Hey Ford!!! Screw you guys!!!!

[rusty ol ranger]

FIFY. Just a thought, friend. You might want to drop the F-bomb from the post before a moderator catches it. Rumour has it they don't like that word.

I know. You'd rather I just shut up about it. Me harping on your for it is the last thing you need. I get that. I'm only making the suggestion because I like you, and I don't want to see you get the boot.

What are you? The polite police? Jesus.

@adsm08 its funny you are having issues with no keyed cranks. Our mechanic at work has been having fits with a friggin Cummins ISX for the same things. Seems to be the new way of doing things. Its totally stupid.

Personally...i think any engine design since the demise of the windsors/385s/I6 is totally stupid

 

[Ranger850]

I used to work on an assembly line, making UniMac washing machines. They used to have a set screw on the small pulley on the motor and a lead key for the large pulley on the basket. After many many failures and sending repair guys into the field to fix the slipping bottom pulley, they switched to lead keys on both pullies. It eliminated the issue.

 

[91stranger]

Isn't it funny how they cut costs on the internals of engines but will spend more of fake leather with nice stitching? I'd rather have an ugly working vehicle than a nice looking vehicle with issues..... That's why I like simple engines like the 3.0 or my current inline 6.

 

[racsan]

I think some of these stupid engineering moves are to keep a vehicle coming back to a stealership for service. They litterly seem to design failure into the product and dont want the consumer to be able to fix it. Remember when the only special tool you needed was a distributor wrench? (and I heated and bent a cheap 9/16” wrench to do the job) now its a useless bent wrench because distributors are obsolete. They also dont want things to last, let a product have a service life of 10 years or less instead of 25 and it needs replaced sooner. Nothing seems to be made to last -or serviced anymore.

 

[franklin2]

Isn't it funny how they cut costs on the internals of engines but will spend more of fake leather with nice stitching? I'd rather have an ugly working vehicle than a nice looking vehicle with issues..... That's why I like simple engines like the 3.0 or my current inline 6.

Like our government is run by career liberals, the automakers make their decisions and listen to car and driver and other magazines so they get a good review. They worry about looks and comfort and peak hp numbers more than anything else. You can't rate reliability during a 1 hour test run. But the magazines are losing their clout, as the internet gets stronger and stronger.

 

[adsm08]

the magazines are losing their clout, as the internet gets stronger and stronger.

This is why I have now taken to calling Ford out and bashing them openly on every web platform I can get away with it on.

If I can't get ahold of them directly I'll start setting fires and hope they take notice and come to me.

 

[91stranger]

In the auto/rv business and probably most other businesses, the squeaky wheel gets the grease but since you are talking about Ford and not a single dealership then you will never get to talk to anyone who makes the big decisions like what you are up against now. They are too high on the totem pole. You will reach the bottom of the totem pole and get the run-around until they hope you just give up because you're tired of hearing "that's not my department but if you call this number they can surely help you" or something along those lines.

I've lost a lot of faith in ford since they brought the new ranger back and it's nothing like the pre '11 rangers. They wont listen to what people actually want...……

 

[19Walt93]

I fought with Ford over warranty rates,labor hours, and more other things than I can remember for 35 years but I disagree with some of what's been said. The design of the 1.5 block sounds like what GM did with the Vega 40+ years that failed miserably.I suspect the engineer was instructed to reduce the weight of the block by someone who didn't understand what the result would be. Ignorant instructions=lousy results. In the 90's, the design engineers' bonuses were based on the cost of manufacturing and weight of the component they designed, when stuff failed and came back under warranty the expense was charged to warranty, not engineering. In the late 90's they decided the engineer was responsible for the cost of fixing his design,too. All our brake rotors got thicker and vibrations disappeared. We had been having U joint failures in F150's at 15-18,000 miles, that stopped like someone threw a switch.
Removing the keyways wasn't done to reduce manufacturing cost, it was done to enable more exact cam timing-pin everything in place and torque it up- AS LONG AS IT HOLDS, the timing is spot on, not within tolerances. Cars are more complicated than ever but they last longer than ever before. When I started at the dealer in 1975 we were doing valve jobs and transmission overhauls on 30,000 mile vehicles, an 80,000 mile car was a clapped out junk and if a 100,000 mile car came in everyone wanted to look at it. 5 or 6 year old cars were rusted out junk.
A lot of has been ex hippies my age rave about their VW beetle, my memory is better than that. The engines failed so often that I bought a valve guide driver to rebuild them while working at a gas station. A beetle with a fresh tune up could squeeze out 28 mpg, my 2.0 EcoBoost AWD Escape averaged 27.3 on a round trip to Va., including traffic like I've never seen and cruising at 75-80 on the highway with the a/c on. A beetle wouldn't go 80 and forget a/c.
The first year and a half of Escort production had interference engines with a timing belt, then Ford got sick of paying for major failures and for decades if it had a timing belt, it would free wheel and not hit valves. When the 1.6 appeared in Fiesta's and Escape's, I assumed they were chain drive like the 2.0. They were not- they were belt drive, interference engines. Thanks to European influence. In 2016 I priced a timing belt replacement on an Escape, $981 at 2016 prices, so I could try to convince the salesmen to recommend the 2.0 instead. Ford says the belt lasts 150k-but if it stretches or breaks the engine is junk and your high mileage Escape is totaled. So, at what mileage do you spend over $1000( I didn't include a water pump in my quote)?

 

[19Walt93]

This is why I have now taken to calling Ford out and bashing them openly on every web platform I can get away with it on.

If I can't get ahold of them directly I'll start setting fires and hope they take notice and come to me.

I used to get the hotline involved and open T.A.R.'s, is that process still available? I'd also send PSMAC reports and post on the FMCDealer message boards to get input form other dealer techs/managers. I'm convinced Ford doesn't care about whether the dealers are happy but they do care about the customers' opinions.

 

[Uncle Gump]

Having worked in service engineering for many years... issues like these don't go unnoticed. It shows up when people such as yourself bring these things to the front of the line. I would start with the service manager. then he should be blowing up the zone reps phone until your issues (and others apparently) are heard. If it is a true problem in the field they should be the ones to work out a fix or parts update for correction. Also until updates can be made... you should be paid to do it again.... should you have to.

It will always boil down to dollars...

 

[8thTon]

Removing the keyways wasn't done to reduce manufacturing cost, it was done to enable more exact cam timing-pin everything in place and torque it up- AS LONG AS IT HOLDS, the timing is spot on, not within tolerances.

Yes, that was my bet too.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

I've lost a lot of faith in ford since they brought the new ranger back and it's nothing like the pre '11 rangers. They wont listen to what *I* actually want...……

FIFY

Ford (and GM and Dodge) *ARE* listening to what people want. How many times do I have to say this? People WANT a capable vehicle that can do what they need it to do. They need a vehicle that can bring stuff home for weekend projects, or carry (and tow) stuff for the weekend getaway. BUT, they want that vehicle to be able to haul the family, AND, they want it to be easy to drive. So, the new Ranger is a crew cab so that it can haul the family. It has an open box for the weekend projects. And it can tow for the weekend getaway. And, it has accessories available that can be used to cover the box so that you can put luggage back there (again for the weekend getaway). It has IFS so that it's easy to drive. THAT is what people want. Why do they want it? Because in today's environmentally conscious age, it is ridiculous for mom to drive the family car with the kids in it for the weekend getaway, while dad drives the truck towing the camper or the boat. The smart people at Ford said "why don't we start making vehicles that can do BOTH, and that mom can drive with ease?"

That's also why Ford (and GM and Dodge) killed their car lines, and focus now on crossovers and trucks. The crossovers were more capable than the cars, so people stopped buying the cars, in favour of the crossover. That's why the Explorer changed from body on frame to unibody. People quit buying it because the crossover that was closest in size (Taurus X and Flex) handled better and got better fuel economy, and that's what people want.

 

[8thTon]

FIFY

Ford (and GM and Dodge) *ARE* listening to what people want. How many times do I have to say this? People WANT a capable vehicle that can do what they need it to do. They need a vehicle that can bring stuff home for weekend projects, or carry (and tow) stuff for the weekend getaway. BUT, they want that vehicle to be able to haul the family, AND, they want it to be easy to drive. So, the new Ranger is a crew cab so that it can haul the family. It has an open box for the weekend projects. And it can tow for the weekend getaway. And, it has accessories available that can be used to cover the box so that you can put luggage back there (again for the weekend getaway). It has IFS so that it's easy to drive. THAT is what people want. Why do they want it? Because in today's environmentally conscious age, it is ridiculous for mom to drive the family car with the kids in it for the weekend getaway, while dad drives the truck towing the camper or the boat. The smart people at Ford said "why don't we start making vehicles that can do BOTH, and that mom can drive with ease?"

That's also why Ford (and GM and Dodge) killed their car lines, and focus now on crossovers and trucks. The crossovers were more capable than the cars, so people stopped buying the cars, in favour of the crossover. That's why the Explorer changed from body on frame to unibody. People quit buying it because the crossover that was closest in size (Taurus X and Flex) handled better and got better fuel economy, and that's what people want.

Yes - and no. People's decisions are seldom logical, or at least not mostly so. We make decisions emotionally and then use logic to justify them. So image and fashion have a lot to do with what people buy. Guys want to be seen as the kind of guy who drives a truck, even though they almost never do stuff that requires a truck. These tiny truck beds are a major limitation.

 

[Dirtman]

 

[Snoranger]

wont listen to what people actually want...……

You don’t buy new cars or trucks... They don’t give a rats ass what you want.