-
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!
Safety Recall 22S27 Rear Axle Bolt Fractures
- Thread starter TFocker
- Start date
This pic is from the first reported failure in this forum by blaster9, July 2021:
Looks identical to me but to be clear, this is what they put in after the failure, which back then was probably not a revised part for the 3 bolt. Plenty of people with early MY2022's have posted pics of their 3 bolts and the single bolt in back has the exact same looking bushing. The 1/3 bolt has always had a different bushing than the 2/4 bolt bushings. I don't even think the bushings in the 2 bolt are identical, even with the orientation 90* rotated.
People with the recall done should not sleep well at night. Replacing the bolt and bushing is not a definitive solution. It may placate the NHTSA by Ford saying they came up with a solution but I reckon this isn't the last we've heard from the problem.
Looks identical to me but to be clear, this is what they put in after the failure, which back then was probably not a revised part for the 3 bolt. Plenty of people with early MY2022's have posted pics of their 3 bolts and the single bolt in back has the exact same looking bushing. The 1/3 bolt has always had a different bushing than the 2/4 bolt bushings. I don't even think the bushings in the 2 bolt are identical, even with the orientation 90* rotated.
People with the recall done should not sleep well at night. Replacing the bolt and bushing is not a definitive solution. It may placate the NHTSA by Ford saying they came up with a solution but I reckon this isn't the last we've heard from the problem.
Last edited:
-
1
- Show All
When looking at "Revised Rear Subframe Bushing" (part #L1MZ-4B425-D) per 22S27, both the rubber insulator together with the metal cylindrical insert are what FORD refers to as the "bushing", not just the rubber insulator.
And if you look at just the rubber insulators in the pic of the 2/4 setup, they don't even look anything like each other.
I'm beginning to think FORD's real "fix" is:
And if you look at just the rubber insulators in the pic of the 2/4 setup, they don't even look anything like each other.
I'm beginning to think FORD's real "fix" is:
- the change to a solid metal cylindrical insert
- the upgraded bolt
-
2
- Show All
The bolt is NOT upgraded. It's the same grade bolt, just a different manufactured one. I personally think there is no difference between the new bolt and the old--just Ford showing the NHTSA that they came to a "solution". People were pulling the old bolt out of the single rear mount and it was bent--I myself pulled both old bolts out of my double mounts and they were straight as an arrow. Then Ford addressed that the double mounts had different bushings than a single. So that was modified slightly. Again, more window dressing. There would be no issue had Ford kept the double mounts on the 3.0L like the engineers designed. At the very least though, by doing the recall, Ford could be replacing bent bolts that may have failed given another year or two (or maybe not at all) and buy some time. So few or no failures in the next couple of years? Well, I guess the recall worked! (not!)
-
4
- Show All
They are exactly the same. 10.9 is a spec itself and has minimum requirements. These bolts are identical and nothing has 'changed'. Ford marketing and management is trying to change physical for the sake of their checkbook. You Mr fireman are welcome to shill for them till you are blue in the face. The fact of the matter is a real fix is exactly why you bought a diff brace. The absolute irony of your purchase and refusal to remove it after ford 'fixed' the issue for you is not lost on us.
-
5
- Show All
Caution here Kevin.
Recall that this platform also generates the type of members who advise others that 0.16% of reported breaks over 3 model years equals a massive across the board parts failure.
I'm coming to the conclusion that the panic expressed by these types stems from the fact that FORD hasn't made a power train to support their 550+ hp tunes. Lol
Again, caution. There's a reason why I had to block several whining/irrational types here, more than on any other forum I've ever been on.
I honestly expected a more mature, logical thinking audience. Nope. At times, it seems more like a Mustang/Camaro forum ...........
Recall that this platform also generates the type of members who advise others that 0.16% of reported breaks over 3 model years equals a massive across the board parts failure.
I'm coming to the conclusion that the panic expressed by these types stems from the fact that FORD hasn't made a power train to support their 550+ hp tunes. Lol
Again, caution. There's a reason why I had to block several whining/irrational types here, more than on any other forum I've ever been on.
I honestly expected a more mature, logical thinking audience. Nope. At times, it seems more like a Mustang/Camaro forum ...........
-
1
- Show All
There should be ZERO breaks period and your numbers are made up since Ford hasn't advertised the exact number of broken bolts.
If you want to claim anything else you are going to need to explain why differential bolts aren't breaking and requiring recalls across all manufacturers and vehicles. The fact that bolts are pulled out bent (even if they aren't broken) is proof that it was engineered incorrectly.
The last thing Mr. Fireman won't and cannot address is why the Lincoln Aviator is still built with the 2 bolt rear subframe. In fact I challenge him to go to a Lincoln dealer and let us all know how many single bolt rears he finds. The Aviator has the same exact drivetrain that the ST does, this includes the same ratio rear end. If Lincoln engineers refused to accept the change on their premium product it should make us all take notice. (Ford tried to save a dime and ended up costing itself a dollar)
If you want to claim anything else you are going to need to explain why differential bolts aren't breaking and requiring recalls across all manufacturers and vehicles. The fact that bolts are pulled out bent (even if they aren't broken) is proof that it was engineered incorrectly.
The last thing Mr. Fireman won't and cannot address is why the Lincoln Aviator is still built with the 2 bolt rear subframe. In fact I challenge him to go to a Lincoln dealer and let us all know how many single bolt rears he finds. The Aviator has the same exact drivetrain that the ST does, this includes the same ratio rear end. If Lincoln engineers refused to accept the change on their premium product it should make us all take notice. (Ford tried to save a dime and ended up costing itself a dollar)
-
4
- Show All
This is the pic Mr. Fireman posted (of his own mount?). Interestingly, it shows the new mount but instead of the "upgraded" bolt, that there is the old "SPF 10.9" bolt! Now if Ford really thought the new bolt (W720988S439) was "upgraded" would they have put that old one in there? Old bolt, new bolt... probably doesn't matter because it's the same bolt as far as specs. As long as you're getting a new bolt, that's all that matters. If I had a 1 bolt, I'd be buying a few of these bolts and replacing it yearly. If anything, to check to make sure it's not bent. Ford does not recommend you reuse these bolts so if you check it, you should put in a new one--even if it's not bent.
Last edited:
-
3
- Show All
Explorer ST Posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lowering Springs Pros and Cons
- Latest: StayinStock
-
