Judge Approves Class Action Suit Against Ford Mustang
Ford has been getting into trouble over “track-ready” Mustangs after a few customers formally accused the company of erroneous marketing in 2017. A class-action lawsuit was even filed in March of that year, stating that the Ford Mustang Shelby GT350 suffered from overheating problems that precluded it from being fully functional on a racetrack — specifically early examples of the car equipped with either the Technology Package or left in the base configuration.
Earlier this month, Federal Judge Federico A. Moreno certified statutory and common law fraud classes pertaining to the model in California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Washington State. Additional approvals relating specifically to statutory fraud and/or implied warranty claims were made for Oregon, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas.
Despite the GT350’s flat-plane, 5.2-liter V8 engine (526 horsepower and 429 lb-ft of torque) going down smooth as a dreamy performance engine, early examples of the car are alleged to have leaked fluids when exposed to the rigors of track use — even for a short time. While exclusive to lower-trimmed models, customers remained annoyed that a vehicle Ford described as “track-ready” was undergoing hardships that effectively limited its abilities to a point that it wouldn’t be competitive. Overheating Mustang GT350s would default to an engine management program colloquially known as “Limp Mode” that cut power to keep engine temperatures down.
Ford remedied the problem in 2017 by making the Track Package obligatory. All subsequent models came with the oil, transmission, and differential coolers angry customers claimed should probably have been on the car to begin with. Plaintiffs are claiming that the manufacturer originally removed these items from base-trimmed vehicles as a way to increase profits and never should have stated that they were track-ready automobiles, especially since a number of the involved parties stated they purchased the vehicles exclusively for track use.
“In reality, Plaintiffs say, the Base and Technology package versions of the cars were intentionally designed without coolers in order to inflate Ford’s profits margins,” reads the lawsuit. “As a result, the Base and Tech cars could not complete a full ‘Track Day’ without going into ‘Limp Mode.'”
The Ford Mustang GT350 has since been discontinued to give more leeway for the 760-hp Shelby GT500 and returning Mach 1 Mustang, the latter of which borrows many of the GT350’s components while taking a slightly more relaxed attitude. But its being gone does not mean it has been forgotten. Judge Moreno’s decision opens the door for the class-action experts at Hagens Berman to start making moves in numerous states.
“We are pleased the court has allowed our claims to continue and look forward to leading this case forward with something these affected Mustangs surely lack — speed and endurance,” managing partner of law firm Hagens Berman, Steve Berman, said in a statement. “The class of individuals who purchased these pricey pieces of history deserve to have more than a flashy trophy in their garage. They deserve to have a car that is capable of the track performance they were baited with.”
The international law firm also retweeted a story from The Drive this week, quoting Moreno as cautiously criticizing Ford’s marketing relating to the Mustang.
“Through product placement in James Bond movies and racing partnerships with figures like Carroll Shelby, Ford has spent half a century cultivating an aura of performance and adventure,” the judge wrote in his order. “But these Plaintiffs allege, to Lee Iacocca’s chagrin, that their cars are more like Pintos than Mustangs.”
The Mustang’s track-related issues seem quite a bit less dire than the Pinto fires. But it’s another item in what’s been a prolonged rough patch for Ford’s quality control. While automakers around the globe are perpetually subject to regulatory action and lawsuits relating to false promises, cost-cutting, and general defects, Ford has been getting some high-profile attention of late. While not all of that attention pertains to the Mustang, GT models equipped with the MT82 six-speed manual transmissions supplied by Getrag were hit with a lawsuit of their own. Ford has had a lot of issues with Getrag-sourced gearboxes, with the MT82 starting to get serious attention in 2020.
“The transmission is defective in its design, manufacturing, and or materials in that, among other problems, the transmission slips, jerks, clashes gears, and harshly engages; has premature internal wear, increased shift efforts, inability to drive, and eventually suffers a catastrophic failure,” states the lawsuit. “Ford repeatedly failed to disclose and actively concealed the defect from class members and the public and continues to market the class vehicles without disclosing the transmission defect.”
Problems are suspected to go back to 2010 and incorporates a 2011 investigation conducted by the NHTSA, though it failed to conclude the MT82 posed any “unreasonable” safety risks. The suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California but has since been moved to the Eastern District of Michigan. Earlier this year, Ford also settled a class-action lawsuit pertaining to those pesky PowerShift DSP6 dual-clutches sold by Getrag and installed in Fiesta and Focus models between 2011 and 2016.
[Images: Ford Motor Co.]
Consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulations. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, he has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed about the automotive sector by national broadcasts, participated in a few amateur rallying events, and driven more rental cars than anyone ever should. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and learned to drive by twelve. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer and motorcycles.
More by Matt Posky
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Amwhalbi My 1972 Mercury Capri was my first stick shift car. God, I miss that thing. It was a blast to drive.
- Vid169489471 The technology exists today to produce a variable color temperature (kelvin) LED lamp. It can vary from 2700k that soft orange look to 6500k the bright daylight with the bluish tint.Since everything in a late model car is computer controlled, it would be an easy task to write a few lines of code that enables your vehicle to not only dim down from hi to low beam but to shift color temp down to the 2700k range for oncoming traffic, then back up to 5000k once oncoming traffic has passed. For the operator it would be automatic and seamless. For older cars they could be retrofitted with LEDs that are 2700k on low beam and 5000k on hi beam. As far as standards, there could be a lumens max, and a minimum. Several States already have minimum lumen standards going back to the old incandescent bulbs. Why not update these to national standards.
- Jam169859557 More regulation is needed for ALL vehicle lighting systems. [list=1][*]The lighting that is most blinding are the rapidly flashing red, blue and amber lights on emergency vehicles. The lights themselves are blinding, flashing so rapidly that it's impossible for even the sharpest eyes to adjust. What's worse, is the nature of the emergency requires a careful view of the area surrounding the emergency vehicle. There is something going on that needs to be seen. More flashing lights is not the solution.[/*][*]Brighter headlights need to be regulated. The tall riding vehicles do not need headlights positioned so high that they blind drivers in lower riding vehicles. And those heasdlights need to be aimed properly. When I first started driving my 2020 Subaru Outback, many drivers would flash their lights, hoping I would dim my lights. This stopped after I performed am easy adjustment that tilted the beam lower. Late model Subaru headlamps are designed with a sharp cutoff that project less glare above the hood line. When the headlights are properly aimed, other drivers are not blinded by the beam.[/*][*]Customized light assemblies make it more difficult to see the marker lights (tail lamps, turn signals and side marker lamps) that have been tinted. There are many municiple codes that prohibit this tinting, but these laws are seldom enforced.[/*][/list=1]Solutions: Tight controls on emergency vehicle lighting. In trying to make these vehicles more visible, a dangerous side effect is reducing the ability of drivers to see the surrounding perils.Headlight design regulations that reduce the height of the headlight assemblies. Just because a pickup truck has a hood that sits 4 feet abouve the pavement, it does not mean the headlights need to be so high. Owneres should maintain proper adjustments to their vehicle headlights.Establish and enforce regulation requiring a illumination standard be followed.
- Stl170698708 as someone who hates big government, and their interference;but you can add me to the list of people that are blinded by the lights.unfortunately "the poop is out of the horse and no way is it going back in"They have had 5 years to make lights bigger, badder and brighter because in the vehicle work it is go big or go home!Trucks are the worst because so many people use them to express their dominance and that is big, big, big $$ both at the Original Purchase and in the Aftermarket world.If, we are so lucky to get some good government regulation on this it will also take some very good Court enforcement to get the aftermarket people with fines and lawsuits.Much like the EPA did with the Diesel Tuner Industry that felt emission regulations didn't apply to them.This is from someone that owns said pickup truck with the same bright headlights,but i only use the truck when I have too and always turn off the Fog lights when driving in traffic.
- Art65765977 I saw a porsche 911 with the most amazing headlights from behind approaching the Sunshine skyway in Florida. The pattern was 108 degrees across sweeping the road like a broom. My brother and I were amazed. I don't know what it looked like from the front but i am sure it was better than American cars
Comments
Join the conversation
TTAC has predicted that Tesla as a business would be a flop and that each new model would be a flop. Now you're predicting its first flop?
So none of these twits involved in the lawsuit who planned to "extensively track" the car paid any attention to the track pack (you know the option specifically delineating the addition equipment like the trans and diff coolers) option in the order guide? When Ford first announced the car I took the time to wander over to the website and checked out the order guide. I wasn't ready to be an early adopter but I noticed that Ford made the weird decision to separate the GT350 into a base car, a track focused car and a pseudo luxury car with no way to option say a base car with the track equipment or a fully loaded car with all the options. Fortunately for me I caught wind of the changes for the 2017 model year and when I was in a position to buy the car I waited till 2017 to make my purchase. I fully suspect these buyers were cut from the same cloth as the one lap wonder PP2 GT crowd that called anybody buying a Shelby a sucker for wasting their money on a name only when a PP2 equipped Mustang GT was every bit as capable for thousands less. All I can say is caveat emptor in this case and if Ford has to settle then it is just a buy back less depreciation on the cars and they can go take their money and go help GM boost Camaro sales before the car goes out of production. Given the high transaction prices for the used cars Ford could recoup the money in the buy back and pocket a little extra to offset the legal costs of this frivolous lawsuit.