-
Sign Up! To view all forums and unlock additional cool features
Welcome to the #1 Explorer ST Forum and Explorer ST community dedicated to Explorer ST owners and enthusiasts. Register for an account, it's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the Explorer ST Forum today!
Rear end damage
- Thread starter Chrispw24
- Start date
@st8 just jump on twitter and message @ford with your complaint, then they'll tell you to DM them. They'll ask for some basic info and then you'll get assigned a case manager from corporate. My case mgr called me today but I ignored the call bc I thought it was spam, left a message and gave me her ford.com email so I'm going to start a paper trail
-
2
- Show All
@st8 I think either would work, I would tweet them first because that puts them on blast in a way. I'm no social media influencer (I barely have any followers nor intend to gain more) or anything but you don't want customers complaining on your main page about one of your "flagship" vehicles. I think they want to keep their main page clean so they'll reach out quickly to take the conversation to the DM.
-
1
- Show All
Just finished Ford reiterated what other folks have said in this thread. No issues, no recalls, no TSB, nothing from NHTSA or some over gov agency. Verdict is be careful and break these subframes to get what should have been put on the car originally.
What a shame for 50-60k there's other options I noticed someone mentioned BMW prior and Americans wonder why they say "they dont build em like they used to". What a waste of time. With my luck it will break on the hwy on the way to a vacation with the family after hours. Oh well. Good luck, be safe.
What a shame for 50-60k there's other options I noticed someone mentioned BMW prior and Americans wonder why they say "they dont build em like they used to". What a waste of time. With my luck it will break on the hwy on the way to a vacation with the family after hours. Oh well. Good luck, be safe.
Based on previous Ford Performance history and what ghost said, at this time Ford doesn’t have any incentive to offer up the fix to all cars affected. Some cars with the 3-bolts will have no problems at all, so Ford would “waste” money by changing them out. So, if you have a failure Ford will repair it and install the correct part. It’s all about Ford not seeing any liability problems, only a few cars that joyriders break. Even then, Ford will attempt to deny any warranty if they can.
All this is why I just bought the correct part MB5Z-5035-E for mine and will replace it myself, so I can run the E50 tune!
All this is why I just bought the correct part MB5Z-5035-E for mine and will replace it myself, so I can run the E50 tune!
Last edited:
@FORZDA3 how hard would it be to break this and have them do it? Brake boost and launch hard a couple times? I think my best bet would be if it breaks stock bc I can already hear the warranty claim being denied with the mods I'm doing. I think OP got extremely lucky. I agree with you on not letting some ford tech who doesn't give a damn touch the car but if I remember correctly the part alone is $1,700 not including labor (I don't have the means or technical ability to do this on my own anyway).
I’m guessing it takes a significant amount of abuse to actually break this. Exception being the rare incident where it breaks easily for whatever reason. Just like anything can break in a car but 99% of people won’t have an issue. I could be wrong. But I’m guessing that’s why ford is okay with it.
the thing I can’t get behind is the aviators are getting the 4 bolt treatment still.
the thing I can’t get behind is the aviators are getting the 4 bolt treatment still.
-
3
- Show All
I wonder if there was any incentive for an engineer to find a way to save a few bucks a car by subtracting parts? What really "bothers" me about this change is how minor the cost savings must be. They must have been very confident in the math that showed few failures will result. It doesn't mean they're right, but they must have been confident.
-
1
- Show All
It's basically because of the bean counters. They calculate how many 3.0L explorers will actually break because of the missing bolt and how many will know that it happened because of fords penny pinching and then how many will sue ford to repair their car vs how many will pay for it themselves. In the end they determined that the wrong subframe and 1 less bolt will save them more than what they will pay out in lawsuits and repairs. Happens all the time with ford.
I’m not so sure it was a long-term change by Ford. It’s really odd that all the newer STs don’t have the 3-bolt setup. It looks to me like a temp solution to supply chain problems so Ford production line could get new cars out to dealers. I think it was a “local” decision made by a Field engineer, not a Design engineer. This is why the Ford Parts system shows 4-bolt setup MB5Z-5035-E for the STs, even those with 3-bolts.
I plan to cruise all the Ford/Lincoln dealers showing ST/Aviators in stock (within reasonable distance in my area) with a flashlight and knee pad to check them out for my theory.
I plan to cruise all the Ford/Lincoln dealers showing ST/Aviators in stock (within reasonable distance in my area) with a flashlight and knee pad to check them out for my theory.
Last edited:
Yeah, I don’t think there’s any way to break it at will, on purpose. It would take some experimenting and broken parts to figure that out. If you can’t do the job yourself and decide it costs too much, the best bet it to forget about it and just drive the car. You may never have a problem, especially if stock or running a non-E based tune.
I doubt this was a transient supply side issue. If that were the case, wouldn't there be reports of 4 bolt STs from 12/20 up until now? That's over a year to have supply chain issues. Meanwhile, Aviator owners that have chimed in report 4 bolts in that same time frame. Granted, forum members are a small sampling but no member of this forum with ST's built after 12/20 have 4 bolts??!? What would be the odds of that!?
To me, it's pure cost cutting and betting the failures are few or occur after warranty expires. For all we know, this could be just one of many cost-cutting measures. What if they put in the smaller rear sway bar? The non-ST shocks/struts? Most would be none the wiser...
To me, it's pure cost cutting and betting the failures are few or occur after warranty expires. For all we know, this could be just one of many cost-cutting measures. What if they put in the smaller rear sway bar? The non-ST shocks/struts? Most would be none the wiser...
