• Jul 10th 2008 at 3:41PM
  • 7
Ford and Navistar have had a long and arduous relationship with each other, with the latter supplying diesel V8 engines for use in Ford's largest consumer-grade trucks. Early 7.3-liter units performed fine, but the updated 6.0-liter V8 engine was notoriously problematic. That cost Ford dearly and has tainted its tenuous contract with Navistar. While the engine issues seem to have been resolved with the latest 6.4-liter twin-turbocharged units, those older mills are still giving Ford fits. A panel of judges recently ruled in favor of Kenneth E. Corder of Louisville, KY, who purchased a new diesel-powered Ford truck in 2004. Corder's truck, however, had an engine that manufactured in 2003. This isn't at all uncommon, as automakers will use the parts they have on hand whenever possible. Unfortunately, the '03 model-year engines had a rather bad reputation, and despite the fact that Corder has never had a problem with his, he brought a suit against the Blue Oval in 2005 for not disclosing the engine's date of manufacture. The most recent set of judges agreed with Corder in a two-to-one split, so it looks as if Ford will be going to court.

[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 7 Comments
      • 7 Years Ago
      I don't see a problem with the man suing Ford over this. It's not really any different, IMHO, than the folks who sued GM over Chevrolet engines in their Buicks and Oldsmobiles back in the late '70s. There wasn't anything wrong with those, either, technically, but GM didn't specifically say whose engine was in the cars.

      There should be no reason ALL manufacturers can't disclose when the vehicle's engine was built. With all of the other required disclosures, couldn't they add one more???
        • 7 Years Ago
        Fine, maybe there should be more disclosure, but why is it a judicial matter rather than a regulatory one?

        Is he suing for more disclosure regulation?
        midwest9040
        • 7 Years Ago
        You really start going down a slippery slope when you say a manufacturer should be required to tell you the date certain components in a car are made. If you want the engines date, how about the transmission? when the seats were made, the glass rolled out, etc., etc. All of this regulation equals one thing: MORE COST FOR THE CONSUMER! Are you willing to pay for it?
      • 7 Years Ago
      I agree with what Hugo said.

      Since his engine has never had problems, what are his damages here? The ONLY thing that I can come up with is lower resale value and I bet the cost of diesel has had a bigger effect on that than motor type/age/size ever will.

      Seems like Mr. Corder is just wasting the court's time and our money with just another "something for nothing" lawsuit.
      • 7 Years Ago
      I agree with what Hugo said.

      Since his engine has never had problems, what are his damages here? The ONLY thing that I can come up with is lower resale value and I bet the cost of diesel has had a bigger effect on that than motor type/age/size ever will.

      Seems like Mr. Corder is just wasting the court's time and our money with just another "something for nothing" lawsuit.
      • 7 Years Ago
      He never had a problem with his engine, yet he sued anyways?

      This is as bad as those consumers here in Australia who never suffered any ill-effects from taking a sleeping pill, yet decided to sue the manufacturer after other people reported ill-effects.

      Is it any wonder the courts (both here in the U.S.) seem so indifferent to the plight of those with legitimate cases when crap like this goes through each and every day?
      • 7 Years Ago
      I'm sure if Mr. Corder would have looked there was a date of manufacture on the engine. There's no reason that Ford needed to tell him that the engine was from 2003. For all we know he bought the truck in November of 2003 or that it was a "2004" engine built in 2003. The judges who voted for this should be relieved of their duties.
    Share This Photo X