Linky

More bad news for Domestics

 

What they fail to mention is that even though many vehicles have this part, Ford moved it on several models (94-98 Mark VIII for example) to other places where the most it can possibly do is melt and not work. 94-98 mark's have it moved to the fenderwell.

 

I'm not trying ot turn this into a Ford bash, but. why did they move it? Did they KNOW it was a defective part and that it could melt?!

 

I'm constantly amazed by the industry's ability to f*ck up the "little stuff"; you know, things that have been made for decades, like wheel studs, ball joints, wiper arms, and brake-pedal switches.

So, TI claims that the switch was designed for a maximum of 1 amp. What size fuse feeds that circuit? If it's 15A like I've heard, then let's just say I've seen similar instances of half-assed electrical system architecture. At least in that case, it didn't burn down homes and kill people.

And then even once a problem is discovered that spans many years and millions of vehicles, the recall is a piecemeal affair designed to recall "only" a few models years and several hundred thousand units at a time. This is then stretched over several years, and the OEM proceeds to bitch about "media bias" when each recall ends up on the front page of websites and newspapers.

I've blogged on this many times before, but it still pisses me off.

 

Never mind - I found the answer to my own question on an F-150 forum. Seems as if some vehicles didn't have any fuse in the circuit that feed the defective switches

 

Probably a direct result of cost cutting good suppliers. They moved to somebody cheaper (or the existing supplier had to cut costs). All in the name of a few bucks. I imagine these homeowners who no longer have a house would now pay an extra 5 bucks for a better switch!

 

That sucks, and I feel bad for those who lost their vehicle AND house.

Dan

 

Sorry for thier pain, but did anyone else pause when they saw the daughter's name is "Rotsenmary"?

Cue the Willie Wonka movie impression: "Rotsenmary?!?! I've never heard of a Rotsenmary!"

 

I don't understand how those people could still own another Ford after one of them burned down their house.

 

Yeah, this is not good publicity for Ford at all. At least a Prius may stop going down the road, but won't self ignite and incinerate you.

GM may have it's problems, but I can sleep at night with a Silverado in my garage. I have a perception (and most will) about Ford now. This could /really/ hurt them - and we can't blame this on the Media. Bad Engineering.

 

Dang... thats horrible!

 

The article also said that there are 100,000 vehicle fires of all makes per year, and I am guessing that nearly every make and model is among those numbers.

 

where is PacerX to rant and rave about media bias? come on man, we need your references to the honda CRV fires or these ford fire threads just can never be complete!

 

I don't buy this "well, the other guys have problems, too!" excuse. It's a ****-poor piece of engineering. The switch appears to have design problems, and it's wired directly to the battery with no fusing (at least not in the F-150s under investigation). That's downright reckless, and no sane human being would want their house wired that way - so why is it in any way acceptable in a vehicle?

I've heard that this switch isn't even the primary CC cancel switch - it's a backup. If that's true, then the irony is thicker than burning melted interior trim.

 

As much as it pains me to see a fellow automaker getting bad press, I've got to basically agree w/ Bryant here (what else is new?). I hope Ford does the right thing and this can all be resolved (and so far it seems like they are handling it fairly well).

Having the diaphragm fail and leak would be bad enough, because it could cause a fire while driving. Having the wire "hot" at all times (even when the car is off) seems nuts to me. Must not have had a DFMEA on that idea...

And regarding the backup status of the cruise switch, it seems like that would be the case. GM vehicles that I know of disable cruise when the brake switch is depressed (the top of travel switch that also activates the brake lights). I don't know if there is a backup cruise disable; I've never heard of one or had to interact with one.

I would assume that the Ford cars also use the brake switch, since that would probably react more quickly than the pressure switch... Ironic indeed if the 'backup' cruise disable (to prevent a runaway vehicle, which is also a bad thing) were the cause of fires... Preventing a stuck on cruise control is a good intention, but this looks like bad execution.

And I'm NOT dumping on Ford here. It is a mistake, and it needs to be remedied, and I hope it is remedied soon and well and with as little damage to Ford as possible (though if it swings a few sales over to the General, I won't complain...).