Ford responds to inaccurate ABPA charges

Recent press releases issued by the Automotive Body Parts Association (ABPA) contain inaccurate information about Ford Genuine OEM Collision Replacement Parts and, based on incomplete facts, conclude these parts are different than production components, Ford Motor Co. said. ABPA's accusations highlight the aftermarket's lack of understanding and difficulty staying current with the frequent running changes made by automakers in their quest to constantly improve vehicles.

The parts referenced in the ABPA press releases were used for both manufacturing and service replacement, and were thoroughly tested and proven to meet Ford’s specifications for the Mustang. The statements in Ford’s YouTube video are true and accurate and Ford said it stands behind all of them, including Ford’s claim that collision replacement parts are the same as those used to manufacture the vehicle.

Here are the facts, according to Ford:

Many part materials are exhaustively analyzed and tested during the vehicle development process to meet internal and external requirements for safety, quality, fuel economy, cost-of-ownership and breakthrough technologies. At Job 1 for the 2005 – 2009 Mustang, specifications called for single-density polypropylene front and rear bumper isolators. However, as the vehicle had been tested and certified using a double-density polypropylene front bumper isolator, Ford maintained the use of that material until the vehicle could again be thoroughly tested and certified using the single-density polypropylene front bumper isolator.

From Job 1 until January 18, 2007, the double-density polypropylene bumper isolator was used for both vehicle manufacturing and service replacement. Upon completing testing and proving the single-density polypropylene front bumper isolator met all requirements and specifications, it went into vehicle production and was used for both vehicle manufacturing and service replacement. As both double- and single-density bumper isolators were proven forward- and backward-compatible, both were available for service replacement until stock of the double- density isolators was exhausted.

As the NSF testing speaks to material differences, it would have been more complete and meaningful if the aftermarket polystyrene isolator had also been tested and compared to the Genuine Ford polypropylene isolators, Ford said.

This chronology illustrates the lengths that Ford says it goes through to thoroughly test its Genuine Ford OEM Collision replacement parts as part of an entire system. These facts and Ford's continuing concerns with the fit, finish, material composition and structural integrity of aftermarket collision parts reinforce Ford's position that Genuine Ford Replacement Collision Parts are the right choice for consumers, the company said.

For more information regarding Ford’s products, visit www.ford.com.

For Ford news releases and high-resolution photographs visit media.ford.com.