Ford named in class action over vehicles with 5.4 L engine that suffer from acceleration hesitation, loss of revolutions per minute, stalling, loss of power sudden and intermittent deceleration and other similar and potentially life-threatening malfunctions

Ford-Logo

 

This is a class action brought on behalf of  current owners of all 2004 through 2008 Ford passenger car and light truck vehicles sold in the United States and equipped with a 5.4 L engine and which include the original Powertrain Control Module (PCM), the Transmission Control Module (TCM), the Electronic Throttle Control (ETC) and/or the Throttle Body Assembly. The class of vehicles is limited to those delivered within 8 years and having less than 80, 000 miles.

Between 2004 and 2008, the Defendant manufactured, assembled and marketed a host of products containing latent defects.  Since calendar year 2005 and up until 2012, the Defendant has been aware of consumer complaints regarding Vehicles (equipped with the 5.4L engine). These complaints have been made directly to Defendant and/or submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), Office of Defect.

The Class of Vehicles suffered from defects in design and/or manufacture, which has 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”).

The 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.

In August 2008, as proof of knowledge of the Engine Problems, Defendant issued a Technical Service Bulletin (“TSB”) to notify its dealership network (and others in the service and repair industry) of the procedures necessary to rectify the defects.

Although Defendant recognized in 2008 that many of its vehicles contained Engine Problems, it actively concealed from the public, and the owners of this Class of Vehicles, the need to perform certain services and/or repairs to remedy these defective and potentially life threatening conditions.

Defendant chose not to inform its dealership network, or others who received the TSB, that the aforementioned Engine Problems were under Express Warranty, which the defendant was under a contractual duty to service and/or repair. Concealment of these Engine Problems was orchestrated to minimize and/or avoid the defendant’s contractual responsibility to the Plaintiff class of owners.

The Engine Problems in this case did not arise in the named Plaintiffs’ vehicles until 2012, at which time the breach of warranty was discovered and realized.