Nice weld!

[mpeugeot]

What is the QC issue? The weld is structurally sound. It obviously passed QC inspection (if it is actually visually inspected); its just not perfectly pretty to you.

Seriously, look at the AWS standards then come back and tell us that meets the criteria for a sufficiently high quality weld on automotive sheet metal or structure. It doesn't, it's that simple, and Ford's standards rely on the AWS standards. This doesn't mean that the structure will fail, but it doesn't meet the standard and should have been rejected as such. There are reasons (good reasons) that the standards are written the way they are.

 

[LHD]

What is the QC issue? The weld is structurally sound. It obviously passed QC inspection (if it is actually visually inspected); its just not perfectly pretty to you.

So this looks OK to you?

 

[Tdifonzo]

PSA: If your Bronco comes with a dent or four in the door, don't worry about it. It's still sTrUcTuRaLlY sOuNd.

 

[Efthreeoh]

So this looks OK to you?

Yes, because it is an effective weld. Not sure how many times I need to say it. LOL.

 

[mpeugeot]

Yes.

I want what he's smoking!

 

[ReimundKrohn]

Really. Two small voids on a weld that otherwise has good form on the top and bottom (start and finish) of the weld? It looks like a wire feed glitch.

This is high-rate auto manufacturing not airframe or rocket production. The cost to do NDT of the body welds other than physical inspection would drive the product cost way up.

…And if you saw this kind of crap weld on some other brand of vehicle to which you are not already beholden; say on a Land Rover or a Jeep or a Tacoma, you would also say “m’eh, don’t matter”?

 

[LHD]

Yes, because it is an effective weld. Not sure how many times I need to say it. LOL.

I don’t have the crayons or time to explain how this is not right In today’s manufacturing environment.

 

[Efthreeoh]

I don’t have the crayons or time to explain how this is not right In today’s manufacturing environment.

Lol.

It's two 1MM voids in a 60MM weld that other wise looks to have good penetration into the metal. The other spot welds near it and the gusset plate next to it all show good weld quality. Yet you think Ford should have pulled the body in white from the production line, ground out the weld and rewelded the seam.

So take the time and even use an ink pen (if your nanny trusts you with one) and explain how in today's manufacturing environment this isn't right.

 

[Efthreeoh]

…And if you saw this kind of crap weld on some other brand of vehicle to which you are not already beholden; say on a Land Rover or a Jeep or a Tacoma, you would also say “m’eh, don’t matter”?

Yup, and I'm not beholden to Ford BTW. The OP has a bigger risk of opening his skull up in a crash by smacking his head on the roof latch than that weld breaking in a crash.

 

[broadicustomworks]

What non-welders fail to realize is that taking the visual ugliness out of the picture, it's not a "good" weld.
It does have fusion on both pieces of substrate, yes. For the majority of the weld.
I'd be interested to see the actual weld criteria they inspect against, as most I have ever seen don't allow for blowholes, pinholes, undercut in any capacity.
But welds are only as strong as their weakest link.
Any craters, cracks, non-fusion, cold starts, or poor tie-ins are a potential for it to fail and rip like foil if subjected to stress above and beyond daily use.

Any twisting/pulling could cause it to begin to fail at either one of those holes.
Likely? No. Not at least until you roll it or twist it hard on a trail with a lot of torque. And maybe not even then. Maybe not ever.

Even taking the structural part of it out of the argument, there is no way paint penetrated those holes. Which means water is going to get in there when you get it in the rain with the top off, and corrosion will start from the inside out.
Bare minimum I would dab some seam sealer in there, smooth it out, touch-up paint it.

 

[mpeugeot]

What non-welders fail to realize is that taking the visual ugliness out of the picture, it's not a "good" weld. It does have fusion on both pieces of substrate, yes. For the majority of the weld.

I'd be interested to see the actual weld criteria they inspect against, as most I have ever seen don't allow for blowholes, pinholes, undercut in any capacity.

Thank you. Exactly, it's not a matter of the structural strength of that particular weld in that particular spot... lots of crappy welds could hold together in that spot. It is the clear failure to meet the standard of welding generally - and given what union welders have invested in passing certification - this would NEVER be accepted as a passing coupon.

AWS standards are the minimum that Ford follows and if they don't follow them, the liability they would expose themselves to would be enormous.

 

[GTPrincessa]

What non-welders fail to realize is that taking the visual ugliness out of the picture, it's not a "good" weld.
It does have fusion on both pieces of substrate, yes. For the majority of the weld.
I'd be interested to see the actual weld criteria they inspect against, as most I have ever seen don't allow for blowholes, pinholes, undercut in any capacity.
But welds are only as strong as their weakest link.
Any craters, cracks, non-fusion, cold starts, or poor tie-ins are a potential for it to fail and rip like foil if subjected to stress above and beyond daily use.

Any twisting/pulling could cause it to begin to fail at either one of those holes.
Likely? No. Not at least until you roll it or twist it hard on a trail with a lot of torque. And maybe not even then. Maybe not ever.

Even taking the structural part of it out of the argument, there is no way paint penetrated those holes. Which means water is going to get in there when you get it in the rain with the top off, and corrosion will start from the inside out.
Bare minimum I would dab some seam sealer in there, smooth it out, touch-up paint it.

"Bare minimum I would dab some seam sealer in there, smooth it out, touch-up paint it."
This is what Ford should be doing. I personally would be contacting my dealer. Whether you trust them to complete the repair or not, I would want it documented for any future, potential problems.

 

[Dragline]

Yes, because it is an effective weld. Not sure how many times I need to say it. LOL.

Continuing to repeat yourself doesn't prove that it is an acceptable weld.

AWS D8.8

Looks to be meltback. Both instances look to be unacceptable per the standard.

 

[Efthreeoh]

Continuing to repeat yourself doesn't prove that it is an acceptable weld.

AWS D8.8

Looks to be meltback. Both instances look to be unacceptable per the standard.

So the visual issue with the weld as LHD sees it, is the two approximate 1 mm voids on the top plate of the lap-joint fillet weld. These are weld porosity issues and not burn back as you suggested. Burn back is when the filler weld burns away some of the edge of the top plate.

According to the spec you referenced (thanks for posting it) AWS D8.8, the weld quality requirements found at Sect. 5, the visual inspection of the weld allows up to 6 mm of accumlative porosity cavities in a 25 mm length of weld (i.e. 1 inch of weld) -ref. para. 5.1.4. (pg.4 of the spec).

The weld under discussion shows about 2 mmof total porosity in a 60 mm weld (my numbers are estimated based on LHD's pics). The max pore dimension has to be under 1.6 mm. The weld on LHD's Bronco is well within the AWS D8.8 spec for automotive welds. So as I stated first off a few pages ago in this thread, an ugly weld does not mean it is a bad weld (i.e. not structurally sound).

 

[Dragline]

So the visual issue with the weld as LHD sees it, is the two approximate 1 mm voids on the top plate of the lap-joint fillet weld. These are weld porosity issues and not burn back as you suggested. Burn back is when the filler weld burns away some of the edge of the top plate.

Wrong. It's meltback through the top plate.

Sponsored