2.5 Million Vehicles Waiting for Recall Work

[sajohnson]

Dude: Same for me… I have a Badlands and marked ignore for the 1.5L specific threads.

That's understandable. It continues to be discussed a lot and can be a hot button topic.

I still glance at most threads -- at least the titles. There are many that do not interest me, but I haven't ignored any so far.

This thread ("2.5 Million Vehicles Waiting for Recall Work") is of course just about recalls in general, but I can see how someone who owns a BS with an active recall might have that on their mind and bring it up.

Personally, the title got my attention because of the poor experiences I have had over the decades with car dealers (multiple makes). I'm interested in how the owners of vehicles that cannot be driven are being treated.

It goes without saying that almost all vehicles will have at least a couple problems. Some can be ignored, others may be the subject of a safety recall. In addition, all vehicles need some degree of maintenance. Point being that no reasonable person expects a car to be road ready 24/7/365. However, to have a car sitting for weeks or months due to a mfr defect is outside the realm of normal. Owners should be compensated for that -- or given a loaner.

Too many mfr/dealer and customer relationships are one-way.

Sponsored

 

[Mark S.]

I did go ahead and look at the ClassAction.org piece you linked to. I agree with you that, "...the fix should be better then a drain tube..." That is also a point made in the lawsuit.

Quote:

“Ford has not even attempted to resolve the underlying issue with the fuel injectors, noting that ‘the root cause is still under investigation,’” the case stresses.

Why do you think this is a valid point? If the data does not indicate the fuel injectors used in the 1.5L to have a higher defect rate or of lower quality than other injectors in common use then what else should Ford do?

The clear implication here is that Ford used poor quality components to save money, and there seem to be many willing to believe it without any evidence whatsoever. To date I've not seen any evidence that the injectors in use are faulty in any way. ALL mechanical components are subject to failure--even ones that are fresh off the production line.

This recall is meant to mitigate the danger posed by fuel leaks in the engine compartment. It seems like a very logical response to me. Even if the injectors were bad and Ford replaced them these cars would STILL be subject to under-hood fires due to cracked injectors, because there's no such thing as a crack-proof fuel injector; ALL mechanical components are subject to failure. And because because you may experience a cracked injector at any time, a drain tube is the ONLY sure way to mitigate the fire danger posed by one.

 

[Dude]

Why do you think this is a valid point? If the data does not indicate the fuel injectors used in the 1.5L to have a higher defect rate or of lower quality than other injectors in common use then what else should Ford do?

The clear implication here is that Ford used poor quality components to save money, and there seem to be many willing to believe it without any evidence whatsoever. To date I've not seen any evidence that the injectors in use are faulty in any way. ALL mechanical components are subject to failure--even ones that are fresh off the production line.

This recall is meant to mitigate the danger posed by fuel leaks in the engine compartment. It seems like a very logical response to me. Even if the injectors were bad and Ford replaced them these cars would STILL be subject to under-hood fires due to cracked injectors, because there's no such thing as a crack-proof fuel injector; ALL mechanical components are subject to failure. And because because you may experience a cracked injector at any time, a drain tube is the ONLY sure way to mitigate the fire danger posed by one.

And Ford is doing more! Ford will replace a fuel injector that does crack (one time). https://www.tsbsearch.com/Ford/22S73

 

[Blue oval fan]

Why do you think this is a valid point? If the data does not indicate the fuel injectors used in the 1.5L to have a higher defect rate or of lower quality than other injectors in common use then what else should Ford do?

The clear implication here is that Ford used poor quality components to save money, and there seem to be many willing to believe it without any evidence whatsoever. To date I've not seen any evidence that the injectors in use are faulty in any way. ALL mechanical components are subject to failure--even ones that are fresh off the production line.

This recall is meant to mitigate the danger posed by fuel leaks in the engine compartment. It seems like a very logical response to me. Even if the injectors were bad and Ford replaced them these cars would STILL be subject to under-hood fires due to cracked injectors, because there's no such thing as a crack-proof fuel injector; ALL mechanical components are subject to failure. And because because you may experience a cracked injector at any time, a drain tube is the ONLY sure way to mitigate the fire danger posed by one.

Exactly this. It's man made after all. Is it more susceptible to cracking due to cost cutting, poor engineering, materials? Who knows.

It seems like Ford did think of liquid fuel being present in that general area. The recall "tube" just plugs into an existing hole in the head and extends down to the ground near the wheel arch away from hot engine components.

 

[RushMan]

Just to clarify, the article I quoted is about all recalled vehicles in the U.S. So my comments were about the auto industry in general -- not Ford specifically or the fuel injector recall.

I did go ahead and look at the ClassAction.org piece you linked to. I agree with you that, "...the fix should be better then a drain tube..." That is also a point made in the lawsuit.

Quote:

"The apparent fix also involves installing a drain tube to allow fuel to drain from the cylinder head to the ground below a vehicle and onto a driver’s property, the filing states.

“Ford has not even attempted to resolve the underlying issue with the fuel injectors, noting that ‘the root cause is still under investigation,’” the case stresses.

Ford’s purported remedies to the cracked fuel injector issue place an undue burden onto drivers, who have been offered no reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use or loss of value, the suit rails.

“To add further insult to injury,” the case goes on, “rather than do the right thing and globally offer to provide consumers with a comparable loaner vehicle while Ford fully resolves the issue, Ford has done nothing of the sort.”

Of course, any experience one forum member might have had is anecdotal. In my case, I was given a loaner car (a ginormous Dodge 4x4 crew cab...) by the local Subaru dealer when my WRX was in for recall work (which was several times). That happened at least once. Every single other time I've taken a vehicle in for recall or warranty work (since the 1970s) I've been on my own to arrange transportation.

OTOH, a former coworker who liked to buy used German sport sedans still under warranty, had a BMW 545i that needed some work. He took it to the local BMW dealer. They did not sell him the car, they did not know him at all. Not only did they happily agree to fix the problems my coworker pointed out, they found other issues and fixed them! They gave him a brand new BMW as a loaner, and his 545 was washed and fully detailed when he picked it up.

So IOW, there is a wide range of treatment.

What I'd like to know is, are owners of vehicles (of all makes) that are essentially out of service -- they've been told not to drive them -- getting loaner cars?

That was my experience with BMW as well. Even years out of warranty, I was given a loaner, sometimes a new BMW, and later on, a car from Enterprise next door to the dealer. Coffee and donuts were always available at the BMW and VW dealerships.

Sponsored