Ford Recalling Super Duty Pickups, Issues 'Do Not Drive' Warning for Brakes That Can Suddenly Fail

[JRTJH]

Modern cars and trucks have 246813579 more things to go wrong than one from the 1950's.



Bruce

I think I know what message you're trying to get across, but:

Yep, they are SIGNIFICANTLY more complex than my Dad's 1950 Chevy Turtleback coupe. Back then, he drove 2 door cars because there was a history of car doors flying open and he didn't want us 3 boys to get thrown out of the car if we got "Stoopid" and tried to open the door. His solution, just don't have doors for the back seat... As for reliability of the more complex cars: Back when I was a kid, in the 50's and early 60's, I can't remember any family vacation with the old "4-60 air conditioner system" that we didn't spend at least half the night (Dad drove at night because of the daytime heat) because of a "generator light" or a temperature/fan belt/water pump problem or because of those bias ply tires that seemed to blow at the most inopportune time....

Today's vehicles might have 246813579 more things to go wrong, but I can honestly say that in the past 10 or 20 years of towing a fifth wheel around this country, I can't remember one time that the truck was "busted on the side of the road"... Now if I could only say that same thing about the trailer tires, suspension and brakes....

 

[JRTJH]

Once Fords divoriced themselves from Navistar, things went downhill.

Didn't Navistar build the 6.0 AND the 6.4 liter diesels for Ford ??? The divorce came after both those engine iterations flopped on their behinds... So, the "downhill started with Navistar" not after the divorce. To me, the new (after 14 years it's no longer new) 6.7l diesel is a vast improvement over the Navistar 6.0 and 6.4 liter "ticking time bombs"...

 

[Hoho223]

I think I know what message you're trying to get across, but:

Yep, they are SIGNIFICANTLY more complex than my Dad's 1950 Chevy Turtleback coupe. Back then, he drove 2 door cars because there was a history of car doors flying open and he didn't want us 3 boys to get thrown out of the car if we got "Stoopid" and tried to open the door. His solution, just don't have doors for the back seat... As for reliability of the more complex cars: Back when I was a kid, in the 50's and early 60's, I can't remember any family vacation with the old "4-60 air conditioner system" that we didn't spend at least half the night (Dad drove at night because of the daytime heat) because of a "generator light" or a temperature/fan belt/water pump problem or because of those bias ply tires that seemed to blow at the most inopportune time....

Today's vehicles might have 246813579 more things to go wrong, but I can honestly say that in the past 10 or 20 years of towing a fifth wheel around this country, I can't remember one time that the truck was "busted on the side of the road"... Now if I could only say that same thing about the trailer tires, suspension and brakes....

One can judge for themselves by counting the cars that are disabled roadside and then if you are old enough think back to the 50s and compare. The problem with the gazillion more parts is that it is very expensive to fix some of these things. If you have electronic gremlins just pass your first born to the repair shop. As an example we had an accident that caused initially 12,000$ damage…(2001 Lexus es300h). Upon further review there was damage to an unrepairable module for the air bags. Can’t buy the module separately. You have to buy the harness with the module…cost for harness alone: $8400.

 

[5030]

Didn't Navistar build the 6.0 AND the 6.4 liter diesels for Ford ??? The divorce came after both those engine iterations flopped on their behinds... So, the "downhill started with Navistar" not after the divorce. To me, the new (after 14 years it's no longer new) 6.7l diesel is a vast improvement over the Navistar 6.0 and 6.4 liter "ticking time bombs"...

You could be correct but if they did, those engines were built to Fords specification whereas the 6.9 naturally aspirated and the 7.3 Turbo engines were 100% Navistar design. I have the 7.3 with forged (not sintered connecting rods). The forged rod engines are very capable of 2 times the advertised power without coming apart. With my 7.3 fully Banks kitted, I'm making 325 rear wheel horsepower with the E4 locked into direct which is plenty sufficient for my needs. It does smoke a bit under load but I don't mind at all and it has 4-5" straight through exhaust and nothing in my view beats a turbocharged engine with straight exhaust. I tested it on the dyno at the shop I retired from, they had an in floor dyno.

 

[Engineer42]

I passed a Superduty pulling a really nice 5th wheel camper on the interstate this morning. I confess I gave him way more room than normally needed before pulling back into the travel lane.

Unless I missed something, it seems like Ram is the only full sized truck which hasn't been reft with problems in the last 6 years or so.

Shhhhhhhh, they'll hear you. Then I'll be walking, lol.

 

[JRTJH]

One can judge for themselves by counting the cars that are disabled roadside and then if you are old enough think back to the 50s and compare. The problem with the gazillion more parts is that it is very expensive to fix some of these things. If you have electronic gremlins just pass your first born to the repair shop. As an example we had an accident that caused initially 12,000$ damage…(2001 Lexus es300h). Upon further review there was damage to an unrepairable module for the air bags. Can’t buy the module separately. You have to buy the harness with the module…cost for harness alone: $8400.

Any time you "let the smoke out" you're going to have expensive repairs for anything electronic. When was the last time you saw a radio and TV repair shop ???

During the recent northern Michigan ice storm, a tree fell on my BIL's truck. It made a 2" wide "ding" about 3/4" deep in the roof just over the rear door. Insurance estimate is $8500. The reason: They no longer use bondo to repair. Replacement of the entire roof panel and then matching paint on his "tri-color paint"... The insurance company won't pay him, or he'd "bondo the hell out of it" and pocket the rest. That's the major reason for increased repair costs at body shops...

I agree with you on the number of cars seen on the side of the road. I'm 78, so I do remember the late 1950's to date. I just did a "google search" and there were 150 million people and 40 million cars registered in America in 1950. In 2024, there were 340 million people and 297 million cars.

It stands to reason that there's a "bucket load more broke down cars on the side of the road today compared to "back when we were boys" mainly because there's a bucket load more people driving a bucket load more cars...

That said, a 1950 Chevy came standard without a radio or a heater/defroster or turn signals. It cost about $1500. That "jumped to $1600" of you got a heater and turn signals...

Today's typical half ton truck runs between $50K- 60K, so it stands to reason that since it costs roughly 35 to 40 times more than that '50 turtleback, repairs for it are going to be significantly more expensive as well. But, I still can't find any data to support whether or not the new ones break down more often than the old ones or if it's just my "memory" that makes me believe that we had more problems with the old ones than we do with the new ones... I can say that my wife's 2019 Edge has never been to the dealer for any warranty repairs and my 2015 F250 has only been in for "recalls on the DEF system" and for brakes/calipers front and rear. So, I can't say that all the problems in this thread with other manufacturers are the same in my experience with Ford, nor can I say that post covid vehicles are "worse than"... My pre-covid seem to be reliable with virtually no problems other than wear and tear. I do hope that I didn't just jinx myself !!!!!

 

[JRTJH]

You could be correct but if they did, those engines were built to Fords specification whereas the 6.9 naturally aspirated and the 7.3 Turbo engines were 100% Navistar design. I have the 7.3 with forged (not sintered connecting rods). The forged rod engines are very capable of 2 times the advertised power without coming apart. With my 7.3 fully Banks kitted, I'm making 325 rear wheel horsepower with the E4 locked into direct which is plenty sufficient for my needs. It does smoke a bit under load but I don't mind at all and it has 4-5" straight through exhaust and nothing in my view beats a turbocharged engine with straight exhaust. I tested it on the dyno at the shop I retired from, they had an in floor dyno.

I had a 7.3L 1993 F250 and a 7.3L 1999 F350. I say "HAD" and I kick myself every time I think about either one of them. I'd give most anything to have had the foresight back then to keep them rather than "trade for new". Fortunately, my "flawed logic" in 2004 when I started looking for a new truck and found that Ford replaced the 7.3 with a smaller 6.0 the year before and I backed out of buying a new one until the 6.7 had been on the road for several years. I still wish I had either or both of those 7.3L trucks.

 

[Hay Dude]

I had a 7.3L 1993 F250 and a 7.3L 1999 F350. I say "HAD" and I kick myself every time I think about either one of them. I'd give most anything to have had the foresight back then to keep them rather than "trade for new". Fortunately, my "flawed logic" in 2004 when I started looking for a new truck and found that Ford replaced the 7.3 with a smaller 6.0 the year before and I backed out of buying a new one until the 6.7 had been on the road for several years. I still wish I had either or both of those 7.3L trucks.

Meh. The 7.3’s were lame for HP per litre. 7.3 litres and only 235 HP. That’s really lame. The Ford transmissions were weak, too. Any addition of power to a 7.3L would shred the transmissions within a few months. You’d have to spend thousands to “bulletproof” the transmission.

You are way better off with a 6.7L Ford diesel and newer transmission.
The old Ford E4OD and 4R100 transmissions made transmission shop owners into millionaires in the 90’s and early 2000’s.

 

[tradosaurus]

Meh. The 7.3’s were lame for HP per litre. 7.3 litres and only 235 HP. That’s really lame. The Ford transmissions were weak, too. Any addition of power to a 7.3L would shred the transmissions within a few months. You’d have to spend thousands to “bulletproof” the transmission.

You are way better off with a 6.7L Ford diesel and newer transmission.
The old Ford E4OD and 4R100 transmissions made transmission shop owners into millionaires in the 90’s and early 2000’s.

Just sold my 2014 6.7 L turbo diesel. Had the emissions deleted and tuned.

Lots of power and reliable. Just didn’t need a truck.

 

[Hay Dude]

Just sold my 2014 6.7 L turbo diesel. Had the emissions deleted and tuned.

Lots of power and reliable. Just didn’t need a truck.

Why “deleted”? Is Fords system unreliable?
Why “tuned”? Is Ford not powerful enough?

Good grief, I’m running a bone stock, standard output Cummins with the factory DEF/DPF system and crossing the scale at 45,000+ 100 times a year with no issues.