| Components - Details | |
|---|---|
| NHTSA Complaint Number: 007098021 | Incident Date: Mar, 04 2007 |
| Consumer's City: BARNEGAT | Consumer's State: NJ |
| Vehicle Transmission Type: AUTO | Manufacturers Name: Ford Motor Company |
| Model Name: FREESTYLE | Model Year: 2005 |
| Vehicle Involved in a Crash: No | Component's Description: Service brakes, hydraulic:foundation components:disc:pads |
| Vehicle Involved in a Fire: No | Persons Injured: 0 |
| Vehicle's VIN#: 1FMDK06105G | Date added to File: May, 23 2021 |
| Date Complaint Received: Mar, 09 2007 | Complaint Type: IVOQ |
| Incident Reported To Police: No | Purchase Date: Mar, 12 2006 |
| Was Original Owner: No | Anti-lock Brakes: Yes |
| Number of Cylinders: 6 | Date of Manufacturer: - |
| Was Vehicle Towed: - | Description of the Complaints: Just got a repair bill for my 2005 ford freestyle to replace rear rotors and pads - car has only 22,000 miles and is not being driven in any unusual manner. previous ford products were ford windstar and f150 both requiring brake service around 90,000 miles. premature wear of rear freestyle brakes is referenced all over the internet. there appears to be a design flaw with car that does not meet customer expectations. dealer service manager claimed > that ford designed brakes to minimize front nose dive during braking. > what could be the reason for this? why did all my other ford products not > need this? does it have something to do with safety crash ratings? > i feel this is a totally unacceptable design since i will need to change > brake pads on an annual basis. ford customer care just said this was normal and had no alternative rationale. it would seem that ford should at least provide some reasonable rationale for the premature wear. *jb |
