Safety Recall 22S27

[jsgoofn]

Interesting! My 2021 XLT 2.3 2wd one bolt was recalled, it was built in June.

Earlier in this thread, there was a breakdown of possible recalled trims and the 2.3 RWD was listed but the AWD was not. So, who knows what Ford is up to.

Affected vehicles were built with a 3-point mounted axle design," Ford's report said. "On some units the rear axle horizontal mounting bolt may fracture. Powertrain torque through the driveline causes axle rotation of the pinion angled towards the subframe, which exerts a bending force on the rear axle bolt. Peak torque is normally experienced during a launch event."

"The joint design is not robust to peak axle input torques and manufacturing variability. The primary contributor is insufficient bearing area for maximum joint loads. This results in bearing area deformation, increasing bending stress on the bolt, which may lead to a fatigue failure," Ford said.

Signs of fatigue failure include loud grinding, binding or clunking noises from the rear end of the vehicle. The remedy for the issue is twofold. Customers will get a software update that will enable a feature where the parking brake will automatically be applied when the vehicle is shifted into park. Owners of some earlier examples (or any that show signs of fatigue) will get new mounting components for the rear axle as well.

Dealers will be notified beginning in April; owners will receive notices by June 10.

Fantastic explanation!

The way Ford writes this makes it look like the software "fix" is going to make things right without explaining why they are doing this. It only keeps an affected vehicle from rolling away After the bolt fractures. I guess their liability concerns are addressed by this.

 

[07EddyB]

As an owner of a 07 that has an IRS then I'm confused by all of this. As I understand it, it's not an issue of one bolt but 3 bolts instead of 4 bolts. And it appears that the two bolts in question go into the differential cover? Normally the diff cover isn't structural - maybe the bolts go through to the housing?
I've seen the pics - that's a pretty big bolt to shear like that - especially when it seems to be wrapped in a rubber bushing.
There were some interesting design choices here - it seems like it goes beyond one bolt versus two bolts on the rear.

 

[jsgoofn]

As an owner of a 07 that has an IRS then I'm confused by all of this. As I understand it, it's not an issue of one bolt but 3 bolts instead of 4 bolts. And it appears that the two bolts in question go into the differential cover? Normally the diff cover isn't structural - maybe the bolts go through to the housing?
I've seen the pics - that's a pretty big bolt to shear like that - especially when it seems to be wrapped in a rubber bushing.
There were some interesting design choices here - it seems like it goes beyond one bolt versus two bolts on the rear.

Here's a pic of the 2 vs 1 bolt subframes

 

[rickh925]

Here's a pic of the 2 vs 1 bolt subframes

View attachment 429029 View attachment 429030 View attachment 429031 View attachment 429032

I've seen many of these pictures, but don't understand what models go with what subframe. I assume the larger engine requires the 2 bolt and the 2.3L the 1 bolt. If that's correct, are there the 6cyl engines with the one bolt subframe when they should have the 2 bolt subframe? Just trying to understand.

 

[07EddyB]

I'm aware of that - the subframes aren't any different besides the bolt/bushing on the right side. What are the front bolts doing?
I haven't really looked under my Explorer at how the rear diff is mounted but I do know that there are no bolts going to the diff from the rear to the diff cover.

 

[I bleed Ford Blue]

I've seen many of these pictures, but don't understand what models go with what subframe. I assume the larger engine requires the 2 bolt and the 2.3L the 1 bolt. If that's correct, are there the 6cyl engines with the one bolt subframe when they should have the 2 bolt subframe? Just trying to understand.

Essentially that is correct. The base, XLT, and limited have the 2.3 so they have always had the one bolt subframe. The ST and platinum initially had the 2 bolt but sometime around Dec of 20 the change was made to use the one bolt subframe. Someone discovered the bolt and bushing on the left side on both the 1 bolt and 2 bolt are in the same place so either subframe could be used on the 2.3 or 3.0 equipped explorers. So my question is why not eliminate the 1 bolt setup and just put the 2 bolt in every explorer? Then we would not be having this issue. It would have made more sense to keep using the 2 bolt subframe and just eliminated one of the bolts to save money than to switch to the one bolt subframe. Then we could just buy the bolt and add it back in.

 

[jsgoofn]

Essentially that is correct. The base, XLT, and limited have the 2.3 so they have always had the one bolt subframe. The ST and platinum initially had the 2 bolt but sometime around Dec of 20 the change was made to use the one bolt subframe. Someone discovered the bolt and bushing on the left side on both the 1 bolt and 2 bolt are in the same place so either subframe could be used on the 2.3 or 3.0 equipped explorers. So my question is why not eliminate the 1 bolt setup and just put the 2 bolt in every explorer? Then we would not be having this issue. It would have made more sense to keep using the 2 bolt subframe and just eliminated one of the bolts to save money than to switch to the one bolt subframe. Then we could just buy the bolt and add it back in.

Essentially that is correct. The base, XLT, and limited have the 2.3 so they have always had the one bolt subframe. The ST and platinum initially had the 2 bolt but sometime around Dec of 20 the change was made to use the one bolt subframe. Someone discovered the bolt and bushing on the left side on both the 1 bolt and 2 bolt are in the same place so either subframe could be used on the 2.3 or 3.0 equipped explorers. So my question is why not eliminate the 1 bolt setup and just put the 2 bolt in every explorer? Then we would not be having this issue. It would have made more sense to keep using the 2 bolt subframe and just eliminated one of the bolts to save money than to switch to the one bolt subframe. Then we could just buy the bolt and add it back in.

Probably some bean counters figured that saving an extra dollar or two would be beneficial and did not consult with the engineers. It's a good thing Ford does not build airplanes.

 

[rickh925]

Essentially that is correct. The base, XLT, and limited have the 2.3 so they have always had the one bolt subframe. The ST and platinum initially had the 2 bolt but sometime around Dec of 20 the change was made to use the one bolt subframe. Someone discovered the bolt and bushing on the left side on both the 1 bolt and 2 bolt are in the same place so either subframe could be used on the 2.3 or 3.0 equipped explorers. So my question is why not eliminate the 1 bolt setup and just put the 2 bolt in every explorer? Then we would not be having this issue. It would have made more sense to keep using the 2 bolt subframe and just eliminated one of the bolts to save money than to switch to the one bolt subframe. Then we could just buy the bolt and add it back in.

Thank you for that info. That answers my question about my pending purchase.

I guess for other owners and potential buyers, pay attention to the engine size as most, if not all, trim levels can come with the 3.0 L and would require the 2 bolt sub-frame.

I agree that it was probably a financial decision. Someone calculated the difference in cost between the two subframes and the additional bolt with its accompanying hardware. The thing that they may have miscalculated was the operational expense of having two extremely similar parts. Now of course they missed on the expense of bad PR and any potential damage, claims etc that come from this.

 

[I bleed Ford Blue]

I guess for other owners and potential buyers, pay attention to the engine size as most, if not all, trim levels can come with the 3.0 L and would require the 2 bolt sub-frame.

That is not correct. Ford does not give you a choice of engine. The base, XLT, timberline, and limited get the 2.3 and only the 2.3. The ST, platinum and king ranch get the 3.0 and only the 3.0

 

[Dale5403]

That is not correct. Ford does not give you a choice of engine. The base, XLT, timberline, and limited get the 2.3 and only the 2.3. The ST, platinum and king ranch get the 3.0 and only the 3.0

And there is also the ST Line that gets the 2.3 only.

 

[I bleed Ford Blue]

The ST-line is just an XLT in a Halloween costume. It's a fake ST

 

[rickh925]

That is not correct. Ford does not give you a choice of engine. The base, XLT, timberline, and limited get the 2.3 and only the 2.3. The ST, platinum and king ranch get the 3.0 and only the 3.0

Interesting. I have gone through the build process so many times building this Explorer that I finally ordered and the engine options are for the 2.3 l or the hybrid. I knew there was a second engine option but I wasn't choosing it so I didn't pay attention to the fact that it was the 3.3 L Hybrid. So at least the limited has two engine options.

 

[Drgoodwrench]

Ford has issued a RECAL for 2018-2022 Explorers/Aviators due to a design flaw in the differential/axle mount
Ford Recalls 2020 - 2022 Explorer Over Rear Axle Mounting Bolt Fracturing Issue

This flaw has caused a multitude of problems. Sadly the OEM fix is a band aid at BEST and will fail as well. Fortunately there is a CURE designed and built here in the USA by Anthony Woodford Racing in Vista CA. The owner is well known as the developer and builder of the Spec Miata suspension package for Mazda Motorsports and for being Chief Crew Chassis for the GTP championship NISSAN team

HERE is their cure..



YOUR WELCOME

 

[jsgoofn]

Someone on this forum got one of those recently but not sure if they installed it yet.

 

[Drgoodwrench]

Super easy install, no drilling, no jack or lift needed. Bolts right in. My ST kept breaking parts, dealer was sick of seeing me. This actually fixed things and my Exploder launches way better now..

 

[peterk9]

It was posted in our TSB/Recall thread back in April.

List of Useful Threads - 6th Generation Ex and Aviator Recalls, TSB, FSA and SSM

TSB - SSM 49107 2020 Explorer/Aviator Easy Exit / Entry Seats Some 2020 Explorer/Aviator vehicles built on or before 04-Sep-2019 equipped with memory seats may exhibit the driver front seat moving forward during easy entry/exit operation when the vehicle is turned off. This may be due to the...

www.explorerforum.com

I don't see where it mentions the Aviator or the 2018/19 Explorer.

Peter

 

[peterk9]

Ford has issued a RECAL for 2018-2022 Explorers/Aviators due to a design flaw in the differential/axle mount
Ford Recalls 2020 - 2022 Explorer Over Rear Axle Mounting Bolt Fracturing Issue

This flaw has caused a multitude of problems. Sadly the OEM fix is a band aid at BEST and will fail as well. Fortunately there is a CURE designed and built here in the USA by Anthony Woodford Racing in Vista CA. The owner is well known as the developer and builder of the Spec Miata suspension package for Mazda Motorsports and for being Chief Crew Chassis for the GTP championship NISSAN team

HERE is their cure..



YOUR WELCOME

Your thread was merged with this existing one.

Peter

 

[peterk9]

Someone on this forum got one of those recently but not sure if they installed it yet.

Calling all MY2021 MY2022 Explorer ST, Platinum, King Ranch and Aviators: rear subframe poll

From what I can tell, only the hybrid and the 3.0L powertrains have gotten recall notices. Has anyone with a 2.3L engine gotten a recall notice? Those were designed with only one rear differential mount in back and not sure if any of those have failed with the 2.3L powertrain. I have a 2020...

www.explorerforum.com

Calling all MY2021 MY2022 Explorer ST, Platinum, King Ranch and Aviators: rear subframe poll

From what I can tell, only the hybrid and the 3.0L powertrains have gotten recall notices. Has anyone with a 2.3L engine gotten a recall notice? Those were designed with only one rear differential mount in back and not sure if any of those have failed with the 2.3L powertrain. I have a 2020...

www.explorerforum.com

Peter

 

[JayKramer]

New safety recall for the fracturing bolts on the rear sub frame. It also stops the sale of all new Explorers for now.

If I am understanding the recall 'fix' correctly, it will automatically put your parking brake on when shifted into Park. Its a bit ridiculous if true, in case the bolt breaks the Ex will be in Park no worries? Just replace the damn part. Also to anyone that got the software update, that does mean you need to take the Parking Brake off everytime you start your car?? If so, no thanks to the update. I may be wrong on the above, please correct me if so

 

[peterk9]

If I am understanding the recall 'fix' correctly, it will automatically put your parking brake on when shifted into Park. Its a bit ridiculous if true, in case the bolt breaks the Ex will be in Park no worries? Just replace the damn part. Also to anyone that got the software update, that does mean you need to take the Parking Brake off everytime you start your car?? If so, no thanks to the update. I may be wrong on the above, please correct me if so

It is just for the 6th gen Explorer. Your 2018 would not be affected. Also, with the 6th gen if you put the vehicle in gear, the parking brake automatically disengages when you begin to accelerate. I believe that as a Safety Recall, the dealer is obliged to implement it.

Peter