Ford EcoBoost Class Action Lawsuit Not Needed: Blue Oval

This past January, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan – Barkus, et al., v. Ford Motor Company – by plaintiffs covering a wide array of 2.7L V6 EcoBoost and 3.0L V6 EcoBoost powered models – the 2021-2022 Ford Bronco, Ford F-150, Ford Edge, Ford Explorer, Lincoln Nautilus, and Lincoln Aviator. Certain versions of those engines experienced failures, prompting a recall from The Blue Oval, and though none of the plaintiffs have experienced this issue, they claim they wouldn’t have purchased the vehicles if they had known about the potential for failure beforehand. Now, Ford is claiming that this lawsuit is unnecessary.

According to Car Complaints, Ford’s basis for this claim is the fact that its recall and resulting warranty extension is satisfactory in regard to rectifying this issue, pointing to the fact that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opted to close its investigation into the matter following that action. The problem stemmed from the use of a material known as Silchrome Lite in 2.7L and 3.0L EcoBoost engine intake valves, which the automaker later discovered could become “excessively hard and brittle if exposed to over-temperatures during the machining of the component.”

As such, Ford opted to change to a new, stronger material – Silchrome 1 – in subsequent engine intake valves for those engines, which seems to have solved the issue. Ultimately, The Blue Oval estimated that only around one percent of vehicles recalled were equipped with the brittle valves, but it still instructed dealers to inspect and test the engines, and replace them if needed. Ford also launched a customer satisfaction program (24N12) providing a warranty extension of up to 10 years or 150,000 miles.

Now, Ford has filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit based on these very same factors. “Plaintiffs do not allege their vehicles have suffered from any defect whatsoever,” the automaker said in its motion “Nor do they allege that they sought and were denied repair for any malfunction. They do not even allege their own intake valves are actually out of specification and thus have any heightened risk of fracture. All they offer is naked disagreement with the scope of the recall issued by Ford and the investigation conclusions of the federal agency whose special competence is automotive safety. Plaintiffs have alleged an injury-in-imagination, not an injury-in-fact, and this Court should dismiss their claims for lack of standing as well as numerous other deficiencies.”