Home | Mailing List | Specifications | Care and Feeding | Modifications | Vendors | Literature


Arkansas Attorney General

new 5/23/03

May 23, 2003

In reply to: 5/20/03 Letter from Toni Robinson

Arkansas Attorney General Mike Beebe 
323 Center Street
Little Rock, AR. 72201

Dear Attorney General,

Subject: Consumer Complaint # 34652

Dear Attorney General,

I have just received a letter from your office referencing the complaint as listed above. It is interesting to note that the response from Ford Motor Company states that my ESP expired a full year AFTER I had experienced the failure of the camshaft and 10 months after to the first record they have of my initial complaint to them regarding this matter.

I would also like to go on record stating that Ford has acknowledged that this is an issue with this model car and according to their own publicly published official response, they “are handling the limited number of engines this has affected”. I contend they are not “handling” this matter to anybody’s satisfaction, much less mine, (please reference information I sent yesterday) and more importantly, this is not just an issue with warranty, but also an issue of fraud. 

I purchased the car with the written understanding (Ford operation and owners manual) that NO internal maintenance service or tune-up other then fluid changes are required on this vehicle prior to the 100,00 mile service recommendation. The replacement of all four camshafts at a cost of $1,000 for each (only official option given by Ford Motor Company) of the 4 cams is required to be assured this car will make it 100,000 mile service point is not mentioned anywhere in the operation manual.

The fact that a possible catastrophic failure was not simply overlooked but rather known and then ignored (documents provided from Ford motor company to attorneys of a lawsuit filed late last year in Cook County, Illinois http://www.v8sho.com/SHO/CamFailureClassActionSuitFiled.htm may shed more light on this particular allegation) in the hopes the limited number of vehicles affected would be of little consequence. I find this action totally incomprehensible by a company that I am sure this state and its employees have many vehicles purchased from. 

I would also like to make clear that although these are “a limited number” of vehicles since there was only a production run of 21,000 of them over a 4 year period the overall camshaft sprocket failure percentage for this model has been calculated at a mind boggling 80 – 90 % failure rate by the end of this year. As I have stated in a previous communication, that number seems to have been achieved already with the vehicles I have knowledge of in this state as of last year. 

I pray and would implore the office of the Arkansas Attorney General to please do a little more research and investigation into this matter not just on my behalf, but on all Ford automobile owners of the state and possibly the entire country.



Carter A. Fujibayashi
cc: V8SHO.com, SHO Club

I would remind everyone who has experienced the heartbreak and expense of cam failure to join the class action lawsuit, but with realistic expectations. The way the wheels of justice move, and they way Ford drags things out it will surely take years for a resolution. 

A parallel plan is to do what Carter and others have done, raise hell with your State Attorney General. Our current reported body count is only 261 but we have reason the think about 16,000 V8SHO have experienced cam failure. Ford CAN'T keep claiming this is rare.

Feel free to commit your eloquent prose to paper and fire off a copy to State Attorney General, I am confident Ford wants explain this situation to all fifty of them.  It may cost you a little time and one first class stamp. 

Grind the bastards down.  -  Buford

Contact Information