Lincoln MKZ Investigations (2008)

4 ODI actions on file.

• EAEA18002RECALLOpened 4/18/2018
  Extended Braking Distance
  SERVICE BRAKES, AIR:ANTILOCK:CONTROL UNIT/MODULE

  On April 18, 2018, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Engineering Analysis (EA) 18-002 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year (MY) 2006-12 Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ, and MY 2006-11 Mercury Milan vehicles manufactured with Continental Automotive System?s ABS hydraulic control units (HCUs). Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (initiated by slippery or uneven surfaces) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the vehicle stopping distance increased beyond driver expectations.Inside the HCU are four hydraulic normally closed (NC) valves with zinc-coated moving armatures that control the flow of brake fluid. Unstable brake fluid can degrade over time, allow the brake fluid to gel, and corrosion to form on the armatures. The high-viscosity gelation and corrosion can cause the armatures to become stuck (open). In some cases, braking returns to normal when the armature(s) subsequently become unstuck. The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose with complainants reporting having (non-HCU) repairs conducted only to have the condition return.During the investigation, 14 HCUs from complaint vehicles were recovered, including seven from reported crashes. NHTSA?s Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) disassembled the HCUs, removed the four NC valves in each, and confirmed 22 of the 56 NC valves contained stuck armatures. On seven of the 14 HCUs, both front wheel armatures were stuck, on nine of the 14 HCUs two or three armatures were stuck. And 52 of the 56 NC armatures exhibited corrosion of the zinc coating. Forces required to extract stuck armatures from the valve sleeve were measured to range from 1.1 to 18.0 lbs. VRTC also conducted ABS braking tests on a variety of test surfaces that showed HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel and braking distances. Testing also showed that if the driver was able to apply four times the brake pedal force and two times the brake pedal travel, then high-vehicle decelerations could be achieved, however, single or multiple wheel lockups were also occurring.Based on Ford?s response to ODI?s July 20, 2018 information request letter, and complainants' reports to NHTSA, ODI identified a population of vehicles with an elevated level of field failure compared to vehicles produced both before and after.Further evaluation of Ford?s response identified that the brake fluid used to produce these vehicles, a specific formulation of a DOT3 fluid provided by CCI Corporation between February 2006 and July 2009, differed from the brake fluid used in other vehicle populations. ODI used the correlation of fluid specification and elevated field failures to identify a vehicle population exhibiting a defect trend. The complaints, crashes and injuries cited above, and the 14 recovered HCUs involve vehicles from this population.On December 18, 2019, Ford submitted safety recall (19V-904) to remedy HCU failures on the MY 2006-2010 Ford Fusion, Lincoln MKZ, and Mercury Milan vehicles manufactured with the suspect CCI brake fluid formulation. Ford will function test the HCU and replace the DOT 3 brake fluid with an improved DOT 4 brake fluid. If the HCU fails the function test, Ford will install an HCU with a different armature coating (black oxide). HCUs with black oxide coating were fully phased into Ford?s new vehicle production by MY 2016; these HCUs do not appear to be experiencing armature corrosion. ODI notes that the non-recalled EA18-002 subject vehicles, which were manufactured with a different specification brake fluid, did not display an elevated level of field failures like the recalled vehicles.Based on available information, Ford?s rec

• EAEA12009RECALLOpened 12/12/2012
  Floor mat interference with accelerator
  VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:ACCELERATOR PEDAL

  On May 27, 2014, Ford Motor Company submitted recall 14E-028 (Ford recall #14S07) to correct a safety-related problem with certain driver's side Ford optional all-weather floor mats sold for use in model year 2006 through 2011 model year Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, and Lincoln MKZ vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant (HAP) from November 9, 2007, to October 31 ,2010.NHTSA testing determined that the original accessory all-weather mat with a single retention clip (Figure 1), may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle with the mat retained by the clip and rotated clockwise.Both the single- and double-clip (Figure 2) all-weather floor mats may interfere with the accelerator pedal return to idle when the mats are not secured by the retention clip(s).Testing showed that this can occur if the mats are moved forward from the clipped position approximately two inches into a position in which the rear edge of the mats will abut the retention clip(s) when installed singly and align with the clip(s) when stacked on another floor mat.The pedal interference incidents reviewed by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) include 1 crash and 9 incidents with allegations of brake friction materials smoking and/or requiring repair for heat related damage.The crash incident occurred after the parking brake was applied at speed, resulting in loss-of-control vehicle yaw event caused by lock-up of the rear tires.The spin-out resulted in a side impact collision with an oncoming vehicle in an opposing lane of traffic. For the 29 incidents with sufficient information available to make an assessment; 23 (79%) were controlled by the driver either shifting to neutral, turning the engine off, or both; 4 (14%) were ended by the driver either kicking the pedal free (2) or pulling the mat away from the pedal (2); and 2 (7%) were ended by the pedal freeing itself from the mat with no apparent driver action.None of the drivers who reacted to the incident by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off reported any difficulties with either action.The subject mats were sold by Ford and Lincoln dealers directly to customers as an optional accessory equipment item or, beginning in November 2007, the mats were also available as a factory installed accessory if ordered with a new vehicle.Ford estimates that approximately 82,579 affected driver's side all weather floor mats were sold worldwide; either over the counter through Ford dealerships or as original equipment.Owners that purchased the subject all-weather floor mats as a factory installed accessory with their new vehicle will be notified to return their all weather floor mats to their Ford or Lincoln Dealership in exchange for replacement mats.Owners of all other potentially affected vehicles will be notified that, if they have an affected Ford driver's side all weather floor mat, they should return their mats to the dealership in exchange for replacement mats.The VOQs associated with the closing of this investigation are: 10327597, 10332233, 10334211, 10335336, 10339330, 10348772 (and duplicate 10342572), 10372674, 10379562, 10415911, 10426255, 10434107, 10521053, 10554966.This investigation is hereby closed.

• PEPE10019CLOSEDOpened 5/28/2010
  Accel Pedal Interference - Acc Floormat
  VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:ACCELERATOR PEDAL

  Unsecured mats may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle. A heel blocker in the floor pan provides a platform that may lift an unsecured mat into contact with the pedal. Ford introduced new pedals as a running change early in model year (MY) 2010 vehicles. Analysis of complaints received by ODI and Ford show elevated rates of pedal entrapment incidents in MY 2008 through early 2010 production vehicles. Incidents typically occur following hard pedal applications to pass slower traffic or when merging into faster traffic. Drivers allege continued high engine power after releasing the accelerator pedal and difficulty braking, including reports that the incident was controlled by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off. Drivers and service technicians reference observing evidence of mat interference or note unsecured Ford or aftermarket all weather floor mats in post-incident inspections.Based on information gathered during the Preliminary Evaluation the population being investigated has been narrowed to model years 2008 to 2010.This investigation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis on MY 2008 through early-2010 vehicles (produced through September 2009) to further assess the scope, frequency and safety consequences of the alleged defect.The VOQs associated with the opening of this Engineering Analysis are: 10479693, 10415911, 10379562, 10372674, 10345830, 10342572, 10339330, 10335336, 10334211, 10332233, 10331160, 10329659, 10327597, 10320011, 10232027, 10214131

• PEPE08060CLOSEDOpened 10/14/2008
  TIRE VALVE CRACKING
  TIRES:VALVE

  ON OCTOBER 14, 2008, ODI OPENED PE08-060 TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF CRACKED AND LEAKING SNAP-IN TIRE VALVES IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2007 VEHICLES MANUFACTURED BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY.THE VALVES WERE SUPPLIED TO FORD BY TOPSEAL AUTO-PARTS, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE SHANGHAI BAOLONG AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION IN CHINA.VALVES MADE BY TOPSEAL FOR AFTERMARKET SALE WERE THE SUBJECT OF TWO RECENT SAFETY RECALLS BY TECH INTERNATIONAL (08T-018) AND DILL AIR CONTROLS (08T-028), THE LATTER OF WHICH WAS INVESTIGATED BY ODI IN PE08-036 AND EA08-022.THE DEFECT CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY THE AFTERMARKET TIRE VALVE RECALLS BOTH INVOLVED INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING DUE TO ISSUES WITH THE SUPPLY OF ANTI-OZONANT CHEMICALS TO TOPSEAL FOR A PERIOD FROM JULY TO MID-NOVEMBER 2006.THE AFTERMARKET VALVES WERE COMPOUNDED WITH A BLEND OF EPDM AND NATURAL RUBBER, USING A RELATIVELY LOW PERCENTAGE OF EPDM (EPDM PROVIDES INHERENT RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING).HENCE, THE NEED FOR ANTI-OZONANT CHEMICALS AND THE PROBLEMS WITH CRACKING WHEN THOSE CHEMICALS WERE MISSING OR OUT OF SPECIFICATION IN SOME LOTS OF VALVES.BOTH RECALL CAMPAIGNS INVOLVED INSPECTION PROGRAMS TO IDENTIFY AND REPLACE VALVES WITH VISIBLE SURFACE CRACKING.ALTHOUGH THE TOPSEAL VALVES SUPPLIED TO FORD ALSO APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE ANTI-OZONANT SUPPLY ISSUES IN MID TO LATE-2006, FORD INDICATED THAT ITS VALVES WERE MADE AT A DIFFERENT TOPSEAL PRODUCTION LINE AND WERE COMPOUNDED WITH A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF EPDM RUBBER TO MEET MORE STRINGENT SPECIFICATIONS FROM FORD.ODI'S ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA PROVIDED BY FORD SHOWED THAT PROBLEMS WITH CRACKED TIRE VALVES WERE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER FOR MY 2007 VEHICLES PRODUCED FROM DECEMBER 2006 THROUGH MARCH 2007.FORD RESPONDED BY IMPLEMENTING CHANGES IN ITS MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR SNAP-IN RUBBER TIRE VALVES AND ALSO INCREASING THE QUALITY AND ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS FOR VALVES IMPORTED FOR USE IN ITS VEHICLES.WHILE THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM RATES ARE ELEVATED FOR SUBJECT VEHICLES PRODUCED FROM DECEMBER 2006 THROUGH MARCH 2007, THE RATES OF LEAKING VALVES ARE WELL BELOW ONE PERCENT OF PRODUCTION FOR EACH OF THE PEAK MONTHS FOR ALL OF THE AFFECTED MODELS.A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING SYSTEMS (TPMS) WHICH WARN THE DRIVER WHEN ANY TIRE PRESSURES DROPS BELOW 25 PERCENT OF RECOMMENDED INFLATION PRESSURE. AS OUTLINED IN A LETTER TO ODI DATED APRIL 6, 2009, FORD HAS AGREED TO SEND LETTERS TO OWNERS OF CERTAIN MY 2007 AND 2008 FORD, LINCOLN AND MERCURY VEHICLES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CRACKING CONCERN. LETTERS WILL BE SENT TO OWNERS OF VEHICLES BUILT FROM NOVEMBER 2006 THROUGH MAY 2007.OWNERS CAN OPT FOR A FREE DEALER INSPECTION.VALVES EXHIBITING SURFACE CRACKS OR AIR LEAKAGE RELATED TO OZONE ATTACK WILL BE REPLACED BY FORD UNDER ITS NORMAL WARRANTY TERMS.FORD EXPECTS TO SEND THE LETTER BY APPROXIMATELY MID-MAY 2009. BASED ON THE USE OF TPMS IN THE MAJORITY OF SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE RELATIVELY LOW RATES OF REPAIRS ASSOCIATED WITH LEAKING VALVES AND RESULTANT TIRE DAMAGE, ODI BELIEVES THAT THE ACTIONS FORD HAS AGREED TO TAKE WILL PROVIDE EFFECTIVE AND EXPEDITIOUS RESOLUTION FOR VEHICLES THAT WERE BUILT DURING THE PERIOD WHEN VALVES WITH INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING WERE MOST LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN USED IN VEHICLE PRODUCTION.FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER WOULD NOT BE AN EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF AGENCY RESOURCES.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 CONTINUE TO