Ford refusing to honor Bumper to Bumper Warranty

[NotBudule]

Lets assume you are right. So What? Now what does the Op do? Ford refuses to pay for the new transmission. Yeah, he could take them to court but that could cost a lot of money with absolutely not guarantee he would win. So now he is out $6300, do you gamble and maybe be out another $10000 or much much more?

I'm not saying that, I'm saying the codes don't prove anything really , other than it's trashed ...

Sponsored

 

[AdamHarris]

Hi Folks,

I would like to refocus this a bit. The transmission is the the end result, but neutral tow is in the transfer case, not the transmission. I find folks that trashed their transmission has the transmission in Park.... not neutral. Thus they did not follow the exact procedure as they claim. Transmission is to be in neutral too.

Best,
Phil

So 2 Wheel Drive Rangers have a completely separate internal neutral tow procedure than 4-wheel-drive rangers? That seems weird.

 

[D Fresh]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/politics/ford-supreme-court-liability.html

"unanimously ruling that courts have jurisdiction over lawsuits filed in the consumers’ home states notwithstanding that the products were made and sold elsewhere so long as the manufacturers did substantial business in the states."

"Ford argued that the courts lacked jurisdiction because the company did not have a relevant connection to those states."

"Justice Elena Kagan, writing for five justices, said Ford’s activities in the states provided ample reasons to let the company be sued in them."

“By every means imaginable — among them, billboards, TV and radio spots, print ads and direct mail — Ford urges Montanans and Minnesotans to buy its vehicles, including (at all relevant times) Explorers and Crown Victorias,” she wrote. “Ford cars — again including those two models — are available for sale, whether new or used, throughout the states, at 36 dealerships in Montana and 84 in Minnesota.

“And apart from sales, Ford works hard to foster ongoing connections to its cars’ owners. The company’s dealers in Montana and Minnesota (as elsewhere) regularly maintain and repair Ford cars, including those whose warranties have long since expired,” she wrote. “And the company distributes replacement parts both to its own dealers and to independent auto shops in the two states. Those activities, too, make Ford money. And by making it easier to own a Ford, they encourage Montanans and Minnesotans to become lifelong Ford drivers.”

"It did not matter, she wrote, that Ford made and sold the particular vehicles in other states."

And here is a case where a person took Honda to small claims court:

https://jalopnik.com/how-you-can-sue-an-automaker-in-small-claims-court-and-5881497

She lost but here is an interesting bit from that:

https://jalopnik.com/heather-peters-loses-small-claims-court-appeal-owes-ho-5908946

"In the ruling, Superior Court Judge Dudley W. Gray II ruled that even though the plaintiff, former lawyer Heather Peters, had standing to bring the case in state court"

So let's summarize:

1: The Supreme Court ruled that a company can be sued in the consumers home state as long as the corporation did substantial business in said state.

2: The Supreme Court ruled that Ford does substantial business in Montana, Minnesota and elsewhere. Which is what I argued from the start.

I appreciate the effort here. I really do, as I love a good debate. But let's set a couple of things straight.

First of all, you can't quote part of an article and use a link hidden behind a pay wall. I'm not paying for some useless NY Times subscription just to teach you a thing or two.

For anybody curious as to what he's talking about here is a link to the situation that anybody can read.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/c...d-lawsuits-supreme-court-decision/6997013002/

That case had nothing to do with small claims court. And it had nothing to do with wether a person could sue in small claims court. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Ford could be sued in those states, despite Ford's claim they couldn't be due to the fact the the vehicles weren't originally sold there. These were wrongful death suits regarding the Explorer fiasco. These were cases handled by huge law firms.

These were not small claims cases. In small claims cases you don't have a legal team. You have yourself. If you want to bring a case you go to the courthouse and file a case. You must have an address and a name to serve the documents to. And you must pay a process server or the county to do it.

So when Joe Blow walks into the courthouse in Butler County Kansas and tells Martha he wants to sue Ford, where does he have the papers served?


The lady who sued Honda in small claims court was a "former lawyer" according to your link. I'd bet she has a few tricks up her sleeve that the lay person does not.

So yes, your research proves your assertion that it CAN be done.

But that does not disprove my point that it cannot PRACTICALLY be done.

In all your hours of research you've managed to come up with one person who took a manufacturer to small claims court. A former lawyer who lost her case on appeal after wasting who knows how many hours on it.


Thank you. You've proved my point for me.

 

[NotBudule]

one would have to understand the code, how the internals work, what it's linked to, and why.
I'm not sure if that kind of in depth info is available to us at the moment. would require some digging with purpose.

For sure , but it looks like any damage that occurs while towing is gona be denied , at least at first , then it's gonna be back and forth and most likely , most will have to eat it or fight it...

 

[P. A. Schilke]

So 2 Wheel Drive Rangers have a completely separate internal neutral tow procedure than 4-wheel-drive rangers? That seems weird.

Hi Adam,

2WD can't be flat towed.

Best,
Phil

 

[Augie81]

I appreciate the effort here. I really do, as I love a good debate. But let's set a couple of things straight.

First of all, you can't quote part of an article and use a link hidden behind a pay wall. I'm not paying for some useless NY Times subscription just to teach you a thing or two.

For anybody curious as to what he's talking about here is a link to the situation that anybody can read.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/c...d-lawsuits-supreme-court-decision/6997013002/

That case had nothing to do with small claims court. And it had nothing to do with wether a person could sue in small claims court. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that Ford could be sued in those states, despite Ford's claim they couldn't be due to the fact the the vehicles weren't originally sold there. These were wrongful death suits regarding the Explorer fiasco. These were cases handled by huge law firms.

These were not small claims cases. In small claims cases you don't have a legal team. You have yourself. If you want to bring a case you go to the courthouse and file a case. You must have an address and a name to serve the documents to. And you must pay a process server or the county to do it.

So when Joe Blow walks into the courthouse in Butler County Kansas and tells Martha he wants to sue Ford, where does he have the papers served?


The lady who sued Honda in small claims court was a "former lawyer" according to your link. I'd bet she has a few tricks up her sleeve that the lay person does not.

So yes, your research proves your assertion that it CAN be done.

But that does not disprove my point that it cannot PRACTICALLY be done.

In all your hours of research you've managed to come up with one person who took a manufacturer to small claims court. A former lawyer who lost her case on appeal after wasting who knows how many hours on it.


Thank you. You've proved my point for me.

Sigh.. I produced proof that a corporation can be sued in the state of the consumer, which you said wasn't viable, with a ruling by the highest court in the US that supports my claim. A lawsuit is a lawsuit small claims or not.

Your own quote:

"Also, have you ever taken an out of state entity to small claims court? I have. It likely needs to happen in Michigan. The cost of the trip could be prohibitive."

That's the comment that started this argument. I've shown that the court believes Ford does conduct substantial business in every state which you argued against.

Your quote:

"They do business with their independently owned dealerships, yes.

But do they do business with the public?

Nope.

Two completely different things. And 3 different companies."

And I've also shown that a corporation can be sued in small claims court. It doesn't matter if the plaintiff is a lawyer or not.

Anyway I'm not going to derail this thread anymore. I've provided links and information that supports my argument. You on the other hand have not shown anything to support yours aside from opinions.

Have a good one.

 

[Jason B]

Hi Adam,

2WD can't be flat towed.

Best,
Phil

That's an important point that I did not know. I assume if I have a breakdown, it needs to be towed on a flatbed truck, a trailer, or with a wrecker with the rear wheels up. I can't get my brother and a tow rope to haul it home.

 

[msrhame]

so i read the bulletin and watched the video from ford. seems the key stays on during flat tow. makes me feel like if procedure was followed correctly maybe low / no battery power or sensor issue is a possible cause?

In my case I do not utilize the Ranger's battery during towing (I utilize an outside power source for my breaking system). The technician acknowledged in writing the battery, tires and brakes were OK!

 

[Trigganometry]

In my case I do not utilize the Ranger's battery during towing (I utilize an outside power source for my breaking system). The technician acknowledged in writing the battery, tires and brakes were OK!

From what I have read in other threads and this one it seems our Battery intelligent monitoring system is a good reason why we see these types of failures from flat towing. Really doesn’t matter if you follow the procedures to the letter. If the system doesn’t like the loads presented it shuts down to protect the battery. The end result is a grenaded transmission for the owners. If this is true then Ford better rewrite some code so it doesn’t happen!

 

[NotBudule]

I'd be curious as to what actual part is and just how it kepts it in tow , some type of solenoid?

 

[deleriumtremor]

My guess is Ford understands how to determine if the failure was due to user error of not properly placing it in tow neutral mode. Likely related to what codes are present and what codes are not present.

My additional guess is Ford knows how reliable these fault indicators are as it pertains to batteries running down, etc., when in tow neutral mode.

My primary disappointment when reading the owners manual is the lack of all sorts of bold warnings in barber pole border style boxes that read something like "failing to properly use the tow neutral will result in total transmission destruction that is not covered under warranty!"

Not that most of the people that destroy their transmission towing behind their RV likely will read the manual before hooking things up, putting the transmission in neutral and heading out.

PS - I won't lie though, as much confidence as I have in the programmers at Ford, and as much confidence I have that once in neutral the transfer case isn't going to going out of neutral on its own, regardless of battery level. I suspect I will be sorely tempted to crawl under the truck and disconnect the drive shaft from the rear diff, the old fashioned way, before hooking the truck up to be towed with all four on the ground, just in case.

 

[JACKSMYDOG]

There are very few vehicles that I would buy with the intent to flat tow. The cost to modify both vehicles, and associated risks don't provide enough advantage over buying a wheel lift trailer, and tow on the non-drive wheels. The trailer can be sold afterward. A full size vehicle float is more expensive, more hassle and space to store, more work loading/towing, and less comfortable in tow.

 

[D Fresh]

Sigh.. I produced proof that a corporation can be sued in the state of the consumer, which you said wasn't viable, with a ruling by the highest court in the US that supports my claim. A lawsuit is a lawsuit small claims or not.

Your own quote:

"Also, have you ever taken an out of state entity to small claims court? I have. It likely needs to happen in Michigan. The cost of the trip could be prohibitive."

That's the comment that started this argument. I've shown that the court believes Ford does conduct substantial business in every state which you argued against.

Your quote:

"They do business with their independently owned dealerships, yes.

But do they do business with the public?

Nope.

Two completely different things. And 3 different companies."

And I've also shown that a corporation can be sued in small claims court. It doesn't matter if the plaintiff is a lawyer or not.

Anyway I'm not going to derail this thread anymore. I've provided links and information that supports my argument. You on the other hand have not shown anything to support yours aside from opinions.

Have a good one.

Is English your second language?


"LIKELY"

And I acknowledged that your assertion that it company can be sued in small claims was correct.

Your incorrect assertion was the first. That small claims was a viable recourse for the OP.

Somebody never participated in debate and most definitely doesn't understand the assignment.

Typical of somebody who has no leg to stand on to take their ball and go home.

Enjoy your weekend!

 

[P. A. Schilke]

From what I have read in other threads and this one it seems our Battery intelligent monitoring system is a good reason why we see these types of failures from flat towing. Really doesn’t matter if you follow the procedures to the letter. If the system doesn’t like the loads presented it shuts down to protect the battery. The end result is a grenaded transmission for the owners. If this is true then Ford better rewrite some code so it doesn’t happen!

Hi Rick,

I believe the transfercase stays stuck in neutral tow position but further investigation is required.

Best,
Phil

 

[msrhame]

My guess is Ford understands how to determine if the failure was due to user error of not properly placing it in tow neutral mode. Likely related to what codes are present and what codes are not present.

My additional guess is Ford knows how reliable these fault indicators are as it pertains to batteries running down, etc., when in tow neutral mode.

My primary disappointment when reading the owners manual is the lack of all sorts of bold warnings in barber pole border style boxes that read something like "failing to properly use the tow neutral will result in total transmission destruction that is not covered under warranty!"

Not that most of the people that destroy their transmission towing behind their RV likely will read the manual before hooking things up, putting the transmission in neutral and heading out.

PS - I won't lie though, as much confidence as I have in the programmers at Ford, and as much confidence I have that once in neutral the transfer case isn't going to going out of neutral on its own, regardless of battery level. I suspect I will be sorely tempted to crawl under the truck and disconnect the drive shaft from the rear diff, the old fashioned way, before hooking the truck up to be towed with all four on the ground, just in case.

Bill, the local dealer stated to me the warranty refusal was based upon what they observed when they looked at the transmission, not error codes. And the refusal was based upon the Ford service directive (which includes pictures of the damaged trans). This is what is so irritating to me is Ford doesn't care about the cause or that I performed to the directions of the manual. Their position is if the end result is "this" deny the claim because it obviously isn't the products fault!

Sponsored