-
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
I had a message last night that my car was ready to pick up. To bring you up to speed. I purchased a new '22 on April 23 and actually drove it home. Hooked up my Fordpass app and that's when I discovered the recall that was dated on the 19th. I called the dealer the next day(4/24/22), and they didn't have a clue about it. Drove it for a week and received a call from said dealer telling me to bring it back and they would give me a loaner. I dropped it off last Tuesday(5/3/22) and they gave me a brand new ST-Line with 26 miles to drive. At the time they said they had no idea how long it would be. The message said the warranty is complete, so I would assume the software has been updated. I will find out at lunch today, but not sure how much info they will give me or actually know, but I will update when I get it. I wonder if there is a portion of that software that tames the power. FYI, my build was in March '22 and has the single bolt.
-
4
- Show All
There seems to be a misconception regarding the requirements to meet safety standards as regulated by the NHTSA and the failure of the differential/subframe bolt.
The NHTSA only concern is about what can happen AFTER the occurrence of a differential bolt failure.
The NHTSA's concern with Ford is: The vehicle may roll even when placed in park.
The NHTSA does NOT take concern with the failure rate of the differential mounting bolt, how many mounting bolts are present, the load rating of the equipment used, or the design of the subframe/bushings.
Ford's solution to the SAFETY concern is to update the PCM to allow for automatic EPB engagement in park. This prevents the vehicle from rolling when in park. This remedies the NHTSA's concern with the event that can occur following a bolt failure.
Ford's solution to the FAILURE EVENT is addressed with the SSM and provides dealerships with repair direction. This remedies the failure of the bolt in affected vehicles.
This recall, and its solution of a software update, has no affect on vehicle performance.
The NHTSA only concern is about what can happen AFTER the occurrence of a differential bolt failure.
The NHTSA's concern with Ford is: The vehicle may roll even when placed in park.
The NHTSA does NOT take concern with the failure rate of the differential mounting bolt, how many mounting bolts are present, the load rating of the equipment used, or the design of the subframe/bushings.
Ford's solution to the SAFETY concern is to update the PCM to allow for automatic EPB engagement in park. This prevents the vehicle from rolling when in park. This remedies the NHTSA's concern with the event that can occur following a bolt failure.
Ford's solution to the FAILURE EVENT is addressed with the SSM and provides dealerships with repair direction. This remedies the failure of the bolt in affected vehicles.
This recall, and its solution of a software update, has no affect on vehicle performance.
-
3
- Show All
Same here and had the same thought. Ford Performance sounded like the tune was going to happen when the ST first came out until the subframe changed over to the one bolt arrangement on the ST’s. Then crickets. Given that the Bronco Raptor has a performance tune to gain more out of the 3.0L engine, my guess is ST owners would have had a similar tuning option available if the two bolt subframe was still being installed. Given that a significant percentage of the ST population are running the one bolt subframe, Ford doesn’t want to create a have and have not eco structure.
Agreed but that’s the 310-hp 2.7-liter twin-turbo V6 Ecoboost engine that is unique to the Bronco. The verdict is still out on the 3.0L with tune that comes in the Bronco Raptor. Time will tell if it has similar issues but given the number or people on this forum running tuned 3.0L ST’s, I’m going to guess that the engine in that case isn’t going to be an issue.
Just drove back from picking up the car with the new PCM calibration. It does engage the parking brake every time I put it in park now. Although I have no way to back up my observation, I think they changed the tuning as well. Doesn't feel like the same responsiveness, kind of like the ST-line they gave me to drive while this was being "fixed".(a slight exaggeration) When I asked about the fix for the hardware problem, because they only dealt with the software, they had no idea. They agreed that in order to get it fixed now, the right way, I have to have a damaged bolt. I will really be able to test it out on the drive home later, because I can better compare on a route I use everyday.
If Explorer ST owners in the United States and Canada worked towards creating a unified voice (if possible) expressing our discontent as a whole to Ford with respect to the performance model of the Explorer, the ST. It is being manufactured with an inferior rear subframe, when a superior rear subframe already exists and is presently being installed on the Lincoln Aviator. The Lincoln Aviator, while it shares the 3.0L motor, it does not have the performance characteristics of the ST. So why won't Ford do what's right, using a beefier subframe assembly on their performance model rather than a detuned luxury model.
@cmcwhorter42 Your comment is very interesting. I have a 2020 Model with two bolts and I shouldn’t be part of the recall nor have I received and notifications. However, a few weeks back I took the vehicle into the dealership to have the Summer tires installed and an oil change. When I immediately left the dealership, I noticed that the FENG wasn’t present. I do have the Borla S-type installed so obviously I can hear that but, definitely not hearing the sound pumped in through the speakers like before. I will say I that I do hear slight sounds from time to time that I think is the FENG but nowhere on the level previously. Truth be told, I don’t mind having the FENG disabled because it’s a little much which the exhaust. I thought to myself, perhaps the technician decided to disable the FENG because of the exhaust but why would they bother unless I requested it? Either way I don’t mind not having it but thought it was strange.
Regarding your comment on changing the tuning…the last few weeks of driving the vehicle just seems to be lacking in response like you said. Normal mode especially like its hunting for gears. Sport mode still gives but just doesn’t feel the same.
Also to note, the parking break does not automatically engage. I hope I’m just be paranoid but after reading your comment I had to mention. It just seems odd that FENG, for the most part is gone and the performance seems to lacking.
Dealership never mentioned the recall and neither did I because It shouldn’t affect my vehicle but would they have any reason to update the software regardless? E -break does not automatically engage and I have not read about any de-tuning required as FordMatt mentioned early.
Just putting my recent experience out there.
Regarding your comment on changing the tuning…the last few weeks of driving the vehicle just seems to be lacking in response like you said. Normal mode especially like its hunting for gears. Sport mode still gives but just doesn’t feel the same.
Also to note, the parking break does not automatically engage. I hope I’m just be paranoid but after reading your comment I had to mention. It just seems odd that FENG, for the most part is gone and the performance seems to lacking.
Dealership never mentioned the recall and neither did I because It shouldn’t affect my vehicle but would they have any reason to update the software regardless? E -break does not automatically engage and I have not read about any de-tuning required as FordMatt mentioned early.
Just putting my recent experience out there.
The issue I see (superior product or not) is when FORD is not doing the installing. Regarding the IC, the product is not even theirs.
Maybe during the tire change a FENG part got loose or became dislodged.
As far as it feeling lacking in response over the last few weeks, it is getting warmer out and colder temps always makes engines run better.
At this point, unless someone proves that FORD's updated e-brake tune changed the ST's performance parameters, I'll have to see hard evidence before I believe it.
Maybe during the tire change a FENG part got loose or became dislodged.
As far as it feeling lacking in response over the last few weeks, it is getting warmer out and colder temps always makes engines run better.
At this point, unless someone proves that FORD's updated e-brake tune changed the ST's performance parameters, I'll have to see hard evidence before I believe it.
-
2
- Show All
More info:
https://ford.oemdtc.com/7934/safety-recall-22s27-rear-axle-bolt-fractures-2020-2022-ford-explorer
Chronology of Defect / Noncompliance Determination
Date of submission: 4/14/2022
Ford Motor Company (Ford) Recall No. 22S27 – Certain 2020-2022 model year Explorer vehicles – Rear Axle Bolt Fractures.
Provide the chronology of events leading up to the defect decision or test data for the noncompliance decision.
On August 10, 2021, Engineering presented an issue to Ford’s Critical Concern Review Group where the rear axle horizontal mounting bolt was fracturing on some 2020-2021 MY Explorer vehicles built with a 3-point mounted axle design. These failures were discovered by Engineering when reviewing warranty claims.
On August 18, 2021, CCRG requested to kick off a 14D to understand the effect on vehicle operation, and the scope of vehicles affected. From August to December 2021, Engineering analyzed manufacturing data and returned warranty parts, as well as completed CAE analysis and fastener testing, to determine rate of occurrence, affected population, and potential effects on vehicle operation.
From January to February 2022, CCRG worked with Engineering and data & analytics specialists to deep dive into the differences between power packs, effects on vehicle operation, and the scope of the populations. This analysis identified loss of park as a potential effect on vehicle in severe cases.
In March 2022, Engineering worked with Ford Dealerships to confirm the effects on vehicle operation. Two dealerships confirmed damage on the rear driveshaft that resulted in the loss of park. Engineering confirmed Police units are built with a park by cable and would require a hardware change to avoid the loss of park condition, unlike retail units which are built with electronic park brake software and require a software update to avoid a loss of park condition.
https://ford.oemdtc.com/7934/safety-recall-22s27-rear-axle-bolt-fractures-2020-2022-ford-explorer
Chronology of Defect / Noncompliance Determination
Date of submission: 4/14/2022
Ford Motor Company (Ford) Recall No. 22S27 – Certain 2020-2022 model year Explorer vehicles – Rear Axle Bolt Fractures.
Provide the chronology of events leading up to the defect decision or test data for the noncompliance decision.
On August 10, 2021, Engineering presented an issue to Ford’s Critical Concern Review Group where the rear axle horizontal mounting bolt was fracturing on some 2020-2021 MY Explorer vehicles built with a 3-point mounted axle design. These failures were discovered by Engineering when reviewing warranty claims.
On August 18, 2021, CCRG requested to kick off a 14D to understand the effect on vehicle operation, and the scope of vehicles affected. From August to December 2021, Engineering analyzed manufacturing data and returned warranty parts, as well as completed CAE analysis and fastener testing, to determine rate of occurrence, affected population, and potential effects on vehicle operation.
From January to February 2022, CCRG worked with Engineering and data & analytics specialists to deep dive into the differences between power packs, effects on vehicle operation, and the scope of the populations. This analysis identified loss of park as a potential effect on vehicle in severe cases.
In March 2022, Engineering worked with Ford Dealerships to confirm the effects on vehicle operation. Two dealerships confirmed damage on the rear driveshaft that resulted in the loss of park. Engineering confirmed Police units are built with a park by cable and would require a hardware change to avoid the loss of park condition, unlike retail units which are built with electronic park brake software and require a software update to avoid a loss of park condition.
-
4
- Show All
Has anyone asked how hard it is to covert the 3 bolt girdle to a four bolt girdle? Is it totally different? Or can you find a shop to convert with bushings and a bolt. (I know it is not that simple)
But if I am reading the threads correctly the option we have (if Ford doesn’t make it right) is the stiffy diffy option that might not be the best fix or buy a new (or used ) 4 bolt girdle for thousand plus
But if I am reading the threads correctly the option we have (if Ford doesn’t make it right) is the stiffy diffy option that might not be the best fix or buy a new (or used ) 4 bolt girdle for thousand plus
Explorer ST Posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Considering 2025 ST but concerned with reliability
- Latest: poordudedrivingaford
-