Illustration2004 F250 SUPER DUTY / ENGINE CHOKES DOWN AND SOMETIMES STALLS. HAPPENS OFTEN, MOSTLY IN CITY TRAFFIC. THEY CLAIM TO HAVE REPLACED SENSORS AND VALVES; BUT, THE TRUCK HAS PROGRESSIVELY GOT WORSE (2-3 TIMES A WEEK). *TR
2004 Ford F-250 Sd
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most F-250 Sd years
Owner complaints for the 2004 Ford F-250 Sd are substantially higher than the model-year median of 89.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all F-250 Sd years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
700–25K
3425–50K
3450–75K
3775–100K
38100–150K
13150K+
226 reports with mileage · 28 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.
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 101 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 56 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 21 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
13 crash reports12 fire reports9 injury reports
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
101 reportsTL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F250 SUPER DUTY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE EGR COOLER NEEDED TO BE REPLACED THREE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WOULD PRODUCE A LOT OF SMOKE AND FAIL TO ACCELERATE PROPERLY ONCE THE EGR FAILED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER WOULD NOT ASSUME LIABILITY FOR THE REPAIRS. THERE WAS A FACTORY WARRA…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F250 SUPER DUTY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE EGR COOLER NEEDED TO BE REPLACED THREE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WOULD PRODUCE A LOT OF SMOKE AND FAIL TO ACCELERATE PROPERLY ONCE THE EGR FAILED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER WOULD NOT ASSUME LIABILITY FOR THE REPAIRS. THERE WAS A FACTORY WARRANTY THAT COVERED THE PART FOR TWELVE MONTHS OR 12,000 MILES, WHICHEVER CAME FIRST. THE FAILURE ALWAYS OCCURRED OUTSIDE OF THE WARRANTY. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 99,000, 114,000 AND 130,000. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 130,000.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F-250 SD. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE ENGINE BEGAN TO REV EXCESSIVELY HIGH. THERE WAS NO POWER RESPONSE WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. IN ADDITION, THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND REMAINED LIT UNTIL THE ENGINE WAS TURNED OFF. THE DR…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F-250 SD. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE ENGINE BEGAN TO REV EXCESSIVELY HIGH. THERE WAS NO POWER RESPONSE WHEN THE ACCELERATOR PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. IN ADDITION, THE CHECK ENGINE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND REMAINED LIT UNTIL THE ENGINE WAS TURNED OFF. THE DRIVER PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND THE VEHICLE RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING AND THEY STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE TURBO AND ENGINE SENSORS. THE TURBO OUTLET HOSE, MAP SENSOR, AND EGR THROTTLE BODY WERE REPLACED UNDER WARRANTY; HOWEVER, THE FAILURES RECURRED ON THIRTY SEPARATE OCCASIONS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER AND AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS, BUT THERE WERE NO RESOLUTIONS. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 77,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 120,000.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F250 SUPER DUTY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO PUMP OUT COOLANT AND SMOKE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE HEAD GASKET NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, THE CONTACT FOUND THAT THIS WAS A COMMON ISSUE WITH THIS PARTICULAR VEHICLE, AND WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BOLTS USED…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F250 SUPER DUTY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO PUMP OUT COOLANT AND SMOKE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE HEAD GASKET NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, THE CONTACT FOUND THAT THIS WAS A COMMON ISSUE WITH THIS PARTICULAR VEHICLE, AND WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BOLTS USED FOR THE HEAD GASKET. THERE WERE NO RECALLS FOR THE VEHICLE AND THE MANUFACTURER HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE LESS THAN 140,000.
I HAVE A 2004 F 250 SUPER DUTY. I EXPERIENCED A BLOW OUT OF THE SPARK PLUG ON TWO OCCASIONS. THE FIRST I WAS ABLE TO PUT THE PLUG BACK IN AND RE-THREAD THE PLUG. IT JUST RECENTLY BLEW OUT THE SECOND TIME WHICH WILL RESULT IN A GREATER REPAIR. I HAVE A MECHANIC WHOM I REGULARLY USE AND HE HAS STATED TO ME THAT HE IS AWARE OF NO L…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2004 F 250 SUPER DUTY. I EXPERIENCED A BLOW OUT OF THE SPARK PLUG ON TWO OCCASIONS. THE FIRST I WAS ABLE TO PUT THE PLUG BACK IN AND RE-THREAD THE PLUG. IT JUST RECENTLY BLEW OUT THE SECOND TIME WHICH WILL RESULT IN A GREATER REPAIR. I HAVE A MECHANIC WHOM I REGULARLY USE AND HE HAS STATED TO ME THAT HE IS AWARE OF NO LESS THAN TWENTY FIVE FORDS THAT HE HAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OR HAS EXPERIENCED THIS PROBLEM FIRST HAND. THIS SHOULD MOST CERTAINLY BE A RECALL. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR AN ENGINE FIRE. AT FIRST I BELIEVED THE NOISE WAS PROBABLY FROM A BLOWN EXHAUST GASKET. I WOULD HAVE NEVER IMAGINED THAT A SPARK PLUG WOULD HAVE BLOWN OUT OF MY ENGINE LET ALONE HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OR CONCERN THAT FUEL VAPOR IS BEING OPENLY SPRAYED INTO THE AIR. NOW I REALIZE THAT I ALSO PLACED MYSELF IN HARMS WAY PUTTING MYSELF UNDER THE HOOD TRYING TO LOCATE THE SOURCE OF THE NOISE. WHAT IF THAT VAPOR HAD IGNITED WHILE I WAS PEEKING AROUND IN THE ENGINE? THIS IS A SERIOUS HAZARD. I DON'T CARE WHAT FORD SAYS OR WHAT SILLY EXCUSE THEY CAN MAKE FOR THIS. THERE IS SIMPLY NO REASON WHY A SPARK PLUG SHOULD BE BLOWING OUT OF AN ENGINE LIKE THIS. FOR WHATEVER INCOHERENT REASONING FORD CAN DERIVE IT IS MOST CERTAINLY IRRELEVANT. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE WHAT CAUSES THIS PROBLEM? WHAT RELEVANCE DOES SPLITTING HAIRS OVER THIS HAVE? NONE BECAUSE IT IS ALL SPECULATION. THE FACT IS THAT A VERY SERIOUS AND DANGEROUS CONDITION IS PRESENT AS A RESULT OF THIS AND THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE SUGGESTS IT IS A DESIGN FLAW AT THE LIABILITY OF FORD. WILL IT TAKE SOMEONE TO BE BURNED OVER 80% OF THEIR BODY TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THIS SHOULD BE RECALLED? FURTHERMORE FORD HAS A POOR TRACK RECORD WITH RECALLS. I HAD A 93 F 250 RECALLED IN 2004 FOR THE DRAINING DOUBLE GAS TANK PROBLEM. FOR TEN YEARS I COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS AND FORD FINALLY SENT ME A NOTICE FOR A RECALL IN 2004. WAS I SUPPOSE TO RECALL MY TRUCK FROM THE JUNK YARD?.. ITS A GREAT DISSERVICE TO FORD CUSTOMERS. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F250 SUPER DUTY DIESEL. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE INDICATOR ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE DEALER ADVISED HER TO IMMEDIATELY BRING IN THE VEHICLE FOR REPAIR AND THEY FOUND AN OIL LEAK THAT LEAKED INTO THE ICP SENSOR. THE CONTACT PAID OVER $600 TO HAVE THE VEHICLE REPAIR…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F250 SUPER DUTY DIESEL. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE CHECK ENGINE INDICATOR ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE DEALER ADVISED HER TO IMMEDIATELY BRING IN THE VEHICLE FOR REPAIR AND THEY FOUND AN OIL LEAK THAT LEAKED INTO THE ICP SENSOR. THE CONTACT PAID OVER $600 TO HAVE THE VEHICLE REPAIRED. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE LESS THAN 47,000. UPDATED 12/09/09 *BF THE DEALER INFORMED THE CONSUMER THAT THE PROBLEM WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN DUE TO A DESGIN FLAW. THE FLAW WAS CORRECTE IN LATER MODELS. UPDATED 12/10/09.*JB
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F250 SUPER DUTY. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO START THE VEHICLE, IT SHUT OFF. IN ADDITION, THE ENGINE SHUTS OFF WHEN DRIVING DOWNHILL AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE CONTACT MUST PULL OVER AND RESTART THE VEHICLE AGAIN. HE INSPECTED THE VEHICLE HIMSELF WITH A COMPUTER DIAGNOSTIC MACHINE AND DETERMINED THAT THE …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD F250 SUPER DUTY. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO START THE VEHICLE, IT SHUT OFF. IN ADDITION, THE ENGINE SHUTS OFF WHEN DRIVING DOWNHILL AT VARIOUS SPEEDS. THE CONTACT MUST PULL OVER AND RESTART THE VEHICLE AGAIN. HE INSPECTED THE VEHICLE HIMSELF WITH A COMPUTER DIAGNOSTIC MACHINE AND DETERMINED THAT THE CAMSHAFT SENSOR WAS FAILING. THE VEHICLE WAS PREVIOUSLY REPAIRED ACCORDING TO A RECALL FOR THE CAMSHAFT SENSOR. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION, BUT THEY REFUSED TO INSPECT OR REPAIR THE VEHICLE BECAUSE THE WARRANTY WAS EXPIRED. THE CONTACT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER AND WAS INFORMED TO TAKE THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER. IF THE FAILURE WAS RELATED TO THE CAMSHAFT SENSOR, THEY WOULD NOT COVER THE COST BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS ALREADY REPAIRED FOR THAT FAILURE. ANY PARTS AND LABOR FEES WOULD HAVE TO BE COVERED BY THE CONTACT. THE NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 143,930 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 143,984.
MY 2004 FORD F-250 5.4L WAS MAKING A TICKING NOISE FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS THEN TODAY A BIG POP AND TERRIBLE NOISE FROM UNDER THE HOOD. I HAVE DISCOVERED THAT IT BLEW A SPARK PLUG OUT OF THE HEAD. FROM WHAT I HAVE READ THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THIS ENGINE. I AM LOOKING AT A SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLAR REPAIR. *TR
I HAVE A 2004 FORD F-250 WITH A TRITON 5.4 LITER ENGINE. I WENT OUT TO START THE TRUCK AND HEARD A LOUD BOOM AND THEN THE TRUCK SOUNDED LIKE I HAD LOST THE EXHAUST SYSTEM. AS IT TURNS OUT THE ENGINE PRESSURE BLEW A SPARK PLUG OUT OF THE HEAD AND ALSO BROKE THE COIL PACK ON TOP OF IT. AFTER DOING SOME RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET …
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2004 FORD F-250 WITH A TRITON 5.4 LITER ENGINE. I WENT OUT TO START THE TRUCK AND HEARD A LOUD BOOM AND THEN THE TRUCK SOUNDED LIKE I HAD LOST THE EXHAUST SYSTEM. AS IT TURNS OUT THE ENGINE PRESSURE BLEW A SPARK PLUG OUT OF THE HEAD AND ALSO BROKE THE COIL PACK ON TOP OF IT. AFTER DOING SOME RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET IT SEEMS THIS IS A FAIRLY COMMON PROBLEM YET FORD HAS NOT OFFERED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BLAMING IT ON MANY ISSUES THAT SIMPLY DO NOT MAKE SENSE. THE GOVERNMENT TO THIS POINT HAS ALSO NOT FORCED A RECALL ON THIS ISSUE WHICH I FIND VERY DISHEARTENING AS THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE. NOT EVERYONE DRIVING A TRUCK IS A MECHANIC AND MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THIS TYPE OF PROBLEM COULD LEAD TO A MAJOR FIRE OR EXPLOSION IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. *TR
I OWN A 2004 FORD F250 SD DIESEL AND ON 10/11/08 TOOK A TRIP TO SANTE FE NM WHICH APPROX 55 MILES AND FROM WHAT THEY TELL ME A FUEL INJECTOR STUCK AND LET FUEL INTO THE CYL THUS RUINING THE ENGINE. I BELIEVE THAT THIS RELATED TO THE SHOP REPLACING THE TURBO WHICH BLEW UP INTO PIECES AND WENT INTO THE EXHAUST AND POSSIBLY INTO T…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2004 FORD F250 SD DIESEL AND ON 10/11/08 TOOK A TRIP TO SANTE FE NM WHICH APPROX 55 MILES AND FROM WHAT THEY TELL ME A FUEL INJECTOR STUCK AND LET FUEL INTO THE CYL THUS RUINING THE ENGINE. I BELIEVE THAT THIS RELATED TO THE SHOP REPLACING THE TURBO WHICH BLEW UP INTO PIECES AND WENT INTO THE EXHAUST AND POSSIBLY INTO THE FUEL SYSTEM JAMMING UP THE INJECTOR CAUSING THE DAMAGE. THIS WAS THE SECOND TURBO WITH IN THE LAST 3000 MILES. THIS VEHICLE HAS ONLY 35400 MILES I FEEL THE ENGINE SHOULD BE COVERED BY WARRANTY DUE TO MILES ON VEHICLE AND ALSO THE ORIGINAL WARRANTY NOT EVEN A MONTH PAST. *TR
Official recalls
211V352000 · Exterior Lighting:brake Lights; Exterior Lighting:tail Lights
Jul 13, 2011
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011 RANGER TRUCKS BUILT FROM JANUARY 25, 2011, THROUGH APRIL 25, 2011 AT THE TWIN CITIES ASSEMBLY PLANT, AND SERVICE PARTS DISTRIBUTED TO DEALERS FOR CERTAIN 2004 THROUGH 2011 MODEL YEAR RANGER TRUCKS, 2002 THROUGH 2005 MODEL YEAR EXCURSION VEHICLES, AND 2002 THROUGH 2007 MODEL YEAR F-250, F-350, F-450, AND F-550 TRUCKS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THE MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WAS SHIPPED WITH A SUBCOMPONENT (SLIDER) THAT MAY EXPERIENCE DEFORMATION. A MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WITH A DEFORMED SLIDER MAY MALFUNCTION CAUSING THE TURN SIGNAL, TAIL LIGHTS, HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FLASHERS AND/OR BRAKE LIGHTS NOT TO ACTIVATE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: NON-FUNCTIONING LIGHTS COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SWITCHES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 15, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Exterior Lighting:brake Lights
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011 RANGER TRUCKS BUILT FROM JANUARY 25, 2011, THROUGH APRIL 25, 2011 AT THE TWIN CITIES ASSEMBLY PLANT, AND SERVICE PARTS DISTRIBUTED TO DEALERS FOR CERTAIN 2004 THROUGH 2011 MODEL YEAR RANGER TRUCKS, 2002 THROUGH 2005 MODEL YEAR EXCURSION VEHICLES, AND 2002 THROUGH 2007 MODEL YEAR F-250, F-350, F-450, AND F-550 TRUCKS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THE MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WAS SHIPPED WITH A SUBCOMPONENT (SLIDER) THAT MAY EXPERIENCE DEFORMATION. A MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WITH A DEFORMED SLIDER MAY MALFUNCTION CAUSING THE TURN SIGNAL, TAIL LIGHTS, HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FLASHERS AND/OR BRAKE LIGHTS NOT TO ACTIVATE.
Consequence: NON-FUNCTIONING LIGHTS COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SWITCHES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 15, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
Exterior Lighting:tail Lights
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011 RANGER TRUCKS BUILT FROM JANUARY 25, 2011, THROUGH APRIL 25, 2011 AT THE TWIN CITIES ASSEMBLY PLANT, AND SERVICE PARTS DISTRIBUTED TO DEALERS FOR CERTAIN 2004 THROUGH 2011 MODEL YEAR RANGER TRUCKS, 2002 THROUGH 2005 MODEL YEAR EXCURSION VEHICLES, AND 2002 THROUGH 2007 MODEL YEAR F-250, F-350, F-450, AND F-550 TRUCKS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THE MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WAS SHIPPED WITH A SUBCOMPONENT (SLIDER) THAT MAY EXPERIENCE DEFORMATION. A MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WITH A DEFORMED SLIDER MAY MALFUNCTION CAUSING THE TURN SIGNAL, TAIL LIGHTS, HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FLASHERS AND/OR BRAKE LIGHTS NOT TO ACTIVATE.
Consequence: NON-FUNCTIONING LIGHTS COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SWITCHES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 15, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
05V270000 · Electrical System:wiring
Jun 10, 2005
CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES AND VANS EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES MAY EXPERIENCE STALLING WITHOUT WARNING WHILE DRIVING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: SHOULD THE ENGINE STALL, A VEHICLE CRASH COULD OCCUR.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL UPGRADE THE FUEL INJECTION CONTROL MODULE (FICM) WIRE HARNESS OR REPLACED, AND/OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE (ICP)) SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 22, 2005. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
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
3DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
EA05003 · Engine Stalling
Opened Feb 15, 2005 · Closed Nov 2, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:wiring:front Underhood; Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:diesel
IN A JUNE 7, 2005 LETTER, FORD NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL OF APPROXIMATELY 180,000 FORD F-SUPER DUTY, EXCURSION AND E-SERIES VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES TO CORRECT TWO WIRING RELATED CONDITIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-270, FORD NO. 05S34).THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE BUILT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 AND MAY 31, 2004.ACCORDING TO FORD, VEHICLES WITH THE CONDITIONS MAY STALL WITHOUT WARNING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS OF VEHICLES INCLUDED IN THE RECALL TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FUEL INJECTOR CONTROL MODULE WIRE HARNESS UPGRADED OR REPLACED AND OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED.DURING A MAY 2005 PRESENTATION TO ODI, FORD IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS THAT COULD AFFECT ENGINE PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION, INCLUDING THE WIRING CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY 05V-270.THE WIRING CONDITIONS, WHICH BOTH AFFECT ENGINE FUELING, WERE THE MOST LIKELY CONDITIONS TO RESULT IN ENGINE STALL.THE RECALLED VEHICLES COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 43% OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION AND ACCOUNT FOR 75 OF THE 113 ODI REPORTS THAT HAVE A VALID VIN (66%).THE VOQ COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE RECALL POPULATION IS 45/100K WHILE THE RATE FOR VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE RECALL POPULATION IS 17/100K AND THEIR TREND (BY DATE OF RECEIPT) IS DECLINING.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, ODI BELIEVES FORD?S ACTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT SAFETY RISKS AND THE INVESTIGATION IS THUS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Electrical System:wiring:front Underhood
IN A JUNE 7, 2005 LETTER, FORD NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL OF APPROXIMATELY 180,000 FORD F-SUPER DUTY, EXCURSION AND E-SERIES VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES TO CORRECT TWO WIRING RELATED CONDITIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-270, FORD NO. 05S34).THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE BUILT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 AND MAY 31, 2004.ACCORDING TO FORD, VEHICLES WITH THE CONDITIONS MAY STALL WITHOUT WARNING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS OF VEHICLES INCLUDED IN THE RECALL TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FUEL INJECTOR CONTROL MODULE WIRE HARNESS UPGRADED OR REPLACED AND OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED.DURING A MAY 2005 PRESENTATION TO ODI, FORD IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS THAT COULD AFFECT ENGINE PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION, INCLUDING THE WIRING CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY 05V-270.THE WIRING CONDITIONS, WHICH BOTH AFFECT ENGINE FUELING, WERE THE MOST LIKELY CONDITIONS TO RESULT IN ENGINE STALL.THE RECALLED VEHICLES COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 43% OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION AND ACCOUNT FOR 75 OF THE 113 ODI REPORTS THAT HAVE A VALID VIN (66%).THE VOQ COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE RECALL POPULATION IS 45/100K WHILE THE RATE FOR VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE RECALL POPULATION IS 17/100K AND THEIR TREND (BY DATE OF RECEIPT) IS DECLINING.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, ODI BELIEVES FORD?S ACTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT SAFETY RISKS AND THE INVESTIGATION IS THUS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:diesel
IN A JUNE 7, 2005 LETTER, FORD NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL OF APPROXIMATELY 180,000 FORD F-SUPER DUTY, EXCURSION AND E-SERIES VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES TO CORRECT TWO WIRING RELATED CONDITIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-270, FORD NO. 05S34).THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE BUILT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 AND MAY 31, 2004.ACCORDING TO FORD, VEHICLES WITH THE CONDITIONS MAY STALL WITHOUT WARNING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS OF VEHICLES INCLUDED IN THE RECALL TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FUEL INJECTOR CONTROL MODULE WIRE HARNESS UPGRADED OR REPLACED AND OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED.DURING A MAY 2005 PRESENTATION TO ODI, FORD IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS THAT COULD AFFECT ENGINE PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION, INCLUDING THE WIRING CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY 05V-270.THE WIRING CONDITIONS, WHICH BOTH AFFECT ENGINE FUELING, WERE THE MOST LIKELY CONDITIONS TO RESULT IN ENGINE STALL.THE RECALLED VEHICLES COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 43% OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION AND ACCOUNT FOR 75 OF THE 113 ODI REPORTS THAT HAVE A VALID VIN (66%).THE VOQ COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE RECALL POPULATION IS 45/100K WHILE THE RATE FOR VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE RECALL POPULATION IS 17/100K AND THEIR TREND (BY DATE OF RECEIPT) IS DECLINING.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, ODI BELIEVES FORD?S ACTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT SAFETY RISKS AND THE INVESTIGATION IS THUS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Engine And Engine Cooling
IN A JUNE 7, 2005 LETTER, FORD NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL OF APPROXIMATELY 180,000 FORD F-SUPER DUTY, EXCURSION AND E-SERIES VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES TO CORRECT TWO WIRING RELATED CONDITIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-270, FORD NO. 05S34).THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE BUILT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 AND MAY 31, 2004.ACCORDING TO FORD, VEHICLES WITH THE CONDITIONS MAY STALL WITHOUT WARNING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS OF VEHICLES INCLUDED IN THE RECALL TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FUEL INJECTOR CONTROL MODULE WIRE HARNESS UPGRADED OR REPLACED AND OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED.DURING A MAY 2005 PRESENTATION TO ODI, FORD IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS THAT COULD AFFECT ENGINE PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION, INCLUDING THE WIRING CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY 05V-270.THE WIRING CONDITIONS, WHICH BOTH AFFECT ENGINE FUELING, WERE THE MOST LIKELY CONDITIONS TO RESULT IN ENGINE STALL.THE RECALLED VEHICLES COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 43% OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION AND ACCOUNT FOR 75 OF THE 113 ODI REPORTS THAT HAVE A VALID VIN (66%).THE VOQ COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE RECALL POPULATION IS 45/100K WHILE THE RATE FOR VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE RECALL POPULATION IS 17/100K AND THEIR TREND (BY DATE OF RECEIPT) IS DECLINING.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, ODI BELIEVES FORD?S ACTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT SAFETY RISKS AND THE INVESTIGATION IS THUS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.
PE04070 · Engine Stalling
Opened Oct 7, 2004 · Closed Feb 15, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:diesel
TWENTY FIVE OF THE ODI FAILURE REPORTS ARE DUPLICATIVE OF FORD COMPLAINTS.TWENTY ODI REPORTS DO NOT CONTAIN A VIN (AND MAY OR MAY NOT BE DUPLICATIVE OF FORD REPORTS).THE 14 ALLEGED CRASHES AND 2 ALLEGED INJURIES WERE ALL MINOR.SUBMITTED DURING PRELIMINARY EVALUATION (PE) 04-070, FORD'S RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST (IR) LETTER CONTAINED ABOUT 5,000 CONSUMER REPORTS (MORS) AND 8,700 FIELD REPORTS (CQIS).FORD REVIEWED THE COMPLAINTS AND CATEGORIZED THEM.THE MANUFACTURER REPORTS SHOWN ABOVE REPRESENT A COUNT OF UNIQUE VEHICLES THAT FORD CATEGORIZED AS ALLEGEDLY STALLING DUE TO A SUBJECT ENGINE COMPONENT ('A' CATEGORY, SEE FORD'S IR RESPONSE LETTER FOR FURTHER DETAIL); SOME OF THESE VEHICLES RECEIVED MULTIPLE REPORTS.ODI HAS NOT YET CONFIRMED FORD'S CATEGORIZATION OF THESE REPORTS, NOR HAS ODI CONFIRMED FORD'S CATEGORIZATION OF THE REMAINING REPORTS (WHICH FORD STATES DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT).FORD SUBMITTED NEARLY 19,000 WARRANTY CLAIMS, MANY OF WHICH INVOLVED CLAIMS FOR A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN (TSB 04-13-08) AND FIELD SERVICE ACTION (FSA 03B05) WHICH FORD IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL REMEDIES FOR STALLING COMPLAINTS.ODI HAS NOT CONFIRMED THAT EITHER OF THESE ARE A REMEDY FOR ENGINE STALLING COMPLAINTS.SEVERAL OTHER DEALER COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO ENGINE STALL WERE ALSO SUBMITTED AS WELL AS OVER 50 PRODUCT MODIFICATIONS, 15 OF WHICH INVOLVE REVISIONS TO THE SOFTWARE FOR THE ELECTRONIC ENGINE CONTROL UNIT.FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED AND ODI IS UPGRADING PE04-070 TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA).DURING THE EA, ODI WILL ESTABLISH AND UPDATE MANUFACTURER FAILURE REPORT COUNTS, FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE FREQUENCY AND TREND OF STALLING COMPLAINTS, AND DETERMINE THE SCOPE AND SAFETY IMPLICATION OF STALLING EVENTS.ODI WILL ALSO INVESTIGATE FORD'S REMEDIES, THEIR EFFECTIVENESS, AND WHETHER FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED.