Thank You Ford

[incavulator]

There is no evidence to indicate the OP's neglect caused the problem, and it's not unreasonable to expect a transmission to last more than 130,000 miles these days. But, Ford doesn't provide any guarantee or warranty that ensures they will be problem free at this mileage. Once we're beyond the warranty, the risk is all ours.

I think the only thing the OP could potentially be accused of is possibly not doing research to find out how trouble free these vehicles are (or are not) at higher mileage, especially if that was going to be the use case. Yes, the title of his post implies he is not happy with Ford and I can't say I blame him for that. I wouldn't expect a transmission failure at 130,000 miles on most new vehicles, but based on my pre-purchase research, transmission and RDU failures (among other things) in these vehicles are not exactly rare, so it's not a complete surprise to me, because I did research, to hear about another one. If I was planning on driving a vehicle 40,000+ miles a year, I either wouldn't have chosen a BS, or I would have gotten rid of it when the warranty expired.

As @RSH said, there's no benefit in piling on. I feel bad for anyone staring at an $8000+ repair bill for a 3 year old vehicle. If he didn't do the research and expected it to last 150,000 miles or more (that is considered "full useful life") without trouble, then it's understandable that he would be upset.

Again, as @RSH said, I too hope things work out for him.

Sponsored

 

[Escape2Bronco]

Also, it’s not just Ford. My stepson’s Honda Civic‘s tranny took a crap at 150k as well. But, his is 20 years old and the subframe is rusted beyond repair so it’s going to the scrapyard. I’m sure the OP wasn’t expecting a major repair after 3 years of ownership even at 130k miles. I surely wouldn’t given there was little long term history on this vehicle 3-4 years ago given when they first started shipping.

 

[RidingTheBronco]

OK, there is some problem with the tranny, they say. It will probably be best to fix it and drive like a retired person.

I'm gonna look at this a different way.

The cost vs value.

What I see... OP is retired and does not need to drive so much any longer. The OP is retired and credit rating means virtually nothing in retirement (you'll learn).

A new BS will be in the high $30's and maybe even $40k.

That BS should have cost less tahan 30k when new. His 2022 is 3+ years old now. How does he owe so much still? To me, those numbers don't work. Since the vehicle was used for work, it may be depreciated. That would make more sense than $17k left on a loan.

Anyway, he will have 17k + 8k to 11k for the fix. Starting from today, he'll be in 25k - 28K. For comparison, at National rent-a-car car resales, he could get a decent small suv for the same price range.

The question really is does he want to have this car, or another car when spending 25k+ over the next 3 years?

By the way, he could buy a different used BS BB 2022 for about 22k-28k in my area now. He won't be negative, but it will be close. Again, assuming all previous costs are "spent resources."

With all that in mind, how does OP feel about the BS he owns? It is pretty much a break even deal, cost wise, no matter what he does. Personally, I would look into what happens when he defaults on the loan. I might be the person to say, "come get it." At that point, they might find a better way to deal with you. Otherwise, I'd probably start talking to alternative repair shops.

Best of luck.

 

[sajohnson]

There is no evidence to indicate the OP's neglect caused the problem, and it's not unreasonable to expect a transmission to last more than 130,000 miles these days. But, Ford doesn't provide any guarantee or warranty that ensures they will be problem free at this mileage. Once we're beyond the warranty, the risk is all ours.

I think the only thing the OP could potentially be accused of is possibly not doing research to find out how trouble free these vehicles are (or are not) at higher mileage, especially if that was going to be the use case. Yes, the title of his post implies he is not happy with Ford and I can't say I blame him for that. I wouldn't expect a transmission failure at 130,000 miles on most new vehicles, but based on my pre-purchase research, transmission and RDU failures (among other things) in these vehicles are not exactly rare, so it's not a complete surprise to me, because I did research, to hear about another one. If I was planning on driving a vehicle 40,000+ miles a year, I either wouldn't have chosen a BS, or I would have gotten rid of it when the warranty expired.

As @RSH said, there's no benefit in piling on. I feel bad for anyone staring at an $8000+ repair bill for a 3 year old vehicle. If he didn't do the research and expected it to last 150,000 miles or more (that is considered "full useful life") without trouble, then it's understandable that he would be upset.

Again, as @RSH said, I too hope things work out for him.

This ^^^^.

It's interesting how some posters jump to the conclusion that the OP didn't have any maint work done and proceed to bash him. It's almost as if they do not like any story that is in any way critical of their precious.

It would be interesting to see the replies to the OP if his post was identical, but posted in a forum dedicated to another mfr: "Only 130,000 primarily highway miles before a total trans failure? That's pathetic! What a POS! My [year/make/model] has 400,000 miles on the original transmission!"

In short, there's not a lot of objectivity on forums...

I also have to question the idea that 130,000 mostly highway miles is ultra severe/extreme "she's gonna blow captain!" duty. Highway miles are the easiest miles. From a quick Google search:

"There's no exact conversion, but a common rule of thumb is that 10 highway miles are like 1 city mile in terms of wear and tear, because city driving involves harsh stop-and-go traffic, braking, and idling, while highway driving is smooth, consistent cruising, making highway miles much easier on a car's engine, transmission, brakes, and suspension, even though the odometer reads the same."

If that 10:1 ratio were used, or even say 5:1, his transmission would be well within warranty.

The OP's situation is not a huge black eye for Ford. Most people would disregard the fact that 80% of the 130K miles are highway miles and think 130,000 miles isn't too bad.

However, with the age of the BS (3 years) and highway miles taken into consideration, it is understandable that the OP is disappointed -- esp with the insane $11,000 cost to replace the trans.

He deserves sympathy not ridicule.

 

[incavulator]

What @sajohnson said!!! 100% on the highway miles not being severe. More steady state driving with less trans fluid temperature variations, fewer shifts, minimal acceleratioms, etc., etc.

 

[rugedraw]

"There's no exact conversion, but a common rule of thumb is that 10 highway miles are like 1 city mile in terms of wear and tear, because city driving involves harsh stop-and-go traffic, braking, and idling, while highway driving is smooth, consistent cruising, making highway miles much easier on a car's engine, transmission, brakes, and suspension, even though the odometer reads the same."

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. So my F150 with 25k miles has the equvalent of 250k miles because I do mostly city driving?

I am done with this thread.

 

[Whpony96]

This ^^^^.

It's interesting how some posters jump to the conclusion that the OP didn't have any maint work done and proceed to bash him. It's almost as if they do not like any story that is in any way critical of their precious.

It would be interesting to see the replies to the OP if his post was identical, but posted in a forum dedicated to another mfr: "Only 130,000 primarily highway miles before a total trans failure? That's pathetic! What a POS! My [year/make/model] has 400,000 miles on the original transmission!"

In short, there's not a lot of objectivity on forums...

I also have to question the idea that 130,000 mostly highway miles is ultra severe/extreme "she's gonna blow captain!" duty. Highway miles are the easiest miles. From a quick Google search:

"There's no exact conversion, but a common rule of thumb is that 10 highway miles are like 1 city mile in terms of wear and tear, because city driving involves harsh stop-and-go traffic, braking, and idling, while highway driving is smooth, consistent cruising, making highway miles much easier on a car's engine, transmission, brakes, and suspension, even though the odometer reads the same."

If that 10:1 ratio were used, or even say 5:1, his transmission would be well within warranty.

The OP's situation is not a huge black eye for Ford. Most people would disregard the fact that 80% of the 130K miles are highway miles and think 130,000 miles isn't too bad.

However, with the age of the BS (3 years) and highway miles taken into consideration, it is understandable that the OP is disappointed -- esp with the insane $11,000 cost to replace the trans.

He deserves sympathy not ridicule.

Again the OP is not stating when he had the transmission service completed. So I will bet he never did.

How many highways in the US are not full of "Stop + Go" traffic today? The OP said he used his Bronco Sport for traveling work. So he was clearly traveling during work/rush hours. So, he NEVER sat in traffic.........it was all consistent driving....right?

The transmission fluid is what keeps the transmission cooled and lubricated. 130,000mi with not one fluid flush & exchange........Sorry you can't blame Ford for your own negligence. So you are going to tell me when you go onto a lot and you see a vehicle with 130,000mi on the OD you say "Holy crap, this thing isn't even broke in yet!".....yea, I thought so.

 

[incavulator]

From the owner's manual....

The OP wasn't required to have the transmission fluid changed. If he was required to and IF that is the cause of the failure, then it is Ford's fault for not recommending it be done at a lower mileage.

There is still no evidence that the OP did anything wrong or should have done anything different (other than buy a different vehicle or sell this one sooner), and more importantly, that changing the trans fluid would have prevented this from happening. We don't even know what's wrong with it. I'm familiar with one particular transmission having snap ring issues that resulted in a failure but it had NOTHING to do with fluid changes and doing so would not have prevented it from occurring. How do we know it's not something along these lines? The answer is we don't.

So, it's really pointless to keep suggesting the OP didn't have the fluid changed and claiming that would have prevented the problem. There is simply not enough information to determine root cause. Without that, it's not possible to conclude having the trans fluid changed would have prevented it.

 

[Dannyp56]

They are purposely making cars to fail. No Auto manufacturer makes cars to last any more. they don't want people working on their vehicles either. I wish I would have kept my 2015 RAM Cummins. But I really want a 78 or 79 Ford with a Cummins swap 4x4.

 

[Garth]

Thats like subaru extending the service interval for cvt oil changes because it can cost $900 and it was becoming sales issue.

 

[Whpony96]

From the owner's manual....

The OP wasn't required to have the transmission fluid changed. If he was required to and IF that is the cause of the failure, then it is Ford's fault for not recommending it be done at a lower mileage.

There is still no evidence that the OP did anything wrong or should have done anything different (other than buy a different vehicle or sell this one sooner), and more importantly, that changing the trans fluid would have prevented this from happening. We don't even know what's wrong with it. I'm familiar with one particular transmission having snap ring issues that resulted in a failure but it had NOTHING to do with fluid changes and doing so would not have prevented it from occurring. How do we know it's not something along these lines? The answer is we don't.

So, it's really pointless to keep suggesting the OP didn't have the fluid changed and claiming that would have prevented the problem. There is simply not enough information to determine root cause. Without that, it's not possible to conclude having the trans fluid changed would have prevented it.

Your pic is out of context and is not the "Severe Duty" schedule. Even if he did have an warranty and did not perform the correct maintenance for severe duty the claim would be denied. FYI 12k-15k miles/year is average. He's driving 43,333 miles/year. Hes has 130k and has not clarified if he has or has not performed a transmission fluid exchange.


He was asked several times "when did you have it serviced last" yet he never replied. I know I would of provided detailed proof that I took care of the vehicle in every way possible. Did you notice he never asked for advice or help he just complained and called out Ford right in the title of his post? The OP came on here looking for an audience hoping someone from Ford was on here would fix his problem if he was the "Squeaky Wheel". Sorry I'm not cutting this person any slack, he knows exactly what he tried to do with his first time post on this forum and you fell for it hook line and sinker.

On top of all this the day he purchased the Bronco Sport he was offered a extended warranty and 6 months before his factory warranty expired Ford sent him a email and letter letting him know if he wanted to extend his factory warranty he could. He chose not to just like the maintenance on his transmission, he chose not to.

 

[Ernest T]

Your pic is out of context and is not the "Severe Duty" schedule. Even if he did have an warranty and did not perform the correct maintenance for severe duty the claim would be denied. FYI 12k-15k miles/year is average. He's driving 43,333 miles/year.

He was asked several times "when did you have it serviced last" yet he never replied. I know I would of provided detailed proof that I took care of the vehicle in every way possible. Did you notice he never asked for advice or help he just complained and called out Ford right in the title of his post? The OP came on here looking for an audience hoping someone from Ford was on here would fix his problem if he was the "Squeaky Wheel". Sorry I'm not cutting this person any slack, he knows exactly what he tried to do with his first time post on this forum and you fell for it hook line and sinker.

On top of all this the day he purchased the Bronco Sport he was offered a extended warranty and 6 months before his factory warranty expired Ford sent him a email and letter letting him know if he wanted to extend his factory warranty he could. He chose not to just like the maintenance on his transmission, he chose not to.

how much is an extended warranty that covers at least 130,000 miles?

 

[rocks]

how much is an extended warranty that covers at least 130,000 miles?

A lot less than $11K for a new trans.

I just looked at Flood Ford warranties and a top warranty 5/150 is $3870 with $0 deductible.

 

[Bronchette]

Don't mind me!! I'm just lurking.

What a gut-punch to owe on a vehicle that is mechanically parked, whatever the situation or mileage.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda gets us all at one time or another. Bottom line, all the hindsight 20/20 musings won't change the current scenario. My sympathies to OP and luck for the best (and least expensive) solution.

No more than 8 years for a wife. Hmmmmm.

 

[incavulator]

@Whpony96 You may be correct that he came here looking for an audience (or just help). I actually have no issue with that. I thought that's what this forum is for. IF he was trying to be the squeaky wheel and Ford actually helped him, would that be such a terrible thing? I also agree it seems likely he didn't get the extended warranty, but we don't really know that either because he didn't mention it. None of this is in dispute.

The picture from the service manual is not out of context. Below are the "special operating conditions" which define when the trans fluid should be changed every 30K. As you can see below, the simple act of driving 40,000+ miles a year is not enough, by itself, to suggest the trans should have been serviced prior to 150K.

COULD he have been towing a trailer or using a car top carrier for most ("primarily") of those 130,000 miles? Maybe, but we don't know that. IF he was towing or using a car top carrier "primarily", did he change the trans fluid every 30K? Probably not, but we don't know that either because he didn't answer that question. Even if he was towing or using a car top carrier "primarily" and if he didn't change the fluid every 30K (which, IF true, I would definitely agree with you that it is shady to blame Ford!!!!), we still don't know that changing the fluid would have prevented the problem because we don't know what the problem is. It could have simply been a bad trans with an outside-the-bell-curve component that slipped through quality control built on a Monday. He could have changed the fluid once a month and STILL had the issue. We don't know and will likely never know.

Your issue seems to be that he's blaming Ford. Blaming him and suggesting the problem would have never happened if he would have serviced the trans according to the special conditions maintenance schedule without sufficient knowledge of his driving habits and without knowing what the actual problem is with the transmission is just as perplexing.

Sponsored