Two Ways of Rolling Away: Ford Doubles Up on 10-speed-related Recalls

by Steph Willems

Published: April 7th, 2018

two ways of rolling away ford doubles up on 10 speed related recalls

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]

#Ford #FordExpedition #FordF-150 #Recall #Recalls #Rollaways #Safety

Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments

Join the conversation

20 of 59 comments

Akear on Apr 07, 2018

Ford trucks and SUV are of poor quality. They should stick to cars. Ford - what a disgrace.

Like Reply
- See 3 previous
- EBFlex on Apr 08, 2018
  
  Their cars suck too!!!
  
  Like
- Halftruth on Apr 08, 2018
  
  @EBFlex They won't be making cars for long so no worries there.. Problem solved!
  
  Like
- Carlson Fan on Apr 08, 2018
  
  "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
  
  Like
- EBFlex on Apr 08, 2018
  
  @Carlson Fan Fleet sales and misleading ads. We know that, collectively, people are very stupid in this country and Ford truck sales prove that.
  
  Like
Brandloyalty on Apr 07, 2018

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.

Like Reply
- See 13 previous
- Akear on Apr 07, 2018
  
  The only good vehicles Ford makes are the Mustang and MKZ. Ford is garbage. What a disgrace!
  
  Like
- EBFlex on Apr 08, 2018
  
  Probably because the hybrid system came from Toyota lol...
  
  Like
- Golden2husky on Apr 08, 2018
  
  @EBFlex Again, another falsehood...
  
  Like
- Brandloyalty on Apr 08, 2018
  
  @EBFlex "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.
  
  Like
- EBFlex on Apr 08, 2018
  
  @brandloyalty 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!
  
  Like
- Middle-Aged (Ex-Miata) Man on Apr 08, 2018
  
  @EBFlex That you, Z71Silvy?
  
  Like
- Nick_515 on Apr 08, 2018
  
  @EBFlex Is that why you loved the Aviator so much EBFlex? It was touching...
  
  Like
- JDG1980 on Apr 08, 2018
  
  @EBFlex 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.
  
  Like
- Scoutdude on Apr 08, 2018
  
  @EBFlex 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.
  
  Like
- Scoutdude on Apr 08, 2018
  
  @EBFlex 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.
  
  Like
- Brandloyalty on Apr 08, 2018
  
  @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.
  
  Like
- Brandloyalty on Apr 08, 2018
  
  @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.
  
  Like
- Scoutdude on Apr 08, 2018
  
  @brandloyalty 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.
  
  Like
- Brandloyalty on Apr 09, 2018
  
  @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.
  
  Like

Recent Comments

Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?