Ford Motor Company is suing supplier Dana Corp., seeking reimbursement for what it says are faulty vehicle frames.

According to an Associated Press report, Ford claims that Dana frames were the cause of a 2011 recall of close to a half a million Windstar minivans. Apparently, the salt used on roads in cold weather states caused the frames to corrode and actually break. Dana denies Ford's charges, but that isn't stopping the Blue Oval from attempting to seek reimbursement.

The 2011 recall focused on more than 425,000 Windstar minivans from the 1998 to 2003 model years. The Windstar has also been beset by other rust-related issues, including a 2010 rear axle recall of some 492,000 units over corrosion fears.

Autoblog has reached out to Ford to inquire if the troublesome axles were also provided by Dana, but as of publish time, have received no response. According to the report, Ford continues to source parts from Dana Corp. despite the legal battle.



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
  • 45 Comments
      budwsr25
      • 2 Years Ago
      I would wager to say that DANA also built the rear ends. I bet DANA had steel quality issues in the mid 90's into the 20's because the Tunda issues involved the same span of years of manufacture. If any other car company bought stuff from them during that time I would look into the issue on its models.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @budwsr25
        [blocked]
      Scr
      • 2 Years Ago
      It could be any number of things that caused the problem. We will find out in court what the dealy-o is. It could be bad QC on the metalurgy of the subframes. It could be Ford provided Dana with a poor steel specification to save money. It could be the design of the subframe that actually collected saline spray from winterized roadways and caused premature corrosion (Ford had this issue for YEARS in the way it rolled over the edges of body panels. It practically encouraged rust the day it left the factory). It is also up to Ford to occasionally inspect the product being supplied to ensure quality control. Surely with such a high failure rate, they would have caught this, meaning it was probably in spec.
      whofan
      • 2 Years Ago
      If memorey serves me correctly Ford had a simalar recall on the Taurus and Sable back in the early 90`s.
        timbrands
        • 2 Years Ago
        @whofan
        Similar if you can compare a body on frame vehicle to a unit body. There was a Sub-frame mount attachment recall however. Significant, but not as serious as the whole bloody frame!
          Drakkon
          • 2 Years Ago
          @timbrands
          the Windstar is unit construction. not body on frame. it's essentially the same thing as the Taurus recall.
      moderate fringe
      • 2 Years Ago
      They should go separate ways like Ford/Firestone.
      DrifterZ
      • 2 Years Ago
      Reason 4,785,653 to not support Ford. Ford and the other two should never have been bailed out in the first place. Oh and before you say Ford did not take money then you need to do some homework. Ford took money before everything crashed. Now with this I have to say that Ford is at fault as it is there responsibility to make sure everything is up to standards. It is also Fords call on material and rust treatment to be used. Also Ford is getting really close to a billion units recalled in the last 2 years alone and that's just down right scary.
        merlot066
        • 2 Years Ago
        @DrifterZ
        Moron, Ford leveraged literally everything in their posession, including intangible things like the Blue Oval logo, to raise enough money from banks to restructure the entire company and last through the financial meltdown. The loans they secured through the government were open to all automakers and other car companies including Nissan and Fisker got money through the program as well. If Ford didn't have those loans they wouldn't be belly up right now, they just wouldn't have as many excellent hybrid/electric models coming to market and they'd be languishing behind like GM and Chrysler.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @DrifterZ
        [blocked]
        Drakkon
        • 2 Years Ago
        @DrifterZ
        Ford financed the whole farm through private capital markets. that's not a government bail out.
          Drakkon
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Drakkon
          Fine then. You're right. The oil companies have gotten money from the Feds every single year since World War 1 to go 'explore', so I'm not buying gas anymore... Get the eff over it. Big companies have lobbyist and get money from the government for all kinds of antics. Don't be so angry at the companies for taking it, get behind campaign finance reform. Your Congress is bought and sold every single day. The tax code is a million and a half pages because they don't know how to make it simpler. It's DESIGNED(!!) that way.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Drakkon
          [blocked]
      Dave
      • 2 Years Ago
      It's not Dana's fault that Ford didn't take the appropriate anti-corrosion measures. A frame is made of steel. Steel rusts from road salt. Toyota, at least, accepted the blame for not taking proper measures with their rotten frames. This is obnoxious.
        JaredN
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Dave
        Actually, the Toyota frames that rusted were built by Dana, and Toyota went after Dana as well. http://www.torquenews.com/106/dana-corp-ordered-pay-toyota-25m-frame-rust-issues
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Dave
        [blocked]
      Andre Neves
      • 2 Years Ago
      I sue you You sue me We're a happy family With a great big claim and a suit from me to you. Won't you say you plea me too
      GasMan
      • 2 Years Ago
      Automakers squeeze the last penny from the suppliers so they cut corners. No excuse for either one of them. Ford sets the specs for the part and they should do incoming inspection to ensure those specs are met.
      delsolo1
      • 2 Years Ago
      It is kind of like suing you wife.
        techie69
        • 2 Years Ago
        @delsolo1
        Agree, you are the Ford(Dumbass) for qualifying DANA to be your supplier(wife)! Next time do a better job shopping for parts! This is one reason Ford will still suck, they have a poor supplier base, and they are pretty content about it because fewer dollars are spent searching, qualifying, and improving their components manufacturers. Ford purchasing dept are only concern of themselves like alot of U.S. corporations that are struggling who think as separate entities in an organization rather than as one organization.
      lrx301
      • 2 Years Ago
      Sue what? when your Purchasing was cutting the price relentlessly did you think you would get faulty parts?
      RJC
      • 2 Years Ago
      Just stop. Cars aren't as disposable as they were in the 70's, when EVERYTHING returned to the earth in just a handful of years. So I can understand little to no effort being put into rust protection back then. But today? You would think we wouldn't be having a rust discussion 40 or so years later. Someone is cutting corners to save a few pennies, and not doing what needs to be done to protect against rust. Pennies.
        moderate fringe
        • 2 Years Ago
        @RJC
        Most cars are still very disposable though. 4-6 years and 60,000 miles and many still act like they have a million miles and 20 years.
          moderate fringe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @moderate fringe
          I drive them around at a lot I worked at. Saturns, f150s and some dodge mini vans seemed ready for the scape heap even when new.
          BG
          • 2 Years Ago
          @moderate fringe
          Much of the problem is the typical ignorant lazy consumer, who has the peculiar idea that maintenance will magically occur without him/her raising a finger or spending a lousy dime. Then they have to buy a new car and wonder why they are perpetually in debt.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @moderate fringe
          [blocked]
          Rob
          • 2 Years Ago
          @moderate fringe
          My '92 F150 has 292,000 miles on the original engine, and no rust.
      • 2 Years Ago
      [blocked]
    • Load More Comments
    Advertisement
    2003 Ford Windstar
    MSRP: $23,070 - $34,825
    2002 Ford Windstar
    MSRP: $22,340 - $34,040
    2001 Ford Windstar
    MSRP: $20,220 - $33,765