Ford E-350 Investigations

18 ODI actions on file.

• DPDP26011OPENOpened 10/23/2026
  Camshaft and Lifter Failure in Ford 7.3L Gasoline Engines
  ENGINE

  The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a petition on June 13, 2026, requesting an investigation into camshaft and lifter failures in Ford 7.3L gasoline engines used in 2021-2022 Ford E-350 and 2021 Ford F59 and F-750 vehicles. The Petitioner alleges that insufficient oil lubrication at low idle (~6 psi) causes severe wear on lifter rollers and camshaft lobes, leading to catastrophic engine failure and sudden loss of motive power while driving at highway speeds with little to no warning. The petition further alleges that Ford Motor Company was aware of the root cause and released a software calibration patch raising idle speed to ~1,000 RPM, but failed to initiate a public safety recall or notify vehicle owners. The petition itself can be reviewed at NHTSA.gov under ODI number 11764421. This defect petition has been opened to evaluate the issue and determine whether to grant or deny the petition.

• RQRQ24003CLOSEDOpened 2/27/2024
  Loss of Power Brake/Steering Assist Post Recall 22V089 Inspection.
  SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC:POWER ASSIST

  The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Recall Query (RQ) 24003 on February 27, 2024, to evaluate the scope and remedy effectiveness of NHTSA recall 24V097. On February 16, 2022, Ford Motor Company (Ford) issued a safety recall, NHTSA recall 22V089, for certain 2021-2022 Ford E-350 and E-450 vehicles equipped with dual rear wheels. According to the filing, specific hydraulic lines could leak resulting in a sudden loss of power steering and power brake assist, increasing the risk of a crash. The remedy involved a dealer inspection of the lines and their replacement as necessary. Only vehicles that failed the inspection received updated parts. On February 9, 2024, Ford issued a new recall, NHTSA recall 24V097, to replace the specific hydraulic lines on any vehicle that had not yet been inspected and on any vehicle which had passed inspection within the previous twelve months. However, vehicles which had passed the inspection more than twelve months ago would not be included within the scope of the new recall, as Ford deemed them to have a low likelihood of failure. ODI opened this RQ to better understand Ford's scoping of recall 24V097, specifically concerning the inspected-only vehicles not included in the new recall filing. ODI sent Ford an information request letter on April 18, 2024. Ford responded, in full, on May 31, 2024. ODI reviewed Ford's data which showed that the vehicles not included in the new recall had a predicted failure rate of less than 0.25% within 10 years from the date of inspection. By comparison, the vehicles included in the new filing have had a failure rate of approximately 2% prior to being recalled again. ODI analysis of complaint and warranty data further supports Ford's assessment that vehicles that passed inspection more than twelve months prior to recall 24V097 are unlikely to experience the defect condition. ODI is closing this RQ without a manufacturer action. 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 Opening Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.

• PEPE18010RECALLOpened 8/21/2018
  Internal transmission failure
  POWER TRAIN:AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION

  By letter dated June 10, 2019, Ford Motor Company notified the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) of a safety defect that may exist in certain model year (MY) 2009 through 2016 Ford Econoline vehicles equipped with a 5R110W transmission. Following the receipt of consumer complaints alleging transmission failures in vehicles built with a 5R110W transmission, NHTSA opened this investigation to assess the manufacturer's data including warranty claims, field reports, design changes, etc.Vehicles equipped with a 5R110W transmission contain a capacitive discharge weld within a coast clutch component in the transmission. A substandard weld may fatigue and fail, causing an elevated rate of loss of motive power in subject vehicle applications. Reports indicate that most of the weld failures occur when the torque is highest, which is when the driver attempts to accelerate from a stop.Analysis of the data provided by Ford Motor Company found that the risk of a transmission failure is very high in vehicles equipped with the combination of a W-MOD 5.4L SOHC EFI NA V8 G-NP engine and a 5R110W transmission. This vehicle population mainly consists of school buses and ambulances. A loss of mobility in school bus applications may result in the transfer of children when the vehicle is immobilized in a roadway, and a loss of vehicle mobility in ambulance applications may result in the delay of patient treatment.In response to this investigation, Ford Motor Company agreed to conduct recall 19V-432. Owners will be notified by mail and instructed to take their vehicle to a Ford or Lincoln dealer to have the coast clutch cylinder replaced and to replace the single-engaging coast one-way clutch with a dual-engaging one-way clutch. With recall action 19V-432 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.

• EAEA10003CLOSEDOpened 4/13/2010
  HVAC Switch Failures
  ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:WIRING:INTERIOR/UNDER DASH

  This investigation was opened based on one complaint and reports from four transportation fleets alleging 182 blower motor control switch failures.ODI was concerned that these melting and burning switches could lead to an open flame that could spread throughout the vehicle.After a comprehensive review of all data related to overheating blower motor control switches in the subject vehicles, ODI did not identify the existence of a safety defect trend.ODI reviewed 1,036 complaints, claims, and field reports of failed blower motor control switches and determined that only two fires were likely to have been caused by a failing subject blower motor control switch.This represents a failure rate of 0.2 R/100K on a population of 1,076,975 vehicles that have been in service for up to 14 years.ODI has found that when the subject switches do fail and begin to melt, they are constructed in a manner that typically prevents the failing switch from igniting and developing into an open flame.Ford Motor Company has agreed to take two actions to further reduce the likelihood an overheated blower motor switch in the subject vehicles.Ford informed ODI that it has implemented a series of design changes to the subject switch that will help prevent it from developing internal high resistance short circuits.Ford has also informed ODI that it would release a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB-11-11-21) instructing subject vehicle owners to replace the electrical connector at the same time a failed switch is replaced.In light of the low rate of failure resulting in open flame and fire spread on the subject vehicles, and Ford's actions to reduce the likelihood of a switch failure through switch design changes and a TSB, 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.The ODI complaints cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following (ODI) numbers: 10427875, 10114393, 10257890For additional information, see the attached closing report.

• PEPE09055CLOSEDOpened 12/7/2009
  HVAC Switch Failures
  ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:WIRING:INTERIOR/UNDER DASH

  ODI has received 1 complaint and reports from 4 transportation fleets alleging 182 switch failures.Each fleet operates mini buses built on a Ford E350 or E450 cutaway chassis.The OEM HVAC blower switches have melted, smoked, burned or experienced open flame and become inoperable on vehicles in each fleet.Some drivers have reported a burning smell or smoke coming from the dash.One fleet reported a vehicle fire.No injuries were sustained.However, the bus was carrying special needs children when the driver noticed smoke coming from the dash.The driver was able to evacuate the children prior to the vehicle becoming engulfed in flames.This PE has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA) to determine if the blower motor switch failures create a situation where a vehicle fire is possible and presents a safety risk to the driver and other passengers.

• 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.

• PEPE02070CLOSEDOpened 10/1/2002
  ALLEGED BRAKE HOSE FAILURES
  SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC

  FORD HAS RECEIVED NO OWNER REPORTS OF FAILURE, OTHER THAN THE FOUR ODI REPORTS THAT CAME FROM A SINGLE FLEET IN NEW YORK STATE.FORD ALSO REPORTS THAT IT HAS RECEIVED NO FIELD REPORTS AND DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY WARRANTY CLAIMS ALLEGING THE SUBJECT PROBLEM.FORD ESTIMATES THAT THE 86,910 SUBJECT VEHICLES (THAT HAVE OVER 6 YEARS EXPOSURE), HAVE ACCUMULATED OVER SIX BILLION MILES OF SERVICE AND THAT THE VIRTUAL LACK OF REPORTS INDICATES THAT THERE IS NO DEFECT TREND.BASED ON FORD'S DATA, A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND DOES NOT APPEAR TO EXIST AT THIS TIME AND 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 ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.ODI WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR FIELD REPORTS FOR THIS PROBLEM AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF INDICATED.

• 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.

• PEPE99047CLOSEDOpened 7/12/1999
  BLOW BACK DURING REFUELING
  VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:LINKAGES

  There is no summary currently available

• OTHERSQ99005CLOSEDOpened 2/10/1999
  FRONT BRAKE FADE
  SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC

  FRONT BRAKES CAN FADE

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

  AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CLOSING REPORT IS INCLUDED.

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

  There is no summary currently available

• EAEA93014CLOSEDOpened 6/4/1993
  ALTERNATOR BELT FAILURE
  ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

  There is no summary currently available

• PEPE93015CLOSEDOpened 3/9/1993
  PARKING BRAKE FAILURE
  SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC

  There is no summary currently available

• EAEA91044RECALLOpened 10/30/1991
  LOSS OF BRAKE EFFECTIVENES
  SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC

  ===

• EAEA91031RECALLOpened 6/26/1991
  FUEL EXPULSION
  VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:LINKAGES

  There is no summary currently available

• PEPE91077CLOSEDOpened 5/23/1991
  LOSS OF BRAKE EFFECTIVENES
  SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC

  There is no summary currently available

• PEPE91064CLOSEDOpened 4/9/1991
  TRANSMISSION FLUID FIRES
  POWER TRAIN

  There is no summary currently available