-
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
So is the differential in that video. It also is supported at the nose of it.
This is the issue. In order to support the differential close to the differential like what is done in the Explorer ST and also The first year Pontiac Solstice the bushings that hold the differential are going to be of a softer compound. This is to keep noise from the differential getting into the frame/subframe and ending up in the passenger compartment. The diff end up moving around alot and it will blow out the bushings and or break bolts if there is not enough of them to hold the diff in place.
Using a torque arm from the diff top the transmission will stop almost 100% of the diff movement all together.Because the arm is attached to the transmission and no the body there are no rubber mounts holding it. The oil filled engine mount do what they are designed to do and the facory diff mounts now end up being more of an insulator and are only there to hold the position of the diff and not be impacted by the torque.
This is the issue. In order to support the differential close to the differential like what is done in the Explorer ST and also The first year Pontiac Solstice the bushings that hold the differential are going to be of a softer compound. This is to keep noise from the differential getting into the frame/subframe and ending up in the passenger compartment. The diff end up moving around alot and it will blow out the bushings and or break bolts if there is not enough of them to hold the diff in place.
Using a torque arm from the diff top the transmission will stop almost 100% of the diff movement all together.Because the arm is attached to the transmission and no the body there are no rubber mounts holding it. The oil filled engine mount do what they are designed to do and the facory diff mounts now end up being more of an insulator and are only there to hold the position of the diff and not be impacted by the torque.
-
1
- Show All
It doesn't really "lack" any support in the rear as it has what is required according to the manufacturer's design specifications.
This is supported by FORD's data where 99.907% of vehicles involved have not experienced issues (235 of 252,936).
It's when those design specifications are exceeded by adding 100+ hp and 150+ lb ft while spending all day at the drag strip do you see complaints.
Let's put this into perspective: If this were a widespread issue, there would at least be a 10% failure rate. That would mean 25,293 reported breaks, not 235.
This is supported by FORD's data where 99.907% of vehicles involved have not experienced issues (235 of 252,936).
It's when those design specifications are exceeded by adding 100+ hp and 150+ lb ft while spending all day at the drag strip do you see complaints.
Let's put this into perspective: If this were a widespread issue, there would at least be a 10% failure rate. That would mean 25,293 reported breaks, not 235.
-
1
- Show All
Vehicles other than ST’s are failing, plain and simple.
So although I really believe that stock ST’s are in a very low risk category compared to those that are tuned/modded, it still can and has happened to untuned vehicles.
I’m going to assume based on the this thread and others, that the bulk of failures outside of the ST model are PIU’s which can have the shit beaten out of them.
We will see more of these failures in the coming months for sure, another 2 have popped up on Facebook in the last couple of days. If you don’t want to mitigate the risk with aftermarket options, then don’t.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So although I really believe that stock ST’s are in a very low risk category compared to those that are tuned/modded, it still can and has happened to untuned vehicles.
I’m going to assume based on the this thread and others, that the bulk of failures outside of the ST model are PIU’s which can have the shit beaten out of them.
We will see more of these failures in the coming months for sure, another 2 have popped up on Facebook in the last couple of days. If you don’t want to mitigate the risk with aftermarket options, then don’t.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The fact that it might have happened to untuned vehicles that maybe weren't beat on in no way affirms that it's an "issue."
So after 3 model years and a non failure rate of 99.907% indications are that there will not be a significant increase in failures any time soon.
If people want to intentionally mess outside of FORD's original design parameters, then that's on them. It's been this way as long as people have been modding/racing cars.
Let's not forget the adage "Racing a vehicle is a constant game of finding the weakest link."
So after 3 model years and a non failure rate of 99.907% indications are that there will not be a significant increase in failures any time soon.
If people want to intentionally mess outside of FORD's original design parameters, then that's on them. It's been this way as long as people have been modding/racing cars.
Let's not forget the adage "Racing a vehicle is a constant game of finding the weakest link."
I think the blame comes from the fact Ford weakened the area by using three bolts compared to previous models that came with four bolts. I'm fairly certain there has not been any broken bolts on models that have four bolts, regardless of the abuse they receive, although I could be wrong.
Imagine buying a hiking shoe and that shoe handles all the abuse you throw at it as you hike the mountain hills, and then imagine buying the same shoe next year and the sole is thinner and the shoe laces are not as strong, and hiking those same hills results in the shoe falling apart. I would say the blame would be on the shoe manufacturer, not the hiker.
Edit: Let's not forget that Ford labels the Explorer ST as a performance vehicle, well knowing it will be abused.
Imagine buying a hiking shoe and that shoe handles all the abuse you throw at it as you hike the mountain hills, and then imagine buying the same shoe next year and the sole is thinner and the shoe laces are not as strong, and hiking those same hills results in the shoe falling apart. I would say the blame would be on the shoe manufacturer, not the hiker.
Edit: Let's not forget that Ford labels the Explorer ST as a performance vehicle, well knowing it will be abused.
-
1
- Show All
The blame rests entirely on those people who use FORD's products beyond the manufacturers intentions.
To propose the notion that FORD is responsible for damage that occurs outside of their intended function belies common sense and reason.
The "hiking shoe" analogy lacks support on multiple counts:
The shoe was made for hiking, the ST was not made to be substantially modified and then live it's life at the drag strip.
The shoe was made to sustain specific wear, deviating from such is abuse, which parallels people tuning/drag racing/installing launch control chips in their ST's.
The shoe was made to operate within specific environments, any alterations to that and the wearer loses the right to durability claims, same as modding the ST.
I could go on ...
Lastly, let's not forget that FORD labeling the Explorer ST as a performance vehicle doesn't mean people can strap a Saturn V rocket to it and not call it abuse.
An exaggerated example? Well, then what arbitrary limits to do we put on the vehicle? 552 hp? 673 hp? Drag racing once a week? Once a month? Six times a day?
Performance Vehicles Do Not = Race Vehicles
To propose the notion that FORD is responsible for damage that occurs outside of their intended function belies common sense and reason.
The "hiking shoe" analogy lacks support on multiple counts:
The shoe was made for hiking, the ST was not made to be substantially modified and then live it's life at the drag strip.
The shoe was made to sustain specific wear, deviating from such is abuse, which parallels people tuning/drag racing/installing launch control chips in their ST's.
The shoe was made to operate within specific environments, any alterations to that and the wearer loses the right to durability claims, same as modding the ST.
I could go on ...
Lastly, let's not forget that FORD labeling the Explorer ST as a performance vehicle doesn't mean people can strap a Saturn V rocket to it and not call it abuse.
An exaggerated example? Well, then what arbitrary limits to do we put on the vehicle? 552 hp? 673 hp? Drag racing once a week? Once a month? Six times a day?
Performance Vehicles Do Not = Race Vehicles
A vehicle is designed according to what the manufacturer calculates as being safe for its intended use.
So if a manufacturer decides x, y or z are no longer required to meet its original design specs, then they reserve the right to change those items at any time.
Regarding the PIU's, their intended use are clearly not the same as for retail units.
Also, recall that PIU's do not have electronic parking brakes, so FORD has no other choice in that regard to prevent roll away in those vehicles if a bolt shear occurs.
So if a manufacturer decides x, y or z are no longer required to meet its original design specs, then they reserve the right to change those items at any time.
Regarding the PIU's, their intended use are clearly not the same as for retail units.
Also, recall that PIU's do not have electronic parking brakes, so FORD has no other choice in that regard to prevent roll away in those vehicles if a bolt shear occurs.
I don't believe this statement to be accurate. These are breaking in cars that haven't been tuned, police vehicles that were designed application-specific, and breaking on vehicles that are towing within acceptable limits. Anyone that believes that failures aren't happening behind 3.0 engines isn't thinking this through.
I know of nowhere the numbers are to support this one way or the other but to simply assume that we know what Ford's intentions were for this vehicle is silly. If only the vehicles that were being "abused" for lack of a better word, were the problem, Ford would not have acknowledged any problems.
I know of nowhere the numbers are to support this one way or the other but to simply assume that we know what Ford's intentions were for this vehicle is silly. If only the vehicles that were being "abused" for lack of a better word, were the problem, Ford would not have acknowledged any problems.
-
3
- Show All
