Rear end damage

[CareerFiremanGuy]

I will take a court intervention to force them to.

What is involved in assembling a class action suit?

 

[LoneShark]

We all know how the pcm change is not the fix but we aren’t talking about the benefit, or lack thereof, of the pcm change. These ‘fractures’ are occurring from high torque events like full throttle from a stop or towing which means under driving events obviously. Does Ford think they are breaking from parking on a slope (sarcasm) or are they just worried that AFTER it breaks when we pull off the road and put the car in park that we don’t set the parking brake so it will just roll away? This is asinine.
Of the two different pics of breaks I’ve seen, the diffs clearly show a two bolt attachment point on the diff cover which also points to the obvious. Ford does make a single attachment diff cover for models that by design (less hp/to) only require the single bolt rear subframe attachment point.
So, I’d love to hear why the auto parking brake engagement with transmission placed in Park, in regards to this situation, is some type of temporary answer.

refer to post #504

 

[st8]

Absolutely! But I've found the 50 mph downshift just as satisfying. Also, I noticed the trans won't always go down to the lowest gear possible when putting the hammer down. For ex: I cruise up to ~40 mph and floor it. The trans will drop down to 3rd, when 2nd is within easy reach. Shifting in manual mode circumvents that.

you know, I haven’t messed too much with manual mode. Like at all lol I will have to give that a go.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

you know, I haven’t messed too much with manual mode. Like at all lol I will have to give that a go.

I tried manual mode 5 min after leaving the dealer's lot. Got to test these things out you know!

But here's the example of what I was talking about:
I'm cruising around town in D at 40 mph. I floor it and the rpm jumps to 3,300 rpm. That equates to 3rd gear.
But if I'm cruising around in D at 40 mph and manually downshift to the lowest gear, the rpm jumps to 4,600 rpm. That is 2nd gear.

My Stinger GT had a small physical downshift switch on the floorboard underneath the accelerator pedal.
When you floored it you depressed that button and the trans knew to drop down to the lowest possible gear.
It worked pretty well. I'm thinking the ST prevents that at times to protect the trans and drive train.
Not sure it does this at all speeds, will have to test it further.

 

[ZookaRoo]

I was thinking the same thing. What is the point of auto engaging the e-brake? It won't stop the failure from happening, so why do it? My guess, ford came up with this solution so they can say they no idea why this failure is happening, and it's a stop gap until they can figure it out. If they went straight to replacing the subframe, then they would basically be admitting they know why the failures are happening.

https://www.autoblog.com/amp/2022/04/29/ford-explorer-recall-axle-bolt-failure/

this article explains the issue

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

I know what the issue is. I was speculating as to why ford would waste our time with a stupid auto engaging e brake that will solve nothing except cover their own ass. It wont prevent the failure from happening. If ford were to admit the true reason for the failure, then NHTSA would require them to swap out the subframe to the correct one and at roughly 4K for parts and labor on every explorer that got the wrong subframe. And someone estimated there are approx 200K ST and platinum explorers with the wrong subframe. That's 800 million dollars, that can put a serious dent in any company's finances, if not bankrupt them.

 

[ZookaRoo]

I know what the issue is. I was speculating as to why ford would waste our time with a stupid auto engaging e brake that will solve nothing except cover their own ass.

Ok ….they are admitting in that article why the part is failing. My guess is a few more issues of this happening or a accident caused from the break will result in the rest of us getting the fix just like the PIU.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

... What is the point of auto engaging the e-brake? It won't stop the failure from happening, so why do it? ...

The roll away in Park after the bolt breaks is what they're addressing.
It's been reported on this forum that the fix for the actual bolt break is covered under a TSB (TSB's are "fix it if a customer shows up with a failure").
That's different from a Recall ("all vehicles must be brought in").

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

I know what the issue is. I was speculating as to why ford would waste our time with a stupid auto engaging e brake that will solve nothing except cover their own ass.

$$$$

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

Ok ….they are admitting in that article why the part is failing. My guess is a few more issues of this happening or a accident caused from the break will result in the rest of us getting the fix just like the PIU.

If ford were to tell the truth, that the real reason this is happening is because they decided to save a few bucks and use the 1 bolt subframe, then NHTSA would be all up in their ass over this.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

If ford were to tell the truth, that the real reason this is happening is because they decided to save a few bucks and use the 1 bolt subframe, then NHTSA would be all up in their ass over this.

At some point the NHTSA should figure that out for themselves regardless of what Ford says.

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

One can hope.

 

[KANSAS]

So I see we are getting quite a few failures because of our change to a three bolt subframe.

Yes, the government will probably make us issue a recall.

But a recall has to include a fix with it.

The only fix is to replace them with the proper 4 bolt subframe.

We can’t do that. It’s way too expensive!

I have an idea. What if we say the only problem is the vehicle can roll away.

Great idea! Then our fix can be to just automatically engage the park brake.

Good job team! Another problem solved.

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

When the rear axle rotates under hard accel the pinion climbs upward. Having a horizontal bolt to hold the axle housing in place is just asking for trouble. If you look at the diagram on how the rear axle housing is mounted, there are two ears on either side of the pinion snout that has two rubber bushings and a vertical bolt.



If you replace parts 9, 10,and 11 with stiffer delrin bushings, you could limit vertical movement of the pinion snout and could reduce or eliminate the chances of bolt failure. Throw in a super strong bolt in the back where they break and an acceptable fix could be done for less than $250 in parts.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

... If you replace parts 9, 10,and 11 with stiffer delrin bushings, you could limit vertical movement of the pinion snout and could reduce or eliminate the chances of bolt failure. Throw in a super strong bolt in the back where they break and an acceptable fix could be done for less than $250 in parts.

$250 x 252,936 Explorers = $63,234,000

Not including labor.

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

Is that the number recalled or the number that actually got the 1 bolt sub when it should have gotten the 2 bolt?

252,936 x $4,000 = $1,011,744,000 That is the estimated cost to replace all the 1 bolt subs with a 2 bolt sub. Roughly 2K in parts and 2K labor.

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

That is the number of 20-22 Explorers recalled as per this article:
https://www.autoblog.com/2022/04/29/ford-explorer-recall-axle-bolt-failure/

 

[I Bleed Ford Blue]

How many of those are XLT's and limited's that don't need the 2 bolt sub and ford only included them as a CYA scenario?

 

[CareerFiremanGuy]

How many of those are XLT's and limited's that don't need the 2 bolt sub and ford only included them as a CYA scenario?

That seems to be info that's privy to Ford and to them alone.

Unless they come out with another public statement like the one reported in the link that breaks everything down, we will never know.

 

[st8]

If ford were to tell the truth, that the real reason this is happening is because they decided to save a few bucks and use the 1 bolt subframe, then NHTSA would be all up in their ass over this.

But aren’t they given that they’re willing to fix the police interceptors properly but not all other explorers? I mean that right there is crazy. All explorers including police vehicles with 3 bolts have the same risks. So how they can possibly say well, we’ll fix a certain segment of explorers but not all. It’s insane and not okay. You’re basically saying we know how to actually fix this but only choosing to do so on certain explorers.