Article: My Name Is Sal Gusmano, and I Break Ford Vehicles for a Living (at Michigan Proving Grounds)

[ChrisD]

I should clarify that I don't mean to imply that the tie rods are invincible or that the problem is always the driver. But there's always going to be engineering to a point. If the OEM part can handle what 99% of drivers would do to it, is that good enough? Does it need to be 99.9%? 99.99%? Do all the other drivers need to pay for over-engineered parts for the few who need them? As owners, what should we reasonably expect from an OEM configuration, and when should we expect that we need to make improvements if we want to be more extreme? Rhetorical questions.

You make a good point here - people change out the upper control arms for a taller lift, change out a bunch of other parts, but complain about the tie rod ends. Mine has been fine and I carry a spare just in case, but it's still in the plastic wrap! My opinion has always been the tie rod end is a cheap and easy to access fuse to avoid breaking expensive and hard to replace things upstream of it.

Sponsored

 

[Jackal]

He's testing stock vehicles. Not ones that have been lifted with oversized tires. Every post I've seen on here where someone broke a tie rod, the Bronco was lifted with oversized tires.

I've even asked for posts from people who brock a tie rod in a stock vehicle.

I bought my 2023 used. It is in fantastic shape. But it came with two OEM tie rods in a battered box: one had the ball twisted halfway off.

edit: Oh yeah, totally stock otherwise.

 

[CalvinT]

I bought my 2023 used. It is in fantastic shape. But it came with two OEM tie rods in a battered box: one had the ball twisted halfway off.

edit: Oh yeah, totally stock otherwise.

Interesting. Too bad you didn't get the story behind them.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

I should clarify that I don't mean to imply that the tie rods are invincible or that the problem is always the driver. But there's always going to be engineering to a point. If the OEM part can handle what 99% of drivers would do to it, is that good enough? Does it need to be 99.9%? 99.99%? Do all the other drivers need to pay for over-engineered parts for the few who need them? As owners, what should we reasonably expect from an OEM configuration, and when should we expect that we need to make improvements if we want to be more extreme? Rhetorical questions.

I think Ford has covered it fairly well by having different grades of parts based on the configuration. There's a baseline capability in every Bronco, but a Base, Big Bend, and especially Outer Banks is not meant to tackle the same things as a Badlands, and a Badlands can't do everything a Raptor can.

But it reminds me of that F-150 Raptor YouTube video where the guy took the truck on a 50-foot jump. Unless he was moneybags rich, I assume he expected the truck to handle that jump. For me, my Badlands has handled everything I have asked of it without issue, so I don't see it as under-engineered. But the guy in your photo might not feel the same way.

Stick your head in the sand all you want buddy, just because you don't see them broken, just means you're not using the correct search function. I mean, why do you think they came out with the HOSS 3.0 version in the first place?

Click the link , and you'll see exactly what you claim NEVER happeneds....happened.

The guys that have all the modified Broncos have obviously stepped up their size on the tie rods and they DONT have breakages. DUH


https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/thre...riveway-update-replaced-under-warranty.50660/

 

[timhood]

Stick your head in the sand all you want buddy, just because you don't see them broken, just means you're not using the correct search function. I mean, why do you think they came out with the HOSS 3.0 version in the first place?

Click the link , and you'll see exactly what you claim NEVER happeneds....happened.

The guys that have all the modified Broncos have obviously stepped up their size on the tie rods and they DONT have breakages. DUH


https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/thre...riveway-update-replaced-under-warranty.50660/

I'm not sure where/why/how you inferred I claimed tie rods never break from what I said.

I asked at what point should Ford engineer a product like that. As ChrisD pointed out, if you make a tie rod stronger and don't strengthen the next component down the line, like the power steering unit, and that breaks instead, is that better? And as I said, how strong do you make everything? So that it withstands anyone doing the craziest thing with their Broncos? Should 99.9% of Bronco owners pay for parts only 0.1% of owners would use? Or at some point, does there come a point where someone has to acknowledge that what they are doing requires more than a stock part? I also stated that it seemed sensible that Ford has different parts for models they expect to be used differently . The Outer Banks is not expected to be used like a Badlands, and the Badlands isn't expected to be used like a Raptor, even if there are owners of all three that never leave the pavement.

Those were the hypothetical questions I posed. I didn't even say that the OEM tie rods are good enough (or not), only that I have done a ton of rock crawling, including Top of the World, and not had an issue, and that I've seen improper off-roading lead to broken parts.

So, the only thing I'm claiming is that it's possible to do a lot of rock crawling with the OEM tie rods and that at least some of the time, broken tie rods are user error. I don't know enough to say whether they should be stronger, but if a stronger tie rod caused me to break a steering rack instead, I'd be pissed about that. Now, would I like to have everything stronger to withstand even more punishment? Sure, but not if I have to pay for something I won't use.

 

[ChrisD]

Long post, I won't be offended if you don't read it.

Honestly, people get really emotional about things sometimes.

I started offroading as a kid in about 1974 or 5 in my uncle's Plymouth Trail Duster. My dad had a Bronco back in 1969 but he sold it when my mom was pregnant with me. Even then, we kept a bunch of "Things that Break" on hand if they got broken. It was part of the fun for everyone to jump in and help fix some "Thing that Broke" on someone's rig as part of the trip.

Fast forward to my time in the Army, we had a bunch of mechanics assigned to our battalion and they had a truck full of "Things that Break" so we could fix them in the field and get back to the mission. For the most part, Army mechanics would supervise you fixing the "Thing that Broke" and that was fun, too. I trashed a bearing in a road wheel on an Armored Personnel Carrier once and got to fix it in the dirt. I got greasy and disgusting, that uniform was wrecked, but we got it done.

When I had a Jeep, or the other Jeep, or the other other Jeep, those all had "Things that Break" and I carried them and the tools I needed, not if, but when they broke. I drove a HMMWV one time that broke, so we parked it in a motor pool and when we got back, someone had scavenged it for parts for all the other HMMWVs that had "Things that Broke" and needed parts. We found the culprits and made them put it back together again.

We know tie rod ends are a "Thing that Breaks" on the Bronco. You have two solutions if you plan on offroading, carry things that will fix them or proactively replace things so they become "Things that Don't Break." I carry some of those clamps from Broncbuster, which can hold a tie rod together even if it's broken and I carry a spare tie rod and the tools to repair it. For me, the economy of replacing all the steering components for an easy trail fix didn't make sense. For others, it might. It's your Bronco, I'm not going to tell you what to do with it.

People break entirely built up rigs all the time off road. It's part of the lifestyle. You expect it. What I'm happy about is that someone else got to identify the problem so I could learn from them.

What we don't know is if this is limited to a certain batch, maybe a poor casting or something, or if it's all tie rod ends that will eventually break. Mine haven't broken yet, but if they do, I'll fix them. What I do know is every photo I've seen of a broken one shows evidence of bending prior to breaking, which indicates a pretty heavy force on them prior to them breaking.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

I'm not sure where/why/how you inferred I claimed tie rods never break from what I said.

I asked at what point should Ford engineer a product like that. As ChrisD pointed out, if you make a tie rod stronger and don't strengthen the next component down the line, like the power steering unit, and that breaks instead, is that better? And as I said, how strong do you make everything? So that it withstands anyone doing the craziest thing with their Broncos? Should 99.9% of Bronco owners pay for parts only 0.1% of owners would use? Or at some point, does there come a point where someone has to acknowledge that what they are doing requires more than a stock part? I also stated that it seemed sensible that Ford has different parts for models they expect to be used differently . The Outer Banks is not expected to be used like a Badlands, and the Badlands isn't expected to be used like a Raptor, even if there are owners of all three that never leave the pavement.

Those were the hypothetical questions I posed. I didn't even say that the OEM tie rods are good enough (or not), only that I have done a ton of rock crawling, including Top of the World, and not had an issue, and that I've seen improper off-roading lead to broken parts.

So, the only thing I'm claiming is that it's possible to do a lot of rock crawling with the OEM tie rods and that at least some of the time, broken tie rods are user error. I don't know enough to say whether they should be stronger, but if a stronger tie rod caused me to break a steering rack instead, I'd be pissed about that. Now, would I like to have everything stronger to withstand even more punishment? Sure, but not if I have to pay for something I won't use.

Point taken, I feel differently. FORD SHOULD NOT HAVE USED PASSENGER CAR TIE RODS ON BRONCOS.
Any excuse otherwise, is just un-4x4ish , Ford knew they had a problem and that's why the 3.0 were released. Honestly, I'll be surprised if they don't get sued someday. From some idiot hitting the curb a little hard and then just tweaking the threads, a little, or stretching them a little this way or that. And then bombing down the freeway and lo and behold. He loses steering and smashs head on into who-knows-what, and the accident scene investigator will claim defective parts ( with no obvious evidence it was previously tweaked)...and if the attorney's good enough, ford will be found liable. Will you defend the 2.0 tie rods then?

These tiny tie rods didn't work in 1996 any better than they work in 2026. ,Back in 1990s tons of guys were breaking the EXACT same threads and diameters on Isuzu Troopers, Rodeos, Amigos and Vehicross's. On 32s -35s (and other Japanese 4x4s)..This is when the 1st tie rods braces were made and sold by several 4x4 venders. ( no broncbuster wasn't the first) GM had a similar problem on the H2...

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

Have you considered that the tie rods are basically a mechanical fuse? They absolutely are. They will fail first protecting much more expensive parts/systems that are also more labor intensive to repair.

Passenger car sized fuse in a 4x4 built to complete with jeep= BAD ENGINEERING. Lets pus some car-sized u-Joints in too while were at it ..those are fuses too!!!

.I'll take the 20amp over the 10amp please.

 

[swamp2]

Passenger car sized fuse in a 4x4 built to complete with jeep= BAD ENGINEERING. Lets pus some car-sized u-Joints in too while were at it ..those are fuses too!!!

.I'll take the 20amp over the 10amp please.

You seem to be feeling a bit ornery these days...

So I guess you did the loads analysis? I guess you know the material and heat treat so your backyard "engineering" isn't misled purely by size (I'm getting a theme here...).

Of course the next obvious question is what is the failure rate and what kind of driving technique is being used for observed Bronco tie rod failures? Are these stock or modified rigs? Like @timhood aptly stated, does the OEM need to engineer for 99% or 99.9% (etc.) of off roaders?

There is nothing wrong in general making stuff stronger, but when the OEM carefully designs, engineers and tests with a "fuse" like behaviour absolutely inherent and intended, one should exercise caution to not move the failure to the expensive spot. We know the racks aren't "KoH robust" as well...

Lastly, of course, your electrical analogy is perfect. What nitwit replaces a factory 10 A fuse with a 20 A? Absolutely perfect way to make your wiring the "fuse" and catch your rig on fire. Well, at least you saved $1 in not blowing that fuse.

 

[Num Num]

I would love that job! See all the new stuff and get to try and break it! Pick me!!!

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

Of course the next obvious question is what is the failure rate and what kind of driving technique is being used for observed Bronco tie rod failures? Are these stock or modified rigs? Like @timhood aptly stated, does the OEM need to engineer for 99% or 99.9% (etc.) of off roaders?

There is nothing wrong in general making stuff stronger, but when the OEM carefully designs, engineers and tests with a "fuse" like behaviour absolutely inherent and intended, one should exercise caution to not move the failure to the expensive spot. We know the racks aren't "KoH robust" as well...

Lastly, of course, your electrical analogy is perfect. What nitwit replaces a factory 10 A fuse with a 20 A? Absolutely perfect way to make your wiring the "fuse" and catch your rig on fire. Well, at least you saved $1 in not blowing that fuse.

It's NOT just Broncos that are failing! Rangers are having the SAME problems!
Your trim came with the upgraded 3.0 rack and tie rods. (20 amps fuse and 12 guage wire) While Rangers and some Broncos still come with the wimpy 2.0 rack and tie rods ( 10 amp fuse and 16 guage wire)
Even the Ranger Raptor has the 2.0 steering!!! And YES they bend and break!
Even though the Raptor (ranger) was carefully engineered to be an off road truck.

Im glad ford has the 3.0 upgrade available, and that some grumpy member with backyard engineering, shared the installation hack with the world for free... (while ford and others charge BIG money for the programming install)

Even though ford realized that the 2.0 failure rate was higher than the seat adjustment bolt failure rate, which they recalled (most likely) they STILL haven't addressed the folks stuck with the passenger car sized wimpy rack and tie rods.

Yeah, Im PISSED (at ford tho) and NO I don't see any sense in defending Fords position in the tie rods topic.

Problem is even more exaggerated, with the ranger raptor as the extended width of the track makes the wimpy tie rods 1.5" longer, and no I don't need to be an engineer to figure out that that makes them weaker, by making them longer, it's freaking common sense.

A picture below is exactly what i'm talking about.Imagine if some nitwit didn't realize why the steering was a little off after their offroading event. And then later, this thing breaks and a catastrophic accident happens. I don't see how this is not a liability. Especially compared to a stupid seat bolt.

https://www.ranger6g.com/forum/thre...ght-tie-rod-inner-outer-rr.26683/#post-383824

 

[swamp2]

Im glad ford has the 3.0 upgrade available, and that some grumpy member with backyard engineering, shared the installation hack with the world for free... (while ford and others charge BIG money for the programming install)

Even though ford realized that the 2.0 failure rate was higher than the seat adjustment bolt failure rate, which they recalled (most likely) they STILL haven't addressed the folks stuck with the passenger car sized wimpy rack and tie rods.

Yeah, Im PISSED (at ford tho) and NO I don't see any sense in defending Fords position in the tie rods topic.

Problem is even more exaggerated, with the ranger raptor as the extended width of the track makes the wimpy tie rods 1.5" longer, and no I don't need to be an engineer to figure out that that makes them weaker, by making them longer, it's freaking common sense.

All well stated.

I think I'm just able to equally see/consider both the perspective of the 1%-er enthusiast off-roader as well as that of the OEM. The latter being, 1. We WILL have a "fuse" type design and 2. We will design for the 99th percentile (or whatever number).

It's a non trivial engineering challenge for an aftermarket design to increase the 99% number while also maintaining a "fuse" in the design. It's very clear that many/most aftermarket tie rods clearly go well beyond 99% but also completely fail on maintaining the "fuse".

So, for example, is this even remotely a fuse even for a 74Weld billet rack?

I'd ABSOLUTELY want a fuse for that rack.

 

[michelle227]

Not discussed with tie rod failure is what other mods had been done. The failures, however, rarely seem to happen in stock form. Further, those that have an issue after a mod are less than one percent of the consumer base.

It makes zero business sense to over-engineer for less than one percent of the buyers. If it did, we would ALSO see manual transmissions and a 70's era list of options combination (ie. None of this package crap) for every vehicle.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

Not discussed with tie rod failure is what other mods had been done. The failures, however, rarely seem to happen in stock form. Further, those that have an issue after a mod are less than one percent of the consumer base.

It makes zero business sense to over-engineer for less than one percent of the buyers. If it did, we would ALSO see manual transmissions and a 70's era list of options combination (ie. None of this package crap) for every vehicle.

We did see the manual transmission in the bronco!!!
I just don't understand this mentality.I mean, most of the truck has a margin of error built into the engineering, that is to say that the wheel bearings, springs, frame, axles ect can handle more weight (or forces) than the vehicles specifications allow for. That's because the engineers are building the vehicle to prepare for the use out of range of the specifications... Meaning somebody's gonna overload ,it or overspin it, or overpower it or do something that is slightly out of the range of the initial engineering parameters. So most/all manufacturers consider this when they decide the sizing on specific things like lug bolts, U-joint size , and yes even TIE RODs. So while the rest of the truck has a substantial built in margin of error, ( for all the nitwit customers) that is significant, BUT they still skipped tie rod day.

If FORD wants to build trucks that can take a jump, or bounce on the rocks with jeeps, then they better be able to take EXTRA forces on the tirods, as well... More so than you would expect from a passenger car. Sized twig...

This is common sense, or should be.

 

[michelle227]

We did see the manual transmission in the bronco!!!
I just don't understand that this mentality.I mean, most of the truck has a margin of error built into the engineering, that is to say that the wheel bearings, springs, frame, axles ect can handle more weight than the vehicle . That's because the engineers are building the vehicle to prepare for the use out of range of the specifications... Meaning somebody's gonna overload ,it or overspin it, or overpower it or do something that is slightly out of the range of the initial engineering parameters. So most manufacturers consider this when they decide the sizing on specific things like lug bolts, U-joint size , and yes even TIE RODs. So while the rest of the truck has a substantial built in margin of (customer )error that is significant, they still skipped tie rod day.

We've got to build trucks that can take a jump, then they better be able to take EXTRA forces on the tirods, as well... More so than you would expect from a passenger car. Sized twig...

This is common sense, or should be.

Much like the few makers still producing a stick, it is the smallest engine possible. It is as true with the Bronco as it was with two of my Jaguars...at least with the F-Type, it was still a supercharged V6 pushing close to 400HP from Castle Bromwich. But the similarly pat formed Aston-Martin had a stick with a twin-turbo V8.

But since you missed the point, builds for the less than one percent would include a manual option for the biggest effing engine that fits. Essentially COPO like a mofo...

The reality is that vehicles aren't built for the most-abused class. The tie rod failure is rarely a stock vehicle. If you are going away from stock, then it is incumbent for the user to upgrade the potential weak link...nevermind that 'weak link' is fine for more than 99% of purchasers...

Sponsored