Ford Issues Do Not Drive Order for Exactly Three Broncos
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on Friday issued a "Do Not Drive" warning to the owners of precisely three Ford Broncos over loose suspension bolts that weren't properly tightened down at the factory. This could allow the front lower control arms to detach from the frame, increasing the risk of a crash.
The problem first came to light when a customer complained to a dealer in April about a loud, audible "pop" noise when turning at full lock. Upon inspection, the dealer discovered all nuts holding the lower control arms to the frame were loose.
Photo by: Ford
How does a Bronco leave the factory with loose bolts? Well, according to the NHTSA's
recall report
, the Bronco in question failed an alignment test at the plant before being manually approved by someone Ford calls a "Quality Leadership System operator," rather than being re-run through the factory's alignment validation equipment. As such, no one confirmed the Bronco's control arms were properly aligned and bolted to the frame before it left the plant.
Ford says this mistake could've affected a total of four Broncos, making this a very rare problem. One of the affected SUVs, one was fixed prior to the recall being issued, meaning there are three in the field that still need examining.
Despite the small number of Broncos affected, the recall spans both 2024 and 2025 model years. Ford says it's reaching out to owners by phone, email, and mail, instructing them to avoid driving their vehicles. They'll be towed to the dealer free of charge, where a technician will inspect the control arm fasteners and tighten or replace them if needed. The vehicle's alignment will also be checked and corrected, as needed.
If you think you're one of the three remaining Bronco owners with an affected truck, stop driving your car and check your VIN against
the NHTSA's database
. And check your phone; odds are Ford is already blowing it up telling you not to get behind the wheel.
More Ford Recalls
Ford Already Has 40 Recalls This Year
Whoops: Ford Issues Even More Recalls to Fix Previously Botched Recalls
Get the best news, reviews, columns, and more delivered straight to your inbox, daily.
back
Sign up
For more information, read our
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Use
.
Source:
Road & Track
Share this Story
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Reddit
WhatsApp
E-Mail
Got a tip for us? Email:
tips@motor1.com
Join the conversation
(
)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Auto sales see 'return to normal' while trying to shake off tariffs
While Ford (F) posted a 16% year-over-year increase in May auto sales — bolstered by employee pricing discounts — how have other automakers been trying to get ahead of tariff impacts? CarGurus director of economic and market intelligence Kevin Roberts joins Asking for a Trend's Josh Lipton to talk more about auto price forecasts as car brands navigate President Trump's tariff policies and proposals to tax steel imports. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Asking for a Trend here.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Autonomous vehicles should have to pass a driver's test, just like anyone else
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that nearly 40,000 people died in motor vehicle crashes last year, and millions more were injured. Automotive and technology companies have been working for years to develop autonomous vehicles in part to help reduce the number and severity of car crashes. As many as half of fatal crashes involve speeding and drinking. Autonomous vehicles do neither. Yet the momentum toward broad deployment of these autonomous vehicles has stalled amid persistent consumer fears about safety since the first high-profile fatalities in 2018. In April, the Department of Transportation announced a new automated-vehicle policy intended to speed up the rollout of these vehicles across the country. However, the agency did not address the most significant barrier: the lack of a national safety performance testing standard. Just as every licensed driver can sometimes cause an accident, so will autonomous vehicles. That doesn't mean we shouldn't deploy them to realize their benefits. But it does mean they should meet an objective safety standard, one that we all agree improves roadway safety over the status quo. Last December, the federal highway agency proposed a program called AV STEP, but it is only a voluntary review and reporting framework. The federal government does not provide guidance on how autonomous vehicles should be tested, and AV STEP would not change that. The absence of a national safety framework hinders wider adoption and public acceptance of autonomous vehicles, curtailing their clear promise to society, even as other nations are moving quickly to encourage adoption and to measure safety. First-time drivers of any age must pass a basic test, but self-driving vehicles do not. Does that make sense? Waymo, a subsidiary of Alphabet (formerly known as Google), operates robotaxis in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Phoenix, providing 250,000 autonomous rides weekly. In March, the company added service in Austin, Texas in partnership with Uber. Waymo and Zurich-based insurance giant SwissRe recently studied third-party insurance claims from 25.3 million miles driven by Waymo vehicles. They found an 88 percent reduction in property claims on car accidents and a 92 percent reduction in bodily injury claims. Waymo's record shows the benefits to public safety that would come from autonomous vehicles. Yet a recent survey, conducted by AAA, found that only 13 percent of drivers would trust riding in a self-driving vehicle. Six in 10 drivers report being 'afraid' to ride in a self-driving car and just 13 percent of drivers prioritize autonomous vehicle development as a top vehicle technology initiative, down from 18 percent in 2022. We work at Mcity, a public-private research partnership at the University of Michigan devoted to transforming mobility. We have a solution to help overcome consumer concerns and provide the industry with a shared, trustworthy benchmark: autonomous vehicle safety assessment tests. As states have basic requirements for driver training and on-road competency evaluations, the auto industry and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should support autonomous vehicle competency tests for on-road driving. We've developed a comprehensive two-part methodology to do that. The autonomous vehicle 'Driver's Licensing Test' evaluates autonomous vehicles via on-road competency tests, just like millions of new drivers every year. We have roughly 50 tests and hundreds of driving scenarios. The 'Driving Intelligence Test' evaluates autonomous vehicle decision-making and response by challenging autonomous vehicle software with a diverse set of the most dangerous driving scenarios. Mcity has proven our two-part protocol using open-sourced autonomous vehicle software in our fleet of research vehicles. In addition, we've put a range of commercial autonomous vehicle systems through the Driver's Licensing Test, identifying several behavior deficiencies that required refining the autonomous vehicle algorithm to improve driving safety. Mcity's safety assessment tests do not have to be done in Ann Arbor. Industry or third parties can use our test methodology at adequately configured sites nationwide to conduct thousands of the rarest, most dangerous driving scenarios. Successfully passing these tests and self-certifying would mean manufacturers, regulators and the public would have confidence that autonomous vehicles meet or exceed essential driving performance tests for safe operation. Importantly, our tests do this while ensuring proprietary AI data remains securely in the hands of innovators. The potential benefits of driverless vehicles remain enormous: safer driving with fewer, less severe crashes; more efficient, lower-cost shipping; and expanded access to personal transport for Americans who need it most, such as the elderly, those with disabilities and those who don't or can't own or operate their own vehicle. These benefits will not be fully realized unless autonomous vehicles are on our roads in significant numbers. And that won't happen unless consumers trust that these vehicles are safe. Henry Liu is director of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, which includes Mcity. He is the Bruce D. Greenshields Collegiate Professor of Engineering and director of the Department of Transportation's Region 5 Center for Connected and Automated Transportation. Greg McGuire is managing director of Mcity. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
EVs Are Rewiring Risk For Manufacturers
The internal combustion engine (ICE) has been steadily improving for more than 100 years, giving us cars that are almost unrecognisable from those early, groundbreaking days of the Ford Model T. This, in turn, has made driving a faster, safer, more fuel-efficient, and more enjoyable experience for everyone. Now electric vehicles (EVs) mark a fundamental shift. One that not only paves the way to innovative changes in how passenger vehicles are designed, built, and maintained, but that will also kickstart a whole new era of risk for manufacturers. Driving this transformation are three key factors, the first of which is consumer dynamics. To date, EV adoption has actually been slower than many projected with only a quarter of car buyers seriously considering going fully electric due to concerns around cost, range and charging time. This has seen the manufacturing industry double down on addressing these concerns with new models that travel further and charge faster. The second factor is battery innovation. Right now, lithium-ion is found in 90% of US EVs, but their performance and safety features don't completely meet all customer requirements. Interest in alternative designs is therefore accelerating too – from iron- and sulphur-based lithium variants to sodium-ion and hydrogen cells. All have their own advantages and disadvantages, leading manufacturers to invest in understanding how they perform in the full life cycle of a user experience. The third and final driver of change is the supply chain itself. EVs use up to three times more chips than ICE vehicles and therefore rely heavily on materials sourced and processed overseas. China alone accounts for 70% of global battery production. Add in geopolitical volatility, tariff controversies, ongoing labor shortages, and localized incidents like the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, and it's clear: EV supply chains are more stretched and unpredictable than ever – requiring flexible and proactive risk mitigation frameworks to match. There are new, less familiar threats for manufacturers to counter too. While ICE and hybrid vehicles actually catch fire more frequently, EV fires tend to burn hotter and longer – with several high-profile cases making the news and rocking consumer trust. Responding to this risk requires specialized equipment and training for staff, along with a deeper knowledge of chemistry, housing, and fire suppression. Then there's cyber. EVs are, by nature, software-defined machines that are deeply integrated with networks and cloud platforms. From code-level bugs to coordinated hacks, this opens up new areas of potential vulnerability, all capable of causing costly reputational damage and liability claims. Even product recalls are changing. In contrast to ICE vehicle breakdowns, EV issues can often be fixed with over-the-air updates and patches. Yet while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) still classifies these events as recalls, the cost and customer experience are entirely different. This, in turn, forces insurers and manufacturers to re-examine the way they calculate risk along with how they structure mitigation strategies going forward. So how should the manufacturing industry respond? First and foremost, by empowering risk managers to lead in this evolving environment and become a central part of a broader, stronger, more connected ecosystem within their own companies. One that connects stakeholders across R&D, supply chain, operations, IT, and even government relations to create a comprehensive framework for analysing and responding to risk. The way manufacturers deploy data must evolve too. Unlike with ICE vehicles, firms don't have decades of EV insights to fall back on in their decision-making and planning. So instead, they should lean into forward-looking indicators, using machinery data on the shop floor to identify quality risks and limit the likelihood of product liability and recall. Leveraging smarter building data in areas like fire protection and structural soundness will also be vital, as will utilizing supply chain visibility information and scoring models for business tax. Encouragingly, much of this data is already available today; it now just needs to be viewed with a risk lens. Rather than simply present data at renewal time, manufacturers and brokers should therefore engage in an ongoing dialogue with carriers about emerging threats, evolving mitigations, and the specific steps they are taking to reduce exposure. This will help shape limits and premiums that fit the realities of their operating landscape. In fact, this ability to focus on the future is, perhaps, the most important shift of all. As EVs become an ever more frequent sight on our roads and in our factories, the passenger vehicle market will be defined by both new methods of manufacturing and new approaches to risk. The firms that lead this new era will be those with their eyes on the road ahead, not in the rear view mirror.
