2 Million Ford Vehicles to be recalled | Ford Explorer Forums - Serious Explorations

  • Register Today It's free!

2 Million Ford Vehicles to be recalled

2mrchio

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 6, 1999
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
City, State
South Elgin, IL
Year, Model & Trim Level
'05 XLT SOHC
2 Million Ford Vehicles May Be Recalled

From CBS.com:

August 30, 2000 5:15 pm EST

Faulty Ignitions That Cause Stalling Force The Recall, Judge Says

SAN FRANCISCO, AUG. 29, 2000 (CBS News) - A judge said he may order a recall of as many as 2 million Ford Motor Co. vehicles over concerns that they are prone to stalling, and accused the company of deceiving federal safety investigators and consumers.

Ford denied the allegations. Ford denies any ignition defects and said no injuries have resulted from the alleged faulty devices. Company spokeswoman Susan Krusel said the automaker would ask Judge Michael Ballachey to reverse his preliminary decision at a Sept. 28 hearing in Oakland, Calif.

The Alameda County Superior Court judge's preliminary decision was issued late Tuesday in a lawsuit filed in 1996 on behalf of 3.5 million current and former California owners of Ford vehicles in model years 1983-95. They claim the vehicles stall because an ignition device was mounted in the wrong place.

"I think it's a huge victory. The judge studied this information for five years now," plaintiff's attorney Jeffrey Fazio said Wednesday.

It's a new blow for the Dearborn, Mich.-based automaker, which is involved in this month's recall of 6.5 million Firestone tires, which were standard equipment on some Ford trucks and sports utility vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating 62 deaths that may be linked to the tires.

Clarence Ditlow, director of the Center for Auto Safety in California, told CBS News that Ford should do a voluntary recall as a means of restoring some credibility with the public.

Anything less would invite more suspicion.

"This decision is not going to change," he said.

"The order is based on the fact that Ford Motor Co. covered up defects in their ignition model from federal regulators for years. Those vehicles had a 9 percent increase in fatal crashes," he added. "If Ford is hiding defective Firestone tires and ignition models, what else is Ford Motor Co. hiding from the American public?"

Ditlow doubted Ford would be so up-front.

"The culture at Ford today is to cover up the defect rather than admit the problem and do a recall," he said.

Ford is not the first automaker accused of covering up or forced to do a recall. Mitsubishi executives admitted recently that their workers had regularly buried customer complaints about problems.

General Motors recalled 279,000 sports utility vehicles in April.

No other judge has ever ordered a vehicle recall, but Ballachey has said that the law gives him the power to do just that.

If the judge makes the order final, Ford believes it would be overturned on appeal, Krusel said.

The suit challenges Ford's placement of the thick film ignition (TFI) module, which regulates electric current to the spark plugs. In 300 models sold between 1983 and 1995, the module was mounted on the distributor near the engine block, where it was exposed to high temperatures.

Plaintiffs lawyers have said Ford was warned by an engineer that high temperatures would cause the device to fail and stall the engine, confirmed the problem in internal studies, and could have moved the module to a cooler spot for an extra $4 per vehicle.

Ford said it hasn't determined how much it would cost to fix the allegedly faulty devices. Consumer advocates estimated that a recall would cost Ford $70 million to $250 million, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

Ballachey's preliminary order harshly criticized how Ford dealt with the federal safety agency and agreed with the plaintiffs that the company withheld information.

"Ford's strategy, clearly established by the credible evidence, was: 'If you don't ask the right question, we don't have to answer with what common sense tells us you want to know'," Ballachey wrote.

"Ford presented a blizzard of unpersuasive statistical evidence in an attempt to disprove the obvious: That TFI modules failed in enormous numbers from the outset, that they continued to fail in unacceptable numbers for many years before being replaced by successor technology, and that they presented a serious safety risk to its consumers."

Ford denied it concealed critical information and said its vehicles were no more prone to stalling than any others and posed no hazard.

"We're very concerned for our customers because modifying the ignition switches in the way the court suggests would do more harm than good," Krusel said. "The modules have lasted over 100,000 miles on average ... and in 18 years have never caused an accident."

After complaints from customers and dealers about stalling, Ford recalled 1.1 million 1984-85 vehicles in 1987 to repair their ignition devices. Federal safety officials investigated in 1984, 1985 and 1987 and found no safety defects.

The judge is considering three remedies for the plaintiffs as part of the recall, Fazio said. The judge may order Ford to take the module off the distributor and remount it off the engine; replace the module with one from 1999-2000 module vehicles; or order a vehicle buyback.

A jury trial of the same lawsuit ended in a mistrial in 1999.
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





So this judge is recalling a bazillion old cars, half of which probably aren't on the road any more and the rest owned by people who won't bother to take them in b/c the cars are junk anyway. Go figure.
 






Grrrrrr!!! Lawyers! For once, I almost agree with Shakespear. Give me a break already. Does the engineer-turned-judge think that everything lasts forever??????? What is his rationale for calling it a defect? Because GM does it different? Because a better design came out a decade and a half later?

Got to be in California (with apologies to those who live there and put up with this crapola). If I was Ford and I had any factories in that state, I'd burn them to the ground.
 






Well I can see both sides. If the ignitions were used up until 1995, that means some of the vehicles involved are not that old. I had an 87 Aerostar Van, and it would stall all the time, I'm sure thats why.
 






On the other hand I had an 85 Grand Marquis with the TFI ignition, put 150K on it and not once did it stall!
I think it is Bulls*** that they are doing this. Half the cars in that range of years are probably already in the scrapyards, I know the Grand Marquis I had is, I didn't send it there, but found out after I traded it in that someone parked it illegally and I got a letter stating it was in so and so lot and if not recovered in so many days it was being sold for scrap. I worked from 91-96 as a mechanic and I can count on one hand the number of modules I have replaced on Fords, and usually they had no less than 80K on them, and a thick coating of dirt and oil.
 






Maybe this explains why my 1995 Explorer stalls sometimes when it is hot. I've taken it to the Ford dealer, they say they can't find anything wrong. I've cleaned the MAF, put in a new intake air temperature sensor, and a coolant temperature sensor. I'm still having this problem; I'm ready to trade this piece of sh*t - not on another Ford either !
 






The TFI module on Explorers is mounted to the rad support. Far from the engine.

This is a STUPID ruling. What kind of idiot comes up with a stalling engine as a cause for fatal crashes? How anyone can twist this into a safety defect is beyond me.
 






I don't know, I mean I really love Fords, I always have and always will, but in my opinion I just don't think they honestly care about the consumer one bit. To save a few bucks, they say "ahh put it in anyway." Like in the movie National Lampoons Christmas Vacation, the boss cuts out Christmas bonuses, well I think someone needs to tie a big bow on Nasser and the other executives and kick their butts through a couple of neighborhoods while they shout out how sorry they are, but that's just me;)
 












Speculation...

It is only speculation, but would that module be in cause in the start/stall problem that so many of us are experimenting. So many times I start my truck(cold engine) and it stalls right after, I restart it an runs good. Another thing that I dislike is Ford hiding all those defect to there deer customer who provide them with all and I mean ALL there million in profits.Just my comment on that issue.
 






Originally posted by rustytr
I don't know, I mean I really love Fords, I always have and always will, but in my opinion I just don't think they honestly care about the consumer one bit


I agree with you man. I don't think they care about us, and I mean US who put food in Jac Nasser and the other executives' in their tables. But when they are exposed, they try to make it seem like SAFETY/QUALITY IS THEIR NO. 1 PRIORITY ahead of quantity.
 






Back
Top