ESP claim denial with tail light water intrusion (blind spot failure)

[jefrank]

Water intrusion, automatic disqualification, as it’s buried someplace in the contract…. Even with no damage seen from the mechanic.

Yikes. So a manufacturing defect that allows water in isn't covered. I guess reporting the failure to NTSB is an option... enough of those leads to a recall and a subsequent refund of your repair bill.

Sponsored

 

[bmwhitetx]

Sorry about this. There are other instances where Ford has also denied. Seems like they just assume there was damage to the light that allowed water to get in.

This guy got lucky and the dealer replaced his.

 

[Vulnox]

That’s been my biggest concern all along. I’d be curious if anybody would post an example of a time the ESP covered something.

While we were waiting for our Mach-e to be built back in 2021 we bought a used Ford Focus Electric for $11k and I bought an ESP for it which was about $600 after using some Ford Pass points to pay $200 of it.

About six months in my wife noticed a thunk in the steering wheel when going over bumps or any road imperfection. Took it to the dealership and they found the steering rack needed to be replaced. I had a $100 deductible which I paid and they replaced the steering rack which they said with parts and labor would have been just over $4k.

We sold that Focus September 2022 for $14k to Carvana and contacted Flood Ford who gave us a prorated refund on the ESP of $600, so basically just cost us the $200 in Ford Pass points and the $100 deductible.

I think even if this was bumper to bumper with no outstanding service bulletin like they have with the rear light bar you have a good chance of Ford denying the warranty claim when it comes to water. Even without damage you can have people that back too far in when launching a boat or whatever and get water intrusion.

I am not saying you did that, I believe you and the others with this issue that it is likely design, but until Ford makes an engineering decision along that path resulting in a service bulletin they usually fall back to it likely being user error.

 

[Langeston]

Yikes. So a manufacturing defect that allows water in isn't covered. I guess reporting the failure to NTSB is an option... enough of those leads to a recall and a subsequent refund of your repair bill.

That’s a good call, I didn’t think about that

 

[Electricslide]

Dang - newbie here - I was about to purchase a FORD ESP on a '22 Lariat Lightning and get the lighting package. Weren't these on some sort of recall (which has been done on this one)? Sounds like I need to keep a watch on E-Bay for replacements. BTW - for the water intrusion, I used to have problems with that on other taillights, and just drilled a very very small hole (maybe 1/16") in the corner of the taillight to allow the water to drain. Maybe one on the side near the top as well. Has anyone (proactively) tried that? And if so, which taillights and where did they drill the small hole?

 

[Langeston]

While we were waiting for our Mach-e to be built back in 2021 we bought a used Ford Focus Electric for $11k and I bought an ESP for it which was about $600 after using some Ford Pass points to pay $200 of it.

About six months in my wife noticed a thunk in the steering wheel when going over bumps or any road imperfection. Took it to the dealership and they found the steering rack needed to be replaced. I had a $100 deductible which I paid and they replaced the steering rack which they said with parts and labor would have been just over $4k.

We sold that Focus September 2022 for $14k to Carvana and contacted Flood Ford who gave us a prorated refund on the ESP of $600, so basically just cost us the $200 in Ford Pass points and the $100 deductible.

I think even if this was bumper to bumper with no outstanding service bulletin like they have with the rear light bar you have a good chance of Ford denying the warranty claim when it comes to water. Even without damage you can have people that back too far in when launching a boat or whatever and get water intrusion.

I am not saying you did that, I believe you and the others with this issue that it is likely design, but until Ford makes an engineering decision along that path resulting in a service bulletin they usually fall back to it likely being user error.

It’s good to hear that the warranty actually helped!

Maybe there’s some micro fracture someplace and I’ll give it a really good looking over soon.

I might as well been backing the truck into the water - the Florida thunderstorm that caused this was crazy!

 

[bmwhitetx]

Weren't these on some sort of recall (which has been done on this one)?

Never been any recall on the the tail lights. You're thinking of the tailgate light bar on the higher trims. Lots of issues there with water that Ford has acknowledged.

 

[NeighborGeek]

As a completely unhelpful data point, I recently noticed moisture in one of the taillights of my wife's '23 Bolt EUV. Dealer confirmed it wasn't damaged and replaced it under warranty. Not that I'm planning to buy another chevy anytime soon unless they come to their senses about carplay, but at least they stood behind their light enclosure...

 

[chl]

There is some truth to this, but it's also true that they deliberately make it increasingly harder to fix than it has to be, also holding back technical information on how things work, and how to fix them, teing parts together unnecessarily, in an effort to restrict options. In essence, creat a monopoly for themselves and their dealers to extract as much as possible from the end user. They are following the John Deer model of business. And MANY MANY other companies.

...and Ford has been doing that for years based on my experience, which is why I found a good local mechanic at a service station to repair most things on my old 2001 Ford Ranger.

But the retail cost of plastic parts for a Ford s outrageous...no wonder thieves steal them right off trucks in broad daylight...

 

[chl]

Water intrusion, automatic disqualification, as it’s buried someplace in the contract…. Even with no damage seen from the mechanic.

yeah, right to repair…. I’m just old enough to remember when you could still wrench on things you “owned.”

Ford's have had water intrusion issues for years based on all the posts and videos I have seen, and not just tail lights, windows, doors, sun roofs, etc., so it is no wonder they exclude it in their extended warranty...

 

[davel8257]

I accidentally tapped my light with my tractor bucket resulting in a pea-sized hole in the corner. Then we got a 5" rain which got into the fixture, even though I sealed it up with silicon caulk.. Ford dealer wants $2K for the new fixture and $500 for the BSM module inside. I still have warranty left so I'm letting the dealer do all of the servicing at this point. However, this is likely to happen again. My next go-around will be to repair the fixture (Gorilla shipping tape) and purchase the $500 BSM module and do the work my self.

We desperately need a meta-cage covering for these expensive and fragile light fixtures. Someone want to step up?

 

[The Weatherman]

Water intrusion, automatic disqualification, as it’s buried someplace in the contract…. Even with no damage seen from the mechanic.

yeah, right to repair…. I’m just old enough to remember when you could still wrench on things you “owned.”

Farley is openly hostile to Right to Repair.

 

[chl]

Dang - newbie here - I was about to purchase a FORD ESP on a '22 Lariat Lightning and get the lighting package. Weren't these on some sort of recall (which has been done on this one)? Sounds like I need to keep a watch on E-Bay for replacements. BTW - for the water intrusion, I used to have problems with that on other taillights, and just drilled a very very small hole (maybe 1/16") in the corner of the taillight to allow the water to drain. Maybe one on the side near the top as well. Has anyone (proactively) tried that? And if so, which taillights and where did they drill the small hole?

If you do that, be careful it is not readily visible during a safety inspection - in Virginia some inspectors will call that a broken tail light - I know, ironic but true.

If they see any moisture in a tail light, they will fail the vehicle as well. I don't believe the Va code specifically mentions water or moisture in the tail light, it does mention it wrt headlights, but to the inspector it indicates the tail light may short out or otherwise fail to illuminate soon, or the light could be obstructed by the water.

They also don't like cracked tail lights that have been DIY sealed with silicone or glue. The code and the inspection manual implies that the rationale is it may let white light through the colored lens, so you could try to argue that it doesn't, but it specifically allows them to reject for taped or glued repairs. Is silicone caulk "glue?" To an inspector maybe.

Always something with vehicles...almost as expensive as offspring...

 

[Adventureboy]

No ESP in my past or future. There are way too many stories like this, and I feel for those who bought ESP and can't use it. There are a few stories where folks came out ahead with ESP. Many stories where items simply aren't covered, and ESP failed to meet expectations.

 

[dpwmc93]

This happened to me. I discovered a crack in my driver's side taillight. I covered it with some tape, but after a while I started getting the errors due to the sensors getting wet. After seeing how much Ford would charge I decided to file a claim with my insurace company. ($1000 Deductable). In addition to the sensors throwing errors, it also caused the break light to stop working occasionally.

Sponsored