Sagging rear bumper fascia issue

I read about this while scrolling through some of the older threads. Has Ford come up with any fix for this yet or fixed newer models? My early 2017 has a bit of it but not too bad. However, it doesn't have many miles yet.

I was looking at that on my R the other day. There are tabs on the bumper cover that, apparently, can't be attached where they're supposed to be. There's a hard structure behind it that prevents the tabs from being pushed all the way in. If we could get those tabs hooked, the saggy bumper wouldn't be an issue.

That may be a weekend project for me to try sometime. I replaced the rear bumper panel on my 12 GT and it looks like the S550 rear panel follows pretty much the same attachment procedure.

I thought this was how you verified an OEM bumper cover and the car had not been wrecked.

If the bumper fits nice and tight, it was previously damaged and not OEM anymore.

Tom

tomshep said:

I thought this was how you verified an OEM bumper cover and the car had not been wrecked.

If the bumper fits nice and tight, it was previously damaged and not OEM anymore.

Tom

Click to expand...

Actually, owning an old 66 Corvette there is a certain logic to that. If anything is too perfect on it, it's not original GM.

ArkLightning said:

That may be a weekend project for me to try sometime. I replaced the rear bumper panel on my 12 GT and it looks like the S550 rear panel follows pretty much the same attachment procedure.

Click to expand...

If you find a fix, let us all know!

Ford has already replaced mine and I am still waiting for them to do it again. The sag was so bad I had chipping paint on the leading edge, so they replaced the entire piece. New one is sagging just as bad and chipping paint again. Now there is a 1/2" crack next to the Shelby logo on the rear decklid. Add that to the peeling weatherstripping on the passenger rear quarter window, the floor mat grommets tearing out of the driver side carpet and the oil cooler line recall that I have been waiting 6 months on and I am starting to have some quality concerns about this car.

2016 Avalanche Grey Tech Pack Chassis # 677

It seems pretty much every GT350 is afflicted with this issue, some bumpers are worse than others. Numerous owners have had new bumper caps put on by their dealer which does not fix the underlying problem unfortunately.

Who would one contact at Ford to find out if they are working on a fix ? My dealer seems to be unaware. There is clearly a design flaw that Ford should be providing a fix for. I love driving my GT350 but am extremely disappointed with the overall quality of the car from dirt in the paint, sagging rear bumper, overspray on my c-pillar, misaligned hood...

Ford never addressed the same problem on the '10 - '14 S197. They aren't going to do anything about it this time, either.

Pretty sad that Ford does not fix this problem. There is an obvious issue in the engagement between the two tabs and the under member nearest the tail light assembly on both sides of my 2017 GT350. I removed the right side bumper cover yesterday, just from the wheel well to the tail light and these two tabs are not engaged at all, and really cannot be engaged without some up pressure via a floor jack and rubber pad under the valence. With some struggle, and the tail lamp assembly removed, and a little shaving of the under member, where it apparently interferes with engagement, this tab can be engaged, but when the jack is removed, the strain on the tab is apparent, and I doubt it will hold. I am trying the addition of 3 screws in this area, hidden by the tail light assembly when installed. One screw would, in my opinion, leave too much stress on the tab and the one screw. It held overnight very nicely, but getting this tab, closest the tail light, engaged is making the engagement of the next tab, closer to the wheel well, difficult. The bumper cover wants to bow out now in this area when the tab nearest the tail light is actually engaged. Piss poor design, and/or molds by Ford! Anyway, when all tabs are engaged, it looks good. I'll follow up with some photos.

It's a problem with the molds. That's one of the downfalls of using multiple parts suppliers. They all have the CAD measurements, but they don't all use the same tolerances when it comes to final production of the parts. Either the supplier of the substructure made it too thick or the fascia supplier made the contours a little too steep. I'm betting the substructure was produced thicker than it was supposed to be. When you try to jam the fascia in where it's supposed to be, it looks perfect.

I don't know if I'd try to force the tabs to stay on without addressing the substructure first. It might transfer too much load to the tabs that are holding in place and cause them to fail, making the situation much worse. I think the substructure needs to be shaved back by 2 or 3 millimeters.

GT Premi said:

It's a problem with the molds. That's one of the downfalls of using multiple parts suppliers. They all have the CAD measurements, but they don't all use the same tolerances when it comes to final production of the parts. Either the supplier of the substructure made it too thick or the fascia supplier made the contours a little too steep. I'm betting the substructure was produced thicker than it was supposed to be. When you try to jam the fascia in where it's supposed to be, it looks perfect.

I don't know if I'd try to force the tabs to stay on without addressing the substructure first. It might transfer too much load to the tabs that are holding in place and cause them to fail, making the situation much worse. I think the substructure needs to be shaved back by 2 or 3 millimeters.

Click to expand...

Interesting insight, and it is interesting that the second tab away from the tail light, also has a couple of ribs molded into it on either side of the hook, thus forcing the bumper cover even further away from the substructure. Think I'll take the whole bumper cover off today.

GT Premi said:

It's a problem with the molds. That's one of the downfalls of using multiple parts suppliers. They all have the CAD measurements, but they don't all use the same tolerances when it comes to final production of the parts. Either the supplier of the substructure made it too thick or the fascia supplier made the contours a little too steep. I'm betting the substructure was produced thicker than it was supposed to be. When you try to jam the fascia in where it's supposed to be, it looks perfect.

I don't know if I'd try to force the tabs to stay on without addressing the substructure first. It might transfer too much load to the tabs that are holding in place and cause them to fail, making the situation much worse. I think the substructure needs to be shaved back by 2 or 3 millimeters.

Click to expand...

The tolerances of component parts is only a symptom of the problem.

The problem is largely cost. Ford (and any other manufacturer) could employ a design that accounts for manufacturing tolerances, but that usually involves other costs/tradeoffs.

In the construction world, what Ford has done is called a "zero tolerance detail" or a detail that's nearly (if not practically) impossible to achieve a good finished product. This is why in construction details you have things like baseboard and crown molding, which may seem to be a decorative piece but is really an add on to account for variance and tolerances in the underlying surfaces/materials. Can you lay tile all the way up to and razor sharply against a wall? Sure, but the cost and time and fitment is prohibitive. So what do you do? You put in baseboard or quarter round at transition points to accommodate for the varying nature of the edge/transition.

Ford could probably solve this probably more easily through different attachments that are more forgiving and allow for the valence to be snugged or relaxed, based upon the inherent dimensional tolerances in the mating surfaces. The concept of adding a "trim" or cover piece really isn't practical or desired in this case. But as the other gentleman pointed out, getting a really good fit would require numerous assemblies (the body, the light assembly, the rear bumper) to all match up perfectly OR at the very least have fasteners that can attempt to soak up or give back the gaps and jams.

The factory "tabs" aren't an effective solution.

There's many other approaches that manufacturers use to reduce or eliminate fitment tolerance issues. The Japanese for example, used to take transmission parts and "mate" them in a custom fashion, whereas the American solution is to typically build the parts, check them for spec (+/-) and throw them in a bin for assembly joining to other components of the final assembly. When actually taking a part that has a - variation and mating it to it's corresponding part with a + variation would be the best fit. Unfortunately, under the "American" solution I outlined, over 50% of the assembled final product are going to be out of compliment because it's a coin toss whether the inherent manufacturing tolerances or going to compliment or compound the problem.

The solutions you mentioned are why American cars have such a deplorable reputation for build quality; tolerances were far too loose. The Japanese and Germans have been going the extra mile to attain tight tolerances and fitment for decades. American manufacturers are still relatively new to the process. They're still going through the growing pains of tight tolerances.

I get your construction example, but crown molding is mainly decorative. The joints typically tend to separate with the contraction of the walls they're mounted on. More homes don't have it than do have it. And it's typically only mounted in the common/formal areas of the homes. Bedrooms and bathrooms [of average homes] typically don't have crown molding. However, you're right about the baseboards and shoe molding.

I am sure this is all true, and the same reason we have steel bolts going into aluminum knuckles for the brake calipers. There's always a trade off for cost. I remember, in a past life, when I worked on an air bag inflator in the automotive industry. The manufacture had a single penny framed up on a conference room wall with the question, What does a penny mean to us? The dollar figure below the penny was in the 6 figure range. Anyway, back on subject, the fit of the bumper cover sucks, Love the car, but wonder why Ford cannot match foreign fit and finish. I am sure it can be done cost effectively.

I more or less fixed mine. It's not an ideal approach but I no longer have a gap. I basically hitched it up. I bought some 5 mm rods threaded on one end and fashioned some clips out of 1/8 inch thick aluminum strap. I then drilled a 1/4 inch hole in the trunk pan pinch weld above and to the outside of the mufflers. I ran one rod to a clip nutted to the top of the screw that secures the exhaust tips to the lower valance. I bent a hook in the rod after cutting it to length and double nutted it to the clip. The other clip and rod I secured to a threaded screw that secures the lower black trim to the bumper cover - 2 rods per side. I raised the bumper cover with a padded floor jack and tightened up the nuts on the rods. This kind of gives you an idea although I had only one of the rods in place at the time.



The second rod and clip secures to the threaded screw visible through the valance/bumper cover connection to the left. I don't currently have a photo with both rods in place but I can get one after Christmas.



This is basically what I ended up with.



The only shortcoming I see (other than the Rube Goldberg fix) is the strain on the outer exhaust tip bolt/bracket puts a bit of a curve in the valance below the exhaust. It's back underneath and you can't really see it unless you get down on the ground and look for it - but it's there. But just about any approach with this bumper puts a little strain on something somewhere.

The result looks great! Much better than my fix with the screws. I reduced the gap by about 30%, from 0.15 to 0.10" These are just stainless sheet metal screws, pre-drilled, then inserted while lifting the bumper cover via a well padded floor jack under the lower valence. Not perfect, but better. If I remove all the gap the cover wants to bulge out along the side of the quarter panel.

I have about .002 inch gap on one side and .005 on the other just before the corner at the tightest point. I'm sure I could close up the .005 a little more as I didn't measure it until I had quit for the day. I think I started at about .035 on one side.

But .01 is not a bad looking result as shown in your photo. My front bumper gap is considerably wider than that and it's probably a pure function of how Ford installed it.

Took a second shot at the left side again today. Had to remove nearly the entire bumper cover to get to the side mounting bracket which is simply too thick to allow the tabs to engage along the side near the tail light. I filed the black plastic down about .075" right below the last hook and filled off the ribs near the second hook forward. In the process I found that the rear bracket screws, this is the corner most piece on right under the tail lamp, was not tightened at the factory. I pulled this up and towards the licence plate an tightened it. Put her all back together and got much better results than yesterdays attempt.

Although my fix seems to work and has the advantage of not having to remove the bumper cover - somehow I think the better fix is somewhere along the lines of what you're doing. I will probably try to pull mine when the weather warms up.