A poignant exposé by a Ford technician has shed light on the complexities of recall software updates, illustrating why a basic update can prolong a vehicle’s stay at the dealership.
Justin Cole, a master Ford technician and proprietor of Bubba’s Garage in Fowlerville, Michigan, shared a revealing 4-minute and 5-second video on October 22, which has since attracted over 18,600 views.
The footage captures the pitfalls of Ford’s proprietary programming software, which can falter mid-update, resulting in “bricking” pricey modules and leaving customers without their vehicles for protracted durations.
Cole’s live demonstration of a current recall situation elucidates why these updates are far from the swift resolutions many consumers anticipate.
“When you schedule an appointment for an update associated with your vehicle’s recall, recognize that these are far from rudimentary updates for your modules,” he states in the video. “Certain modules can consume an entire day, and some may fail during programming, potentially bricking the module entirely.”
The Reality of Modern Automotive Software Updates
Cole was addressing a recall impacting select 2022-2023 Ford Transit vehicles, necessitating updates to the Instrument Panel Cluster. This work unfolds amid Ford’s extensive recall challenges, which have seen over 80 recalls affecting more than four million vehicles this year alone, marking a historical high for the automaker—outpacing the total from 2024.
What should have been a straightforward operation quickly devolved into a technician’s worst nightmare.
“It currently displays an update as successful. However, when I glance at my computer and check FDRS, it has completely frozen,” he explains while demonstrating his screen. “An hour and a half into this update, and I am unable to progress as the FDRS program has failed.”
FDRS (Ford Diagnostic and Repair System) is Ford’s exclusive diagnostic software employed by technicians for all programming tasks. Designed as Ford’s advanced diagnostic tool for contemporary models, FDRS aims to deliver dealership-level coverage.
Despite utilizing a state-of-the-art computer equipped with 32 gigabytes of RAM and one terabyte of storage—specially acquired for programming—Cole still faced operational failures.
Technical discussions validate that FDRS may encounter server-side issues hampering technicians’ access to the software, especially when guided diagnostics are essential for warranty claim approvals.
Viral stories from across the web
Our expert team monitors sentiments surrounding car shopping, repairs, and daily driving experiences on social media.
“The program we utilize, FDRS, is subpar,” he candidly admits. “This may very well consume the entirety of my day. As of now, it’s 12:30 on a Wednesday, and I likely won’t complete this update until the end of the day, if not into tomorrow.”
When Modules Get “Bricked”
The term “bricked” is utilized when an electronic module becomes entirely unresponsive during a software update, rendering it as inert as a brick. This occurrence may stem from various factors such as insufficient battery voltage, communication failures, or software glitches during programming. Such setbacks during a recall update complicate matters significantly.
“In these scenarios, the module requires replacement. It might take one, two, or even three days to procure that module. The duration can extend even further, as we cannot merely install the replacement module,” Cole elaborates.
“There are rigorous protocols and obstacles we technicians must navigate in consultations with Ford Hotline and other departments within Ford to ascertain the reasons behind the module’s failure and subsequent bricking.”
The process is not as straightforward as simply ordering a replacement part. Technicians must secure approval from Ford, provide justification for the replacement, and adhere to meticulous protocols before a new module can even be ordered. This transforms a task customers perceive as a simple software update into a multi-day saga.
The Scale of the Problem
Cole’s experiences mirror a widespread issue. The recall he addressed affects 3,506 Transit vehicles previously serviced under a different recall. According to Cole, he has “yet to encounter any vehicle that is at the latest calibration,” implying that nearly every affected Ford vehicle will require this drawn-out update procedure.
Fellow technicians corroborated the prevalence of these issues in the comments section. One contributor, lakeshoremechanic, noted, “All of the 25S49S updates I’ve completed have either consumed 6 hours or they have failed,” while another user, 5812462276506, shared they “experienced five failures of the 25S49S update this week alone.”
Another technician, AJ, remarked that such problems are not confined to Ford: “GM faces similar dilemmas. Our programming systems (SPS2 and SPS3) fail in the middle of updates, causing modules to brick regularly.
Vehicles arrive with towing due to failed OTA updates. It’s a living nightmare.” Industry insiders confirm that GM encounters comparable errors and communication failures throughout module programming.
Customer Frustration Meets Technical Reality
The video ignited fervent discussions on the discrepancies between customer expectations and technical realities. Some viewers voiced irritation regarding the intricacies of modern vehicles and the protracted duration of repairs.
“I will be waiting; I can’t afford three days for a simple update,” remarked user9209280566058, though they later added, “Just kidding—thank you for all your hard work.”
Others pondered if recalls could be entirely circumvented. When user sleverett83 inquired, “Would it be better to avoid the recall?” Cole firmly replied: “It is necessary for compliance.”
A particularly contentious dialogue involved user Mardee, who claimed: “I have four recalls on two different vehicles, and one of them is a software update recall. I won’t address any of them. I don’t want someone tampering with my vehicles.”
Cole defended his profession: “Perhaps you should attempt our job and assert its simplicity. Even with 16 years of experience as a proficient technician, it’s no easier today than it was a decade ago—experience notwithstanding.”
The Supply Chain Challenge
The complexities do not merely reside within programming; technicians also grapple with additional hurdles when modules necessitate replacement due to the intricacies of today’s automotive supply chain.
User alantroutman460 recommended keeping spare parts readily available; however, Cole clarified: “In this day and age, you cannot simply stockpile modules.
Each order requires a VIN and explicit approval. Even if I require an APIM for a customer-paid repair, you must still […] navigate Ford’s labyrinth to procure one. It’s absurd.”
This VIN-specific ordering paradigm is standard across the automotive sector. Ford’s parts ordering systems necessitate VIN numbers to guarantee precise fitment and module compatibility, given the variability within modern vehicles—even among models released in the same year.
Although this system minimizes fraud and assures correct parts matching, it imposes an additional layer of difficulty and delay upon what customers perceive to be uncomplicated resolutions.
Setting Proper Expectations
Cole’s message resonates clearly: patience and comprehension are paramount when contending with contemporary vehicle software updates. Exercise mindfulness and respect towards your service advisor or service manager.
If they notify you of complications in module programming, requiring your vehicle for an additional day or two, understand that this is a genuine issue we technicians confront daily.
The technician underscores that extended repair durations are not indicative of negligence or ineptitude: “We are not attempting to retain your vehicle longer than necessary simply because we lack the desire to attend to it. This is a recurring issue we manage every day.”
Motor1 has reached out to Cole via TikTok direct message and will update this story upon receiving a response.
Source link: Motor1.com.
