2004 FORD EDGE

0 recalls, 5 complaints

No recalls found for this vehicle.

Complaint Statistics

5 total complaints

Top Reported Components

Component	Complaints
AIR BAGS	3
SERVICE BRAKES	1
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM	1

Incident date: Jan 1, 2017

TAKATA RECALL. WITHIN A YEAR, MY BRAKE VACUUM SYSTEM HAS FAILED ME, LEADING TO ALMOST GETTING INTO A MAJOR ACCIDENT. THE ELECTRIC SYSTEM IS NOT WORKING, AND I OFTEN SMELL BURNING. MY FRONT PASSENGER AIRBAG HAS BEEN RECALLED, BUT THE PART HAS NOT BEEN IN STOCK FOR OVER A YEAR.

Incident date: Jan 1, 2017

Incident date: Jan 10, 2017

TL* TAKATA RECALL. THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD EDGE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 17V024000 (AIR BAGS). THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE CONTACT CALLED THE LOCAL DEALER FORD OF SMITHTOWN (440 E J... Read more

Incident date: Oct 18, 2016

TL* TAKATA RECALL. THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD EDGE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 16V036000 (AIR BAGS). THE PART NEEDED TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE MANU... Read more

NHTSA Safety Investigations, FORD EDGE

Investigations opened by NHTSA into potential safety defects. These are separate from recalls and may or may not result in a recall.

PE, Closed , Model Year: 2015

Loss of braking caused by rear brake hose failure

On October 3, 2024, NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this Preliminary Evaluation to investigate instances of rear brake hose ruptures causing a sudden and unexpected loss of braking in model year (MY) 2015-2017 Ford Edge vehicles manufactured by Ford Motor Company. The complain... ts allege that, without warning, the vehicle lost its ability to brake causing an unanticipated increase in the vehicle’s stopping distance. The complaints also allege that, prior to the rear brake hose rupture event, the vehicle had been serviced under recall 20V-469. Recall 20V469 involved MY 2015-2018 Ford Edge and MY 2016-2018 Lincoln MKX vehicles which may experience front brake hose ruptures causing increased brake pedal travel and a reduction in the rate of deceleration. Ford identified the cause of this safety defect as a consistent localized failure of the internal reinforcement braid of the brake hose due to cyclic fatigue via tensile/bending and torsional inputs during suspension and steering articulations. Ford also identified that only 88% of suspension articulation was utilized on the front brake hose test rig during life cycle testing. These findings, along with ODI’s identification of an emerging trend involving rear brake hose ruptures, prompted the opening of this investigation. ODI identified 64 Vehicle Owners Questionnaires related to this investigation, 2 involving a crash. These consumers were interviewed and reported experiencing sudden loss of braking ability while traveling at low and highway speeds without any prior warning such as a “low brake fluid” warning indicator. Consumers reported that, as they tried to stop their vehicle, the brake pedal traveling to the floorboard and the vehicle required more stopping distance than anticipated or considered normal. Consumers also observed brake fluid present on the rear tires and roadway near the rear tires immediately after the incident. Some consumers provided photographs of the rear brake hose ruptures which depicted a similar rupture pattern and location (near the crimp on the dynamic section of the brake hose). 1 photograph showed an installation alignment mark pulled out near the crimp suggesting exposure to unanticipated tensile forces pulling the hose away from the crimp. During this investigation, Ford responded to Information Request Letters detailing information such as warranty claim data, brake hose specifications and engineering drawings, production part changes logs, and Ford’s assessments of potential root cause. Ford reported that the front and rear brake jounce hoses equipped on the subject vehicle population utilized the same construction and material. Therefore, Ford’s analysis consisted of a comparison between the front and rear hoses demonstrating that the rear hose bend radii in full jounce and full rebound were larger than the front hose. Ford also described that the two hoses are exposed to different loading environments as the rear brake hose is exposed to suspension inputs only, while the front hose is exposed to both suspension and steering inputs; thus, the rear hose is subjected to lower tension and fatigue loads. However, it is important to point out that larger bend radii alone do not necessarily mean a brake hose can withstand the dynamic loading requirements of a brake hose (as discussed earlier, the defect identified in the front brake hoses were attributed to the hose material). Rear brake hose failures were identified through exemplar vehicle and parts inspections conducted by NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Testing Center. Ford stated that its investigation did not identify any specific or common root cause for this safety defect, and that brake hoses can fail for many reasons including contact with road debris, improper vehicle servicing, and fatigue, as well as vehicle age and miles in service. Based on its assessment of failure rates and warranty claims, Ford concluded that the rear brake hose ruptures did not present an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety because consumers would experience a progressive leak accompanied by a red brake warning indicator within the instrument panel and would not experience a total loss of braking due to the diagonally split brake system. Note that these assessments are contrary to the consumer experiences described above. As previously described, consumers described a sudden, unexpected loss of braking ability with no prior warning in their instrument cluster (not a progressive leak) and an increase in anticipated vehicle stopping distance (presenting an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety). ODI conveyed these perspectives and investigative findings to Ford during a technical discussion on July 23, 2025. On August 22, 2025, Ford submittedrecall 25V-544 which included MY 2015-2018 Ford Edge and MY 2016-2018 Lincoln MKX vehicles, for a total recall population of 499,129 vehicles. As described in the Part 573, in September 2024, Ford concluded that this concern did not present an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and closed its investigation into allegations involving rear brake jounce hose ruptures within this vehicle population. Ford reopened this investigation in July 2025 following the technical discussion with ODI referenced above. Ford identified the safety defect as a rupture of the rear brake jounce hose resulting in an increase in pedal travel and increase in vehicle stopping distance elevating the risk of a crash. To date, Ford has not fully determined the root cause of this safety defect and is currently working to develop a remedy program. In view of the recall action taken by Ford, ODI is closing this Preliminary Evaluation. The agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identiﬁcation Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.Read more

RQ, Open , Model Year: 2020

Rearview Camera FMVSS 111 Noncompliance

On September 23, 2020, Ford Motor Company (Ford) filed a noncompliance recall report under 49 CFR Part 573 (NHTSA Recall No. 20V-575), recalling 620,246 Model Year (MY) 2020 Ford F-150, F-250, F-350, F-450, F-550, Explorer, Mustang, Transit, Expedition, Escape, Ranger and Edge, and Lincoln Nautilus ... Read more

PE, Closed , Model Year: 2011

Door Ajar Warning Light Always On

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation on September 28, 2016 based on allegations that the door ajar light located on the instrument cluster stays on all of the time even when all doors are closed and fully latched on 2011-2013 model year Ford Edge vehicles.When the ligh... t is illuminated continuously, vehicle occupants cannot be certain if any of the doors are properly latched.Reported safety consequences as a result of this issue include doors opening while driving (because doors were initially not latched properly), doors cannot be locked while driving, and the interior dome lights staying on continuously. Ford data received from the Information Request letter corresponding to this investigation indicates the failures were caused by contamination of the electrical contacts on the switch located within each door latch that tells the vehicle if the door is open or closed.All four doors contain the same latch design and switch.According to Ford, the Body Control Module (BCM) monitors the position of the switch and continuously samples it to detect a state of change.After a closed door state is detected, a continuous wetting current designed to keep the electrical contacts clean is sent from the BCM to the switches as long as the BCM is active.Beginning with the 2011 model year Edge vehicles, a change in BCM strategy resulted in a reduction of the wetting current sent out to clean the switch contacts by more than 75%.Over time, this low level of current is not sufficient to keep the switch contacts clean and contamination build up causes them to fail as described above.During the course of this investigation, ODI has identified a total of 1,983 complaints related to the door ajar light.Of these complaints, 14 indicated that a door opened while driving.Twelve of the 14 door opening events were situations where an occupant of the vehicle (often a child) opened a passenger door because the doors were not locked.The remaining two complaints involved a door opening on its own because the driver was unaware that the door was unlatched.There were no accidents but one complainant reported that a shoulder injury was caused by the driver having to repeatedly slam the door in an effort to get the door ajar light to turn off.After reviewing all available data, an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety has not been identified.The door latches themselves continue to function properly, remaining securely latched until acted upon by a driver or passenger.Child safety locks on the rear doors continue to function properly and can be used to prevent the rear doors from opening via the inside door handles.Vehicle crashworthiness is not affected by the lock condition of the doors and all active safety systems continue to function normally even if the vehicle BCM believes one or more doors is open.In addition, no accidents or accident related injuries have been reported.A safety-related defect trend has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will monitor the issue and reserves the right to take future action if warranted by the circumstances.ODI numbers for the reports cited above are shown in the attached document.Read more

PE, Closed , Model Year: 2014

Wheel Separation

On November 29, 2014, ODI received a complaint reporting the complete separation of an original equipment 22-inch alloy wheel rim mounted on the right front position of a model year 2014 Ford Edge vehicle (VOQ 10661278).The driver indicated that the right-front corner of the vehicle suddenly dropped... Read more

PE, Closed , Model Year: 2007

FRONT SUSPENSION LOWER BALL JOINT

ON JULY 13, 2009, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATIONS (ODI) OPENED PRELIMINARY EVALUATION PE09-031 TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF FRONT LOWER BALL JOINT SEPARATION IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2007 AND 2008 FORD EDGE AND LINCOLN MKX VEHICLES.THE INVESTIGATION WAS BASED ON THREE OWNER COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THAT ... THE FRONT LOWER BALL JOINT SEPARATED AND CAUSED THE FRONT SUSPENSION TO COLLAPSE WHILE DRIVING.ODI ALSO IDENTIFIED INFORMATION RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN EARLY WARNING DATA SUBMITTED BY FORD.PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS INDICATED THAT THE FAILURES WERE RELATED TO THE PINCH BOLT USED TO SECURE THE FRONT LOWER BALL JOINT STUD TO THE STEERING KNUCKLE.ONE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT A CRASH OCCURRED WHICH RESULTED IN A MINOR INJURY.HOWEVER, NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION COULD BE OBTAINED TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM.INFORMATION PROVIDED BY FORD IN RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER FOR PE09-031 INDICATE THAT IN EARLY MY 2007 PRODUCTION THERE WERE SOME ISSUES WITH THE FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINT ASSEMBLY PROCESS.THE PINCH BOLTS USED WERE HAND STARTED AND HAD THE POTENTIAL TO CROSS THREAD AND NOT ACHIEVE PROPER CLAMP LOAD, POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN A LOOSE JOINT.IN NOVEMBER 2007, CHANGES WERE IMPLEMENTED TO CHASE AND CLEAN THE FIRST SIX THREADS OF THE BOLT TO PROVIDE EASIER HAND STARTING OF THE NUT AND ENSURE GOOD THREAD ENGAGEMENT BEFORE TIGHTENING. FORD ALSO IDENTIFIED ONGOING CONCERNS WITH THE POWER TRANSMISSION UNIT (PTU) SEALS AND FRONT SUSPENSION HYDRO-BUSHINGS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, WHICH BOTH REQUIRE DISASSEMBLY OF THE FRONT LOWER BALL JOINT TO REPAIR.IF THE BALL JOINT IS NOT PROPERLY REASSEMBLED FOLLOWING SUCH SERVICE, THE JOINT MAY SEPARATE IN LATER SERVICE.FORD HAS PROVIDED ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS AND NEW PINCH BOLTS TO THE PTU REPAIR KIT TO IMPROVE THE JOINT REASSEMBLY PROCESS. ODI'S ANALYSIS OF FAILURE DATA IDENTIFIED 31 INCIDENTS OF JOINT SEPARATION (WITH 12 SPECIFICALLY STATING THAT THEY OCCURRED WHILE DRIVING).REPAIR RECORDS FOR THESE 31 VEHICLES SHOWS THAT 28 INVOLVE SEPARATION OF THE JOINT ON THE PASSENGER (RIGHT) SIDE, WHICH IS THE SIDE THAT MUST BE DISASSEMBLED FOR PTU SERVICE.TWENTY-THREE OF THESE WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISASSEMBLED FOR CONTROL ARM BUSHING SERVICE, PTU SERVICE OR OTHER TRANSMISSION REPAIR. THE EIGHT CLAIMS THAT DID NOT INVOLVE PRIOR SERVICE REPAIRS REQUIRING JOINT DISASSEMBLY ALL OCCURRED VERY EARLY IN VEHICLE LIFE, INDICATING THAT IT IS UNLIKELY THAT ANY JOINTS MANUFACTURED WITH LOOSE PINCH BOLTS ARE STILL IN SERVICE.ALL OF THESE JOINTS FAILED WITHIN 6 MONTHS IN SERVICE AND 10,000 MILES (THE MAXIMUM FAILURE MILEAGE IS 8,097 MILES).THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY SUCH FAILURES (I.E., NOT INVOLVING PRIOR SERVICE/DISASSEMBLY) SINCE DECEMBER 2008.THE RATE FOR INCIDENTS THAT DID NOT OCCUR FOLLOWING SERVICE AND, THUS, MAY BE RELATED TO THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY FORD IS VERY LOW (2.5 PER 100,000 VEHICLES) AND THESE INCIDENTS OCCURRED VERY EARLY IN THE LIFE OF THE VEHICLES AND ARE NOT SHOWING A CONTINUING FAILURE TREND.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CLOSED. THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST. THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED.Read more

FORD EDGE - All Years Overview

Complete safety history for the FORD EDGE across all model years (2007, 2024).

92 Total Recalls

17,832 Total Complaints

5 Investigations

486 Reported Crashes

177 Reported Fires

4 Reported Deaths

FORD EDGE - Year by Year

Compare recalls and complaints across model years. Click any year to see full details.

Year	Recalls	Complaints
2024	2	49	View
2023	4	28	View
2022	5	155	View
2021	7	132	View
2020	4	406	View
2019	3	900	View
2018	7	949	View
2017	8	1,605	View
2016	7	1,090	View
2015	7	962	View
2014	3	515	View
2013	2	3,235	View
2012	3	1,474	View
2011	3	2,538	View
2010	7	777	View
2009	7	307	View
2008	7	1,465	View
2007	6	1,240	View
2004 (current)	0	5

Other FORD Models

Model	Recalls	Complaints
MUSTANG	1,104	11,600	View
RANGER	928	10,371	View
F-350 SD	776	2,363	View
F-150	692	46,142	View
F-450 SD	692	624	View
F-250 SD	638	3,635	View
EXPLORER	624	42,549	View
F-550 SD	578	603	View

Vehicle Safety

Consumer Safety

Infrastructure

Public Health