A homo-advocacy company that makes crappy cars. Screw 'em...
Posted on 08/03/2007 4:21:26 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
Ford Motor Co. said Friday it is recalling 3.6 million passenger cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans to address concerns about a cruise control switch that has led to previous recalls based on reports of fires.
Ford said the recall covered more than a dozen vehicle models built from 1992-2007. The company said it was responding to concerns from owners about the safety of their cars and questions about the speed control deactivation switch in the vehicles that is powered at all times.
The Dearborn, Mich.-based automaker previously had recalled nearly 6 million vehicles beginning in January 2005 because of engine fires linked to the cruise control systems in trucks, SUVs and vans.
"Customers remain concerned about the long-term durability of the speed control system and about the safety of their vehicles," said Ford spokesman Dan Jarvis.
He said the automaker had received "a few reports of fires" in Ford Crown Victoria passenger cars prior to the recall. He did not have a precise number.
The recall involves the following vehicles: 1998-2002 Ford Ranger, 1992-1997 Lincoln Town Car, 1992-1997 Ford Crown Victoria, 1992-1997 Mercury Grand Marquis, 1993-1998 Lincoln Mark VIII, 1993-1995 Taurus SHO, 1999-2001 Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer.
Also covered are the 2001-2002 Ford Explorer Sport, 2001-2002 Ford Explorer Sport Trac, 1992-1993 E150-350 vans, 1997-2002 E150-350 vans, 1993 Ford F-Series pickups, 1993 Ford Bronco, 1994 Mercury Capri, 2003-2004 Ford F-150 Lightning, and 1995-2002 Ford F53 motor homes.
An additional 177,000 vehicles in Canada, Mexico and Europe are covered by the recall.
Jarvis said there have been no deaths, injuries or accidents associated with the recall.
It was Ford's sixth recall, involving a total of more than 10.4 million vehicles, conducted since 1999 because of problems with the speed control system, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The nation's largest single recall involved 7.9 million Ford vehicles in 1996 to replace an ignition switch.
Texas Instruments Inc. supplied the speed control switch in all of the vehicles covered under Friday's announcement, Ford said. A TI spokeswoman could not immediately comment.
Owners will begin receiving recall notices on Aug. 13. Jarvis said the parts for passenger cars would not be available until early October. In the meantime, owners can take their vehicle to a dealer to have their cruise control deactivated until the parts arrive. The parts are available for trucks, Jarvis said.
Dealers will install a fused wiring harness into the speed control electrical system or replace the deactivation switch if its found to be leaking.
Owners with questions about the recall can contact Ford at (888) 222-2751.
AGAIN?! Good grief! Some of us are getting sick of this!
Why the 1998 Ranger and NOT the 1998 Explorer? Something fishy here. Why not the 1995-1997 as well? They’re the same vehicle AFAIK.
Solution:
DFMEA - Design Failure Mode Effects Analysis
Peer Reviews
+ rigorous validation and durability testing
As a double-Ford owner I expect to see to my satisfaction that the parts in question (e.g. for 1998 Ranger and 1998 Explorer are DIFFERENT).
Yeah, right. As if. This particular part probably goes all the way back to 1992, but just MAYBE Ford will justify the distinction. I’m not holding my breath.
Dare I go to a Ranger/Explorer forum and ask for a parts check?
Memo to Allen Mulally, Ford CEO: I ran into one of your lower level managers this past weekend, an engineer I worked with and respected when I was there because he did and does give a damn. He was telling me that the boys below you and several purer oxygen levels above him, the ones you expect to cut the b.s. and tell you the truth about what is going on are hiding the wienie just like their predecessors did to doofus Billy Jr. and Jerk the Knife before him. You may get a big pile of money, but you’re still presiding over the end of a once great company. You all would be ashamed if you had an ounce of scruples amongst you.
Interesting then that in the article the latest model mentioned is a 2004.
I just bought a 2004 Ford Ranger. Not included. At least not this time :)
I’m wondering why my 96 Ranger isn’t included. Seems like there are other Fords included that are as old as mine, and they probably use the same electronic gizmos.
I have a 1993 Taurus with 318,000 miles. I have no idea whether the cruise control works or not. Needless to say I dont take it too far from home but it is driven daily, Also I have never gotton this kind of performance with anything else. Shame they aren’t making money. I believe I will pass on the recall.
barbra ann
Wow. Is it a 3.8? I’m afraid to ask, but how have the head gaskets held up? (3.8’s are notorious for blowing HG’s)
I’m reminded of unintended acceleration in audi station wagons of the mid eighties...a load of crap in my opinion.
i thinking about buying a new ford ranger,
and i asked my mechanic as he was listing the expenses to
fix my current pickup.
he said, “unless you’ve got a l-o-n-g warranty on the ford ranger,
do not buy.”
You may have a point, but this has happened before. They dragged their heels for years about the ignition module fiasco, even though the problem was widespread. When all was said and done, all Ford wound up being required to do was replace people’s modules. Never mind that the problem was one of design, which they themselves realized when they changed it without any external prodding.
(for those not familiar with the ignition module problem I shall explain)
In the ‘80’s many Ford cars (such as all Fox chassis vehicles, which included all Mustangs, Thunderbirds, Cougars, many Lincolns, LTD’s, Fairmonts, etc.)—and many non-Fox vehicles—had their TFI (thin film ignition) modules attached *directly* to the distributor. As the engine heated up so did the distributor and so did the ignition module (which is an electronic part). Often the ignition module would fail due to this heat. Ford recognized this problem from internal complaints from engineers and changed the design so the ignition module would be located separate from anything that could conduct heat to it. Those of you with, for example, MN12 Thunderbirds and Cougars benefit from the design change. You’ll find your ignition modules attached to heatsinks, which are NOT connected directly to the engine or distributor.
When the ignition module fails, it is catastrophic and completely without warning. I should know—it happened to me twice at speed. Picture yourself doing 55 and suddenly EVERYTHING goes dead—including power steering and power brakes. There is no recovery—once the module is dead, it’s dead, and turning the key to Acc, Start, or Run will NOT help you. You are now a 3,500-pound rolling brick with a fraction of the ability to steer or stop yourself. Let’s hope you have a good reaction time, strong legs, and PLENTY of stopping room. Like I said, it happened to me twice, both of which after the car was ten years old. Once I was heading downhill with a red traffic light in front of me.
So, while in a sane world, a car that has survived the first fifteen years of its existence *should* be fine, sometimes it is not. Ford hasn’t exactly been stellar about ensuring its customers that it is genuinely concerned that their vehicles be free of design defects.
ensuring —> assuring. Bleh.
All Ford would have had to do was make a kit to allow us to relocate our TFI modules to somewhere sane. I would have been the first in line to buy one. To this day (yes, I still have the car in question) I’d open a vein to get such a kit that was properly engineered.
I appreciate you relating your personal experiences. I personally would not be phased in the least by your experiences. But I am a single male of above average strength and mechanical aptitude and am not easily rattled by emergencies. I’ve lived through enough of them I just don’t give a sh1t anymore. And I have the scars to prove it. Also, I’ve owned and driven vehicles without power steering or brakes...recently in fact.
However, If I were married to a cute young petite little girl of no mechanical aptitued and is easily rattled, that regularly drove around a car load of my little babies, I think I would not permit her to own a ford under any circumstances solely based on your testimonial.
Pity - statistically, the Ranger is about the most reliable small pickup you can buy.
Of course, it should be - they haven’t done much to it in what, over a decade?
All my Fords have been great cars, but I never EVER imagined getting 318,000 miles. Incredible!
i was hoping for a positive opinion.
i like them. cheap transportation.
but i don’t want to buy problems.
and this mechanic was pretty convincing.
you forgot one...
F’d over rebuilt dodge
I bought a used 1997 Explorer and have had nearly zero problems in the six years since (electronic ignition module failed a couple of times). My mechanic also told me I was nuts for buying it. On the other hand, my father has an Expedition and he has had no end of problems with his ignition wires failing. The difference? My engine (pushrod 4.0L V6) has standard spark plug wires, whereas his has coil-on-wire ignition. Basically, I have a separate coil (like all older cars) that sends high voltage across the spark plug wires, whereas his convert low-voltage to high-voltage right on the wire. I’ve heard second-hand from a Ford serviceman that the newer wires tend to fail and are notoriously hard to test (to determine which ones are likely to fail). Did I mention that they are also expensive?
There is another issue that is plaguing many OHC Ford engines—spitting out of spark plugs. Reports are that there aren’t enough threads on some of the plug holes and they sometimes spit them out—requiring at a minimum a heli-coil treatment if not a new head (a $3000 repair so I’ve read). I wonder if this is related to the coil-on-wire problem—maybe the cylinder gets filled with gas and when the plug eventually fires you get a *real* detonation?
The quirks of my old Fox-chassis car pale by comparison and this is why I keep it. They’re at least known quantities.
Lookee here.
interesting.
thanks.
* RECALLED VEHICLES
If you own one of these vehicles, you should take it to your Ford delearship to have the cruise control switch replaced. If replacement is not available, have the switch disconnected.
1998 Explorer [Extracted from the recall list on this safetyforum.com web page.]
* NON-RECALLED VEHICLES
The same or similar switch is installed in 16 million Ford vehicles. If you own a non-recalled vehicle with the same switch, you should take it to your Ford delearship to have the switch replaced or disconnected at your cost. Park it away from your home.
1995-2002 Ranger [Extracted from the non-recall list this safetyforum.com web page.]
Yes, something is fishy in what is being published online by different sources. What is the truth?
I own a 1998 Ranger 4x4.
For my Fox car I have the full wiring schematics in addition to the EVTM (they’re not the same thing—the wiring schematics fold out to roughly 18”x24” and show *every single circuit* in one giant diagram. The great thing about the wiring diagrams is that they also list the E7XX-XXX... part numbers for all electronic parts. The first thing I did when I got the Explorer was order all the shop manuals, but apparently similar schematics weren’t available. I can dig out the huge binders and see if the part #’s are listed, but I’m pretty sure they’re not in the Explorer EVTM. I’ll check.
I would not be without this online subscription.
From the 1997 Explorer/Mountaineer shop manual Volume 1:
Vehicle Speed Control System
The speed control system consists of:
- Speed control servo (9C735)
- Speed control actuator (9C766)
- Vehicle speed sensor (VSS) (9E731)
- Speed control actuator switch (9D743)
- Brake pressure deactivate switch
Paraphrasing, the speed control servo converts an electronic signal to a constant speed and is mounted to the RH fender. The vehicle speed sensor is a magnetic pickup-driven gear mounted to and driven by the transmission on 4x2 models and to the transfer case on 4x4 models. The VSS sends a signal to the speed control servo indicating how fast the vehicle is traveling. The brake on/off switch is located above the brake pedal. When the brakes are hit, it sends a signal to the speed control servo and disengages the speed control system.
Other parts of interest:
- Air bag sliding contact (14A664) is behind the driver’s side air bag and sends signals from the steering column wiring to the speed control switches on the steering wheel (my Fox car has something similar as it also has cruise buttons on the steering wheel, though without any air bag. The sliding contact is a very simple device).
- Speed control actuator cable (9A825) connects the speed control servo to the throttle body.
I don’t know if the codes they give are part numbers or not. Normally Ford part numbers are something like E7XX-XXXX, where E7 tells the year (1987 in this case) and the rest make up the part code. The Explorer shop manual lists the steering wheel as always (3600), which doesn’t make sense as a location code as a location code always has to have a letter.
There are other aspects to take into account when looking at this issue, such as connector types. It’s possible that the SC problem has nothing to do with the modules in question but could be a problem with a connector or wiring. I’ve seen connectors melt in the past from the heat generated in the current in the wiring (for example, the connector to the rear defrost switch is one that everyone should check in my opinion—yes, I’ve seen it melt). So anyhow perhaps the parts might be the same but it could be a wiring issue. Still, it would be great if someone with 1998 Ranger or Explorer info could chime in.
There’s a remote TFI (Thick Film Ign) unit with heat sink that was used on 1992-1998 F150-350 with 460s. It mounted on the left fender inner. You’d have to make a wiring harness jumper to get to a remote location AFAIK.
They already ‘fixed’ my Explorer once. I hope they get it right this time.
Yeah, I pulled a remote-mount heatsink from a wrecked MN-12 and mounted it on my strut tower. Now all I need is a harness so I can relocate my TFI module there. I can’t believe that no one has taken up such an aftermarket opportunity after the big stink it was.
The problem switch is not the switch per se, but rather its position directly over the brake master cylinder.
(no, it isn’t mine)
There’s nothing like a two gallon engine.
CNN Animation - Requires Quicktime
animation.switch/ford.animation.mov
Yikes! Why would they mount it there?! I am *so* popping my hood tomorrow.
Ah. Never mind, I think I can answer my own question. On older cars (and my 1997 Explorer appears to still use the “old” way of doing things). There was a mechanical spring switch connected to your brake pedal. When you hit the brakes, the switch makes contact and tells the cruise control to shut off. The problem is, if the switch is bad or iffy, when you hit the brakes the CC won’t shut off, and if you let off the brakes again the CC will try to bring the car back to the set cruising speed (I just went through this on a long trip with my Fox car and had to jam on the brakes to get the CC to turn off — the switch is good, but not all that sensitive). So Ford must have changed it so they directly read brake fluid pressure, with a diaphragm separating the switch from the brake fluid. Speaking just for myself, I’d rather have the mechanical switch, with perhaps an extra kill switch somewhere on the dash that is guaranteed to let me disengage CC. Hmmm, that might be a good weekend project for my 80’s Fox car :^)
Precisely.
A homo-advocacy company that makes crappy cars. Screw 'em...
Seems so...wear & tear...
So, all you Ford apologists who said my prediction of the SAME cruise control problem affecting vehicles other than trucks?
Your crow is served.
Yes its a 3.8. Replaced HG about 200k. also onboard computer. water pump at about 250k and also Radiator. AC no problems, Pan gasket leaking and mains going Tunk-Tunk but still
running good.
barbra ann
Um, no, the problem is that it’s connected to the brake master cylinder. You do realize that it’s a hydraulic pressure switch, right?
I believe the thin film will pulse slightly with each engagement/disengagement of the cruise. However, brake fluid is an extremely powerful solvent (ever get it on your fingers?—ack!), and some dufus at Ford decided that there would be no problem if the switch was “hot” all the time (even when the car is unoccupied and parked).
Why disagree with me when you're saying the same thing as me?
On most Ford's, it's not in such proximity to the master cylinder.
You do realize that it’s a hydraulic pressure switch, right?
You're really just trying to be smug, aren't you?
Not really. If that switch was installed anywhere else in the hydraulic brake system other than on the master cylinder, the same problem would have happened. Its location didn’t matter - the fact that it was exposed to brake fluid did.
Remember this? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1390740/posts?page=66#66
“”The defective switch that is thought to cause the fires appears in a number of other models other than the few trucks that have been recalled to date. If you bring in one of these trucks that are not under the limited recall to have the switch replaced, Ford will make you pay for it - even under warranty.”
That is because they are actually different switches. They may have a same/similar service part number and they may look exactly the same, but the actual part can vary from MY to MY. The problems with these switches have been isolated and the switches have been changed as required.
“66 posted on 04/25/2005 3:34:27 PM CDT by CSM “
Your crow is served. It WAS the same switch, which is what I’ve been saying all along, and Ford *knew*.
I posted this about two years ago. Seems germane now. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1390740/posts?page=71#71
“It doesn’t matter, because all it does is mask the problem. If the replacement switch starts to leak somewhere down the line, the fire problem will start all over again. The solution is a rethink and a redesign, and Ford isn’t going to do that.
1. Why is the cruise control circuit even powered when the car isn’t running? This is both stupid and a waste of electrical energy.
2. Why is Ford even using a pressure switch for this? If they were smart, they’d follow everyone else (except GM and DC) in dumping the pressure switch for brake sensing. Everyone else realizes that putting a switch in the hydraulic system is adding another point of failure and complexity if the switch ever has to be replaced (have to bleed and flush the system, etc., etc.). Everyone else has gone with casting or welding flats onto pedal arms so that touching the brake pedal or clutch pedal breaks contact in a switch inside the passenger compartment. This is simple and far more reliable than a stupid pressure switch. It is also easy to test and to service. 1960’s Jaguars and Datsuns had this, their current production vehicles do still. NOBODY but the American makers is cheap or stupid enough to use a pressure switch tapped into a hydraulic system instead of a real switch system. On top of that, because Fords use a similar system to turn on the brake lights, it is completely possible to have your automatic Ford in drive, with your foot on the brakes and have NO brake lights lit. Easily tested, easily demonstrated. Meanwhile, my 20 year old Z uses a standard switch setup where just touching the brake is enough to turn the brake lights on.”
Probably because some models had already been recalled, like my 2003 F-150, for example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.