Ford running into a few issues

[Not Brian]

http://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd518/gotsvtraptor/Frame/inside_frame_drawing.jpg

I'm not an engineer but that looks like a horrible design.

[Guest Z Fag Jr.]

I'm not an engineer but that looks like a horrible design.

 

Thats the problem it is the hole was cut to gain easy access to the mount. If you have ever owned a ford you would know the first thing they need esp fox body mustangs are subframe connectors. IDK they do market it as an aggressive offroad truck.

[El Karacho1647545492]

Doesn't surprise me thought. I'm older but back in the mid 90's wasn't it SVT and Ford that rated the Cobra HP output at 300+ and had to make modifications after the fact to actually get them there? Yep, no surprise they are still making claims they can't back up and yet try and hide behind it in print.

 

 

The 2000 Cobra R was marketed as having 385 bhp. Owners who dyno'd their cars found that they were seeing 385 whp, making Ford's claim a probably miscalculation. I bet not too many people complained about that :gabe:.

 

Furthermore, that WAS marketed as a pure track car, and I bet Ford never honored any warranty claims on that car for issues had at the track.

 

EDIT: the bottom line is that it doesnt matter how the car is marketed. It doesn't matter what the dealer or salesmen tell you the car CAN do. Yes, the Raptor is an incredibly capable offroad vehicle and has been designed with crazyness like a factory car running the Baja 1000 in mind. It doesn't matter if the purchaser of the vehicle signs a warranty that explicitly states that kind of use is NOT covered under warranty. It is not the dealer's responsibility to analyze your planned vehicle usage and tailor the warranty to that.

[schmuckingham]

If this is the only issue Ford is having I think they are doing just fine.

[TTQ B4U]

The 2000 Cobra R was marketed as having 385 bhp. Owners who dyno'd their cars found that they were seeing 385 whp, making Ford's claim a probably miscalculation. I bet not too many people complained about that :gabe:.

 

And case law will show that in the mid 90's...I believe 1996, the regular Cobra's had to have work done to get them to be "up to" their rated HP. SVT is exhibiting a behavior of misleading customers and courts don't take highly to repeatable behaviors like that.

 

Furthermore, that WAS marketed as a pure track car, and I bet Ford never honored any warranty claims on that car for issues had at the track.

I wasn't talking about the Cobra R. Stay on topic with the Leguna package you mentioned, then come back to me about that one.

 

EDIT: the bottom line is that it doesnt matter how the car is marketed.

So would you like me to point out the five facts that are the basis for a false advertising case to be heard by a court. This situation clearly meets them and I'm prepared to extend this thread to 42 pages talking about it. I have the tools and the time and beer tonight to do that. Wifey is pretty sharp on this subject even though it's not her focus.

 

It doesn't matter what the dealer or salesmen tell you the car CAN do.

Again, it absolutely does. You work for a dealer and that dealer has employed you, what you say will come back to haunt someone in a court of law. That's exactly what lawyers do is come after someone making false or misleading claims. Trust me, if my wife took this case, EVERYONE would be served and forced into a very uncomfortable situation. That's when shit gets fun and interesting. Cannibalism occurs. I've seen her and other lawyers do it.

 

It doesn't matter if the purchaser of the vehicle signs a warranty that explicitly states that kind of use is NOT covered under warranty. It is not the dealer's responsibility to analyze your planned vehicle usage and tailor the warranty to that.

Signing a document doesn't mean there isn't accountability. We're not talking at a dealer level either. I've already clarified in my previous posts understanding the dealers point. Remember where I mentioned I grew up in the car business? My family owned three points, Old, GMC and a Caddy point in the Cleveland area.

 

The buyers sign a lot of documents, but false advertising or in this particular case "failure to disclose" will come through misstatements and partially correct ones. The marketing Ford has put forth is completely misleading and a decent lawyer can easily show insufficient disclosure in their advertising to which is NOT so black and white as you try and make it. Regardless of what paperwork is done at signing.

 

That decision is left to the discretion of the courts and I'm telling you through what I know and have seen in cases like this, there's a good chance this will go the distance if Ford doesn't settle up. My guess is they will.

[Got-Boost?]

Did you read the thread? 10 out of 14 trucks in one group. Did you read how it happened? These are rhetorical, btw. I know the answer.

 

I don't understand how people express such strong opinions based on guessing and skimming...

 

"SVT does not recommend modifying or racing SVT vehicles, as they are

designed and built to be driven as delivered from the factory."

 

Really? That's not at all what I get when watching the videos they proudly display on their web site. Nor in line with what the lead engineers are saying in those videos. In fact the guys in the thread didn't drive the vehicles nearly as hard as the professionals in the videos.

 

Look, I'm a realist too, thus why I made the comment about perhaps these things being seen as normal wear and tear, however, there's zero doubt in my mind that there would be a pretty straight forward case of false advertising to be taken on by a sharp lawyer. Given the bad press Ford would and likely will get on this, they are way better off fixing those that fucked up their trucks and issuing a service bulletin on a fix that would in turn also include a revised warranty statement.

 

IMO Ford is taking warranty lessons from Nissan's GTR team. I worked for Panasonic and I sold Toughbooks. You can drop my laptop down a flight of stairs....and we did all the time at trade shows, and it would be fine. Panasonic covered the laptops under warranty if they were dropped. Unless it was found to be crushed by a car, we replaced them.

 

I'm not saying these guys won't wear out their trucks or cause a skid plate to bend, but the fucking body bending as a result of what Ford shows in their videos promoting the truck with no disclaimers in said videos? Hmmm...something tells me they are closely crossing the line on what they tout as Built Ford Tough.

 

Exactly what does it mean to say "it can incur damage if driven beyond its capabilities" ?

So what exactly are it's capabilities?

How can I agree and be held responsible for something something that's not clarified?

 

Perhaps it is clarified by Ford themselves in the professional videos they show them being driven as "as delivered from the factory" out of the trucks with zero disclaimers made in them about damage or driving them beyond their capabilities. In fact the guys in this thread are doing exactly what they videos and warranty show. Driving the truck as delivered form the factory, doing what Ford touts the truck is not only built to do but intended to do. Bruce Williams the lead designer clearly explains how it was built from ground up, to quote "handle the rigors of high-speed off-road racing" No different than my Fusion is built to handle the rigors of daily driving.

 

I see you edited and added a little, cool!

 

There is a difference in Ford and Nissan (to give you an example, times may be different)...

 

Nissan advertised the GT-R to run 0-60 in 3.x whatever and continued publicity on those numbers and launches. Only problem is the car wouldn't run 3.x times but only 4.x with the car in what they considered "normal" driving mode. In order to get the 3.x time they were claiming you had to put the car in launch control mode blah...blah....bla... which they then define in the owners manual as CLEARLY VOIDING THE WARRANTY! I think they also said something about the car being stuck in snow and then having to turn off that same aid that voids the warranty. There is a BIG difference...

 

Ford has never said anything like!

 

They haven't said the truck can be jumped @ 40mph over a 2' rise, etc...etc... then when people do like Ford supposedly claimed the frames are bending!

 

 

 

...and the video:

 

I'd say that's a pretty good kicker and clearly it bent the frames! Heck, they are documenting everything nicely, once Ford reads that thread they could deny a lot of claims!

[Got-Boost?]

And case law will show that in the mid 90's...I believe 1996, the regular Cobra's had to have work done to get them to be "up to" their rated HP. SVT is exhibiting a behavior of misleading customers and courts don't take highly to repeatable behaviors like that.

.

 

It was on the 1999 Cobra's that were rated at 320hp not the 1996. It was also because some people coudln't launch the IRS cars and run times in the 13's and when the regular GT was beating them they were pissed.

 

So they did do a few things to the cars but from my EXPERIENCE actually racing them, the cars ran just fine. I ran 13.6-13.7 in my 97' Cobra's stock and friends with '99s ran 13.4-13.5 BEFORE the recall changes.

 

Again, idiot consumers that can't do what is claimed or NOT because of lack of ability. They then want the manufacture to repair there car or give them a refund or some other form of compensation for there tears...

[TTQ B4U]

I'm staying off the Nissan thing as that will derail the thread.

 

In reference to ford:

They haven't said the truck can be jumped @ 40mph over a 2' rise, etc...etc... then when people do like Ford supposedly claimed the frames are bending!

Ford has gone well beyond showing a 40mph run. They showed the Rapter in the videos doing a lot more than just a 40mph run over a rise in the road. They not only show the features and talk of how they will benefit a driver off-road, including off road course, but they also show the vehicle doing some crazy fun shit. That's absolutely implies usage and that's a key factor and one of the points of false advertising. Heck they even state in one of the videos "that in addition to off-road use" as an owner you will enjoy it on the street as well.

 

You can't go around showing a truck being used in a certain way, talk about it's design and abilities and features and create it's own brand around all of that and then conduct the transaction in the exact same way as any other consumer product and then deny warranty when people use them as advertised and promoted. Wasn't it Dodge that had a Charger Track Pack or track version of some type that didn't include a warranty? If Ford isn't going to stand behind their shit perhaps they should tell the consumer that as Dodge did.

 

These guys weren't "racing" or participating in extreme off roading. they were doing exactly what Ford shows their truck doing and begin designed to do. In fact these guys aren't even doing half of what Ford shows or discusses.

Edited July 8, 2011 by TTQ B4U

[TTQ B4U]

It was on the 1999 Cobra's that were rated at 320hp not the 1996. It was also because some people coudln't launch the IRS cars and run times in the 13's and when the regular GT was beating them they were pissed.

 

So they did do a few things to the cars but from my EXPERIENCE actually racing them, the cars ran just fine. I ran 13.6-13.7 in my 97' Cobra's stock and friends with '99s ran 13.4-13.5 BEFORE the recall changes.

 

Again, idiot consumers that can't do what is claimed or NOT because of lack of ability. They then want the manufacture to repair there car or give them a refund or some other form of compensation for there tears...

 

It was a problem with the owners or drivers, it was a manufacturing defect affecting the intake runners and exhaust. Owners found out, complained and Ford "discovered" the problem and issued a recall. Go figure.

 

Ford ended up replacing the manifolds and mufflers and recalibrated the computers. there were a couple other items done but my buddy just texted me the above. IIRC there was no 2000 Cobra either. Thanks for the jog in my memory. That's when the Cobra R hit the spotlight and kinda took the bloody nose away.

 

Ford needs to issue a recall, fix the trucks that were damaged and then apply the fix to them going forward. It's only going to make Ford look like shit when Chevy or God forbid Toyota or Nissan take their trucks to that road and prove they can do it. Fuck, I bet Jeep owners are having a party over this shit.

[TTQ B4U]

FORD: The 2011 SVT Raptor: Born in Haha, California

 

Versatile enough to take on the most challenging terrain, and to be driven as delivered from the factory....as a tough kick ass truck that makes others cower in fear of our off road capabilities.....until we decide that you've driven it beyond it's capabilities (ie...even less than what we show in all of our marketing videos) and deny your warranty because our truck has a shitty design that won't allow it to take crest in the road like a mere Toyota Tacoma can.

 

The following is intended for entertainment purposely only and not directed to be an example as to how we would like to see consumers drive the SVT Rapter driven.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPB7rPcVcI&feature=player_embedded

[El Karacho1647545492]

I'm staying off the Nissan thing as that will derail the thread.

 

Ford has gone well beyond showing a 40mph run. They showed the Rapter in the videos doing a lot more than just a 40mph run over a rise in the road. They not only show the features and talk of how they will benefit a driver off-road, including off road course, but they also show the vehicle doing some crazy fun shit. That's absolutely implies usage and that's a key factor and one of the points of false advertising. Heck they even state in one of the videos "that in addition to off-road use" as an owner you will enjoy it on the street as well.

 

You can't go around showing a truck being used in a certain way, talk about it's design and abilities and features and create it's own brand around all of that and then conduct the transaction in the exact same way as any other consumer product and then deny warranty when people use them as advertised and promoted. Wasn't it Dodge that had a Charger Track Pack or track version of some type that didn't include a warranty? If Ford isn't going to stand behind their shit perhaps they should tell the consumer that as Dodge did.

 

These guys weren't "racing" or participating in extreme off roading. they were doing exactly what Ford shows their truck doing and begin designed to do. In fact these guys aren't even doing half of what Ford shows or discusses.

 

 

At what point has Ford ever claimed that such use would not result in the deterioration of the truck itself, and that any such deterioration would be covered under factory warranty.

 

Watch this advertisement, and then tell me how your expert lawyer wife would sue the pants off Toyota.

 

 

So, the Toyota Hilux is marketed as UNBREAKABLE. Would she then represent a customer who was suing Toyota for not fixing their Hilux under warranty after they dropped a shipping container on it and it was broken?

[El Karacho1647545492]

 

ROLL YOUR MERCEDES OVER AND WE'LL REPAIR IT UNDER WARRANTY CUZ WE SHOWED IT'D ROLL OVER AND NOT KILL YOU LOLZ

[TTQ B4U]

At what point has Ford ever claimed that such use would not result in the deterioration of the truck itself, and that any such deterioration would be covered under factory warranty.

 

They don't have to. Under the law the use claims or any type that might imply the usage of the truck as shown in these videos is acceptable (and they went way beyond saying that, they said they expect owners to use them off-road and designed it to take on the most challenging terrain -> their quote) is false advertising (when paired with denied claims). These trucks are CLEARLY not designed to take on even low level challenges thrown at them.

 

Again, by NOT clearly communicating that the warranty might be void, is compliant with lack of disclosure and determined by the courts not a piece of paper. The deal paperwork doesn't mean much as warranties go beyond just the original buyer. IE...I was gifted a truck or inherited one through a death in the family. Just because I didn't sign a buyers agreement doesn't excuse Ford from covering my warranty.

 

Watch this advertisement, and then tell me how your expert lawyer wife would sue the pants off Toyota.

^^ That commercial was clearly comedy. The legal term is actionable puffery which is an exaggerated, blustering, and boasting statement upon which no reasonable buyer would be justified in relying.

 

I fail to see the similarity between that skit and the marketing and branding Ford has put behind the Rapter. They are in no way poking fun at their truck in the videos they show. They are representing the vehicle as easily capable and built to do what they are showing.

 

 

So, the Toyota Hilux is marketed as UNBREAKABLE. Would she then represent a customer who was suing Toyota for not fixing their Hilux under warranty after they dropped a shipping container on it and it was broken?

No, but if they claimed it could cross the dessert and was built tough enough to hold up to what Ford shows in the Rapter videos and then denied my claims when I came to them in need of repairs, then she would file suite and the court would easily find cause to hear the case. It will be interesting to see this unfold. Edited July 8, 2011 by TTQ B4U

[TTQ B4U]

 

ROLL YOUR MERCEDES OVER AND WE'LL REPAIR IT UNDER WARRANTY CUZ WE SHOWED IT'D ROLL OVER AND NOT KILL YOU LOLZ

 

 

Note the disclaimer in their video. Ford has none nor do they imply the videos shown are just representations. No where do they say your "driven as delivered" truck won't be able to do this shit and still have a warranty. Ford and SVT are misrepresenting the product big time IMO.

[El Karacho1647545492]

No, but if they claimed it could cross the dessert and was built tough enough to hold up to what Ford shows in the Rapter videos and then denied my claims when I came to them in need of repairs, then she would file suite and the court would easily find cause to hear the case. It will be interesting to see this unfold.

 

Shit or get off the pot. Either wifey files suit on behalf of Raptor owners and gets a hearing your you stop vagswinging off her law degree.

 

 

EDIT: and I'll , I dunno give her a high five if she gets her hearing

[TTQ B4U]

Shit or get off the pot. Either wifey files suit on behalf of Raptor owners and gets a hearing your you stop vagswinging off her law degree.

 

EDIT: and I'll , I dunno give her a high five if she gets her hearing

 

So you think I'm simply vagswinging off her education. :fa:

 

Back on topic, please feel free to continue on with those vids on the Leguna package mustang. I missed where you picked up after my rebuttal to your post there. In fact I believe Ford does have a disclaimer on the LS Package.

 

"Front air splitter included in Laguna Seca Package is intended for race track use only and is not legal for on-street driving. May degrade crash performance and void vehicle warranty. Must be installed by customer."

 

Perhaps Ford should have done the same for the Rapter. Now I'm just being redundant. In this case, I'm sure the FTC will eventually look into it.

Edited July 8, 2011 by TTQ B4U

[Dr. Apex]

I'm not an engineer but that looks like a horrible design.

 

Agreed. I know they need the hole there for access and even chamferred it somewhat to help it, but it may not be enough obviously.

[El Karacho1647545492]

So you think I'm simply vagswinging off her education. :fa:

 

Back on topic, please feel free to continue on with those vids on the Leguna package mustang. I missed where you picked up after my rebuttal to your post there. In fact I believe Ford does have a disclaimer on the LS Package.

 

"Front air splitter included in Laguna Seca Package is intended for race track use only and is not legal for on-street driving. May degrade crash performance and void vehicle warranty. Must be installed by customer."

 

Perhaps Ford should have done the same for the Rapter. Now I'm just being redundant. In this case, I'm sure the FTC will eventually look into it.

 

"Know your vehicle, the course, and the required equipment before high speed offroading" is the first thing that comes up when I go to ford.com/f150raptor

 

Does that not count as a disclaimer?

 

Oh and the LS package disclaimer only refers to the front splitter because its not road legal and tested on the car during crash testing.

[crummer]

Agreed. I know they need the hole there for access and even chamferred it somewhat to help it, but it may not be enough obviously.

 

I think the shock set up contributed to the problem as well. It sounds like the suspension gains more travel while airbourne thus giving the shock more ability to absorb the impact (see 2ft drop @ 50mph). However what the owners are describing is an impact where the suspension does not cycle down before impact, thus limiting the travel and the ability of the shock to absorb the impact. If the shock transfers more energy than needed to the bump stop and then the poor design of the frame is accentuated. Does anyone know if the frame is different from a normal F series truck?

[El Karacho1647545492]

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/2012mustangboss/?searchid=426441|28115804|205351754

 

at about 1:48 "It's ready to take on everything on and off the track"

 

They then talk about Trackey, which is an aftermarket unit installed by Ford authorized dealers and, when the key is used, turns the Boss into a track machine by essentially reprogramming everything. I see nothing in this release regarding how it'll affect warranty or degradation of the vehicle's components, but I bet if you drive into the dealer with Trackey on, they won't fix your race-destroyed warranty parts.

[TTQ B4U]

"Know your vehicle, the course, and the required equipment before high speed offroading" is the first thing that comes up when I go to ford.com/f150raptor. Does that not count as a disclaimer?

 

Sure. It tells me to know WTF the controls in the truck are, know the terrain and wear pants and a fucking helmet.

 

Nothing in their statement says "read your warranty and consult a lawyer because what we're about to show you is for entertainment purposes only and copying these actions is going to void it no matter how much you are encouraged to do so by our marketing folks or reassured we make you feel by having our engineers talk about the capability of the truck and that it was engineered first and foremost as an off-road capable, able to take on the toughest terrain truck"

 

Oh and the LS package disclaimer only refers to the front splitter because its not road legal and tested on the car during crash testing.

Exactly...and my point is that they provided that disclaimer for the LS Package and a stupid air splitter but for a $50k truck that has a dozen videos of it going off-road and jumping and doing shit way more outrageous than what the people with damage are showing Ford didn't include one word about voiding a warranty.

 

M-I-S-L-E-A-D-I-N-G and bullshit if you ask me. I like Ford and enjoy my Fusion, but if they fuck these people they are pissing away their own creditability. Clearly IMO.

[TTQ B4U]

http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/2012mustangboss/?searchid=426441|28115804|205351754

 

at about 1:48 "It's ready to take on everything on and off the track"

 

They then talk about Trackey, which is an aftermarket unit installed by Ford authorized dealers and, when the key is used, turns the Boss into a track machine by essentially reprogramming everything. I see nothing in this release regarding how it'll affect warranty or degradation of the vehicle's components, but I bet if you drive into the dealer with Trackey on, they won't fix your race-destroyed warranty parts.

 

Did you even read the very first bullet point?

 

It clearly shows "TracKey, available for 2012 Mustang Boss 302 owners through Ford dealers, adds TracMode powertrain control software to the car for track use, providing full race calibration and two-stage launch control in addition to stock calibration, without compromising factory warranty"

 

Again, further emphasizes my point.....here they have clarity on the LS Package Mustang that doing something very specific will nulll your warranty.

 

Next they go and clearly show that you can take out the Red Key for more enjoyment and not worry about voiding your warranty.

 

Where is all that clarity with the Truck they show racing through the sand with engineers touting it's capability? Funny.....it's not there.

 

FORD Service Advisor: Ooops....my bad, you took your $50k truck that was designed specifically to be our bad-ass off road warrior down a gravel road and hit a crest at speed?.....sorry, but didn't you know the F in Ford stood for FUCK YOU ? Oh, we don't care how we positioned it in the advertising campaign, we're not going to pay for our engineering mistake.

[Got-Boost?]

I'm staying off the Nissan thing as that will derail the thread.

 

Ford has gone well beyond showing a 40mph run. They showed the Rapter in the videos doing a lot more than just a 40mph run over a rise in the road. They not only show the features and talk of how they will benefit a driver off-road, including off road course, but they also show the vehicle doing some crazy fun shit. That's absolutely implies usage and that's a key factor and one of the points of false advertising. Heck they even state in one of the videos "that in addition to off-road use" as an owner you will enjoy it on the street as well.

 

You can't go around showing a truck being used in a certain way, talk about it's design and abilities and features and create it's own brand around all of that and then conduct the transaction in the exact same way as any other consumer product and then deny warranty when people use them as advertised and promoted. Wasn't it Dodge that had a Charger Track Pack or track version of some type that didn't include a warranty? If Ford isn't going to stand behind their shit perhaps they should tell the consumer that as Dodge did.

 

These guys weren't "racing" or participating in extreme off roading. they were doing exactly what Ford shows their truck doing and begin designed to do. In fact these guys aren't even doing half of what Ford shows or discusses.

 

They can NOT design a truck that will handle EVERY scenario that is thrown at it.....PERIOD!

 

Anyway, the point is that this has only affected the dozen or so trucks ON THAT DAY AND COURSE!!!! With that in mind it seems like the video clearly shows what caused the damage and ONLY those trucks have been affected. Some guys posted in the thread that they have done far worse and don't have any frame issues...

 

If it were a real problem there would be hundreds of these trucks with bent frames out of the 10k+ produced and that's just NOT the case. Even the bean counters factor in lemons and other issues that can and do happen with ALL brands. I would say that a dozen is pretty minor compared to total build volume and with your legal team, even that should have turned on a LIGHT...

 

 

It was a problem with the owners or drivers, it was a manufacturing defect affecting the intake runners and exhaust. Owners found out, complained and Ford "discovered" the problem and issued a recall. Go figure.

 

Ford ended up replacing the manifolds and mufflers and recalibrated the computers. there were a couple other items done but my buddy just texted me the above. IIRC there was no 2000 Cobra either. Thanks for the jog in my memory. That's when the Cobra R hit the spotlight and kinda took the bloody nose away.

 

Ford needs to issue a recall, fix the trucks that were damaged and then apply the fix to them going forward. It's only going to make Ford look like shit when Chevy or God forbid Toyota or Nissan take their trucks to that road and prove they can do it. Fuck, I bet Jeep owners are having a party over this shit.

 

Again, this isn't happening to ALL trucks only a select few so a mass recall is just STUPID!!! Think about what you are saying.

 

The 99's got a new catback exhaust and some cars got the extrude honed intake. Even then Ford made it right....same with the 03/04 Cobra's that had some bad catalytic converts from a SUPPLIER that were down on power...

 

I guess this guy better get inline at GM since the truck didn't handle what this owner considers "normal" driving:

[El Karacho1647545492]

but for a $50k truck that has a dozen videos of it going off-road and jumping and doing shit way more outrageous than what the people with damage are showing Ford didn't include one word about voiding a warranty.

 

It didn't void the warranty. It simply isn't covered under warranty. I see what you're saying, but I would never expect that deterioration of my vehicle due to use anywhere but public roads would be covered under warranty, even if it was marketed as having been built with offroading in mind.

[El Karacho1647545492]

Did you even read the very first bullet point?

 

It clearly shows "TracKey, available for 2012 Mustang Boss 302 owners through Ford dealers, adds TracMode powertrain control software to the car for track use, providing full race calibration and two-stage launch control in addition to stock calibration, without compromising factory warranty"

 

Again, further emphasizes my point.....here they have clarity on the LS Package mustang that doing something very specific will nulll your warranty.

 

Next they go and clearly show that you can take out the Red Key for more enjoyment and not worry about voiding your warranty.

 

Where is all that clarity with the Truck they show racing through the sand with engineers touting it's capability. Ooops....my bad, you took your $50k truck down a gravel road and hit a crest at speed.....sorry, but didn't you know the F in Ford stood for FUCK YOU ?

 

Does not compromise factory warranty which does not cover anything done at a race track.

 

EDIT: Trackey and LS package are 100% independent of the front splitter. You do not have to have the splitter on to race, or use trackey, or have the LS package.