Class action suit against Ford for Gt350 moves forward.
 

LOL. 2016 Shelby GT350 owners got ripped off. Hopefully Ford is forced to pay up here.


Should have bought a SS 1LE or a ZL1 :smiling1:


https://jalopnik.com/ford-shelby-gt3...-go-1847300508

This honestly makes no sense to me. Nobody forced these people to buy these cars, they really don't have a case, in my opinion. They got what they paid for. Whether or not a GT350 is worth its price is debatable, for sure, but you shouldn't sue a manufacturer because you don't like the product you bought. Simple counter-argument is that you shouldn't have bought the product, Ford will say customers should have done their research.

If the product was defective, they might have a case. But a lack of auxiliary/additional coolers for track use does not mean the car is defective. It was designed that way, and Ford never said they would include them, so they never falsely advertised the car, they just hyped it up so braindead Ford loyalists would buy the car.

Chevy doesn't advertise the Camaro at all, that's how they protect themselves from false advertisement lawsuits.

that's hilarious lol they just can't get it right. Didn't they get sued on the Focus RS? The first model year cars kept having catastrophic failure after 6 or 7 months.

Well I can't find any class action just a bunch a few reddit references to a 112 page on a focus forum about head gasket failure. They did get sued and had to buy back some Focus/Fiesta lower trim models with the dual clutch because it was awful

The early days of the coyote cylinder 8 was destructing, especially if one got a tune. Ford quality at work.

They should've installed the coolers on all the GT350's. But at the same time, it's the owners faults as well knowing that when they bought a base GT350 or one with the technology package that no coolers were added from the factory nor available as a option. The base and the technology optioned ones was geared more for street and not so much track use.

I'm surprised that it made it to class action. As a deprogrammed Mustang driver myself, I've seen me and others of my former ilk rationalize just about everything for why their cars don't cut it...

Lol..... i see so much hate here for other pony cars......spent more time on Mustang6 and nowhere near the hate..... you guys (not all of you but you h8rs know who you are) sound jaded.

Try boosting people up not tearing them down.

And also this is a Camaro forum not a Mustang/challenger hate forums.

That is the dumbest lawsuit i’ve seen..... they knew they were buying the one without coolers.

Here is a class action relevant to us Camaro drivers

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/over-75...ction-lawsuit/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

keep us updated lol I'd take a new starter if they made them replace it haha

Agreed. There isn't much question that somebody like me or any of the halfway serious track rats here or over on M6G would have come to the right decision all on our own. People more like my son-in-law who are more impressed by technology and less by track performance . . . probably not.

I'd have to go back a few years and look at the differential cooling issues at least, but I'm pretty sure it was already an identified problem just in the GT-level cars. Numerous posts/threads on how to solve diff overheating. So buyers could have been at least aware of the possibility . . . if they first went to the forums anyway.

On the other hand Ford had to have known, and been a bit more cautious in their advertising - even if all they did would have been to include an asterisked note indicating "Track Pack equipped cars only".

Apparently the court believes that although a savvy track day enthusiast would have recognized this particular shortcoming, a newbie to that activity might well not have been. People who bought their GT350 because of its name and history, only deciding to try tracking afterward.

Given that buyers tend to buy Tech Packages in anything (IIRC, the Tech Package was actually legally required for GT350 sale in a couple of states), there's blame to be spread around here.


Norm

:smiling1: You clearly weren't there in the years leading up to the 6th gen Camaro.

CALS come in all shapes and sizes and while I do not agree with some of them they are a necessary evil to try and keep companies in check.

I was unfortunately a part of the John Deere CALS years ago, I do not remember the specifics but it was something like they claimed 20HP and it was really only 18.

Was really stupid because no one with a 1 series lawn mower is going to miss "2HP" but it was false advertising and we were owed. I get that this is different but still falls in the category of keep them honest.

My 2 buddies hit the track one in a 2018 1le and the other with a 2017 Gt350. Both were shocked how the Camaros could run all day and not heat up. Unlike the Mustang 350s and 500s that were there. My buddies Gt 350 did in fact go into limp mode a few times during their day due to heat. On the way home it did it again...because the motor was shot. Ford covered the entire repair tho

I get it but guys who track their SS’s or nicer might not start up at the track after running hard and heating up stRter. And that’s ALL Camaro’s not just one model...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you meant to type "starter", that's really a separate issue from triggering limp mode while driving.


Norm

It’ll be interesting to follow to see if the courts grant relief to owners who can’t read. I’m actually with Ford on this one. It clearly states in the manual not to subject non track pack cars to extended track use.

I feel pretty confident the GT350 was marketed as being a track monster and the R was marketed at being even more dedicated for track use.

regardless of what the manual says I feel they owe at least some sort od compensation for those first couple of years for false advertising.

My buddy with 18 1le is in a Camaro club with alot of guys that run autocross. He has done so for the last 3 years. Including some fast 5th gens. Those claims are very rare....these guys run all day at these events. They just dont gave major mechaical failures. They run hard and strong. Even the Gt350 owner who is also a buddy commented on it. It is what it is.

There are car ads where they fly. You filing a lawsuit on that too? Bottom line is read the manual. It doesn’t always stop the dumb lawsuits like the one that sued because she was asleep in the passenger seat fully reclined and the manual says not to, hell common sense says not to, but I’m sure Chrysler just paid to make that go away. We all pay because of these stupid lawsuits.

if you can show me an ad of a car flying without a disclaimer that says not to expect this then yeah, I'd love to start a class action on it. saying to not buy something without reading a manual, that you frequently won't have access to until buying it, is dumb.

I'm not sure which "Chrysler asleep in the passenger seat" lawsuit you're talking about, but if it's real then the Chances are they lost the lawsuit specifically because the manual lacked a warning. that's why products have stupid warning labels like "not to be used in a bathtub" on a toaster.

"we" also wouldn't be paying for these lawsuits because companies should have an expense budget that includes miscellaneous expenses. am I saying we should all go out and sue every company over every little thing, no. of course not. Am I saying companies should be held responsible to their marketing promises, yes. if Ford outright said "you need the R for heavy track use" I'd say it was a non issue but that's not the case.

The Chrysler lawsuit HAD a warning in the manual. They still ended up paying. As for Ford I don’t recall ads where they said race this car it’s fine. As far as warnings you are able to ask questions at the dealership. To me it’s a ridiculous lawsuit. Anyone that buys a car and tracks it should be reading the manual and prepping the car which includes researching what equipment you should have to do so. Shame we have to protect ourselves from common sense. I wouldn’t track my SS off the showroom floor.

we're not going to see eye to eye on the issue but please provide me a link of the Chrysler lawsuit because the only lawsuit I even recall being real is one involving cruise control and an RV.

any why not track your SS. it's covered under warranty. unlike any I4 or V6. 1LE package or not.

The Chrysler lawsuit was real. Off the top of my head I’d say around 1996 or so as my professor filed a brief. I was also personally involved in a suit against VW after a rear middle seat passenger became paralyzed because she had a lap belt, which was legal the year that Jetta was built. I hate overpaid corporate executives almost as much as I hate overpaid lawyers. Suing because a car I bought but didn’t research it’s asinine. I accept your opinion but frankly no one bought a GT350 that knew nothing about the car or the track pack. Not being familiar with Corvettes, does both the Z06 and ZR-1 have heavy duty coolers? If not should people be suing GM? It is what it is. Personally if I had a 1LE and tracked it I’d be putting higher quality parts on it as I’ve done with my SS. I have zero trust in GM or their engineers. These cars are made to a price point. Far better aftermarket parts are an easy fix. I have very few stock parts left in mine.

Envious I do have a follow up question for you.

Have you been following the uproar over the Gladiator off road issues? A female owner sunk it deep enough to get mud inside the alternator, yet are suing jeep saying they advertise it as being an off road vehicle. What are your thoughts on that one?

We can have different opinions and still have good conversations. :happy0180:

I typically don’t follow much “news” these days because it’s all fear driven or political and I’d rather go on about my life without worrying about that stuff.

But by the sounds of it I’d say it’s probably owner negligence unless for some reason the alternator is located at the very bottom of the engine, which is unlikely. Judging by a wrangler I found on YouTube it’s at the very top of the engine bay

Should be pretty easy to prove how far the vehicle was submerged and I’m sure they have some sort of disclaimer about how high the vehicle can be submerged safely.