Ford recalling 123,000 vehicles - Straps that secure the fuel tank may break

[Marc]

From Reuters:

Ford Motor recalled about 220,000 vehicles from the 2005 model year on Wednesday because of fire risks.

Ford is recalling more than 123,000 Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego sedans and Freestyle wagons because the straps that secure the fuel tank to the vehicle body may break, causing the fuel tank and fuel tank heat shield to drop onto the driveshaft or exhaust system, the automaker and U.S. safety regulators said.

The automaker discovered the problem during durability testing of a future model of the Five Hundred at very high mileage.

The company's investigation found that the manufacturer of the strap changed to a weaker grade of steel in December 2004 that could not meet Ford's durability requirements. Ford declined to disclose the supplier's identity.

At mileage levels of 100,000 and more, the automaker was concerned the strap would separate and cause the fuel tank to drop. Most 2005 vehicles would not likely have approached those mileage levels yet, but "it's still not a risk that we want to take," Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said.

One recall comes amid concerns that a battery cable is rubbing against the vehicle frame, potentially causing fires. It involves more than 98,000 Ford Crown Victoria, Lincoln Town Car and Mercury Grand Marquis sedans. Ford said in a letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that it has received four reports of fires.

Kinley said chafing of the cable caused the exposure of wires to the vehicle frame, causing the frame to become electrified in some cases and carry the potential for heat damage or fires.

Kinley said there have been no reported injuries tied to either recall.

The recall comes as Ford is trying to stem steep losses in its North American division and to improve the overall quality of its products. It also follows a high-profile recall of some of its best-selling pickups and sport-utility vehicles.

Ford recalled nearly 4 million vehicles in September because of the risk of engine fires.

 

[Jim Wynne]

The company's investigation found that the manufacturer of the strap changed to a weaker grade of steel in December 2004 that could not meet Ford's durability requirements. Ford declined to disclose the supplier's identity.

It would be interesting to know whether the change in question was unilateral on the supplier's part and not reported to Ford, or whether Ford approved the change. I've seen instances where customer requirements for testing were met, but the part failed in the field, and the customer tried to blame the supplier anyway.

 

[Marc]

Sounds like it was one of those "..we'll do it without an engineering change...". I'm sure a few folks out there are feeling some heat about now.

I will say it was interesting the the problem was identified during durability testing.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Sounds like it was one of those "..we'll do it without an engineering change...". I'm sure a few folks out there are feeling some heat about now.

I will say it was interesting the the problem was identified during durability testing.

I've been involved in situations where originally specified materials were changed (to cheaper "equivalent" versions) after PPAP approval and without the customer's knowledge. I've also seen, as I said before, situations where the customer's specifications were met but the parts failed anyway. You can bet that there are :ca: burning right now, as I'm sure the B3 blame-and-punishment machine is shooting flames in all directions.

 

[bgwiehle]

I've been involved in situations where originally specified materials were changed (to cheaper "equivalent" versions) after PPAP approval and without the customer's knowledge. I've also seen, as I said before, situations where the customer's specifications were met but the parts failed anyway...

We've also seen foreign suppliers make substitutions because they didn't understand the spec. or when material of the correct grade wasn't "locally" available.

Correction or accomodation is easier when it's an honest mistake or a minor discrepancy, than if there's a deliberate attempt to cut corners.

B.G. Wiehle

 

[ralphsulser]

The way the steel market has been, it has been difficult to not only get the steel specified, but get it on time. Also some steel chem analysis has not been entirely within spec. Availability seems to be better now than it was previously. I have heard some stories of junk steel being used, and steel being used with a lot of recycled materials.

 

[Bigfoot]

Sounds like it was one of those "..we'll do it without an engineering change...". I'm sure a few folks out there are feeling some heat about now.

I will say it was interesting the the problem was identified during durability testing.

Interestingly enough the durability testing of a good number of the changes that occur from year to year are conducted using the current model level of a part or with a slight modification to it to see if they can determine the effect of the change. A question that will likely never be answered though is, Was this durability test done with the suppliers knowledge? (ie: did they send a small number of the current parts on some type of sample order) It is very likely that they did and in so doing have burned their own :ca: if you will.