Big Blue's Transformation

[salans7]

I believe that red connector with the light blue label on it is for the Cruise Control deactivation switch, otherwise known as the switch that could catch half of Ford's lineup on fire from the early 90's to 2002.

Interesting! I haven't investigated it yet, but there's a fuse holder integrated into it and something said on that label 'bout a non-repairable fuse. I wonder if that was from a recall.

But I plan to use the stock Bullnose cruise system, so probably won't use that anyway.

Usually if that blue label is there, that means it has been "repaired". And the fuse is how they repaired it. If the internals of the switch failed and things got too hot, the fuse would blow, and power would be cut to the switch, taking away the ignition source for the fire.

By 2002 Ford had finally recognized the oops (Texas Instruments was the switch supplier) and a new replacement switch was utilized in all future vehicles. I believe they also changed the wiring so that it wasn't a 12v constant, which was why so many of them spontaneously combusted. My Ranger is a 2003, and the first thing I checked before I bought it was that it had the updated switch.

A lot of people lost their vehicle and even their homes from this issue, and it's sad that it took so long to be remedied.

 

[85lebaront2]

I believe that red connector with the light blue label on it is for the Cruise Control deactivation switch, otherwise known as the switch that could catch half of Ford's lineup on fire from the early 90's to 2002.

Interesting! I haven't investigated it yet, but there's a fuse holder integrated into it and something said on that label 'bout a non-repairable fuse. I wonder if that was from a recall.

But I plan to use the stock Bullnose cruise system, so probably won't use that anyway.

The 1993-97 switch was only hot with the ignition on, and it was on the top of the MC not below like the 1997 F150 and the 1998 F250/350. Here is mine:

[ArdWrknTrk]

Usually if that blue label is there, that means it has been "repaired". And the fuse is how they repaired it. If the internals of the switch failed and things got too hot, the fuse would blow, and power would be cut to the switch, taking away the ignition source for the fire.

By 2002 Ford had finally recognized the oops (Texas Instruments was the switch supplier) and a new replacement switch was utilized in all future vehicles. I believe they also changed the wiring so that it wasn't a 12v constant, which was why so many of them spontaneously combusted. My Ranger is a 2003, and the first thing I checked before I bought it was that it had the updated switch.

A lot of people lost their vehicle and even their homes from this issue, and it's sad that it took so long to be remedied.

My neighbor Ben's pickup was destroyed by a master cylinder fire.

Texas Instruments only built the deactivation switch to Ford engineering's specs. (with the Kapton diaphragm, they were told to use)

There were two rounds of retrofit switches.

With the first, the fuse was stupidly placed on the downwind leg of the switch, doing exactly NOTHING while the current was using corrosion to find ground after the embrittled seal allowed glycol past.

So, 'too hot' is only the issue leading to the fluid feeding what is essentially an Al/Mg fire.

Resistance would be come less and less as the corrosion increased.

There is a fine line where the switch itself is functional, and a failed switch that is bleeding enough current to heat the brake fluid above its combustion temp, and use the corrosion as kindling for a metal fire.

 

[Gary Lewis]

My neighbor Ben's pickup was destroyed by a master cylinder fire.

Texas Instruments only built the deactivation switch to Ford engineering's specs. (with the Kapton diaphragm, they were told to use)

There were two rounds of retrofit switches.

With the first, the fuse was stupidly placed on the downwind leg of the switch, doing exactly NOTHING while the current was using corrosion to find ground after the embrittled seal allowed glycol past.

So, 'too hot' is only the issue leading to the fluid feeding what is essentially an Al/Mg fire.

Resistance would be come less and less as the corrosion increased.

There is a fine line where the switch itself is functional, and a failed switch that is bleeding enough current to heat the brake fluid above its combustion temp, and use the corrosion as kindling for a metal fire.

I appears that my plans to not use that wire are good, although not predicated on the fire danger. But I'm curious to see which version of the repair this is, so will check it out - when I can. (The neighbor is coming over with his "bed bar" to get the electrical part of it done, so I don't know if it'll be today.

[Nothing Special]

The 1993-97 switch was only hot with the ignition on, and it was on the top of the MC not below like the 1997 F150 and the 1998 F250/350....

Not that it's a big deal, but there were no '98 F-350s or F-250HDs . After the '97 model year with the old body style F250HD/350 Ford jumped to the '99 model year SuperDuty.

(I think there were new body style F-250s (not HD) in '98 like there were in '97. I think it was '99 when they rebadged the standard F-250 as an F-150s to avoid the confusion of having two F-250s of the same model year that shared essentially nothing in common.)

[Gary Lewis]

The 1993-97 switch was only hot with the ignition on, and it was on the top of the MC not below like the 1997 F150 and the 1998 F250/350....

Not that it's a big deal, but there were no '98 F-350s or F-250HDs . After the '97 model year with the old body style F250HD/350 Ford jumped to the '99 model year SuperDuty.

(I think there were new body style F-250s (not HD) in '98 like there were in '97. I think it was '99 when they rebadged the standard F-250 as an F-150s to avoid the confusion of having two F-250s of the same model year that shared essentially nothing in common.)

That's interesting. I'd wondered where the cutoff was. So let me say it in my own words to see if I understand: As of 1998 the HD F250's and all F350's ceased to exist, and in 1999 they became SuperDuty trucks. And also that year the oddball LD F250 became an F150.

But even that confuses me.

Let me try again:

• F150's have been built right through the decades

• LD F250's were built through 1998, but in 1999 that GVWR became F150's so the LD F250 ceased to exist in '99

• HD F250's and 350's ceased to exist at the end of '97. But in '99 that range of GVWR's came out as SuperDuty trucks

Does that capture it?

[Gary Lewis]

That's interesting. I'd wondered where the cutoff was. So let me say it in my own words to see if I understand: As of 1998 the HD F250's and all F350's ceased to exist, and in 1999 they became SuperDuty trucks. And also that year the oddball LD F250 became an F150.

But even that confuses me.

Let me try again:

• F150's have been built right through the decades

• LD F250's were built through 1998, but in 1999 that GVWR became F150's so the LD F250 ceased to exist in '99

• HD F250's and 350's ceased to exist at the end of '97. But in '99 that range of GVWR's came out as SuperDuty trucks

Does that capture it?

Here's the jumper. All it contains is a 2 amp fuse in both legs. And note that the label says the fuse is "not serviceable". I guess people aren't capable of taking the one turn of electrical tape off the fuse holder and replacing the fuse? (Actually, I'm sure it is because if the fuse is blown there's a deeper problem, like the switch is bad. But why not tell people that? Or is "If this harness is damaged, or if the fuse is blown, remove and discard this harness and install service kit #9F924" what the lawyers came up with so they don't admit guilt?)

And, here's the '96 EVTM page showing that in Ford's infinite wisdom they put a switch that just provides a "high" to the ECU on a 15 amp fuse. (You can't see from this that Fuse #13 also supplies the brake on/off switch, hazard flasher, and rear anti-lock brake module.)

Obviously the 2 amp fuse was adequate, so.....

Plus, why have a fuse in both the supply and ground legs?

[salans7]

My neighbor Ben's pickup was destroyed by a master cylinder fire.

Texas Instruments only built the deactivation switch to Ford engineering's specs. (with the Kapton diaphragm, they were told to use)

There were two rounds of retrofit switches.

With the first, the fuse was stupidly placed on the downwind leg of the switch, doing exactly NOTHING while the current was using corrosion to find ground after the embrittled seal allowed glycol past.

So, 'too hot' is only the issue leading to the fluid feeding what is essentially an Al/Mg fire.

Resistance would be come less and less as the corrosion increased.

There is a fine line where the switch itself is functional, and a failed switch that is bleeding enough current to heat the brake fluid above its combustion temp, and use the corrosion as kindling for a metal fire.

Thanks for the clarification, It's been quite some time since I read up on the issue.

[ArdWrknTrk]

Here's the jumper. All it contains is a 2 amp fuse in both legs. And note that the label says the fuse is "not serviceable". I guess people aren't capable of taking the one turn of electrical tape off the fuse holder and replacing the fuse? (Actually, I'm sure it is because if the fuse is blown there's a deeper problem, like the switch is bad. But why not tell people that? Or is "If this harness is damaged, or if the fuse is blown, remove and discard this harness and install service kit #9F924" what the lawyers came up with so they don't admit guilt?)

And, here's the '96 EVTM page showing that in Ford's infinite wisdom they put a switch that just provides a "high" to the ECU on a 15 amp fuse. (You can't see from this that Fuse #13 also supplies the brake on/off switch, hazard flasher, and rear anti-lock brake module.)

Obviously the 2 amp fuse was adequate, so.....

Plus, why have a fuse in both the supply and ground legs?

Ummm, because Ford screwed up and originally put the 2A fuse on the ground side?

So they had to recall the recall harnesses?

[Nothing Special]

.... Let me try again:

• F150's have been built right through the decades

• LD F250's were built through 1998, but in 1999 that GVWR became F150's so the LD F250 ceased to exist in '99

• HD F250's and 350's ceased to exist at the end of '97. But in '99 that range of GVWR's came out as SuperDuty trucks

Does that capture it?

Close. Let me try it this way:

1996:

F-150, F-250, F-250HD, F-350 and F-Superduty: all old body style

1997:

F-150 and F-250: both new F-150 body style

F-250HD, F-350 and F-Superduty: all old body style

1998:

F-150 and F-250: both new F-150 body style

No F-250HD, F-350 or F-Superduty

1999:

F-150: new F-150 body style

F-250: rebadged as F-150 and also new F-150 body style

F-250HD: loses the "HD" and becomes part of the new SuperDuty

F-350: also part of the new SuperDuty

F-Superduty: rebadged as F-450 & F-550 and becomes part of new SuperDuty

And for what it's worth, there was never a "light duty" F-250.

• There was an F-250 3/4 ton truck just like there was an F-100 1/2 ton truck

• Then there was a heavy duty 3/4 ton truck just like there was a heavy duty 1/2 ton truck. But while the heavy duty 1/2 ton truck was badged differently (F-150) from the 1/2 ton (still F-100), the heavy duty 3/4 ton was badged "F-250" just like the 3/4 ton. The "F-250HD" only showed up on the order sheet (until 1997 when it was put on a badge on the tail gate)

• Unlike the 1/2 ton (F-100) which was discontinued, the 3/4 ton continues to be made. But starting in 1999 it was badged "F-150" and was only differentiated on the order form where it was called "F-150 7700" or something like that (7700 being the GVWR of the 3/4 ton truck that now had the name of a heavy duty 1/2 ton)

• Like the heavy duty 1/2 ton (F-150), the "heavy duty" part of the name pretty much fell away from the heavy duty 3/4 ton. So now we call an F-150 a "1/2 ton" even though it's really the successor to the heavy duty 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton trucks. And we call the F-250 a "3/4 ton" even though it's the successor to the heavy duty 3/4 ton trucks

Ford never does anything the simple way!