← New search

2013 Ford F-150

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most F-150 years

Owner complaints for the 2013 Ford F-150 are substantially higher than the model-year median of 676.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

2,215 reports with mileage · 765 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Power Train. Review the 1,335 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine. Review the 547 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 322 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

77 crash reports35 fire reports53 injury reports

Electrical System complaints

322 reports
Clear category filter
53,000 miles · Aug 12, 2015
Electrical SystemEngine

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 FORD F-150. WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO RESTART; HOWEVER, THE FAILURE IMMEDIATELY RECURRED. THE FAILURE OCCURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 53,0…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 FORD F-150. WHILE DRIVING AT AN UNKNOWN SPEED, THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO RESTART; HOWEVER, THE FAILURE IMMEDIATELY RECURRED. THE FAILURE OCCURRED INTERMITTENTLY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 53,000.

NHTSA ODI #10748121

45,000 miles · May 29, 2015
Electrical SystemEngine

VEHICLE HESITATION WITH JERKING AND LOSS OF MOMENTUM WHEN LIGHTLY ACCELERATING AT SPEEDS BETWEEN 60 MPH AND 70 MPH WHEN HOT. DEALER DETERMINED THIS WAS CAUSED BY THE SPARK PLUGS AND BOOTS AND CHANGED THEM OUT AT 48K MILES. DEALER MAINTENANCE BOOK LISTS CHANGING OUT THE SPARK PLUGS AND BOOTS AT 100K MILES WHICH A GROSS UNDERESTIM…

Read full complaint

VEHICLE HESITATION WITH JERKING AND LOSS OF MOMENTUM WHEN LIGHTLY ACCELERATING AT SPEEDS BETWEEN 60 MPH AND 70 MPH WHEN HOT. DEALER DETERMINED THIS WAS CAUSED BY THE SPARK PLUGS AND BOOTS AND CHANGED THEM OUT AT 48K MILES. DEALER MAINTENANCE BOOK LISTS CHANGING OUT THE SPARK PLUGS AND BOOTS AT 100K MILES WHICH A GROSS UNDERESTIMATED MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE. THIS IS MISS LEADING TO THE BUYER FOR EXPECTED REPAIR COSTS AND DANGEROUS FOR THE OWNER WHILE ON THE ROAD AND DANGEROUS TO OTHER MOTORIST BECAUSE OF THE UNEXPECTED LOSS OF MOMENTUM AND JERKING OF THE VEHICLE.

NHTSA ODI #10722161

29,701 miles · Apr 13, 2015
Electrical System

I HAD JUST EXITED THE FREEWAY AND WAS AT A RED LIGHT WHEN THE TRUCK MESSAGE BOARD READ SHIFT TO PARK , I DID THAT AND THE TRUCK BASICALLY SHUT DOWN , FLASHING BOTH A SERVICE ADVANCETRAC MESSAGE AS WELL AS A START SYSTEM FAULT MESSAGE. THE HAZARD LIGHTS WOULD NOT WORK NOR ANY SIGNAL IN THE VEHICLE, THE RADIO, DOME LIGHTS WORKED B…

Read full complaint

I HAD JUST EXITED THE FREEWAY AND WAS AT A RED LIGHT WHEN THE TRUCK MESSAGE BOARD READ SHIFT TO PARK , I DID THAT AND THE TRUCK BASICALLY SHUT DOWN , FLASHING BOTH A SERVICE ADVANCETRAC MESSAGE AS WELL AS A START SYSTEM FAULT MESSAGE. THE HAZARD LIGHTS WOULD NOT WORK NOR ANY SIGNAL IN THE VEHICLE, THE RADIO, DOME LIGHTS WORKED BUT THE KEYLESS REMOTE KEYS WERE NOT WORKING. SO WE CALLED FORD ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE AND WAS STUCK ON THE BOTTOM OF A FREEWAY OFF RAMP FOR 3 HOURS WITH NO HAZARD LIGHTS FUNCTIONAL I HAD TO POP THE HOOD AND OPEN MY DRIVER SIDE DOOR AND STAND OUTSIDE OF THE TRUCK TO LET OTHER DRIVERS KNOW WE WERE STALLED IT WAS A VERY NERVE RACKING EXPERIENCE I'M JUST THANKFUL NOBODY HIT US AS WERE BASICALLY JUST SITTING DUCKS AT THE BOTTOM OF A BUSY FREEWAY OFF RAMP. PLEASE FIX THIS ISSUE BEFORE SOME ONE GETS KILLED.

NHTSA ODI #10705336

29,000 miles · Mar 29, 2015
Electrical System

THE BACK RIGHT DRIVERS SIDE REAR WINDOW SHATTERED DUE TO THE WIRING OR THE REAR WINDOW DEFROSTER.THIS HAS HAPPENED TWICE ON 12/10/14 AND 3/27/15.THIS IS A KNOWN DEFECT THAT FORD HAS NOT ADDRESSED YET. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10702396

300 miles · Mar 13, 2015
Electrical System

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 FORD FORD F-150. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. AFTER SHIFTING INTO THE NEUTRAL POSITION, THE VEHICLE RESTARTED AND RESUMED NORMAL OPERATION. THE FAILURE RECURRED FIVE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER TWICE FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. A FLASH UPDATE WAS …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 FORD FORD F-150. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 15 MPH, THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT WARNING. AFTER SHIFTING INTO THE NEUTRAL POSITION, THE VEHICLE RESTARTED AND RESUMED NORMAL OPERATION. THE FAILURE RECURRED FIVE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER TWICE FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING. A FLASH UPDATE WAS PERFORMED ON THE CPU EACH TIME THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER; HOWEVER, THE FAILURE PERSISTED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 300.

NHTSA ODI #10694104

11,000 miles · Mar 6, 2015
Electrical System

MY FIRST INCIDENT ON MY TRUCK WAS TOTAL LOSS OF POWER STEERING WITH NO WARNING, DEALER SAID IT WAS ELECTRICAL ISSUE. NEXT WAS STOPPED AT A LIGHT AND MY REAR WINDOW SHATTERED, GLASS COMPANY SAID THEY HAVE DONE A TON OF THESE AND WAS DUE TO A SHORT IN REAR DEFROST CAUSING THE WINDOW TO SHATTER? FORD DEALER STATED THEY DIDN'T KNOW …

Read full complaint

MY FIRST INCIDENT ON MY TRUCK WAS TOTAL LOSS OF POWER STEERING WITH NO WARNING, DEALER SAID IT WAS ELECTRICAL ISSUE. NEXT WAS STOPPED AT A LIGHT AND MY REAR WINDOW SHATTERED, GLASS COMPANY SAID THEY HAVE DONE A TON OF THESE AND WAS DUE TO A SHORT IN REAR DEFROST CAUSING THE WINDOW TO SHATTER? FORD DEALER STATED THEY DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE WARRANTED THAT SEND IN S PHOTO TO FORD TO BE DETERMINED WARRANTY OR NOT ? *TR

NHTSA ODI #10692658

14,500 miles · Mar 3, 2015
Electrical System

MY 2013 FORD F150 HAS HAD TWO DEAD BATTERIES SINCE I PURCHASED IN JULY OF 2013 BRAND NEW. THE FIRST ONE HAPPENED NOV OF 2014, THEY PUT IN A NEW BATTERY AND THE SECOND IN FEB 2015 FORD DEALER CAN'T SEEM TO FIND ANYTHING WRONG SO THEY BASICALLY JUST PUT IN A NEW BATTERY, CURRENTLY 15K MILES. ., BUT THERE IS A POWER DRAW SOMEWHERE.…

Read full complaint

MY 2013 FORD F150 HAS HAD TWO DEAD BATTERIES SINCE I PURCHASED IN JULY OF 2013 BRAND NEW. THE FIRST ONE HAPPENED NOV OF 2014, THEY PUT IN A NEW BATTERY AND THE SECOND IN FEB 2015 FORD DEALER CAN'T SEEM TO FIND ANYTHING WRONG SO THEY BASICALLY JUST PUT IN A NEW BATTERY, CURRENTLY 15K MILES. ., BUT THERE IS A POWER DRAW SOMEWHERE. THIS CAN LEAVE ME AND MY FAMILY STRANDED SOME WHERE, NOT SAFE! *TR

NHTSA ODI #10691831

5,000 miles · Jan 20, 2015
Electrical SystemEngineEquipment Adaptive/mobility

VEHICLE WOULD REPEAT LAW BATTERY MESSAGE. TOOK TO DEALER BATTERY TESTS GOOD. VEHICLE WOULD SOMETIMES DIE OVERNIGHT WITH A NO START CONDITION IN MOURNING. 6 DEALER VISITS AND ONE NEW BATTERY, "NO PROBLEM FOUND" FROM DEALER. THIS VEHICLE COULD STRAND YOU AT ANY TIME. I HAVE A OPEN CASE FROM FORD BUT PROBLEM CONTINUES. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10676722

18,762 miles · Dec 22, 2014
Electrical SystemStructureVisibility

I STARTED MY TRUCK WITH REMOTE START TO WARM UP WHEN I GOT IN TRUCK I TURNED THE REAR DEFROST ON AND MY DRIVERS SIDE BACK GLASS SHATTERED TEMPERATURE OUT WAS 42DEGREES TRUCK WAS IN GARAGE MY LITTLE GIRL WAS IN CAR SEAT IN THE MIDDLE WHAT IF GLASS WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IT HER EYES JUST GLADE IT SHATTERED AND DIDN'T BLOW UP. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10667557

15,000 miles · Dec 18, 2014
Electrical SystemStructureVisibility/wiper

USING THE FACTORY REMOTE, I STARTED THE 2013 FORD F150 FOR FIRST TIME OF THE DAY 12/18/14 AND ENTERED VEHICLE 5 MINUTES LATER. PUT KEY IN COLUMN IGNITION. DID NOT TOUCH ANY CONTROLS. WITH THE TRANSMISSION STILL IN PARK, A VERY LOUD NOISE OCCURRED. ONE SECTION OF THE REAR WINDOW / BACKLITE HAD SHATTERED TOP TO BOTTOM, EDGE TO EDG…

Read full complaint

USING THE FACTORY REMOTE, I STARTED THE 2013 FORD F150 FOR FIRST TIME OF THE DAY 12/18/14 AND ENTERED VEHICLE 5 MINUTES LATER. PUT KEY IN COLUMN IGNITION. DID NOT TOUCH ANY CONTROLS. WITH THE TRANSMISSION STILL IN PARK, A VERY LOUD NOISE OCCURRED. ONE SECTION OF THE REAR WINDOW / BACKLITE HAD SHATTERED TOP TO BOTTOM, EDGE TO EDGE. THE OUTDOOR TEMPERATURE WAS 24F, THE HEAT SETTING WAS 67F. VEHICLE WAS BACKED INTO DRIVEWAY WITH GARAGE BEHIND. NOTHING COULD HAVE HIT THE WINDOW FROM THE OUTSIDE AND THE VEHICLE HADN'T MOVED, YET THE GLASS PRACTICALLY EXPLODED. THERE ARE DOZENS OF VERY SIMILAR EXPERIENCES SHARED ON SEVERAL INTERNET FORUMS INVOLVING YEARS 2010 FORWARD OF THE SAME MODEL TRUCK -- SAME GENERATION. FORD HAS NOT CREATED A TSB AND THERE ISN'T A RECALL, AND FORD HAS MADE NO INDICATION THAT THEY WILL DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THEY REFERRED ME BACK TO A DEALER TO DOCUMENT THE DAMAGE. LOCAL FORD DEALER TOLD ME AFTERWARD THAT THE REAR WINDOW DEFROST TURNS ON AUTOMATICALLY WITH THE REMOTE START FEATURE. NOW DRIVER VISIBILITY IS OBSCURED AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE ELECTRICAL HEATING ELEMENT. REPORTEDLY FIRES HAVE OCCURRED WITH THIS SITUATION. I WON'T BE USING THE REAR DEFROST UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES -- EVEN IN NORTHERN ILLINOIS, IN THE WINTER. IT SEEMS MOST OWNERS HAVE BEEN DENIED WARRANTY CLAIMS BECAUSE FORD STATED THE DAMAGE WAS TO GLASS, WHICH ISN'T COVERED UNDER THE WARRANTY. THE GLASS ISN'T THE PROBLEM, ITS THE EVIDENCE. FORD SAID IT IS UP TO THE DEALER TO DETERMINE IF THE DAMAGE IS DUE TO A MANUFACTURER'S DEFECT TO GET REPLACEMENT UNDER WARRANTY. THE DEALER SERVICE MANAGER TOLD ME THEY SUBMIT A WARRANTY CLAIM WITH PHOTOS TO FORD WHICH WILL EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THE CLAIM. THE DEALER QUOTED $800.00 INSTALLED TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE BACKLITE ASSEMBLY. THE TWO DIFFERENT STORIES ARE TROUBLING. I'M ALREADY PREPARING MYSELF FOR THE RUN-AROUND. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10667155

Official recalls

3

19V433000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission; Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)

Jun 10, 2019

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2013 F-150 vehicles equipped with 5.0L or 6.2L gasoline engines, that previously had the powertrain control module (PCM) software reprogrammed under recall 19V-075. The software used to reprogram the PCM did not have the necessary updates to prevent the transmission from unexpectedly downshifting into first gear, regardless of vehicle speed.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: Unexpectedly downshifting into first gear may result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will reprogram the powertrain control module, free of charge. The recall began June 24, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S19.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2013 F-150 vehicles equipped with 5.0L or 6.2L gasoline engines, that previously had the powertrain control module (PCM) software reprogrammed under recall 19V-075. The software used to reprogram the PCM did not have the necessary updates to prevent the transmission from unexpectedly downshifting into first gear, regardless of vehicle speed.

Consequence: Unexpectedly downshifting into first gear may result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will reprogram the powertrain control module, free of charge. The recall began June 24, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S19.

Power Train:automatic Transmission

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2013 F-150 vehicles equipped with 5.0L or 6.2L gasoline engines, that previously had the powertrain control module (PCM) software reprogrammed under recall 19V-075. The software used to reprogram the PCM did not have the necessary updates to prevent the transmission from unexpectedly downshifting into first gear, regardless of vehicle speed.

Consequence: Unexpectedly downshifting into first gear may result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will reprogram the powertrain control module, free of charge. The recall began June 24, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S19.

19V075000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission; Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)

Feb 11, 2019

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2011-2013 F-150 vehicles equipped with a 6-speed automatic transmission. The transmission may unexpectedly downshift into first gear, regardless of vehicle speed.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: Unexpectedly downshifting into first gear may result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will reprogram the powertrain control module, free of charge. The recall began March 4, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S07.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2011-2013 F-150 vehicles equipped with a 6-speed automatic transmission. The transmission may unexpectedly downshift into first gear, regardless of vehicle speed.

Consequence: Unexpectedly downshifting into first gear may result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will reprogram the powertrain control module, free of charge. The recall began March 4, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S07.

Power Train:automatic Transmission

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2011-2013 F-150 vehicles equipped with a 6-speed automatic transmission. The transmission may unexpectedly downshift into first gear, regardless of vehicle speed.

Consequence: Unexpectedly downshifting into first gear may result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will reprogram the powertrain control module, free of charge. The recall began March 4, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S07.

16V345000 · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid

May 24, 2016

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2013-2014 F-150 vehicles manufactured August 1, 2013, to August 31, 2014 equipped with 3.5L engines. The master cylinder rear cup seal may roll, resulting in brake fluid leakage from the primary reservoir into the brake booster.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: Loss of brake fluid from the primary reservoir results in a complete loss of front brake function, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the brake master cylinder and, if necessary, the brake booster, free of charge. The recall began on October 28, 2016. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S24.

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

3

RQ17010 · Unexpected Transmission Downshift

Opened Dec 25, 2017 · Closed Oct 22, 2019

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Power Train:automatic Transmission; Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation based on consumer allegations of transmissions unexpectedly downshifting to a lower gear without input from the driver on model year (MY) 2011-2013 Ford F-150, Expedition and Navigator vehicles. ODI has received 455 unique reports related to the alleged problem that were not covered under a previous recall for this issue (16V-248).Expedition and Navigator complaint rates are lower than F-150 complaints. Of those 455 reports, 34.7% claimed that the rear wheels locked up when the transmission downshifted. There were 4 accident claims with no injuries. There are many instances where drivers report leaving their lane or the road because of this issue.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 783 unique reports related to the alleged problem. There were 6 accident claims with 3 injuries. Ford also submitted 1206 warranty claims related to transmission downshifting failures. The failure can occur at any time, but typically at higher speed, and include symptoms such as sudden transmission downshifting, loss of speedometer, erratic shifting of transmission, and transmission stuck in one gear. The failures typically occur without warning and may result in the rear wheels momentarily locking up. The driver often had to fully stop the vehicle and restart it to get the vehicle to shift properly.On February 2nd, 2019 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (19V-075) to remedy transmission downshifting failures on all 2011-2013 F-150 vehicles. Ford will also offer extended warranties to 2011-2013 Expedition and Navigator vehicles with the same issue. Per Ford, some vehicles may experience an intermittent loss of Transmission Output Speed Sensor (OSS) signal to the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), potentially resulting in a temporary unintended downshift into first gear. Ford will reprogram the PCM with software that will prevent an unintended downshift into first gear and illuminate the Malfunction Indicator Light in the event of an intermittent OSS signal loss.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation based on consumer allegations of transmissions unexpectedly downshifting to a lower gear without input from the driver on model year (MY) 2011-2013 Ford F-150, Expedition and Navigator vehicles. ODI has received 455 unique reports related to the alleged problem that were not covered under a previous recall for this issue (16V-248).Expedition and Navigator complaint rates are lower than F-150 complaints. Of those 455 reports, 34.7% claimed that the rear wheels locked up when the transmission downshifted. There were 4 accident claims with no injuries. There are many instances where drivers report leaving their lane or the road because of this issue.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 783 unique reports related to the alleged problem. There were 6 accident claims with 3 injuries. Ford also submitted 1206 warranty claims related to transmission downshifting failures. The failure can occur at any time, but typically at higher speed, and include symptoms such as sudden transmission downshifting, loss of speedometer, erratic shifting of transmission, and transmission stuck in one gear. The failures typically occur without warning and may result in the rear wheels momentarily locking up. The driver often had to fully stop the vehicle and restart it to get the vehicle to shift properly.On February 2nd, 2019 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (19V-075) to remedy transmission downshifting failures on all 2011-2013 F-150 vehicles. Ford will also offer extended warranties to 2011-2013 Expedition and Navigator vehicles with the same issue. Per Ford, some vehicles may experience an intermittent loss of Transmission Output Speed Sensor (OSS) signal to the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), potentially resulting in a temporary unintended downshift into first gear. Ford will reprogram the PCM with software that will prevent an unintended downshift into first gear and illuminate the Malfunction Indicator Light in the event of an intermittent OSS signal loss.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.

Power Train:automatic Transmission

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation based on consumer allegations of transmissions unexpectedly downshifting to a lower gear without input from the driver on model year (MY) 2011-2013 Ford F-150, Expedition and Navigator vehicles. ODI has received 455 unique reports related to the alleged problem that were not covered under a previous recall for this issue (16V-248).Expedition and Navigator complaint rates are lower than F-150 complaints. Of those 455 reports, 34.7% claimed that the rear wheels locked up when the transmission downshifted. There were 4 accident claims with no injuries. There are many instances where drivers report leaving their lane or the road because of this issue.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 783 unique reports related to the alleged problem. There were 6 accident claims with 3 injuries. Ford also submitted 1206 warranty claims related to transmission downshifting failures. The failure can occur at any time, but typically at higher speed, and include symptoms such as sudden transmission downshifting, loss of speedometer, erratic shifting of transmission, and transmission stuck in one gear. The failures typically occur without warning and may result in the rear wheels momentarily locking up. The driver often had to fully stop the vehicle and restart it to get the vehicle to shift properly.On February 2nd, 2019 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (19V-075) to remedy transmission downshifting failures on all 2011-2013 F-150 vehicles. Ford will also offer extended warranties to 2011-2013 Expedition and Navigator vehicles with the same issue. Per Ford, some vehicles may experience an intermittent loss of Transmission Output Speed Sensor (OSS) signal to the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), potentially resulting in a temporary unintended downshift into first gear. Ford will reprogram the PCM with software that will prevent an unintended downshift into first gear and illuminate the Malfunction Indicator Light in the event of an intermittent OSS signal loss.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.

PE16003 · Master Cylinder External Leak

Opened Feb 29, 2016 · Closed Jul 26, 2016

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes; Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:master Cylinder

On May 23, 2016, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA regarding a master cylinder defect that could result in loss of the front brake circuit in approximately 225,012 model year 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 3.5-liter GTDI engines and built at the Dearborn Truck Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 22, 2014; and the Kansas City Assembly Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014 (NHTSA Recall #16V-345, Ford Recall #16S24).Ford indicated that the rearmost cup seal in the brake master cylinder may roll, resulting in leakage from the brake fluid reservoir to the brake booster.According to Ford's DIR, Depending on the amount of brake fluid loss from the brake master cylinder into the brake booster, the driver will experience an audible chime, message center alert, red brake warning light in the instrument cluster and may begin to experience a change in brake pedal travel and feel.In the event that a loss of brake fluid is substantial enough to reduce brake function to the front wheels, the driver may experience longer pedal travel, increased pedal effort, and extended stopping distance, increasing the risk of a crash.Full braking function would remain in the rear wheel brake circuit.Ford's recall will replace the master cylinder and, if the master cylinder is leaking, also replace the brake booster.Seventy-three (73) of the complaints received by ODI contained vehicle identification number (VIN) information required to determine date of build and recall applicability.ODI's analysis found that 66 complaints to ODI and 278 complaints to Ford involving vehicles built in the range covered by 16V-345, resulting in an overall complaint rate of 152.9 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Twelve (12) crash incidents were reported, including 11 with VIN information.All 11 crash incidents with VIN information reported involve vehicles covered by Ford's recall.ODI's analysis identified 7 ODI complaints and 36 Ford complaints in the 194,139 subject vehicles built outside of the build range for 16V-345, resulting in a complaint rate of 22.1 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Ford indicated that warranty return analyses identified issues with minor internal leakage between circuits due to internal contamination caused by supplier assembly plant cleanliness concerns in these vehicles.Ford assessed the internal leak condition as an early-life condition with minimal safety risk that does not result in loss of fluid or circuit failure.ODI will continue to monitor complaints in subject vehicles not included in 16V-345.No complaints have been identified in MY 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with other engine options.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks identified by this investigation.This preliminary evaluation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchSafetylssues under the following identification numbers:10870768, 10870747, 10870511, 10870395, 10870055, 10869981, 10865843, 10865521, 10865342, 10865043, 10864862, 10864714, 10864360, 10863982, 10863527, 10862333, 10862047, 10861735, 10861190, 10860378, 10860118, 10855381, 10855356, 10854785, 10853751, 10853295, 10853012, 10852349, 10852134, 10852037, 10851317, 10851268, 10851109, 10850015, 10849862, 10846488, 10846335, 10846193, 10846006, 10840414, 10840377, 10839994, 10839985, 10839981, 10839833, 10839825, 10839816, 10838782, 10838510, 10818273, 10817706, 10809601, 10788886, 10788369, 10785526, 10779854, 10776834, 10766291, 10762034, 10761412, 10760663, 10758997, 10750065, 10749886, 107

Additional source detail variants (4)

Service Brakes

On May 23, 2016, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA regarding a master cylinder defect that could result in loss of the front brake circuit in approximately 225,012 model year 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 3.5-liter GTDI engines and built at the Dearborn Truck Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 22, 2014; and the Kansas City Assembly Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014 (NHTSA Recall #16V-345, Ford Recall #16S24).Ford indicated that the rearmost cup seal in the brake master cylinder may roll, resulting in leakage from the brake fluid reservoir to the brake booster.According to Ford's DIR, Depending on the amount of brake fluid loss from the brake master cylinder into the brake booster, the driver will experience an audible chime, message center alert, red brake warning light in the instrument cluster and may begin to experience a change in brake pedal travel and feel.In the event that a loss of brake fluid is substantial enough to reduce brake function to the front wheels, the driver may experience longer pedal travel, increased pedal effort, and extended stopping distance, increasing the risk of a crash.Full braking function would remain in the rear wheel brake circuit.Ford's recall will replace the master cylinder and, if the master cylinder is leaking, also replace the brake booster.Seventy-three (73) of the complaints received by ODI contained vehicle identification number (VIN) information required to determine date of build and recall applicability.ODI's analysis found that 66 complaints to ODI and 278 complaints to Ford involving vehicles built in the range covered by 16V-345, resulting in an overall complaint rate of 152.9 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Twelve (12) crash incidents were reported, including 11 with VIN information.All 11 crash incidents with VIN information reported involve vehicles covered by Ford's recall.ODI's analysis identified 7 ODI complaints and 36 Ford complaints in the 194,139 subject vehicles built outside of the build range for 16V-345, resulting in a complaint rate of 22.1 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Ford indicated that warranty return analyses identified issues with minor internal leakage between circuits due to internal contamination caused by supplier assembly plant cleanliness concerns in these vehicles.Ford assessed the internal leak condition as an early-life condition with minimal safety risk that does not result in loss of fluid or circuit failure.ODI will continue to monitor complaints in subject vehicles not included in 16V-345.No complaints have been identified in MY 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with other engine options.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks identified by this investigation.This preliminary evaluation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchSafetylssues under the following identification numbers:10870768, 10870747, 10870511, 10870395, 10870055, 10869981, 10865843, 10865521, 10865342, 10865043, 10864862, 10864714, 10864360, 10863982, 10863527, 10862333, 10862047, 10861735, 10861190, 10860378, 10860118, 10855381, 10855356, 10854785, 10853751, 10853295, 10853012, 10852349, 10852134, 10852037, 10851317, 10851268, 10851109, 10850015, 10849862, 10846488, 10846335, 10846193, 10846006, 10840414, 10840377, 10839994, 10839985, 10839981, 10839833, 10839825, 10839816, 10838782, 10838510, 10818273, 10817706, 10809601, 10788886, 10788369, 10785526, 10779854, 10776834, 10766291, 10762034, 10761412, 10760663, 10758997, 10750065, 10749886, 107

Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid

On May 23, 2016, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA regarding a master cylinder defect that could result in loss of the front brake circuit in approximately 225,012 model year 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 3.5-liter GTDI engines and built at the Dearborn Truck Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 22, 2014; and the Kansas City Assembly Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014 (NHTSA Recall #16V-345, Ford Recall #16S24).Ford indicated that the rearmost cup seal in the brake master cylinder may roll, resulting in leakage from the brake fluid reservoir to the brake booster.According to Ford's DIR, Depending on the amount of brake fluid loss from the brake master cylinder into the brake booster, the driver will experience an audible chime, message center alert, red brake warning light in the instrument cluster and may begin to experience a change in brake pedal travel and feel.In the event that a loss of brake fluid is substantial enough to reduce brake function to the front wheels, the driver may experience longer pedal travel, increased pedal effort, and extended stopping distance, increasing the risk of a crash.Full braking function would remain in the rear wheel brake circuit.Ford's recall will replace the master cylinder and, if the master cylinder is leaking, also replace the brake booster.Seventy-three (73) of the complaints received by ODI contained vehicle identification number (VIN) information required to determine date of build and recall applicability.ODI's analysis found that 66 complaints to ODI and 278 complaints to Ford involving vehicles built in the range covered by 16V-345, resulting in an overall complaint rate of 152.9 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Twelve (12) crash incidents were reported, including 11 with VIN information.All 11 crash incidents with VIN information reported involve vehicles covered by Ford's recall.ODI's analysis identified 7 ODI complaints and 36 Ford complaints in the 194,139 subject vehicles built outside of the build range for 16V-345, resulting in a complaint rate of 22.1 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Ford indicated that warranty return analyses identified issues with minor internal leakage between circuits due to internal contamination caused by supplier assembly plant cleanliness concerns in these vehicles.Ford assessed the internal leak condition as an early-life condition with minimal safety risk that does not result in loss of fluid or circuit failure.ODI will continue to monitor complaints in subject vehicles not included in 16V-345.No complaints have been identified in MY 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with other engine options.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks identified by this investigation.This preliminary evaluation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchSafetylssues under the following identification numbers:10870768, 10870747, 10870511, 10870395, 10870055, 10869981, 10865843, 10865521, 10865342, 10865043, 10864862, 10864714, 10864360, 10863982, 10863527, 10862333, 10862047, 10861735, 10861190, 10860378, 10860118, 10855381, 10855356, 10854785, 10853751, 10853295, 10853012, 10852349, 10852134, 10852037, 10851317, 10851268, 10851109, 10850015, 10849862, 10846488, 10846335, 10846193, 10846006, 10840414, 10840377, 10839994, 10839985, 10839981, 10839833, 10839825, 10839816, 10838782, 10838510, 10818273, 10817706, 10809601, 10788886, 10788369, 10785526, 10779854, 10776834, 10766291, 10762034, 10761412, 10760663, 10758997, 10750065, 10749886, 107

Service Brakes, Hydraulic

On May 23, 2016, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA regarding a master cylinder defect that could result in loss of the front brake circuit in approximately 225,012 model year 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 3.5-liter GTDI engines and built at the Dearborn Truck Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 22, 2014; and the Kansas City Assembly Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014 (NHTSA Recall #16V-345, Ford Recall #16S24).Ford indicated that the rearmost cup seal in the brake master cylinder may roll, resulting in leakage from the brake fluid reservoir to the brake booster.According to Ford's DIR, Depending on the amount of brake fluid loss from the brake master cylinder into the brake booster, the driver will experience an audible chime, message center alert, red brake warning light in the instrument cluster and may begin to experience a change in brake pedal travel and feel.In the event that a loss of brake fluid is substantial enough to reduce brake function to the front wheels, the driver may experience longer pedal travel, increased pedal effort, and extended stopping distance, increasing the risk of a crash.Full braking function would remain in the rear wheel brake circuit.Ford's recall will replace the master cylinder and, if the master cylinder is leaking, also replace the brake booster.Seventy-three (73) of the complaints received by ODI contained vehicle identification number (VIN) information required to determine date of build and recall applicability.ODI's analysis found that 66 complaints to ODI and 278 complaints to Ford involving vehicles built in the range covered by 16V-345, resulting in an overall complaint rate of 152.9 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Twelve (12) crash incidents were reported, including 11 with VIN information.All 11 crash incidents with VIN information reported involve vehicles covered by Ford's recall.ODI's analysis identified 7 ODI complaints and 36 Ford complaints in the 194,139 subject vehicles built outside of the build range for 16V-345, resulting in a complaint rate of 22.1 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Ford indicated that warranty return analyses identified issues with minor internal leakage between circuits due to internal contamination caused by supplier assembly plant cleanliness concerns in these vehicles.Ford assessed the internal leak condition as an early-life condition with minimal safety risk that does not result in loss of fluid or circuit failure.ODI will continue to monitor complaints in subject vehicles not included in 16V-345.No complaints have been identified in MY 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with other engine options.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks identified by this investigation.This preliminary evaluation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchSafetylssues under the following identification numbers:10870768, 10870747, 10870511, 10870395, 10870055, 10869981, 10865843, 10865521, 10865342, 10865043, 10864862, 10864714, 10864360, 10863982, 10863527, 10862333, 10862047, 10861735, 10861190, 10860378, 10860118, 10855381, 10855356, 10854785, 10853751, 10853295, 10853012, 10852349, 10852134, 10852037, 10851317, 10851268, 10851109, 10850015, 10849862, 10846488, 10846335, 10846193, 10846006, 10840414, 10840377, 10839994, 10839985, 10839981, 10839833, 10839825, 10839816, 10838782, 10838510, 10818273, 10817706, 10809601, 10788886, 10788369, 10785526, 10779854, 10776834, 10766291, 10762034, 10761412, 10760663, 10758997, 10750065, 10749886, 107

Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:master Cylinder

On May 23, 2016, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA regarding a master cylinder defect that could result in loss of the front brake circuit in approximately 225,012 model year 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 3.5-liter GTDI engines and built at the Dearborn Truck Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 22, 2014; and the Kansas City Assembly Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014 (NHTSA Recall #16V-345, Ford Recall #16S24).Ford indicated that the rearmost cup seal in the brake master cylinder may roll, resulting in leakage from the brake fluid reservoir to the brake booster.According to Ford's DIR, Depending on the amount of brake fluid loss from the brake master cylinder into the brake booster, the driver will experience an audible chime, message center alert, red brake warning light in the instrument cluster and may begin to experience a change in brake pedal travel and feel.In the event that a loss of brake fluid is substantial enough to reduce brake function to the front wheels, the driver may experience longer pedal travel, increased pedal effort, and extended stopping distance, increasing the risk of a crash.Full braking function would remain in the rear wheel brake circuit.Ford's recall will replace the master cylinder and, if the master cylinder is leaking, also replace the brake booster.Seventy-three (73) of the complaints received by ODI contained vehicle identification number (VIN) information required to determine date of build and recall applicability.ODI's analysis found that 66 complaints to ODI and 278 complaints to Ford involving vehicles built in the range covered by 16V-345, resulting in an overall complaint rate of 152.9 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Twelve (12) crash incidents were reported, including 11 with VIN information.All 11 crash incidents with VIN information reported involve vehicles covered by Ford's recall.ODI's analysis identified 7 ODI complaints and 36 Ford complaints in the 194,139 subject vehicles built outside of the build range for 16V-345, resulting in a complaint rate of 22.1 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Ford indicated that warranty return analyses identified issues with minor internal leakage between circuits due to internal contamination caused by supplier assembly plant cleanliness concerns in these vehicles.Ford assessed the internal leak condition as an early-life condition with minimal safety risk that does not result in loss of fluid or circuit failure.ODI will continue to monitor complaints in subject vehicles not included in 16V-345.No complaints have been identified in MY 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with other engine options.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks identified by this investigation.This preliminary evaluation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchSafetylssues under the following identification numbers:10870768, 10870747, 10870511, 10870395, 10870055, 10869981, 10865843, 10865521, 10865342, 10865043, 10864862, 10864714, 10864360, 10863982, 10863527, 10862333, 10862047, 10861735, 10861190, 10860378, 10860118, 10855381, 10855356, 10854785, 10853751, 10853295, 10853012, 10852349, 10852134, 10852037, 10851317, 10851268, 10851109, 10850015, 10849862, 10846488, 10846335, 10846193, 10846006, 10840414, 10840377, 10839994, 10839985, 10839981, 10839833, 10839825, 10839816, 10838782, 10838510, 10818273, 10817706, 10809601, 10788886, 10788369, 10785526, 10779854, 10776834, 10766291, 10762034, 10761412, 10760663, 10758997, 10750065, 10749886, 107

PE13018 · Reduced Power During Hard Acceleration

Opened May 22, 2013 · Closed Apr 7, 2014

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine; Engine And Engine Cooling

On May 22, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE13-018 to investigate 95 complaints alleging incidents of reduced engine power during hard accelerations in model year (MY) 2011 through 2013 Ford F-150 trucks.ODI was aware of three technical service bulletins (TSBs) issued by Ford for a condition that was related to moisture accumulation in the Charge Air Cooler (CAC) for the turbochargers.A Preliminary Evaluation was opened to gather information to assess whether the subject vehicles contain a safety related defect.The subject vehicles are powered by Ford?s 3.5L EcoBoost engine which uses twin turbochargers to obtain a balance of fuel economy and engine power based on the driver?s demand.When the driver requests more power from the engine, as in accelerating to pass, merge, ascend hills or haul a load the two turbochargers will spin up compressing the air which is then used to increase the power created by the combustion in the engine.The compressed air, which gains heat by the compression process, is passed through a Charge Air Cooler (CAC) which is designed to lower the temperature of the air in order to make the combustion process even more efficient (Figures 1 and 2).In response to ODI?s Information Request letter, Ford indicated that a misfire condition could occur after steady-speed operation under significantly humid and rainy conditions.Ford?s analysis found that under those conditions, condensation could form and accumulate on the inside of the CAC tubes which could then be ingested into the engine during particularly hard acceleration near wide-open throttle.An engine misfire of up to three cylinders could occur if the amount of condensed water released from the CAC exceeded the engine?s operating threshold for water ingestion.Ford noted that due to regulations set by the EPA, the powertrain software would disable up to two of the misfiring cylinders for no more than 30 seconds and until the driver tips out the throttle in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage. Ford?s testing of this condition on the subject vehicles showed that a vehicle experiencing such a condition would continue to maintain its speed as well as accelerate, albeit at a lower rate than expected by the driver.Similar results were obtained in testing done by NHTSA?s Vehicle Research and Testing Center in East Liberty, Ohio (Figure 6).In an ongoing process to address the problem Ford issued a series of TSBs where a deflector shield was installed onto the CAC (Figures 3, 4 and 5).In January 2014 Ford indicated that its data shows that the TSBs have been effective in resolving the problem, that for the MY 2013 vehicles their remedy is 100% effective and the latest TSBs for MY 2011 ? 2012 are 95% effective.The 525 complaints to ODI and the total 4,120 unique VIN complaints listed in the Failure Report are incidents of alleged reduced power or driveability symptoms and not all are necessarily related to the condition created by water ingestion.Reduced power conditions can occur for a variety of reasons including faults with ignition coils, spark plugs, a catalytic converter, the throttle body, turbocharger, fuel pump/filter, powertrain control module (hardware or software) or transmission shifting problems.Ford also noted that in a large number of warranty claims on the subject vehicles, the CAC was replaced or a TSB procedure was performed when the symptoms exhibited were inconsistent with a CAC water ingestion related issue.Given these circumstances, further use of the agency resources in this matter does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of

Additional source detail variants (2)

Engine And Engine Cooling

On May 22, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE13-018 to investigate 95 complaints alleging incidents of reduced engine power during hard accelerations in model year (MY) 2011 through 2013 Ford F-150 trucks.ODI was aware of three technical service bulletins (TSBs) issued by Ford for a condition that was related to moisture accumulation in the Charge Air Cooler (CAC) for the turbochargers.A Preliminary Evaluation was opened to gather information to assess whether the subject vehicles contain a safety related defect.The subject vehicles are powered by Ford?s 3.5L EcoBoost engine which uses twin turbochargers to obtain a balance of fuel economy and engine power based on the driver?s demand.When the driver requests more power from the engine, as in accelerating to pass, merge, ascend hills or haul a load the two turbochargers will spin up compressing the air which is then used to increase the power created by the combustion in the engine.The compressed air, which gains heat by the compression process, is passed through a Charge Air Cooler (CAC) which is designed to lower the temperature of the air in order to make the combustion process even more efficient (Figures 1 and 2).In response to ODI?s Information Request letter, Ford indicated that a misfire condition could occur after steady-speed operation under significantly humid and rainy conditions.Ford?s analysis found that under those conditions, condensation could form and accumulate on the inside of the CAC tubes which could then be ingested into the engine during particularly hard acceleration near wide-open throttle.An engine misfire of up to three cylinders could occur if the amount of condensed water released from the CAC exceeded the engine?s operating threshold for water ingestion.Ford noted that due to regulations set by the EPA, the powertrain software would disable up to two of the misfiring cylinders for no more than 30 seconds and until the driver tips out the throttle in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage. Ford?s testing of this condition on the subject vehicles showed that a vehicle experiencing such a condition would continue to maintain its speed as well as accelerate, albeit at a lower rate than expected by the driver.Similar results were obtained in testing done by NHTSA?s Vehicle Research and Testing Center in East Liberty, Ohio (Figure 6).In an ongoing process to address the problem Ford issued a series of TSBs where a deflector shield was installed onto the CAC (Figures 3, 4 and 5).In January 2014 Ford indicated that its data shows that the TSBs have been effective in resolving the problem, that for the MY 2013 vehicles their remedy is 100% effective and the latest TSBs for MY 2011 ? 2012 are 95% effective.The 525 complaints to ODI and the total 4,120 unique VIN complaints listed in the Failure Report are incidents of alleged reduced power or driveability symptoms and not all are necessarily related to the condition created by water ingestion.Reduced power conditions can occur for a variety of reasons including faults with ignition coils, spark plugs, a catalytic converter, the throttle body, turbocharger, fuel pump/filter, powertrain control module (hardware or software) or transmission shifting problems.Ford also noted that in a large number of warranty claims on the subject vehicles, the CAC was replaced or a TSB procedure was performed when the symptoms exhibited were inconsistent with a CAC water ingestion related issue.Given these circumstances, further use of the agency resources in this matter does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of

Engine

On May 22, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE13-018 to investigate 95 complaints alleging incidents of reduced engine power during hard accelerations in model year (MY) 2011 through 2013 Ford F-150 trucks.ODI was aware of three technical service bulletins (TSBs) issued by Ford for a condition that was related to moisture accumulation in the Charge Air Cooler (CAC) for the turbochargers.A Preliminary Evaluation was opened to gather information to assess whether the subject vehicles contain a safety related defect.The subject vehicles are powered by Ford?s 3.5L EcoBoost engine which uses twin turbochargers to obtain a balance of fuel economy and engine power based on the driver?s demand.When the driver requests more power from the engine, as in accelerating to pass, merge, ascend hills or haul a load the two turbochargers will spin up compressing the air which is then used to increase the power created by the combustion in the engine.The compressed air, which gains heat by the compression process, is passed through a Charge Air Cooler (CAC) which is designed to lower the temperature of the air in order to make the combustion process even more efficient (Figures 1 and 2).In response to ODI?s Information Request letter, Ford indicated that a misfire condition could occur after steady-speed operation under significantly humid and rainy conditions.Ford?s analysis found that under those conditions, condensation could form and accumulate on the inside of the CAC tubes which could then be ingested into the engine during particularly hard acceleration near wide-open throttle.An engine misfire of up to three cylinders could occur if the amount of condensed water released from the CAC exceeded the engine?s operating threshold for water ingestion.Ford noted that due to regulations set by the EPA, the powertrain software would disable up to two of the misfiring cylinders for no more than 30 seconds and until the driver tips out the throttle in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage. Ford?s testing of this condition on the subject vehicles showed that a vehicle experiencing such a condition would continue to maintain its speed as well as accelerate, albeit at a lower rate than expected by the driver.Similar results were obtained in testing done by NHTSA?s Vehicle Research and Testing Center in East Liberty, Ohio (Figure 6).In an ongoing process to address the problem Ford issued a series of TSBs where a deflector shield was installed onto the CAC (Figures 3, 4 and 5).In January 2014 Ford indicated that its data shows that the TSBs have been effective in resolving the problem, that for the MY 2013 vehicles their remedy is 100% effective and the latest TSBs for MY 2011 ? 2012 are 95% effective.The 525 complaints to ODI and the total 4,120 unique VIN complaints listed in the Failure Report are incidents of alleged reduced power or driveability symptoms and not all are necessarily related to the condition created by water ingestion.Reduced power conditions can occur for a variety of reasons including faults with ignition coils, spark plugs, a catalytic converter, the throttle body, turbocharger, fuel pump/filter, powertrain control module (hardware or software) or transmission shifting problems.Ford also noted that in a large number of warranty claims on the subject vehicles, the CAC was replaced or a TSB procedure was performed when the symptoms exhibited were inconsistent with a CAC water ingestion related issue.Given these circumstances, further use of the agency resources in this matter does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of