Complain about a product or service

Ford Plans Another Recall to Fix Fire Hazard

Previous recall ineffective in 225,000 vehicles

By Joe Benton
ConsumerAffairs.com

February 2, 2008

As a result, Ford is issuing a second recall for the almost 225,000 vehicles that were previously recalled for a faulty cruise control system that might fail and cause the vehicle to burn even when parked and turned off.

Ford vehicles covered by the new recall include the gasoline-powered 1992 to 2003 Econoline, 1992 to 1998 Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis, 1993 Bronco, 1995 to 1997 F series pick up, 1993 F series pick up, the 1993 to 1995 Taurus SHO and the 1992 to 1995 Town Car.

The vehicles now recalled for a second time were part of the massive and often confusing Ford recalls since 1999 because of the faulty cruise system which failed and Ford vehicles and consumer homes ablaze.

Ford initially repaired the vehicles by installing a wiring harness around the cruise control switch. The automaker has now concluded the harness does not function properly in roughly 225,000 vehicles. The wiring harness installed on the eight models built between 1992 and 2003 is not compatible with the vehicle electrical system.

The harnesses Ford thought would alleviate the fire danger apparently contain an improperly placed fuse which does not offer sufficient protection if there is an electrical short circuit.

Ford plans to delay notification for vehicle owners until formally reporting the recall failure to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as well as providing Ford dealers with accurate service repair information.

In the meantime, Ford has continued to advise owners to have a dealer disconnect the cruise control system.

Still on the road

Following Ford recalls of almost 11 million cars and trucks for a fire hazard, more than 1.8 million Ford cars and trucks with the faulty cruise control system are still on the road and parked in garages.

The automaker is unable to buy or manufacture enough parts to repair all of the vehicles involved in the enormous and lengthy recall process. Ford initially promised parts would be available for the massive recall to repair the vehicles by October 2007.

The automaker then said the parts will not be available until later in 2007. Many Ford car and truck owners are still waiting for their dealer to find the parts needed to repair the fire hazard.

The latest recall, along with the parts shortage has generated confusion as well as discouraged some Ford owners from responding to the recall.

A Ford spokesman insists the automaker is doing all it can to complete the fire hazard recall.

“This was a large recall, and we're working with the supplier to meet the volume challenge as soon as possible,” said a Ford spokesman.

ConsumerAffairs.com reported last month that more than 1.8 million Ford Motor Co. cars and trucks remain at risk of erupting into flames 5 months after the automaker recalled an additional 3.6 million vehicles because of a fire hazard in the cruise control system.

Ford initially promised parts would be available for the massive recall to repair the vehicles by October 2007. The automaker then said the parts will not be available until later in 2007.

Devastating consequences

The continuing parts delay adds to mounting confusion in an already troubling situation for many Ford consumers faced with the cruise control recall. The consequences are sometimes devastating.

An Oregon family lost their truck and almost lost their home to a fire that originated in their Ford truck.

“Friday January 11, 2008 my husband came home from work at 5:30 and parked his 2001 F-150 Supercrew in the driveway,” they wrote. Just 45 minutes later the truck was “fully engulfed in flames.”

“Our garage door and siding on the front of our house was damaged but not destroyed. The truck on the other hand is a total loss,” the wife said.

The Oregon truck was part of the Ford recall, according to the owner.

“When we got the letter regarding the recall we called Ford and they said that they didn't have the part that was required to fix it but that since our cruise control wasn't working (It had stopped working about 2 months before the fire) it must already be disconnected and we should be fine,” said the truck owner, who asked not to be publicly identified.

The truck owner reports that Ford told them “fires are rare so I wouldn't worry. From the sounds of all these stories they are not as rare as they would like the consumer to believe.”

The struggling automaker continues to insist the company is responding adequately in an effort to notify Ford customers to return their vehicles to a Ford dealership for repair of the fire hazard.

“We have sent multiple mailings to customers, based on current vehicle registrations, asking them to bring in vehicles. I don’t have an exact figure, but about half of the total have done so to date. We have one of the highest return rates in the industry, based on update registration info, and sending multiple mailings,” Ford spokesman Jarvis said in an email response to ConsumerAffairs.com.

Liability waiver

Some Ford dealers now require customers who decline to disconnect the cruise control system to sign a waiver of liability.

A Florida woman with a Ford Econoline Van equipped with hand controls for a wheel chair faced the demand that she sign the waiver. “I need my cruise control if I have to travel any amount of distance,” she wrote.

“It has been since September 7 I have been waiting to get my van fixed,” said this Ford owner. “I tried to get Ford to fix the problem but they just want to plug it back in and if I sign the waiver and something happens they will no longer be responsible for any damages,” she said.

A Ford Explorer owner in Bainbridge Island, Washington is not satisfied with the automaker’s explanation.

“They say the part is back ordered. I also understand that this part was originally found unsafe back in 2005 although I was only notified in August 2007,” he said.

In San Jose, California another Ford owner encountered similar treatment.

“My local Ford dealer disconnected my cruise control in November 2007, saying that it was required if I was to get the defective part replaced but he could not replace the part because of a backlog on the part and that it would take one month,” the owner wrote.

“Now it's been over 2 months and my dealer has no estimate on a replacement part. The dealer said that I could reconnect the cruise control but if the car caught on fire it would be my problem,” he said.

Back in Bainbridge Island, Washington that explanation has a hollow ring. “I would like someone to put a fire under them, because they are not motivated to replace the item once they've disconnected it,” the Explorer owner concluded.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Back to the top |