Ford named in class action lawsuit over defective CP4 high pressure fuel injection pump

 

 

Ford Motor Company has sold—and continues to sell—millions of diesel trucks equipped with high-pressure fuel injection pumps that are proverbial ticking time bombs, wholly unbeknownst to an unassuming American public who pays for these vehicles’ fictitious “durability,” “longevity,” and “top notch fuel economy.” As alleged, Ford promised consumers the continued reliability of their diesel engines with increased fuel efficiency and power at greater fuel efficiency. However, this came with a hidden and catastrophic cost that was secretly passed on to consumers.

 

The culprit is the Bosch-supplied CP4 high pressure fuel injection pump, which unbeknownst to consumers is a ticking time bomb when used in American vehicles. As Ford knew before and during the Class Period (2011-2018), Bosch’s CP4 pump was never compatible with American fuel standards. The CP4 pump is not built to withstand the specifications for U.S. diesel fuel in terms of lubrication or water content, and it struggles to lift a volume of fuel sufficient to lubricate itself. As a result, the pump is forced to run dry and destroy itself as air bubbles allow metal to rub against metal. The pump secretly deposits metal shavings and debris throughout the fuel injection system and the engine until it suddenly fails without warning, further contaminating the fuel delivery system with larger pieces of metal.

 

This pump failure often can occur as early as “mile 0,” as the fuel injection disintegration process begins at the very first fill of the tank. This total fuel injection system failure and consequential engine failure results in an outrageously expensive repair bill, all for a repair that will not truly ameliorate the issue so long as the vehicle is being filled with U.S. diesel. And, although complete and total pump failure takes time to occur, the defective CP4 pump starts damaging the vehicle’s fuel injection system and engine immediately upon the vehicle’s first use. Further, the sudden and unexpected shutoff of the vehicle’s engine while it is in motion and then subsequent inability to restart the vehicle present an inherent risk to consumer safety—one which Ford itself has recognized in the past. Thus, Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered from a defect that existed in the Class Vehicles, upon the first use of the Class Vehicles. Plaintiffs and other Class members are seeking recovery for this manifested and immediately damaging defect, in addition to any and all consequential damages stemming therefrom.

 

According to the complaint, Ford blames the failures on “fuel contamination,” which is not covered under their warranties because it is “not caused by Ford.” Consumers are left with repair bills that range from $8,000.00 to $20,000.00 per vehicle.

 

Ford sought to use the CP4 system in American vehicles, promising consumers exactly what they were looking for—improvements in torque, horsepower, durability, and fuel economy. But Ford could never deliver on that promise for American vehicles because the CP4 fuel pump is not compatible with American diesel fuel; in fact, Ford knew this before and during the Class Period, and equipped its modern Power Stroke diesel vehicles with the European-designed CP4 fuel pump anyway.

 

Ford knew, from the specifications of the pump as compared to the specifications of American diesel, the Bosch-made CP4 Pump was clearly incompatible with the ordinary use of American diesel fuel. That is, well before Ford ever chose to implement the CP4 component part (as incorporated in the diesel engines of the subject Class Vehicles), the issue of incompatibility was (or should have been) known and yet was totally ignored in the design of the Class Vehicles’ engine systems. This is further evidenced by the fact that Ford had experience with widespread catastrophic fuel injection pump failures when cleaner diesel standards were first implemented in the 1990s. By 2002, the Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (“EMA”)—of which Ford is a member company1—acknowledged that the lower lubricity of American diesel could cause catastrophic failure in fuel injection system components that are made to European diesel specifications.

 

Not only did Ford fail to inform American consumers and fail to stop touting the fabricated benefits of the vehicles containing CP4 pumps, they actively attempted to shift the blame to American consumers. For instance, in 2010, Ford claimed it was consumers’ improper use of contaminated or substandard fuels that damaged the vehicles’ fuel system, even when Ford knew that the malfunction was actually the result of the CP4 fuel injection pump design, which was simply not fit for American diesel fuel.

COMPLAINT

Ford named in class action lawsuit over Ford trucks equipped with a lift kit and larger-than-stock tires installed at the time of purchase or lease

This class action lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of those who purchased or leased one or more new Ford trucks equipped with a lift kit and larger-than-stock tires that had been installed/fitted at the time of purchase or lease (the “Lifted Trucks”). As alleged, the frames of the Lifted Trucks sit higher off the ground than “stock” vehicles of the same make and model (“Stock Trucks”). However, the jacks that come equipped with the Lifted Trucks are the same as those that come equipped with the Stock Trucks—i.e., designed to temporarily raise the comparatively lower frames of the Stock Trucks off the ground to allow drivers to change tires and perform routine maintenance. These jacks cannot safely be used on, and are not compatible with, the relatively higher frames of the Lifted Trucks.

The tires (e.g., metal rims and rubber tires) installed on the Lifted Trucks are larger in diameter than those installed on the Stock Trucks. However, the spare tires that come equipped with the Lifted Trucks are the same as those that come equipped with the Stock Trucks—i.e., relatively smaller in diameter than those on the Lifted Trucks—and thus do not match the size of, and cannot be used with, the relatively larger tires installed on the Lifted Trucks.

Upon information and belief, each Lifted Truck was sold with a manufacturer’s window sticker (“Monroney Sticker”) that represented that such vehicle came equipped with a jack and spare tire. The Monroney Sticker does not disclose that the jack and spare tire are only compatible with the Stock Trucks, but not with the Lifted Trucks.

Upon information and belief, each Lifted Truck comes equipped with a jack and spare tire. The jack is stored in a compartment inside the vehicle, and the spare tire is housed under the vehicle, below the frame. As described above, the jack and spare tire are only compatible with the Stock Trucks, but not with the Lifted Trucks. Thus, Lifted Trucks include a jack and spare tire that consumers reasonably assume will work with their vehicle – but the components do not.

The lawsuit claims that each person who has purchased or leased a Lifted Truck during the time period relevant to this action was injured by overpaying for a vehicle that did not come equipped with a functioning jack and spare tire, as Ford represented, and as each purchaser would have reasonably expected.

Complaint

Ford Motor Company recalls 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles over faulty fuel delivery module

Ford-Logo small

Ford Motor Company is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Ford Escape vehicles manufactured February 26, 2009, to April 29, 2012, and 2010-2011 Mercury Mariner vehicles manufactured February 25, 2009, to December 12, 2010. On vehicles with a 3.0L engine, the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM) may crack, causing a fuel leak.

A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.

329,265 vehicles are affected by the recall.

Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the FDM flange with one that has a redesigned fuel supply port, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin December 12, 2016.

Lawyers have opened an investigation into Ford Edge and Flex vehicles over defects with the vehicle’s Power Transfer Units

Ford-Logo

 

Hundreds of consumers have complained of Power Transfer Unit (PTU) fluid leaks that often result in the premature failure of the PTU and necessitate a costly replacement.

On All-wheel drive (AWD) vehicles, the PTU is responsible for transferring power from the output shaft of the transmission to the front wheels and also to the rear drive shaft. The PTU units contain a modest amount of fluid which is subject to overheating and degrading the valve seals.

If you have a Ford Flex or Edge and experienced a problem with the PTU on that vehicle we would like to hear from you. You may contact us privately using the contact attorney privately box below and/or share your story publicly using the submit button.

NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opens investigation of 2011-2012 Ford F-150 full-size pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engine over loss of brake power assist

Ford-Logo

 

 

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has identified 32 complaints alleging electric vacuum assist pump failures resulting in loss of brake power assist and increased brake pedal effort in model year (MY) 2011-2012 Ford F-150 full-size pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engine. None of the complaints reported any warning indicators to alert the driver of brake power assist loss or the potential of increased stopping distance. Two reports alleged crashes due to increased brake pedal effort required to stop or slow the vehicle. The complaints show an apparent increasing trend, with approximately 60 percent of complaints received within the past nine months. A Preliminary Evaluation has been opened to assess the cause, scope and frequency of the alleged defect.

 

Ford recalls 2011-2012 Ford Fusion, Taurus, Flex, Lincoln MKZ and Mercury Milan vehicles over potential failure of electric power steering assist systems

Ford-Logo

 

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2011-2012 Ford Fusion vehicles without a 3.5L engine and Lincoln MKZ hybrid electric vehicles, 2011 Mercury Milan vehicles, 2011-2012 Ford Taurus, Ford Flex, Lincoln MKS, and Lincoln MKT vehicles equipped with a 3.5L GTDI engine and 2013 Ford Taurus, Ford Flex, Lincoln MKS, and Lincoln MKT vehicles equipped with any available engine. The affected vehicles have electric power steering assist systems that may shut down as a result of a steering motor sensor fault.

If the vehicle experiences a loss of power steering assist, extra steering effort will be required at lower speeds, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.

Approximately 393,623 vehicles are affected by the recall.

Ford will notify owners, and dealers will check the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) for Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTC). If dealers find any loss of steering assist DTCs, the steering gear will be replaced, free of charge. If, no codes are found during the PSCM inspection, the PSCM software will be updated, free of charge.

Ford recalls 2015 Mustang equipped with 2.3L engines over potential fuel leaks

Ford-Logo

 

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2015 Ford Mustang vehicles manufactured February 14, 2014, to February 10, 2015, and equipped with 2.3L engines. Prolonged exposure to elevated underbody temperatures can cause degradation of the fuel tank and/or fuel vapor lines, which may eventually result in a fuel leak. In addition, this condition could cause seals in the parking brake cable to degrade, potentially affecting parking brake function.

If the vehicle experiences a fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source it can, increase the risk of a vehicle fire. Reduced parking brake function could potentially result in unexpected vehicle movement, which may increase the risk of injury.

Approximately 19,095 vehicles are affected by the recall.

Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the fuel tank shield, add thermal patches to the fuel tank and parking brake cable, and add thermal wraps to the fuel vapor lines. The repairs will be performed free of charge. The recall is expected to begin July 6, 2015.

 

Toyota, Ford and General Motors named in class action over defect that allows vehicles on board computers to be hacked.

Toyota-Logo

According to the complaint, Defendants failed consumers in all of these areas when they sold or leased vehicles that are susceptible to computer hacking and are therefore unsafe. Because Defendants failed to ensure the basic electronic security of their vehicles, anyone can hack into them, take control of the basic functions of the vehicle, and thereby endanger the safety of the driver and others.

Defendants’ vehicles contain more than 35 separate electronic control units (ECUs), connected through a controller area network (“CAN” or “CAN bus”). Vehicle functionality and safety depend on the functions of these small computers, the most essential of which is how they communicate with one another.

The ECUs communicate by sending each other “CAN packets,” digital messages containing small amounts of data. But if an outside source, such as a hacker, were able to send CAN packets to ECUs on a vehicle’s CAN bus, the hacker could take control of such basic functions of the vehicle as braking, steering, and acceleration – and the driver of the vehicle would not be able to regain control.

As alleged, Defendants have known, their CAN bus-equipped vehicles for years have been (and currently are) susceptible to hacking, and their ECUs cannot detect and stop hacker attacks on the CAN buses. For this reason, Defendants’ vehicles are not secure, and are therefore not safe.

Yet, Defendants have charged a substantial premium for their CAN bus-equipped vehicles since their rollout. These defective vehicles are worth far less than are similar non-defective vehicles, and far less than the defect-free vehicles the Plaintiffs and the other Class members bargained for and thought they had received.

As a result of Defendants’ unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices, and their failure to disclose the highly material fact that their vehicles were susceptible to hacking and neither secure nor safe, owners and/or lessees of Defendants’ CAN bus-equipped vehicles have suffered losses in money and/or property. Had Plaintiffs and the other Class members known of the defects at the time they purchased or leased their vehicles, they would not have purchased or leased those vehicles, or would have paid substantially less for the vehicles than they did.

The class includes a variety of vehicles manufactured by Toyota, GM and Ford.  Toyota manufactures and sells vehicles under the Toyota, Lexus, and Scion names (the “Toyota Vehicles”); Ford manufactures and sells vehicles under the Ford, Lincoln, and (until 2011) Mercury names (the “Ford Vehicles”); GM manufactures and sells vehicles under the Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC names, and (until 2009) under the Hummer, Pontiac, and Saturn names (the “GM Vehicles”). The CAN buses in all Toyota Vehicles, Ford Vehicles, and GM Vehicles are essentially identical in that they are all susceptible to hacking and thus suffer from the same defect. For purposes of this Complaint, all CAN bus-equipped vehicles are referred to collectively as the “Class Vehicles” or “Defective Vehicles.”

Ford recalls Transit Connect vehicles for improper torqueing of upper seat belt bolts

Ford Motor Company is recalling certain model year 2014 Ford Transit Connect vehicles manufactured November 6, 2013, to September 20, 2014. In the affected vehicles, the upper seat belt bolts may have been improperly torqued, allowing them to loosen over time.

If the seat belt anchorage fasteners loosen over time, there is an increased risk of personal injury in the event of a crash.

16,091 vehicles are affected by the recall.

Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the original seatbelt fasteners with properly torqued fasteners, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin March 23, 2015.

 

Ford named in class action lawsuit over defects in vehicles equipped with the 5.4L engine

Between 2004 and 2008, the Ford manufactured, assembled and marketed a Class of Vehicles containing latent defects. Since 2005 and up until 2012, Defendant has been on notice of consumer complaints regarding a Class of Vehicles (equipped with the 5.4L engine) identified and described more fully below. These complaints have been made directly to Defendant and/or submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), Office of Defect Investigation.

These vehicles suffered from defects in design and/manufacture, which have led to the following performance and safety issues: acceleration hesitation, loss of revolutions per minute (“RPM”), stalling, loss of power (including loss of power at high rates of speed), sudden and intermittent deceleration and other similar and potentially life threatening malfunctions (hereinafter referred to as “Engine Problems”).

These Engine Problems are the result of defects in the following vehicle systems and components: the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), the Transmission Control Module (TCM), the Electronic Throttle Control (ETC) and/or the Throttle Body Assembly (TBA).

Despite having knowledge and notice of these dangerous and costly defects in the referenced engines/vehicles in question, and specifically identified in Ford’s Technical Service Bulletins, referenced below, Defendant failed to inform its dealership network of these problems and defects.

 

The class consists of the following: “All individuals within the United States and its territories, who currently own or lease a model year 2004 through 2008 Ford passenger car and/or light truck vehicle, sold in the United States and equipped with a 5.4 liter engine, and which includes the original Powertrain Control Module (PCM), Transmission Control Module (TCM), Electronic Throttle Control (ETC) and/or the Throttle Body Assembly (TBA). Class members alleging a breach of Express Warranty either own or lease a vehicle that is 8 years old or less, and has 80, 000 miles or less, as of the time of filing this action.”

Click here to read the Complaint