Ford Recalls Over 634K SUVs Due to Fuel Leaks and Fire Risk
Source: Associated Press
DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) Ford Motor Co. is recalling over 634,000 SUVs worldwide because a cracked fuel injector can spill fuel or leak vapors onto a hot engine and cause fires.
The recall covers Bronco Sport and Escape SUVs from the 2020 through 2023 model years. All have 1.5-liter, three-cylinder engines.
The Dearborn, Michigan, automaker said Thursday it's not recommending that owners stop driving the vehicles or park them outdoors because fires are rare and generally don't happen when the engines are off.
But Ford said it has received 20 reports of fires, including three that ignited nearby structures. The company also said it has four claims of fires that were noticed less than five minutes after the engines were turned off. Ford also has four injury claims not involving burns, and 43 legal claims attributed to the problem.
Read more: https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2022-11-24/ford-recalls-over-634k-suvs-due-to-fuel-leaks-and-fire-risk
hlthe2b
(102,234 posts)Rare doesn't feel too good when one recognizes the hundreds of thousands of these on the road (or parked in Grandma's garage while the family sleeps so soundly)...
Sorry, but I'm still fighting anger at the theft of my catalytic converter and asking WHY manufacturers have not come up with an alternative that would not be a target. But, why would they? They and their parts manufacturers make money every single time this happens.
Okay, I'm done now. Time for a long walk with the pup before heading off to attempt to assist in final cooking for friends and family... A sincere Happy Thanksgiving for any who made it this far in my spiel
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Especially at places that people store RVs. Some people have gone as far as having aftermarket cages installed.
hlthe2b
(102,234 posts)from Miller Cat, which if you do some research is the leader in this area. I bought directly from the manufacturer all the recommended components plus some brand new ones just released and saved about $150 over Toyota doing so, but the only good thing to come out of it is that my insurer has to cover it WITH the converter if it is stolen again. This time is on me.
And I am NOT kidding about them targeting cars in garages or at your local grocery store. My police detective was very kind in both confirming my expectations (that a report will go nowhere) and my suspicion that much of the changing pattern of these thefts is NOT being reported to the press so as not to embolden the thieves.
If it happens again and I'm not shot, the perpetrators will be blinded under a 3100 lumen strobe light just purchased and then sprayed with bear spray while I wait on police to come. And the anti-theft device SHOULD buy me enough time for all that to possibly happen.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)No more scrap purchasing of catalytic converters. They can only be bought by recyclers that can file an ownership paper trail.
Boom, problem likely solved for millions of vehicles at once.
I'm sure some will still be stolen & transported to Oregon, Arizona or Nevada but that's not worth it for anyone smaller than organized crime & most were stolen & sold within the same local region for quick cash. But eliminating the quick reward should help considerably.
https://calmatters.org/economy/2022/10/california-is-a-hotspot-for-catalytic-converter-theft-will-new-laws-make-a-difference/
It would be really nice if Congress would make automakers stamp the VIN on them, though.
hlthe2b
(102,234 posts)Mine was likewise part of the engraved and registered CC program. Made zero difference. Likewise, CO requires new OEM (no third party) parts to replace a stolen converter. Something that my insurer tried (but failed) to argue.
bucolic_frolic
(43,142 posts)Didn't know anyone was making 3 cylinder engines. Fuel injectors are usually plastic. So do these run too hot? Flawed plastic? Too cramped? Seals?
Ford_Prefect
(7,894 posts)a part adapted from a previous application which doesn't tolerate the new situation, planned obsolescence gone wrong. Could be any one of these or engine vibration.
dchill
(38,474 posts)I wouldn't recommend it, though. Even a turkey fryer would need at least four cylinders!
k0rs
(72 posts)...had me going until I read it only affected the 1.5L three cylinder engines. Fortunately my '21 Bronco sport is a 2.0L. The Ford dealer tried to sell me the 1.5L, but living at 9000 ft ASL, one needs the additional HP.
Ford_Prefect
(7,894 posts)recall it prior to some poor fool buying it?
Alexander Of Assyria
(7,839 posts)Takket
(21,563 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,423 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 26, 2022, 08:35 AM - Edit history (1)
Oh! Someone knows!
The picture shows a car fire on a stretch of road in North Carolina called "the Tail of the Dragon."
A New York Times story about U.S. car fires references a study that gets the frequency wrong by a factor of at least 60.
BY EZRA DYER PUBLISHED: JUN 2, 2022
MARC URBANO|CAR AND DRIVER
We may have slightly overestimated the claimed percentage rate for fires given by the AutoinsuranceEZ company, as a few readers pointed out. Therefore, we have revised the text to clarify that the claimed rate of fires is likely around 2 to 3 percent of all vehicles, not 5 as we originally estimated. However, since we cant know the total numbers of hybrid vs. ICE vehicles referenced in the study, we cant make a closer calculation.
Last month, the New York Times ran a story about EV safety and car fires that caught our eye over here at the C/D Department of Fishy Assertions. Titled "Hurdle to Broad Adoption of EVs: The Misperception That They're Unsafe," it argues that electric cars catch fire less often than conventional internal-combustion cars or hybrids. It reads, in part:
AutoInsuranceEZ studied the frequency of firesfrom all causes, including collisionsin automobiles in 2021. It found that hybrid vehicles, which have an internal combustion engine and an electric motor, had the most fires per 100,000 vehicles (3475), while vehicles with just an internal combustion engine placed second (1530 per 100,000). Fully electric vehicles had the fewest: 25 per 100,000. These findings were based on data from the National Transportation Safety Board and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
You don't have to be a professional statistician to notice that these AutoInsuranceEZ numbers look a wee bit questionable. Because, EVs and hybrids aside, if 1530 conventional internal-combustion cars ( aka, "most of the cars" ) are catching fire per 100,000 vehicles, that would equate to millions of car fires each yearas of 2020, there were roughly 270 million registered passenger vehicles in the US. Imagine that: You'd definitely know someone whose car caught fire. Maybe your car caught fire. It might be on fire right now! "Oh, another car fire," you'd say, driving past the third conflagration of your morning commute.
To try to figure out where these numbers came from, we first contacted the National Transportation Safety Board, purported source for the car-fire statistics. And the NTSB's spokesman told us, "There is no NTSB database that tracks highway vehicle fires. We do not know what data AutoInsuranceEZ used for its research, but it did not come from an NTSB database." They suggested that perhaps the study authors confused the NTSB with NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. So we contacted NHTSA.
And guess what? NHTSA doesn't collect fire data in this way, either. NHTSAwhich we should call "the NHTSA," but that sounds weirdcollects data on crashes but says that only about 5 percent of fires are crash-related. So they rely on other sources for information, like the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). Which, in any case, doesn't categorize fires according to the type of vehicle powertrain.
At this point you may be asking whether your car is going to catch fire or what, so here's what we found. According to the National Fire Protection Association, which gets its info from the NFIRS, passenger cars averaged 117,400 fires annually between 2013 and 2017. And the Bureau of Transportation Statistics says that there were 261,037,752 registered vehicles in the US in 2018 (excluding semi-trucks, motorcycles, and buses). So, do a little division, carry the one . . . and that equals .04 percent of vehicles catching fire in a given year.
{snip}
Which is not zero, but how often do you see a car on fire? It's not that common.
I mean, as long as we're correcting things.
Full disclosure: I've been through two car fires. I carry a fire extinguisher in my cars. I was able to put out both fires, tighten the loose connection, and keep driving.
Mousetoescamper
(3,203 posts)available in my area. I'm not too concerned, though. As you've stated, vehicle fires are not that common.
I've been through one car fire. My car's spark plug wires caught on fire while driving the NFS road to Lake Warner campground in the La Sal Mountains, about an hour from Moab, Utah. I had my two young kids with me in a station wagon loaded with camping gear and supplies. The engine stalled not far from the campground, which is at an elevation of about 9,000 feet. I thought the radiator had boiled over.
When I popped the hood what I initially thought was steam turned out to be smoke from the burning wires. I got the kids out of and away from the car and threw dirt on the fire to put it out. There were no cellphones in those days and I doubt there would have been service if I'd had one. Luckily, the road is well traveled in August and I was able to flag down a driver who was returning to town. They called a garage to come tow us to Moab.
After the wires were replaced we stayed in a nice motel for the night and drove to Canyonlands National Park the following day. The kids, now adults with families of their own, still talk about the day the car caught on fire on the mountain.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)Arthur_Frain
(1,849 posts)In a GÉO Métro.
Is that whats in the new broncos I see all over the place?
myohmy2
(3,162 posts)...glad I have a carburetor with 4 cylinders...
...makes me proud I'm an elderly rust-belt American...