New Maverick Recall: 2.5 Hybrid Engine Fire Hazard [Updated w/ Safety Recall Notice to Dealers]

[YOBY]

I'm not sure I get your point about Ford using the "past tense" to describe the failures it is aware of. Do you think Ford means similar failures will not occur in the future? If that's the case, why mention those manufacturing issues in this recall notice? Why not just say "In the event of an engine block or oil pan failure..."?

I hope that's correct and that they intend to do something about the manufacturing issue, whatever it actually turns out to be. (I have the 2.5L engine, but I view this notice as only slightly increasing the chances of my vehicle having an engine failure. It doesn't seem like a big deal.)

Normally I don't think they would issue a recall for tens of thousands of vehicles that don't really have the manufacturing issue, but in this case they might have. The engine failures that have occurred may have highlighted the fire hazard (which would be in play in any block or oil pan failure, not just ones related to the specific problem).

Your right, just a bad batch that slipped by the inspectors.

Sponsored

 

[DryHeat]

Your right, just a bad batch that slipped by the inspectors.

To be clear, I'm not saying that it's just a "bad batch." It may be, but I don't know. I hope so.

I'm only saying that -- even if it is just a bad batch -- Ford might still have recalled all the vehicles to fix the fire danger problem. Because that could still be a danger even on vehicles that don't have this particular manufacturing issue.

 

[Red Ryder]

Adding fire extinguisher to my wish list (already have a jump-start box in it).

 

[golfguy2020]

Im in Canada and my mav is affected by this

maybe this explains why it hasn't been delivered to the dealer yet and sitting at the rail yard for over a month (same with people who live 50km away etc)

but again - why hasn't Ford said anything? they really suck at giving us updates regarding the Maverick

 

[brnpttmn]

From the recall notice in post #1 in this thread.

I think they listed the manufacturing issues as a reason for the recall because they are causing higher than normal engine failure rates. Otherwise, why mention them at all? Why not just say "In the event of an engine failure breaching the block or oil pan... etc."?

If I understand correctly, you think Ford issued this recall (admitting these issues are causing engine failures), but we have no reason to believe engine failures are more frequent than normal. That doesn't seem likely to me.

I think they're referring to the Escape recall for the crankshaft.

 

[brnpttmn]

I'm not sure I get your point about Ford using the "past tense" to describe the failures it is aware of. Do you think Ford means similar failures will not occur in the future? If that's the case, why mention those manufacturing issues in this recall notice? Why not just say "In the event of an engine block or oil pan failure..."?

I hope that's correct and that they intend to do something about the manufacturing issue, whatever it actually turns out to be. (I have the 2.5L engine, but I view this notice as only slightly increasing the chances of my vehicle having an engine failure. It doesn't seem like a big deal.)

Normally I don't think they would issue a recall for tens of thousands of vehicles that don't really have the manufacturing issue, but in this case they might have. The engine failures that have occurred may have highlighted the fire hazard (which would be in play in any block or oil pan failure, not just ones related to the specific problem).

It's a pretty low-cost recall (no parts and probably less than an hour of service), and recalls aren't always for "defective" manufacturing. They're often for unforeseen interactions of different systems or parts (one of Toyota's worst recalls had nothing to do with manufacturing defects, it was because a floor mat didn't fit right--nothing had "manufacturing issues").

Anyway, my theory (which I think you're alluding to) is that the Escape crankshaft issue/recall shed light on the design flaw related to the undercarriage tray and active shutter drainage/airflow issue (i.e., ignition from those catastrophic failures showed that less extreme/"run of the mill" failures could also lead to ignition), so even without a higher frequency of catastrophic failures (e.g., the crankshaft) there is a slight increased risk for fire based on normal failures. The low cost of the recall makes sense in terms of an actuarial risk assessment for even a slight increased risk of fire. I mean, one person getting burned could cost Ford more than this recall.

 

[mcc63303]

possible letter from FoMoCo; Dear vehicle owner, to prevent from having your insurance company file a lawsuit against us when your insured vehicle burns to the ground due to the engine blowing up and sending internal parts out through the block or oil pan and oil leaking onto hot exhaust, we will be drilling holes in the lower cover to let any oil leak through the bottom and not onto the exhaust. We'll deal with the engine problem possibly at a later time.

 

[Blue1005]

wow, lots of whining. Anyone with a thought knew this is the test year and would be the most prone to issues to be worked out. Get it fixed for free and move on.

 

[DryHeat]

I think they're referring to the Escape recall for the crankshaft.

The recall says the manufacturing problem "resulted in 2.5L HEV/PHEV engine failures."
It lists Corsairs, Escapes, and Mavericks as "AFFECTED VEHICLES."

Are you saying that Ford really meant that the manufacturing problem only affects 2.5L engines in Escapes, and not in the other two models? Is that just a guess, or did Ford say that somewhere?

Anyway, my theory (which I think you're alluding to) is that the Escape crankshaft issue/recall shed light on the design flaw related to the undercarriage tray and active shutter drainage/airflow issue

I can't disagree with your "theory" about the reason for the broad recall -- because it basically just restates my earlier post and I hate arguing with myself.

Except... not the part about the manufacturing problem only applying to Escapes. I have no reason to believe that all affected 2.5L engines went into Escapes. Maybe you will provide one. It could be true, but I haven't seen anything yet to indicate that.

 

[Darnon]

The recall says the manufacturing problem "resulted in 2.5L HEV/PHEV engine failures."
It lists Corsairs, Escapes, and Mavericks as "AFFECTED VEHICLES."

Because all 3 models have the same/similar grille shutters and under engine shield design. So the engine compartment airflow/drainage dynamics are similar and the determination is that needs to be modified regardless of if they are directly affected by the crankshaft recall.

 

[brnpttmn]

Because all 3 models have the same/similar grille shutters and under engine shield design. So the engine compartment airflow/drainage dynamics are similar and the determination is that needs to be modified regardless of if they are directly affected by the crankshaft recall.

Bingo!

 

[2cafn8d]

Whooo.. I got in under the wire didn't I. Took delivery on Thursday. I'll keep an eye out for my letter, and reach out to my salesman.

 

[Altivo]

The entire issue is being muddied by the general media. They are rolling three different "possible fire" issues into one giant recall, and telling viewers/listeners not to park their Ford vehicles indoors. This chipmunk hole is turning into a Popocatepetl sized volcanic eruption for Ford. Major publicity disaster, I suspect.

Try to be proactive and nip a potential problem in the bud, and what do you get? A huge landslide of bad publicity generated by people who don't read the details and fail to understand the actual issues. "Baa-ah" say the sheeple.

 

[DryHeat]

Because all 3 models have the same/similar grille shutters and under engine shield design. So the engine compartment airflow/drainage dynamics are similar and the determination is that needs to be modified regardless of if they are directly affected by the crankshaft recall.

Right. I said the same thing yesterday -- they are probably doing the engine shield recall on vehicles that don't have the "manufacturing issue" because the fire hazard exists for any engine block/oil pan breach.

The question is, which models have the manufacturing issue? (Short answer: I don't think we know yet.)

Ford muddied the water by putting out a recall notice that says the issue affects 2.5L HEV/PHEV engines and lists three models that use versions of that engine. Ford could have said (but didn't say) the issue only affected one model. Why didn't they say that?

If Ford knows that only some Escapes are affected, they have done a bad job of communicating that. The recall notice will lead (and has led) a lot of Maverick and Corsair owners to suspect that their engines may also be subject to this failure. Why would Ford do that if they knew better?

My guess (only a guess) is that Ford isn't yet certain of the extent of the issue and is covering the bases. I expect (hope) that Ford will publish something limiting the scope as soon as they have it figured out.

 

[Darnon]

The reason I believe that Ford knows the affected units is there isn't a simultaneous recall covering more. Ford has to communicate to the NHTSA their team's findings in determination of the issue of noncompliance, the scope, and specific incidences (all this should be available publicly soon on the NHTSA website). I don't think NHTSA would look fondly upon them withholding action if they know of other occurrences that'd indicate the engine failures affected other models directly.

Sponsored