New FSA Notice 13C02 - HEADLINER HEAD IMPACT PROTECTION

[salsaguy]

btw, why is this an FSA and not a safety recall since it relates to safety?

[ceemax71]

btw, why is this an FSA and not a safety recall since it relates to safety?

 

FSA (Field Service Action) is actually another term for recall.

Ford uses the term "FSA" instead of "Recall" on the OASIS web site.

A recall (FSA) can be for safety, customer satisfaction, emissions, compliance, etc.

 

According to the link provided by GrandadB in a previous post, this recall (13C02) is for non-compliance to federal standards:

 

REASON FOR THIS COMPLIANCE RECALL

The affected vehicles may not conform to the requirements specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Affected vehicles were built with

insufficient interior head impact protection at the roof/B-Pillar area.

 

BTW, thanks GrandadB for finding the recall document and welcome to the forum.

[lowbar]

Interesting,  Not good that dealers can't delliver cars but it sounds like parts should be available in a couple of weeks.  I'm not too concerned about safety.  May not conform to the standard could very well mean it is a fraction less than called for in the standdard.  Ironic when you think there is no protection in the models WITH the Panorama Roof?  

[pomtrey]

yes, what about the cars with the panoramic roof? they surely have less protection. it's all very strange.

[Laurel]

I am wondering if it basically is a roll bar type situation?  Maybe it was strongly reinforced in the cars with panorama roof and that they did less reinforcing in the regular roof.  I can't imagine this comes down to lack of padding so it has to be structural.

[salsaguy]

yes you would think they would be the ones under scrutiny since there is a hole in the roof but maybe she to the panoramic roof they added more framing and support to increase the strength that was removed when you put a hole in the roof.

we shall see.

i wonder how they found this issue out. is there any test data on nhtsa about roll over for the cmax.I've only seen since impact vids on the cmax. maybe each mfg have to do their own testing and self report if you find it doesn't meet stds.

 

 

yes, what about the cars with the panoramic roof? they surely have less protection. it's all very strange.

Edited July 14, 2013 by salsaguy

[DR61]

The FSA says nothing about roll-over structure.  It says "Affected vehicles were built with insufficient interior head impact protection at the roof/B-Pillar area."  I am thinking the foam padding under the headliner in the area where the B-Pillar (pillar just at or behind driver/front passenger) meets the roof has a problem on some cars. 

 

Perhaps the supplier used the wrong foam density or thickness for a batch of cars, and it was uncovered in routine QC checks. The car has side curtain air bags that protect the head at these points, but the foam is probably a secondary level of protection.

[salsaguy]

so you would have to go over huge speed bumps or go up a hill at 60mph and then fly in the air and land on the other side of the hill and then you would hit your head due to the home on landing??? not sure how this applies esp with all the headroom in the car. even tall folks still have lots of room above their head when in a c-max so how would you get hurt if not for a rollover incident??

[Jaydrama]

I bought the cmax thinking that, although it was a first model year here, the design was tried and true in Europe. I've got the pano roof, so for me the point is moot.

[salsaguy]

i wonder if this also applies to the European models.

[ArizonaEnergi]

Europe may have different safety standards. I too had hoped the C-Max being produced in Europe for a few years, albeit different models than we ended up with, would have prevented most of the new model problems but it doesn't seem to have worked out that way.

[salsaguy]

the issue is that its a brand new assembly line in USA with all new workers, tooling and machines learning how to build this car for the first time, so its a given to have several issues happen and that needed to be tweaked/learned (as I've seen working in manufacturing and quality for my 20+ year career).

[Edsel]

I figure the panoramic roof is kind of like a convertible. They usually have to beef up the rest of the car to make up for the lack of roof structure. Also, convertibles usually weigh more than normal hard tops. Wonder if it's the same for the panoramic sunroof model?

[JohnnOhio]

This might explain something I've noticed. I have a gravel driveway until I get to my garage. When I stop at my mailbox in the evening the front door doesn't want to shut tight, but once I'm in the garage on level concrete It has no problem. I always thought the car was getting racked slightly. If this recall is for some reinforcment it may fix that problem too.    :detective:

[mnrobitaille]

Currently sitting @ the dealership for Round 2 of the 3.5.1 update. I went out & checked their inventory & the C-Maxes that are out all have the Panoramic Roof on them. The rest were pulled.

[Laurel]

Good luck today mnrobitalille!  Let us hear the end result please. 

[mnrobitaille]

Good luck today mnrobitalille!  Let us hear the end result please. 

Laurel, my C-Max has the panoramic roof so thankfully don't have to worry about the B-Pillar issue.

 

Thankfully we found out that the dealership has performed the 3.5.1 update on other C-Maxes.

 

I just rechecked the dealership inventory & they have a C-Max SE with package 203B that has the solid roof out for sale.

[Edsel]

Almost wish I had spent the extra $1200 dollars on the sunroof so I would not have another problem to deal with.  Then again, I do like that warm fuzzy feeling I get while driving a car that is currently illegal for the dealership to sell.

[fotomoto]

Although avoiding the first year of a new car is common advice, recalls can affect all years of production.  One of the biggest recalls on the Prius affected all years of the second generation (2004-2009): http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2012/11/14/toyota-recall-steering-pump/1703953/

[RachelnLa]

Mom and dad brought the twins in for the hatch update. When they returned my car they mentioned there was going to be a recall on the liners. I am wondering if this is what they are talking about.

[Noah Harbinger]

Europe may have different safety standards. I too had hoped the C-Max being produced in Europe for a few years, albeit different models than we ended up with, would have prevented most of the new model problems but it doesn't seem to have worked out that way.

 

That was definitely true of the Transit Connect headliner retaining nut issue - it meets Euro safety standards, but not US. 

[Wingrider01]

Laurel, my C-Max has the panoramic roof so thankfully don't have to worry about the B-Pillar issue.

 

Thankfully we found out that the dealership has performed the 3.5.1 update on other C-Maxes.

 

I just rechecked the dealership inventory & they have a C-Max SE with package 203B that has the solid roof out for sale.

 

Stopped at the dealer yesterday to see if they had more information, service manager looked it up but had no link to see what parts are needed nor how long it will take. He did confirm that all (SE & SEL) C-Max's in their inventory with out the glass roof are marked unavailable for sale or delivery. Not sure if the dealer did it or it came down from ford

[HannahWCU]

I had the same recall on my 2000 Dodge Intrepid.  It does not mean the roof structure is not sound.  All it means is that there is inadequate padding in the B-pillar area (for those that don't know, the B-pillar is the vertical support of the automobile's window area between the front and rear doors).  The Dodge recall was:

 

STRUCTURE:FRAME AND MEMBERS

Recall number: 01V273000

Recall date: 08/02/2001

 

Problem Summary:

VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES (NON-SUNROOF ONLY) FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 201, "OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN INTERIOR IMPACT.

 

Consequence:

IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR INJURY IF THE OCCUPANT'S HEAD WERE TO CONTACT THE B-PILLAR.

 

Corrective Action:

OWNERS WILL BE SENT A STORAGE BIN ACCESSORY UNIT THAT CAN BE ATTACHED TO THE B-PILLAR ALONG WITH INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. HOWEVER, IF AN OWNER WISHES, THE DEALER CAN PERFORM THE INSTALLATION. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN DECEMBER 17, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT DAIMLERCHRYSLER AT 1-800-853-1403.

 

 

This "Storage Bin" was basically a sunglasses holder that slid into place on the B-pillar.  In the event of a roll-over and your head came in contact with the "storage bin" the bin would crush providing more padding between your head and the car structure. 

 

I really don't see this as a big deal.  Ford has sold over 16,000 C-Maxes (C-Maxi?) to date.  I am guessing the majority are without the sunroof, so there are alot of parts to make. 2 B-Pillars per car X 12,000+ cars = 24,000+ parts to make if there is only one part to each B-pillar.  This takes time.  And since it keeps them from selling the cars I am sure this is a HIGH priority.

[fotomoto]

I really don't see this as a big deal.  Ford has sold over 16,000 C-Maxes (C-Maxi?) to date.  I am guessing the majority are without the sunroof, so there are alot of parts to make. 2 B-Pillars per car X 12,000+ cars = 24,000+ parts to make if there is only one part to each B-pillar.  This takes time.  And since it keeps them from selling the cars I am sure this is a HIGH priority.

 

I was also thinking about this last night.  This is traditional vacation time for many workers and their school age kids.  For that auto supplier company(s), can you imagine being on an overseas trip/cruise/road trip and getting a text from your supervisor saying we need EVERYONE back at the factory NOW!  :redcard:  :gaah:

[JohnnOhio]

Probably forgot to upgade the padding for the american market. Europe doesn't require it I bet.