NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Wheels complaints
15 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Jan 21, 2026
Wheels
On 11/7/2025, your team completed the Rear Suspension Toe Link Fracture recall repair. However, on 11/13/2025, while driving, I discovered that the rear passenger-side wheel was extremely loose and nearly detached. This was due to the lug nuts not being properly tightened after your service—a severe safety hazard that could have…
Read full complaint
On 11/7/2025, your team completed the Rear Suspension Toe Link Fracture recall repair. However, on 11/13/2025, while driving, I discovered that the rear passenger-side wheel was extremely loose and nearly detached. This was due to the lug nuts not being properly tightened after your service—a severe safety hazard that could have resulted in a catastrophic accident. Because of this negligence, I incurred significant additional expenses and inconvenience: Emergency service from an independent mechanic over the course of a week (11/13–11/17) to secure the wheel and address damage caused by the incident. Replacement of rear knuckle assemblies, hubs, and front struts because the hubs were seized and could not be removed without replacing the knuckles. On 11/29, at a second shop where I replaced two tires, I learned that the vehicle could not be properly aligned because the toe link installed during your recall repair is not adjustable. The mechanic noted that proper alignment requires either camber bolts or an adjustable toe link. As a result, the vehicle remains severely unbalanced and unsafe to drive. Both invoices and mechanic notes confirm the dangerous condition caused by improperly secured lug nuts and the inability to align the vehicle due to the toe link issue.
NHTSA ODI #11712306
150,000 miles · Dec 19, 2024
Traction Control SystemWheels
The contact owns a 2015 Ford Explorer. The contact stated while driving around a curb and while making a turn, the wheels locked up. The traction control warning light was illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the local dealer, where it was diagnosed and determined that the sensor needed to be cleaned. There was no failure with …
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2015 Ford Explorer. The contact stated while driving around a curb and while making a turn, the wheels locked up. The traction control warning light was illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the local dealer, where it was diagnosed and determined that the sensor needed to be cleaned. There was no failure with the wheels. The vehicle was repaired, but the failure recurred. The vehicle was taken back to the local dealer, who was unable to determine the cause of the failure. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was contacted and referred the contact to the dealer for assistance. The approximate failure mileage was 150,000.
NHTSA ODI #11631562
192,260 miles · Oct 3, 2024
Back Over PreventionExterior LightingWheels
The vehicle was sold to me by “Buffalo Auto Sales 2 at 3012 Spencer Hwy Pasadena, TX 77504 on [XXX]. They violated the DTPA and all employees failed to disclose the vehicle had dozens of major safety issues with two open safety recalls. These safety issues include Major ABS issues and failures, Power Steering/drivetrain, front e…
Read full complaint
The vehicle was sold to me by “Buffalo Auto Sales 2 at 3012 Spencer Hwy Pasadena, TX 77504 on [XXX]. They violated the DTPA and all employees failed to disclose the vehicle had dozens of major safety issues with two open safety recalls. These safety issues include Major ABS issues and failures, Power Steering/drivetrain, front end passenger wheel & both rear end wheel failures within the mechanisms such as control arms, tie rods inner and outer & even one within the wheel component that was dangerously bent. The headlight pigtails are torched. These couldn’t even be fixed with even replacement OEM parts/Ford Dealership parts and Ford Dealership expertise. My safety, my children’s safety, family and passengers were all at risk multiple times over the past three weeks. Every time on the highway or local roads not being able to sustain maximum speeds over 20- 40 mph because touching the gas even after a red light would cause the engine to hesitate to turn or stutter. This caused me multiple trips back to Buffalo Auto Sales 2 and multiple mechanics even multiple Ford Dealerships. On September 12th 2024, I discussed these severe safety issues with Buffalo Auto Sales 2, my salesman originally offered to place me into another vehicle, give me back my large cash deposit, or “attempt to fix the vehicle”. The manager immediately refused to do the right thing and claim to “fix the vehicle himself”.. however when I asked if the manager Jeff has experience as a mechanic he replied he does not have mechanic experience. That day they claim to have “fixed” the ABS problem, and in turn the vehicle was still shaking while in motion at any speed. Even after I thought Ford Service could fix the tie rod recall, that still did not work because the rear was still shaking. I had Tire experts and mechanics even change front tires, and do an alignment on September 30th 2024.. The vehicle is still shaking dangerously while in motion. Warnings on are ABS, Chk Engine & Tire Pressure lights. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF IN
NHTSA ODI #11617997
Mileage unknown · Jan 26, 2024
Wheels
I went to dealer and they are not fixing this issue at the moment and they dont know until when are they going to start fixing it.
NHTSA ODI #11568096
Mileage unknown · Jan 24, 2024
SuspensionWheels
This vehicle was recalled twice--2019 and 2022. Each time the rear toe links were replaced. I purchased after the 2022 recall from a Chevy Dealer not knowing of the recalls. In fall of 2023 a left rear wheel came loose causing us to lose control, scary but not life threatening. An independent center replaced the left rear toe …
Read full complaint
This vehicle was recalled twice--2019 and 2022. Each time the rear toe links were replaced. I purchased after the 2022 recall from a Chevy Dealer not knowing of the recalls. In fall of 2023 a left rear wheel came loose causing us to lose control, scary but not life threatening. An independent center replaced the left rear toe link as the part was broken. On [XXX] while on [XXX] expressway the car again went out of control--this time is was scary-the vehicle was out of control going side to side at least 4 times and at one point the vehicle behind us said it was on two wheels. I had the car towed 3 hours back to the repair center and I then started to research recalls and concerns with the Explorer. I found recall information stating this was a problem and that cross axis ball joints and toe links were to be checked and replaced as needed. At the repair shop it was again the toe link that broke. The shop contacted a Ford dealer and got new reinforced toe links and a cross axis ball joint. He feels the vehicle should be okay but I am not sure I want to drive it, nor do I want to sell or trade it in as the next person could be in danger. I have saved the ball joint and the shop would willingly support what happened and what they repaired. I have contacted Ford Motor Company 5 times and basically told there is not a current recall and they are not responsible for repairs. The case number I have with Ford customer relations is [XXX]. Lastly the recall in 2019 21S32 expressed concerns about cars sold in northern U.S. or Canada because salt use can cause the ball joint to corrode and seize resulting in a fracture of the rear toe link. In talking to two Ford dealers in my area neither shared any information or concern about this recall. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11567544
Mileage unknown · Oct 17, 2023
Wheels
Took vehicle to Ford dealer for oil change and tire rotation. Dealer stated that all lug nuts needed to be replaced due to "swelling". Old lug nuts were the type with the aluminum cap over steel. This is a documented design flaw that should be covered by a recall at no expense to owner.
NHTSA ODI #11550531
Mileage unknown · Jan 6, 2023
SuspensionWheelsCrash
The toe-link on the rear-passenger side wheel broke and caused the vehicle to fish-tail uncontrollably before going into the ditch and rolling. My wife was driving with our two sons, 3 & 1 at the time, luckily no one was physically injured apart from some minor bumps and bruises. After the fact, we found out there was a recall o…
Read full complaint
The toe-link on the rear-passenger side wheel broke and caused the vehicle to fish-tail uncontrollably before going into the ditch and rolling. My wife was driving with our two sons, 3 & 1 at the time, luckily no one was physically injured apart from some minor bumps and bruises. After the fact, we found out there was a recall on this specific part and it was repaired but, again, there was a recall on the replacement part. We were never notified, we have friends with the same vehicle that were never notified and are still trying to get the part repaired. Since this part failed and subsequently our vehicle totaled we were forced to buy an older, higher mileage vehicle at an inflated cost. Does Ford bear any responsibility to make this right or does it not matter until there are fatalities?
NHTSA ODI #11500489
44,757 miles · Nov 28, 2020
Wheels
RIGHT FRONT WHEEL BEARING HAD TO BE REPLACED.
NHTSA ODI #11376815
72,000 miles · Sep 9, 2020
Wheels
WHEEL BEARING HUBS ARE BOTH BAD. NOT A CHEAP FIX. OTHER VEHICLES UNDER RECALL FOR THE SAME THING. FORD NEEDS TO ADD MORE VEHICLES AND REIMBURSE THE COST OF THIS FIX. BOTH REAR WHEELS MOVE IN AND OUT WHEN IN THE AIR.ONLY HAD ONE SIDE DONE AT THIS TIME BUT WILL BE RETURNING TO LOCAL MECHANIC TO FIX OTHER SIDE (NOT AS BAD AS THE SI…
Read full complaint
WHEEL BEARING HUBS ARE BOTH BAD. NOT A CHEAP FIX. OTHER VEHICLES UNDER RECALL FOR THE SAME THING. FORD NEEDS TO ADD MORE VEHICLES AND REIMBURSE THE COST OF THIS FIX. BOTH REAR WHEELS MOVE IN AND OUT WHEN IN THE AIR.ONLY HAD ONE SIDE DONE AT THIS TIME BUT WILL BE RETURNING TO LOCAL MECHANIC TO FIX OTHER SIDE (NOT AS BAD AS THE SIDE FIXED).
NHTSA ODI #11354011
49,100 miles · Aug 9, 2019
SteeringWheels
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 FORD EXPLORER. THE CONTACT HEARD A SQUEALING SOUND WHEN TURNING THE VEHICLE IN EITHER DIRECTION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AUTOFAIR FORD IN MANCHESTER (1475 S WILLOW ST, MANCHESTER, NH 03103, (603) 634-1001). THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE SAME DEALER SIX WEEKS BEFORE TO HAVE THE DRIVER'S SIDE WHE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 FORD EXPLORER. THE CONTACT HEARD A SQUEALING SOUND WHEN TURNING THE VEHICLE IN EITHER DIRECTION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AUTOFAIR FORD IN MANCHESTER (1475 S WILLOW ST, MANCHESTER, NH 03103, (603) 634-1001). THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE SAME DEALER SIX WEEKS BEFORE TO HAVE THE DRIVER'S SIDE WHEEL BEARING REPLACED UNDER A WARRANTY. THE DEALER PERFORMED AN 100 POINT INSPECTION AND RECOMMENDED SEVERAL REPAIRS THAT NEEDED TO BE PERFORMED. THE DEALER HAD BEEN AGGRESSIVELY SOLICITING THE CONTACT TO TRADE IN THE VEHICLE AND CHECKED TO SEE IF SHE WANTED TO ACT ON ANY OF THE SERVICE REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS. REGARDING THE SQUEALING NOISE, THE DEALER DIAGNOSED THAT THE ENTIRE RACK AND PINION NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND AN ALIGNMENT WAS NEEDED. THE REPAIRS WOULD COST $2,215. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED ONLINE AND STATED THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL FOR THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 49,100.
NHTSA ODI #11242843
Official recalls
8Oct 13, 2025
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2015-2019 Flex, 2015 Explorer, Lincoln MKT, Lincoln MKZ, 2015-2016 C-Max, Escape, Taurus, 2016 Fusion, 2018-2019 Taurus, 2019 Lincoln MKT, Fiesta, and 2020 Mustang vehicles. The rearview camera may display a distorted, intermittent, or blank image when the vehicle is in reverse.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A rearview camera that fails to properly display an image can reduce the driver’s view behind the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will inspect and replace the rearview camera as necessary, free of charge. This will be a phased campaign, with the remedy becoming available in different phases based on model and model years. Interim letters notifying owners of the safety risk were mailed on October 25, 2025. Additional letters will be mailed once the final remedy is available on each phase. Mustang owner notification letters were mailed January 2, 2026. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 25SA9. Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) involved in this recall became searchable on NHTSA.gov on October 14, 2025.
Jan 19, 2024
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2011-2019 Explorer vehicles. The A-pillar trim retention clips may not be properly engaged, allowing the trim to detach.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A detached trim piece can fall off the vehicle, becoming a road hazard and increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will inspect and replace the A-pillar trim as necessary, free of charge. This will be a phased campaign, with the remedy becoming available in different phases based on model years. Owner notification letters were mailed between July 18, 2024 and December 16, 2025. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 24S02.
Jul 15, 2021
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2013-2017 Explorer vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. Exposure to road salt can cause the cross-axis ball joint to corrode and seize, resulting in a fracture of the outboard section of the rear suspension toe link.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A rear toe-link fracture can result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will inspect and replace as necessary, the cross-axis ball joint (CABJ) knuckle, and replace the rear suspension toe links, free of charge. This recall is an expansion of previous NHTSA recall numbers 16V-245, 19V-435, and 20V-675. Certain vehicles previously repaired will need to return for the new remedy. An interim notification letter notifying owners of the safety risk were mailed on September 10, 2021. Owner notification letters were mailed on March 16, 2022. Owners may contact Ford's customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S32.
Mar 12, 2021
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2013-2017 Explorer vehicles originally sold, or currently registered in Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin that were previously repaired under a prior recall numbers 16V-245 or 19V-435. The outboard section of a rear suspension toe link may fracture.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A rear toe link fracture can result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the cross-axis ball joint (CABJ) knuckle attached to the rear suspension toe link and replace it as necessary, free of charge. The recall began November 27, 2020. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 20S62.
Nov 10, 2020
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2014-2016 Explorer, 2014-2015 Taurus and 2014 Edge vehicles equipped with 2.0L or 2.3L engines and front wheel drive. The support bracket for the front drive axle halfshaft may fail.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: The failed bracket could result in a loss of park function which can cause unintended vehicle movement, and loss of motive power while driving which increases the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the link shaft bracket, free of charge. Parts are not currently available. Owners received an interim notification detailing safety risk December 8, 2020. A second letter will be mailed when parts become available in January 2021. The recall began February 2, 2021. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 20S63.
Jun 10, 2019
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2011-2017 Explorer vehicles. The rear suspension toe links may fracture due to stress on the rear suspension.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A fractured rear toe link will cause a sudden change in vehicle handling and increase the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the rear suspension toe links, and inspect both rear toe link ball joints, replacing the rear wheel knuckle(s), if necessary, free of charge. The recall began June 26, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S17.
Apr 26, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2014-2015 Ford Explorer vehicles manufactured January 17, 2014 to May 31, 2014. The affected vehicles may have improperly welded rear suspension toe links that may fracture.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A fracture of the rear suspension toe link may result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the rear suspension toe links, free of charge. The recall began on November 18, 2016. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S18.
Jul 24, 2015
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2015 Ford Taurus, Ford Flex, and Lincoln MKS vehicles manufactured May 4, 2015, to May 23, 2015, Lincoln MKT vehicles manufactured May 4, 2015, to May 21, 2015, and 2015-2016 Ford Explorer vehicles manufactured May 4, 2015, to May 23, 2015. The affected vehicles have a parking brake that may not fully engage when applied. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) number 135, "Light Vehicle Brake Systems."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the parking brake does not fully engage and the transmission is left in a gear other than 'Park' while on a slope, the vehicle may roll away, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will test the operation of the parking brake system, and if necessary, replace the parking brake control assembly, free of charge. The recall began on September 4, 2015. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 15C07.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
5PE23001 · Windshield Trim Molding Item Detachment
Opened Jan 27, 2023 · Closed Feb 8, 2024
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:roof And Pillars
On January 27, 2023, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE23-001 to investigate allegations of A-pillar trim panel detachment on model year (MY) 2011-2019 Ford Explorer vehicles. At the time of opening, the office had received 164 Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs) reporting this failure. ODI has received 671 VOQs regarding this failure, including 1 alleged crash and 2 alleged injuries. Some consumers have reported that the failure occurred while they were driving at highway speeds, with the detached trim panel entering the path of travel of the vehicle behind them, requiring the driver of the following vehicle to take evasive action. It is noteworthy that motorists who experience this type of road hazard are less likely to accurately identify the subject vehicle the item detached from and report the event to the NHTSA. In its April 17, 2023 response to ODI’s information request, Ford provided 175 consumer complaints (including field reports) and 14,162 warranty claims related to A-pillar trim panel detachment. Ford relayed that the subject vehicles utilize a plastic A-pillar bracket, which is bolted to the vehicle structure during assembly. The A-pillar trim panel is attached to the bracket utilizing 7 plastic clips. Contributory factors which have been identified by Ford as leading to the subject defect include incomplete installation at the assembly plant, inadequate part stack up, damage to fasteners during installation, and failure to follow proper repair procedure during windshield replacements or other services. On January 19, 2024, Ford filed safety recall 24V-031 for MY 2011-2019 Ford Explorer vehicles to address the subject defect. In the Part 573 Safety Recall Report, Ford identified that a detached A-pillar trim panel can create a road hazard for other road users, increasing the risk of a crash. The recall remedy includes an inspection of the existing A-pillar trim panel and, if necessary, the replacement of the component. The remedy A-pillar trim panels will be installed with an additional adhesive for robustness and utilize an inspection procedure to ensure full engagement of all the retention clips during installation. In view of the recall action being taken by Ford, ODI is closing this Preliminary Evaluation. The agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.
EA17002 · Exhaust Odor In Passenger Cab
Opened Jul 27, 2017 · Closed Jan 17, 2023
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System:manifold/header/muffler/tail Pipe; Structure:body
During the EA17-002 investigation, the agency reviewed and analyzed reports of exhaust odors in the passenger cabins of Model Year 2011 to 2017 Ford Explorers. This investigation required an approach that incorporated knowledge and expertise from the automotive, medical, environmental health, and occupational safety fields. The agency conducted an in-depth investigation that encompassed the review of over 6,500 consumer complaints, conducting field inspections, and testing the relevant vehicles, both independently and in coordination with Ford and other entities. During the investigation, the evolution of Ford service bulletins intended to reduce the level of exhaust odors and carbon monoxide (CO) entering the occupant compartment was examined and independent tests to evaluate the effectiveness of the final Field Service Actions (FSA) for both consumer and police vehicles were conducted. As part of the investigation, the agency also examined the effects of cracked exhaust mani-cats on the measured CO levels in the vehicles and tested the FSA repairs to ensure they did not adversely impact occupant compartment CO levels due to cracked mani-cats.The investigation identified upfitting issues for Police Interceptor vehicles. Upfitting (sirens, lights, cages, auxiliary power, etc.) is typically performed by governmental fleet operations, independent repair facilities, or local Ford dealers after the sale of the new vehicle. Sealing issues caused by upfitting were responsible for the highest measured carbon monoxide levels in tested vehicles. The police FSA instructs how to inspect the quality of the vehicle upfits and how to properly seal any leaks caused by these upfits, at no cost to the police agency. Similarly, the highest CO levels measured in consumer vehicles were usually traced to sealing issues caused by rear crash damage where the repairs did not ensure sealing integrity. The most recent Ford FSA procedure for both the police (17B25) and consumer vehicles (17N03) includes an HVAC reprogramming operation. Tests by Ford and NHTSA have demonstrated a substantial reduction of CO levels due solely to the HVAC reprogramming. Other FSA repairs also demonstrated measurable contributions to CO level reductions during controlled tests.Throughout the investigation, vehicles accurately measured with higher levels of carbon monoxide were almost always affected by upfitter alterations, damage, or other causes compromising rear passenger cabin seals.NHTSA received thousands of reports alleging odors which triggered a variety of physiological responses, predominately nausea, headaches, and lightheadedness. NHTSA focused the investigation on accurately measuring vehicle CO levels, and accurately measuring carboxyhemoglobin (COHB) levels from properly administered blood tests. Using rigorous test methods to produce exhaust gas intrusion in vehicles with a properly performed FSA, occupant compartment CO levels remained below current environmental limits for CO in any environment (EPA ambient air quality standards). Furthermore, even without FSA repairs, no vehicles unaffected by upfitter issues or prior crash damage were identified with CO levels that exceed accepted occupational CO exposure levels. This investigation finds that the 2011-2017 Ford Explorer vehicles when accurately measured produce occupant compartment CO levels which fall below current accepted health standards, and could not identify COHB levels for vehicle drivers or other occupants, which exceeded thresholds for acute physiological effects. Therefore, the agency has not identified a defect that represents an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.This inve
Additional source detail variants (2)
Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System:manifold/header/muffler/tail Pipe
During the EA17-002 investigation, the agency reviewed and analyzed reports of exhaust odors in the passenger cabins of Model Year 2011 to 2017 Ford Explorers. This investigation required an approach that incorporated knowledge and expertise from the automotive, medical, environmental health, and occupational safety fields. The agency conducted an in-depth investigation that encompassed the review of over 6,500 consumer complaints, conducting field inspections, and testing the relevant vehicles, both independently and in coordination with Ford and other entities. During the investigation, the evolution of Ford service bulletins intended to reduce the level of exhaust odors and carbon monoxide (CO) entering the occupant compartment was examined and independent tests to evaluate the effectiveness of the final Field Service Actions (FSA) for both consumer and police vehicles were conducted. As part of the investigation, the agency also examined the effects of cracked exhaust mani-cats on the measured CO levels in the vehicles and tested the FSA repairs to ensure they did not adversely impact occupant compartment CO levels due to cracked mani-cats.The investigation identified upfitting issues for Police Interceptor vehicles. Upfitting (sirens, lights, cages, auxiliary power, etc.) is typically performed by governmental fleet operations, independent repair facilities, or local Ford dealers after the sale of the new vehicle. Sealing issues caused by upfitting were responsible for the highest measured carbon monoxide levels in tested vehicles. The police FSA instructs how to inspect the quality of the vehicle upfits and how to properly seal any leaks caused by these upfits, at no cost to the police agency. Similarly, the highest CO levels measured in consumer vehicles were usually traced to sealing issues caused by rear crash damage where the repairs did not ensure sealing integrity. The most recent Ford FSA procedure for both the police (17B25) and consumer vehicles (17N03) includes an HVAC reprogramming operation. Tests by Ford and NHTSA have demonstrated a substantial reduction of CO levels due solely to the HVAC reprogramming. Other FSA repairs also demonstrated measurable contributions to CO level reductions during controlled tests.Throughout the investigation, vehicles accurately measured with higher levels of carbon monoxide were almost always affected by upfitter alterations, damage, or other causes compromising rear passenger cabin seals.NHTSA received thousands of reports alleging odors which triggered a variety of physiological responses, predominately nausea, headaches, and lightheadedness. NHTSA focused the investigation on accurately measuring vehicle CO levels, and accurately measuring carboxyhemoglobin (COHB) levels from properly administered blood tests. Using rigorous test methods to produce exhaust gas intrusion in vehicles with a properly performed FSA, occupant compartment CO levels remained below current environmental limits for CO in any environment (EPA ambient air quality standards). Furthermore, even without FSA repairs, no vehicles unaffected by upfitter issues or prior crash damage were identified with CO levels that exceed accepted occupational CO exposure levels. This investigation finds that the 2011-2017 Ford Explorer vehicles when accurately measured produce occupant compartment CO levels which fall below current accepted health standards, and could not identify COHB levels for vehicle drivers or other occupants, which exceeded thresholds for acute physiological effects. Therefore, the agency has not identified a defect that represents an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.This inve
Structure:body
During the EA17-002 investigation, the agency reviewed and analyzed reports of exhaust odors in the passenger cabins of Model Year 2011 to 2017 Ford Explorers. This investigation required an approach that incorporated knowledge and expertise from the automotive, medical, environmental health, and occupational safety fields. The agency conducted an in-depth investigation that encompassed the review of over 6,500 consumer complaints, conducting field inspections, and testing the relevant vehicles, both independently and in coordination with Ford and other entities. During the investigation, the evolution of Ford service bulletins intended to reduce the level of exhaust odors and carbon monoxide (CO) entering the occupant compartment was examined and independent tests to evaluate the effectiveness of the final Field Service Actions (FSA) for both consumer and police vehicles were conducted. As part of the investigation, the agency also examined the effects of cracked exhaust mani-cats on the measured CO levels in the vehicles and tested the FSA repairs to ensure they did not adversely impact occupant compartment CO levels due to cracked mani-cats.The investigation identified upfitting issues for Police Interceptor vehicles. Upfitting (sirens, lights, cages, auxiliary power, etc.) is typically performed by governmental fleet operations, independent repair facilities, or local Ford dealers after the sale of the new vehicle. Sealing issues caused by upfitting were responsible for the highest measured carbon monoxide levels in tested vehicles. The police FSA instructs how to inspect the quality of the vehicle upfits and how to properly seal any leaks caused by these upfits, at no cost to the police agency. Similarly, the highest CO levels measured in consumer vehicles were usually traced to sealing issues caused by rear crash damage where the repairs did not ensure sealing integrity. The most recent Ford FSA procedure for both the police (17B25) and consumer vehicles (17N03) includes an HVAC reprogramming operation. Tests by Ford and NHTSA have demonstrated a substantial reduction of CO levels due solely to the HVAC reprogramming. Other FSA repairs also demonstrated measurable contributions to CO level reductions during controlled tests.Throughout the investigation, vehicles accurately measured with higher levels of carbon monoxide were almost always affected by upfitter alterations, damage, or other causes compromising rear passenger cabin seals.NHTSA received thousands of reports alleging odors which triggered a variety of physiological responses, predominately nausea, headaches, and lightheadedness. NHTSA focused the investigation on accurately measuring vehicle CO levels, and accurately measuring carboxyhemoglobin (COHB) levels from properly administered blood tests. Using rigorous test methods to produce exhaust gas intrusion in vehicles with a properly performed FSA, occupant compartment CO levels remained below current environmental limits for CO in any environment (EPA ambient air quality standards). Furthermore, even without FSA repairs, no vehicles unaffected by upfitter issues or prior crash damage were identified with CO levels that exceed accepted occupational CO exposure levels. This investigation finds that the 2011-2017 Ford Explorer vehicles when accurately measured produce occupant compartment CO levels which fall below current accepted health standards, and could not identify COHB levels for vehicle drivers or other occupants, which exceeded thresholds for acute physiological effects. Therefore, the agency has not identified a defect that represents an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.This inve
PE16008 · Ford Explorer Exhaust Odor
Opened Jul 1, 2016 · Closed Sep 12, 2017
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System; Structure:body
During the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?s (NHTSA?s) investigation into the Ford carbon monoxide allegations, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) identified additional Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) reports with similar exhaust odor claims.Presently, ODI has identified 791 VOQs for Model Year 2011-2017 Ford Explorers pertaining to exhaust odor claims.ODI has identified three crashes and 41 injuries potentially linked this issue.The reported injuries range from unspecified to loss of consciousness, with the majority being nausea, headaches, or dizziness ? all of which can be symptomatic of carbon monoxide exposure.Additionally, Ford provided 2,400 reports including owner complaints, warranty claims, dealer field reports, and legal claims, that involve 2,051 vehicles that may be connected to the exhaust odor issue.NHTSA's Vehicle Test and Research Center tested multiple vehicles, including complaint vehicles, during the investigation.ODI also conducted field inspections of complaint vehicles and crashes involving police units that occurred while the officers were on duty.When possible, data was collected to quantify carbon monoxide levels in the examined vehicles.Based on the information gathered to date, NHTSA upgraded this investigation to an Engineering Analysis (EA17-002).
Additional source detail variants (2)
Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System
During the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?s (NHTSA?s) investigation into the Ford carbon monoxide allegations, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) identified additional Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) reports with similar exhaust odor claims.Presently, ODI has identified 791 VOQs for Model Year 2011-2017 Ford Explorers pertaining to exhaust odor claims.ODI has identified three crashes and 41 injuries potentially linked this issue.The reported injuries range from unspecified to loss of consciousness, with the majority being nausea, headaches, or dizziness ? all of which can be symptomatic of carbon monoxide exposure.Additionally, Ford provided 2,400 reports including owner complaints, warranty claims, dealer field reports, and legal claims, that involve 2,051 vehicles that may be connected to the exhaust odor issue.NHTSA's Vehicle Test and Research Center tested multiple vehicles, including complaint vehicles, during the investigation.ODI also conducted field inspections of complaint vehicles and crashes involving police units that occurred while the officers were on duty.When possible, data was collected to quantify carbon monoxide levels in the examined vehicles.Based on the information gathered to date, NHTSA upgraded this investigation to an Engineering Analysis (EA17-002).
Structure:body
During the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?s (NHTSA?s) investigation into the Ford carbon monoxide allegations, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) identified additional Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) reports with similar exhaust odor claims.Presently, ODI has identified 791 VOQs for Model Year 2011-2017 Ford Explorers pertaining to exhaust odor claims.ODI has identified three crashes and 41 injuries potentially linked this issue.The reported injuries range from unspecified to loss of consciousness, with the majority being nausea, headaches, or dizziness ? all of which can be symptomatic of carbon monoxide exposure.Additionally, Ford provided 2,400 reports including owner complaints, warranty claims, dealer field reports, and legal claims, that involve 2,051 vehicles that may be connected to the exhaust odor issue.NHTSA's Vehicle Test and Research Center tested multiple vehicles, including complaint vehicles, during the investigation.ODI also conducted field inspections of complaint vehicles and crashes involving police units that occurred while the officers were on duty.When possible, data was collected to quantify carbon monoxide levels in the examined vehicles.Based on the information gathered to date, NHTSA upgraded this investigation to an Engineering Analysis (EA17-002).
EA15005 · Front Brake Hose Failure
Opened Sep 28, 2015 · Closed Nov 2, 2018
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
On April 29, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE15-017 to investigate a report alleging incidents of front brake hose failure in model year (MY) 2015 Ford Explorer Police Interceptor vehicles used by the Sacramento Police Department in its pursuit driving training program (VOQ 10705832).On September 28, 2015, ODI upgraded the investigation to an Engineering Analysis (EA15-005) to assess maximum front caliper crimp temperatures under various test conditions, test hose assemblies removed from police interceptor service for any signs of thermal degradation, and further assess field data for evidence of a defect trend related to the alleged defect.The alleged defect results from exposure to extremely high heat at the caliper-side hose crimp. NHTSA?s vehicle testing suggests that the conditions necessary to produce the critical temperatures in the subject components result from drive-soak intervals that can occur during the Sacramento training program.NHTSA's testing of hose assemblies returned from police interceptor service did not identify any evidence of thermal degradation.NHTSA has not confirmed any incidents of caliper crimp failures due to overheating in vehicles not subjected to the Sacramento training course driving.The low number of hose assembly failure reports and the absence of any verified incidents of heat related front brake hose crimp failures since 2015 suggests that the Sacramento PD incidents resulted from conditions unique to the training program.A safety related defect trend has not been identified at this time and further use of Agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, 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 take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For additional information, see the Closing Report in the document file for EA15-005 on www.nhtsa.gov.
PE15017 · Front Brake Hose Failure
Opened Apr 29, 2015 · Closed Sep 28, 2015
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
On April 29, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE15-017 to investigate reports of low-mileage failures of front brake jounce hoses in model year (MY) 2015 Ford Explorer Police Interceptor vehicles operated as training vehicles by the City of Sacramento, California (ODI VOQ No. 10705832). To date, the Sacramento police fleet has reported a total of 7 front hose failures in 5 different Explorer Police Interceptor vehicles used for its Emergency Vehicle Operation Course (EVOC) training. Most of the failures occurred within the first few miles of service on a closed course used for the EVOC program, which includes evasive accident avoidance and pursuit maneuver training. The hose assemblies either leaked at, or pulled completely free from, the caliper-end attachment where the hose is crimped to the steel end fitting. Most of the failures resulted in a sudden loss of braking performance that caused the vehicle to run off the intended course. None of the failures resulted in any crashes, injuries or property damage.The subject MY 2015 hose assemblies are similar in design to hoses used on MY 2013 through 2014 Explorer Police Interceptor and civilian vehicles. The 5 vehicles used by Sacramento EVOC have all been repaired using MY 2016 front hose assemblies that have been changed to incorporate a short steel tube attached to the caliper end banjo block. No failures have been experienced by the Sacramento fleet to date in the other 37 MY 2014-2015 Explorer Police Interceptor vehicles (2 MY 2014 and 35 MY 2015) used by the fleet in regular law enforcement duty cycles unrelated to the EVOC training. In its response to ODI's information request letter for PE15-017, Ford provided information about 2 additional failures reported by other fleets, including 1 involving a Sacramento Regional Transit vehicle that occurred while being driven on the street.Based on its analysis of failed parts returned from the Sacramento fleet and the fleet's EVOC training duty cycle, Ford attributes the Sacramento fleet hose failures to excessive temperatures produced during hot-soak portions of the EVOC training duty cycle (when the vehicles are stationary after hard braking exercises, with no cooling air flow through the brake rotor vents and across the other brake components). During testing conducted to replicate the EVOC duty cycle, Ford measured temperatures at the subject crimp fittings that exceeded the design limits of the brake hose material after several successive training intervals and hot soaks. Ford has provided the Sacramento fleet with modified replacement hose assemblies for all of its MY 2014-15 Explorer Police Interceptor vehicles. The replacement hose assemblies were developed for use in MY 2016 Explorer vehicles and were modified slightly to accommodate the addition of a ride height sensor in those vehicles. The revised assemblies have an additional length of brake pipe between the caliper end connection and the subject crimp ferrule that results in additional heat dissipation and makes the assemblies more robust to the severe thermal effects experienced during the EVOC testing (the hose material is the same in both assemblies). Ford believes that the excessive temperatures experienced at the crimp fitting in the subject vehicles are unique to the EVOC duty cycle, have not been observed in the standard on-road severe duty cycle testing performed by Ford and police fleets who routinely conduct such testing and are not likely to occur in service usage for on-road Explorer Police Interceptor vehicles.This preliminary evaluation is closed, an Engineering Analysis (EA15-005) has been opened to conduct testing and further
Illustration