Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
730–25K
5325–50K
4350–75K
2675–100K
8100–150K
1150K+
204 reports with mileage · 171 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. Review the 75 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Electrical System. Review the 72 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Back Over Prevention. Review the 52 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 reports6 fire reports10 injury reports
What owners actually said
375 reports
Mileage unknown · May 19, 2022
Electrical SystemService Brakes
Who investigates and enforces in your agency Chapter 301 Title 49 of the United States Code concerning vehicle 3rd brake light harness wiring failed state inspection due to safety issue? Contacted Wynne Ford Dealership per Ford Motors Representative to have Wynne submit the paper work on amount charged and date of repair. I con…
Read full complaint
Who investigates and enforces in your agency Chapter 301 Title 49 of the United States Code concerning vehicle 3rd brake light harness wiring failed state inspection due to safety issue? Contacted Wynne Ford Dealership per Ford Motors Representative to have Wynne submit the paper work on amount charged and date of repair. I contacted Wynne three times and I have not received a response to my request. Request your assistance or pass on my fequest to the proper agency.
NHTSA ODI #11465247
100 miles · May 18, 2022
Back Over Prevention
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact stated that the rearview camera would function properly on the initial first use however, other attempts to use the rearview camera throughout the day would be unsuccessful. The vehicle was taken to the dealer to be diagnosed. The contact was informed that the camera needed to be…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact stated that the rearview camera would function properly on the initial first use however, other attempts to use the rearview camera throughout the day would be unsuccessful. The vehicle was taken to the dealer to be diagnosed. The contact was informed that the camera needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 100.
NHTSA ODI #11465094
Mileage unknown · May 18, 2022
Engine
What component or system failed or malfunctioned, and is it available for inspection upon request? -The engine on my 2016 Ford Mustang EcoBoost is malfunctioning. My vehicle's RPM drop extremely low then rev high, then the car almosts cut off when I drive at low speeds, park, or stop at lights/stop signs. How was your safety or…
Read full complaint
What component or system failed or malfunctioned, and is it available for inspection upon request? -The engine on my 2016 Ford Mustang EcoBoost is malfunctioning. My vehicle's RPM drop extremely low then rev high, then the car almosts cut off when I drive at low speeds, park, or stop at lights/stop signs. How was your safety or the safety of others put at risk? -I stopped driving my car any further than 10-15 mile distances because I was afraid the car may cut off while I'm driving down the road in traffic. Has the problem been reproduced or confirmed by a dealer or independent service center? -I took my car to 3 different Ford dealerships, in Mississippi, North Carolina and Maryland. The first could not replicate the issue or find any issues, the second dealer whom I paid approximately $700 for repairs had my car for 3 weeks because they couldn't find the issue, so they replaced my spark plugs and an ignition coil and said it should be good. The third Ford dealership didn't diagnose it truly they just said it was leaking coolant so it had to be an internal coolant leak that has damaged my engine (causing a misfire), based on a Ford TSB that has apparently been out for a long time. Has the vehicle or component been inspected by the manufacturer, police, insurance representatives or others? -It was inspected by 3 different Ford dealerships. Were there any warning lamps, messages or other symptoms of the problem prior to the failure, and when did they first appear? -The first time I had this symptom was in the spring of 2021, but it was a one time thing and it went away. The next time I noticed the issue was around July of 2021 which is when I took it to the Ford dealership near me in Mississippi. The first time the check engine light came on was in April of 2022 when I arrived in Maryland after I took it to the repair shop in North Carolina. Note: I was in the process of moving from Mississippi to the DC area, otherwise I wouldn't have even driven it that far.
NHTSA ODI #11465078
Mileage unknown · May 17, 2022
Electrical SystemService Brakes
NSTB could not help me because they said it is individual dispute. This is not an individual dispute. It comes under the Code reference below! I summited numerous complaints to NSTB on this matter. I did contact Ford Manufacturer who advised me to contact Wynne Ford to summit the paper work. Two weeks has elapsed and Wynne Ford…
Read full complaint
NSTB could not help me because they said it is individual dispute. This is not an individual dispute. It comes under the Code reference below! I summited numerous complaints to NSTB on this matter. I did contact Ford Manufacturer who advised me to contact Wynne Ford to summit the paper work. Two weeks has elapsed and Wynne Ford has not summited the paper work. Request You have someone in your organization investigate the issue and get in touch with Wynne Ford or Ford Manufacturer since it comes under United States Code Chapter 301 Title 49! Your NHTSA representative made me aware of this Code and stated someone in your organization would investigate this matter. No one in this organization has investigated this matter or contacted them. A failed 3rd Brake light harness (Safety Hazard) caused my vehicle to fail State Inspection.
NHTSA ODI #11465057
Mileage unknown · May 17, 2022
Electrical System
Two wiring harness went bad one stated below and the other a back up camera harness which cause safety hazards. a I spoke with Ford Motor Representative reference the issue below and she informed me that the Dealership needs to submit the paper work. I Contacted Wynne Ford,1020 W Mercury Blvd, Hampton, VA 23666, 757-838-3673, th…
Read full complaint
Two wiring harness went bad one stated below and the other a back up camera harness which cause safety hazards. a I spoke with Ford Motor Representative reference the issue below and she informed me that the Dealership needs to submit the paper work. I Contacted Wynne Ford,1020 W Mercury Blvd, Hampton, VA 23666, 757-838-3673, three times to send the necessary paper work to Ford Motor Company for reimbursement of approximately $278 I paid in March 2020 to replace the 3rd brake light harness. This failed harness caused my vehicle to fail the State Safety Inspection. I had only one return call from [XXX], Service Department Representative, I asked her Dealership to send the paper work to Ford Motor Company. Still I have not received any response from them if they sent the paper work. I informed [XXX] to include in the paper work Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) which requires a manufacturer of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment that contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety to remedy the defect without charge. I request you reach out to Wynne Ford on my behalf. -----Original Message----- From: NHTSA Service Desk <noreply@telesishq.com> To: [XXX] Sent: Fri, Apr 15, 2022 10:04 am Subject: Request #505645 RECALL INQUIRY 2016 FORD MUSTANG INFORMATION Redacted PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6).
NHTSA ODI #11465041
3,400 miles · May 17, 2022
Structure
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact noticed a blister on the hood of the vehicle. The contact called the local dealer and sent photos of the fractured hood via email. The dealer called back to inform the cause of the blister was the corrosion. The manufacturer had been informed of the failure. The contact was refer…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact noticed a blister on the hood of the vehicle. The contact called the local dealer and sent photos of the fractured hood via email. The dealer called back to inform the cause of the blister was the corrosion. The manufacturer had been informed of the failure. The contact was referred to a collision shop. The vehicle was taken to the collision shop and was informed that the hood needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact took the vehicle to another local dealer, Five Star Ford of Warner Robins (900 Russell Pkwy, Warner Robins, GA 31088, (478)215-8381) and was provided with the same information and informed that the hood needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 3,400.
NHTSA ODI #11465000
62,571 miles · May 17, 2022
Back Over PreventionCrash
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number:22V082000 (Back Over Prevention) however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The local dealer was contacted. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number:22V082000 (Back Over Prevention) however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The local dealer was contacted. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The contact stated on 5/17/2022, his wife was using the rearview camera to reverse out of their garage and crashed into their other vehicle. The contact called the local dealer and made them aware of the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was 62,571. VIN tool confirms parts not available.
NHTSA ODI #11464929
59,000 miles · May 16, 2022
Engine
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact stated that after starting the vehicle, the check engine warning light was illuminated on the instrument panel. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic where the mechanic discovered a misfire in cylinder #3. The coil and the spark plug in cylinder #3 were replaced; howev…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact stated that after starting the vehicle, the check engine warning light was illuminated on the instrument panel. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic where the mechanic discovered a misfire in cylinder #3. The coil and the spark plug in cylinder #3 were replaced; however, the check engine warning light intermittently illuminated as the temperature gauge indicated that the engine was hot. The contact took the vehicle back to the mechanic where they discovered that the coolant level was low and recommended that the vehicle be taken to a dealer. The vehicle was taken to the dealer and the diagnostic test discovered that coolant had leaked into cylinder #3 and that the engine needed to be replaced. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and provided a case number. The contact was then referred to the NHTSA for assistance. The vehicle had yet to be repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 59,000.
NHTSA ODI #11464839
Mileage unknown · May 10, 2022
Back Over Prevention
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 22V082000 (Back Over Prevention) however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The dealer was made aware of the issue. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the reca…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Ford Mustang. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 22V082000 (Back Over Prevention) however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The dealer was made aware of the issue. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The contact had not experienced a failure. VIN tool confirms parts not available.
NHTSA ODI #11464013
Mileage unknown · May 9, 2022
Visibility
AC Evaporator failure does not allow the defroster system to operate properly.
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2015-2017 Mustang vehicles. Water and road salt may corrode the front seat belt anchor pretensioner cables.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A corroded cable can break, preventing the seat belt from properly restraining an occupant, and increasing the risk of injury during a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will inspect and replace both front seat belt anchor pretensioner assemblies, as necessary. In addition, dealers will remove sections of the carpet and underlayment that contact the cables. Dealers will also inspect the A-pillar sealing patches, and as necessary, install A-pillar body plugs, and/or inspect and replace the front outboard seat bolts. Repairs will be performed free of charge. Interim letters, notifying owners of the safety risk, were mailed October 20, 2025. Additional letters will be sent once the final remedy is available, anticipated December 2026. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 25S92. Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) involved in this recall became searchable on NHTSA.gov September 17, 2025.
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2015-2019 Lincoln MKC, Mustang, F-350 SD, F-250 SD, F-450 SD, 2015-2017 Lincoln Navigator, Expedition, 2015-2018 Edge, Transit Connect, 2016-2019 F-550 SD, Transit, 2017-2019 Econoline, and 2019 Ranger vehicles. The rearview camera may display a distorted, inverted, or blank image when the vehicle is in reverse.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A rearview camera that displays an inverted, distorted, or blank image can reduce the driver’s view behind the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will inspect and replace the rearview camera as necessary, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed January 13, 2026. Ford owners will receive letters in phases, beginning January 2026 and June 2026. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 25S89. This recall expands previous NHTSA recall number 25V270. Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) involved in this recall will be searchable on NHTSA.gov beginning September 8, 2025.
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2015-2017 Mustang vehicles. The rearview camera wiring may be loose or damaged, which can result in a blank or distorted image.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A rearview camera that displays a blank or distorted image can reduce the driver's rear view, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will inspect and repair the decklid wiring harness and/or replace the rearview camera, as necessary, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed December 23, 2022 and June 26, 2023. Remedy parts are expected to become available in the 4th Quarter of 2022. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 22S06.
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2015-2017 Mustang vehicles manufactured February 24, 2015, to August 30, 2016. A hose may separate from the engine oil cooler tube assembly causing an oil leak.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A sudden loss of engine oil may cause engine failure, increasing the risk of a crash. Additionally, an oil leak, in the presence of an ignition source, increases the risk of a fire.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the engine oil cooler tube assembly, free of charge. The recall began on March 23, 2017. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S40.
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2016 Ford Mustang vehicles manufactured September 26, 2015, to October 1, 2015. The front and rear seat belts and child seat tether anchors may have been damaged in shipping from the supplier to the vehicle assembly plant and may not adequately restrain the occupant in a crash. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard numbers 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," and 225, "Child restraint anchorage systems."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the restraint components do not function as intended, the occupants may not be properly restrained in the event of a crash, increasing their risk of injury.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the front and rear seat belt assemblies and the child seat tether anchors, free of charge. The recall began on December 18, 2015. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 15C13.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Child Seat:tether: Connector/clip
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2016 Ford Mustang vehicles manufactured September 26, 2015, to October 1, 2015. The front and rear seat belts and child seat tether anchors may have been damaged in shipping from the supplier to the vehicle assembly plant and may not adequately restrain the occupant in a crash. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard numbers 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," and 225, "Child restraint anchorage systems."
Consequence: If the restraint components do not function as intended, the occupants may not be properly restrained in the event of a crash, increasing their risk of injury.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the front and rear seat belt assemblies and the child seat tether anchors, free of charge. The recall began on December 18, 2015. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 15C13.
Seat Belts
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2016 Ford Mustang vehicles manufactured September 26, 2015, to October 1, 2015. The front and rear seat belts and child seat tether anchors may have been damaged in shipping from the supplier to the vehicle assembly plant and may not adequately restrain the occupant in a crash. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard numbers 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," and 225, "Child restraint anchorage systems."
Consequence: If the restraint components do not function as intended, the occupants may not be properly restrained in the event of a crash, increasing their risk of injury.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the front and rear seat belt assemblies and the child seat tether anchors, free of charge. The recall began on December 18, 2015. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 15C13.
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
1
EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture
Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
2016 Ford Mustang Problems, Complaints & Recalls | Skip That Year