355: fuel distribution block factory recall

Could someone post a photo of the clamp in question and it's proper positioning to avoid a fire just as a preventative measure until we can get the updates?

 

#1+2 are wrong. #3 is right. This is at the front middle of the motor/firewall.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Isn't it the NHTSA that issues , asks Ferrari AND words the recall?
Why is the "blame" on Ferrari for the way the recall reads?
NHTSA asks Ferrari to "voluntarily" issue a recall for a problem that comes to NHTSA's attention, obviously Ferrari agreed to the recall on it's dime according to the request.

or..... is it a case of Ferrari on it's own acknowledging the seriousness of an ongoing problem and decides to issue the recall on it's own accord, just informing NHTSA of the problem?

Is Ferrari the Chicken and NHTSA the egg or is Ferrari the egg and Nhtsa the chicken.

Who ever's "to blame" there is a problem they are taking care to have fixed correctly after a history of the cars being out in the field for a while with alot mor real world service history behind it. Gang... remember hindsight is ALWAYS 20-20.

JD

 

Thats awesome thanks.

BTW, in my limited witness of three F355 fuel line fires, all three of them were caused by the nut loosening (or not being tight) that holds the line ends into the fuel block.

I think that there might not be a recall for that, which is not exactly a defect. At least one if not two of what I have seen had recently been worked on.


Jay

 

They have had car fires for this reason and have been very well aware of the problem for about 12 or 13 years. In your world is that called addressing the
problem?

They even had a good fix for it in 98, the same fix they are applying now under force of law but they were too cheap and your safety was worth too little to them to do it.


It was bad engineering and those of us involved knew it more than a decade ago. Don't try and paint them as innocent at this late date. They were stupid, they were cheap and they are guilty with gambling with a lot of lives to save a few bucks in the hope it would just go away and now they are just trying to shift blame.

 

look .. I was only posing a question here...in my world... no need for attitude

 

A lot more cars have been spared fire because a few of us have been looking out for this for a lot of years. These pictures were taken here just a few weeks ago for possible action against a local shop. The fuel hose was worn about 1/2 way through. We see this almost every month.

I know of a car in Sacramento right now whose driver was badly burned for this reason. The car was totaled and claims settled before the cause was ever discovered. The owner and insurance company were never made aware. I am sure that is not a first and Ferrari has skated on a lot of suits because no one knowledgeable was ever consulted to discover the genesis of the fire.

I have never seen the nut come loose. I have to believe they were left loose.

 

Something you need to understand. In the post Ford/Firestone fiasco, auto manufacturers have finally decided to volunteer this information, in some cases, for recalls. It has only been the threat of huge suits/settlements that brought them around. Ferrari has known about this for a long time, just like they have known about faulty passive restraints a long time. A Ferrari official once told me the only reason all the passive restraint cars were not recalled is because not enough people complained to the government agencies to bring one about. To them our safety is a cost/benefit decision and Ferrari is as bad as they come.

 

Late or not, it''s good to see some action. I seem to recall my mechanic showing me this issue, but it was a clamp he showed me not a different block.

 

I know from personal experience that it's best to have to have a volunary recall than to have a forced mandatory recall.

In a previous life, I was involved with a SCUBA diving company. Our regulator had a defect in deign that we did not know about untill afteraround 7 years after we started production. Actually a few reported cases around the 4th year.... continuing to the 7th year...actually again we didn't consider it a defect...we considered it a maintenance issue, but at the 7th year we had to consider it a defect......
The chrome plated brass top cover of the 2nd stage (mouth piece part) developed corrosion severe enough for the brass to disolve and jam the purge button . There was a drainage issue, that when the regulator was not in use and in storage, some owners did not follow procedure to clean and drain the unit with fresh water after a salt water dive. The salt water of the unmaintained regulator would eventually eat awy the chrome and brass underneath the purge button. Our company had sporadic reports of this failure at around the 4 -5 year point, but not enough to generate a full recall. We could not duplicate the probelm in our labs in a timely manner so we decided to replace the parts gratis to the owners who let us know they had a problem... The numbers were fairly small, maybe 5 or 6 a year for a product we sold 20,000 annually.. After the 7th year the ratios were about the same, but the Fed's knocked on our door and asked us about this as one owner went to the Government. Upon my company and the Feds discussions we could either issue a voluntary recall or have a forced mandatory recall. We ended up paying about $500K for the customer notification needed in all the trade and consumer publications and another $100K for revised tooling costs and labor credits to our dealers. The fix was to put drain holes in the top cover and replace ALL regulators in the field. Up untill the Feds knockin on the door we didn't realize that the 5 to 6 cases per year reported to us was a major problem with the design. When we examined the returned regs up to that point, that when the problem occured in the field, the reg would fail "safe" since the jamed purge would fail in the open mode, always supplying the diver with air. We didn't consider this a recall wothy problem.
Our engineers were very competent and our Q.C. of the product out the door was beyond reproach..... But we had a choice to make when the Feds knocked on the door..issue a recall ourselves (albeit expensive) or have the Government force one upon us (expensive and damaging to the brand name of our company.

My point is that sometimes a manufacturer may not know quite the scope of a problem untill well after production and real world years in the field results come back home. A few reported cases a year may make a company aware of a problem, but not the true scope of it. In the short term it's cost effective to deal with it in a case by case manor as not all the production was mal-maintained. We took care of our customers that reported a problem to us and they were more than happy. The majority of owners knew proper mainanence and were unaffected by the problem, even tho they shared they identcal designed product. But whe the feds knocked we had to do something as we had little choice. Some of the conditions of failure can be missed in the lab even with accelerated and intense testing. Again our company kew of a problem well before the recall, but it was minor in scope inthe "big picture". For 5 to 6 reported failures a year it was not deemed a good sound financial decision to spen $100K to re-tool verses the maybe 90 bucks per unit we fixed for the customers who brought the problem of the regulators to our attention.

And mind you... a SCUBA regulator is a "life support device". A person who uses one depends his life on the product and we understood intimately what a wrongful death lawsuit costs and we never wanted nor intended our customers th put their life at risk using one of our products.. one occurance would make the cost of the recall peanuts in comparison, even with that knowledge we did not think the defect was recall worthy, but the Feds sure did!


Jeff Davison

 

This only involved repositioning of the coolant hose clamp. Subsequent service of the coolant hose or an "engine out" service could disturb the positioning of the clamp, and cause the problem all over again, if the recall campaign procedure was not followed.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Interesting that in that recall they admit to having installed the clamps in the incorrect position but the new recall blames it on independant repair facilities.


It should go down in history as one of the most stupid recalls ever. I would say ill thought out but they did think about it a lot. They chose the cheap way out at the expense of safety.

Like I said before.....A bunch of lying sacks of steaming excrement.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

When the redesigned fuel divider block is fitted according to this recall (#48) do they fit a new fuel pipe as well (the fuel pipe which was closest to the clamp securing the water hose)?

 

My car is part of the recall, I have not received the letter but I was speaking to my service center and asked about it after seeing this thread.

Sorry if I missed a link but has anyone got a photo of the updated part? I am interested to see how they have changed to to avoid the hose clap/fuel line interference....

 

Hmmm...I wonder if this was the cause of my broken fuel line a couple of months ago. Thankfully, I smelled gas and was able to park the car and get it towed before anything caught fire.

 

So is this recall for U.S. spec cars also or just Europe? Will all owners recieve a recall notice?

 

If your mechanic was up to speed he should have known about it aand told you so. In fact if he had ever worked on the car prior he should have prevented it. It is something I look at first on my first view under the hood of a 355.

 

It is angled upward to provide clearance no matter the clamp position. What any good designer would have done on the first design.

 

Maybe it's time to start making the drive out to the East Bay for service!

 

Thanks.

 

In a letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Ferrari says it learned of the problem when it was sued over a fire involving an injury to the driver.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/ferraris-unusual-recall/

 

And as we know that is a lie. Ferrari knew about it since not long after they built the cars.


We I am glad they got sued at least once. Goes to show they take no action until it costs too much not to.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

OK so now the recall is official
Has anyone gone ahead with it?
What is the process to go forward?
Will FNA pay to transport the car to the dealer as my nearest dealer is more than 500 miles away?
If there is risk of fire it is not safe to drive that distance

While they are fixing the design flaw with he fuel will they reimburse me for the valve job that I did two years ago because of the brass valves guide disaster of theirs? How about the headers?

 

I would suggest you call either FNA or your nearest FNA dealer for assistance. Good luck on the valve guides...and a flat bed....I bet no on both counts.

 

.
Image Unavailable, Please Login