Dig into just about any car, under the hood or in the interior, and you can find all kinds of weird bits and pieces. If you’ve bought a cheaper model, you might find lots of blanked-off switches or cable harnesses that go nowhere. Or, if you’ve bought a modern Ford Bronco, you might find an entirely fake speaker and amp — yes, dummy parts almost like movie props — in the back. Isn’t that curious?
A video from BuckleUpButtercupTV gives us a great look at this curious manufacturing decision from Ford. In the back of her Bronco, there’s a “dummy” amplifier and subwoofer living behind a trim panel. Both are non-functional, even though the speaker looks like the real deal and the amp has wires coming out of it. The trim panel even has a grille for the speaker, even though none of it works!
Hunt around online and you’ll find a whole ton of Bronco owners who have found the same fake components in the back of their trucks. So what’s going on? Why would Ford put fake parts in the Bronco?
Why?!
First, the background. In late 2022, the chip shortage spawned by COVID-19 was once again causing havoc for Bronco production, just a few weeks in to a new model year. Ford found itself lacking the parts to deliver the new standard seven-speaker audio system it had promised for some 2023 model year vehicles. Of those seven speakers, one was a subwoofer that lived in the back of the vehicle. Ford reasonably figured it could cut the subwoofer without unduly harming sound output. This allowed the automaker to keep getting Broncos out the door. Notably, this only affected models with the standard sound system, not those with the upgraded Bang and Olufsen system, which used different components.
Ford didn’t hide this from customers, of course. As noted on the Bronco6G forums, those with active orders were notified ahead of time, and asked to sign an acknowledgement form regarding the change. Customers received a $250 discount to MSRP in exchange for the subwoofer delete. Ford also notified customers that their vehicles would not be retrofit with the subwoofer at a later date.
Deleting the components made sense. Ford couldn’t source the chips it needed to build the amps that ran the subwoofer, and it seemed silly to hold up production over a single speaker. Thus, it made the call and kept the production lines humming. That all makes sense. However, the exact way Ford went about it is rather curious.
See, Ford didn’t just ship the vehicles with the subwoofer and amp missing. Instead, it still put the components in the vehicles, just using dummy amps and subwoofers instead. The amps are readily identifiable—they have the same aluminum case as a proper unit but with a red X on it to indicate the dummy status. As covered by Best Car Audio, the amplifier housing has connectors and a PCB inside, but it’s not populated with components. Meanwhile, the subwoofers lack their magnets, which would be an easy way to cut costs on a sub that’s not being used anyway.
While we know why Ford did this (supply chain constraints), we don’t know for sure why they chose this exact method rather than leaving the space blank. And though Ford’s decision-making here is not exactly intuitive — manufacturing fake speakers and amps costs money — I have some guesses.
On a surface level, it would surely make more sense to simply not install amps and subwoofers in vehicles instead, however, Ford obviously did this for a reason. Research has failed to net me an official explanation, so I’ve reached out to the automaker for comment. In the meantime, let’s speculate—intelligently!—on why Ford went to the trouble of installing dummy parts.
For one thing, using the dummy parts would prevent any disruption to Ford’s finely-tuned assembly line processes, even with a rapidly changing supply chain situation. The worker who’s tasked with bolting in subs and amps? He or she is gonna keep doing the job the same way. Sure, you could tell them to take a few months off, or retask them, but that’s a change, and change gets expensive and fussy when you’re in the manufacturing game. Best to leave them be, right? Sounds silly, but sometimes the easiest path is the best one.
More importantly, though, removing the subwoofer and amp has consequences. Remove the subwoofer and its housing, and there’s suddenly nothing in between the interior trim and the outer metal body panel on the Bronco. That could act as a funnel for noise to enter the cabin, particularly as the subwoofer is near the rear wheel well. Small rock strikes and other annoying noises could be far more audible with the subwoofer missing. Similarly, if the audio cable from the wiring harness had no amp to plug in to, the connector on the end would just be rattling around inside the trim. That would sound really annoying! [Ed Note: I’m curious if the difference in mass between the real part and the dummy part has any NVH implications. -DT].
A populated amp PCB from a Bronco that shipped with the full subwoofer kit. via Enfig Car Stereo, YouTube screenshot
These issues could be solved. Ford could task an engineer with making some kind of clip to hold the connector. The subwoofer could be replaced with a block-off panel, too. However, these parts would have to be designed, manufactured, transported, and the production line techs would have to be reeducated on how to install them. We’re talking lots of hours of work here for probably tens of people. And they’re already really busy!
Instead, Ford took the simple route. One call to the amp supplier—”Hey, we can’t get chips. Just send us the subwoofer amps unpopulated and put a red X on them.” Done. One call to the subwoofer supplier—”Hey, don’t bother putting magnets or coils in the Bronco subwoofers. Just send us dummies with the cones installed.” The suppliers cut out the unnecessary processes, Ford gets near-identical parts, and changes nothing on its end barring a small reconfiguration to the audio software.
Plug and play upgrades are possible, but some choose to use aftermarket amps instead.
Some have also speculated that removing the subwoofer or associated parts could have affected the Bronco’s crash test approval. That one’s outside my wheelhouse, but my engineering spidey-sense says removing a speaker isn’t a big enough change to count in that regard. I could be wrong, though, so I’ve raised that with Ford as well.
Retrofits Are Possible
Incidentally, while Ford declined to offer retrofits, that doesn’t mean they’re not possible. Plenty of owners have pursued subwoofer installations on their own, and it’s actually remarkably easy. All because Ford left virtually everything in place!
For the amp, the dummy can be replaced with a working version part numbered for the Ford Fusion. It plugs straight in. As for the subwoofer, a Kicker 6.75″ sub is a common choice. Then, all that’s required is a small modification with a FORScan OBDLink tool to enable the subwoofer output in the audio system.
Performing those simple mods gets the Bronco’s sound system much closer to how the manufacturer originally intended. No more will the low frequencies go under-represented!
Ultimately, some will grouse at Ford for not pursuing a retrofit campaign itself. As demonstrated by many owners, it’s not difficult to pop off some trim pieces and put the working parts where they’re supposed to go. Instead, amidst a difficult manufacturing environment, Ford chose an easier way out that got product to customers and it washed its hands of the whole situation. Plus, it gave Bronco owners a fun weekend project in the process. No harm, no foul?
In any case, it gives us an insight on how weird manufacturing can be at larger scales. Sure, it might seem simpler for Ford to just leave out parts when it can’t get them. But reality is often more complex! Big automakers seldom do anything for stupid or frivolous reasons, outside of design and product planning, anyway. Dummy parts often exist for good reasons, even if they’re seemingly useless.
Image credits: Amazon, BuckleUpButtercupTV via YouTube screenshot
My headcanon is that the manufacturer of the panel that the amp/sub ships it to ford with the dummy amp and dummy sub attached as a placeholder for all the screws and hardware. on the assembly line the worker takes out the dummy equipment and puts in the “real” amp and sub in it’s place.
More proof of how much of a pain in the ass it is to retrain a Ford assembly line worker.
I guess the upside is there are less stupid boom boxes roaming our streets.
FIFY–
“More proof of how much of a pain in the ass it is to retrain
a Fordany assembly line worker.”That 6.5″ sub looks more like it was intended to fill out the bottom range rather than blow out your eardrums.
A man walks up to a Bronco and says, “why the long bass?”
It could have been an obligation or a favor to the supplier too.
On the one hand there could be a contract that said “we’re going to put your stuff in every bronco” so they just bought stripped down chipless parts to keep the vendor happy.
On the other hand, with the chip shortage the vendors might have been in financial trouble and Ford could have opted to keep buying dummy/empty equipment so their vendor could at least keep some sort of production going to avoid having to look for a new vendor if they went belly up.
I have trouble believing that it was easier to source components and assembly for a fake subwoofer than a simple foam block off. If it was anything not assembled directly at the plant, I would have just assumed supplier fraud.
Ford already had a speaker supplier. Having them put in cheaper speakers is simpler then spending engineering time designing a foam block and then finding someone to make it and then figuring out how to get them shipped into the plant. Then you’ve gotta make a shelf for the blocks to sit on the line…
Eh. PR speak. Ford got caught with their pants down trying to deceive consumers. Otherwise other manufacturers would use fake speakers too.
But they DIDN’T deceive customers … as the article explicitly states, the customers were informed AND received a $250 discount / rebate.
Please, read less of the article next time before commenting.
this honestly strikes me as a bit dishonest; i think many people will see this and figure their vehicle has a sub, because who in the world would guess ford installed *fake* speakers?
also: what an egregious waste of energy, time, and resources to produce something that is essential just a lie – shame on them.
Did you read the article?
uh, yes…
now kindly explain to me why there needs to be *anything* behind the grill.
So…you didn’t read the article…
There’s an article here that explains it:
https://www.theautopian.com/why-2023-ford-broncos-came-with-non-functional-dummy-subwoofers-and-amps/
The first owners were asked to sign a form accepting this as per the article.
Very Ford. What stuck out to me was that they deleted the amp and sub for $250, and then made the buyer sign something saying it wouldn’t be installed later. $250 for a little patience to get it installed at a later date seems perfectly reasonable to me. If I were the buyer, I’d want that discount to reflect what it cost to replace those things when availability returned. I don’t do a ton of car audio, but I’d be willing to bet good money $250 doesn’t touch it. There aren’t many brands on my no-buy list, but Ford was the first.
Yeah, I would like to have a $250 amp and sub option because in reality i think that would be at least 2500
its not an optional upgrade it is the “default” sound system. Buyers agreed to have the sub deleted to have their car built now instead of waiting.
It would have cost far more for dealers to go back in to reinstall it later. It’s a $250 option from the factory because it’s part of assembly, but the moment you have to retroactively install stereo equipment, even with dummies occupying the space and all the cabling already there, it becomes a time quote on the mechanic’s sheet. PLUS parts.
Another Bronco phony part: In the first generation of Bronco II, around 1985-1990, if you bought the (very rare) 2WD version, you got a dummy *TRANSFER CASE*. It was the outer casing of the 4WD transfer case, with a short driveshaft that passed straight through. I guess that solution was cheaper than engineering a longer driveshaft??
Oh, definitely.
The economics of manufacturing is completely fascinating to me.
I remembering being amazed to find out that my non-fog-lit Focus still came from the factory with all the wiring installed for the lights – just replace the blanks with the pods, connect them, and upgrade the switch.
My base model Nissan Sentra came the same way. It also had the wiring for tweeters and the steering wheel audio controls. All I had to do was to add the speakers, the fog lights, a new headlight switch w/ fog lamps controls and the new steering wheel switches. Didn’t even had to add relays or fuses for the fog lights.
My Magnum R/T can bet retrofitted with auto sensing headlights. As long as I have the auto climate control, all I have to do is install the proper switch. I was also able to add a trunk release button for mine as well since the Magnum didn’t have one but it was wired for it due to it’s platform mate the 300C.
My C-Max didn’t come with the fog light wiring, and that was annoying.
They’ve been doing that for a long time (thankfully!); my 89 LX Mustang had the wiring for the fogs as well; I added the lights that came with the GT, and bought a GT light switch (the LX had a dummy switch that looked like the GT switch, but with only 1 functional lever), and worked flawlessly.
It’s common across many industries.
My parents bought a hot tub that had an option for integrated pop-up speakers. They didn’t take the option but it still had the pop-up housings and all the wiring, just no actual functioning speakers.
Same goes for a lot of microchips. TI might sell two chips with different memory ratings, but in reality often times they’re the exact same chip, but in the lower memory rated version they essentially blow a fuse/connection to disable some of the memory.
Back in the 90s, Intel wanted to make a lower-priced CPU (the SX line for those that were around then). It was cheaper because it lacked a coprocessor. But it was the same chip as the more expensive one, but with the extra step of physically destroying the coprocessor circuitry.
I worked as a PC assembler back then so I saw plenty of i386 SX and DX chips. The SX was different because it used a 16 bit bus instead of the full 32 bit bus of the DX chip.
“The CPU remained fully 32-bit internally, but the 16-bit bus was intended to simplify circuit-board layout and reduce total cost.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386
The i486 SX had a disabled coprocessor. You could add in a 387 coprocessor if you wanted to though.
The *weirder* part of this i486SX thing is that if you bought an “i487 coprocessor” it’s actually a full-on i486DX that when plugged in disabled the built-in i486SX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X87#80487
Imagine if you bought a car and when you wanted to install a new subwoofer they replaced your whole car.
most of the 2007ish or newer econoline cargo vans have all the wireing run to the rear speakers all you have to do is buy speakers and plug them in.
Every one of the engines in my truck came with a block heater installed, whether the truck was optioned with it or not. I think the option was like $100, but you could buy a $15 cable and enable it yourself aftermarket in about 2 minutes.
So, Ford decided it would be a huge pain and expense to build special versions of the Bronco with missing parts. Their solution was to tell the supplier to build special versions of the sub and amp with missing parts. Interesting.
To be fair, the supplier was the one missing critical parts. So the options were: Ford leaves a blank and the supplier makes nothing or Ford puts in dummy parts and the supplier still gets to build and sell a dummy version of their product with the parts that are actually available.
So where you seem to characterize it as pushing a problem onto the supplier, I see it more as the supplier is the one with the problem in the first place and Ford’s solution is one that chose a solution that allows the supplier to at least limp along still building/selling something.
A more accurate summary of the article is that Ford built the vehicle with non-working parts(they didn’t have their innards) as that was the only way their supplier could furnish them…or are you trolling us?
What an interesting trend. I’ve already seen 4-cylinder cars with 6-cylinder-like plastic engine covers, obviously wheel covers that look like mag wheels, now a fake subwoofer… Soon we make get a fake touchscreen for a car that doesn’t have that feature, or a fake transfer case at the front of a two-wheel drive pickup or fake self esteem who whoever bought a Dodge Journey.
Though I am a fan of wheel covers that look like their wheels.
I remember the facelifted 1st gen Ford Fusion offered these, and they looked so much better than the usual stylish plastic cover over a black steelie with discordant little circles all along the edge that manufacturers employ to seemingly make you feel bad about not having money.
Those go so well with the blanked off dash buttons, a constant and welcome reminder of your CheapBastard® lifestyle.
My Focus has alloys BUT still a metric (b/c Euro options not for us I guess) ton of those blanks!
Since Cheap Bastard is registered I may go with Frugal Bastard as my new user name instead of my actual name. Still not sure why my user name doesn’t show up and I’m pretty sure I don’t care enough to find out.
Its like those fake flatscreen TVs in home listings. We could do that for vehicle screens
Jaguar’s AJ126 V6 has two entire fake cylinders!
https://prestigeandperformancecar.com/wp-content/uploads/10_Block_amd-900×563.jpg.webp
It’s nothing new, Ford’s been pretending for a long time now.
Are we assuming Ford knew they were fake when they installed them?
Based on your comment I’m definitely not assuming you read the article!
Ok smart guy. The question is did they actually know the stuff was junk and tell everyone ahead of time or did they install a shitload of them and realize after the fact that they were duds…
We don’t know the build dates and Ford famously had thousands of trucks stashed everywhere in various states of completion.
Ford sent a letter to any purchasers stating that there would not be a sub and they were taking $250 off of the purchase price and that the buyer would have to sign off on this arrangement.
It’s in the article.
Omg…i give up
I have a couple questions about the person with the speaker grille and trim panel…
It’s a security precaution. You know, to make sure that they’re not smuggling out OEM components in their clothing.
I’m guessing that you could come in a little below $250 with the stock amp and an aftermarket sub. The result would probably sound marginally better than all stock.
I’d go with an aftermarket amp and Kicker sub. Much better results I’d wager for less than $300. Kicker makes some really good shallow mount subs. Even a BOSS or Sound Ordnance amp would be better than stock. You might have to run a larger power line in place of the factory wiring, but that isn’t too bad if you DIY.
Yeah, I used to install all my own stereo, amps, and used to have 2 10″ subs. It’s easy once you get the hang of it. Still have some old speakers and a single DIN JVC CD Player in garage…I miss the DIN’s!
I don’t hear of too many people installing single DIN HUs anymore, but then again I don’t hear too well anymore. Sins of youth you could say. Nothing quite like subs hitting so hard they crack window glass, emptying all the coins out of ashtrays and dimming headlights.
Hell yeah, I just liked the good sound so didn’t bump it all the time like somebody I knew who would put a $3K system in car literally worth only a few hundred dollars…it was HILARIOUS though!
Licence plate frame rattling unharmoniously outside…
I wonder if the blanked PCB still keeps CANbus (or whatever Ford uses) network continuity to avoid communication errors lighting up the money light on the dash.
He mentions that the amp circuit is disabled in the computer, so its unlikely. There don’t appear to be any solders on the blank PCB board either, though there could be surface mount stuff below the connector that we can’t see.
“… how weird manufacturing can be at lager scales ..”? That just puts a whole new spin on this story. If lager is involved, most of these choices can be easily explained.
Hilarious!
This gave me a fond memory flashback of a guy in college that tore apart a nice pair of floor speakers because he didn’t believe that passive woofers were a thing. Instead he was darn sure the wiring to the lower woofer in each one had failed.
Unsurprisingly, he never admitted he was wrong, and those speakers never got put back together.
Until the dealer finds a Kicker Key in the back and says “sorry your infotainment failed, but you voided the warranty on it when you installed aftermarket components”. But honestly, many owners would probably end up doing this anyway. It’s a popular mod on Audi’s as well. Find a sub that fits the stock housing, plug and play, instant SQ upgrade. I run one of those Kicker Key’s in my car and it’s a nice little amp. It can take a ton of high level input voltage so you don’t need a LOC.
Yeah, my advice to an owner of one of the affected vehicles would be to wait until the warranty expires before doing anything with it. It doesn’t sound like Ford has an officially approved fix, and even if they did the dealerships would charge an absurd amount to do it.
NVH seems reasonable. As does retraining and parts stocking. All that has costs.
I’m hoping Ford didn’t screw the supplier and still paid them for the full/working unit. Not optimistic though.
There’s no way Ford paid them for a full working unit, nor should they. They didn’t get a full working unit. I would assume a lower price was negotiated when Ford decided to do this.
My guess is that it was a factor of “just in time” manufacturing. The first delay was likely a few weeks so the dummy components were installed for a retrofit later. This component delay kept getting pushed and more and more vehicles built until ford decided to cut its losses and delete the whole assembly rather than run a recall program to install speakers.
I’m reminded of how Dodge couldn’t put a manual transmission into the Charger without having to re-certify the chassis because of the shifter hole in the transmission tunnel. But then they went ahead and did so for the Challenger.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if crash testing was the cause of a fake amp and sub.
Crash testing relies entire on the rear rails,bumper system, and to a very minor extent the liftgate for energy dissapation/absorbing purposes. A simple little plastic piece would immediately break. The actual reason listed in the article is the real reason why.
What do we make of all the YT/TikTok videos of Broncos absolutely getting crushed in crash tests? My wife was thisclose to buying one until she watched the videos.
You look at the IIHS and NHTSA data https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/ford/bronco-4-door-suv/2022 , because neither you or your wife are qualified to ascertain anything about the safety of a vehicle from watching crash tests.
It’s clear the Bronco is a very safe vehicle.
It’s the same thing that causes people to think that vehicles from the 60s and 70s did better in crashes. The things that keep the occupants safe make the effect on the vehicle look worse.
Lol, you mean those videos with shitty Bronco mods for BeamNG.drive?
If your wife is getting her vehicle purchase advice from TikTok, you’ve got bigger problems than a Bronco performing good(which it does) in a crash test.
I can see this for the Charger/Challenger in the 1st generation LX platform. The Challenger was designed for the manual transmission from the start of production, so they only had to certifiy the Challenger and not recertify the Charger.
But, when the Charger was redesigned in 2011 it probably had to redo the crash testing again… so should have been an opportune time to add the manual as an option on the Charger
Maybe they serve some structural purpose. Like supporting the rear trim. Or, would deleting them do anything to their crash testing? Maybe they don’t even know so they left it in?
But then why include the wires? Unless they hold the whole amp/sub assembly together and wanted it to come from the supplier as one piece?
it’s amazing how many things there is to consider with just one change.
Don’t have to recall broken equipment if you don’t install it in the first place. Now that’s Built Ford Proud™
Supply chain reasons do make sense, and manufacturing changes being kept to a minimum on a product line they were trying to ramp up as quickly as possible does make a lot of sense though.
“Don’t have to recall broken equipment if you don’t install it in the first place.”
Ford will find a way.
“It turns out that some customers are experiencing a power drain that has been traced to the wiring we put into vehicles without the subwoofer and amp. Please bring affected vehicles into a dealership to have the affected wires replaced with wires that will not connect to the electrical systems.” – Ford soon, probably.