NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
41 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · Dec 27, 2007
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED REAR BRAKES WORN AT 14,000 MILES. SCRAPPING SOUNDS WERE COMING FROM THE REAR OF VEHICLE, TAKEN TO DEALER, TOLD 15 DAYS TO GET PARTS. 1 MONTH LATER WENT TO DEALER, TOLD PARTS AVAILABLE FEB 2008, TOLD TO REPAIR VEHICLE ON MY OWN AND WOULD BE REIMBURSED. CALLED FORD, TOLD TO GO AHEAD. FOUND PARTS AND HAD VEHI…
Read full complaint
2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED REAR BRAKES WORN AT 14,000 MILES. SCRAPPING SOUNDS WERE COMING FROM THE REAR OF VEHICLE, TAKEN TO DEALER, TOLD 15 DAYS TO GET PARTS. 1 MONTH LATER WENT TO DEALER, TOLD PARTS AVAILABLE FEB 2008, TOLD TO REPAIR VEHICLE ON MY OWN AND WOULD BE REIMBURSED. CALLED FORD, TOLD TO GO AHEAD. FOUND PARTS AND HAD VEHICLE REPAIRED (NEW PADS AND ROTORS - $192.00), LATER IN THE AFTERNOON DEALER CALLS, PARTS HAVE MAGICALLY APPEARED, DEALER TOLD CAR IS REPAIRED. BOTH FORD AND DEALER REFUSE TO REIMBURSE. THIS SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM WITH THE VEHICLE AND FORD WILL NOT OWN UP TO IT. THE REAR WHEELS UP TO THE TIME OF SCRAPPING SOUNDS SHOWED EXCESSIVE BRAKE DUST VS THE FRONT WHICH SHOWED ALMOST NO DUST. BOTH FORD AND THE DEALERSHIP DISMISSED THE REIMBURSEMENT SAYING REPAIR WAS OFFERED, WHERE WERE THE PARTS THAT JUST APPEARED OUT OF THIN AIR WHEN THE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE RECEIVED IN FEB 2008? THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE THAT FORD IS IGNORING. GUESS I WILL NEVER BUY A FORD AGAIN IF THIS IS THE WAY THEY TREAT A CUSTOMER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10212955
Mileage unknown · Dec 10, 2007
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
I OWN A 2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED. WHEN I TOOK THE CAR FOR OIL CHANGE MAINTENANCE ON 11/25 AND TO HAVE THE TIRES ROTATED AND ALIGNED, THE MECHANIC SAID THE REAR BRAKES ON THE VEHICLE WERE 95% WORN, AND SHOULD BE REPLACED IN SHORT ORDER. THIS IS UNUSUAL SINCE THE VEHICLE IS FRONT WHEEL DRIVE AND ONLY HAD 21,300 MILES. THE MECHANIC …
Read full complaint
I OWN A 2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED. WHEN I TOOK THE CAR FOR OIL CHANGE MAINTENANCE ON 11/25 AND TO HAVE THE TIRES ROTATED AND ALIGNED, THE MECHANIC SAID THE REAR BRAKES ON THE VEHICLE WERE 95% WORN, AND SHOULD BE REPLACED IN SHORT ORDER. THIS IS UNUSUAL SINCE THE VEHICLE IS FRONT WHEEL DRIVE AND ONLY HAD 21,300 MILES. THE MECHANIC AT THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY WERE RECEIVING SEVERAL COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE BRAKES FOR THAT MAKE OF VEHICLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10211313
Mileage unknown · Aug 1, 2007
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
MY WIFE RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM FORD ABOUT A POSSIBLE SAFETY PROBLEM WITH THE REAR BRAKES. THE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE REPAIRS WERE MADE AND WE PAID FOR THEM. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10198221
19,500 miles · Jun 26, 2007
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED. THE CONTACT HAD TO REPLACE THE REAR BRAKES ON HIS VEHICLE. HE FOUND IT TO BE UNUSUAL SINCE THE VEHICLE IS FRONT WHEEL DRIVE AND ONLY HAD 19,500 MILES. THE MECHANIC AT THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY WERE RECEIVING SEVERAL COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE BRAKES FOR THAT MAKE OF VEHICLE. THE …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED. THE CONTACT HAD TO REPLACE THE REAR BRAKES ON HIS VEHICLE. HE FOUND IT TO BE UNUSUAL SINCE THE VEHICLE IS FRONT WHEEL DRIVE AND ONLY HAD 19,500 MILES. THE MECHANIC AT THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY WERE RECEIVING SEVERAL COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE BRAKES FOR THAT MAKE OF VEHICLE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE IS 20,500 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 19,500.
NHTSA ODI #10194258
39,000 miles · May 16, 2007
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE'S TWO REAR ROTORS HAVE FAILED. SHE HAD BOTH OF THEM REPLACED ALONG WITH THE BRAKE PADS. THE DEALER STATED THAT THERE WAS A GROOVE IN THE REAR ROTORS DUE TO A DESIGN FLAW THAT FORD HAS JUST RECENTLY NOTICED IN THE FORD FIVE HUNDREDS AND FREESTYLE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE'S TWO REAR ROTORS HAVE FAILED. SHE HAD BOTH OF THEM REPLACED ALONG WITH THE BRAKE PADS. THE DEALER STATED THAT THERE WAS A GROOVE IN THE REAR ROTORS DUE TO A DESIGN FLAW THAT FORD HAS JUST RECENTLY NOTICED IN THE FORD FIVE HUNDREDS AND FREESTYLES. THE CONTACT HEARD A LOUD GRINDING NOISE WHEN DRIVING IN REVERSE. FORD STATED THAT THE VENDOR OF THE PARTS IS FOR THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT ALSO NOTIFIED THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU. THE ENGINE SIZE WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE IS 40,400 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 39,000.
NHTSA ODI #10190915
38,585 miles · May 14, 2007
Latches/locks/linkagesService Brakes, Hydraulic
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED. ON MARCH 26, 2007, THE CONTACT HAD THE REAR BRAKES ON HIS VEHICLE CHECKED AND WAS TOLD BY THE MECHANIC THAT THE BRAKES WERE IN GOOD CONDITION. ON MAY 10, 2007, THE BRAKES BEGAN TO FAIL. WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, THE CONTACT HEARD THE REAR BRAKES GRINDING METAL …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED. ON MARCH 26, 2007, THE CONTACT HAD THE REAR BRAKES ON HIS VEHICLE CHECKED AND WAS TOLD BY THE MECHANIC THAT THE BRAKES WERE IN GOOD CONDITION. ON MAY 10, 2007, THE BRAKES BEGAN TO FAIL. WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, THE CONTACT HEARD THE REAR BRAKES GRINDING METAL TO METAL. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER WHO REPLACED THE REAR ROTORS AND BRAKE PADS. THE CONTACT HAS THE REAR ROTORS TO SHOW THE UNUSUAL WEAR. THE CONTACT ALSO HAS THE REPAIR ORDERS FROM BOTH REPAIRS. THE ENGINE SIZE WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 38,585. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE RECALL FOR THIS CAR WAS PERFORMED ON THE LATCH OF THE DOOR FOR THIS VEHICLE. UPDATED 06/06/07 *TR
NHTSA ODI #10190662
17,736 miles · May 7, 2007
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED. WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH, THE CONTACT HEARD A NOISE AND PULLED INTO A PARKING LOT. SHE ATTEMPTED TO DRIVE BUT WAS UNABLE TO BECAUSE THE REAR BRAKES LOCKED AND RUINED THE ROTORS. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER AND WAS REPAIRED. THE CURRENT MILEAGE IS 19,000 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WA…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED. WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH, THE CONTACT HEARD A NOISE AND PULLED INTO A PARKING LOT. SHE ATTEMPTED TO DRIVE BUT WAS UNABLE TO BECAUSE THE REAR BRAKES LOCKED AND RUINED THE ROTORS. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER AND WAS REPAIRED. THE CURRENT MILEAGE IS 19,000 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 17,736. THE CONSUMER HAS PROVIDED A COPY OF THE INVOICE. UPDATED 05/21/07 *TR
NHTSA ODI #10189997
Mileage unknown · Apr 17, 2007
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
I PURCHASED A 2005 FORD 500 NEW IN SEPTEMBER 2005. ON APRIL 17, 2007, 20 MONTHS I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALER FOR A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE AND THE 16,000 MILE CHECK UP AND I WAS TOLD IT NEEDED NEW REAR BRAKES. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY REAR BRAKES SHOULD BE REQUIRED SINCE I DRIVE VERY LITTLE, AND I TOOK EXTREMELY GOOD C…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A 2005 FORD 500 NEW IN SEPTEMBER 2005. ON APRIL 17, 2007, 20 MONTHS I TOOK IT TO THE FORD DEALER FOR A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE AND THE 16,000 MILE CHECK UP AND I WAS TOLD IT NEEDED NEW REAR BRAKES. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY REAR BRAKES SHOULD BE REQUIRED SINCE I DRIVE VERY LITTLE, AND I TOOK EXTREMELY GOOD CAR OF THE VEHICLES. I OWN TWO OTHER CARS. THIS APPEARED TO BE A MANUFACTURING OR AN ENGINEERING FLAW. I WAS SURPRISED ON HOW QUICKLY THE FORD DEALER KNEW TO LOOK AT THE BRAKES FOR PROBLEMS. THEY MUST BE DOING THIS ON A REGULAR BASIS. I CALLED FORD, AND THEY SAID THAT THE WARRANTY ON THE BRAKES WAS ONLY FOR 12 MONTHS, VERY CONVENIENT. NHTSA SHOULD START AN INVESTIGATION GIVING THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS ON THIS PROBLEM.AK
NHTSA ODI #10188120
22,137 miles · Apr 13, 2007
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
THE FORD FIVE HUNDRED HAD REAR BRAKE PAD AND ROTOR FAILURES AFTER ONLY 22,137 MILES. THIS REQUIRED REPLACING THE PADS AND ROTORS AT MY EXPENSE. MY LAST CAR REQUIRED NEW BRAKES AT 53,000 MILES. IN ADDITION ONLY THE REAR BRAKES WERE WARN OUT. THE FRONT PADS WERE STILL OKAY. IN MY OPINION THIS WAS CLEARLY EITHER A DESIGN FAILUR…
Read full complaint
THE FORD FIVE HUNDRED HAD REAR BRAKE PAD AND ROTOR FAILURES AFTER ONLY 22,137 MILES. THIS REQUIRED REPLACING THE PADS AND ROTORS AT MY EXPENSE. MY LAST CAR REQUIRED NEW BRAKES AT 53,000 MILES. IN ADDITION ONLY THE REAR BRAKES WERE WARN OUT. THE FRONT PADS WERE STILL OKAY. IN MY OPINION THIS WAS CLEARLY EITHER A DESIGN FAILURE OR A MATERIALS FAILURE. I CONTACTED FORD, AND WAS TOLD THAT BRAKES WERE A WEAR ITEM, AND THEY WILL DO NOTHING. FROM THE NUMBER OF CASES OF THIS TYPE FAILURE ON THE FORD FIVE HUNDRED AND THE MERCURY MONTEGO, ON THIS WEB SITE I WOULD THINK AN INVESTIGATION WOULD BE STARTED. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10187802
20,024 miles · Apr 12, 2007
Latches/locks/linkagesService Brakes, Hydraulic
TL* - THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED WITH A CURRENT MILEAGE OF 29,345 MILES. AFTER DRIVING THE VEHICLE FOR 191 MILES THE CONTACT HEARD A THUMPING NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR BRAKES. SHE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER, AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS CORROSION BETWEEN THE BRAKE PADS AND ROTORS. BOTH REAR BRAKES WERE REPL…
Read full complaint
TL* - THE CONTACT OWNS A 2005 FORD FIVE HUNDRED WITH A CURRENT MILEAGE OF 29,345 MILES. AFTER DRIVING THE VEHICLE FOR 191 MILES THE CONTACT HEARD A THUMPING NOISE COMING FROM THE REAR BRAKES. SHE TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER, AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS CORROSION BETWEEN THE BRAKE PADS AND ROTORS. BOTH REAR BRAKES WERE REPLACED. THE CONTACT DROVE THE VEHICLE FOR ANOTHER 9,319 MILES. WHEN THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SHE WAS TOLD THAT THE REAR BRAKES WERE 90% CORRODED. THE CONTACT REPLACED THE BRAKES. THE CONTACT CALLED FORD, AND WAS TOLD NOT TO USE THE BRAKES AS FREQUENTLY. *AK THE CONSUMER STATES DOOR LATCH FREEZES AT TIMES, DEALER PERFORMED RECALL ON VEHICLE. UPDATE 05/04/07*TR
NHTSA ODI #10187664
Official recalls
2Oct 5, 2006
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE FOLLOWING STATES: ALASKA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, IDAHO, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH, VERMONT, WEST VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN, AND WYOMING. THE SIDE DOOR LATCH MECHANISMS MAY EXPERIENCE WATER INTRUSION ALLOWING THE LATCH MECHANISM TO FREEZE IN COLD WEATHER.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AS A RESULT, THE DOOR LATCH PAWL MAY NOT RETURN TO THE LATCH POSITION WHEN THE DOOR IS CLOSED, AND THE DOOR COULD OPEN WHILE THE VEHICLE IS MOVING.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A SHIELD OVER THE FRONT LATCHES; SEAL A DRAIN HOLE IN THE REAR WINDOW TRIM MOLDING ON THE FREESTYLE REAR SIDE DOORS; AND APPLY GREASE TO ALL FRONT AND REAR SIDE-DOOR LATCH MECHANISMS FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON NOVEMBER 8, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
Nov 9, 2005
ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES, THE STRAPS THAT SECURE THE FUEL TANK TO THE VEHICLE BODY MAY BREAK, CAUSING THE FUEL TANK AND FUEL TANK HEAT SHIELD TO DROP ON THE DRIVESHAFT (ALL WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLES) OR EXHAUST SYSTEM (FRONT WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLES).
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS HAPPENS, DRIVERS MAY NOTICE A NOISE OR A FUEL LEAK. A FUEL LEAK IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE COULD RESULT IN A FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE BOTH FUEL TANK STRAPS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON DECEMBER 1, 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
2PE11018 · Idle Instability
Opened May 11, 2011 · Closed Feb 7, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control
On November 29, 2012, Ford Motor Company (Ford) initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 12N03 to extend warranty coverage terms for repair of engine idle RPM surge caused by throttle body deposits in all model year (MY) 2005 through 2007 Ford Freestyle, Five Hundred and Mercury Montego vehicles.The program extends the coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle (all vehicles are eligible for the program through May 31, 2013, regardless of mileage).Dealers will repair vehicles exhibiting the condition by removing and cleaning the throttle body and reprogramming the PCM with software containing an updated idle speed control strategy.According to Ford, some of the affected vehicles may experience momentary, intermittent engine idle RPM surge (idle flare) when stopped or during low speed driving maneuvers such as in a parking lot or driveway.Unstable idle speed control (dips and flares) around the target engine speed (700 rpm) can occur in vehicles with deposit build-up in the throttle body when the system adjusts engine speed in response to changes in engine load, typically from power steering application or air-conditioner compressor cycling.Idle speed control logic is only active at vehicle speeds below 3.5 mph and when the accelerator pedal is not applied.Ford testing of a vehicle with a worst case throttle body measured a maximum idle flare of 1360 RPM lasting approximately 1 second, which Ford indicated was consistent with system design to limit vehicle speed and acceleration in idle control mode.Ford indicated that the test vehicle was held in place with normal brake effort and that vehicle speed remained under 4 mph without the brake pedal applied.In addition to throttle body deposit accumulation, symptoms associated with the condition may include Check Engine lamp illumination and diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs) P0505, P0506 or P061B.Ford attributed the surge condition to changes in idle air flow resulting from the progressive buildup of deposits in the throttle body from normal Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV) system operation.This condition was not adequately compensated for in the original Powertrain Control Module (PCM) calibration.Ford issued a technical service bulletin on August 15, 2011 (TSB 11-8-5), releasing an updated powertrain control calibration for vehicles with CVT transmissions.On October 19, 2011, Ford issued a second bulletin (TSB 11-10-21) superseding TSB 11-8-5 and including updated powertrain control calibration for vehicles with 6-speed transmissions.Prior to Ford issuing the TSB?s, owner?s experiencing the alleged defect either received no repairs, if dealers could not duplicate the condition, or had the throttle body cleaned or replaced, which only provided temporary correction until the throttle deposit build-up returned.Ford?s revised powertrain calibrations appear to be effective remedies for the idle instability caused by build-up of throttle body deposits.However, even after the TSB?s were released, many owners experiencing the condition continued to have difficulty with proper diagnosis and repair as dealers were often either unable to duplicate the condition or were unfamiliar with the new repair procedures.Ford's new program addresses those concerns.NHTSA's testing and complaint analysis indicate that the idle speed control issue in the subject vehicles can only occur at very low speeds, are very brief events, are easily controlled by moderate brake pedal forces and result in minor increases in vehicle speed even with no braking.This investigation is closed.The closing of this in
PE07058 · Instrument Cluster Failure
Opened Nov 16, 2007 · Closed Mar 11, 2008
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System: Instrument Cluster/panel
THE SUBJECT VEHICLES EXPERIENCE A LOSS OF PROPER INSTRUMENT CLUSTER OPERATION.TYPICALLY, THE PROBLEM APPEARS AS THE NEEDLE ON THE GAUGE (SPEEDOMETER, TACHOMETER, FUEL, AND/OR TEMPERATURE) SWEEPS AND RESETS INTERMITTENTLY.FORD REPORTS THE PROBLEM AS MOMENTARY POWER INTERRUPTION CAUSES THE GAUGES TO SWEEP AND THEN RECOVER TO NORMAL FUNCTION.IN AUGUST 2006, FORD ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN (TSB 06-17-9) TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES TO SERVICE TECHNICIANS FOR DIAGNOSIS AND REPAIR OF THIS CONDITION.ODI'S REVIEW OF FORD'S RESPONSE TO THE AGENCY'S INFORMATIONREQUEST LETTER REVEALS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE REPORTS TO FORD (63%) INDICATE THAT THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER WOULD EXPERIENCE INTERMITTENT LOSS OF POWER.FORD REPORTS THAT THISLASTS FOR ONLY A FEW SECONDS.ALSO FORD STATES, THE VEHICLE'S EXTERIOR LIGHTING WOULD NOT FAIL TO ILLUMINATE EVEN IN THE EVENT OF POWER INTERRUPTION TO THE CLUSTER BECAUSE THE EXTERIOR LIGHTS ARE POWERED SEPARATELY AND DO NOT RELY ON ANY SIGNAL FROM THE CLUSTER.ADDITIONALLY, ODI CONTACTED COMPLAINANTS WHO AFFIRMED THE INTERMITTENT CONDITION AND THAT NONE OF THE EXTERIOR LIGHTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WOULD BE AFFECTED BY POWER INTERRUPTIONS TO THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER.ODI LAST RECEIVED A REPORT REGARDING THIS ISSUE IN AUGUST OF 2007.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED AT THIS TIME.ODI WILL HOWEVER CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE ISSUE AND WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Illustration