.

[92merc]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

 

It's actually 100 times more vehicles (1200 vs 135000)

Maths isn't my strong suit.  ?

[twintornados]

3 minutes ago, 92merc said:

Maths isn't my strong suit.  ?

 

Neither is grammar.... ?

[Chrisgb]

On 3/7/2021 at 5:49 PM, CurtisH said:

Okay, I must have missed this.  What is the EB coolant issue?

Read all about it. It doesn't seem to affect  the majority of these open deck motors, but a significant proportion:

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=ecoboost+coolant+intrusion+class+action&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

escape.org has more. Ford is stepping up to the plate on warranty clams relevant to this issue,  however many are having this occur out of warranty.

[akirby]

11 minutes ago, Chrisgb said:

Read all about it. It doesn't seem to affect  the majority of these open deck motors, but a significant proportion:

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=ecoboost+coolant+intrusion+class+action&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

escape.org has more. Ford is stepping up to the plate on warranty clams relevant to this issue,  however many are having this occur out of warranty.

 

I still say Ford should extend the powertrain warranty to 100K miles to cover this. 

[Joe771476]

After being in the biz since 1903, NO mistakes should be made, unless you want to blame it on the dumbing down of America.

[akirby]

4 minutes ago, Joe771476 said:

After being in the biz since 1903, NO mistakes should be made, unless you want to blame it on the dumbing down of America.

Its impossible to manufacture anything as complex as an automobile in volume and never have a problem.

[92merc]

16 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

Neither is grammar.... ?

I was actually making fun of myself, and the way Brits say it.  ?

 

https://www.mathsisfun.com/math-maths-english.html

[coupe3w]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Its impossible to manufacture anything as complex as an automobile in volume and never have a problem.

yeah, like spitting out spark plugs and having them break off when removing them. Those are real complex. D'oh

[FR739]

1 hour ago, coupe3w said:

yeah, like spitting out spark plugs and having them break off when removing them. Those are real complex. D'oh

Or simply sealing a windshield properly to the vehicle.  A good friend sent me a video of a 2021 F150 being unloaded from a transport truck in the rain and water was pouring into the vehicle.  Center of the dash by the camera button.  

[jcartwright99]

Are people still bitching about 75 Mach E’s in customer hands being recalled?

 

Here: https://jalopnik.com/kia-tells-owners-of-nearly-380-000-recalled-cars-to-par-1846438300

 

proof that this doesn’t just happen to Ford

[coupe3w]

9 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

Are people still bitching about 75 Mach E’s in customer hands being recalled?

 

Here: https://jalopnik.com/kia-tells-owners-of-nearly-380-000-recalled-cars-to-par-1846438300

 

proof that this doesn’t just happen to Ford

Ford had to do this too. Not just once.

Over 450,000 Ford F-150 trucks recalled in Canada after block heaters cause fires

https://globalnews.ca/news/4784983/ford-f-150-trucks-recalled-canada/

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2020/08/12/f-150-recall-fire-risk/3353550001/

Edited March 9, 2021 by coupe3w