Free Repairs for Explorer Exhaust Leak

[ANTAUS]

https://www.autoblog.com/2017/10/13/ford-explorer-free-repair-exhaust-leak/?hcid=ab-around-ab-tile-4

[blwnsmoke]

And the question now to ask, if Ford can't fix it, will they buy them back like they have done for some consumers?

 

What happens if they are 6 years old or have 100,000 miles and Ford can't fix it?

[jpd80]

They have already fixed more than 400 Explorer PIUs, so there's no reason why all the civillian versions can't be fixed too,

 

The second largest U.S. automaker said starting November 1, dealers will reprogram the air
conditioner, replace the liftgate drain valves and inspect sealing of the rear of the vehicle.
The fix covers about 1.3 million U.S. vehicles and about 100,000 in Canada and Mexico.

 

 

 

The lift gate drain valves are interesting, if those don't seal properly when the A/C is in recirc,
exhaust gas is gonna come straight on in. That and Lift gate seal, seals around tail lamps all
add up to potential places for exhaust to enter the cabin on recirc.

The reason we haven't seen anything on A/C fresh cycle is due to positive pressure in the cabin
keeping exhaust gasses out by blowing through any potential leak areas. It's also why cracked
manifolds are not the source of the gasses in the cabin (could only happen with A/C on fresh)

It's still an isolated problem otherwise all of those 1.4 million vehicle owners would be complaining..

[jpd80]

And the question now to ask, if Ford can't fix it, will they buy them back like they have done for some consumers?

 

What happens if they are 6 years old or have 100,000 miles and Ford can't fix it?

I think you will find that they are all repairable now and in the remote chance that they can't

Ford will probably buy the vehicle back to examine it further...They've already bought back a few...

 

I found this in relation to Ford third party testing of CO level sin cabins of complaint vehicles.

Ford has bought back and checked

 

https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2017/ford-explorer-carbon-monoxide-investigation-upgraded.shtml

September 15, 2017 — A Ford Explorer carbon monoxide investigation has been upgraded after

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) wasn't pleased with Ford response

to the investigation.

 

The original investigation was opened in 2016 and included 2011-2015 Explorers, then expanded

in July 2017 to include additional model years. NHTSA says it found additional customer reports

related to exhaust odors, along with three crashes and 41 injuries.

 

Customers complain about symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning including nausea, headaches

and dizziness, but a few people also report losing consciousness while driving.

 

Ford provided safety regulators with 2,400 owner complaints, legal claims and warranty claims

involving 2,051 SUVs, in addition to providing details about Ford's own investigation.

 

Ford told safety regulators third-party independent researchers investigated the Explorers to

measure carbon monoxide levels under different driving conditions. Ford also says technical

service bulletins (TSBs) issued to dealers show the repairs helped the SUVs.

 

Four Explorers were selected for testing and equipped with carbon monoxide detectors on

the driver's headrest and the rear third-row driver-side headrest. The SUVs were driven about

40 minutes and included several instances of the throttles wide open.

 

The first Explorer tested was a complaint vehicle that had been repurchased by Ford, an SUV

that had been repaired under a technical service bulletin. Ford says it concluded the SUV

didn't register measureable levels of carbon monoxide in the front or rear seats.

 

The second Explorer tested was a complaint vehicle that had partial TSB repairs performed

as there was no underbody sealant or liftgate drain valves installed. This SUV registered a

brief CO level of 7 ppm in the rear seating position that quickly dissipated resulting in an

average of less than 1 ppm.

 

The third Explorer tested was a non-complaint vehicle that never had any recommended repairs

performed and the SUV had previously been involved in a rear-end collision.

 

The Explorer also measured a brief maximum CO level of 7 ppm in the rear seating position that

quickly dissipated resulting in an average of less than 1 ppm over the duration of the test drive.

 

The fourth Explorer tested was a non-complaint vehicle that never had any recommended repairs

performed and the SUV had previously been involved in a rear-end collision.

 

This fourth vehicle measured a brief maximum CO level of 16 ppm in the rear seating area

that also allegedly quickly dissipated resulting in an average of 4.5 ppm.

 

Ford says all these CO levels are well below any standards, especially since investigators found

only “momentary" levels that quickly disappeared. In addition, when investigators allegedly drove

the SUVs without using wide-open throttles, the carbon monoxide levels were zero.

 

The automaker also says after a beginning spike of complaints, the number of reports steadily

declined, allegedly proof that repairs made under technical service bulletins did their job.

 

As for reports about occupants getting sick from the fumes, Ford says there is no evidence to

show exhaust odors or carbon monoxide caused the problems.

 

Ford concluded to NHTSA the alleged defect shows only a small number of customers are affected by

exhaust odors entering the cabins and independent testing shows that amounts of carbon monoxide are

below Ford's standards.

 

In addition to Ford's standards, the carbon monoxide levels are allegedly below all known air quality s

tandards and therefore not harmful to Explorer occupants.

 

The automaker also says it has taken steps to repair and improve the SUVs that have proven to be

very effective.

 

None of that was apparently impressive to NHTSA because the investigation is now upgraded to

an engineering analysis of more than 839,635 model year 2011-2017 Ford Explorers.

 

Edited October 13, 2017 by jpd80

[blwnsmoke]

Why is 4.5PPM, 3PP. Or even 1PPM acceptable? You should NOT have exhaust entering the vehicle from the exhaust tips through the HVAC system PERIOD.

 

In understand being in traffic and getting it from stinky vehicles in front of you but YOUR own vehicle should not be sucking in poisonous fumes.

 

Read this article...

 

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Ford-Offers-to-Buy-Back-Maryland-Couples-Explorer-After-Carbon-Monoxide-Leak-449307163.html

 

Well below the standard, won't state what the standard is, where it came from or a copy of it.

 

Why buy back something if it poses no danger? And the toxicologist that tested this vehicle joined the Explorer forum and posted the measured levels.

 

 

Here is his post about what had happened

 

"I am surprised Ford made this refund offer, but now that it has, I advise anyone concerned about CO exposure to test their vehicle ASAP and request a refund if CO goes over 5ppm

 

(This is the only CO limit for vehicle interiors. It was adopted by Russia in 2004, which is one of just 3 countries where Ford makes the Explorer).

 

PS. The news report is mistaken in saying that CO fell to zero in this case after Ford made repairs. It went from max of 30ppm to 3ppm and most significantly, this no longer occured during high speed acclereration with AC on recirculate, but only during rapid deceleration from high speed."

 

So a 2016 min LIU with 30PPM... ya, no civilian versions have CO issues, huh Ford?

[blwnsmoke]

Supposed to say "so a 2016 non PIU with 30PPM..

[jpd80]

 

 

Why is 4.5PPM, 3PP. Or even 1PPM acceptable? You should NOT have exhaust entering the vehicle from the exhaust tips through the HVAC system PERIOD.

 

In understand being in traffic and getting it from stinky vehicles in front of you but YOUR own vehicle should not be sucking in poisonous fumes.

 

Read this article...

 

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Ford-Offers-to-Buy-Back-Maryland-Couples-Explorer-After-Carbon-Monoxide-Leak-449307163.html

 

Well below the standard, won't state what the standard is, where it came from or a copy of it.

 

Why buy back something if it poses no danger?

Ford often buys back problem fixes to 1) keep good faith with owners and 2) to do more research on what is exactly going on

which parts are really defective and if there has been a bad batch or poor installation and more importantly, how to cure the problem.

 

And the toxicologist that tested this vehicle joined the Explorer forum and posted the measured levels.

 

Here is his post about what had happened

 

"I am surprised Ford made this refund offer, but now that it has, I advise anyone concerned about CO exposure to test their vehicle ASAP and request a refund if CO goes over 5ppm

 

(This is the only CO limit for vehicle interiors. It was adopted by Russia in 2004, which is one of just 3 countries where Ford makes the Explorer).

 

PS. The news report is mistaken in saying that CO fell to zero in this case after Ford made repairs. It went from max of 30ppm to 3ppm and most significantly, this no longer occurred during high speed acceleration with AC on recirculate, but only during rapid deceleration from high speed."

 

The report currently says, near Zero...maybe that was a correction made after the engineer posted his comments?

 

The issue under rapid deceleration reinforces the fact that the issue is one of rear end sealing,

not cracked exhaust manifolds as many outsiders were trying to previously claim.

 

So a 2016 min LIU with 30PPM... ya, no civilian versions have CO issues, huh Ford?

From the article I posted above...

 

Four Explorers were selected for testing and equipped with carbon monoxide detectors on

the driver's headrest and the rear third-row driver-side headrest. The SUVs were driven about

40 minutes and included several instances of the throttles wide open.

 

The first Explorer tested was a complaint vehicle that had been repurchased by Ford, an SUV

that had been repaired under a technical service bulletin. Ford says it concluded the SUV

didn't register measureable levels of carbon monoxide in the front or rear seats.

 

The second Explorer tested was a complaint vehicle that had partial TSB repairs performed

as there was no underbody sealant or liftgate drain valves installed. This SUV registered a

brief CO level of 7 ppm in the rear seating position that quickly dissipated resulting in an

average of less than 1 ppm.

 

The third Explorer tested was a non-complaint vehicle that never had any recommended repairs

performed and the SUV had previously been involved in a rear-end collision.

 

The Explorer also measured a brief maximum CO level of 7 ppm in the rear seating position that

quickly dissipated resulting in an average of less than 1 ppm over the duration of the test drive.

 

The fourth Explorer tested was a non-complaint vehicle that never had any recommended repairs

performed and the SUV had previously been involved in a rear-end collision.

 

This fourth vehicle measured a brief maximum CO level of 16 ppm in the rear seating area

that also allegedly quickly dissipated resulting in an average of 4.5 ppm.

 

Ford says all these CO levels are well below any standards, especially since investigators found

only “momentary" levels that quickly disappeared. In addition, when investigators allegedly drove

the SUVs without using wide-open throttles, the carbon monoxide levels were zero.

 

 

 

As for reports about occupants getting sick from the fumes, Ford says there is no evidence to

show exhaust odors or carbon monoxide caused the problems.

Edited October 14, 2017 by jpd80

[jpd80]

We have to keep in mind here that across 1.4 million Explorers and PIUs, there's only about 2,500 reported complaints.

While that's still not acceptable, it shows that small variations in quality of body sealing can have dramatic consequences.

 

So, 5 vehicles in every 2,800 Explorers sold may have sealing issues. Let's think about that for a while before we go

ballistic and accuse for of not caring. The problem exists, they've recognized it through early TSBs and continue to

work on the problem.

 

The other part of this is that while any CO in the cabin is unacceptable, it occurs only under rapid acceleration /declereation

and only while the A/C is on Recirc. Any CO that does entering the cabin has been found to rapidly dissipate.

All of that can be avoided by switching the A/C to fresh until the vehicle is checked.

 

and it will be interesting to see how many problem Explorers have been repaired after crashes or have aftermarket

items fitted to the rear panels......

Edited October 14, 2017 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

I can see them doing all of the PIU (they are much more likely to experience extended idle conditions) but the rest of the fleet, especially after this statement

 

Ford said its investigation has not found "carbon monoxide levels that exceed what people are exposed to every day" in the 1.4 million civilian vehicles ...

[snooter]

Great..thats that recall notice hangin on my box at work...

[blwnsmoke]

I can see them doing all of the PIU (they are much more likely to experience extended idle conditions) but the rest of the fleet, especially after this statement

 

Ford said its investigation has not found "carbon monoxide levels that exceed what people are exposed to every day" in the 1.4 million civilian vehicles ...

 

 

I'm pretty sure I can walk around with a CO detector and will not register 5-50PPM like some of the Explorer's are. On top of that, in a confined space.

 

 

 

--------

 

Although I don't have any exhaust smell, I am ordering a CO detector for mine to confirm there are no issues.

Edited October 18, 2017 by blwnsmoke

[jpd80]

The cabin of vehicles is not a confined space. If you have even the slightest concern, I'd run the A/C on fresh.

 

What has been blown out of proportion in the press is that while CO can be present in amounts between 5 ppm and 30 ppm

it's not present all of the time and dissipates when the engine is not under heavy acceleration or deceleration while on Recirc..

 

While no level of CO is acceptable, consideration should be given to the intermittant ingress of CO as opposed to continuous exposure,

that makes all the difference to those reading that are being bandied around in articles as if they are continuous and fixed..

Edited October 18, 2017 by jpd80

[twintornados]

I have a concern...why have the negatards singled out Explorer? It is not the only Ford product on that chassis - is this a smear campaign from competitors and their loyalists? In all the time I have ever driven a vehicle, I can count on one hand how many times I used the "recirculate" function...even when "max A/C" is selected - I shut it down almost immediately as I remember the "wind tunnel" feeling it creates when I turn it on...I never have driven the vehicle while "max A/C" is selected and mostly not even sit in the vehicle when "max A/C" is on....just use it to cool down the cabin, get in, adjust accordingly and drive on.

Edited October 18, 2017 by twintornados

[akirby]

I have a concern...why have the negatards singled out Explorer? It is not the only Ford product on that chassis - is this a smear campaign from competitors and their loyalists? In all the time I have ever driven a vehicle, I can count on one hand how many times I used the "recirculate" function...even when "max A/C" is selected - I shut it down almost immediately as I remember the "wind tunnel" feeling it creates when I turn it on...I never have driven the vehicle while "max A/C" is selected and mostly not even sit in the vehicle when "max A/C" is on....just use it to cool down the cabin, get in, adjust accordingly and drive on.

 

Because it affected the PIU and officers got really sick (even though that was due to improper aftermarket mods).

 

We use recirculate when there are bad smells outside like stinky diesel trucks or road paving or smoke.

 

We were getting an exhaust smell in our MKX at WOT even when in fresh air mode. Dealer supposedly fixed it - have not retested yet.

[rmc523]

 

Because it affected the PIU and officers got really sick (even though that was due to improper aftermarket mods).

 

We use recirculate when there are bad smells outside like stinky diesel trucks or road paving or smoke.

 

We were getting an exhaust smell in our MKX at WOT even when in fresh air mode. Dealer supposedly fixed it - have not retested yet.

 

I know that was an issue early on in Flexes too. I seem to recall it was related to the PTU perhaps?

[akirby]

 

I know that was an issue early on in Flexes too. I seem to recall it was related to the PTU perhaps?

 

Not on mine - FWD. I think the PTU issue was different and was caused by the PTU fluid leaking out which smells terrible from what I understand.

[7Mary3]

The California Highway Patrol awarded the last cruiser contract to Dodge for Chargers, isn't buying any more Explorers:

 

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/03/21/chp-is-switching-from-suv-style-patrol-cars-to-sleek-chargers/

 

The 'official' word was it was determined an SUV wasn't really needed after all, despite the (controversial) 2013 cruiser spec.. Not sure if the Explorer exhaust issue was a even a factor, as my understanding was the choice to go with an SUV in the first place was questioned by many in the C.H.P..

[jpd80]

The big one was easy changeover of police equipment from CVPI to the new Fords, the PIU getting the nod

because of better shoulder room and access / egress form the vehicles compared to the Taurus PI.

 

Now that we're nearing the next changeover, I'm betting FCA are back in with a big shot,

LEVs in the sun belt hardly need the complication of AWD, so a RWD sedan probably makes

good economic sense...

Edited October 30, 2017 by jpd80