-
Sign Up! To view all forums and unlock additional cool features
Welcome to the #1 Explorer ST Forum and Explorer ST community dedicated to Explorer ST owners and enthusiasts. Register for an account, it's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the Explorer ST Forum today!
Rear end damage
- Thread starter Chrispw24
- Start date
Are there any engineers out there who can calculate the loads on this bolt and compare it to the capability of the bolt? Is it possible that all the bolts that have sheered are because the vehicle has been tuned or made more powerful than stock?
Wondering how the numbers look on a stock level. Not taking a position either way. Just curious.
Wondering how the numbers look on a stock level. Not taking a position either way. Just curious.
Don't need an engineer to figure this out. 1 is 50 % of 2. And as @GearHead_1 said stock vehicles have broke also.
-
1
- Show All
Hi all. I’ve read all 34 pages of this thread. I purchased my ST a few weeks ago. Love it. But Ford is definitely disappointing me. I pursued a subframe swap through my dealership with Ford and of course they said no, it’s not a mis-build, we meant to sell you an inferior vehicle! I’ll share my opinions and then move on as it’s clear Ford has washed it’s hands of the issue.
The question has been asked, how much modding can be done before you’re “violating” the spirit of Fords “intent” for this vehicle. Valid question, but not a conclusive argument as Ford offers its own aftermarket tune for the ST. You can’t make money off enabling people to add HP to this vehicle but then fail to support them when they ask for the parts the vehicle was designed to have in the first place, in its stock configuration no less. Sure Ford can make running changes if they want, but that doesn’t justify a thing.
Some argue that because only a few people have catastrophic failure, Ford is justified in their refusal to produce the ST in the manner that matches the vehicles marketing platform. The small percentage of failures doesn’t mean people aren’t justified in their frustrations. The likelihood of failure was obviously high enough to warrant a recall. Hundreds of damaged differentials and likely thousands of currently undetected bent bolts is more than enough to justify consumer frustration. I’m guessing .1% of diff bolts on other car manufacturers aren’t sheering off, or they would be recalled as well. It’s a problem. And if you still want to believe .1% is within an acceptable margin of error for a potentially life threatening failure, you can. But the fact that Ford designed and built these ST’s with two bolts in the beginning and then purposely or consciously chose to downgrade them (for whatever reason, doesn’t really matter anymore), while fixing the PIU’s and never downgrading the Aviator is shameful.
And PIU’s should not necessarily receive a stronger subframe than a regular ST. Obviously first responders vehicles should be equipped to the maximum and ready for all abuses. But so should every ST that comes off the line. In fact, the ST should be a little quicker than a PIU by design. And it should be every bit as safe. Officer safety is priority number one and the passengers in our ST’s are of equal priority. An ST doesn’t need push bars, sirens, or rifle storage but it should unquestionably have the proper subframe. The argument that the intended purpose of a PIU is different than that of an ST doesn’t fly with me. That’s the same argument as when people say, “only police should have guns.” No, police have the best tools at hand to defend themselves, as they should, as should anyone who might need to defend themselves. The four bolt subframe IS the original basic structural design of the ST. If Ford wants to add on duty-specific strength and performance parts to the PIU’s above and beyond that, I would get that.
Some have said the e-brake pcm “fix” is no big deal and people shouldn’t be bothered by it. I personally like a vehicle that is easy and convenient to use. The fewer distractions or things I “have to do” just to drive, the better. I’ve never used e-brakes in my life except on rare occasion on an incline. It annoys me as much as auto-stop-start to have to mess with it or “tap the gas” to get it to release. Sure, you can get good at it, but I like control and it’s a nuisance I shouldn’t have to tolerate, especially when you consider it’s a problem created to escape addressing another more serious problem. The e-brake engaging every time I put it in to Park is just a daily audible reminder that Ford knows the chance that my vehicle could sheer a diff bolt is high enough that they needed to remedy the situation but literally chose not to.
And I understand why they didn’t. Money. A billion dollars is simply too much, so in a sense after the mistake of downgrading subframes on many thousands of vehicles they really had no choice but to weasel their way out of it. It is what it is and I get it. What I don’t get is anyone who would defend Ford on this or blame those who tune their ST’s when no one has heard of a four bolt ST - as in the subframe design Ford engineered for the ST in the first place - having a single issue, tuned or stock (please correct me if I’m wrong). The average tune isn’t going to double the HP on one of these things, and any quality component is “over-engineered” with a wider tolerance band - that’s what makes it quality. Ford reduced quality to the point where the margin of failure on this component is way too close to factory power output, period. No, they will never own up or pay up and yes, they are in the wrong.
Thanks to everyone for so much great input and information on this topic, though i was late to the party! I am going to install a brace and move on and enjoy this wonderful SUV!
The question has been asked, how much modding can be done before you’re “violating” the spirit of Fords “intent” for this vehicle. Valid question, but not a conclusive argument as Ford offers its own aftermarket tune for the ST. You can’t make money off enabling people to add HP to this vehicle but then fail to support them when they ask for the parts the vehicle was designed to have in the first place, in its stock configuration no less. Sure Ford can make running changes if they want, but that doesn’t justify a thing.
Some argue that because only a few people have catastrophic failure, Ford is justified in their refusal to produce the ST in the manner that matches the vehicles marketing platform. The small percentage of failures doesn’t mean people aren’t justified in their frustrations. The likelihood of failure was obviously high enough to warrant a recall. Hundreds of damaged differentials and likely thousands of currently undetected bent bolts is more than enough to justify consumer frustration. I’m guessing .1% of diff bolts on other car manufacturers aren’t sheering off, or they would be recalled as well. It’s a problem. And if you still want to believe .1% is within an acceptable margin of error for a potentially life threatening failure, you can. But the fact that Ford designed and built these ST’s with two bolts in the beginning and then purposely or consciously chose to downgrade them (for whatever reason, doesn’t really matter anymore), while fixing the PIU’s and never downgrading the Aviator is shameful.
And PIU’s should not necessarily receive a stronger subframe than a regular ST. Obviously first responders vehicles should be equipped to the maximum and ready for all abuses. But so should every ST that comes off the line. In fact, the ST should be a little quicker than a PIU by design. And it should be every bit as safe. Officer safety is priority number one and the passengers in our ST’s are of equal priority. An ST doesn’t need push bars, sirens, or rifle storage but it should unquestionably have the proper subframe. The argument that the intended purpose of a PIU is different than that of an ST doesn’t fly with me. That’s the same argument as when people say, “only police should have guns.” No, police have the best tools at hand to defend themselves, as they should, as should anyone who might need to defend themselves. The four bolt subframe IS the original basic structural design of the ST. If Ford wants to add on duty-specific strength and performance parts to the PIU’s above and beyond that, I would get that.
Some have said the e-brake pcm “fix” is no big deal and people shouldn’t be bothered by it. I personally like a vehicle that is easy and convenient to use. The fewer distractions or things I “have to do” just to drive, the better. I’ve never used e-brakes in my life except on rare occasion on an incline. It annoys me as much as auto-stop-start to have to mess with it or “tap the gas” to get it to release. Sure, you can get good at it, but I like control and it’s a nuisance I shouldn’t have to tolerate, especially when you consider it’s a problem created to escape addressing another more serious problem. The e-brake engaging every time I put it in to Park is just a daily audible reminder that Ford knows the chance that my vehicle could sheer a diff bolt is high enough that they needed to remedy the situation but literally chose not to.
And I understand why they didn’t. Money. A billion dollars is simply too much, so in a sense after the mistake of downgrading subframes on many thousands of vehicles they really had no choice but to weasel their way out of it. It is what it is and I get it. What I don’t get is anyone who would defend Ford on this or blame those who tune their ST’s when no one has heard of a four bolt ST - as in the subframe design Ford engineered for the ST in the first place - having a single issue, tuned or stock (please correct me if I’m wrong). The average tune isn’t going to double the HP on one of these things, and any quality component is “over-engineered” with a wider tolerance band - that’s what makes it quality. Ford reduced quality to the point where the margin of failure on this component is way too close to factory power output, period. No, they will never own up or pay up and yes, they are in the wrong.
Thanks to everyone for so much great input and information on this topic, though i was late to the party! I am going to install a brace and move on and enjoy this wonderful SUV!
You might want to look at this as well as a differential brace if limiting movement is your goal. Steeda makes some nice stuff both a diff brace and subframe kit. The before and after portions in the latter part of the video are interesting. AWR and ID Speed also make differential braces for these vehicles.
Last edited:
-
2
- Show All
Thanks man, that’s the first I’ve seen of this. Funny, that’s a least five aftermarket products for this issue by my count. Probably several I don’t even know about. Either the market is reflecting the truth of the existence of a problem Ford refuses to address, or we’re all crazy and susceptible to psychological marketing manipulation!
-
1
- Show All
Explorer ST Posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
My 2020 ST started knocking 2 days ago on morning cold start.
- Latest: ButchsExplorerST
-
