- First Name
- Patrick
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2022
- Threads
- 1
- Messages
- 580
- Reaction score
- 923
- Location
- Parker, TX
- Vehicle(s)
- 2022 Cyber Orange BS BB, 1997 Ford F250 HD 7.3 PSD
We need a sarcasm font! Cheers!
Sponsored
Sorry about your loss. Hope you’re sound ok?My partner bought her 2022 BS OBX on 1/6/23. She passed away in April. I sold her car back to the dealer where she bought it on 5/15/23. Being an estate sale there's some extra paperwork involved. I called the used car manager a few days ago to ask about it. Once he explained the paperwork he told me that the car burnt up. Apparently it was test driven and afterward the couple and salesman were looking it over, heard a pop under the hood and the flames started. By the time the fire company got there it was totaled. Ford is supposed to be sending engineers to look at it.
That car was in my attached garage most days that she owned it. It surely had the potential to burn the house down!
This is an assumption. Ford has not made any public statements (that I'm aware of) about production changes in response to the issue.So the vehicles that don't need the recall, they have the recall fix already in place then from the factory? The drain tube and software update is just part of the build now.
Yes, as is the case with ANY VEHICLE. This is why failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a critical part of the design process. Every car on the road is subject to a fuel component failure that can result in fuel leaking in the engine bay. A properly conducted FMEA will guide designers in fuel system component location, leak mitigation strategies, etc. to prevent spilled fuel getting near hot engine components. Ford's initial FMEA with the 1.5L engine clearly failed to account for the condition(s) that led to several under-hood fires. The recall addressed the issue with a leak mitigation strategy. We don't know what Ford has changed on the production line, but given the liability involved I'm confident it has made SOME design changes based on what it learned from the investigation.So the fuel injectors can still fail. A hot engine bay plus fuel is never a good thing, assuming that's what caused the fire.
Do you ever get tired of constantly having to bring common sense into the discussion? ?This is an assumption. Ford has not made any public statements (that I'm aware of) about production changes in response to the issue.
Yes, as is the case with ANY VEHICLE. This is why failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a critical part of the design process. Every car on the road is subject to a fuel component failure that can result fuel leaking in the engine bay. A properly conducted FMEA will guide designers in fuel system component location, leak mitigation strategies, etc. to prevent spilled fuel getting near hot engine components. Ford's initial FMEA with the 1.5L engine clearly failed to account for the condition(s) that led to several under-hood fires. The recall addressed the issue with a leak mitigation strategy. We don't know what Ford has changed on the production line, but given the liability involved I'm confident it has made SOME design changes based on what it learned from the investigation.
There is no reason to change any of the parts. All vehicles should be designed with features to control a fuel leak if/when it happens. The fuel injectors that Ford is using do not have a higher failure rate. What is at issue is how Ford designed the area that controls the fuel once it does leak.Yes any part can fail........... I was stating that the vehicles are still built using what we assume are the exact same parts as before but with the addition of the fuel drain tube and software update off the assembly line.
Talk about eyes glazing over! FMEA meetings are nearly unbearable. Even on a simpler product the meetings generally become multiple meetings that are each multiple hours. I’m sure that Ford has developed the framework for the meeting/analysis and they probably go smoother than the meetings I have been involved in where we are trying to figure out exactly how to run the meeting and find as many ways as we can that a product might fail and then debate the severity of each.Yes, as is the case with ANY VEHICLE. This is why failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a critical part of the design process. Every car on the road is subject to a fuel component failure that can result in fuel leaking in the engine bay. A properly conducted FMEA will guide designers in fuel system component location, leak mitigation strategies, etc. to prevent spilled fuel getting near hot engine components. Ford's initial FMEA with the 1.5L engine clearly failed to account for the condition(s) that led to several under-hood fires. The recall addressed the issue with a leak mitigation strategy. We don't know what Ford has changed on the production line, but given the liability involved I'm confident it has made SOME design changes based on what it learned from the investigation.
Just add a slash "s" to the end of any sarcasm comment that you write.We need a sarcasm font! Cheers!
But just think of the free donuts and coffee searved at those meetings....yum.Talk about eyes glazing over! FMEA meetings are nearly unbearable. Even on a simpler product the meetings generally become multiple meetings that are each multiple hours. I’m sure that Ford has developed the framework for the meeting/analysis and they probably go smoother than the meetings I have been involved in where we are trying to figure out exactly how to run the meeting and find as many ways as we can that a product might fail and then debate the severity of each.
So now there are rules on how to reply with a bit of sarcasm? Geez.Just add a slash "s" to the end of any sarcasm comment that you write.
That's what is used on other social media sites.
/s
Rules? No, recommendations to make your intentions clear.So now there are rules on how to reply with a bit of sarcasm? Geez.
