Ford Motor Company is calling back nearly 350,000 trucks and SUVs in North America to prevent possible rollaway incidents. The issue — one we’ve grown used to as of late — involves drivers thinking they’ve shifted into park while the vehicle is actually still in gear.
However, this recall isn’t the fault of confused drivers not understanding their newfangled shift levers or dials. There’s a real, physical problem here.
According to the automaker, a gearshift cable clip may become unseated or dislodged, resulting in the transmission being in a gear different than the one indicated by the position of the shift lever. This situation could see drivers exit their cars while the vehicle is still in reverse, neutral, or drive. Ford claims there would be no warning chime to alert drivers to the issue, and an occupant would still be able to remove the key from the ignition.
The vehicles involved in the recall are 2018 Ford F-150s and Expeditions with 10-speed automatic transmissions, along with Ford F-56- and 750s from the same model year. The larger trucks contain six-speed automatics. All told, the recall covers 347,425 vehicles in North America, 292,909 of them in the United States. Notifications will be sent out starting on April 16th.
In the interim, owners of these models are advised to use their parking brake to ensure the vehicle stays stationary. One incident and one injury is associated with the problem.
While the callback covers a lot of vehicles, it isn’t the only rollaway-related recall on Ford’s plate this week. A separate recall covers just 161 vehicles from the 2018 model year. This one involves the Ford F-150, Expedition, Lincoln Navigator, and Ford Mustang — each one equipped with a 10-speed automatic.
In this recall, a roll pin that attaches the park pawl rod guide cup to the transmission case might go missing, resulting in the vehicle losing its “park” function. Again, there would be no indication — via chimes or any other warning — than anything was amiss. No injuries have been recorded with this fault.
Look, that parking brake is your friend, folks.
[Image: Ford Motor Company]
The BTSR post!
So the lever in the Expy is still mechanical, with a physical connection, unless I’m reading this wrong?
Interesting.
Yup and electric parking pawl release just isn’t acceptable in a truck application where you may have the load of a 10,000lb trailer on that pawl.
The manual linkage also probably is responsible for dumping control pressure in P or N so even if a solenoid was stuck or shorted there wouldn’t be any apply pressure to be able to engage a gear.
I wonder what sort of system is used in the Navigator, then, since it has the row of buttons. (Which doesn’t appear to be affected by the larger of the two recalls.) Solenoids and electronic gimmickry, obviously!
As for modern cars, like the newer Fords with the rotary dial, I think the way they work is the shifter in your hand is electronic, it sends a signal to an electronic actuator on the transmission, which then pulls the cable to put it into park, reverse, neutral or drive.
Anyways, this clip that broke, I’m betting the problem is Ford spec’d a $0.05 cent plastic clip instead of using a $0.07 cent metal clip that would last the life of the vehicle.
“…I’m betting the problem is Ford spec’d a $0.05 cent plastic clip instead of using a $0.07 cent metal clip that would last the life of the vehicle.”
They’ve gone full BMW. You never go full BMW.
That famous Ford quality strikes again.
It will be interesting to see if GM has to recall theirs because of Ford’s incompetence or if GM changed their design and did it correctly.
“It will be interesting to see if GM has to recall theirs because of Ford’s incompetence or if GM changed their design and did it correctly.”
+1
It amazes me that GM overtook Ford in Market Capitalization, I wonder if it is a direct result of all the recalls Ford has had on its vehicles and how much the recall costs have hurt not only Ford’s profitability, but future revenue (via reputation)
As usual you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of how things work.
For the second recall mentioned that only affected 161 units the obvious problem was that they substituted a worker at that station who was either not trained correctly or claimed he was correctly trained. So he spent a shift putting them together without properly installing that pin. Then when the actual trained operator took back over things were done right again. Compare that to the much greater number of Honda engines that were assembled w/o wrist pin keepers that went on for many shifts before someone figured out we have an incredible overstock of wrist pin keepers, it is almost like we aren’t using any.
For the first larger recall it sounds like it really has nothing to do at all with the transmission it is all about the clip that holds the linkage to the transmission that is not doing its job. No telling why it isn’t doing its job in some cases. Did a supplier botch the QA on the production process, substitute a different material? Or maybe the Production Engineer failed to create a procedure that ensured the clip was fully seated? Maybe the Design Engineer for that clip, at Ford or a 3rd party supplier fail to understand the full range of forces that could be at play, like the idiot who parks his truck with a huge trailer on an incline, puts it in park and lets the pawl take the full brunt of that 15-18k load?
So the first one should not affect GMs while the later may as they may share the same design and/or supplier for that part, or not.
So, the failure is just one of Management Responsibility?
Pretty much either way yes, the one traceable to an issue with Ford the other that could be shared with the GM applications.
And as usual, you demonstrate your unflinching ability to make excuses for anything Ford does wrong. You’re really throwing everything at the wall this time in hope of something sticking:
– It’s the supplier’s fault
– It’s some flunky engineer’s fault
– It’s the owner’s fault
– Honda’s done worse, so this really isn’t a big deal
How about just admitting that, while not FCA bad, Ford’s quality control still leaves a lot to be desired?
No excuses here, that is just you projecting your biases.
The pin thing is absolutely Ford’s fault for not having the proper procedures in place, or someone not following them, to ensure someone is properly trained for the job they were doing. So no because someone at the Ford plant was out for part of a shift does not in any way mean that the GM applications built at the GM plant will have the same problem. It is not a design issue it is a management issue.
For the other problem I specifically state that the root of the problem could be a failure at the Production Engineering level, IE all on Ford. The Design Engineering which could be all on Ford, their 3rd party supplier, which of course points right back at Ford, or it is something that GM and Ford share and thus both may have the issue and share in the basic responsibility.
I did not blame the owner that is what Honda, Toyota, and FCA like to do. I did say “Maybe the Design Engineer for that clip, at Ford or a 3rd party supplier fail to understand the full range of forces that could be at play, like the idiot who parks his truck with a huge trailer on an incline, puts it in park and lets the pawl take the full brunt of that 15-18k load?” which clearly puts the blame right on Ford for not designing it for what will inevitably happen.
“How about just admitting that, while not FCA bad, Ford’s quality control still leaves a lot to be desired?”
Chrysler is MILES ahead of Ford in the quality department. Ford would kill to have the level of quality Chrysler has right now.
Good God. You mean there’s no electronic indicator in the dash, like every other car?
Ford has had rollaway problems since at least the mid-1970s. It’s a hallmark of their product.
That and starting on fire.
Ugh. The driver interface is electronically controlled. It acknowledges that the driver has in fact selected “park” and as such is satisfied. It “expects” that if the driver has done what they are supposed to, that the mechanical linkage has done its job as well. The confirmation of gear selection seems to be at the controller, not by feedback from inside the transmission.
It’s not just Ford. Back in my Hertz days, I remembered to keep my foot firmly on the brake of any Mercedes while the electronic shifter decided what gear it wanted to be in. E350’s seemed to be the most random. The Cadillac XT5 has a 6 minute video explaining how to shift the car out of park into gear. Let’s think about that for a minute…
Not to be outdone, has anyone driven a Jeep or a 300/Charger with that clustf***k electronic floor shifter? Or wondered how long that rotary knob on Jaguars and Land Rover’s will last before it fails to pop up after you start the car? Back when cars were a new thing, it took manufacturers years to standardize the controls so a driver wouldn’t have to relearn how to drive every time he jumped from, say, a Packard to a Franklin. Now it seems we’re returning to those entertaining days where it required a visit to the owners manual before pulling out of the rental car garage.
Modern technology- often a solution in search of a problem.
standardizing control? How non-progressive, that’s just fly-over country talk, the modern forward metro looking car subscriber doesn’t need that.
/s
Is Ford going to send out warning labels for owners to stick on the dash again, like they did the last time they couldn’t figure out how to manufacture a transmission that goes into park properly?
+1,000!
I’m surprised they even issued a recall. Ford is the queen of deny, deny, deny and blame the customers.
Maybe Ford should run the country then.
No, no…..we like the success we’ve seen. If Ford ran the country we’d be done in 3 months.
As the pilot of many, many manual trannies over the years I’ve learned to always use the parking brake. I remember automatics I’ve driven being stuck on the park pawl when not using the parking brake and that’s the reason I’ve always used the parking brake on automatic tranny vehicles. Folks who have only driven automatics fail to realize the importance of the parking brake, another “bonus” reaped from the removal of manuals from the marketplace.
I don’t use the parking brake on flat ground, but on any sort of incline, it’s engaged before the transmission goes into Park, and my foot comes off the service brake.
Yankee air-heads.
Never mind Americans have enough adipose around the waistline to survive any tranny pin bump & squeeze.
The fault here lies in flaws with the clip and the park pin/pawl, surprisingly…related to this, NTSB needs to step in and fine the *beeP* out of all these auto companies releasing non-standard shifting mechanisms to the general public. This “trend” is completely ridiculous and whom-ever thought it a good idea should be sacked from what-ever position they currently hold.
No this is completely unrelated to any non-standard shifting mechanism. The one case is a fault of assembly, someone didn’t put the part in place, presumably because that wasn’t their normal job, since only 161 units are affected. The other case is a problem with either the clip itself or how it was installed to connect the good old fashioned shift cable coming from a good old fashioned column shiftier to the transmissions traditional external linkage.
It’s related in the fact that they are both issues related to modern transmission design flaws. I’m not going to split hairs with some douche who thinks he needs to be the smartest guy in the room by telling everyone they are wrong.
I’m curious to see who will be the first manufacturer to come out with a non standard accelerator/brake pedal set up, or turn signal control location. After all if the burden of knowing a myriad of ways for selecting gear can be placed on the end user, what else can be re-configured to make the car 75 dollars cheaper to produce?
Ferrari has already made your predictions come true. The turn signals are activated with buttons on the steering wheel, at least in some models.
“NTSB needs to step in and fine the *beeP* out of all these auto companies releasing non-standard shifting mechanisms to the general public.”
You cannot be serious. Are people really this helpless that they can’t take less than a minute to learn how their vehicle works?
NTSB can’t fine the *beeP* out of anyone.
Too bad. If I were in congress and sat on the right committee I’d be introducing a bill right now…
Standards exist for a reason. How about the guy who got a rental prius or jeep grand Cherokee who couldnt figure out how to shift it. Or the actor who was killed by his jeep? How about we dont change things that have been working just fine for the last 75 years, just for the sake of change.
Jesus Christ.
So we should all be driving steam powered buggies then? That’s what you’re telling me?
The moron actor was killed by his Jeep because he was CARELESS and did not secure his vehicle before exiting. It was his fault and his fault alone. There is nothing complicated about the shifter in the 2014-2015 Grand Cherokee. If you can’t figure it out then you should not be allowed to drive.
A new month, a new Ford recall.
I know where their profits are going, and it isn’t up.
Bill Ford needs to start sleeping in the factory until the problems are solved.
Ever since Alan Mulally did Ford skip quality for profits, now its biting them in the butt.
Profits now, recalls later is not a viable business model.
Ford trucks and SUV are of poor quality. They should stick to cars.
Ford – what a disgrace.
Their cars suck too!!!
They won’t be making cars for long so no worries there.. Problem solved!
“Ford trucks and SUV are of poor quality. They should stick to cars.
Ford – what a disgrace.”
Ya right, that’s why they can’t sell an F150 or a Super Duty PU……..lol
Fleet sales and misleading ads. We know that, collectively, people are very stupid in this country and Ford truck sales prove that.
I bought a Ford because at the time they were the only ones making a smallish hybrid suv with awd. The hybrid system has been fine. The rest of it has been the least reliable vehicle I’ve ever owned. (And I’ve owned a Chysler car.) Two failues in the steering system alone, either of which could have been fatal and only one of which was eventually recalled. Never again.
The only good vehicles Ford makes are the Mustang and MKZ. Ford is garbage.
What a disgrace!
Probably because the hybrid system came from Toyota lol…
Again, another falsehood…
“Probably because the hybrid system came from Toyota lol…”
How hard these falsehoods die. It seems no matter how many times this claim is disproven, it keeps being repeated.
For the umpteenth time, Ford developed their hybrid system for the Escape independently of Toyota. What they ended up with turned out to be so similar to the Prius’ system that Ford risked patent litigation. So Ford traded rights to other technology, I recall it was diesel engine stuff, to Toyota in exchange for rights to the hybrid tech. Look it up.
Here’s an entertaining story on the subject:
https://amp.fastcompany.com/51547/fords-escape-route
I think Ford did a pretty good job. Despite being an older design with a less streamlined body, and in the case of the awd’s mechanical drive to the rear wheels, the Escape Hybrid gets mileage competitive with the Rav4 Hybrid and the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV in hybrid mode.
Right. Ford just happened to develop the exact same thing as Toyota.
Ford cannot develop a door handle, you think they can come up with a competent hybrid powertrain? LOL!
That you, Z71Silvy?
Is that why you loved the Aviator so much EBFlex? It was touching…
If you task two different teams of competent engineers with solving the same problem, it’s no surprise if the solutions they come up with are similar in many ways.
Funny you bring up the inability to design a door handle, since the Toyota Camry has had a long standing problem with broken door handles going back to the 90’s and is still a problem.
@EBFlex:
“Right. Ford just happened to develop the exact same thing as Toyota.”
Sameness is relative. Calling the two systems “exactly” the same is a false claim.
Ford did not negotiate with Toyota about most of the patented aspects of their hybrid system. Only the systems that were sufficiently similar to risk litigation. This seems like an odd scenario if it was a straight copy.
And can you link to any convincing documentation that Ford copied Toyota’s hybrid system? There is plenty of documentation that Ford did their own design, while the claims to the contrary all seem to be armchair snark.
There was no Ford copying Toyota on their Hybrid system. Ford stepped out ahead of Toyota in eCVT technology out of the gate and Toyota has now finally resorted to copying Ford’s superior eCVT architecture in the Prius.
They Both work on the same principle of using 2 motors and a planetary gear set but their architecture is completely different. Toyota started with and stuck with linear architecture for a long time. Ford came out of the gate with a parallel architecture which has many advantages. It is more compact which leads to weight savings. The bigger thing however is that it allows an additional gear reduction between the traction motor and the final drive reduction. This gives a big boost in regen ability and provides better off the line acceleration with a smaller more efficient and lighter traction motor.
Toyota finally gave up on their dead ends and the 2017 Prius and Prius prime use that same architecture that Ford introduced on the 2005 Escape.
@Scoutdude:
“Ford stepped out ahead of Toyota in eCVT technology out of the gate and Toyota has now finally resorted to copying Ford’s superior eCVT architecture in the Prius.
They both work on the same principle of using 2 motors and a planetary gear set but their architecture is completely different. Toyota started with and stuck with linear architecture for a long time. Ford came out of the gate with a parallel architecture which has many advantages. It is more compact which leads to weight savings. The bigger thing however is that it allows an additional gear reduction between the traction motor and the final drive reduction. This gives a big boost in regen ability and provides better off the line acceleration with a smaller more efficient and lighter traction motor.”
My understanding was that both the Prius and Escape Hybrid use eCVT’s made by Aisin. If that is so, how do the separate development scenarios tie into the common sourcing? The article I linked, though thorough on the administrative side, does not address the design and manufacture of the eCVT.
The later generation Prius’s do have various other systems to enhance mileage that the Escape lacks, such as the oil thermos. Toyota uses an additional electric motor to power the rear wheels on hybrid suv’s, while the Escape Hybrid basically uses a driveshaft. Neither regens from the rear wheels. Any opinion on which is more efficient or effective?
The last, 2010-2012 Escape Hybrids did away with the whole hybrid battery hvac system, using conditioned cabin air to heat or cool the battery instead. They also dropped the 30 seconds of forced gas engine operation every time the ignition was turned on. At least the latter is a good idea.
I use my Escape Hybrid in places where others with suvs and pickups use low ranges. Is the superior design of the eCVT in the Escape Hybrid the reason it handles very steep climbs as well as a low range, and would that design help explain the excellent mileage compared to newer hybrid suv’s? I’ve never yet encountered a dry climb that it couldn’t get up.
I did run into a problem the other day, stuck in deep wet snow because the systems would not let me spin or even turn the wheels in (electric-only) reverse. Shutting off traction control made no difference and I couldn’t go forward either. Some shovelling got me out of it without putting chains on.
If you are interested in the massive architectural differences in the early Toyota and Ford eCVTs I suggest checking out the Weber Auto Youtube channel. He has great videos of all the nuts and bolts of each as well as virtually every other hybrid transaxle and many of their battery packs and inverter/converters. To finish out/keep up to date with the latest Prius he went out and bought a brand new 2017, completely tore it apart and then put it back together.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=racnrH5X0QM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHU5xFOBcsU&t=794s
He does get a few things wrong but there is nothing better on the web at this point.
I was specifically referencing the eCVT differences. Yes Toyota has used a system to harvest engine shut down heat to inject into the head on start up but its primary purpose was to improve emissions.
Yes both transaxles were made by Aisin but from my understanding in both cases the primary engineering, and by that I mean the basic architecture, strength requirements, key dimensions ect was done by the respective client. Aisin performed the manufacturing engineering and assembly. No doubt Ford chose to work with them because of the were the only supplier in the world that had experience and equipment.
One of the specs that Ford set was the ability to accept the exact same PTU as on the conventional transaxle. I’m certain that was done mainly for cost purposes. If they would engage the diff’s clutch pack they could cause braking action on the rear wheels but I guess they don’t think that is an improvement.
In theory the electric rear axle probably is more efficient than the mechanical system. It also gives you the ability to apply a greater torque differential. With the Escape system you can approach 50/50 torque distribution, but you can never exceed 50% to the rear. On the other hand you’ve got to get the front traction motor spinning to extract more power to transfer to the rear so the Escape can get a little more breakaway torque at the rear axle when you are trying to move forward anyway. Not sure reverse is any better in the RAV-4 because you are limited by the discharge capability of the battery and the generation capacity of the MG1/Starter-Generator.
@Scoutdude
Thanks for explaining those things. I appreciate it. Maybe if I watch the Weber videos enough I can fully understand how the Escape’s eCVT works.
As for regeneration from the rear wheels I had understood why this is not easy to do with an electric rear motor, but I hadn’t realized it would be easier to do with the Escape’s setup. Presumably the components involved would have to be engineered to take forces in both directions. (Edit: but that’s exactly what they do in reverse.) And of course such a provision would be absent from the fwd Hybrids. Maybe they already had their hands full designing the hybrid, and the mileage gain was already impressive enough without this enhancement. But some day I expect awd hybrids will regen from both ends. I wonder what the awd Teslas do?
As it is, when normal braking is done with the Escape Hybrid, most braking is regen through the front wheels. The rear brakes are applied a little for stability. The energy involved in the rear braking is completely lost. So when the situation makes sense, I downshift to lose or control speed. This forces light regen if the battery has capacity. Some energy is lost by the higher engine revs, but none is lost by the rear brakes. My experimentation shows that downshifting recaptures more energy than using the brake pedal.
I think this is why hybrids etc. are increasingly equipped to regen brake as you lift the throttle. Because it helps mileage a bit. I think there is a concern that if this system is too aggressive, it could result in locking the front wheels on a slippery surface. Though I guess the ABS could be connected to the regen system.