NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Power Train complaints
47 reportsClear category filter60,971 miles · May 28, 2014
Electrical SystemEnginePower Train
TRAVELED FROM CT TO MARATHON, FL, ARRIVING AFTER NOON. WITHIN SIGHT OF THE HOTEL DESTINATION THE ENGINE BEGAN TO BREAK DOWN AND RUN ROUGH. I ALSO SMELLED SMOKE. I MANAGED TO GET TO THE HOTEL PARKING LOT BEFORE THE ENGINE QUIT ALTOGETHER. A LOCAL SHOP DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS TWO CYLINDER MISFIRES AND FAILED IGNITION COILS. …
Read full complaint
TRAVELED FROM CT TO MARATHON, FL, ARRIVING AFTER NOON. WITHIN SIGHT OF THE HOTEL DESTINATION THE ENGINE BEGAN TO BREAK DOWN AND RUN ROUGH. I ALSO SMELLED SMOKE. I MANAGED TO GET TO THE HOTEL PARKING LOT BEFORE THE ENGINE QUIT ALTOGETHER. A LOCAL SHOP DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS TWO CYLINDER MISFIRES AND FAILED IGNITION COILS. 57 MI FROM THE DEALER IN KEY WEST AND OVER 100 MI FROM MIAMI, I ELECTED TO HAVE A LOCAL ASE CERTIFIED SHOP REPLACE THE COILS. REFLASHING THE PCM SHOWED A NEW SET OF CODES AND THAT THE PCM WAS FAILED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. ACCORDING TO MACHADO FORD IN MIAMI, THERE WERE NO PCMS IN FORD'S INVENTORY IN ALL OF THE US. SEARCHED FOR REMANUFACTURED PCMS WAS FRUITLESS AS WELL. FINALLY CONTACTED ARMSTRONG FORD IN HOMESTEAD AND THEY SAID THEY COULD FIX THE CAR. $996.56 TO THE SHOP IN BIG PINE KEY. TRANSPORTED THE CAR TO HOMESTEAD ON FRI 2/21. MONDAY THE DEALER HAD LOCATED A PCM AND REPLACEMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER WARRANTY TUESDAY AFTERNOON. I PICKED UP THE CAR ON WEDNESDAY AND LEFT FOR JACKSONVILLE IN THE AFTERNOON. 120 MI NORTH IN JUPITOR, THE ENGINE FAILED AGAIN. WE SAT ON THE SIDE OF THE FL TURNPIKE'S 70 MPH TRAFFIC UNTIL WE COULD HAVE THE CAR TRANSPORTED TO MULLINAX FORD IN WEST PALM, ARRIVING AFTER THE SERVICE DEPT HAD CLOSED. THE NEXT DAY I LEARNED THAT ALL THREE CATALYTIC CONVERTERS WERE PLUGGED AND NEEDED REPLACEMENT. TWO CONVERTERS WERE AVAILABLE AND WERE REPLACED ON 2/28. THE THIRD CONVERTER WAS BACK ORDERED WITH AN EXPECTED AVAILABILITY OF 3/31. SINCE THE REMAINING UNIT HAD DISCHARGED ITS CONTENTS INTO THE TAILPIPE AND WAS DISCARDED, I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE BACK TO CT. TASCA FORD IN BERLIN CT IS STILL WAITING FOR THE REPLACEMENT CONVERTER AFTER NUMEROUS EXTENSIONS OF DELIVERY DATES FROM FORD. THE FORD CUSTOMER SERV REP REFUSED TO RETURN MY CALLS. MY TOTAL OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES EXCEED $4000 TO DATE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10594495
61,000 miles · May 27, 2014
Power Train
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 FORD FUSION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN PUTTING THE VEHICLE INTO REVERSE, THE VEHICLE JERK VIOLENTLY AND MADE AN ABNORMAL SOUND. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC AND THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO D…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 FORD FUSION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHEN PUTTING THE VEHICLE INTO REVERSE, THE VEHICLE JERK VIOLENTLY AND MADE AN ABNORMAL SOUND. THE CONTACT MENTIONED THAT THE WRENCH WARNING ICON ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC AND THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 61,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE 61,374.
NHTSA ODI #10594302
118,000 miles · May 20, 2014
Power Train
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, WHEN MY CAR STARTED TO LOSE SPEED. I WAS ON AN INCLINE AT THE TIME WHICH MADE IT WORSE. I ALMOST CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. AFTERWARDS I PULLED OVER. MY WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. INDICATING THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. MY CAR WHEN IN TO LIMP MODE. AFTER DOING EXTENSIV…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AT APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH, WHEN MY CAR STARTED TO LOSE SPEED. I WAS ON AN INCLINE AT THE TIME WHICH MADE IT WORSE. I ALMOST CAUSED AN ACCIDENT. AFTERWARDS I PULLED OVER. MY WRENCH LIGHT CAME ON. INDICATING THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE THROTTLE BODY. MY CAR WHEN IN TO LIMP MODE. AFTER DOING EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ON THIS MATTER, I DID FIND THAT THERE HAS BEEN A RECALL FOR THE THROTTLE BODY REPLACEMENT IN NORTH CAROLINA. I DID CALL FORD AND MENTIONED THAT TO THEN. THEY HAD ME GIVE THEM MY VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER AND TOLD ME THAT IT DOES NOT APPLY TO MY VEHICLE. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CAN BE A SAFETY RECALL FOR SOME, BUT NOT FOR ALL. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10592933
26,000 miles · Feb 3, 2014
Power TrainVehicle Speed Control
THROTTLE UNRESPONSIVE ON LEFT HAND TURN AT INTERSECTION. NO POWER BUT ENGINE IDLES. THROTTLE BODY REPLACED UNDER WARRANTY. NOW SEVERAL YEARS LATER, THE THROTTLE BODY HAS FAILED TWICE AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS OF 55MPH. CAR RAPIDLY DECELERATES. TRANSMISSION DISENGAGES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10562673
75,000 miles · Dec 5, 2013
EnginePower TrainVehicle Speed Control
I STARTED MY CAR AND IT SOUNDED & SEEMED NORMAL. HOWEVER, AFTER DRIVING LESS THAN 2 MILES, MY ENGINE SUDDENLY DECELERATED AND THE RPMS DROPPED DRAMATICALLY. I TRIED TO ACCELERATE AND IT WOULD NOT INCREASE SPEED. I WAS ABLE TO GET OFF THE ROAD SAFELY. I HAD TO HAVE MY CAR TOWED. THE MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE PROBLEM WAS …
Read full complaint
I STARTED MY CAR AND IT SOUNDED & SEEMED NORMAL. HOWEVER, AFTER DRIVING LESS THAN 2 MILES, MY ENGINE SUDDENLY DECELERATED AND THE RPMS DROPPED DRAMATICALLY. I TRIED TO ACCELERATE AND IT WOULD NOT INCREASE SPEED. I WAS ABLE TO GET OFF THE ROAD SAFELY. I HAD TO HAVE MY CAR TOWED. THE MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE PROBLEM WAS DUE TO A FAULTY POWER TRAIN CONTROL MODULE WHICH IMPACTS THE IGNITION COILS AND THE ESTIMATED COST OF REPAIR IS $2100! ONE OF MY IGNITION COILS WAS MELTED. FORD HAS ISSUED A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN ON THIS ISSUE, HOWEVER, THEY DO NOT DEEM THIS A SAFETY ISSUE! CARS THAT JUST STOP RUNNING OR DECELERATE QUICKLY IS MOST DEFINITELY A SAFETY ISSUE. I CAN THINK OF MANY SCENARIOS WHERE THIS ISSUE WOULD CAUSE INJURY OR PERHAPS EVEN DEATH. HAD I BEEN ON A FREEWAY OR DRIVING AT A GREATER SPEED WHERE THERE WAS MORE TRAFFIC, I COULD CERTAINLY HAVE ENDED UP IN AN ACCIDENT WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE. I RESEARCHED THIS CONCERN AND FOUND THAT I AM NOT ALONE AND THERE HAVE MANY OTHERS AFFECTED BY THE SAME EXACT SITUATION. FORD IS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS SHOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CAR OWNER AND THEY DO NOT HOLD THEMSELVES ACCOUNTABLE. I UNDERSTAND HOW WARRANTIES WORK AND I REALIZE THAT CARS AGE. HOWEVER, THIS ISSUE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WEAR AND TEAR OR AGE. THIS IS A FAULTY PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT IS CAUSING A SAFETY ISSUE WHEN IT HAMPERS A VEHICLE'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE IN A FORWARD MOTION AT A NORMAL RATE OF SPEED. ANY HELP YOU CAN PROVIDE ON THIS ISSUE WOULD BE APPRECIATED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10554942
99,825 miles · Sep 9, 2013
Power Train
AUTO TRANSMISSION STOPPED SHIFTING INTO HIGHER GEARS. ONLY 1ST AND REVERSE. HAD A SHOP TRY TO REPAIR IT. NOW IT SHIFT FROM 1ST TO SECOND AND THEN TO FOURTH. STILL NO 3RD OR 5TH GEAR? SPENT OVER $ 600.00 SO FAR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10542772
93,000 miles · Aug 27, 2013
Power Train
MY VEHICLE HAS HAD NO PREVIOUS MECHANICAL DEFECTS OR ISSUES. ON THE ABOVE LISTED DATE, MY VEHICLE HAD DIFFICULTY STARTING AFTER SITTING (OFF) FOR APPROXIMATELY 12 HOURS. I BEGAN TO DRIVE AND THE VEHICLE DIED WHILE I WAS DRIVING. LATER DIAGNOSTICS REVEALED THAT THE PCM AND IGNITION COILS WERE DAMAGED. THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE FOR FO…
Read full complaint
MY VEHICLE HAS HAD NO PREVIOUS MECHANICAL DEFECTS OR ISSUES. ON THE ABOVE LISTED DATE, MY VEHICLE HAD DIFFICULTY STARTING AFTER SITTING (OFF) FOR APPROXIMATELY 12 HOURS. I BEGAN TO DRIVE AND THE VEHICLE DIED WHILE I WAS DRIVING. LATER DIAGNOSTICS REVEALED THAT THE PCM AND IGNITION COILS WERE DAMAGED. THIS IS A KNOWN ISSUE FOR FORD, AS THEY HAVE ISSUED A TSB ON THE ISSUE. FORD HAS NEGLECTED TO ISSUE A RECALL OR SAFETY ADVISORY TO THEIR AFFECTED CUSTOMERS, AND IS NOW FAILING TO RECTIFY THE ISSUE. THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY DEFECT, AS THE VEHICLE COULD BECOME INOPERABLE WHILE OPERATING AT MODERATE TO HIGH SPEEDS, WHICH COULD CAUSE A LOSS OF CONTROL. FORD IS AWARE OF THE ISSUE AND IS FAILING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND PROTECT ITS CONSUMERS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10537526
77,000 miles · Aug 23, 2013
Power Train
PTU (TRANSFER CASE) IS LEAKING OUT OF VENT TUBE. BECAUSE THE PTU OIL IS NOT SERVICEABLE (NO DRAIN PLUG) THE OIL HAS DEGRADED AND TURNED INTO A THICK TAR LIKE SUBSTANCE CLOGGING UP THE UNIT. NOW UNIT MAKES WHINING NOISE DURING ACCELERATION DESTROYING THE GEARS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10536908
Mileage unknown · Aug 19, 2013
Power Train
CAR BEGAN RUNNING ROUGH AND THERE WAS NO POWER IN THE THROTTLE. THE PROBLEM WAS DIAGNOSED AS AN ISSUE WITH THE THROTTLE BODY OR ACTUATOR. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10536075
42,000 miles · Jul 24, 2013
EnginePower TrainInjury
PURCHASED THE CAR FOR MY DAUGHTER'S 16TH BIRTHDAY. I BELIEVE IT ONLY HAD 20,000 MILES ON IT. SHE HAD IF FOR 2 YEARS AND HAS ALWAYS THOUGHT THE CAR RAN A LITTLE "SLUGGISH". IN APRIL, 2013 THE CAR BEGAN TO DECELERATE WHEN STEPPING ON THE GAS, AND WOULD NOT SHIFT PROPERLY. BROUGHT IT TO THE FORD DEALER WE PURCHASED IT FROM, WHO…
Read full complaint
PURCHASED THE CAR FOR MY DAUGHTER'S 16TH BIRTHDAY. I BELIEVE IT ONLY HAD 20,000 MILES ON IT. SHE HAD IF FOR 2 YEARS AND HAS ALWAYS THOUGHT THE CAR RAN A LITTLE "SLUGGISH". IN APRIL, 2013 THE CAR BEGAN TO DECELERATE WHEN STEPPING ON THE GAS, AND WOULD NOT SHIFT PROPERLY. BROUGHT IT TO THE FORD DEALER WE PURCHASED IT FROM, WHO TOLD US THE TRANSMISSION WAS GONE AND IT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. WE WERE EVEN TOLD THAT THESE PARTICULAR CARS "WERE NOT MEANT TO LAST" AND THAT "MOST PEOPLE TRADED THESE CARS IN AFTER ONLY A COUPLE OF YEARS." WE ALSO CONTACTED FORD MOTOR COMPANY WHO REFUSED TO HELP US OUT WITH ANY PORTION OF THE DEFECT. WE INSTALLED A BRAND NEW FORD TRANSMISSION FOR $1,400 AND NOW, ONLY 3 MONTHS LATER WE ARE HAVING TO REPLACE THE TRANSMISSION AGAIN FOR THE SAME PROBLEM. ALSO, WITHIN A COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER PURCHASING THE VEHICLE THE DOOR HANDLES STARTED TO PEEL AND MY DAUGHTER AND HER PASSENGERS HAVE CUT THEMSELVES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10531565
Official recalls
5Mar 10, 2021
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2007-2011 Ranger, 2006-2012 Fusion, Lincoln Zephyr, Lincoln MKZ, 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, 2007-2010 Ford Edge, and Lincoln MKX vehicles. The driver's side air bag inflator may explode due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to high absolute humidity, high temperatures, and high temperature cycling.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An inflator explosion may result in sharp metal fragments striking the driver or other occupants, resulting in serious injury or death.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the driver-side airbag inflator or module with an alternate one, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed on April 9, 2021 for the passenger side, and November 14, 2022 for the driver side. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S12.
Feb 16, 2021
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2005-2014 Mustang, 2004-2011 Ranger, 2009-2011 Mercury Milan, 2006 Ford GT, 2008-2012 Fusion, 2007-2010 Edge and Lincoln MKX, and 2009-2010 Lincoln MKZ vehicles. These vehicles may be equipped with a driver or passenger frontal air bag inflator used as a replacement service part, that may explode due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to high absolute humidity, temperature and temperature cycling.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the frontal air bag, an inflator explosion may result in sharp metal fragments striking the driver or other occupants resulting in serious injury or death.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the driver and passenger air bag module, and replace either the module or the inflator, if necessary, free of charge. The recall began March 17, 2021. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S05.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2005-2014 Mustang, 2004-2011 Ranger, 2009-2011 Mercury Milan, 2006 Ford GT, 2008-2012 Fusion, 2007-2010 Edge and Lincoln MKX, and 2009-2010 Lincoln MKZ vehicles. These vehicles may be equipped with a driver or passenger frontal air bag inflator used as a replacement service part, that may explode due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to high absolute humidity, temperature and temperature cycling.
Consequence: In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the frontal air bag, an inflator explosion may result in sharp metal fragments striking the driver or other occupants resulting in serious injury or death.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the driver and passenger air bag module, and replace either the module or the inflator, if necessary, free of charge. The recall began March 17, 2021. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S05.
Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2005-2014 Mustang, 2004-2011 Ranger, 2009-2011 Mercury Milan, 2006 Ford GT, 2008-2012 Fusion, 2007-2010 Edge and Lincoln MKX, and 2009-2010 Lincoln MKZ vehicles. These vehicles may be equipped with a driver or passenger frontal air bag inflator used as a replacement service part, that may explode due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to high absolute humidity, temperature and temperature cycling.
Consequence: In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the frontal air bag, an inflator explosion may result in sharp metal fragments striking the driver or other occupants resulting in serious injury or death.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the driver and passenger air bag module, and replace either the module or the inflator, if necessary, free of charge. The recall began March 17, 2021. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S05.
Air Bags:frontal
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2005-2014 Mustang, 2004-2011 Ranger, 2009-2011 Mercury Milan, 2006 Ford GT, 2008-2012 Fusion, 2007-2010 Edge and Lincoln MKX, and 2009-2010 Lincoln MKZ vehicles. These vehicles may be equipped with a driver or passenger frontal air bag inflator used as a replacement service part, that may explode due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to high absolute humidity, temperature and temperature cycling.
Consequence: In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the frontal air bag, an inflator explosion may result in sharp metal fragments striking the driver or other occupants resulting in serious injury or death.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the driver and passenger air bag module, and replace either the module or the inflator, if necessary, free of charge. The recall began March 17, 2021. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S05.
Dec 18, 2019
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2006-2010 Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr and MKZ vehicles. The valves within the ABS Hydraulic Control Units (HCU) may react with brake fluids containing specific corrosion preventative additives. This reaction may cause the valves to not close properly.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the valves do not properly close, additional brake pedal travel may be required to stop the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will flush the brake system with DOT 4 fluid and install a new brake fluid reservoir cap. In addition, the HCU will be tested to detect a possible stuck valve condition, replacing the HCU as necessary. All services will be performed free of charge. The recall began April 1, 2021. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S54.
Jan 10, 2017
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2012 Ford Fusion and Mustang and Lincoln Zephyr and MKZ vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan), and the U.S. Virgin Islands, or "Zone A." Additionally, unless included in "Zone A" above, Ford is recalling certain 2009 Ford Ranger, Edge, Fusion and Mustang, Lincoln MKX, MKZ and Zephyr and Mercury Milan vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia, or "Zone B." Additionally, unless included in "Zone A" or "Zone B" above, Ford is recalling certain 2007-2008 Ford Ranger, Edge and Lincoln MKX, 2006-2008 Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr and MKZ, 2005-2008 Ford Mustang and 2005-2006 Ford GT vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in the states of Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. These vehicles are equipped with certain air bag inflators assembled as part of the passenger frontal air bag modules used as original equipment or replacement equipment. In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the passenger frontal air bag, these inflators may rupture due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to absolute humidity and temperature cycling.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An inflator rupture may result in metal fragments striking the vehicle occupants resulting in serious injury or death.
Remedy: Owners are advised not to drive their vehicles until the repair has been performed. Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the passenger frontal air bag inflator, free of charge. Interim letters informing owners of the recall and that parts are not yet available began mailing March 1, 2017. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S01.
May 31, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2007-2011 Ford Ranger vehicles, 2006-2011 Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan and Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ vehicles, 2007-2010 Ford Edge, Lincoln MKX vehicles, 2005-2006 Ford GT vehicles, and 2005-2011 Ford Mustang vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan), and the U.S. Virgin Islands, or "Zone A." Additionally, unless included in "Zone A" above, Ford is recalling certain model year 2007-2008 Ford Ranger, Edge and Lincoln MKX vehicles, 2006-2008 Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan and Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ vehicles, 2005-2006 Ford GT vehicles and 2005-2008 Ford Mustang vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, or "Zone B." Any vehicle not included in "Zone A", or "Zone B" is not included in the safety recall. These vehicles are equipped with certain air bag inflators assembled as part of the passenger frontal air bag modules, and used as original equipment or replacement equipment. In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the front air bags, these inflators may rupture due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to absolute humidity and temperature cycling.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An inflator rupture may result in metal fragments striking the vehicle occupants resulting in serious injury or death.
Remedy: Owners are advised not to drive their vehicles until the repair has been performed. Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the passenger frontal air bag inflator, free of charge. Ford mailed interim letters informing owners that parts are not yet available on July 15, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S01.
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
5EA18002 · Extended Braking Distance
Opened Apr 18, 2018 · Closed Jan 15, 2021
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Air:antilock:control Unit/module
On April 18, 2018, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Engineering Analysis (EA) 18-002 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year (MY) 2006-12 Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ, and MY 2006-11 Mercury Milan vehicles manufactured with Continental Automotive System?s ABS hydraulic control units (HCUs). Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (initiated by slippery or uneven surfaces) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the vehicle stopping distance increased beyond driver expectations.Inside the HCU are four hydraulic normally closed (NC) valves with zinc-coated moving armatures that control the flow of brake fluid. Unstable brake fluid can degrade over time, allow the brake fluid to gel, and corrosion to form on the armatures. The high-viscosity gelation and corrosion can cause the armatures to become stuck (open). In some cases, braking returns to normal when the armature(s) subsequently become unstuck. The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose with complainants reporting having (non-HCU) repairs conducted only to have the condition return.During the investigation, 14 HCUs from complaint vehicles were recovered, including seven from reported crashes. NHTSA?s Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) disassembled the HCUs, removed the four NC valves in each, and confirmed 22 of the 56 NC valves contained stuck armatures. On seven of the 14 HCUs, both front wheel armatures were stuck, on nine of the 14 HCUs two or three armatures were stuck. And 52 of the 56 NC armatures exhibited corrosion of the zinc coating. Forces required to extract stuck armatures from the valve sleeve were measured to range from 1.1 to 18.0 lbs. VRTC also conducted ABS braking tests on a variety of test surfaces that showed HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel and braking distances. Testing also showed that if the driver was able to apply four times the brake pedal force and two times the brake pedal travel, then high-vehicle decelerations could be achieved, however, single or multiple wheel lockups were also occurring.Based on Ford?s response to ODI?s July 20, 2018 information request letter, and complainants' reports to NHTSA, ODI identified a population of vehicles with an elevated level of field failure compared to vehicles produced both before and after.Further evaluation of Ford?s response identified that the brake fluid used to produce these vehicles, a specific formulation of a DOT3 fluid provided by CCI Corporation between February 2006 and July 2009, differed from the brake fluid used in other vehicle populations. ODI used the correlation of fluid specification and elevated field failures to identify a vehicle population exhibiting a defect trend. The complaints, crashes and injuries cited above, and the 14 recovered HCUs involve vehicles from this population.On December 18, 2019, Ford submitted safety recall (19V-904) to remedy HCU failures on the MY 2006-2010 Ford Fusion, Lincoln MKZ, and Mercury Milan vehicles manufactured with the suspect CCI brake fluid formulation. Ford will function test the HCU and replace the DOT 3 brake fluid with an improved DOT 4 brake fluid. If the HCU fails the function test, Ford will install an HCU with a different armature coating (black oxide). HCUs with black oxide coating were fully phased into Ford?s new vehicle production by MY 2016; these HCUs do not appear to be experiencing armature corrosion. ODI notes that the non-recalled EA18-002 subject vehicles, which were manufactured with a different specification brake fluid, did not display an elevated level of field failures like the recalled vehicles.Based on available information, Ford?s rec
PE16017 · Extended Braking Distance
Opened Dec 20, 2016 · Closed May 4, 2018
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes; Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Service Brakes
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
EA12009 · Floor Mat Interference With Accelerator
Opened Dec 12, 2012 · Closed Jun 12, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
On May 27, 2014, Ford Motor Company submitted recall 14E-028 (Ford recall #14S07) to correct a safety-related problem with certain driver's side Ford optional all-weather floor mats sold for use in model year 2006 through 2011 model year Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, and Lincoln MKZ vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant (HAP) from November 9, 2007, to October 31 ,2010.NHTSA testing determined that the original accessory all-weather mat with a single retention clip (Figure 1), may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle with the mat retained by the clip and rotated clockwise.Both the single- and double-clip (Figure 2) all-weather floor mats may interfere with the accelerator pedal return to idle when the mats are not secured by the retention clip(s).Testing showed that this can occur if the mats are moved forward from the clipped position approximately two inches into a position in which the rear edge of the mats will abut the retention clip(s) when installed singly and align with the clip(s) when stacked on another floor mat.The pedal interference incidents reviewed by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) include 1 crash and 9 incidents with allegations of brake friction materials smoking and/or requiring repair for heat related damage.The crash incident occurred after the parking brake was applied at speed, resulting in loss-of-control vehicle yaw event caused by lock-up of the rear tires.The spin-out resulted in a side impact collision with an oncoming vehicle in an opposing lane of traffic. For the 29 incidents with sufficient information available to make an assessment; 23 (79%) were controlled by the driver either shifting to neutral, turning the engine off, or both; 4 (14%) were ended by the driver either kicking the pedal free (2) or pulling the mat away from the pedal (2); and 2 (7%) were ended by the pedal freeing itself from the mat with no apparent driver action.None of the drivers who reacted to the incident by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off reported any difficulties with either action.The subject mats were sold by Ford and Lincoln dealers directly to customers as an optional accessory equipment item or, beginning in November 2007, the mats were also available as a factory installed accessory if ordered with a new vehicle.Ford estimates that approximately 82,579 affected driver's side all weather floor mats were sold worldwide; either over the counter through Ford dealerships or as original equipment.Owners that purchased the subject all-weather floor mats as a factory installed accessory with their new vehicle will be notified to return their all weather floor mats to their Ford or Lincoln Dealership in exchange for replacement mats.Owners of all other potentially affected vehicles will be notified that, if they have an affected Ford driver's side all weather floor mat, they should return their mats to the dealership in exchange for replacement mats.The VOQs associated with the closing of this investigation are: 10327597, 10332233, 10334211, 10335336, 10339330, 10348772 (and duplicate 10342572), 10372674, 10379562, 10415911, 10426255, 10434107, 10521053, 10554966.This investigation is hereby closed.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
On May 27, 2014, Ford Motor Company submitted recall 14E-028 (Ford recall #14S07) to correct a safety-related problem with certain driver's side Ford optional all-weather floor mats sold for use in model year 2006 through 2011 model year Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, and Lincoln MKZ vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant (HAP) from November 9, 2007, to October 31 ,2010.NHTSA testing determined that the original accessory all-weather mat with a single retention clip (Figure 1), may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle with the mat retained by the clip and rotated clockwise.Both the single- and double-clip (Figure 2) all-weather floor mats may interfere with the accelerator pedal return to idle when the mats are not secured by the retention clip(s).Testing showed that this can occur if the mats are moved forward from the clipped position approximately two inches into a position in which the rear edge of the mats will abut the retention clip(s) when installed singly and align with the clip(s) when stacked on another floor mat.The pedal interference incidents reviewed by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) include 1 crash and 9 incidents with allegations of brake friction materials smoking and/or requiring repair for heat related damage.The crash incident occurred after the parking brake was applied at speed, resulting in loss-of-control vehicle yaw event caused by lock-up of the rear tires.The spin-out resulted in a side impact collision with an oncoming vehicle in an opposing lane of traffic. For the 29 incidents with sufficient information available to make an assessment; 23 (79%) were controlled by the driver either shifting to neutral, turning the engine off, or both; 4 (14%) were ended by the driver either kicking the pedal free (2) or pulling the mat away from the pedal (2); and 2 (7%) were ended by the pedal freeing itself from the mat with no apparent driver action.None of the drivers who reacted to the incident by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off reported any difficulties with either action.The subject mats were sold by Ford and Lincoln dealers directly to customers as an optional accessory equipment item or, beginning in November 2007, the mats were also available as a factory installed accessory if ordered with a new vehicle.Ford estimates that approximately 82,579 affected driver's side all weather floor mats were sold worldwide; either over the counter through Ford dealerships or as original equipment.Owners that purchased the subject all-weather floor mats as a factory installed accessory with their new vehicle will be notified to return their all weather floor mats to their Ford or Lincoln Dealership in exchange for replacement mats.Owners of all other potentially affected vehicles will be notified that, if they have an affected Ford driver's side all weather floor mat, they should return their mats to the dealership in exchange for replacement mats.The VOQs associated with the closing of this investigation are: 10327597, 10332233, 10334211, 10335336, 10339330, 10348772 (and duplicate 10342572), 10372674, 10379562, 10415911, 10426255, 10434107, 10521053, 10554966.This investigation is hereby closed.
Vehicle Speed Control
On May 27, 2014, Ford Motor Company submitted recall 14E-028 (Ford recall #14S07) to correct a safety-related problem with certain driver's side Ford optional all-weather floor mats sold for use in model year 2006 through 2011 model year Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, and Lincoln MKZ vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant (HAP) from November 9, 2007, to October 31 ,2010.NHTSA testing determined that the original accessory all-weather mat with a single retention clip (Figure 1), may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle with the mat retained by the clip and rotated clockwise.Both the single- and double-clip (Figure 2) all-weather floor mats may interfere with the accelerator pedal return to idle when the mats are not secured by the retention clip(s).Testing showed that this can occur if the mats are moved forward from the clipped position approximately two inches into a position in which the rear edge of the mats will abut the retention clip(s) when installed singly and align with the clip(s) when stacked on another floor mat.The pedal interference incidents reviewed by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) include 1 crash and 9 incidents with allegations of brake friction materials smoking and/or requiring repair for heat related damage.The crash incident occurred after the parking brake was applied at speed, resulting in loss-of-control vehicle yaw event caused by lock-up of the rear tires.The spin-out resulted in a side impact collision with an oncoming vehicle in an opposing lane of traffic. For the 29 incidents with sufficient information available to make an assessment; 23 (79%) were controlled by the driver either shifting to neutral, turning the engine off, or both; 4 (14%) were ended by the driver either kicking the pedal free (2) or pulling the mat away from the pedal (2); and 2 (7%) were ended by the pedal freeing itself from the mat with no apparent driver action.None of the drivers who reacted to the incident by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off reported any difficulties with either action.The subject mats were sold by Ford and Lincoln dealers directly to customers as an optional accessory equipment item or, beginning in November 2007, the mats were also available as a factory installed accessory if ordered with a new vehicle.Ford estimates that approximately 82,579 affected driver's side all weather floor mats were sold worldwide; either over the counter through Ford dealerships or as original equipment.Owners that purchased the subject all-weather floor mats as a factory installed accessory with their new vehicle will be notified to return their all weather floor mats to their Ford or Lincoln Dealership in exchange for replacement mats.Owners of all other potentially affected vehicles will be notified that, if they have an affected Ford driver's side all weather floor mat, they should return their mats to the dealership in exchange for replacement mats.The VOQs associated with the closing of this investigation are: 10327597, 10332233, 10334211, 10335336, 10339330, 10348772 (and duplicate 10342572), 10372674, 10379562, 10415911, 10426255, 10434107, 10521053, 10554966.This investigation is hereby closed.
PE10019 · Accel Pedal Interference - Acc Floormat
Opened May 28, 2010 · Closed Jan 11, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
Unsecured mats may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle. A heel blocker in the floor pan provides a platform that may lift an unsecured mat into contact with the pedal. Ford introduced new pedals as a running change early in model year (MY) 2010 vehicles. Analysis of complaints received by ODI and Ford show elevated rates of pedal entrapment incidents in MY 2008 through early 2010 production vehicles. Incidents typically occur following hard pedal applications to pass slower traffic or when merging into faster traffic. Drivers allege continued high engine power after releasing the accelerator pedal and difficulty braking, including reports that the incident was controlled by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off. Drivers and service technicians reference observing evidence of mat interference or note unsecured Ford or aftermarket all weather floor mats in post-incident inspections.Based on information gathered during the Preliminary Evaluation the population being investigated has been narrowed to model years 2008 to 2010.This investigation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis on MY 2008 through early-2010 vehicles (produced through September 2009) to further assess the scope, frequency and safety consequences of the alleged defect.The VOQs associated with the opening of this Engineering Analysis are: 10479693, 10415911, 10379562, 10372674, 10345830, 10342572, 10339330, 10335336, 10334211, 10332233, 10331160, 10329659, 10327597, 10320011, 10232027, 10214131
PE08060 · Tire Valve Cracking
Opened Oct 14, 2008 · Closed Apr 9, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Tires:valve
ON OCTOBER 14, 2008, ODI OPENED PE08-060 TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF CRACKED AND LEAKING SNAP-IN TIRE VALVES IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2007 VEHICLES MANUFACTURED BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY.THE VALVES WERE SUPPLIED TO FORD BY TOPSEAL AUTO-PARTS, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE SHANGHAI BAOLONG AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION IN CHINA.VALVES MADE BY TOPSEAL FOR AFTERMARKET SALE WERE THE SUBJECT OF TWO RECENT SAFETY RECALLS BY TECH INTERNATIONAL (08T-018) AND DILL AIR CONTROLS (08T-028), THE LATTER OF WHICH WAS INVESTIGATED BY ODI IN PE08-036 AND EA08-022.THE DEFECT CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY THE AFTERMARKET TIRE VALVE RECALLS BOTH INVOLVED INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING DUE TO ISSUES WITH THE SUPPLY OF ANTI-OZONANT CHEMICALS TO TOPSEAL FOR A PERIOD FROM JULY TO MID-NOVEMBER 2006.THE AFTERMARKET VALVES WERE COMPOUNDED WITH A BLEND OF EPDM AND NATURAL RUBBER, USING A RELATIVELY LOW PERCENTAGE OF EPDM (EPDM PROVIDES INHERENT RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING).HENCE, THE NEED FOR ANTI-OZONANT CHEMICALS AND THE PROBLEMS WITH CRACKING WHEN THOSE CHEMICALS WERE MISSING OR OUT OF SPECIFICATION IN SOME LOTS OF VALVES.BOTH RECALL CAMPAIGNS INVOLVED INSPECTION PROGRAMS TO IDENTIFY AND REPLACE VALVES WITH VISIBLE SURFACE CRACKING.ALTHOUGH THE TOPSEAL VALVES SUPPLIED TO FORD ALSO APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE ANTI-OZONANT SUPPLY ISSUES IN MID TO LATE-2006, FORD INDICATED THAT ITS VALVES WERE MADE AT A DIFFERENT TOPSEAL PRODUCTION LINE AND WERE COMPOUNDED WITH A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF EPDM RUBBER TO MEET MORE STRINGENT SPECIFICATIONS FROM FORD.ODI'S ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA PROVIDED BY FORD SHOWED THAT PROBLEMS WITH CRACKED TIRE VALVES WERE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER FOR MY 2007 VEHICLES PRODUCED FROM DECEMBER 2006 THROUGH MARCH 2007.FORD RESPONDED BY IMPLEMENTING CHANGES IN ITS MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR SNAP-IN RUBBER TIRE VALVES AND ALSO INCREASING THE QUALITY AND ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS FOR VALVES IMPORTED FOR USE IN ITS VEHICLES.WHILE THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM RATES ARE ELEVATED FOR SUBJECT VEHICLES PRODUCED FROM DECEMBER 2006 THROUGH MARCH 2007, THE RATES OF LEAKING VALVES ARE WELL BELOW ONE PERCENT OF PRODUCTION FOR EACH OF THE PEAK MONTHS FOR ALL OF THE AFFECTED MODELS.A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING SYSTEMS (TPMS) WHICH WARN THE DRIVER WHEN ANY TIRE PRESSURES DROPS BELOW 25 PERCENT OF RECOMMENDED INFLATION PRESSURE. AS OUTLINED IN A LETTER TO ODI DATED APRIL 6, 2009, FORD HAS AGREED TO SEND LETTERS TO OWNERS OF CERTAIN MY 2007 AND 2008 FORD, LINCOLN AND MERCURY VEHICLES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CRACKING CONCERN. LETTERS WILL BE SENT TO OWNERS OF VEHICLES BUILT FROM NOVEMBER 2006 THROUGH MAY 2007.OWNERS CAN OPT FOR A FREE DEALER INSPECTION.VALVES EXHIBITING SURFACE CRACKS OR AIR LEAKAGE RELATED TO OZONE ATTACK WILL BE REPLACED BY FORD UNDER ITS NORMAL WARRANTY TERMS.FORD EXPECTS TO SEND THE LETTER BY APPROXIMATELY MID-MAY 2009. BASED ON THE USE OF TPMS IN THE MAJORITY OF SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE RELATIVELY LOW RATES OF REPAIRS ASSOCIATED WITH LEAKING VALVES AND RESULTANT TIRE DAMAGE, ODI BELIEVES THAT THE ACTIONS FORD HAS AGREED TO TAKE WILL PROVIDE EFFECTIVE AND EXPEDITIOUS RESOLUTION FOR VEHICLES THAT WERE BUILT DURING THE PERIOD WHEN VALVES WITH INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING WERE MOST LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN USED IN VEHICLE PRODUCTION.FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER WOULD NOT BE AN EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF AGENCY RESOURCES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO
Illustration