Jump to content





Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, tbone said:

Yeah, this has to stop. It may be a parts suppliers fault, but as mentioned before, it is a Ford vehicle and and it is their warranty, so stop passing the buck. 
 

I am glad they try to get out front of these things quicker so they aren’t recalling thousands of vehicles, but just own it and say we are going to make it right and will do better.  


By issuing a voluntary recall Ford IS owning the problem and the remedy.   And the fact it was a supplier goof is a simple fact - it’s the root cause of the problem.

 

Denying responsibility would be Ford telling owners to take it back to the supplier to get it fixed or just ignoring the problem altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, slemke said:

Not usually.  Most are voluntary, with some not even reaching the safety organizations.  Only when a manufacturer refuses to cooperate (ala Tesla) does NHTSA get involved and force a recall.  And even then it is often a voluntary recall after arm twisting and not mandated by NHTSA.


I don’t think anything about this issue and the subsequent recall is voluntary.  
 

The timing may have been voluntary but if they were to let this go and subframes began causing serious issues the recall would be forced as would the many lawsuits because they caught it early.  It’s pretty easy to extrapolate out. Obviously Ford “recalled” them because it’s easy and cheap for them to do.  Good PR and it’s a CYA move.  There’s nothing to lose by recalling for this and it makes them look like they really take this seriously.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FR739 said:

I don’t think anything about this issue and the subsequent recall is voluntary.  
 

The timing may have been voluntary


It wasn’t voluntary but it was voluntary.  Got it.

 

It was voluntary because the government did not force them to do it.  They could have easily waited a few months until accidents happened and they were eventually forced or hoped no accidents happened and nobody would have known about it.

 

1 hour ago, FR739 said:

it makes them look like they really take this seriously.  


No, they ARE taking it seriously.  It’s like you just can’t give them any credit whatsoever for doing the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, akirby said:


My issue is not with people complaining about their vehicles having problems or complaining about Ford having a lot of problems recently.  My issue is things like what you did with your quote on the F150 rust issue.  Your quote made it appear that Ford was ignoring the issue and saying that surface rust is normal and that is 100% untrue.  Ford has acknowledged that this is a potential issue and they’re discussing it with the supplier to see what happened and why and come up with a potential remedy.  If Ford comes back and says this is normal no action needed then folks have a right to complain about it.  But it’s just as likely they come back and admit it was an error and offer some fix for the problem.  At this point they can’t do anything else because they haven’t even identified the root cause yet as fas as we know. 
 

And then Ford makes a simple statement that this Mach-e recall is because a supplier may not have properly torqued some bolts and people go nuts as if Ford was trying to deny responsibility which is equally ridiculous.  They’re taking responsibility by issuing the recall but the root cause of the problem was exactly what Ford said.  I don’t understand why people think calling out a supplier mistake is somehow ducking responsibility.  It’s not.  It’s called root cause analysis.  Now again, if Ford tried to deny responsibility and not fix the issue then the criticism would be warranted.

 

Ford has plenty to be criticized for such as the Ecoboost engine problems and not extending warranties.  But don’t misquote them or jump on them for doing the right thing on these small issues.

I see what you did there... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, akirby said:


It wasn’t voluntary but it was voluntary.  Got it.

 

It was voluntary because the government did not force them to do it.  They could have easily waited a few months until accidents happened and they were eventually forced or hoped no accidents happened and nobody would have known about it.

 


No, they ARE taking it seriously.  It’s like you just can’t give them any credit whatsoever for doing the right thing.

...or they could have quietly put out a service bulletin and hope to fix it piecemeal under the radar as folks brought their vehicles in for scheduled service. But they didn't, which is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who yawns at recalls in the 1000 range? It’s not great but some of you need to realize that there has never been and never will be perfect in auto manufacturing. I’m glad they are being proactive but it’s a double edge sword. PR isn’t that great but getting ahead of issues is better. Would you rather have them have 10 tiny recalls or 1 giant one with millions affected? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, akirby said:


My issue is not with people complaining about their vehicles having problems or complaining about Ford having a lot of problems recently.  My issue is things like what you did with your quote on the F150 rust issue.  Your quote made it appear that Ford was ignoring the issue and saying that surface rust is normal and that is 100% untrue.  Ford has acknowledged that this is a potential issue and they’re discussing it with the supplier to see what happened and why and come up with a potential remedy.  If Ford comes back and says this is normal no action needed then folks have a right to complain about it.  But it’s just as likely they come back and admit it was an error and offer some fix for the problem.  At this point they can’t do anything else because they haven’t even identified the root cause yet as fas as we know. 
 

And then Ford makes a simple statement that this Mach-e recall is because a supplier may not have properly torqued some bolts and people go nuts as if Ford was trying to deny responsibility which is equally ridiculous.  They’re taking responsibility by issuing the recall but the root cause of the problem was exactly what Ford said.  I don’t understand why people think calling out a supplier mistake is somehow ducking responsibility.  It’s not.  It’s called root cause analysis.  Now again, if Ford tried to deny responsibility and not fix the issue then the criticism would be warranted.

 

Ford has plenty to be criticized for such as the Ecoboost engine problems and not extending warranties.  But don’t misquote them or jump on them for doing the right thing on these small issues.


My intent was not to exclude the first part of the quote to change the context of the message, it was to point out the part about the quote I didn’t like where it didn’t say anything about the customer.  I assumed people would read the article like I did and see the entire quote themselves, so my bad for not effectively quoting.  
 

As I stated, it is good they are doing these small recalls and getting out front of things, however we will agree to disagree on their constant mention of suppliers when there is an issue. I would bet you the vast majority of people have no idea that manufacturers use subcontractors for different parts of the vehicle.  To me it always seems like they are pointing the finger at someone else (ie supplier), when something is jacked up, and it very well could be, but the badge says it’s a Ford, not a Ford /Visteon or Ford whatever.  
 

In the end, I think we all just want Ford to be better and some express it differently than others.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FR739 said:


I don’t think anything about this issue and the subsequent recall is voluntary.  
 

The timing may have been voluntary but if they were to let this go and subframes began causing serious issues the recall would be forced as would the many lawsuits because they caught it early.  It’s pretty easy to extrapolate out. Obviously Ford “recalled” them because it’s easy and cheap for them to do.  Good PR and it’s a CYA move.  There’s nothing to lose by recalling for this and it makes them look like they really take this seriously.  

It was voluntary.  NHTSA didn’t even have an investigation open.  There were no accidents.  They may have been close enough to spec that it wouldn’t be a concern and could have swept it under the rug.  Or did a customer service campaign and quietly fix it when the vehicle came in the shop.  Instead they did a voluntary recall to fix it the correct way.  Yet, you give them no credit for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jcartwright99 said:

Am I the only one who yawns at recalls in the 1000 range? It’s not great but some of you need to realize that there has never been and never will be perfect in auto manufacturing. I’m glad they are being proactive but it’s a double edge sword. PR isn’t that great but getting ahead of issues is better. Would you rather have them have 10 tiny recalls or 1 giant one with millions affected? 

Nope.  It tells me they are at least looking for problems and trying to correct them quickly.  I’m sure there is some analysis done as to what needs to be recalled and what mistakes are small enough to not cause complaints.  If after 6mo or a year, complaints surfaced, they would have to recall many more vehicles or have some serious explaining to do about how they knew it was a small number of vehicles and didn’t report it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, slemke said:

Yet, you give them no credit for doing so.


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

Edited by FR739

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

...or they could have quietly put out a service bulletin and hope to fix it piecemeal under the radar as folks brought their vehicles in for scheduled service. But they didn't, which is good.

 

There is nothing quiet about service bulletins.  One person on a forum gets their hands on it, posts it online, media sees it, blasts Ford etc.  

 

And that's not how it works, only recalls flag in OASIS and require the dealer to do it.  Otherwise, if you aren't researching a customer complaint, you really won't see it.

 

How many times have you seen emails and TSBs etc leaked.  It's impossible to keep shit quiet anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blwnsmoke said:

 

There is nothing quiet about service bulletins.  One person on a forum gets their hands on it, posts it online, media sees it, blasts Ford etc.  

 

And that's not how it works, only recalls flag in OASIS and require the dealer to do it.  Otherwise, if you aren't researching a customer complaint, you really won't see it.

 

How many times have you seen emails and TSBs etc leaked.  It's impossible to keep shit quiet anymore.

I “mostly” agree with this.  However, recalls get announced in the news.  TSB’s do not.  Most people never hear about TSB’s.  While it is possible that a TSB will make it into the news, it is much less likely than a recall, which will certainly make it into the news.  So I do think a TSB would draw less attention than a recall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, akirby said:

And then Ford makes a simple statement that this Mach-e recall is because a supplier may not have properly torqued some bolts and people go nuts as if Ford was trying to deny responsibility which is equally ridiculous.  They’re taking responsibility by issuing the recall but the root cause of the problem was exactly what Ford said.  I don’t understand why people think calling out a supplier mistake is somehow ducking responsibility.  It’s not.  It’s called root cause analysis.  Now again, if Ford tried to deny responsibility and not fix the issue then the criticism would be warranted.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tbone said:


My intent was not to exclude the first part of the quote to change the context of the message, it was to point out the part about the quote I didn’t like where it didn’t say anything about the customer.  I assumed people would read the article like I did and see the entire quote themselves, so my bad for not effectively quoting.  
 

 

 

 

OK I see what you were saying but I still don’t understand why you see an issue with not mentioning the customer.  I’m guessing you wanted Ford to say that it would take care of this problem and make it right with customers?  It sounds like Ford hasn’t even had time to research this problem so to me saying they were looking into the issue with the supplier is good news that there will potentially and probably be some type of corrective action forthcoming.  I just don’t see Ford taking any chances with F150.  But to say they’ll definitely fix it before they’ve had time to even research it is risky.
 

I think that statement was just trying to reassure current owners that at this point in time the problem is cosmetic and doesn’t pose a safety hazard.  So they can take some extra time to do a thorough investigation.  First they have to determine if it’s a current issue and if so fix the problem for new builds. Then they have to come up with a plan to fix the existing ones that may involve a rust converter, parts replacement or some combination and that will take at least a few weeks to figure out.

 

But make no mistake - Ford has to correct this problem even if only involves spraying everything with a rust converter which chemically bonds with the rust and forms a black protective layer.  If they do nothing then they deserve all the criticism we’ve seen here and more.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tbone said:

however we will agree to disagree on their constant mention of suppliers when there is an issue. I would bet you the vast majority of people have no idea that manufacturers use subcontractors for different parts of the vehicle.  To me it always seems like they are pointing the finger at someone else (ie supplier), when something is jacked up, and it very well could be, but the badge says it’s a Ford, not a Ford /Visteon or Ford whatever.  


It speaks to where the problem occurred and who has to correct it.  If there were 6 problems in one year and they all occurred in the Ford factory then Ford has big changes to make in the factory.  If all 6 were supplier issues then the supplier has big changes to make or Ford needs to change suppliers.

 

I personally don’t see it as Ford “passing the buck” because they’re still the ones issuing the recall and fixing the vehicles.  To me it’s simply a statement of root cause.

 

So I guess the difference here is whether you care more about facts or if you care more about PR and perception.  I agree we all want Ford to have fewer problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

 

Suppliers and "strategic partners" are undoubtedly working on Ford required documentation for root cause, containment and prevention. Under ISO certification, a supplier cannot knowingly ship nor can Ford accept a non conforming part without a plan to insure compliance and possibly concession. It is exceedingly rare. Ford owns the process. 

 

Again speaking from my observations, not for Ford.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.


All good points, but consider that only 1300 vehicles were affected.  Likewise only a small number of Bronco Sports were affected in the other similar recall.   I don’t believe in either case there were any actual failures reported, so these must have been found at the factory by Ford during some inspection/verification process.   My guess is they pull a vehicle at specified intervals and go through it testing torque and looking for problems or they do it with supplier parts or sub assemblies.  If that’s the case then I would say that part of the process is working.  It’s probably not feasible to do that  more frequently on everything.

 

As you know, the key is to initiate irreversible corrective actions to ensure problems don’t repeat whether it’s at the factory or the supplier.

If I was running the show I would ask the supplier for a thorough root cause analysis and their corrective actions.  I would probably put them on an enhanced inspection process until I was sure they had corrected the problem.   Same if it was an internal issue.

 

These issues really are minor even though the optics are bad.  What is far worse and far more concerning are things like the ecoboost coolant issues that don’t show up for years and are more widespread and super expensive to fix.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, akirby said:

These issues really are minor even though the optics are bad.  What is far worse and far more concerning are things like the ecoboost coolant issues that don’t show up for years and are more widespread and super expensive to fix.  

 

I think the EB coolant issue could morph into something way more expensive than the Focus transmission issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

...or they could have quietly put out a service bulletin and hope to fix it piecemeal under the radar as folks brought their vehicles in for scheduled service. But they didn't, which is good.

Actually, a manufacturer is required by law to inform NHTSA of potential safety related defects once discovered, how many and which vehicles are included, potential for injury or loss of life, and remedy. A TSB is for problems that arise that don't rise to the level of injury or death; leaky sunroofs, coolant intrusion, etc or an updated part or proscedure.

a Field Service Action (FSA) is a more passive request to an owner to have a procedure or reprogram/update of a module done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all need to relax a little about FORD RECALLS. All manufacturers have them and some have to suspend sales until there is a fix. Not sure why Ford recalls create so much anxiety.

 

Maybe it was the terrible Explorer launch. But even there Ford can sell everyone they make no problem.

 

U.S. News just reported that new Escape has much better reliability than average and CR reports much worse. Go figure. I report much better than average as owner after 11 months of ownership.

 

IMO, Ford quality and reliability is fine in most cases. Ford seems to take their time with launches and tries hard to ship good products.

 

The Mach E is a good case in point. Shipments have been delayed until Ford is satisfied. I would have no problem buying a 2021 Explorer, Ranger, Bronco Sport, and so on if I wanted one. 

 

My 2020 Escape is a 1st year product and no problems other than backup camera. Paint job is better than any vehicle I have ever owned including a Porsche. Ditto for alloy wheels and fuel mileage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, akirby said:

 

 

 

OK I see what you were saying but I still don’t understand why you see an issue with not mentioning the customer.  I’m guessing you wanted Ford to say that it would take care of this problem and make it right with customers?  It sounds like Ford hasn’t even had time to research this problem so to me saying they were looking into the issue with the supplier is good news that there will potentially and probably be some type of corrective action forthcoming.  I just don’t see Ford taking any chances with F150.  But to say they’ll definitely fix it before they’ve had time to even research it is risky.
 

I think that statement was just trying to reassure current owners that at this point in time the problem is cosmetic and doesn’t pose a safety hazard.  So they can take some extra time to do a thorough investigation.  First they have to determine if it’s a current issue and if so fix the problem for new builds. Then they have to come up with a plan to fix the existing ones that may involve a rust converter, parts replacement or some combination and that will take at least a few weeks to figure out.

 

But make no mistake - Ford has to correct this problem even if only involves spraying everything with a rust converter which chemically bonds with the rust and forms a black protective layer.  If they do nothing then they deserve all the criticism we’ve seen here and more.  


Your guess is correct, that is what I was asserting.  Clearly I did not articulate it well enough. 
 

Yes, this an absolute must fix for them, regarding the F150.  I know it does not mechanically affect the vehicle, but it is definitely bad optics for the F Series.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, tbone said:


Your guess is correct, that is what I was asserting.  Clearly I did not articulate it well enough. 
 

Yes, this an absolute must fix for them, regarding the F150.  I know it does not mechanically affect the vehicle, but it is definitely bad optics for the F Series.  

 

The F150 is the Crown Jewel....why wouldn't they go out of their way to make F150 owners happy? Simple undercarriage spray would do the job in minutes after a quick power wash. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, akirby said:


It speaks to where the problem occurred and who has to correct it.  If there were 6 problems in one year and they all occurred in the Ford factory then Ford has big changes to make in the factory.  If all 6 were supplier issues then the supplier has big changes to make or Ford needs to change suppliers.

 

I personally don’t see it as Ford “passing the buck” because they’re still the ones issuing the recall and fixing the vehicles.  To me it’s simply a statement of root cause.

 

So I guess the difference here is whether you care more about facts or if you care more about PR and perception.  I agree we all want Ford to have fewer problems.


Generally, I am a very fact based person, however in today’s day and age it seems perception is the reality rather than facts.  Unfortunately, I think PR is very important nowadays. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jcartwright99 said:

Am I the only one who yawns at recalls in the 1000 range? It’s not great but some of you need to realize that there has never been and never will be perfect in auto manufacturing. I’m glad they are being proactive but it’s a double edge sword. PR isn’t that great but getting ahead of issues is better. Would you rather have them have 10 tiny recalls or 1 giant one with millions affected? 

 

 

Or - no recalls?

 

There is not a current culture of quality with Ford.

 

Recently, there have been safety recalls for the 2021 Bronco Sport (2), the 20221 Mach-E, tens of thousands of 2021 F-150 trucks, some Super Duty trucks, and vehicles built but not placed in the delivery pipeline because they are being stored for “quality checks” (translation:  something wasn’t manufactured correctly).

 

Ford and the UAW massively botched the launch of the 2020 Explorer, Aviator and Police Interceptor models.  It was so bad, Ford acknowledged the problem in a filing with the SEC, after trucking thousands of new vehicles to another state for employees to try to fix the problems.  Ford was very coy with the media (and its customers) with the problems and defects.

 

After buying GM and Dodge vehicles for years, I ordered and bought my first Ford; a 2015 Ford Expedition Limited 4x4.  It was delivered with defects, and numerous problems have appeared.  However, there have been no safety recalls.

 

I have no faith currently that Ford can manufacture a new vehicle properly - and the numerous safety recalls just reinforce my beliefs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 92merc said:

 

I think the EB coolant issue could morph into something way more expensive than the Focus transmission issue.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×