Ford F-350 Investigations

29 ODI actions on file.

• PEPE24014OPENOpened 5/9/2024
  Sogefi Secondary Diesel Fuel Filter Leak
  FUEL SYSTEM, DIESEL

  The Office of Defect Investigations (ODI) has received 27 complaints alleging diesel fuel leaks due to a fracture in the secondary fuel filter housing in model year (MY) 2015-2021 Ford Motor Company (Ford) F-250, 350, 450, and 550 Super Duty vehicles equipped with 6.7L diesel engines. Of these complaints, 12 describe an engine compartment fire. The proximity of the secondary fuel filter to high heat sources creates a potential for autoignition thermal events and fires. ODI has contacted the vehicle manufacturer, Ford, and the filter manufacturer, Allevard Sogefi USA (Sogefi), and learned that the low-pressure fuel system is capable of a maximum operating pressure of 8.5 Bar, while the secondary fuel filter is only tested to seven (7) Bar during the manufacturing process. Additionally, changes starting in 2022 by both Ford and Sogefi align with a lack of similar complaints on MY 2022 and newer vehicles. ODI is opening this Preliminary Evaluation (PE) to evaluate the severity of the potential problem and to fully assess the potential safety-related problems. To review the ODI reports cited in the Opening Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.

• RQRQ21001CLOSEDOpened 1/15/2021
  Power Tailgate Release Systems
  STRUCTURE:BODY:DOOR

  In January 2021, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a Recall Query (RQ21-001) to assess allegations of post-recall remedy uncommanded tailgate openings in model year (MY) 2017-2019 F-250/350/450 Ford trucks. Besides the recall remedy launched in January 2020, Ford also implemented a production update in November 2019.  At the time of the RQ opening, ODI had received eleven (11) Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs). ODI sent an Information Request (IR) to Ford in February 2021. In numerous meetings after receiving their IR response, Ford highlighted the drop in claims since the recall and production update and communicated how they were unable to verify the owners’ complaints or replicate the concern. Despite this, Ford began developing ways to prevent uncommanded tailgate openings from various human, mechanical or electrical causes. Based on testing, Ford issued a Customer Satisfaction program, 21M05-S1/S2/S3, to further address the potential of unintended tailgate openings. This work was applied to vehicles being produced as of December 20, 2021.  The program began for already delivered vehicles on July 22, 2022. The covered models include 2017-2022 F-250, 350, 450, 550, 650 and 750 Super Duty and 2020-2022 F-600 Super Duty trucks. ODI has received 39 VOQs between February 24, 2020, and December 15, 2023, alleging uncommanded tailgate openings.  In a detailed analysis, none of the vehicles in the VOQs were found to have received the Customer Satisfaction update. Since ODI has not received any complaints of post-Customer Satisfaction program tailgate openings, this office is closing this Recall Query. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the ODI reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.

• PEPE18011RECALLOpened 10/12/2018
  Power tailgate opens unintended
  ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:WIRING

  By letter dated December 4, 2019, Ford Motor Company (Ford) notified the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) of a safety defect that may exist in model years (MY) 2017 through 2019 Ford Super Duty F-250, F-350, F-450 vehicles equipped with an electric tailgate. Following the receipt of five consumer complaints alleging unintended tailgate opening without vehicle operator knowledge, while the vehicles were in motion, NHTSA opened this investigation to assess the manufacturer's data including warranty claims, field reports, design changes, etc.In vehicles equipped with an electric tailgate, water can enter the electrical wiring system and may cause a short circuit resulting in the unintended activation and release of the tailgate latch. This could allow unintended opening of the tailgate while the vehicle is in motion.Analysis of the data provided by Ford found that the frequency of a tailgate opening unintended was high in vehicles equipped with electric tailgates. Unintended tailgate opening without vehicle operator knowledge may result in loss of unrestrained cargo, increasing the risk of a crash. In response to this investigation, Ford decided to conduct recall 19V-864.Owners will be notified by mail and instructed to take their vehicle to a Ford dealer to modify the tailgate/frame wiring harnesses by adding jumper pigtails to isolate the tailgate release control circuits, and will install a new tailgate handle release switch. With recall action 19V-864 taken by Ford Motor Company this investigation is closed. Further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist on other model or MY vehicles outside of the recall scope. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID using the following complaint identification numbers: 10984283,11004227,11082643,11090089,11104638,11115381,11140680,11141071, 11141075,11141174,11141200,11141331,11141447,11141547,11141548,11142572, 11142618,11142657,11153541,11153959,11157225,11160936,11165124,11165590, 11166199,11166802,11170049,11171409,11171509,11171685,11180009,11182035, 11186146,11191151,11191353,11193045,11194958,11203615,11206443,11209199, 11229482,11230768,11233349,11233436,11255126,11265643.

• RQRQ14005RECALLOpened 1/13/2015
  Vehicle Commanded Engine Shutdown
  ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:SOFTWARE

  The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this RQ to investigate allegations that the scope and remedy of safety recall 13V-535 were inadequate. Recall 13V-535 was limited to a relatively small population of Ambulance Package vehicles and ODI received complaints of pickup trucks and Fire Engine Prep Package vehicles being affected by the same defect. Ford manufactured approximately 555,985 subject vehicles between February 22, 2010 and January 30, 2015 that may be affected by defective EGT sensors and Powertrain Control Module (PCM) software calibration. The subject vehicles are equipped with four (4) EGT sensors to monitor engine operating conditions. An EGT sensor fault may produce false exhaust over-temperature signals. If these signals are produced, the Powertrain Control Module (PCM) implements a Failure Management Effects Mode (FMEM) and the driver receives a Stop Safely Now (SSN) system warning on the instrument cluster message center. The FMEM triggers a 70% reduction in available engine power over a period of no more than 45 seconds, during which it may not be possible to accelerate or maintain vehicle speed. The PCM then commands the engine to shut down when vehicle speed reaches approximately 1 mph. There is no immediate restart capability. Depending on the PCM software calibration, ignition key position and ambient temperature conditions, the engine may not restart until the end of a 10-60 minute cool down period.Ford and its component supplier(s) made numerous changes to the PCM software calibration and the design, material and manufacture of the EGT sensors over the period of subject vehicle production. This continuous product improvement affected vehicle performance regarding the alleged defect. Ford acknowledges the defect condition in the subject vehicles but argues that an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety is limited to Ambulance Package and Fire Engine Prep Package vehicles where commanded shutdown could impact emergency response and patient care. Ford also argues that the defect trend is in decline. Ford also initiated a new safety recall (15V-175) to address the 13V-535 remedy concerns in the Ambulance Package vehicles and Fire Engine Prep Package vehicles. The 15V-175 remedy reprograms the PCM with a new software calibration that stops a single EGT sensor fault to cause the vehicle to enter the FMEM shutdown mode.Ford also initiated an EPA emissions recall (14E03) for all subject vehicles that reprograms the PCM with the software calibration employed in safety recall 15V-175. Finally, Ford initiated a Customer Satisfaction Program (15M01) providing extended warranty coverage of 8 years or 80,000 miles for the the EGT sensors on certain MY2011-2012 subject vehicles.Due to the EPA emissions recall, that had a 66.6% completion rate in Ford's December 2015 progress report to the EPA, the defect trend is in decline. ODI is not aware of any crashes, deaths or injuries related to the alleged defect.ODI believes the alleged defect poses a safety risk but notes that the EPA emissions recall is addressing the safety problem.Compelling issuance of a duplicate recall would not represent a wise use of agency resources.Accordingly, this Recall Query is closed.This action is not a finding that no defect exists and NHTSA will take further action if such action is warranted.

• PEPE13014CLOSEDOpened 5/7/2013
  Alleged Loss of Steering
  STEERING

  The Office of DefectsInvestigation (ODI) opened PE13-014 after identifying five complaints alleging steering gear failure in model year (MY) 2008 Ford F-250 and F-350 Super Duty pick-up trucks and to evaluate the relationship between the design history of the steering gear assembly and the alleged defect.As background, ODI investigated steering gear sector shaft fractures in approximately 1.3 million MY 1999 - 2001 Ford Super Duty pick-up trucks and MY 2000 - 2001 Ford Excursion sport utility vehicles in Engineering Analysis EA01-009.The investigation determined that the sector shaft failures were the result of extraordinary, possibly multiple, impacts and not the result of fatigue.No defect in design, manufacturing or materials was identified in the sector shaft.EA01-009 was closed August 19, 2003 with 169 complaints, resulting in a rate of 12.9 incidents per 100,000 vehicles after approximately one year of service.Ford increased the diameter of the sector shaft from 1.375 inches to 1.625 inches at the start of MY 2005 production, increasing the resistance of the steering gear assembly to torsional overload by approximately 48% and changing the failure mode from sector shaft fracture to cracked or broken sector shaft gear teeth.The redesigned steering gear assembly was used in approximately 1.1 million MY 2005 through 2009 Ford Super Duty pick-up trucks, including the subject vehicles.Figure 1 shows the basic steering system design used in Ford Super Duty trucks investigated in EA01-009 and PE13-014. Figure 2 shows the locations of failures resulting from impact related torsional overloading of the sector shaft for the subject vehicles and the prior generation Ford Super Duty trucks investigated in EA01-009.Figure 3 shows an example of a failed sector shaft investigated in EA01-009 and comparisons of fracture surfaces of sector shafts failing from fatigue loading and from torsional overload.Ford provided field return part analysis of failed steering gears from MY 2005 through 2009 Super Duty trucks found evidence of broken sector shaft gear teeth and piston damage consistent with incidents of single event overload (Figure 4).Laboratory analysis found no evidence of fatigue or material property defects in any of the fractures.Analysis of complaint rates by vehicle build month showed no patterns indicating potential manufacturing quality issues and no difference before and after Ford introduced design changes to the input shaft and sector shaft seals in July 2007 to address potential leak concerns (Figure 5).Analysis of failures by time in service indicates a random failure pattern/distribution, consistent with incidents of impact induced overload (Figure 6). The complaint rate for the subject vehicles after approximately 5 to 6 years, 7.1 incidents per 100,000 vehicles, is lower than the rate observed in EA01-009. Furthermore, similar to the condition investigated in EA01-009, a number of incident records include evidence of impact loads (e.g., curb strikes) and several alleged crashes include incidents in which information suggests that the steering gear failure was most likely a result of crash forces, rather than the cause of the crash.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.The ODI complaints cited above can be reviewed at ww

• EAEA08007CLOSEDOpened 3/14/2008
  VIOLENT FRONT END OSCILLATION
  SUSPENSION

  THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED BASED ON 78 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS OF SEVERE SUSPENSION AND STEERING WHEEL OSCILLATIONS AFTER THE SUBJECT VEHICLES TRAVELED OVER AN UNEVEN SURFACE.ODI WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THESE COMPLAINTS BECAUSE MANY OF THEM ALLEGED LOSS OF CONTROL AND THE LOSS OF CONTROL OCCURREDAT SPEEDS ABOVE 50 MILES PER HOUR.AT THE TIME THESE COMPLAINTS WERE RECEIVED, ODI WAS ALSO AWARE OF THE TSB 07-10-10 AND EARLY WARNING FIELD REPORTS THAT DISCUSSED THE SHIMMY CONDITION ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.SINCE OPENING THIS INVESTIGATION, ODI HAS CONFIRMED, BASED ON CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, WARRANTY DATA, TESTING CONDUCTED BY VRTC, AND ODI INSPECTION OF COMPLAINT VEHICLES, THAT THE OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EXPERIENCING SHIMMY EVENTS ON THEIR VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THAT OWNERS TYPICALLY DO NOT MAINTAIN THEIR TIRES AT THE PRESSURES RECOMMENDED BY FORD ON THE TIRE LABEL.FURTHER, ODI HAS FOUND THAT IN ORDER FOR SHIMMY TO OCCUR, TIRE PRESSURES MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW (AT LEAST 20%) THOSE SPECIFIED ON THE VEHICLE TIRE LABEL.ODI CONSIDERS THESE UNSAFE TIRE CONDITIONS TO BE THE RESULT OF ONE OF THREE TYPICAL SITUATIONS.THE TIRES ARE BEING IMPROPERLY MAINTAINED, THE OWNERS ARE INTENTIONALLY SETTING THE TIRE PRESSURES LOW TO ENHANCE RIDE QUALITY, OR AFTERMARKET TIRES (NOT DESIGNED FOR USE ON THE VEHICLE) ARE INSTALLED TO CHANGE THE APPEARANCE OR FUNCTION OF THE VEHICLE.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE INTENDED AND DESIGNED TO BE USED AS HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES AND AS SUCH REQUIRE THAT THE TIRES BE CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE LOADS FOR WHICH THE VEHICLE IS DESIGNED AND MARKETED.IN ORDER FOR THE TIRES TO BE CAPABLE OF HANDLING THESE LOADS, THE PROPER TIRE PRESSURE MUST BE MAINTAINED.IN LIGHT OF THE INFORMATION GATHERED IN THIS INVESTIGATION AND FORD'S AGREEMENT TO NOTIFY SUBJECT VEHICLE OWNERS (NOW AND EVERY TWO YEARS UNTIL THE VEHICLES REACH TEN YEARS FROM THEIR PRODUCTION DATE) ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING PROPER TIRE PRESSURES ON THEIR VEHICLES, FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE THE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT.

• PEPE07057CLOSEDOpened 11/15/2007
  VIOLENT FRONT END OSCILLATION
  SUSPENSION

  ODI HAS RECEIVED 78 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS OF SEVERE SUSPENSION AND STEERING WHEEL SHIMMY AND OSCILLATIONS COMMENCING AFTER THE SUBJECT VEHICLES TRAVELED OVER AN UNEVEN ROAD SURFACE. THE MAJORITY OF THESE INCIDENTS OCCURRED AT SPEEDS OF 50 MPH OR GREATER.THIRTEEN OF THE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY ODI ALLEGE LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL AND THAT THE VEHICLE CHANGED DRIVING LANES UNCONTROLLABLY.FOUR OF THE COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY ODI ALLEGE THAT THE VEHICLE LEFT THE ROAD SURFACE AS A RESULT OF THE VIOLENT SUSPENSION AND STEERING WHEEL OSCILLATIONS.IN ONE CASE THE CONSUMER ALLEGES THAT AFTER THE VEHICLE LEFT THE ROAD SURFACE, IT CRASHED INTO A WOODED AREA.ADDITIONALFACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE OPENING OF THIS EA WERE EARLY WARNING FIELD REPORTS,SUBMITTED BY FORD, DESCRIBING SUSPENSION SHIMMY / OSCILLATIONSAND A FORD TSB (07-10-10) DESCRIBING THE SUSPENSION SHIMMY ISSUE AND HOW TO REPAIR THE PROBLEM.FORD HAS DESCRIBED SHIMMY AS SELF-EXCITED OSCILLATION OF THE STEERING WHEELS WITH ACCOMPANYING WHEEL TRAMP.THIS PE HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA) TO DETERMINE IF THE SHIMMY CONDITION THAT OCCURS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES CREATES A CONDITION WHERE THE VEHICLE BECOMES DIFFICULT TO CONTROL OR STARTLES THE DRIVER, THUS PRESENTING A SAFETY RISK.

• DPDP05005CLOSEDOpened 9/22/2005
  SPARK PLUG EJECTION FROM CYLINDER HEAD
  ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING:ENGINE

  ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.

• EAEA05005RECALLOpened 3/22/2005
  ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRES
  ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

  EA05-005 IS CLOSED WITH FORD?S ACTIONS IN RECALLS 05V-017, 05V-388, AND 06V-286, RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 6.7 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).THE BRAKE SYSTEMS IN THESE RECALLED VEHICLES GENERATE A VACUUM THAT CAN POTENTIALLY CAUSE THE SCDS TO FAIL AND, IN CERTAIN SWITCH INSTALLATION ORIENTATIONS, CATCH FIRE.FORD IS ALSO INCLUDING THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF 1998 EXPLORERS.FORD HAS INFORMED ODI THAT TESTING TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF FAILURES IN THE 1998 EXPLORERS WILL CONTINUE AFTER THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.ODI BELIEVES THAT THE VEHICLES EXHIBITING THE FACTORS CAUSING SCDS FAILURE DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT CORRELATE WELL WITH THE OBSERVED FAILURE RATES ON THESE VEHICLES BY MODEL AND MODEL YEAR.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE NON-RECALLED VEHICLES MANUFACTURED WITH SCDS THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN FORD?S RECALLS.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE NON-RECALLED POPULATION FOR INCIDENCE OF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRES.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR DETAILS.

• EAEA05004CLOSEDOpened 2/17/2005
  FRONT SEAT BELT BUCKLE ASSEMBLY
  SEAT BELTS

  DURING THE INITIAL RECALL CAMPAIGN IN 2001, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WERE INSPECTED BY FORD DEALERSHIPS USING A TEST TOOL THAT WOULD DETECT A DEFECTIVE FRONT SEAT OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLE ASSEMBLY.APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION VEHICLES PASSED THE INSPECTION TEST FOR ONE OR BOTH FRONT BUCKLES.SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECALL SERVICE ACTION, ODI RECEIVED 15 CONSUMER REPORTS ALLEGING THAT A PASSED INSPECTION BUCKLE SUBSEQUENTLY FAILED TO LATCH OR INADVERTENTLY UNLATCHED DURING USE.IN ADDITION, FORD HAS IDENTIFIED 543 OWNER AND FIELD REPORTS ALLEGING BUCKLE FAILURE SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING THE INSPECTION TEST.FORD TESTED AND EXAMINED OVER 100 WARRANTY-RETURNED BUCKLES AND FOUND THAT 44% OF THE BUCKLES HAD NO PROBLEM OR A CONDITION NOT RELATED TO THE RECALL INSPECTION (NON-LATCH RELATED BUCKLE DAMAGE OR FOREIGN CONTAMINATION).WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE HIGHEST DURING THE 18-MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE START OF THE RECALL (JULY 2001) AND HAVE BEEN DECLINING DURING THE PAST 24 MONTHS.OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 12 WARRANTY CLAIMS PER MONTH OUT OF A VEHICLE POPULATION OF ABOUT ONE MILLION.COMPLAINTS COUNTS ARE ALSO DECREASING.DURING THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS, ODI HAS RECEIVED ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS. 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 RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

• RQRQ04011CLOSEDOpened 10/22/2004
  FRONT SEAT BELT BUCKLE ASSEMBLY
  SEAT BELTS:FRONT:BUCKLE ASSEMBLY

  UNDER RECALL CAMPAIGN (01V227), FORD RECALLED APPROXIMATELY 1.3 MILLION VEHICLES TO INSPECT AND IF NECESSARY REPLACE THE FRONT DRIVER AND/OR PASSENGER SEAT BELT BUCKLE.APPROXIMATELY 1.1 MILLION OWNERS RESPONDED BY TAKING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER FOR INSPECTION OF THE BUCKLE USING A SPECIALIZED BUCKLE TEST TOOL.FORD REPORTED THAT 829,927 VEHICLES HAD BOTH BUCKLES PASS THE TOOL TEST AND ANOTHER 167,336 VEHICLES HAD ONE BUCKLE PASS.ODI AND FORD RECEIVED COMPLAINTS ALLEGING SEAT BELT BUCKLE FAILURE SHORTLY AFTER PASSING THE ORIGINAL RECALL INSPECTION SERVICE.COMPLAINANTS ALLEGED THAT THE BUCKLE FAILED BY EITHER NOT LATCHING OR FALSE-LATCHING (PARTIAL ENGAGEMENT OF THE LATCH TO THE LATCH PLATE).A FALSE-LATCHED BUCKLE MAY RELEASE WITH MINOR MOVEMENT OR IMPACT AGAINST THE BUCKLE HOUSING INCLUDING INADVERTENT RELEASE WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION.ODI IS UPGRADING THIS RECALL QUERY TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA05-004) TO FURTHER ANALYZE THE FIELD PERFORMANCE OF THOSE VEHICLES THAT FORD DEALERS PASSED (ONE OR BOTH BUCKLES) USING FORD'S INSPECTION TEST (997,263 VEHICLES).

• PEPE04070CLOSEDOpened 10/7/2004
  ENGINE STALLING
  ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING:ENGINE:DIESEL

  TWENTY FIVE OF THE ODI FAILURE REPORTS ARE DUPLICATIVE OF FORD COMPLAINTS.TWENTY ODI REPORTS DO NOT CONTAIN A VIN (AND MAY OR MAY NOT BE DUPLICATIVE OF FORD REPORTS).THE 14 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 2 ALLEGED INJURIES WERE ALL MINOR.SUBMITTED DURING PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE) 04-070, FORD'S RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER CONTAINED ABOUT 5,000 CONSUMER REPORTS (MORS) AND 8,700 FIELD REPORTS (CQIS).FORD REVIEWED THE COMPLAINTS AND CATEGORIZED THEM.THE MANUFACTURER REPORTS SHOWN ABOVE REPRESENT A COUNT OF UNIQUE VEHICLES THAT FORD CATEGORIZED AS ALLEGEDLY STALLING DUE TO A SUBJECT ENGINE COMPONENT ('A' CATEGORY, SEE FORD'S IR RESPONSE LETTER FOR FURTHER DETAIL); SOME OF THESE VEHICLES RECEIVED MULTIPLE REPORTS.ODI HAS NOT YET CONFIRMED FORD'S CATEGORIZATION OF THESE REPORTS, NOR HAS ODI CONFIRMED FORD'S CATEGORIZATION OF THE REMAINING REPORTS (WHICH FORD STATES DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT).FORD SUBMITTED NEARLY 19,000 WARRANTY CLAIMS, MANY OF WHICH INVOLVED CLAIMS FOR A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN (TSB 04-13-08) AND FIELD SERVICE ACTION (FSA 03B05) WHICH FORD IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL REMEDIES FOR STALLING COMPLAINTS.ODI HAS NOT CONFIRMED THAT EITHER OF THESE ARE A REMEDY FOR ENGINE STALLING COMPLAINTS.SEVERAL OTHER DEALER COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO ENGINE STALL WERE ALSO SUBMITTED AS WELL AS OVER 50 PRODUCT MODIFICATIONS, 15 OF WHICH INVOLVE REVISIONS TO THE SOFTWARE FOR THE ELECTRONIC ENGINE CONTROL UNIT.FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED AND ODI IS UPGRADING PE04-070 TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA).DURING THE EA, ODI WILL ESTABLISH AND UPDATE MANUFACTURER FAILURE REPORT COUNTS, FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE FREQUENCY AND TREND OF STALLING COMPLAINTS, AND DETERMINE THE SCOPE AND SAFETY IMPLICATION OF STALLING EVENTS.ODI WILL ALSO INVESTIGATE FORD'S REMEDIES, THEIR EFFECTIVENESS, AND WHETHER FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED.

• EAEA02018CLOSEDOpened 8/19/2002
  RAPID TIRE DEFLATION
  TIRES

  THIS INVESTIGATION WAS OPENED ON CERTAIN FORD PICKUP TRUCKS AND VANS TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTS OF A VALVE STEM EJECTION (WITH RAPID AIR LOSS) AND A SLOW LEAKING VALVE STEM ON VEHICLE HANDING.DURING THE INVESTIGATION, ODI EVALUATED OVER 1,100 COMPLAINTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS, CONDUCTED VEHICLE DYNAMIC TESTING ON A SUBJECT VEHICLE WITH THE FAILURE MODE REPLICATED, INTERVIEWED OWNERS, AND EXAMINED COMPLAINT VEHICLES IN THE FIELD.THE RESULTS OF THE TEST PROGRAM INDICATES THE EFFECT OF A VALVE STEM EJECTION ON THESE VEHICLES IS EASILY CONTROLLED. FURTHER, WITH A POPULATION OF ALMOST 900,000 VEHICLES, HAVING TWO TO FOUR YEARS OF EXPOSURE, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY 3 MINOR CRASHES AND IS UNAWARE OF ANY INJURIES.THE SMALL NUMBER OF CRASHES RELATIVE TO THE LARGE POPULATION OF VEHICLES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TESTING WHICH WAS PERFORMED. THEREFORE, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.SEE THE ATTACHED REPORT FOR FULL TECHNICAL DETAILS.

• RQRQ00010RECALLOpened 3/13/2000
  PARKING BRAKE FAILURE
  PARKING BRAKE:CONVENTIONAL:AIR

  ON MAY 11, 1998, FORD MOTOR COMPANY FILED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT CONCERNING PARKING BRAKE FAILURE ON CERTAIN 1999 F-350 SUPER DUTY VEHICLES BUILT AT THE KENTUCKY TRUCK PLANT FROM JANUARY 26, 1998 THROUGH APRIL 24, 1998; RECALL 98V-101.THE REDUCTION IN PARKING BRAKE EFFECTIVENESS MAY OCCUR ON SOME OF THESE VEHICLES, AND IS CAUSED BY THE RUST PREVENTATIVE COATING THE SURFACE OF THE PARKING BRAKE LINING MATERIAL WHICH REDUCES THE FRICTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AT THE LINING AND ROTOR INTERFACE.ON MARCH 13, 2000, ODI OPENED RQ00-010 ON PARKING BRAKE FAILURES ON 1999-2000 MODEL YEAR SUPER DUTY F-SERIES VEHICLES, ON THE BASIS OF SIX FAILURE REPORTS ON THOSE VEHICLES.ODI NOW HAS 10 REPORTS OF PARKING BRAKE FAILURE ON THE 1999 SUBJECT VEHICLES, BUILT OUTSIDE OF THE RECALL POPULATION, INCLUDING THREE CRASHES.THE DATA IN THE ABOVE TABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE PARKING BRAKE FAILURES ON THE RECALLED 1999 F-350 VEHICLES.THE DATA RECEIVED FROM FORD IN ITS RESPONSE TO THE RQ00-010 INFORMATION REQUEST, REVEALED A HIGH FAILURE RATE FOR THE 1999 F-450/550 VEHICLES (1200R/100K), AND A HIGH FAILURE RATE OF THE 1999 F-250/350 VEHICLES, MANUFACTURED OUTSIDE SEVERAL OF THE RECALL BUILD MONTHS.IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS BE OPENED TO ADDRESS THE PARKING BRAKE PROBLEM IN THE 1999 MODEL YEAR SUPER DUTY F-SERIES VEHICLES.

• EAEA99032RECALLOpened 11/4/1999
  DUAL FUEL TANK CROSSFLOW/LEAKAGE
  VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:LINKAGES

  ON JULY 14, 1993 FORD FILED A DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT CONCERNING FUEL TANK CROSS FLOW LEAKAGE ON F-SERIES LIGHT TRUCKS AND CAB CHASSIS BUILT FROM JULY 22, 1989 THROUGH DECEMBER 17, 1992.THE REMEDY WAS TO REPLACE THE FUEL PRESSURE REGULATOR AND INSTALL A CHECK VALVE BETWEEN EACH FUEL SUPPLY LINE AND FUEL TANK (2) TO REPAIR THE SUPPLY SIDE FUEL CROSS FLOW PROBLEM (RECALL 93V-125).ODI OPENED RQ98-008 ON MAY 29, 1998 BECAUSE OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF ALLEGED REMEDY FAILURES AND REPORTS OF FUEL CROSS FLOW ON VEHICLES OUTSIDE OF THE RECALL POPULATION.BASED ONTHE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM FORD ON AUGUST 11, SEPTEMBER 30, AND DECEMBER 15, 1998, AND THE INCREASING TREND OF REMEDY FAILURES AND OUT OF SCOPE CROSSFLOW REPORTS, ODI OPENED EA99-032 ON NOVEMBER 4, 1999.THE ATTACHED ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CLOSING REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE RESULTS OF THIS INVESTIGATION AND REASON FOR CLOSING.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES CAN EXPERIENCE FUEL TRANSFER FROM ONE TANK TO THE OTHER DUE TO MALFUNCTIONS IN THE FUEL SYSTEM.WHEN FUEL IS PUMPED OR RETURNED TO THE NON-OPERATING TANK (CROSS FLOW), THE CAPACITY OF THE NON-OPERATING TANK CAN BE EXCEEDED, CAUSING FUEL TO OVERFLOW PAST THE FILLER CAP, CREATING A FIRE POTENTIAL.

• EAEA95012RECALLOpened 3/31/1995
  FAILURE OF SERPENTINE BELT
  POWER TRAIN

  AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CLOSING REPORT IS INCLUDED.

• PEPE94087CLOSEDOpened 11/18/1994
  TRNS OIL COOLER LINE FAILS
  POWER TRAIN

  FORD HAS ACKNOWLEDGED A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THE ACCESSORY DRIVE BELT SYSTEM (SERPENTINE BELT) IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.SEVERAL SERVICE BULLETINS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO ADDRESS CONCERNS RELATED TO BELT TRACKING OR WEAR.FORD MAINTAINS THAT THE SUBJECT CONDITION DOES NOT PRESENT AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO HIGHWAY SAFETY, ARGUING THAT THE LOW INCIDENCE OF FAILURES ALLEGING SAFETY CONSEQUENCES (I.E., FIRES, FLUID LEAKS, AND/OR ACCIDENTS) IS STRONG EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM.FORD HAS INDICATED RECEIPT OF 4,445 FIELD REPORTS AND 46891 WARRANTY CLAIMS CONCERNING THE SUBJECT CONDITION. FORD MAINTAINS THAT THE LOW NUMBER OF REPORTED HOSE RUPTURES AND/OR FIRES, RELATIVE TO TOTAL BELT FAILURES, SHOWS THAT THE PROBLEM IS A DURABILITY CONCERN THAT PRESENTS VERY LITTLE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY.FORD INTENDS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMIN A SERVICE BULLETIN SCHEDULED FOR PUBLICATION THE WEEK OF MARCH 13, 1995.ODI HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL CLAIMS ALLEGING THAT INCIDENTS OF BELT FAILURE ARE CAUSING COLLATERAL DAMAGE TO ADJACENT FLUID SYSTEMS (E.G., POWER STEERING HOSE, COOLANT HOSE, AND AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION OIL COOLER HOSE).RELEASE OF THESE FLUIDS WITHIN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT MAY RESULT IN A VEHICLE FIRE, IF EXPOSED TO A SUFFICIENTLY HOT SURFACE AREA.THE AUTOIGNITION TEMPERATURE FOR TRANSMISSION OIL MAY BE AS LOW AS 300 C (570 F), WHILE POWER STEERING FLUID AND ENGINE COOLANT ARE GENERALLY HARDER TO IGNITE (CLOSER TO 500 DEGREE C (900 DEGREEF)).DAMAGE TO BATTERY CABLE INSULATION HAS ALSO BEEN ALLEGED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SERPENTINE BELT FAILURE.ODI HAS RECEIVED FOUR REPORTS ALLEGING FAILURE OF ADJACENT FLUID SYSTEM HOSES FROM CONTACT WITH A BROKEN SERPENTINE BELT.ONE REPORT INVOLVED AN ECONOLINE RV CUTAWAY CHASSIS WITH A 7.3L V-8 NAVISTAR ENGINE, USED IN THE TRANSPORT OF DISABLED CHILDREN.AN ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE DESTROYED THE VEHICLE IN NOVEMBER 1994.THE FIRE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED WHEN THE SERPENTINE BELT BROKE AT HIGHWAY SPEED AND RUPTURED A TRANSMISSION COLLER LINE. THE REPORT ALLEGES FINDING BELT FRAGMENTS AND TRACES OF TRANSMISSION FLUID UP THE ROAD FROM THE FIRE SCENE, NEAR WHERE THE DRIVER HAD HEARD A POP JUST PRIOR TO THE FIRE.THE DRIVER REPORTEDLY SUSTAINED MINOR BURN INJURIES WHILE EVACUATING PASSENGERS.OWNER REPORTS ALSO ALLEGE SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL OCCURS WITH THE BELT FAILURES, DUE TO THE LOSS OF POWER ASSIST CAPABILITY TO THE BRAKING AND STEERING SYSTEMS.THE SERPENTINE BELT DRIVES THE POWER STEERING PUMP AND THE VACUUM PUMP FOR THE BRAKE BOOSTER IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.AS STATED IN FORD BULLETIN 93-23-27: SOME DIESEL POWERED VEHICLES ARE EXPERIENCING DRIVE BELT TRACKING CONCERNS.THIS IS CAUSED BY FRONT END ACCESSORY DRIVE (FEAD) MISALIGNMENT, WHICH MAY RESULT IN THE BELT COMING OFF THE ACCESSORY DRIVE PULLEYS.IF THIS OCCURS, SEVERAL WARNING LIGHTS WILL ILLUMINATE AND THE VEHICLE WILL LOSE ALTERNATOR AND A/C FUNCTION AND WATER PUMP CIRCULATION.IN ADDITION, STEERING EFFORTS WILL INCREASE AND, AFTER ONE OR A FEW BRAKE APPLICATIONS, BRAKE EFFORTS WIL PROGRESSIVELY INCREASE. THERE ARE THREE ODI COMPLAINTS AND FIVE FORD COMPLAINTS, NOT INCLUDED IN THE FAILURE REPORT SUMMARY OF THIS RESUME, ALLEGING THAT THE REDUCTIONIN VEHICLE CONTROL ASSOCIATED WITH ACESSORY DRIVE BELT FAILURE RESULTED IN AN ACCIDENT.THIS INVESTIGATION IS BEING UPGRADED TO FURTHER ANALYZE THE POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF SERPENTINE BELT FAILURE IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.

• PEPE94004CLOSEDOpened 1/25/1994
  HYDRAULIC BRAKE LINE CRACKS/LEAKS
  SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC

  There is no summary currently available

• EAEA93022CLOSEDOpened 7/30/1993
  IDLE AIR SPD CTRL VLV MALF
  ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING

  There is no summary currently available

• EAEA93020RECALLOpened 7/28/1993
  PARKING BRAKE FAILURE
  SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC

  There is no summary currently available