Ford has $2B more in warranty costs than GM

[Danno]

which is why they ditched navistar and made their own decent powerplant...

I was at the Navistar plant in Alabamaas a fleet customer watching the first 6.0L batch come off the line.
Interesting that the Navistar crank wasn't balanced and polished, while the Ford crank was. It was odd to see the 2 cranks go down the line, looking so different. I asked the engineers why. Lower rpm limits on the Navistar was the answer.
Little did anyone know how bad the 6.0L and the VT365 for Navistar would be.

 

[Oro_O]

fake news

If you label it that, then you clearly don't know the true story.

 

[Jetronic]

https://www.autoblog.com/2020/11/24...Uwbo4BIZDnWl8E-f8RljNtPRUwuqeN0zPB4bG_fSPThWo

The answer?

Reconstitute incoming parts quality teams, formerly disbanded to "save money".

Charge-back warranty costs to the parts suppliers.

Nothing about design and assembly issues...

I know of brands that make you order the same part but with an extension to the part number under warranty. The prices on thos warranty part numbers is much reduced. I have seen as much as 600 euro to 1 euro... but typically they are half price.

It's another way to reduce warranty costs... and rip off paying customers

 

[4WD]

The Pinto was released half a century ago...why are we even talking about it?

Because it’s a Ford bashing so the Vega does not fit

 

[demarpaint]

So what are the recent and past major design blunders that cost Ford in terms of warranty and loss of customers?

The most recent one I recall is the terrible DCT fiasco.

Going back over the years:

Bad paint problems.

The F-150 spark-plugs with the very long section that were almost impossible to remove without breaking them off and spending a long time on each one with special extraction tools. I recall quotes of $700.00 just for the labor to change 8 spark-plugs IF YOU COULD FIND A MECHANIC WHO WAS WILLING TO DO THAT JOB.

The Ford SUV vehicles that allowed exhaust gas into the cabin.

The small rims with tires that were too high and had serious control problems and there after market fix that did not work, of telling the owners to run low tire pressures.

The Crown-Vick police vehicles with exploding gas-tanks when a troupers car would be rear ended while parked along side of a highway. At least they came up with a fix of a styrofoam block that prevented the pumpkin from rupturing the gas-tank. But they never included that fix in vehicles to the general public.

The switch on the master-cylinder that would cause a fire. ( Which could happen even when the vehicle was not being used, even if it was parked in a garage attached to a house. )

The ignition switches that could catch fire. ( Which could happen even when the vehicle was not being used, even if it was parked in a garage attached to a house. )

The variable venturi carburetor that seamed to never work right.

The engines had valve seals that leak too much oil into the combustion cylinder and smoked like a car that had 150,000 miles on it even though the actual miles were very low. ( Though some of those vehicles may have been making that much smoke because of the bad variable venturi carbs. )

And of course the gas-tanks on the pintos that would go up in flames with even a small rear-end crash.

I am sure there are some things that I missed. Maybe some can add to the list. Were the windshields that had special sun blocking layers that did not hold up and had to be replaced with a different type of windshield made by Ford or was that a different vehicle maker?

My brother use to say that there was something on his F-150 engine that would repeatedly break if he demanded a lot of power from it while towing his RV.

Didn't some of there engines have a system of cylinder deactivation that had plastic pieces in it that would break and cause the engine to be stuck in a mode where not all of the cylinders were firing. Or was that a different brand?

How about the automatic transmissions that would slip out of park into reverse either when you started the car, or if you left it running in park. I had three Ford's from the 1960's one from the 70's and a partner that had either a 1978 or 1980 F-150 that did it. I had a 1970 Maverick when I was in college I bought used on the cheap. I got tired of it real fast, and sold it to a friend who owned an auto parts store. I went there one day to buy things for the car I was replacing the Maverick with and he saw the for sale sign. He made me an offer and I told him, make sure no one leaves this thing idling in park!!!!!!!!!!! Then told him I thought using it for a delivery vehicle was a bad idea!!!!!!! He was fully aware of the issue, and bought the car. A few months later one of his guys was delivering parts to a gas station/garage. The car slipped out of park into reverse and knocked down a gas pump, bringing in half of the Elmont Fire Department, and closing Elmont road. From that point on all the Fords I bought had a stick.

I was a diehard Ford fan up until a couple of years ago. I was hoping the Bronco would eventually lure me back, I have my doubts though.

 

[OVERKILL]

You nailed it, I did not remember the detail of it being the underinflated Firestones. That is what I was thinking of when I posted "The small rims with tires that were too high and had serious control problems and there after market fix that did not work, of telling the owners to run low tire pressures." I think what it boiled down to is initially they were trying to save a few bucks because it was cheaper to speck the vehicles with small rims and too high profile tires than it would of cost to equip them with larger rims and proper profile tires.

I think you are combining the higher propensity for roll-over (a trait shared with most SUV's of that era) with the firestone exploding tire fiasco, which ultimately was put at the feet of Firestone, not Ford, despite Ford indeed spec'ing an unusually low pressure for the pre-facelift first gen Explorer.

The fact that these short wheelbase SUV's (Jimmy, Blazer, Explorer, Sidekick...etc) were more inclined towards rollover in the event of an evasive maneuver or correction as the result of a tire failure was exasperated by the fact that of course Ford was indeed experiencing tire failures.

15" rims with relatively high profile tires was completely normal for the era and was the case on pretty much all trucks and SUV's at the time.

 

[sloinker]

I bought a new, fully decked out F-250 Diesel 4X4 in 1990. It wasn't cheap. The transmission failed three times in the first few thousand miles. It required a complete rebuild each time. The last time it caught fire. I was into the lemon law portion of my ownership when Ford begged me for one final chance to repair the transmission. They actually got it right the third time but lost me as a customer for life. They accused me repeatedly of mistreating that POS E4OD. I never hauled anything heavier than grocery sacks during this 3 rebuild cycle. I for one hope they go under. I'm sure their tens of thousands of employees can find lucrative employment at walmart or maybe become uber drivers. A company that abusive, corrupt and technically challenged doesn't deserve my sympathy or goodwill.

 

[OVERKILL]

Because it was one of the most appalling corporate decisions ever made, and it needs to never be forgotten. Case study of it and ethics should be taught in every high school.

GM had side-saddle gas tanks that would behave quite similar to the Pinto in a collision. There were some very stupid decisions and design choices made in that era, neither company was actively trying to burn people alive.

You want to talk about ethics and bad corporate decisions?

- Tepco was aware of the deficiency in, and implored to upgrade, the seawall and relocate the emergency generators to behind the facility at Fukushima. They didn't.

- The company that constructed the bridges in Montreal (mafia was involved) used substandard concrete and construction methods to redirect money to pay off bribes and skim profits. This resulted in chunks of concrete falling on cars, killing people as well as complete bridge collapse, causing multiple fatalities.

- The Sukuki sidekick would roll if you looked at it wrong. GM knew that and still used it for the Tracker.

- The Neon and Cavalier had some of the worst safety ratings in history and the incidence of fatalities in collisions made them stand out by a massive margin. That didn't stop GM or Chrysler from producing them.

I'm sure we can think of plenty of other examples if we take pause.

 

[HangFire]

Pinto's? PowerStroke 6.0's? Explorer rollovers?

I was hoping some discussion on current warranty issues, which are behind current Ford financial losses... not ancient history.

I could have listed everything wrong with my '99 Ford Taurus (would take a while), but it is not relevant to CURRENT Ford warranty charges.

 

[jimbrewer]

The Pinto was released half a century ago...why are we even talking about it?

Because we are geezers, that’s why.

you compress 50 years of manufacturing missteps into one internet post and it looks pretty bad.

You would be hard-pressed to find a more durable car than a Crown Vic. Extended warranties sold by the manufacturer by law have to honestly estimate expected costs (otherwise the company is overstating current earnings and defrauding shareholders). I was able to buy a medium level extended warranty for 100k 7 years for $725 in 2012 for my F-150. It’s gone up, but not by that much. Expired unused by the way. Considering that it covered a twin turbo engine that was a testament to quality.

I’d say that the results are uneven. My guess is that it depends a lot in who is charge of product development for a given model.

 

[willbur]

The Pinto was released half a century ago...why are we even talking about it?

Ppl and manufacturers personality traits never change. Ford then and Ford now. The same

 

[willbur]

GM had side-saddle gas tanks that would behave quite similar to the Pinto in a collision. There were some very stupid decisions and design choices made in that era, neither company was actively trying to burn people alive.

You want to talk about ethics and bad corporate decisions?

- Tepco was aware of the deficiency in, and implored to upgrade, the seawall and relocate the emergency generators to behind the facility at Fukushima. They didn't.

- The company that constructed the bridges in Montreal (mafia was involved) used substandard concrete and construction methods to redirect money to pay off bribes and skim profits. This resulted in chunks of concrete falling on cars, killing people as well as complete bridge collapse, causing multiple fatalities.

- The Sukuki sidekick would roll if you looked at it wrong. GM knew that and still used it for the Tracker.

- The Neon and Cavalier had some of the worst safety ratings in history and the incidence of fatalities in collisions made them stand out by a massive margin. That didn't stop GM or Chrysler from producing them.

I'm sure we can think of plenty of other examples if we take pause.

Actually that Montreal bridge collapsed because the design engineers did not calculate the degrading effects of snow melt salt on the rebar and cement. That water would leak into the structure at the cantilever joints at each end of the bridge: into cracks, freeze, expand and repeat- greatly weakening the hidden structure. Bridge was constructed in such a way that safety inspection was very difficult, too

 

[OVERKILL]

Actually that Montreal bridge collapsed because the design engineers did not calculate the degrading effects of snow melt salt on the rebar and cement. That water would leak into the structure at the cantilever joints at each end of the bridge: into cracks, freeze, expand and repeat- greatly weakening the hidden structure. Bridge was constructed in such a way that safety inspection was very difficult, too

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mont...ed-to-laval-overpass-disaster-report-1.632641

The commission found three major causes contributed to the overpass failure:

• Improper rebar support for the design, which caused a "plane of weakness" where cracks eventually occurred.
• Improper rebar installation at the time of the overpass's construction in 1970.
• Use of low-quality concrete to build the overpass.

The low quality concrete and construction issues were related to the corruption taking place at the time.

 

[Zee09]

Love my Fords.
I make no apologies either.
You show me a car company that doesn't have the same issues.
Don't even say Toyota or Honda either.

 

[dishdude]

Love my Fords.
I make no apologies either.
You show me a car company that doesn't have the same issues.
Don't even say Toyota or Honda either.

Right on. And while we're looking at the history of corporate decisions, Toyota made war equipment used against the US in WWII.

 

[OVERKILL]

Right on. And while we're looking at the history of corporate decisions, Toyota made war equipment used against the US in WWII.

Mitsubishi's largest fleet sale is sitting on the bottom of the pacific off the coast of the US

 

[4WD]

Pinto's? PowerStroke 6.0's? Explorer rollovers?

I was hoping some discussion on current warranty issues, which are behind current Ford financial losses... not ancient history.

I could have listed everything wrong with my '99 Ford Taurus (would take a while), but it is not relevant to CURRENT Ford warranty charges.

Oh yeah … well because of my Uncle Joe’s Corvair … I don’t think the 2500 Chevy 6.0 is any good

 

[AutoMechanic]

That’s disappointing I really like Ford stuff. I honestly haven’t ever had to use their warranty.

 

[AutoMechanic]

Love my Fords.
I make no apologies either.
You show me a car company that doesn't have the same issues.
Don't even say Toyota or Honda either.

Exactly all of them do. Some worse than others. Ford and Toyota are my modern go to vehicles. I’ll have any brand that’s old or classic though as long as they are easy to work on and obtain parts for.

 

[dishdude]

That’s disappointing I really like Ford stuff. I honestly haven’t ever had to use their warranty.

Here lies the issue. Every manufacturer makes a couple turkeys, usually a bad transmission, bad engine design. I like to think we're smarter on this site that we can dive into the technological aspect to know what powertrains to avoid but instead we have people polluting threads and bashing entire car companies and sometimes entire continents of vehicles.

A lot of this cost could be Fiesta transmissions and Takata airbags. Would that stop me from buying an F-150? Heck no.