After clocking Ford's expanded recall for faulty cruise control systems (that could lead to vehicle fires), Florida's St. Petersburg Times asked local firefighters if they'd seen any evidence of Ford F-150s going up in smoke. Indeed they have. Pasco County fire investigator Don Campbell says he started noticing the problem about two years ago. "It's a staggering number now," Campbell said. "It probably averages about one a week in Pasco County." Hillsborough County fire investigator Dave Tucker also said he'd seem a rising number of incidents in recent months: "This has been a long-standing problem." Tucker described fires that burned a hole through the F-150's hood "the size of a basketball." While not exactly a scientific survey, if this pattern is repeated nationwide and receives more of the same sort of local coverage, Ford is facing another Explorer rollover-style PR debacle. Meanwhile, if you could call you local fire department and ask about their experience with F-150 fires and report back below, TTAC would be much obliged.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
A couple years ago I was smitten by a blue Mustang GT. I asked my brother for five good reasons why I shouldn’t buy it (other than it not being practical)
Reason number 1: “Fords are not known for not catching on fire.”
Reasons 2 through 5 were not needed.
This has been known for quite some time. This site has been around as long as I can remember the internet…
http://www.flamingfords.info/
*Paging Tyler Durden, White Courtesy Telephone, Please*
I wonder if this will be what finally breaks Ford. If Ford has been stonewalling on a comprehensive recall, the lawyers should have a field day and in this case it would be justified.
About a year ago I was walking through my house by our bathroom door and thought I heard something like air moving quickly through something. My wife, coming from the other direction said “What is that noise?” I turned in the direction I heard the noise, the bathroom, and outside the window, about 10 feet, I saw smoke and flames. It was our neighbor’s 97 F-150, with a fire in the engine compartment, around the same area as the above picture would indicate. I mentioned to him, after the excitement, that I had heard of this happening before.
I am convinced. Of course, after the Pinto debacle…
This reminds me, a coworker had a similar problem with his van spontaneously catching fire after his wife pulled over for a check engine light. Only it’s a brand-new Honda Odyssey with less than 500 miles. Of course Honda is doing everything but taking responsibility, at least at the corporate level. The dealership is giving him a free loaner until the insurance lawsuit is settled out, though. If anyone at TTAC is interested in this story then I can provide his contact information for follow-up.
The problem is that they used switched ground rather than switched power. That means there’s always 12V from a battery capable of supplying 200A going to the Cruise module. If something fails inside and there’s a path to ground (i.e., a short) then you get a big fire.
What EE in his right mind would design something with switched ground in an environment where shorts are likely. An engine compartment isn’t the best thing for electronics: heat, vibrations, road salt. All of those thing conspire against electronics working right. So you need to design your stuff to be robust in the hostile environment. The EE who designed this should be held liable. Of course, Ford could have put a fuse inline with the CC module too.
A house about 1/4 mile from me burned up two years ago. It started with a Ford SUV parked in the carport.
A little more truth about cars here…
Ford already recalled the F-150 for this problem. There has been no (unexpected) stonewalling other than waiting for the NHTSA to rule on the F-150. That was the first 6 million in the cruise control recall. That’s all finished now.
The recent 3.6 million was from cars that also use the switch where owners were worried about fire. This was a voluntary recall because the NHTSA had not collected enough data to conclude that the switch design in these cars was dangerous or even open a deeper investigation.
This problem was easy to spot on the F-150 because the switch sits next to a container full of flamable liquid. So if that container cracks or spills liquid any where near the switch, you could get a good fire going, especially if there is improper grounding and higher-risk of shorting from the switch design. But, the design and placement changed slightly every two-three years, which led to three recalls to finally getting that swtich replaced in the F-series.
The second part of the recall was voluntary. There wasn’t sufficient evidence that the cruise switch was causing fires in these vehicles (it wasn’t sitting next to flammable liquid, mostly). But, Ford properly covered their butt and recalled the vehicles. This was Ford initiated and not NHTSA like the F-series recall was.
After these recalls, anyone else who has a fire is on their own. Ford has done their diligence by offering to disable and replace the defective switch. It is now up to the consumers to get the work done.
This is a really old story.
miked
Two words. Lucas Electric.
Don’t know about any F150’s catching fire, probably because I don’t know anyone that owns a Ford, but in a past life where we had a large fleet of Crown Vic’s we avoided them like the plague as they had a nasty habit of catching fire in relatively minor rear end collisions.
Everyone pulled rank to get into the few GM cars we had.
RobertSD the ford F 150 recall is old news but the larger recall is not old news. The fact that Pasco county is seeing 1 fire every week is news. I believe the population of Pasco county is around half a million.
“It’s a staggering number now,” Campbell said. “It probably averages about one a week in Pasco County.”
Posted twice in error.
One good thing about lawsuits is that the discovery process can answer questions about the how and why. I’m wondering —
— The part was supplied by Texas Instruments, so is Ford demanding reimbursement from TI for recall expenses (as with the Explorer’s Firestone tires)?
— If Ford isn’t blaming the supplier, is that because TI simply made the switch to Ford’s specs?
— If “the problem is that they used switched ground rather than switched power,” why did they do that? Was the engineer incompetent/not in his right mind/ordered to design it that way? Why did some Ford vehicles use a different design?
— If the engineer was ordered to design it that way, who gave the order and why? Was it because a safer design would have been more expensive?
— If a safer design would have been more expensive, was that because Ford would have had to pay a patent holder? (If I recall correctly, years ago at least one of the Big 3 lost a lawsuit over stealing a patent-holder’s design for intermittent wipers or cruise control or whatever. He’d shown them his idea and they simply started using it without paying.)
In the Pinto (and Maverick and early Mustang, I think) the top of the gas tank also served as the floor of the trunk. Less weight, quicker assembly! Unfortunately, there was much greater chance the vehicle would become a fireball if hit in the rear because a ruptured tank would spray gas all over the inside of the car. I never heard whether that shortsighted decision brought an end to anyone’s career, but I sure hope Mullaly won’t keep such fools on the payroll.
Don’t they have enough problems keeping customers now they are trying to kill what’s left of them.
In the Pinto (and Maverick and early Mustang, I think) the top of the gas tank also served as the floor of the trunk. Less weight, quicker assembly! Unfortunately, there was much greater chance the vehicle would become a fireball if hit in the rear because a ruptured tank would spray gas all over the inside of the car. I never heard whether that shortsighted decision brought an end to anyone’s career, but I sure hope Mullaly won’t keep such fools on the payroll.
More then one person need to be terminated for this issue, they let that huge design flaw go on for more then 30 years.
Read up on the neglegence:
http://www.safetyforum.com/fordmustang/
I’m an electrical engineer and one basic safety principle is that no live circuit should be left unprotected by a fuse or circuit breaker. Sometimes such protection is cheap and easy to provide and sometimes it is more costly, but it is always essential. Fortunately home and industrial wiring always is required to conform to this principle. Why automobiles aren’t is a mystery to me.
Our Ford’s alternator would catch fire when the air conditioner cycled on. We’re talking foot-high flames! We replaced three OEM alternators and spent serious money on A/C repairs without finding a solution. Unable in good conscience to foist a five passenger furnace on anybody, we scrapped it.
Ford refused to warranty an overheating headlight switch notwithstanding a recall on other Ford products with the identical switch. We replaced it at our cost rather than risk a fire, a surprisingly expensive repair.
Ford refused a warranty replacement for a headlight that filled with water claiming it was normal condensation, relenting only after the government inquired about our complaint pointing out the other headlight was condensation-free.
By 12,000-miles the car consumed a quart of oil every 500-miles. Normal said Ford! The lemon law arbitrator ordered repairs at Ford’s cost. Nonetheless the swine unsuccessfully attempted to weasel out of complying.
Is the widespread belief import brands provide a better quality car and superior customer care erroneous as the Detroit-3 would have us believe? I don’t think so.