MY21 Blue Cruise Fix Not Covered Under Warranty

[Snakebitten]

@HowdyDoody I was going through the thread and once the bickering started, it lost me and I just decided to ask you if your issue is resolved or not yet. If not, post or PM me your VIN. If it is what I think it is, the fix is very easy.

You are almost certainly right in your assumption on the issue and the solution. I've been watching these stories unfold on multiple forums and witnessing your assistance as well.
I'm baffled, but you have to know by now that many folks just don't appear to want your help with these things.

Sponsored

 

[rugedraw]

You are almost certainly right in your assumption on the issue and the solution. I've been watching these stories unfold on multiple forums and witnessing your assistance as well.
I'm baffled, but you have to know by now that many folks just don't appear to want your help with these things.

That's their problem and their loss. You know I will always offer to help those that I can. Whether they want to grab the hand I extend or not is up to them.

 

[byoungblood]

I don’t think paying for BC software would entitle you to free hardware fixes at the dealership.

He should be able to get his BC software money back though in this situation.

Call me old fashioned, but I think if you're paying money for a feature, if the provider of said feature breaks something that is required to use what you're paying for, then they should foot the bill to fix it. If they don't want to handle it that way, then they should refund your money no questions asked.


Consumers, as a whole, get saddled with poor CS because people don't vote with their wallets often enough.

 

[Mach1E]

Call me old fashioned, but I think if you're paying money for a feature, if the provider of said feature breaks something that is required to use what you're paying for, then they should foot the bill to fix it. If they don't want to handle it that way, then they should refund your money no questions asked.


Consumers, as a whole, get saddled with poor CS because people don't vote with their wallets often enough.

Sure, we could agree that may be how it “should be.”

Unfortunately that’s not how it “is.”

The world is more full of “use at your own risk” these days.

While not always ideal, I think it’s better than the old “sue for any reason” society where you can spill hot coffee on your lap and sue someone else for millions of dollars.

In the end, the consumers are the ones footing the bill for all that stuff anyways as companies just raise the price to cover it.

Other than that, buy an extended warranty if these situations make you angry or stressed. Would definitely be worth it.

 

[HalifaxDC]

Ford's policy here is outrageous. It would be outrageous even without a BC subscription being in play, but it's doubly so given that someone is paying for the subscription that they apparently make no guarantees around.

Owning a Ford is exhausting. I just don't feel like the brand or the dealers have my back. The free Tesla adapter is the one pleasant surprise during 2 years of frustrating manufacturer decisions, software bugs, false promises, and struggles with dealerships.

And the "one pleasant surprise" hasn't yet come to fruition for most Mach-E owners ... that will happen sometime between June 2024 and the 12th of Never.

 

[helium89]

Sure, we could agree that may be how it “should be.”

Unfortunately that’s not how it “is.”

The world is more full of “use at your own risk” these days.

While not always ideal, I think it’s better than the old “sue for any reason” society where you can spill hot coffee on your lap and sue someone else for millions of dollars.

In the end, the consumers are the ones footing the bill for all that stuff anyways as companies just raise the price to cover it.

Other than that, buy an extended warranty if these situations make you angry or stressed. Would definitely be worth it.

That is a gross misrepresentation of the hot coffee lawsuit. The woman had 3rd degree burns over 6 percent of her body, had lesser burns over 16 percent of her body, lost 20% of her body weight during the 8 days she was in the hospital, suffered permanent disfigurement, and was at least partially disabled for two years after the incident.

She tried to settle out of court for $20,000, which was a reasonable approximation of the cost of her care and the income her daughter lost while taking care of her during her three week recovery. She only filed suit after McDonalds made a lowball offer of $500. During the trial, it was shown that McDonalds served its coffee a full 20 degrees hotter than most other restaurants and that it knew that serving coffee that hot was a health hazard (as evidenced by past settlements over coffee burns).

The jury found McDonalds 80% at fault and awarded the plaintiff $160,000 in compensatory damages. The $2.7 million figure comes from the punitive damages, which were set at two days worth of coffee sales revenue. McDonalds appealed, and the case was eventually settled for an undisclosed amount.

The case was in fact an example of tort law working correctly. The plaintiff’s burns were so bad that her medical records referenced fused genitalia, and she still only asked for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. McDonalds knew that its coffee was dangerously hot, it continued to serve it at that temperature, it refused to cover medical bills that were the direct result of its negligence, and it was hit with substantial punitive damages to discourage continued negligence. If anything, the travesty is that it managed to get the damages substantially reduced before settling.

 

[Gimme_my_MME]

That is a gross misrepresentation of the hot coffee lawsuit. The woman had 3rd degree burns over 6 percent of her body, had lesser burns over 16 percent of her body, lost 20% of her body weight during the 8 days she was in the hospital, suffered permanent disfigurement, and was at least partially disabled for two years after the incident.

She tried to settle out of court for $20,000, which was a reasonable approximation of the cost of her care and the income her daughter lost while taking care of her during her three week recovery. She only filed suit after McDonalds made a lowball offer of $500. During the trial, it was shown that McDonalds served its coffee a full 20 degrees hotter than most other restaurants and that it knew that serving coffee that hot was a health hazard (as evidenced by past settlements over coffee burns).

The jury found McDonalds 80% at fault and awarded the plaintiff $160,000 in compensatory damages. The $2.7 million figure comes from the punitive damages, which were set at two days worth of coffee sales revenue. McDonalds appealed, and the case was eventually settled for an undisclosed amount.

The case was in fact an example of tort law working correctly. The plaintiff’s burns were so bad that her medical records referenced fused genitalia, and she still only asked for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. McDonalds knew that its coffee was dangerously hot, it continued to serve it at that temperature, it refused to cover medical bills that were the direct result of its negligence, and it was hit with substantial punitive damages to discourage continued negligence. If anything, the travesty is that it managed to get the damages substantially reduced before settling.

McDonald's also hired multiple firms to spread misinformation about her and the case and downplay the severity of her injuries to build this idea that she was just someone looking to make a buck

 

[Mach1E]

That is a gross misrepresentation of the hot coffee lawsuit. The woman had 3rd degree burns over 6 percent of her body, had lesser burns over 16 percent of her body, lost 20% of her body weight during the 8 days she was in the hospital, suffered permanent disfigurement, and was at least partially disabled for two years after the incident.

She tried to settle out of court for $20,000, which was a reasonable approximation of the cost of her care and the income her daughter lost while taking care of her during her three week recovery. She only filed suit after McDonalds made a lowball offer of $500. During the trial, it was shown that McDonalds served its coffee a full 20 degrees hotter than most other restaurants and that it knew that serving coffee that hot was a health hazard (as evidenced by past settlements over coffee burns).

The jury found McDonalds 80% at fault and awarded the plaintiff $160,000 in compensatory damages. The $2.7 million figure comes from the punitive damages, which were set at two days worth of coffee sales revenue. McDonalds appealed, and the case was eventually settled for an undisclosed amount.

The case was in fact an example of tort law working correctly. The plaintiff’s burns were so bad that her medical records referenced fused genitalia, and she still only asked for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses. McDonalds knew that its coffee was dangerously hot, it continued to serve it at that temperature, it refused to cover medical bills that were the direct result of its negligence, and it was hit with substantial punitive damages to discourage continued negligence. If anything, the travesty is that it managed to get the damages substantially reduced before settling.

? I knew the danger of using that analogy was that someone might come back with this.

Yes, I’m very familiar with the ins and outs of that particular case.

I only used the analogy because it’s a pretty common one used when pointing out people getting millions when they were also to blame.

The point wasn’t about that case. It was more what the case represented.

Totally side note- I always thought that while it’s nearly impossible to put a $$ figure on “pain and suffering,” we could try.

How? Figure out roughly how much you’d have to pay the average person to go through the same experience on purpose. That’s your number. Then double it because the person didn’t volunteer to have that experience.

 

[Mach1E]

I know this thread is dead at this point, but I stumbled across the actual wording in our warranty book regarding this specific thing.

It does spell it out exactly what’s covered. And unfortunately it’s only covered for 3/36.

https://www.fordservicecontent.com/...-E-Warranty-version-2_frdwa_EN-US_06_2021.pdf

Screen shot of the exact wording-

 

[VindictivePantz]

I know this thread is dead at this point, but I stumbled across the actual wording in our warranty book regarding this specific thing.

It does spell it out exactly what’s covered. And unfortunately it’s only covered for 3/36.

https://www.fordservicecontent.com/...-E-Warranty-version-2_frdwa_EN-US_06_2021.pdf

Screen shot of the exact wording-

Good find. Thank you!

This is a lawsuit waiting to happen if they're expecting owners to disable OTAs at 36,001 miles.

They should be disabled by Ford against the mileage being regularly shared with Ford against their warranty database.

I know others will disagree, but I suspect the industry will head that way, and Ford should get ahead of it.

 

[Mach1E]

Good find. Thank you!

This is a lawsuit waiting to happen if they're expecting owners to disable OTAs at 36,001 miles.

They should be disabled by Ford against the mileage being regularly shared with Ford against their warranty database.

I know others will disagree, but I suspect the industry will head that way, and Ford should get ahead of it.

The whole point of spelling it out in the warranty book is to prevent any confusion and/or lawsuits.

Now if Ford stopped supporting products outside of warranty, I think that would create much more issues than the rare instance that an update breaks something that a future update couldn’t fix.

But yes, owners can turn off updates if they choose to. I prefer to be given the choice rather than Ford choosing for us.

 

[Jimrpa]

So, there is another model Ford could adopt:
Cease providing OTAs after the manufacturer's warranty (3/36) has expired, AND decline support to vehicles that are not maintained with current supported releases of all software. Offer an optional "software maintenance package" that would provide software updates (and support if something happens that can be attributed to a software update) for a specific period. This model is prevalent with a lot of software, particularly enterprise software.
I'm not advocating that approach - I'm just saying there's a precedent for it.

 

[VindictivePantz]

So, there is another model Ford could adopt:
Cease providing OTAs after the manufacturer's warranty (3/36) has expired, AND decline support to vehicles that are not maintained with current supported releases of all software. Offer an optional "software maintenance package" that would provide software updates (and support if something happens that can be attributed to a software update) for a specific period. This model is prevalent with a lot of software, particularly enterprise software.
I'm not advocating that approach - I'm just saying there's a precedent for it.

This is more inline to how it should probably work.

These vehicles are software that happen to have a car attached. Look at everything else software based - you either get updates and support, or you don't get updates after your device or software goes end-of-support.

There is a reason why iPhones, PCs, and software have an end-of-support timeline - to avoid maintaining old code and to avoid breaking something they're not ready to fix at their cost.

Ford is in a pickle because if they had delivered on BC 1.3, they could've stopped making OTAs available.

To your point about the subscription, if one subscribes to Ford Maps, BC, etc., then OTAs are needed and the customer runs the risk of them breaking something, so your suggestion should be built into those optional services.

 

[Mach1E]

This is more inline to how it should probably work.

These vehicles are software that happen to have a car attached. Look at everything else software based - you either get updates and support, or you don't get updates after your device or software goes end-of-support.

There is a reason why iPhones, PCs, and software have an end-of-support timeline - to avoid maintaining old code and to avoid breaking something they're not ready to fix at their cost.

Ford is in a pickle because if they had delivered on BC 1.3, they could've stopped making OTAs available.

To your point about the subscription, if one subscribes to Ford Maps, BC, etc., then OTAs are needed and the customer runs the risk of them breaking something, so your suggestion should be built into those optional services.

Sure, all the things you mentioned have an end of support.

However that end of support date is typically many years after their warranties have expired. And none of them pay for repairs outside of warranty. Just like our car.

I don’t think we need a new subscription service that costs money to cover this concern. The system we have now is perfectly fine-

Free OTA updates with the option of buying an extended warranty.

I don’t want to suggest Ford starts charging us for something we currently get for free.

 

[azerik]

Can we find out what happened here? I'm having trouble sleeping at night now. /s

Sponsored