Front brake recall

[Black Horse]

Have the same issue with my 2021 OB. Had the pads replace under the recall. Much dust, some squak under light pressure, all indications of a more aggressive compound. Pads lasted about 20k miles and getting ready to replace now. No issues with master cylinder (the aggressive pads were a protection in case of failure I'll bet). I'm going with the basic ceramic. I'll bet the original pads would only be half worn by now. Like the injector cracking recall....let's just put a band aid on something instead of fixing the real issue.

Sponsored

 

[Cursed Bronco]

You do not have lane centering. You have lane keeping.

Lane centering is only available with Ford Co-Pilot360™ Assist+

Lane centering along adaptive cruise control will give you a form of self driving.

Lane keeping will just bounce you back and forth trying to keep you in a marked lane.

The reason I asked, your vehicle has vacuum assist power brakes. Ford issued a recall because if the power brake assist were to fail, the driver may not be able to stop the vehicle in a predetermined distance. The front brake pads were changed out to offer additional friction when applying. The result is more brake dust.

Vehicles with Ford Co-Pilot360™ Assist+ have an electric brake assist. Vehicles with this unit were never recalled for brake issues.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have Lane Keep Assist and it doesn't "bounce" back and forth at all. All it does is vibrate the steering wheel when I begin to drift out of a lane. Is mine just not working correctly, or what?

 

[thomasm23]

Ah ha! I was puzzled by that! The little square indicates the BS is equipped with the 360+. Appreciate the clarification.

The “square” does not indicate 360+. There is a sensor in that area.

 

[Jill]

The “square” does not indicate 360+. There is a sensor in that area.

I believe it does indeed indicate 360+. Vehicles without 360+ don’t have the square.

 

[thomasm23]

I believe it does indeed indicate 360+. Vehicles without 360+ don’t have the square.

Lane keeping requires the “square”

The controls on the left hand side of the steering wheel are an indication of a vehicle with 360+

 

[Mark S.]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I have Lane Keep Assist and it doesn't "bounce" back and forth at all. All it does is vibrate the steering wheel when I begin to drift out of a lane. Is mine just not working correctly, or what?

You can set the assist feature (as well as the tactile feedback) to different levels. Look for vehicle settings in your SYNC 3 system.

 

[Mark S.]

Like the injector cracking recall....let's just put a band aid on something instead of fixing the real issue.

What is the real issue, and how would you fix it?

 

[Black Horse]

What is the real issue, and how would you fix it?

How about injector replacement and master cylinder replacement.....but since it's a small number of potential failures we (Ford) will just put a simple bandaid of protection (drain tube and brake pads) just in case you are one of those units.

 

[Mark S.]

How about injector replacement and master cylinder replacement.....but since it's a small number of potential failures we (Ford) will just put a simple bandaid of protection (drain tube and brake pads) just in case you are one of those units.

There's nothing wrong with the installed components, so why should Ford replace them?

 

[Bucko]

There's nothing wrong with the installed components, so why should Ford replace them?

Mark S., why do you keep trying to convince those that think this issue was not corrected?

I commend you for asking for facts (and never getting them), but those who think Ford did not do right are never going to be convinced otherwise.

 

[Mark S.]

Mark S., why do you keep trying to convince those that think this issue was not corrected?

I commend you for asking for facts (and never getting them), but those who think Ford did not do right are never going to be convinced otherwise.

I don't believe some think through what they're posting; I'm just trying to help out. I hate the idea of people driving around in a car they are afraid of.

For example, @Black Horse believes the master cylinder should be replaced incident to the brake recall. That doesn't make any sense because the problem that prompted the recall is the car doesn't meet a stopping distance requirement with the brake booster failed. In other words, replacing the master cylinder would not result in shorter stopping distances because it's not used during that particular stopping test. The ONLY way to decrease stopping distance without a brake booster is higher-friction brake pads.

I think a discussion of the facts with some logic might help folks better understand why Ford (with NHTSA collaboration) makes certain decisions regarding recalls.

 

[Black Horse]

I don't believe some think through what they're posting; I'm just trying to help out. I hate the idea of people driving around in a car they are afraid of.

For example, @Black Horse believes the master cylinder should be replaced incident to the brake recall. That doesn't make any sense because the problem that prompted the recall is the car doesn't meet a stopping distance requirement with the brake booster failed. In other words, replacing the master cylinder would not result in shorter stopping distances because it's not used during that particular stopping test. The ONLY way to decrease stopping distance without a brake booster is higher-friction brake pads.

I think a discussion of the facts with some logic might help folks better understand why Ford (with NHTSA collaboration) makes certain decisions regarding recalls.

Since you called me out....firstly, I miss-spoke, it was the booster issue (as you pointed out) not the master cylinder. I know more about what happens behind the scenes than I care to admit - but I am in no way speaking on behalf of Ford. The real issue is the component suppliers and especially their lack of component/lot traceability. When an issue is identified as a safety risk manufactures are required to act expeditiously to repair, replace or protect. Using the brake booster issue as a scenario, if the affected lot could not be traced, Ford would have to "recall" the many units from what they determine as the potential front door and end including a wide safety margin. If testing demonstrates that only a scant few failures occur than the overall risk is low, but still viable. The most cost effective solution is to recall the affected population and replace the front brake pads with a compound more aggressive so that in case of a booster failure the ability of the car to stop is not critically affected. This solution was most likely driven by cost to repair, and availability of components (like the booster). Ford then eliminates the risk and then only has to repair the scant few boosters that actually fail.

Same issue with the cracked injector risk on the 3-cylinder. A simple drain hose to capture any lost fuel away from hot surfaces eliminates the risk if an injector fails. Instead of replace a whole lot of injectors, they only have to replace the ones that actually do fail.

My issue, especially with the front brake issue is the "upgraded" brake compound causes much faster wear of pads and rotor. Less than 20k miles on a set of front pads is ridiculous based on the usage of my vehicle and the amount of brake dust is at least 10 fold. Bottom line is that Ford's "quick fix" may be the stop-gap solution, but it adds additional cost and displeasure to the owner. All of this could have been prevented by better quality control measures at the suppliers and especially adding simple improvements of component traceability (like barcoding/serialization). Bottom line is that I am sick and tired of visits to a Dealer for repairs that should never have to be made. (Don't get me started on the rear brake moan issue).

 

[Bucko]

I don't believe some think through what they're posting; I'm just trying to help out. I hate the idea of people driving around in a car they are afraid of.

For example, @Black Horse believes the master cylinder should be replaced incident to the brake recall. That doesn't make any sense because the problem that prompted the recall is the car doesn't meet a stopping distance requirement with the brake booster failed. In other words, replacing the master cylinder would not result in shorter stopping distances because it's not used during that particular stopping test. The ONLY way to decrease stopping distance without a brake booster is higher-friction brake pads.

I think a discussion of the facts with some logic might help folks better understand why Ford (with NHTSA collaboration) makes certain decisions regarding recalls.

Again, I agree with what you are doing. However, in some people, it will not get through.

Haters gotta hate.

If however, you are able to show (with the facts you present) that an issue of failure is due to a part failure, and the fix is stated and proved, then perhaps one or more that read it will understand.

That's a good thing, and what forums are about.

 

[Mark S.]

Since you called me out....firstly, I miss-spoke, it was the booster issue (as you pointed out) not the master cylinder. I know more about what happens behind the scenes than I care to admit - but I am in no way speaking on behalf of Ford. The real issue is the component suppliers and especially their lack of component/lot traceability. When an issue is identified as a safety risk manufactures are required to act expeditiously to repair, replace or protect. Using the brake booster issue as a scenario, if the affected lot could not be traced, Ford would have to "recall" the many units from what they determine as the potential front door and end including a wide safety margin.

I don't think you fully understand this issue. The recall regarding front brake replacement was not about faulty brake boosters. NHTSA tests the brakes on all new cars under a variety of conditions. All new cars use some type of brake booster, which is a component that might fail for a variety of reasons. If one fails the car must still stop. NHTSA sets a maximum stopping distance for this test, and some Bronco Sports built during a specific time frame failed to meet that standard. Again, it's not about faulty brake boosters, it's about failure to meet a standard in the event of a booster failure. Replacing the booster would have no effect on stopping distance because it's disconnected during the test.

Same issue with the cracked injector risk on the 3-cylinder. A simple drain hose to capture any lost fuel away from hot surfaces eliminates the risk if an injector fails. Instead of replace a whole lot of injectors, they only have to replace the ones that actually do fail.

You've just described how maintenance works; when a component fails you replace it. Why would you replace functioning components? This recall was about fire risk from a failed component, i.e. fuel injectors. Unless you have some evidence that the OE part has a higher risk of failure than the replacement part, how does replacing a functioning component with a brand new component serve to mitigate the risk of fire from a failed component? You suggest you may know more about this issue than others. Do you have data regarding the failure rate of the OE injectors Ford used in the 1.5L engine?

My issue, especially with the front brake issue is the "upgraded" brake compound causes much faster wear of pads and rotor. Less than 20k miles on a set of front pads is ridiculous based on the usage of my vehicle and the amount of brake dust is at least 10 fold. Bottom line is that Ford's "quick fix" may be the stop-gap solution, but it adds additional cost and displeasure to the owner. All of this could have been prevented by better quality control measures at the suppliers and especially adding simple improvements of component traceability (like barcoding/serialization). Bottom line is that I am sick and tired of visits to a Dealer for repairs that should never have to be made. (Don't get me started on the rear brake moan issue).

My understanding is the entire issue resulted from supply chain problems. The original brake pads specified as OE became unavailable, so Ford switched to a different supplier. The pads chosen--perhaps the only available--during that time did not provide enough friction to stop the vehicle with a failed booster, which is why some of the cars failed the NHTSA test. Ford had to find pads that would satisfy the NHTSA test requirement, and they had to do so quickly so as not to interfere with production--there were a LOT of people waiting for cars they had ordered. And this was at a time when supply chain disruptions were at their peak.

Could Ford have done things differently? Maybe. But it had to balance taking care of current owners with keeping production running. After all, if you're not making money selling new cars then you don't have the money to help customers who've already bought one. I don't know enough about Ford's internal decision making process to know for certain if the decisions made regarding the brake recall helped more people than it hurt, and I doubt anyone on this forum does either.

The bottom line is existing customers got brakes that will meet all NHTSA safety standards, and when they wear out--which should happen rather quickly according to you--they can replace them with any kind of brake pads they choose. By then, hopefully, the supply issues will have gone by the wayside, and everyone will have more options. I hope people keep in mind, however, that whatever pads they use should provide enough friction to meet all the safety standards.

 

[tommy]

I believe you're basing this assumption on @tommy's avatar photo. This appears to be a stock photo, not one of @tommy's actual vehicle. If this were @tommy's actual vehicle then your assumption would be correct, but he shared a photo of his actual steering wheel, which does not include controls for lane centering and adaptive cruise control. Both of these features are part of the 360+ package.

You are correct, a stock photo. Pic of steering wheel is mine.

Sponsored