Ford Ranger recall: rear seat defect affects 4200 utes | CarAdvice

Car Advice
  • Home
  • »  Ford Ranger recall: rear seat defect affects 4200 utes

Ford Ranger recall: rear seat defect affects 4200 utes

FORD RANGER
By David Zalstein |
FIND DEALS

More than 4000 all-new Ford Ranger vehicles have been recalled due to a rear seatback issue that could result in a safety hazard for passengers, just over 12 months after the Ford ute’s Australian launch in September 2011.

The official recall notice published on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) website explains 4258 Double Cab PX Ford Rangers available for sale between May 23, 2011 and February 13, 2012 may have a defective rear seatback latch that may not engage correctly. The defect may result in the rear seatback latch not being secured to the body striker, causing the rear seatback to fall forward posing a safety hazard to occupants.

Ford Ranger - Double Cab

The ACCC recommends that until the safety recall service is completed, affected vehicles should not be operated with a rearward facing child seat.

Owners are advised to contact their authorised Ford dealership for inspection and rectification.

Ford Ranger - Rear Seat

CarAdvice has contacted Ford Australia for comment.

In August, 16,287 of the earlier PJ and PK model Ford Rangers were recalled to fix a defect with the utes’ factory-fitted tow bars.


 

  • abs

    Strangely quiet….. would not be soo quiet if it was Holden or Toyota.

    • Qwerty321

      I guess it is not on the same level as stuck accelerator or potential loss of steering.

      • Zaccy16

        exactly, with someone sitting in the seat it would not spring forward anyway

        • Qwerty321

          + the seatbelt is not connected to the seat and it’s the seatbelt that stop you moving forward…mim sure it can handle an extra kilo or so.

  • http://ozmazda.com/ OZM

    gee not the aussie blue ute…….good onya Ford…..lets see if the better twin has these problems….

    • PoisonEagle

       what exactly is better about it? It has less noise insulation, peak torque arrives 250 rpm later and worst of all, looks like H.R. Geiger drew a clown with wheels. No wonder they have to discount the ringhole out of them, and put a bullbar on the ads. Ford on the other hand can’t import enough Rangers to satisfy demand.

      • Amlohac

        I’d assume you are talking about the Mazda?

        Its. The. Same. ENGINE. And gearbox and the stupid ford satnav that costs $2500 for map upgrades and doesnt understand your voice commands. There is no difference other than the body and the suspension set up, the Mazda has a higher effective load carrying capacity than the Ranger because of this. The power delivery and figures of both vehicles is exactly the same, even the fuel consumption is the same.

        Mazda do not discount the ring out of the vehicle at all, its actually a cheaper vehicle RRP than the Ranger. Which to me sounds rather odd considering it seems you get a little bit less in the Ranger in some models compared with the Mazda.

        FYI Mazda have the same supply issues as Ford as they come from the same factory that was affected by flooding and god knows what else over the past year, hence the supply and demand gap. Mazda ALSO have issues with supplying these vehicles, for this very reason.

        Ford also have a fleet program, which Mazda, do not. Hence the higher Ranger sales.

        Have you driven both vehicles to compare road noise? Because the two utes i’ve driven (ranger and BT50) oddly enough were identical in terms of road noise. The only difference was the ride, which as a mentioned above would be a direct result of the stiffer suspension in the BT50.

        • Andrew M

          Ok, everyone is an expert, I suppose that sarcasm should be at myself too cause im about to chime in on this too.

          Please tell me more about how the BT50 has harder suspension and a higher effective load carrying capacity.

          Lets start with the base model where the Ranger actually has a higher GCM than the BT50. Sounds odd, but thats the stat I pulled up.

          Also the GCM on the XLT and BT Equiv GT are identical, Likewise the GCM so Im struggling to see evidence of any stiffer suspension and effective load carrying capacity.

          The only difference I found weight wise is the Ranger XLT has a 64kg less payload, but dont forget the ranger already has the towbar and sports bar accounted for in that whereas on the BT50 still has that deduction to come.

          • Amlohac

            Xlt isnt the GT equiv, the Xtr would be.

        • Andrew M

          And on price, the XLT is 3K dearer than the BT50 Equiv, but it has 3K more equipment.
          On the flip side the base model Diesel 2wd Ranger is actually 2K cheaper than the BT50.

          And with Satnav, yep the Ford one is dearer, but like on all the Mazdas it is tiny and hard to use.

          As far as I am concerned the whole thing a dead argument as far as value and ability is concerned.
          They are identical in every which way that it matters.
          The only real decisive factor is looks and it makes me laugh hearing people try and talk it up as anything more

          • Amlohac

            If you add the stuff the Mazda is “missing” it still works out cheaper. Mazdas parts for some reason appear to be cheaper?

        • Andrew M

          Oh, and as for supply issues, yes it did hit the Ranger harder because Australia had to share production or lack of with other markets where as the BT50 and mazda in general isnt very prominent in other markets.

          Ranger had to share what little output there was, whereas Mazda Australia didnt have to so much.

          But all that aside, for the last few months now I have seen stock starting to build up, whereas before it was only ones that were already sold going in to the dealerships.

          • Azsdfgasdfgf

            “Australia had to share production or lack (there) of with other markets where as the BT50 and mazda in general isnt very prominent in other markets.”

            I dont think that anyone needs to say anything more on the topic…

        • Andrew M

          Ill give you one thing, and thats the Ranger sells more to Fleets. It doesnt make it an inferior vehicle though.

          I actually wish they would have built the Ranger here, It would mean the Ranger would be the only Aussie made Jap style Ute meaning the Gov fleets at least would be forced to purchase it over the Hilux.

          If Ford were smart they could have made the Ranger here and it could be pulling near 4000 sales just like the Hilux.

          It would have also been smart because the Ranger is of similar price tags to the Falcon and hence similar margins etc

          • Amlohac

            Never said it was inferior.

            Hilux needs a serious update though, i mean 4 speed auto? What in the actual F$&%

  • http://ozmazda.com/ OZM

    oh someone is full of poison thou you would have to be if you think the boring ranger is a nice looking ute….discount no they just have priced it smarter…..looks well its more modern than the old style copycat yank tank ranger and as for the bullbar….smart thinking having a bullbar already to go from there release…..gee import enough my rural dealer has a yard full of them….and I have asked and they are having problems selling them because of their price….go figure do a breakdown on their sales and you will find that a high percentage will be fleet and no private…..oh I forgot the torque……I have done enough…..flame on Ranger lovers….lol

    • Barra240t

      OZM what are you comparing the Ranger to?

    • Mark

      Oh please……