A "flawed" Ford Escape (from Ray Butch Gamboa, SPMJ)[merged]

[baludoy]

MOTORING TODAY By Ray Butch Gamboa SPMJ
The Philippine STAR 12/13/2006

No sweeping under the rug

In response to some of our readers (Edwin Monzon, Lope Severino, Jeck Candelaria, et al, also those who do not wish to be named) who wrote and called regarding the complaint that I have written in this column (a couple with a 3-month old SUV that conked out in the floods and later on was discovered to have "holes" in the engine block due to it being submerged under water was being denied warranty) and were worried that being a "blind item", I might just "sweep the complaint under the rug", let me say that it was really my original intention not to name names if the complaint was acted upon. It would have been a "win, win" situation for everyone considering that there will always be complaints, no matter what. After all, we must remember that automobiles are machines and they are not expected to be perfect always.

But lest some misconceptions from our readers crop up and this columnist or The STAR would eventually be accused of not being transparent and unduly protecting car manufacturers, especially those who advertise in this newspaper, allow me to be more specific about the problem this time. I would also hope that the automobile company involved would not take this negatively but instead take the opportunity to look deeper into the case and see what can be positively done about it in the fairest manner for all.

Those who sought out my help were husband and wife Paolo and Bea Villarroel and the vehicle is a 2006 Ford Escape NBX 2.3.

The couple bought the vehicle from Ford Shaw only last July 8, 2006 and have openly expressed misgivings about how their complaint has been acted upon.

According to the couple, they just could not reconcile in their minds how another Ford Escape went through the same flood waters without stalling, while theirs did? Now that it was damaged because it stalled in the flood, why can’t they avail of the warranty when it’s only a three-month old vehicle?

As for this column, we are only a voice for a disgruntled consumer — trabaho lang, walang personalan.

i read the blind item this article is referring to about a week or two ago and i myself was wondering how come there were no pertinent infos regarding the said complaint. apparently i wasn't the only intrigued consumer around. anyhow, i just wanted to share this read w/ you guys

and kudos to mr butch gambao for finally revealing this particular problem vehicle owned by the couple and its manufacturer

[Hanren]

It takes a lot of guts and wisdom to fight for what is right as what Mr Gamboa did. Nabasa ko rin itong piece for two weeks now (evey wednesday). I hope it would be an eye opener for everyone....

[mazdamazda]

Well, it is clearly stated in most compact SUV manual that it is only safe to cross a body of water up to a height not deeper than the lower inner wheel of the vehicle.

If you try to cross a flood deeper than that - it is at your own risk and would not be covered by the warranty since that kind of vehicle is not designed to operate like that.

Holes in the engine block? Maybe they did hit a submerged debris while crossing the said flood...

[OTEP]

Para sa akin lang, kailangan pa imbestigahan iyan.

Fording water is not just about the vehicle. It is also about driving technique. Never mind kung nakalusot yung sedan sa harap mo or another Ford Escape. Pero kung hindi ka talaga marunong mag-ford ng tubig, malamang titirik ka nga. Dito sa Pilipinas, ang uso pa ding driving techinque sa tubig ay yung rev like there's no tomorrow techinque na alam naman ng halos buong mundo na hindi ito ang best technique. How fast was the Escape going when it entered the water? Hindi ba ala-WRC na hanggang windshield ang talsik?

Saka nung namatay yung tubig mid-crossing, bakit naman niya hindi sinilip kung contaminated ang air filter housing at air filter element? Ayaw ba niya mabasa ang sapatos niya? If you stall mid-stream, that is the first thing you check before restarting. IIRC, namatay ang engine ng Escape na iyan then he IMMEDIATELY attempts to restart it. WTF?

The holes in the block were the result of being hydrolocked. If the engine had not been restarted, this may have been avoided.

Flood damage is not covered by warranty. Check the warranty booklet. And what is the rated fording depth and fording speed of the Escape? Alam ko mababa lang talaga. Anything beyond the rating is already the driver's responsibility.

Even 'tougher' rigs like the Patrol have very low fording depth ratings. Of course we know the ratings are underrated because a Patrol can cross hood deep streams when driven properly.

[artpogi]

sa tingin ko nga sinubukan i-start yan habang nakalubog sa tubig.

I know one who tried to start his sedan sa kalagitnaan ng flood nakita ko yung block nagkaroon ng crack

[BlueBimmer]

hmm in this case parang expecting too much from the warranty ata ang escape owner..

[OTEP]

I suggest he set fire to the Escape or stage an 'accident' that will total it kung gusto niya ng bagong unit. Suggestion lang naman po.

[woulfe27]

Finally, Mr. Gamboa divulges the name of the casa that doen's want to honor a warranty claim on an SUV. Maka-claim kaya, considering na nilusong nila sa baha?

No sweeping under the rug
In response to some of our readers (Edwin Monzon, Lope Severino, Jeck Candelaria, et al, also those who do not wish to be named) who wrote and called regarding the complaint that I have written in this column (a couple with a 3-month old SUV that conked out in the floods and later on was discovered to have "holes" in the engine block due to it being submerged under water was being denied warranty) and were worried that being a "blind item", I might just "sweep the complaint under the rug", let me say that it was really my original intention not to name names if the complaint was acted upon. It would have been a "win, win" situation for everyone considering that there will always be complaints, no matter what. After all, we must remember that automobiles are machines and they are not expected to be perfect always.

But lest some misconceptions from our readers crop up and this columnist or The STAR would eventually be accused of not being transparent and unduly protecting car manufacturers, especially those who advertise in this newspaper, allow me to be more specific about the problem this time. I would also hope that the automobile company involved would not take this negatively but instead take the opportunity to look deeper into the case and see what can be positively done about it in the fairest manner for all.

Those who sought out my help were husband and wife Paolo and Bea Villarroel and the vehicle is a 2006 Ford Escape NBX 2.3.

The couple bought the vehicle from Ford Shaw only last July 8, 2006 and have openly expressed misgivings about how their complaint has been acted upon.

According to the couple, they just could not reconcile in their minds how another Ford Escape went through the same flood waters without stalling, while theirs did? Now that it was damaged because it stalled in the flood, why can’t they avail of the warranty when it’s only a three-month old vehicle?

As for this column, we are only a voice for a disgruntled consumer — trabaho lang, walang personalan.

[OTEP]

See related thread: http://tsikot.yehey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33651

A hydrolocked engine is not covered by warranty, btw.

I will merge this with the other thread.

[oliver1013]

Well its a FORD!!

[nugundam93]

they should've bought a pajero. :lol:

[niky]

Well its a FORD!!

Read the other thread. They drove it through water and hydrolocked the engine. Any car will ventilate its block when hydrolocked, no matter what brand it is.

[OTEP]

Baka nga naman akala ng mag-asawa its for FORDing water, FORD nga, eh.