Interesting read about the 4x4 control module failure: "SCAM"

[George Malian]

I've been reading NUMEROUS complaints on this site and others about the failure of the 4x4 control modules (especially at times when needed the most) on the Sport Trac and Ranger trucks. I came across this article from carcomplaints.com by "Romano B", an electrical engineer. It sounds to me like he's got this problem figured out and maybe we can all do something about it. Here's his story:



At 18,000 miles one morning I started my Ranger, both the "HI 4X4" and the "LOW 4X4" lights would not go out and I could not shift and/or change the setting of the transfer case.



Naturally the dealer diagnosed the problem even before he actually looked at the vehicle as my 4X4 Control Module (CM), and for around $350 fixed it and sent me back on the road.



I am an Electrical Engineer by trade, I worked with Computers and PLC's for most of my life and could not accept the fact that such a PC board could fail for no reason at all, so I did some inquiring and this is what I found.



The original 4X4 CM unit in my Ranger was Part # 1L54-7H417-AC, this part is no longer available and has been substituted with Part # 1L5Z-7E453-AC without notice or reason to anybody. Ford describes this new part as improved and that's all. Motorola manufactured the PC board for the original unit under Part # 01MP207D01.



What is amazing is that the old part can no longer be found anywhere and Motorola does not recognize the board they manufactured for Ford. By the way I have the old 4X4 CM and I know how to read MOTOROLA. I contacted Ford Customer Service but it was like talking to my dog...all the say is "contact the Dealer, he will explain.." Explain what..!!!!!!!



Here is my assessment of what is happening. The original 4X4 CM installed on Rangers has been designed with a running Time Base, meaning that it will cause a "CHECK" failure after a preset programmed time of around 6 to 7 years of driving time that usually add up to 100,000 miles.



Why did the failure happened to me at 18,000 miles?.....well, because I did not drive my vehicle the normal way. Naturally, if you add up all the $350 charges that Ford has racked-up since the inception of this gadget....well you do the math.



Why are the old 4X4 CM being retired, well that is obvious, eventually people wise up and even the best of scams are discovered.

My hope is to find sufficient people out there that have bee affected by this SCAM and together we can make Ford pay. I have one old unit in my possession and all I need is for MOTOROLA to supply me the documentation of the Module they manufactured for Ford and perhaps tell us why there is a new improved Model.



Please, let the Ranger owners that have been scammed with 4X4 CM replacements stand-up and be counted, we might be little people, but together we can achieve justice and put an end to this devious way of doing business.

 

[Todd Z]

Sounds like a conspiracy theory in the making....



I am not saying that things are not engineered with Design failure ( planned obsolescence )



Todd Z

 

[Mark K 2]

I bought my replacement module for $120 from a Ford dealer in Las Vegas on eBay. Where's the $350 come from?

 

[Robert Caffyn]

Hmmmm, I think that no matter how much or little you pay for this, only one company would seem to be ahead on this. If under warranty, no problem. If not, your looking at labor as well(dealer benefit) and if covered by an extended warranty(highly unlikely) you still have to pay the deductable. Bottom line, you are gonna lose some cash on this one. If what has been said is true, this would make for a great civil case for the government to cash in on(we still lose). Lets see if it holds water! Bob

 

[Phill R]

While we're at it, Let's throw in all those back window motors that failed on the 2001's at around 55,000 miles.

Sometimes, electronics that have design flaws that are prone to failure get replaced by improved models that are less likely to fail again.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Sheesh. This does sound like a brooding conspiracy. Anyone have a coupon for aluminum foil? I need a hat...



The guy claims he's an electrical engineer, to get us to give him some credit, but doesn't reveal any evidence of his claim that he could only get as an engineer.



Shoot, all he does is say he read the writing on the board. Anyone can do that.



Why can't an "electrical engineer" at least do some digging?



Oh, and why would Ford put planned obsolescence into their products? Ford was smart enough to start planning to survive the fall that took out GM & Chrysler years ago. I'd believe they're smart enough to not shoot themselves in the foot, especially not this way, as American cars already have a stigma of low quality

 

[scott degroot]

You have got to F^*#%@ kidding me...can't believe that there are morons like this in the world

 

[ray moyer]

Ford was smart enough to start planning to survive the fall that took out GM & Chrysler years ago. I'd believe they're smart enough to not shoot themselves in the foot, especially not this way, as American cars already have a stigma of low quality

agreed

 

[Tom Schindler]

Ford changes part numbers all the time. This is no different.





Tom

 

[Bob McDonald]

In the business world there are two main reasons to change an existing part: 1) to improve a part to reduce a failure rate either because of warranty costs or safety mandates, or 2) they found a way to make it cheaper thereby improving profit.



Which do you think is the most often reason?

 

[Kevin Lang]

#2...cause I'd like to believe that all safety mandates are already met, and I'm getting a quality part :grin:



Though Ford would have to make a new part, as the technology used on a PCB in 1999-2000 would be ancient today, the original parts are probably long gone.

 

[Richard Kolb]

Though Ford would have to make a new part, as the technology used on a PCB in 1999-2000 would be ancient today, the original parts are probably long gone.

I doubt it, just today I found that I can order a new single board computer used in GM cars in 1992 and still being manufactured today.

 

[Richard Kolb]

I suppose if the story about the board having a timer to cause it to fail after so long would mean that it has memory and that would mean you could wipe it. If that's the case I would think that there would be a good business out there of reprogramming the 'broken' ones and selling them as refurbished. They'd also have to have some sort of power to them all the time or the timer won't work, so I guess if you took the battery out for a few years and it still died the scam would be proven wrong.



I went to get my ST inspected and they told me that my tread was too low, I noticed that they replaced the goodyears with bf goodrich. I asked why, they said the goodyears weren't available anymore. I suspect that my goodyears were planned on running low on tread after a certain amount of time, or mileage if you will, and that's why I needed new ones.

 

[Kevin Lang]

I doubt it, just today I found that I can order a new single board computer used in GM cars in 1992 and still being manufactured today.

Lucky, for my 1992 LeSabre I had to prowl the internet to find a reliable PCM to replace my defunct one.



Is all the hardware truly the same? If it is, I'd consider it a waste as anything made in 1992 is grossly inefficient compared to 2010 technology. Sure, it doesn't matter, but it's the principle of it. Why would anyone still make antiquated tech? I guess there's a reason, people still make wheel-lock guns today...

I suspect that my goodyears were planned on running low on tread after a certain amount of time, or mileage if you will, and that's why I needed new ones.

Shhhh, don't let 'em know that you're on to them :banana:

 

[Bill Koonce]

I'm an electrical engineer (which is a title, not a proper noun, and is not capitalized by a real EE). It's a profession (requires a college education), not a trade. I smell BS.



Like most engineers, I write my own computer software. But I know my limits and don't mess with embedded stuff like automotive controls because I know that I'm not trained for that. I also know that the automaker and its vendors will not share proprietary code, so I would be a fool to try to make a DIY project out of something like that.



When the ECM on my Mustang died, the vendor literally had to make a new, one-off replacement for it. It cost $400 + labor, which I gladly paid because I'm an electrical engineer, and make plenty of money so it's a reasonable expense for me.



I don't know too many electrical engineers who mess with circuit boards after they've been made. That's the job of a technician, and beneath the position of an engineer. This guy talks like a technician, and a pretty poor one at that, IMO.