NHTSA Safety Investigations, FORD F-150
Investigations opened by NHTSA into potential safety defects. These are separate from recalls and may or may not result in a recall.
EA, Open
, Model Year: 2015
Unintended Transmission Downshift and Rear Wheel Lock-up
On March 21, 2025, NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE25002) to investigate instances of unexpected transmission downshifting without driver input in model year (MY) 2015-2017 Ford F-150 vehicles (subject vehicles) manufactured by Ford Motor Company (F
... ord). The complaints allege that, without warning or driver input, the subject vehicles experienced a sudden and rapid deceleration often accompanied by temporary rear wheel lockup, seizure, or skidding, resulting in a loss of vehicle control that increases the risk of crash and injury to all motorists, including those not within the subject vehicles. The MY 2015 and MY 2016 F-150 vehicles were equipped with the “6R80” transmission, while the MY 2017 vehicles were equipped with either the “6R80” transmission or the “10R80” transmission. This investigation was limited to MY 2015-2017 Ford F-150 with the “6R80” transmission. ODI identified 329 Vehicle Owners Questionnaires (VOQs) related to this investigation and sixty percent of these consumers were interviewed to confirm the details of their allegations. Consumers reported that their vehicles’ transmission suddenly downshifted to a lower gear, often to 1st or 2nd gear, without driver input or advance warning. Consumers described the downshift events to be regular and repeated occurrences, with some consumers stating that they no longer drive the vehicle due to safety concerns. Forty-three percent of consumers reported experiencing at least one wheel lockup event, during which the rear tires locked, screeched, or skidded during the transmission downshift. ODI also found that 114 of the 329 consumers reported having their vehicle’s molded lead frame or valve body assembly (which comes with a molded lead frame) replaced, 80 of which were confirmed through consumer submitted repair invoices. In its response to ODI’s Information Request, Ford provided an assessment of potential root cause of failure for the subject vehicles and how this failure is different from the failure associated with MY 2011-2014 Ford F-150 vehicles that was addressed by four safety recalls (16V-248, 19V-075, 19V-433, and 24V-444). Ford has identified that the defect in the recalled vehicle population involved lead frame supplier production issues resulting in signal loss from the Output Shaft Speed (OSS) sensor. Ford has identified that the alleged defect in the subject vehicle population involved degradation of electrical connections within the lead frame due to thermal cycling and vibration over extended time in service resulting in signal loss from the Transmission Range Sensor (TRS). Signal loss from the TRS can result in an unintended shift to neutral, unintended upshift, or unintended downshift which are regulated by a gear “shift map” based on the vehicle’s speed at the time of signal loss. According to Ford’s “shift map”, at speeds between 35-64 mph, the maximum allowable downshift would be to 2nd gear (i.e. a 6th to 2nd gear downshift event) which Ford has designated to represent the worst-case scenario for subject vehicles. Ford has also acknowledged that the worst-case scenario may also involve temporary wheel lockup. However, Ford has stated that the failure mechanism in the MY 2011-2014 F-150 vehicles—previously addressed through recalls—primarily involved OSS sensor signal loss that could result in 6th to 1st gear downshift events. This OSS-related failure mode is distinct from the TRS-related signal loss identified in the subject vehicle population. ODI has identified an additional potential safety defect associated with the alleged defect in the subject vehicles. Preliminary testing performed by NHTSA’s Vehicle Research Test Center (VRTC) showed that when the TRS experiences an intermittent signal loss, one possible outcome is a change in vehicle direction. Specifically, if a vehicle is operating in reverse up an incline when the TRS signal loss occurs, then the vehicle may shift into neutral causing the vehicle to change directions and roll forward. ODI is opening this Engineering Analysis (EA) to, among other things, perform component-level testing and vehicle testing, as well as review additional technical information to better understand the alleged defect that has been identified. To review the reports cited in the Opening Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2015
Unintended Transmission Downshift and Rear Wheel Lock-up
On March 21, 2025, NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this Preliminary Evaluation (PE25002) to investigate instances of unexpected transmission downshifting without driver input in model year (MY) 2015-2017 Ford F-150 vehicles (subject vehicles) manufactured by Ford Motor Company
... (Ford). The complaints allege that, without warning or driver input, the subject vehicles experienced a sudden and rapid deceleration often accompanied by temporary rear wheel lockup, seizure, or skidding, resulting in a loss of vehicle control that increases the risk of crash and injury to all motorists, including those not within the subject vehicles. The MY 2015 and MY 2016 F-150 vehicles were equipped with the “6R80” transmission, while the MY 2017 vehicles were equipped with either the “6R80” transmission or the “10R80” transmission. This investigation was limited to MY 2015-2017 Ford F-150 with the “6R80” transmission. ODI identified 329 Vehicle Owners Questionnaires (VOQs) related to this investigation and sixty percent of these consumers were interviewed to confirm the details of their allegations. Consumers reported that their vehicles’ transmission suddenly downshifted to a lower gear, often to 1st or 2nd gear, without driver input or advance warning. Consumers described the downshift events to be regular and repeated occurrences, with some consumers stating that they no longer drive the vehicle due to safety concerns. Forty-three percent of consumers reported experiencing at least one wheel lockup event, during which the rear tires locked, screeched, or skidded during the transmission downshift. ODI also found that 114 of the 329 consumers reported having their vehicle’s molded lead frame or valve body assembly (which comes with a molded lead frame) replaced, 80 of which were confirmed through consumer submitted repair invoices. In its response to ODI’s Information Request, Ford provided an assessment of potential root cause of failure for the subject vehicles and how this failure is different from the failure associated with MY 2011-2014 Ford F-150 vehicles that was addressed by four safety recalls (16V-248, 19V-075, 19V-433, and 24V-444). Ford has identified that the defect in the recalled vehicle population involved lead frame supplier production issues resulting in signal loss from the Output Shaft Speed (OSS) sensor. Ford has identified that the alleged defect in the subject vehicle population involved degradation of electrical connections within the lead frame due to thermal cycling and vibration over extended time in service resulting in signal loss from the Transmission Range Sensor (TRS). Signal loss from the TRS can result in an unintended shift to neutral, unintended upshift, or unintended downshift which are regulated by a gear “shift map” based on the vehicle’s speed at the time of signal loss. According to Ford’s “shift map”, at speeds between 35-64 mph, the maximum allowable downshift would be to 2nd gear (i.e. a 6th to 2nd gear downshift event) which Ford has designated to represent the worst-case scenario for subject vehicles. Ford has also acknowledged that the worst-case scenario may also involve temporary wheel lockup. However, Ford has stated that the failure mechanism in the MY 2011-2014 F-150 vehicles—previously addressed through recalls—primarily involved OSS sensor signal loss that could result in 6th to 1st gear downshift events. This OSS-related failure mode is distinct from the TRS-related signal loss identified in the subject vehicle population. ODI has identified an additional potential safety defect associated with the alleged defect in the subject vehicles. Preliminary testing performed by NHTSA’s Vehicle Research Test Center (VRTC) showed that when the TRS experiences an intermittent signal loss, one possible outcome is a change in vehicle direction. Specifically, if a vehicle is operating in reverse up an incline when the TRS signal loss occurs, then the vehicle may shift into neutral causing the vehicle to change directions and roll forward. Based on NHTSA’s analysis of consumer data, information provided by Ford, and preliminary testing conducted by NHTSA’s VRTC, this Preliminary Evaluation is being upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA26001). During this Engineering Analysis, the agency plans to, among other things, perform component-level testing and vehicle testing, as well as review additional technical information to better understand the alleged defect that has been identified from this Preliminary Evaluation. To review the reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.Read more
RQ, Closed
, Model Year: 2014
Unintended Transmission Downshift
In September 2016, Ford Motor Company (Ford) issued safety recall 16V-248 which included certain model year (MY) 2011-2012 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 6-speed (6R80) automatic transmissions. This recall was in response to allegations of unintended, unexpected vehicle transmission downshifting
... to a lower gear without warning, often accompanied by temporary rear wheel lock-up, increasing the risk of a crash and/or injury, and included approximately 153,581 vehicles. Ford identified the root cause of the unintended, unexpected vehicle transmission downshifting to a lower gear to be intermittent signal loss from the transmission’s Output Shaft Speed (OSS) sensor due to solder joint cracks on the OSS circuit board as a result of manufacturing process issues. The OSS sensor is mounted onto the molded lead frame and transmits changes in transmission shaft speed to the Powertrain Control Module (PCM). The remedy program described in safety recall 16V-248 involved reprogramming of the PCM to prevent unintended vehicle transmission downshifting from occurring. In December 2017, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Recall Query (RQ17-010) to assess the scope and remedy effectiveness of safety recall 16V-248. As a result of this ODI investigation, Ford issued safety recall 19V-075 to expand the scope of 16V-248 to include MY 2011-2013 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 6-speed (6R80) automatic transmissions and included approximately 1,263,051 vehicles. The remedy program described in safety recall 19V-075 involved reprogramming of the PCM to prevent unintended vehicle transmission downshifting from occurring. In June 2019, Ford issued safety recall 19V-433 as the remedy program used to service MY 2013 Ford F-150 5.0L and 6.2L vehicles in accordance with safety recall 19V-075 did not contain the necessary updates to prevent unintended vehicle transmission downshifting from occurring and included approximately 107,857 vehicles. On March 27, 2024, ODI opened this Recall Query (RQ24-005) to investigate the scope of the above-described safety recalls. At the time that this investigation was opened, ODI had received 86 Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs) reporting allegations of unintended, unexpected vehicle transmission downshifting to a lower gear without warning, often accompanied by temporary rear wheel lock-up, in MY 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles. As a result of this Recall Query, Ford filled safety recall 24V-444 on June 14, 2024, to include MY 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles and expand the scope of safety recalls 16V-248, 19V-075 and 19V-433. The remedy program described in safety recall 24V-444 involved reprogramming of the PCM to prevent unintended vehicle transmission downshifting from occurring and included approximately 552,188 vehicles. In its May 2024 response to ODI’s information request, Ford concluded that a predominant root cause for the intermittent OSS signal loss has not been identified outside of the original safety recall (16V-248). Ford’s investigation also concluded that the primary causes of the defect in MY 2014 F-150 vehicles were related to the molded lead frame and the control assembly transmission main. In the May 2024 response, Ford identified 2,184 total reports that described unintended vehicle transmission downshifting and rear wheel lock-up events; 1,441 warranty claims and 743 reports from consumer complaints, field reports, consumer surveys, and lawsuits/legal claims. Note that the values presented here and in the table above represent the total number of reports which can include a single consumer with multiple reports of the same event as well as a consumer with reports of multiple distinct events. Of the 1,441 warranty claims, 551 warranty claims involved repair of the molded lead frame (38%) and 509 warranty claims involved repair of the control assembly transmission main (35%). Ford has also stated that the PCM programming used to prevent unintended vehicle transmission downshifting was implemented starting with MY 2015 vehicle #1 production and onward. In view of the safety recall action being taken by Ford, ODI is closing this Recall Query (RQ24-005). 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
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2015
Seatbelt Pretensioner Fire
On June 18, 2018, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE18-008) to investigate complaints alleging post-crash fires at the B pillar in the area of the seat belt pretensioners on MY 2014-2018 Ford F-150 Regular Cab, and Super Crew Cab Vehicles. On August 24, 20
... 18, Ford Motor Company recalled (FSA 18S27 - NHTSA #18V568) the affected population. Ford's investigation found that some front seat belt pretensioners may generate sparks during deployment in excess of Ford's specification. Sparks in the pretensioner exhaust gases inside the lower portion of the B-pillar may subsequently ignite combustible components contained in the B-pillar, such as insulation or carpet, and may cause a subsequent vehicle fire. ODI also requested relevant information from other manufacturers to assess the potential scope of post-crash pretensioner fires. Ford will notify owners and require dealers to remove B-pillar insulation material and wiring harness tape, and install heat resistant tape, free of charge. The recall notification began September 28, 2018.Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332.The VOQs associated with the closing of this investigation are: 11143035, 11130056, 11129828, 11128761, 11127993, 11127880, 11124717, 11123419, 11119651, 11119626, 11114065, 11113160, 11111822, 11097937, 11078447, 11014688Read more
AQ, Closed
, Model Year: 2015
Champion Ford Edinboro / Steering Shaft
NHTSA opened AQ17-001 to determine whether Champion Ford Edinboro, Inc. (Champion Ford), of Edinboro, Pennsylvania, complied with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (Safety Act) and its implementing regulations. The Safety Act requires, among
... other things, that a manufacturer notify its dealers of defects related to motor vehicle safety and non-compliances with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and, in turn, that a dealer not sell a new vehicle subject to a recall unless the recall remedy has been performed (49 U.S.C. ?30120(i)).NHTSA issued an information request (IR) letter to Champion Ford on January 4, 2017.Champion Ford responded to this request on January 19, 2017.Also on January 4, 2017, an IR letter was issued to Ford Motor Company (Ford) and a response was received from Ford on January 25, 2017.Finally, another IR was issued to Champion Ford on May 31, 2017, and Champion Ford's response letter was submitted to NHTSA on June 14, 2017.NHTSA's investigation indicated that Champion Ford did sell and deliver recalled vehicles that did not have the recall remedy completed at the time the vehicles were delivered to the customers.NHTSA therefore concluded that Champion Ford was liable for civil penalties for violations of the Safety Act, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. ?30165.Under a Settlement Agreement dated April 16, 2018, Champion Ford agreed to pay compromised civil penalties in the amount of $20,000.Champion Ford also represented in writing that it repaired all twenty-three (23) recalled vehicles identified in AQ17-001 and will strictly adhere to Ford's procedures requiring dealers to check for outstanding safety recalls prior to customer delivery.NHTSA's Recall Management Division has verified that all twenty-three (23) vehicles have been remedied of the safety recalls identified in AQ17-001.This Audit Query is closed.Read more
RQ, Closed
, Model Year: 2015
Brake Master Cylinder Failure
On June 8, 2020, Ford Motor Company issued a safety recall (NHTSA Recall No. 20V-332) of 292,311 model year (MY) 2014-2017 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 3.5L Ecoboost engines and built from 9/1/2014 to 8/1/2016. Ford stated that the causes of brake fluid loss in the master cylinder are brake flu
... id contamination that can interfere with rear cup seal function, and rolling of the rearmost cup seal.Prior to total loss of the front brakes, depending on the amount of brake fluid loss in the master cylinder, the driver may receive an audible chime, message center alert and red brake warning indicator in the instrument cluster, and may experience a change in brake pedal travel and increased pedal effort. It should be noted that a small number of late-built MY 2014 and early-built MY 2017 F-150 vehicles are included in the recall along with the subject vehicles (MY 2015-2016).This Recall Query is closed based on the safety recall issued by Ford. The ODI reports cited above can be viewed at NHTSA.gov under the following ID numbers:10734951 10839988 10862418 10872737 10873438 10876359 10881590 10883442 10885352 10888026 10888524 10891826 10891829 10891886 10893632 10894688 10894844 10896122 10896446 10898079 10899093 10899198 10902944 10903776 10904695 10908281 10910101 10913678 10913867 10914016 10914164 10914288 10914361 10914382 10914483 10914507 10915027 10915894 10916302 10916346 10916578 10920258 10925699 10926076 10926148 10926179 10927388 10927402 10927459 10927578 10928457 10928906 10930128 10936207 10940199 10943902 10948941 10950413 10954419 10956798 10969452 10969971 10984389 10985533 10991033 10993430 10993826 10994249 11000331 11000746 11001283 11001291 11001403 11001550 11002014 11002827 11003801 11004795 11005551 11010248 11010341 11011291 11011502 11012944 11013023 11013826 11014954 11015390 11018677 11018771 11020059 11021249 11021632 11022034 11022116 11022243 11023791 11025448 11030416 11030852 11039991 11082190 11082307 11083373 11083998 11089076 11091017 11092142 11093509 11096406 11096501 11097550 11097885 11099405 11099859 11100723 11101189 11101357 11101515 11101631 11102242 11102281 11102299 11102326 11102360 11102481 11104187 11104212 11104877 11109739 11110958 11111028 11111445 11111776 11112143 11112145 11112331 11112445 11112504 11112969 11112970 11114501 11115336 11115612 11118050 11118324 11119688 11119741 11120003 11120625 11120839 11121496 11122946 11123817 11124180 11124313 11124735 11129689 11129763 11129799 11130736 11131008 11132384 11139389 11139955 11154079 11163050 11183075 11189767 11192325 11193564 11195772 11196715 11205224 11205725 11208030 11208558 11209657 11210390 11217868 11218183 11218476 11218533 11218548 11218703 11218773 11219228 11219556 11220778 11221408 11221528 11221888 11222322 11222604 11222909 11228582 11228780 11229191 11229412 11229541 11229673 11230311 11230525 11230553 11230595 11230606 11230664 11231440 11231744 11231985 11232226 11232462 11233423 11233425 11233557 11233595 11233614 11233857 11233864 11234025 11234577 11234715 11234752 11240161 11240184 11240219 11240344 11241143 11241328 11241565 11241737 11241755 11241979 11242032 11242096 11242101 11242222 11242430 11242723 11243775 11244070 11244092 11244223 11244613 11244872 11245199 11245233 11245259 11245846 11246001 11251825 11252130 11252506 11252570 11252595 11252809 11254026 11254116 11254385 11254816 11255210 11255273 11255487 11256470 11257328 11257549 11258458 11258978 11265268 11267540 11269887 11279423 11281670 11287382 11291824 11297512 11298972 11301103 11306644 11310503 11315450 11316153 11318273 11319339 11319344 11319751Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2013
Master Cylinder External Leak
On May 23, 2016, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA regarding a master cylinder defect that could result in loss of the front brake circuit in approximately 225,012 model year 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 3.5-liter GTDI engines and b
... uilt at the Dearborn Truck Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 22, 2014; and the Kansas City Assembly Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014 (NHTSA Recall #16V-345, Ford Recall #16S24).Ford indicated that the rearmost cup seal in the brake master cylinder may roll, resulting in leakage from the brake fluid reservoir to the brake booster.According to Ford's DIR, Depending on the amount of brake fluid loss from the brake master cylinder into the brake booster, the driver will experience an audible chime, message center alert, red brake warning light in the instrument cluster and may begin to experience a change in brake pedal travel and feel.In the event that a loss of brake fluid is substantial enough to reduce brake function to the front wheels, the driver may experience longer pedal travel, increased pedal effort, and extended stopping distance, increasing the risk of a crash.Full braking function would remain in the rear wheel brake circuit.Ford's recall will replace the master cylinder and, if the master cylinder is leaking, also replace the brake booster.Seventy-three (73) of the complaints received by ODI contained vehicle identification number (VIN) information required to determine date of build and recall applicability.ODI's analysis found that 66 complaints to ODI and 278 complaints to Ford involving vehicles built in the range covered by 16V-345, resulting in an overall complaint rate of 152.9 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Twelve (12) crash incidents were reported, including 11 with VIN information.All 11 crash incidents with VIN information reported involve vehicles covered by Ford's recall.ODI's analysis identified 7 ODI complaints and 36 Ford complaints in the 194,139 subject vehicles built outside of the build range for 16V-345, resulting in a complaint rate of 22.1 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Ford indicated that warranty return analyses identified issues with minor internal leakage between circuits due to internal contamination caused by supplier assembly plant cleanliness concerns in these vehicles.Ford assessed the internal leak condition as an early-life condition with minimal safety risk that does not result in loss of fluid or circuit failure.ODI will continue to monitor complaints in subject vehicles not included in 16V-345.No complaints have been identified in MY 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with other engine options.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks identified by this investigation.This preliminary evaluation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchSafetylssues under the following identification numbers:10870768, 10870747, 10870511, 10870395, 10870055, 10869981, 10865843, 10865521, 10865342, 10865043, 10864862, 10864714, 10864360, 10863982, 10863527, 10862333, 10862047, 10861735, 10861190, 10860378, 10860118, 10855381, 10855356, 10854785, 10853751, 10853295, 10853012, 10852349, 10852134, 10852037, 10851317, 10851268, 10851109, 10850015, 10849862, 10846488, 10846335, 10846193, 10846006, 10840414, 10840377, 10839994, 10839985, 10839981, 10839833, 10839825, 10839816, 10838782, 10838510, 10818273, 10817706, 10809601, 10788886, 10788369, 10785526, 10779854, 10776834, 10766291, 10762034, 10761412, 10760663, 10758997, 10750065, 10749886, 107Read more
EA, Closed
, Model Year: 2011
Brake Vacuum Pump Failure
On February 15, 2016, Ford Motor Company initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 15N05 to extend warranty coverage for the electric vacuum pump in certain model year (MY) 2011 through 2012 Ford F-150 pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engines.The program extends coverage for up to 10 years of ser
... vice or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through July 30, 2016 regardless of mileage.Ford's program covers all repairs related to electric vacuum pump (EVP) malfunctions including excessive noise, vibration, or change in brake pedal feel while applying the brakes at cold start. Ford states that the engine intake manifold is the primary source of vacuum for the brake booster and is fully compliant to motor vehicle safety standards without the supplemental vacuum supplied by the EVP.The company also contends that failure modes related to the EVP are progressive and provide warning to operators by way of noise and vibration before an operator to experience any temporary change in brake pedal feel.ODI's analysis of warranty data found that the majority of claims involved consumer concerns with EVP noise or vibration from the left front fender area when the vehicle is first started. Continued operation in this mode with pump motor noise will eventually result in the EVP seizing or becoming non-functional.Component failure analysis indicated that Ford and its supplier, Continental, identified a pump crank drive corrosion condition due to moisture entry through the vacuum intake.Corrosion damage to EVP internal components may eventually result in a blown fuse in the power distribution box and total loss of EVP function.Analysis of consumer complaints, field reports, and warranty data related to EVP failures found thatincidents predominantly occurred in driveways and parking lots in the periods immediately after cold engine starts.Many consumers operated their vehicle for some period of time with a blown EVP fuse without realizing that the pump had failed or that the vehicle had a brake system malfunction.Consumers who did experience braking performance issues reporteda temporary hard brake pedal condition at start-up followed by more consistent normal pedal feel after few seconds.On June 22, 2015, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued TSB 15-0105 instructing dealers to replace the vacuum pump and install a new vacuum pump harness kit. In addition to reviewing test data submitted by Ford, ODI assessed safety risks associated with the alleged defect under various operating conditions, including: 1) baseline system performance with full engine and EVP vacuum available using exemplar parts, 2) disabled EVP and booster vacuum regulated to simulate worst case conditions for engine intake manifold vacuum supply to the brake booster (approximately 300 mbar); and 3) all source vacuum to the brake booster removed and Optimized Hydraulic Braking (OHB) mode active to represent complete loss of brake booster function (note: this condition is a more severe brake boost system failure mode than the alleged defect).ODI also analyzed all complaints and warranty claims to identify incidents alleging brake system performance concerns related to EVP failures.These analyses identified no brake performance issues or resulting changes in stopping distances either on highway or city traffic conditions.Two complaints alleging EVP malfunctions caused or contributed to rear-end collisions during attempted decelerations from road speeds are not believed to be related to the alleged defect.The EVP provides supplemental vacuum during initial start-up and idleRead more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2011
Brake Vacuum Pump Failure
On June 22, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE15-026 to investigate incidents of increased brake pedal effort at cold start and extended stopping distance while driving in traffic, resulting from failures of the electric brake vacuum assist pump in mode
... l year (MY) 2011-2012 Ford F-150 pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engines. In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) for PE15-026, Ford provided ODI with 396 complaints and field reports relating to incidents of increased brake pedal effort or malfunctions in the electric vacuum pump (EVP). ODI's analysis of the data provided by Ford identified 7 crashes and 1,851 warranty claims related to either a hard brake pedal condition or reduced brake effectiveness. Additionally, ODI identified one report in its database alleging an injury to an occupant of a vehicle struck in the rear by a subject F-150 vehicle with a failed EVP as documented in the police accident report referencing a dealer assessment of the pump.According to Ford, the subject vehicles utilize a traditional brake vacuum booster to provide power assist for braking and the EVP is intended to operate to maintain consistent brake pedal feel. The engine intake manifold is the primary source of vacuum for the booster and is fully compliant to motor vehicle safety standards without the EVP. Ford described the conditions related to a change in brake pedal feel as limited and temporary and provided component failure analysis showing evidence of water entry into the EVP which caused internal pump corrosion. Ford indicated that the EVP failure mode is progressive and provides warning to operators by way of noise and vibration before an operator is likely to experience any temporary change in brake pedal feel. Damage to the EVP motor bearing may eventually result in a blown EVP fuse and total loss of EVP function. Ford provided test data showing the brake pedal forces and pedal travel curves over time for 0.3g decelerations to a stop from 80kph (50mph) for: 1) normal system (full engine and EVP vacuum available); 2) Ford's approximation of worst case booster performance with EVP failure (EVP disabled and booster vacuum regulated to 300mbar to simulate cold start, all accessory loads on, and starting at 0 vacuum); and 3) with all source vacuum to the brake booster removed and Hydraulic Boost Compensation (HBC) active to represent complete loss of brake booster function. The Ford tests showed that the brake pedal forces required for achieving the 0.3g decelerations were relatively low for the normal condition, 35-40 N (8-9 lbf), increased by approximately 2-3 times normal when the EVP is disabled, 75-115 N (17-26 lbf), and increased by about 5-6 times normal for the complete brake booster failure condition, 205-215 N (46-48 lbf). This Preliminary Evaluation has been upgraded to Engineering Analysis (EA15-006) to test for EVP malfunctions under other vehicle operating conditions (e.g., low-speed driveway braking after cold-start with failed EVP), potential human factors contributions and to further assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The VOQs associated with the opening of this investigation are:10565994, 10575987, 10598351, 10604687, 10605701, 10607811, 10610491, 10615536, 10617828, 10619545, 10643075, 10650578, 10662151, 10664415, 10666988, 10668069, 10678844, 10695537, 10700874, 10706217, 10706271, 10712465, 10723033, 10723792, 10726960, 10730549, 10730721, 10730735, 10730837, 10730909, 10731008, 10731135, 10731157, 10731165, 10731395, 10731758, 10732609, 10732878, 10733375, 10733804, 10734558, 10734613, 10743859, 10744214, 10Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2011
Reduced power during hard acceleration
On May 22, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE13-018 to investigate 95 complaints alleging incidents of reduced engine power during hard accelerations in model year (MY) 2011 through 2013 Ford F-150 trucks.ODI was aware of three technical service bulletins (TSBs) issued by Ford
... for a condition that was related to moisture accumulation in the Charge Air Cooler (CAC) for the turbochargers.A Preliminary Evaluation was opened to gather information to assess whether the subject vehicles contain a safety related defect.The subject vehicles are powered by Ford?s 3.5L EcoBoost engine which uses twin turbochargers to obtain a balance of fuel economy and engine power based on the driver?s demand.When the driver requests more power from the engine, as in accelerating to pass, merge, ascend hills or haul a load the two turbochargers will spin up compressing the air which is then used to increase the power created by the combustion in the engine.The compressed air, which gains heat by the compression process, is passed through a Charge Air Cooler (CAC) which is designed to lower the temperature of the air in order to make the combustion process even more efficient (Figures 1 and 2).In response to ODI?s Information Request letter, Ford indicated that a misfire condition could occur after steady-speed operation under significantly humid and rainy conditions.Ford?s analysis found that under those conditions, condensation could form and accumulate on the inside of the CAC tubes which could then be ingested into the engine during particularly hard acceleration near wide-open throttle.An engine misfire of up to three cylinders could occur if the amount of condensed water released from the CAC exceeded the engine?s operating threshold for water ingestion.Ford noted that due to regulations set by the EPA, the powertrain software would disable up to two of the misfiring cylinders for no more than 30 seconds and until the driver tips out the throttle in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage. Ford?s testing of this condition on the subject vehicles showed that a vehicle experiencing such a condition would continue to maintain its speed as well as accelerate, albeit at a lower rate than expected by the driver.Similar results were obtained in testing done by NHTSA?s Vehicle Research and Testing Center in East Liberty, Ohio (Figure 6).In an ongoing process to address the problem Ford issued a series of TSBs where a deflector shield was installed onto the CAC (Figures 3, 4 and 5).In January 2014 Ford indicated that its data shows that the TSBs have been effective in resolving the problem, that for the MY 2013 vehicles their remedy is 100% effective and the latest TSBs for MY 2011 ? 2012 are 95% effective.The 525 complaints to ODI and the total 4,120 unique VIN complaints listed in the Failure Report are incidents of alleged reduced power or driveability symptoms and not all are necessarily related to the condition created by water ingestion.Reduced power conditions can occur for a variety of reasons including faults with ignition coils, spark plugs, a catalytic converter, the throttle body, turbocharger, fuel pump/filter, powertrain control module (hardware or software) or transmission shifting problems.Ford also noted that in a large number of warranty claims on the subject vehicles, the CAC was replaced or a TSB procedure was performed when the symptoms exhibited were inconsistent with a CAC water ingestion related issue.Given these circumstances, further use of the agency resources in this matter does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing ofRead more
EA, Closed
, Model Year: 1997
Fuel Tank Strap Failure Due to Corrosion
One or both of the steel straps holding up the fuel tank and attaching it to the truck frame can corrode and fail (break or separate).If one strap fails, the tank may tilt and drop and possibly contact the road surface.If both straps break, the entire tank may drop to the road.If either failure occu
... rs while the vehicle is being driven, contact with the road can abrade the tank and create a hole from which gasoline can spill.When the tank drops, it remains attached to the vehicle only by the fuel filler hose and/or supply lines, or in rare instances, by the skid plate, if present.In some cases the weight of the tank sufficiently strained the hoses and fittings and caused separation and subsequent fuel leaks from those connections.The fire hazard created by leaking gasoline is increased by the possible presence of sparks created by the metal tank being dragged along the road.Corrosion of the straps appears to be caused by prolonged exposure to road deicers, frequently road salt, used to treat snow or ice covered roads.States in which large quantities of deicers are applied to roads during the winter season (salt belt states) account for the predominant portion of strap failures.Vehicles in these salt belt states are prone to experience corrosion related failures more frequently and earlier in a vehicle?s life cycle.Ford reports approximately 97 percent of reports it received relating to strap failure involve vehicles that were operated in these high corrosion areas, and 95 percent of the reports to NHTSA involved such vehicles.Approximately one-third of F-150 U.S. production was sold in salt belt states.ODI has included in the above counts reports it has received from consumers and reports it has received from Ford in which either the complaint involved confirmed strap corrosion or ODI's assessment of available information suggests corrosion caused the reported problem.Among the incidents reported to NHTSA, 441 involved one or both straps failing due to corrosion, 353 involved the fuel tank dropping and/or dragging on the ground, and 180 involved fuel leakage.ODI has received four reports of strap failure in which the leaking fuel ignited but self-extinguished, and one incident in which fire destroyed the vehicle and injured its driver.Ford reported the same injury incident and three other unique fire incidents, including two in which the leaking fuel ignited and fire destroyed the vehicle.There were no injuries associated with the three unique Ford incidents.Ford has agreed to conduct a recall to repair the subject vehicles.The recall will cover vehicles that were originally sold or are currently registered in salt belt states (regardless of vehicle age).The vehiclesincluded in the recall are those subject vehicles that are, or have ever been, registered in Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, or the District of Columbia.Ford's recall action appears to adequately address the problem at this time.The above vehicle population (1,340,349) includes subject vehicles originally delivered or sold in salt belt states.ODI does not know the current or historical locations of all subject vehicles.According to Ford approximately 73% of the recall population is currently registered (a 27% attrition rate).Ford is also recalling certain MY 1997-1999 F-250 vehicles (under 8,500 GVWR), and MY2002-2003 Lincoln Blackwood vehicles for the same condition, resulting in an estimated 1.1 million total vehiclesRead more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 1997
Fuel Tank Strap Corrosion/Rust
One or both of the steel straps holding up the fuel tank and attaching it to the truck frame can corrode and break.If one strap breaks, the tank may tilt and drop and possibly contact the road surface.If both straps break, the entire tank may drop to the road.If either failure occurs while the vehic
... le is being driven, contact with the road can abrade the tank and create a hole from which gasoline can spill.When the tank drops, it remains attached to the vehicle only by the fuel filler hose and/or supply lines, or in rare instances, by the skid plate, if present.This raises the possibility that the weight of the dropped tank could sufficiently strain the hoses and fittings to cause separation and fuel leaks between those components.The fire hazard created by the leaking gasoline is increased by the possible presence of sparks created by the metal tank being dragged along the road.The sparks could ignite the escaped fuel.ODI has included in its incident counts reports it has received from consumers and reports provided by Ford in which either the complaint involved confirmed strap corrosion or ODI's investigation yielded information that strongly suggests the subject defect as the cause of the reported problem.Among the incidents reported to NHTSA or Ford, 243 involved the fuel tank dropping below the vehicle and/or dragging on the ground, 95 involved fuel leakage, and nine included reports of sparks from the tank being dragged on the road.ODI has received one report of strap failure in which the leaking fuel ignited but self-extinguished.Ford reported another incident in which the leaking fuel ignited and the resultant fire destroyed the vehicle.There have been no injuries associated with these incidents.ODI has received reports of corrosion induced tank strap failures with other model year F-150 vehicles.ODI is upgrading this investigation to further investigate the frequency, severity and scope of this problem.Read more
EA, Closed
, Model Year: 2004
Inadvertent airbag deployment
ODI opened this investigation based on reports of inadvertent airbag deployment.Data provided by Ford indicated that the airbag clockspring jumper wire, which is situated inside the steering wheel assembly, was installed in a manner that would allow it to rub (abrade) against a sharp metal edge on t
... he nearby horn plate.Because the horn plate is electrically grounded the abrasion of an airbag wire on the sharp edge could cause a short circuit condition.As a result the airbag light may illuminate and/or the airbag may inadvertently deploy.Inadvertent deployments are most likely to occur during the airbag system's self-diagnostic test that initiates when the ignition switch is turned on.Ford modified the vehicle design in late January 2006 adding a protective tape over the sharp metal edge of the horn plate.Ford made additional design changes on MY 2007 vehicles to the horn plate, the clockspring jumper, and the connector layouts to further address this issue.ODI identified 318 deployment incidents with 121 alleged injury reports from subject vehicles.All but one of the incident and injury reports occurred in vehicles built before the January 2006 modification.In addition, there was one incident and alleged injury reported in the MY 2006 Mark LT vehicles that share the same design. In letters dated February 21 and April 11, 2011, Ford announced a recall of all of the approximately 1.3 million MY 2004-2006 F-150 vehicles built prior to January 24, 2006, the date the initial vehicle modification was made.In addition, approximately 14,000 MY 2006 Mark LT vehicles built prior to January 24, 2006 will also be recalled.Vehicles built after that date, which contain the modification, are not within the recall scope.Accordingly the investigation is closed.Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2005
INADVERTENT AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT
FORD REPORTS THAT THE INADVERTENT AIRBAG DEPLOYMENTS ARE MOST LIKELY CAUSED BY THE AIRBAG HORN MOUNTING PLATE'S SHARP METAL EDGE THAT EVENTUALLY CAN CHAFE/CUT THE AIRBAG CLOCKSPRING JUMPER WIRE LEADING TO A SHORT-TO-GROUND CONDITION.ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO (182) OF THE 230 REPORTS WERE FOR AIRBAG DEP
... LOYMENTS RESULTING IN 56 INJURIES WITH REMAINING 48 REPORTS FOR AN AIRBAG LIGHT ILLUMINATION CONDITION.INJURIES INCLUDE ABRASION, CONTUSION AND CUTS TO THE ARM/HAND/FACE AND/OR UPPER BODY REGIONS.ONE OWNER REPORTED A BROKEN TOOTH AND TWO OWNERS REPORTED BEING KNOCKED UNCONSCIOUS AS A RESULT OF THE AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT.IN ADDITION, MY2004 AND MY2006 F-150 VEHICLES ALSO CONTAIN THE SAME DESIGN THAT RESULTED IN AN ADDITIONAL 89 REPORTS WITH 37 AIRBAG DEPLOYMENTS AND NINE INJURIES. FORD MADE AN INTERIM DESIGN CHANGE TO THE HORN MOUNTING PLATE IN JANUARY 2006 AND THEN MAJOR CHANGES TO THE HORN MOUNTING PLATE, AIRBAG MODULE AND CLOCKSPRING JUMPER WIRE DESIGNS IN JUNE 2006 FOR THE MY2007 VEHICLES.THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION IS UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA10-001) TO INCLUDE MY2004-2006 F-150 VEHICLES AND TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE CONDITION.Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2003
CNG REGULATOR LEAK
THE AGENCY HAS CLOSED THIS INVESTIGATION BASED ON ITS REVIEW OF COMPLAINT REPORTS, DISCUSSIONS WITH COMPLAINANTS AND FIELD AND TECHNICAL DATA PROVIDED BY FORD.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE 1/2 TON PICKUP TRUCKS AND ARE NATURAL GAS VEHICLES (NGV) THAT ARE FUELED BY GASOLINE OR COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS.THE A
... GENCY HAS RECEIVED REPORTS ALLEGING IMPROPER OPERATION OF THE NATURAL GAS FUEL PRESSURE REGULATOR ALLOWING RELEASE OF EXCESS AMOUNTS OF NATURAL GAS INTO THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT.FORD REPORTS THAT THE REGULATOR CONTAINS AN OVER PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE THAT WILL VENT NATURAL GAS SHOULD THE PRESSURE EXCEED A SET THRESHOLD.THE COMPLAINT REPORTS AND DATA REVIEWED BY THE AGENCY INDICATE THAT AN IMPROPERLY OPERATING PRESSURE REGULATOR CAN RESULT IN AN OVERPRESSURE CONDITION AND ACTIVATE THE REGULATOR PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE.THE RELEASED NATURAL GAS IS DIRECTED THROUGH A VENT HOSE THAT DISCHARGES THE NATURAL GAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE RIGHT FRONT WHEEL HOUSE AND AWAY FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT'S EXTREMELY HOT AREAS/SURFACES.OWNERS ARE NORMALLY AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM BY THE PRESENCE OF AN ILLUMINATED WARNING LIGHT INSIDE THE VEHICLE, ODOR OF NATURAL GAS OR THE SOUND OF VENTING GAS.WHEN THE OPERATOR TURNS THE ENGINE OFF, THE NATURAL GAS SUPPLY TANK SOLENOID WILL CLOSE AND THE REGULATOR WILL NOT RELEASE NATURAL GAS.AT VEHICLE RESTART, THE SOLENOID VALVE WILL REMAIN CLOSED TO PREVENT LEAKAGE AND THE VEHICLE WILL ONLY OPERATE IN THE GASOLINE MODE.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS 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 THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 2005
LOSS OF BRAKE POWER-ASSIST
BY LETTER DATED MAY 5, 2008, FORD MOTOR COMPANY (FORD) NOTIFIED THE AGENCY THAT IT WILL CONDUCT A SAFETY RECALL (NHTSA RECALL NUMBER 08V-208) TO ADDRESS A MANUFACTURING DEFECT IN APPROXIMATELY 605,684 MODEL YEAR (MY) 2005 AND 2006 FORD F-150 AND LINCOLN MARK LT VEHICLES ORIGINALLY EQUIPPED WITH THE
... 5.4L DISPLACEMENT, 3-VALVE PER CYLINDER, V-8 ENGINE.THE RECALLED VEHICLES WERE BUILT FROM JULY 18, 2004 THROUGH MAY 31, 2006 AT THE DEARBORN TRUCK PLANT; FROM MAY 4, 2004 THROUGH MAY 31, 2006 AT THE KANSAS CITY ASSEMBLY PLANT; AND FROM APRIL 19, 2004 THROUGH MAY 31, 2006 AT THE NORFOLK TRUCK PLANT.THE VEHICLES WERE MANUFACTURED WITH THE SAME DEFECTIVE BRAKE BOOSTER VACUUM SUPPLY HOSE ASSEMBLY UNIQUE TO THE 5.4L V-8 ENGINE.FORD F-150 VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH OPTIONALLY AVAILABLE 4.2L V6 AND 4.6L V-8 ENGINES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS RECALL ACTION BECAUSE THEY UTILIZE A DIFFERENT, ONE-PIECE BRAKE BOOSTER VACUUM SUPPLY HOSE ASSEMBLY THAT DOES NOT EXHIBIT AN APPARENT DEFECT TREND. THE RECALLED VEHICLES UTILIZE A TWO-PIECE BRAKE BOOSTER VACUUM SUPPLY HOSE ASSEMBLY COMPRISED OF A STANDPIPE ASSEMBLY AND VACUUM HOSE.THE STANDPIPE ASSEMBLY ATTACHES TO A FITTING ON THE ENGINE AIR INTAKE MANIFOLD UTILIZING A FLEXIBLE RUBBER HOSE AND PLASTIC ELBOW.THE VACUUM HOSE ATTACHES TO THE OPPOSITE END OF THE STANDPIPE ASSEMBLY AND CONNECTS TO A CHECK VALVE FITTING AT THE BRAKE BOOSTER ASSEMBLY.ACCORDING TO FORD, THE PORTION OF THE BRAKE BOOSTER VACUUM SUPPLY HOSE ASSEMBLY ATTACHED TO THE INTAKE MANIFOLD MAY SWELL OVER TIME AND LOSE RETENTION FORCE, WHICH MAY ALLOW THE HOSE TO BECOME DETACHED FROM THE INTAKE MANIFOLD.SHOULD THE BRAKE BOOSTER VACUUM SUPPLY HOSE ASSEMBLY BE DISRUPTED, APPLICATION OF THE BRAKE PEDAL MAY DEPLETE THE VACUUM RESERVE AND CONSEQUENTLY RESULT IN LOSS OF BRAKE POWER-ASSIST. TO CORRECT THE SAFETY DEFECT, FORD WILL INSTALL AN IMPROVED DESIGN BRAKE BOOSTER VACUUM SUPPLY HOSE ASSEMBLY THAT UTILIZES A HOSE CLAMP AT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD ATTACHMENT. THIS REMEDY WILL BE PROVIDED FREE OF CHARGE FOR ALL RECALLED VEHICLES.LATER PRODUCTION FORD F-150 AND LINCOLN MARK LT VEHICLES BUILT AFTER MAY 2006 WERE MANUFACTURED WITH A HOSE CLAMP AT THE BRAKE BOOSTER VACUUM SUPPLY HOSE/INTAKE MANIFOLD ATTACHMENT AND ARE NOT AFFECTED. TO DATE, THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) IS AWARE OF 324 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS AND 14 NON-INJURY CRASHES RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF 4,465 SUBJECT VEHICLES THAT EXPERIENCED ONE OR MORE WARRANTY CLAIMS TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE SUBJECT BRAKE BOOSTER VACUUM SUPPLY HOSE ASSEMBLY. THE ACTION TAKEN BY FORD IS SUFFICIENT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THIS INVESTIGATION.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 1997
STEERING COLUMN
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 1998
SPARE TIRE WEAR
DP, Closed
, Model Year: 1998
SPARE TIRE MOUNTING
THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WAS PETITIONED TO COMMENCE A DEFECT INVESTIGATION OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES BY A LETTER SIGNED BY WILLIAM F. ALLARD AND DATED 15-FEB-98.THE PETITION ALLEGES THAT THE SPARE TIRE MOUNTING PLACES THE TIRE SIDEWALL DIRECTLY IN CONTACT WITH THE METAL UNDER
... CARRIAGE CAUSING WEAR AND DAMAGE OF THE SIDEWALL.THE PETITION FURTHER ALLEGES THAT WHEN THE DAMAGED TIRE IS USED, BLOWOUT COULD RESULT ON AN INTERSTATE PLACING VEHICLE OCCUPANTS AND OTHERS AT RISK.Read more
RQ, Open
, Model Year: 1997
REAR SUSPENSION SPRING BREAKAGE
IN JULY 1998, FORD SUBMITTED A PART 573 NOTIFICATION TO NHTSA CONCERNING BROKEN REAR SPRINGS ON CERTAIN 1997-98 FORD F150 TRUCKS, WITH FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE.FORD STATED THAT FATIGUE FRACTURE OF THE REAR SPRINGS MAY OCCUR IF THE SPRING ARE OVER STRESSES(SIC) BY VEHICLE OVERLOADING.THE BROKEN PIECE OF THE
... SPRING LEAF MAY SPLAY INWARD, DAMAGING THE FUEL TANK AND CAUSING FUEL LEAKAGE.FORD ALSO STATED THAT A BROKEN SPRING WOULD CAUSE VEHICLE SAG AND LOSS IN LOAD CARRING CAPABILITY.FORD HAD 43 REPORTS OF FUEL TANK DAMAGE.FORD WILL INSTALL A CLIP ON THE FORWARD END (ONLY) OF THE REAR SPRINGS TO PREVENT FUEL TANK CONTACT IN THE EVENT OF A LEAF FRACTURE.ONLY BROKEN SPRINGS WILL BE REPLACED.ODI HAS RECEIVED THREE REPORTS OF BROKEN REAR SPRINGS ON 1997-98 F150 TRUCKS;TWO OF THEM HAVE TWO-WHEEL DRIVE.A TIRE PUNCTURE OCCURRED ON A FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE TRUCK IN WHICH THE BROKEN MIDDLE SPRING LEAF SPLAYED OUTWARD AT THE REAR OF THE SPRING ASSEMBLY.EIGHT OTHER REPORTS DESCRIBE REAR SPRINGS THAT HAVE MOVED OUT OF POSITION OR BECAME LOOSE; THREE OF THESE REPORTED SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL.CLOSING NOTE: WHILE THERE ISN'T ANY STRONG EVIDENCE THAT THE REAR SPRINGS ARE ONLY BREAKING UNDER CONDITIONS OF OVERLOAD AND SEVERE USE, THE RECALL REMEDY TO PREVENT FUEL TANK DAMAGE MAY BE ADEQUATE AND THERE IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT SPRING FAILURE RATE OUTSIDE THE RECALL POPULATION.THI RQ SHOULD BE CLOSED, SUBJECT TO FUTURE FAILURE OCCURANCES.Read more
EA, Closed
, Model Year: 1997
ALLEGED LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL
THE DETAILS OF INFORMATION AND DATA EVALUATED DURING THIS INVESTIGATION ARE STATED IN THE ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CLOSING REPORT, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT TREND RESULTING FROM INTERFERENCE BY THE FLOOR MAT WITH PROPER OPERATION OF THE THROTTLE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WAS NOT IDE
... NTIFIED DURING THE COURSE OF THE EA, AND THE INVRESTIGATION HAS BEEN CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR FUTURE COMPLAINTS ON THIS ISSUE TO IDENTIFY ANY INCREASING TREND OF OCCURRENCE, AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 1997
LOSS OF THROTTLE CONTROL
There is no summary currently available
RQ, Closed
, Model Year: 1994
INADVERTENT AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT
There is no summary currently available
RQ, Closed
, Model Year: 1997
AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION CONTROL
ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1997, FORD FILED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT CONCERNING APPROXIMATELY 15,000 1997 MODEL YEAR F-150 TRUCKS, MANUFACTURED FROM FEBRUARY 16 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1996, AND BUILT AT THE NORFOLK OR KANSAS CITY ASSEMBLY PLANTS.THESE VEHICLES COULD HAVE INCORRECTLY MANUFACTURED AUTOMATIC TRANSMI
... SSION CONTROL CABLES INSTALLED WHICH CAN RESULT IN A SEPARATION OF THE CABLE END FITTING FROM THE CABLE CONDUIT AT THE TRANSMISSION END OF THE CABLE.IF THE TRANSMISSSION END FITTING WERE TO SEPARATE FROM THE SHIFT CABLE ASSEMBLY, THEOPERATOR WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SHIFT THE TRANSMISSION FROM ONE OF THE DRIVE GEAR POSITIONS INTO THE PARK POSITION EVEN THOUGH THE GEAR SHIFT SELECTOR WOULD INDICATE PARK.ODI HAS RECEIVED 6 REPORTS ALLEGING TRANSMISSION FAULT SHIFTING RESULTING IN 3 CRASHES.THE REPORTED VEHICLES WERE IDENTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:THREE WERE MANUACTURED OUTSIDE OF THE RECALL BUILD DATES; TWO WERE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE RECALL AND THE REMAINING VEHICLE WAS UNKNOWN DUE TO MISSING VIN.THE PURPOSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION IS TO EXAMINE THE SCOPE OF RECALL 97V-147, IN PARTICULAR, THE BASIS FOR LIMITING THE RECALL TO THOSE BUILT WITHIN A SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD AND WHETHER THE CABLE IS USED ON OTHER FORD VEHICLES.Read more
RQ, Closed
, Model Year: 1997
ICE FORMATION IN THE THROTTLE BODY
There is no summary currently available
EA, Closed
, Model Year: 1997
WHEEL SEPARATION
BY LETTER DATED MAY 6, 1998, THE MANUFACTURER ADVISED NHTSA OF ITS DECISION TO INITIATE A SAFETY RECALL OF APPROXIMATELY 1,520,000 OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INCLUDING F-250 LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS, AND NAVIGATOR VEHICLES BUILT AT THE NORFOLK, MICHIGAN TRUCK, KANSAS CITY, AND ONTARIO TRUCK ASSEMBLY PLANTS B
... ETWEEN DECEMBER 1, 1995 AND MID-APRIL 1998.NHTSA HAS DESIGNATED THIS RECALL ACTION AS CAMPAIGN NUMBER 98V-095.Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 1997
WHEEL SEPARATION FROM VEHICLE
IN ADDITION TO THE A FAILURE REPORT TABULATIONS GIVEN ABOVE, THE MANUFACTURER REPORTED THAT AN ADDITIONAL 33 OWNER AND FIELD REPORTS HAVE BEEN FILED WHICH REFER TO PROBLEMS (LUG NOT TORQUE LOSS, LUG BOLT FRACTURE) THAT DID NOT INVOLVE ACTUAL WHEEL SEPARATION, BUT WHICH MAY BE POTENTIALLY RELEVANT EV
... ENTS.THE MANUFACTURER ALSO REPORTED THAT A TOTAL OF 815 WARRANTY CLAIMS HAVE BEEN FILED FOR REPAIRS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO THE MATTER BY PURCHASING THE VEHICLES BACK FROM OWNERS AS A GOODWILL MEASURE.THE WHEEL SEPARATIONS CITED IN THIS PE INCLUDE MANY WHICH OCCURRED WITH THE VEHICLE BEING DRIVEN; IN THESE CASES SOME PROPERTY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE ITSELF ALMOST ALWAYS RESULTED FROM COLLAPSE OF THE SUSPENSION .THE CRASH INCIDENTS CITED IN THE TABULATIONS ABOVE ARE LIMITED TO THOSE INCIDENTS IN WHICH DAMAGE WAS ALSO SUSTAINED BY A SECOND VEHICLE OR A FIXED OBJECT.THERE ARE INDICATIONS THAT PROBLEMS OF LUG NOT TORQUE RETENTION HAD BEEN EXPERIENCED DURING VEHICLE FINAL ASSEMBLY, AND FAILURE ANALYSES INDICATE THAT LUG NUT TORQUE LOSS COULD RESULT IN FATIGUE FAILURE OF THE LUG BOLTS. THERE ARE ALSO INDICATIONS THAT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, THE LUG NUTS MAY BE UNUSUALLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO OVER-TORQUING, RESULTING IN PLASTIC DEFORMATION OF THE LUG BOLTS WHICH IN TURN, COULD LEAD TO FATIGUE FAILURE.DUE TO THE OPEN ISSUES AND QUESTION RAISED BY THE PE, THIS MATTER HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 1997
FAILURE TRANSMISSION PARK ENGAGEMENT/LOC
BY LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 1997, THE MANUFACTURER ADVISED NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED RECALL ACTION WOULD BE INITIATED TO CORRECT A POTENTIAL FAILURE OF THE TRANSMISSION SHIFT CABLE IN APPROXIMATELY 15,000 OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.THE SUSPECT CABLES WERE SUPPLIED TO FORD BY TELEFLEX AUTOMOTIVE AND
... INSTALLED IN THE SUBJECT F-150 TRUCKS BUILT AT FORD'S NORFORLK AND KANSAS CITY ASSEMBLY PLANTS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 16, 1996 AND MARCH 4, 1996.A COPY OF THE FORD'S LETTER TO NHTSA REGARDING THIS RECALL ACTION IS ATTACHED.BASED ON THE PENDING SAFETY RECALL (97V-147), THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION HAS BEEN CLOSED.Read more
EA, Closed
, Model Year: 1997
SEAT BELT ANCHORAGE SEPARATION
FORD NOTIFIED ODI THAT THEY ARE CONDUCTING A RECALL TO INSPECT AND, AS NECESSARY, REPAIR THE SEAT BELT ANCHORAGE ATTACHMENTS ON 1997 FORD F150 VEHICLES BUILT FROM THE BEGINNING OF PRODUCTION THROUGH APRIL OF 1996.ODI'S DATABASE CONTAINS ONE COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE CENTER FRONT SEAT BELT ANCHORAGE WAS
... NOT BOLTED TO THE FLOOR.FORD HAS LOCATED 60 ADDITIONAL FIELD REPORTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS THAT APPEAR TO BE THE RESULT OF IMPROPER ASSEMBLY OF OR MISSING SEAT BELT COMPONENTS ON VEHICLES BUILT AT BOTH THE KANSAS CITY AND NORFOLK ASSEMBLY PLANTS.COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT A SEAT BELT WAS NOT BOLTED TO THE FLOOR, NOT ATTACHED, NOT HOOKED UP, OR THE OWNER COMPLAINED THAT THE SEAT BELT WAS LOOSE.THE CAUSES HAVE INCLUDED A MISSING BOLT, MISSING NUT, BOLT HOLE NOT THREADED, WELD NUT MISSING, OR BOLT NOT COMPLETELY TIGHTENED INTO ITS MOUNTING HOLE.THE ALLEGED CONDITIONS HAVE OCCURRED IN ALL POTENTIAL SEATING POSITIONS IN THE FRONT AND REAR SEATS IN BOTH THE REGULAR AND SUPER CAB MODELS.FORD'S ANALYSIS OF THEIR COMPLAINTS INDICATE THAT THIS SITUATION OCCURRED PREDOMINANTLY IN VEHICLES BUILT FROM AUGUST 14, 1995 THROUGH APRIL 30 1996.IN LATE APRIL, IN RESPONSE TO THE FIELD REPROTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS, FORD RETAINED LINE OPERATORS, LINE SUPERVISORS, AND PLANT REPAIR PERSONNEL.OWNERS OF VEHICLES BUILT WITHIN THIS TIME PERIOD WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THE CONDITION AND INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO DEALERS FOR INSPECTION OF AND, AS NECESSARY, REPAIR OF SEAT BELT ANCHORAGE ATTACHMENTS.THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS IS CLOSED.RECALL 96V-256Read more
PE, Closed
, Model Year: 1997
SEAT BELT ANCHORAGE SEPARATION
ODI'S DATABASE CONTAINS ONE COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE CENTER FRONT SEAT BELT ANCHORAGE WAS NOT BOLTED TO THE FLOOR.FORD SUBMITTED 28 ADDITIONAL FIELD REPORTS AND WARRANT CLAIMS ALLEGING THAT A SEAT BELT WAS NOT BOLTED TO THE FLOOR, NOT ATTACHED, NOT HOOKED UP, OR THE OWNER COMPLAINTED THAT THE SEAT BEL
... T WAS LOOSE.THE CAUSES HAVE INCLUDED A MISSING BOLT, MISSING NUT, BOLT HOLE NOT THREADED, WELD NUT MISSING, OR BOLT NOT COMPLETELY TIGHTENED INTO MOUNTING HOLE.FORD STATES THAT FACTORS THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED THE NON-ATTACHMENT OF THE SEAT BELT ANCHORAGE INCLUDE IMPROPER ASSEMBLY OF OR MISSING COMPONENTS.FORD HAS MADE NO MODIFICATIONS OR CHANGES TO THE INSTALLATION PROCEDURES OF THE SEAT BELTS AT THE FACTORY. HOWEVER, FORD STATES THAT THE MANUFACTURING PLANT HAS ADDED A REDUNDANT INSPECTION FOR THIS ALLEGED CONDITION.OVER 95% OF THE VEHICLES INVOLVED WERE BUILT ON OR BEFORE MAY 1, 1996 AND OVER 80% OF THE VEHICLES INVOLVED WERE BUILT BETWEEN JANUARY AND MARCH OR 1996.THE ALLEGED CONDITIONS HAVE OCCURRED IN ALL POTENTIAL SEATING POSITIONS IN THE FRONT AND REAR SEATS IN BOTH THE REGULAR AND SUPER CAB MODELS.FORD BELIEVES THAT THERE IS NO INDICATION OF A PATTERN WITH REGARD TO ANY PARTICULAR BELT LOCATION.ODI IS UPGRADIG THIS INVESTIGATION TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE REPORTS GATHERED TO DATE AND TO ASSESS THE IMPACT THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS ON HIGHWAY SAFETY.Read more