Hybrids New Lawsuit . Recall still not fixed

[Hot pepper]

Modern Ford Hybrids Still Unsafe After Recall, According To New Lawsuit




By Brett Foote

August 18, 2022 7:16 am

10


Sponsored




Last month, Ford Motor Company recalled select 2020-2022 Ford Escape, Lincoln Corsair, and 2022 Ford Maverick hybrid and plug-in hybrid models after 23 of those vehicles caught fire across the globe. The automaker later discovered that the problem was caused by leaking fluids stemming from hot engine bays, after which it instructed dealers to add drain holes to the under-hood shield and change the active grille shutters to allow more air flow and reduce under-hood temperatures. However, some have found this fix to be inadequate, and as such, have filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that these Ford hybrids are still unsafe after it’s completed, according to Business Wire.

The lawsuit – filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by Hagens Berman – alleges that Ford’s fix for this particular issue does not address the root cause of the problem, and can even represent an environmental hazard as it allows fluids to leak out of the vehicle, potentially setting up owners for injury and property damage.

“Ford’s fix is essentially rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic,” said Steve Berman, Hagens Berman co-founder and managing partner. “While drivers, their families and others on the road attend to the real crisis of a potential vehicle fire due to this manufacturing defect, Ford’s solution does nothing to address the issue at hand and will mean an unknowable amount of engine fluids will be spilled onto roads, leaching into groundwater and soil.”

The lawsuit also claims that in addition to spilling engine fluids onto roads, groundwater, and soil, these Ford hybrids may still be susceptible to fire as well, due to the fact that oil is flammable. Meanwhile, Ford has told customers that most of the affected vehicles named in this case are still covered under the automaker’s new vehicle and powertrain warranties.

We’ll have more on this and all of Ford’s active lawsuits soon, so be sure and subscribe to Ford Authority for the latest Ford lawsuit news and 24/7 Ford news coverage.

Sponsored

 

[Maverick2023]

As long as no deaths involved Ford will not take it serious.

 

[jsus]

So beyond the small batch of defective crankshafts, does this law firm know of a single defect we don't? You know, the ones that were all recalled to be replaced? A couple hundred?

 

[thevol]

So beyond the small batch of defective crankshafts, does this law firm know of a single defect we don't? You know, the ones that were all recalled to be replaced? A couple hundred?

That article mentions reducing underhood Temps by increasing airflow, was that mentioned in the recall? Seems like they are indicating oil is boiling out from hi temps in the engine bay.

 

[Braderick]

ouch...this will hurt.

 

[wardamntexas]

Not a lawyer but based on the article they look to be claiming that even with reduced temps there is still an oil leak in affected hybrids which does seem like something that would have made the rounds on here. Based on the Subaru oil consumption suit a few years ago, they're going to have to bring a lot of incidents to convince a court that the leak is inherent as opposed to a spill or improper service or who knows whatever else

 

[LeersMav]

The article info is so sparse and one sided, it's farcical.
Earlier MTC article had more info than Ford Authority did.

Not worried one bit. Get the letter, complete the recall, and continue to enjoy my Maventures.

 

[jsus]

That article mentions reducing underhood Temps by increasing airflow, was that mentioned in the recall? Seems like they are indicating oil is boiling out from hi temps in the engine bay.

That's the point of the recall to punch some extra holes in the aero cover and remove the active grill shutter vanes - increased airflow. That's the defect that the recall affecting all models with the 2.5L hybrid engine is meant to address. Not a specific mechanical defect, unless this law firm knows something they're not saying here.

 

[thevol]

That's the point of the recall to punch some extra holes in the aero cover and remove the active grill shutter vanes - increased airflow. That's the defect that the recall affecting all models with the 2.5L hybrid engine is meant to address. Not a specific mechanical defect, unless this law firm knows something they're not saying here.

OK didn't realize that airflow was the defect. Seems odd to need airflow in the engine bay for a water cooled engine to cool properly.

 

[DryHeat]

The complaint (see link below) appears to be based on a serious misreading of the recall notices.
Microsoft Word - 2022-08-17 Ford Fire Complaint (Pacheco v. Ford)(2011885.1).docx (hbsslaw.com)

Here's how I read those notices...

[Recall 22V-109] Ford discovered some bad crankshafts that could cause an engine block or oil pan breach. The vehicles subject to that issue (about 155) were recalled for engine inspection and replacement if needed.

[Recall 22V-484] But those crank-related breaches made Ford realize that any similar breach from any cause could start a fire. So they did the hole-drilling, shutter-removing recall to deal with that issue.

The complaint claims that Ford admitted that the vehicles involved in the hole-drilling complaint suffer from manufacturing issues that can cause a breach. That doesn't seem to be true. The complaint wording is (intentionally?) vague but the clear implication is that all 100k vehicles suffer from those issues. (para. 48.)

The lawsuit doesn't mention the crankshaft recall and doesn't seem to make any distinction between a defect that can cause a breach and a defect that can cause a fire if there is a breach.

 

[jsus]

The complaint (see link below) appears to be based on a serious misreading of the recall notices.
Microsoft Word - 2022-08-17 Ford Fire Complaint (Pacheco v. Ford)(2011885.1).docx (hbsslaw.com)

Here's how I read those notices...

[Recall 22V-109] Ford discovered some bad crankshafts that could cause an engine block or oil pan breach. The vehicles subject to that issue (about 155) were recalled for engine inspection and replacement if needed.

[Recall 22V-484] But those crank-related breaches made Ford realize that any similar breach from any cause could start a fire. So they did the hole-drilling, shutter-removing recall to deal with that issue.

The complaint claims that Ford admitted that the vehicles involved in the hole-drilling complaint suffer from manufacturing issues that can cause a breach. That doesn't seem to be true. The complaint wording is (intentionally?) vague but the clear implication is that all 100k vehicles suffer from those issues. (para. 48.)

The lawsuit doesn't mention the crankshaft recall and doesn't seem to make any distinction between a defect that can cause a breach and a defect that can cause a fire if there is a breach.

Yep.

The only known mechanical defect that could cause combustibles to escape the engine is that small batch of defective crankshafts.

We also know that, unfortunately, any modern engine could have any number of components to fail which could allow combustible fuel and/or oil to come into contact with a hot surface in a way the manufacturer did not intend. It's extremely rare, but possible nonetheless.

In the case of the engine bays for these hybrid vehicles, they're pretty darn well sealed from the outside. The aero shield underneath and closed Active Grill Shutters don't allow a lot of airflow through the engine bay. That's great for aerodynamics, and thus efficiency.

However, Ford seems to have determined that it's important to sacrifice that efficiency just a little in order to improve airflow through the engine bay at all times. Just in case a known or unknown defect should occur.

So either this sue-happy class action law firm has or will obtain through discovery some damming evidence that Ford knows of one or more other mechanical defects in the 2.5L hybrid engine... Or they failed to hire experts who knew what they were talking about before going public. I'm guessing it's the latter, as someone who suffered through DCTs that Ford knew were defective before selling the first one, and never managed to "fix" them...

 

[Snax]

The article's fixation on oil escaping onto the ground is weird. Only a faulty engine will leak oil--and the aerodynamic shield isn't there to catch it. It's not like the shield has a reservoir or absorbent pads, which is what would be required to catch and retain oil. I have assumed that adding holes will simply let oil escape from a catastrophic failure from a crankshaft fracture a little more quickly, thereby reducing the likelihood of a massive fire.

If we assume that Ford is removing shutters and drilling holes to reduce the possible effects of sudden oil leak leading to a fire, then I would like them to address the cause of the catastrophic failure--not just rip out shutters and drill holes to mitigate the consequences. After all, the shutters serve a purpose, so I'd prefer to leave them in place.

But the article's terrible writing doesn't shed light on what's going on...

 

[DryHeat]

If we assume that Ford is removing shutters and drilling holes to reduce the chance of a sudden oil leak leading to a fire, then I would like them to address the cause of the catastrophic failure

Those two things -- (1) the chance of a sudden oil leak, and (2) the likelihood of a fire occurring if there is such a leak -- are exactly what the lawyers in this case seem to be conflating.

There is no indication that Ford is removing shutters and drilling holes to reduce the chance of a sudden oil leak. I can't imagine how that would work, and no one from Ford has said that.

But Ford has said that they are removing and drilling so that -- if there is a sudden leak from any cause -- the likelihood of a fire will be reduced. That makes sense to me.

And Ford has addressed the only (so far) known instances of engine and pan breaches by identifying a group of poorly machined crankshafts and recalling those vehicles.

 

[Snax]

Those two things -- (1) the chance of a sudden oil leak, and (2) the likelihood of a fire occurring if there is such a leak -- are exactly what the lawyers in this case seem to be conflating.

There is no indication that Ford is removing shutters and drilling holes to reduce the chance of a sudden oil leak. I can't imagine how that would work, and no one from Ford has said that.

But Ford has said that they are removing and drilling so that -- if there is a sudden leak from any cause -- the likelihood of a fire will be reduced. That makes sense to me.

And Ford has addressed the only (so far) known instances of engine and pan breaches by identifying a group of poorly machined crankshafts and recalling those vehicles.

I didn't write that sentence well, so I'll correct it.

What I tried to say was that the holes and shutters are supposedly being removed to deal with the consequences of a leak--not to deal with the cause of the leak itself.

 

[Guv]

That article mentions reducing underhood Temps by increasing airflow, was that mentioned in the recall? Seems like they are indicating oil is boiling out from hi temps in the engine bay.

Ecoboost would be much worse due to turbo heat, doesn't make sense.

Sponsored