NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Suspension complaints
279 reportsClear category filter90,000 miles · May 6, 2010
Suspension
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 60 MPH, SHE HEARD AN UNUSUAL THUMP. IMMEDIATELY, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME HARD AND DIFFICULT TO CONTROL. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE SHE WAS ADVISED THE REAR AXLE HAD BROKEN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE A…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. WHILE DRIVING AT SPEEDS OF 60 MPH, SHE HEARD AN UNUSUAL THUMP. IMMEDIATELY, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME HARD AND DIFFICULT TO CONTROL. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHERE SHE WAS ADVISED THE REAR AXLE HAD BROKEN. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 90,000.
NHTSA ODI #10329135
185,887 miles · May 5, 2010
Suspension
DROVE CAR AND PARKED ALONG STREET. WHEN I RETURNED AROUND 4 HOURS LATER I OPENED CAR DOOR AND SAT DOWN IN DRIVER SEAT. A LOUD BAG WAS HEARD AND I THOUGHT SOMEONE THREW SOMETHING OR SHOT MY VAN. GOT OUT AND COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING. WHEN I STARTED TO DRIVE AWAY MY LEFT FRONT TIRE EXPLODED. THE NEXT MORNING I FOUND THE COIL SPRING …
Read full complaint
DROVE CAR AND PARKED ALONG STREET. WHEN I RETURNED AROUND 4 HOURS LATER I OPENED CAR DOOR AND SAT DOWN IN DRIVER SEAT. A LOUD BAG WAS HEARD AND I THOUGHT SOMEONE THREW SOMETHING OR SHOT MY VAN. GOT OUT AND COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING. WHEN I STARTED TO DRIVE AWAY MY LEFT FRONT TIRE EXPLODED. THE NEXT MORNING I FOUND THE COIL SPRING HAD BROKEN AND CUT THE TIRE WHEN I TRIED TO DRIVE AWAY. HAD I BEEN DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD THIS WOULD HAVE CAUSED ME TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE VAN. AFTER RESEARCHING THE INTERNET THIS SEEMS TO BE AN ONGOING ISSUE WITH FORD COIL SPRINGS AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A RECALL FOR MODEL YEARS 1999-2001. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10329026
185,887 miles · May 5, 2010
Suspension
DROVE CAR AND PARKED ALONG STREET. WHEN I RETURNED AROUND 4 HOURS LATER I OPENED CAR DOOR AND SAT DOWN IN DRIVER SEAT. A LOUD BAG WAS HEARD AND I THOUGHT SOMEONE THREW SOMETHING OR SHOT MY VAN. GOT OUT AND COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING. WHEN I DROVE AWAY MY LEFT FRONT TIRE EXPLODED. THE NEXT MORNING I FOUND THE COIL SPRING HAD BROKEN …
Read full complaint
DROVE CAR AND PARKED ALONG STREET. WHEN I RETURNED AROUND 4 HOURS LATER I OPENED CAR DOOR AND SAT DOWN IN DRIVER SEAT. A LOUD BAG WAS HEARD AND I THOUGHT SOMEONE THREW SOMETHING OR SHOT MY VAN. GOT OUT AND COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING. WHEN I DROVE AWAY MY LEFT FRONT TIRE EXPLODED. THE NEXT MORNING I FOUND THE COIL SPRING HAD BROKEN AND CUT THE TIRE WHEN I TRIED TO DRIVE AWAY. HAD I BEEN DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD THIS WOULD HAVE CAUSED ME TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE VAN. AFTER RESEARCHING THE INTERNET THIS SEEMS TO BE AN ONGOING ISSUE WITH FORD COIL SPRINGS AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A RECALL FOR MODEL YEARS 1999-2001. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10329025
207,000 miles · May 5, 2010
Suspension
THE REAR AXLE ON MY 2002 FORD WINDSTAR BROKE WITH NO WARNING. THE CAR HAS NEVER BEEN CRASHED AND IS MAINTAINED VERY WELL WITH NO VISIBLE RUST. THIS CAUSES LOSS OF CONTROL BUT I WAS ABLE TO GET THE CAR STOPPED WITHOUT INCIDENT. IN AN INTERNET SEARCH I SEE THAT THIS IS NOT AN UNCOMMON FAILURE AND WONDER WHY THIS IS NOT BEING INVES…
Read full complaint
THE REAR AXLE ON MY 2002 FORD WINDSTAR BROKE WITH NO WARNING. THE CAR HAS NEVER BEEN CRASHED AND IS MAINTAINED VERY WELL WITH NO VISIBLE RUST. THIS CAUSES LOSS OF CONTROL BUT I WAS ABLE TO GET THE CAR STOPPED WITHOUT INCIDENT. IN AN INTERNET SEARCH I SEE THAT THIS IS NOT AN UNCOMMON FAILURE AND WONDER WHY THIS IS NOT BEING INVESTIGATED. IT VERY DANGEROUS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10329017
Mileage unknown · Apr 21, 2010
Suspension
RECENT NOISE ON MY 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. REAR AXEL SNAPPED THIS MORNING WHILE MY WIFE WAS LEAVING HOME. I READ THE EXACT SAME INCIDENTS ON LINE WITH THE FORD WINDSTAR. CRACK APROX 12-18 INCHES IN FROM THE REAR LEFT SIDE. EXTENSIVE DAMAGE AND I WILL KEEP PHOTOS AND DAMAGED PART. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10326906
74,000 miles · Apr 3, 2010
Suspension
FOR ABOUT THREE TO FOUR YEARS NOW, WE HAVE BEEN HAVING WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE FRONT END OF OUR 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. WE HAD NUMEROUS FRONT END ALIGNMENTS DONE. WE HAD THE CASTER/CAMBER WORK DONE TWICE AT A VERY HIGH COST. (THIS REQUIRES TAKING THE FRONT COWLING APART IN ORDER TO PUT IN NEW FONT END PARTS) AND STILL…
Read full complaint
FOR ABOUT THREE TO FOUR YEARS NOW, WE HAVE BEEN HAVING WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE FRONT END OF OUR 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. WE HAD NUMEROUS FRONT END ALIGNMENTS DONE. WE HAD THE CASTER/CAMBER WORK DONE TWICE AT A VERY HIGH COST. (THIS REQUIRES TAKING THE FRONT COWLING APART IN ORDER TO PUT IN NEW FONT END PARTS) AND STILL THE VEHICLE WOULD PULL IN EITHER DIRECTION AT ANY GIVEN TIME. IT WOULD AT TIMES WONDER BACK AND FORTH ON THE ROAD. ABOUT A WEEK AGO MY WIFE SAID SHE HERD STRANGE NOISES. (CLUNKS, SQUEAKS ETC.) THEN TODAY SHE WAS DRIVING THE VAN WITH MY KIDS TO CHURCH. LUCKILY IT WAS LOCAL. SHE SAID SHE HERD A BANG AND THE VAN STARTED TO SQUEAK AND WONDER ALL OVER THE ROAD UNCONTROLLABLY. SHE STARTED TO SMELL SOMETHING BURNING. SHE SAID THE STEERING WHEEL HAD TO BE TURNED IN AN ABNORMAL POSITION IN ORDER TO KEEP THE VAN GOING STRAIGHT DOWN THE ROAD. WHEN SHE GOT HOME I LOOKED AT THE VAN SITTING IN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE REAR WHEELS WERE TILTED IN AT THE TOP. I CRAWLED UNDER AND FOUND THAT THE REAR AXLE BEAM HAD CRACKED ALMOST ALL THE WAY THROUGH. THE CRACK WAS ABOUT 18 INCHES IN FORM THE DRIVERS SIDE. THE PASSENGER SIDE LOOKED AS THOUGH IT WOULD EVENTUALLY CRACK ALSO. WHEN I LOOKED CLOSER AT THE CRACK, YOU COULD SEE SHINING METAL AT THE TOP PART OF THE CRACK, INDICATING IT WAS A NEW CRACK. THERE WAS SURFACE RUST ON THE LOWER PART OF THE CRACK INDICATING THAT THE CRACK HAD BEEN THERE FOR SOME TIME AND HAD JUST GOTTEN BIGGER. THIS EXPLAINS THE WONDERING PROBLEM WE HAVE BEEN HAVING. BEING THAT THIS IS A 2002 IT IS OUT OF WARRANTY BUT THIS IS DEFINITELY A SAFETY PROBLEM AND SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AS A RECALL BY FORD. I AM SCARED THINKING WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED IF MY WIFE AND KIDS WERE DRIVING ON AN INTERSTATE AT 65 MPH. I AM ALSO SCARED THINKING THAT MY 16 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WHO JUST STARTED DRIVING ON HER PERMIT WAS DRIVING THIS VEHICLE IN THIS CONDITION. THANK GOD THEY WERE DRIVING LOCAL AT THE TIME THAT THE CRACK WORSENED TO A POINT THAT IT IS NOW UNDRIVABLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10323639
104,400 miles · Mar 15, 2010
Suspension
MY WIFE TOLD ME SHE HEARD A RUBBING SOUND IN THE REAR OF HER 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. I QUICKLY NOTICED THE LEFT REAR WHEEL WAS TILTED IN FROM THE TOP. FIGURING IT WAS A WORN WHEEL BEARING OR BROKEN CONTROL ARM, I JACKED IT UP, PULLED THE WHEEL AND NOTICED THE AXLE WAS ALMOST COMPLETELY BROKEN ABOUT 8 INCHES LEFT OF CENTER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10320031
78,338 miles · Mar 12, 2010
Suspension
DRIVING HOME FROM A FAMILY OUTING ON 03/06/2010, WE HEARD A LOUD SOUND/CLUNK COMING FROM THE REAR OF OUR 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. LUCKILY, WE WERE ONLY DOING 30 MPH ON OUR STREET RIGHT ALMOST TO OUR DRIVEWAY, INSTEAD OF BEING ON THE EXPRESSWAY DOING 60 MPH AS WE WERE ONLY MINUTES BEFORE . THE VAN'S REAR END SWERVED AS I APPLIED TH…
Read full complaint
DRIVING HOME FROM A FAMILY OUTING ON 03/06/2010, WE HEARD A LOUD SOUND/CLUNK COMING FROM THE REAR OF OUR 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. LUCKILY, WE WERE ONLY DOING 30 MPH ON OUR STREET RIGHT ALMOST TO OUR DRIVEWAY, INSTEAD OF BEING ON THE EXPRESSWAY DOING 60 MPH AS WE WERE ONLY MINUTES BEFORE . THE VAN'S REAR END SWERVED AS I APPLIED THE BRAKES. I MANAGED TO PULL INTO OUR DRIVEWAY AND CALM THE WIFE AND KIDS DOWN (WHO WERE HYSTERICAL). I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I WAS SCARED ALSO. WHEN I MANAGED TO PARK THE VAN, I NOTICED THAT THE REAR TIRES WERE SLANTED INTO THE VAN, RUBBING THE WHEEL WELLS AT THE TOP. I THEN LOOKED UNDER THE REAR OF THE VAN AND SEEN THAT THE REAR AXLE BEAM WAS BROKE, ABOUT 18" FROM THE DRIVER SIDE REAR TIRE. I IMPLORE EVERONE THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED TO TO CALL THE FORD CUSTOMER CARE NUMBER (1-800-241-3673) AND REPORT IT. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THAT FORD WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THIS PROBLEM AS A POTENTIAL MANUFACTURER DEFECT. OUR 2002 WINDSTAR HAS ONLY 78,338 MILES ON IT. OUR LOCAL DEALER, WHERE WE BOUGHT IT FROM, SAID THEY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THIS HAPPENING. I FIND IT VERY HARD TO BELIEVE SINCE I CAN BRING UP ABOUT 100 DIFFERENT COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS VERY SAM THING FOR THE MODEL YEARS 2000-2002.
NHTSA ODI #10319242
66,000 miles · Feb 19, 2010
Suspension
I HEARD A RATTLE WHICH SOUNDED LIKE A LOOSE TAILPIPE. I BROUGHT IT TO MY MECHANIC TO HAVE IT LOOKED AT. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT THE REAR AXLE BEAM HAD SNAPPED. HE SAID THAT IT WAS NOT DAMAGED AND IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS JUST A BAD PIECE OF STEEL. HE HAD NEVER SEEN THIS PROBLEM BEFORE. THE PARTS DID NOT HAVE TO BE ORDERED BECAUSE THE…
Read full complaint
I HEARD A RATTLE WHICH SOUNDED LIKE A LOOSE TAILPIPE. I BROUGHT IT TO MY MECHANIC TO HAVE IT LOOKED AT. THE PROBLEM WAS THAT THE REAR AXLE BEAM HAD SNAPPED. HE SAID THAT IT WAS NOT DAMAGED AND IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS JUST A BAD PIECE OF STEEL. HE HAD NEVER SEEN THIS PROBLEM BEFORE. THE PARTS DID NOT HAVE TO BE ORDERED BECAUSE THE PARTS WERE READILY AVAILABLE AND IN STOCK AT HIS PARTS DEALER. AFTER LOOKING ON THE INTERNET I FOUND THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. I WAS LUCKY THAT THE AXLE BEAM DID NOT BREAK WHILE I WAS TRAVELING ON THE HIGHWAY BECAUSE THE HANDLING OF THE VEHICLE WAS SEVERELY COMPROMISED. THE REAR AXLE BEAM WAS REPLACED AT A COST OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS. I DID NOT KEEP THE OLD AXLE BEAM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10312160
133,460 miles · Feb 15, 2010
Suspension
I WAS DRIVING MY 2002 FOR WINDSTAR AND THE ROADS WERE SNOWY AND SLIPPERY. WHILE DRIVING THE VAN SEEMED TO SLIDE AND SWAY IN THE BACK. I ASSUMED IT WAS FROM THE SNOWY ROADS AND TOOK THE VAN HOME. 2 DAYS LATER WHEN THE ROADS WERE PRETTY WELL CLEARED I TOOK THE VAN OUT AGAIN. WHILE DRIVING ON CLEAR PAVEMENT THE VAN SEEMED TO SWAY A…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING MY 2002 FOR WINDSTAR AND THE ROADS WERE SNOWY AND SLIPPERY. WHILE DRIVING THE VAN SEEMED TO SLIDE AND SWAY IN THE BACK. I ASSUMED IT WAS FROM THE SNOWY ROADS AND TOOK THE VAN HOME. 2 DAYS LATER WHEN THE ROADS WERE PRETTY WELL CLEARED I TOOK THE VAN OUT AGAIN. WHILE DRIVING ON CLEAR PAVEMENT THE VAN SEEMED TO SWAY AND SLIDE LIKE I WAS ON ICE IN THE REAR-END. AS I HEADED HOME IT GOT WORSE AND WAS SHAKING AND SWAYING. I SLOWED DOWN TO ABOUT 20 MILES PER HOUR AND GOT THE VAN HOME. I HAD IT LOOKED AT AND WAS TOLD THAT THE AXLE IS 1 TO 2 INCH FROM A COMPLETE BREAK. IF IT WOULD HAVE BROKE WHILE I WAS DRIVING IT WOULD HAVE CAUSED ME TO WRECK. I HAVE RESEARCHED THIS AND HAVE FOUND MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS HAPPENING TO 02 WINDSTARS. I CANT AFFORD TO FIX SOMETHING THIS EXPENSIVE. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE SOMEONE GETS HURT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10310595
Official recalls
8Sep 29, 2015
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 1998-2003 Windstar vehicles manufactured September 2, 1997, to July 3, 2003. The affected vehicles were previously remedied to safeguard against the rear axle cracking from corrosion, however, the remedy brackets may have been misinstalled. The incorrect bracket installations may limit the effectiveness of the service repair for NHTSA recalls 10V-385, 12V-193, and 12V-195.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the brackets were not installed properly, the rear axle may fracture, affecting the vehicle handling and increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the brackets to verify their proper installation. If a bracket is found to have been misinstalled, the rear axle will be replaced. These repairs will be performed free of charge. The began on October 21, 2015. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 15S27.
May 3, 2012
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1998-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1997, THROUGH JULY 3, 2003, AND CURRENTLY REGISTERED OR ORIGINALLY SOLD IN VIRGINIA. OVER TIME, CORROSION CAN WEAKEN THE REAR AXLE MAKING IT SUSCEPTIBLE TO TORSIONAL STRESS. CORROSION AND STRESS CAN LEAD TO CRACKS WHICH, IF UNDETECTED, CAN INCREASE AND RESULT IN A COMPLETE FRACTURE OF THE AXLE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A FRACTURED AXLE CAN AFFECT VEHICLE HANDLING AND INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND INSTALL REAR AXLE REINFORCEMENT BRACKETS, OR REPLACE THE AXLES, AS NECESSARY. THIS SERVICE WILL BE PERFORMED FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JUNE 19, 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
May 3, 2012
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1999-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES ORIGINALLY SOLD IN OR CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. CORROSION-RELATED FRACTURES OF THE FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM REAR ATTACHING BRACKETS AND BODY MOUNT ATTACHMENTS MAY OCCUR.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A SEPARATION OF A FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM REAR ATTACHING BRACKET MAY RESULT IN A LOWER CONTROL ARM SEPARATION. A SEPARATION OF BOTH FRONT SUBFRAME REAR BODY MOUNTS MAY RESULT IN SEPARATION OF THE STEERING INTERMEDIATE SHAFT. EITHER CONDITION COULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT BOTH FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM REAR ATTACHING BRACKETS AND BOTH BODY MOUNT ATTACHMENTS AT THE REAR OF THE FRONT SUBFRAME AND MAKE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JUNE 18, 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
May 3, 2012
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1998-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1997, THROUGH JULY 3, 2003, REGISTERED IN PUERTO RICO. DUE TO INCREASED STRESSES CAUSED BY HIGH CYCLES OF TORSIONAL LOADING, SPECIFIC TO THIS MARKET, THE REAR AXLE CAN CRACK.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A FRACTURED AXLE MAY RESULT IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND INSTALL A REINFORCEMENT BRACKET ON THE REAR AXLE OR REPLACE THE AXLES, AS NECESSARY. THIS SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JUNE 1, 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
Jan 26, 2011
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1999-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES ORIGINALLY SOLD IN OR CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE STATES OF CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KENTUCKY, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, UTAH, VERMONT, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN. A SEPARATION OF A FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM REAR ATTACHING BRACKET MAY RESULT IN A LOWER CONTROL ARM SEPARATION. A SEPARATION OF BOTH FRONT SUBFRAME REAR BODY MOUNTS MAY RESULT IN SEPARATION OF THE STEERING INTERMEDIATE SHAFT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN REDUCED STEERING CONTROL INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT BOTH FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM REAR ATTACHING BRACKETS, AND BOTH BODY MOUNT ATTACHMENTS AT THE REAR OF THE FRONT SUBFRAME, AND MAKE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS FREE OF CHARGE. IF REPAIRS CANNOT BE MADE TO A VEHICLE, FORD WILL OFFER TO REPURCHASE THE VEHICLE. THE SAFETY RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 21, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
Aug 26, 2010
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1998-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1997 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2003 AND CURRENTLY REGISTERED OR ORIGINALLY SOLD IN CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KENTUCKY, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN. AFTER MANY YEARS OF VEHICLE SERVICE IN THESE AREAS, CORROSION CAN WEAKEN THE REAR AXLE, MAKING IT SUSCEPTIBLE TO TORSIONAL STRESS. CORROSION AND STRESS CAN LEAD TO CRACKS WHICH IF UNDETECTED CAN PROPAGATE AND RESULT IN A COMPLETE FRACTURE OF THE AXLE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A FRACTURED AXLE CAN AFFECT VEHICLE HANDLING AND INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: AS PARTS BECOME AVAILABLE, DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND IF NECESSARY INSTALL THE REAR AXLE REINFORCEMENT BRACKETS FREE OF CHARGE. THIS SERVICE WILL BE PERFORMED FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON OCTOBER 20, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
Oct 13, 2009
FORD IS RECALLING MODEL YEARS 1995-2003 WINDSTAR, 2000-2003 EXCURSION DIESEL, 1993-1997 AND 1999-2003 F-250 SD THROUGH F-550 SD DIESEL, 1992-2003 E-150 THROUGH E-550, 1995-2002 EXPLORER, 1997 AND 2002 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER, 1995-1997 AND 2001-2003 RANGER, AND 1994 F53 VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS). THE SCDS MAY LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE FIRE COULD OCCUR WITH OR WITHOUT THE ENGINE RUNNING.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS THAT DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS IN LINE WITH THE SCDS. ON 1999-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES WITH A LEAKING SCDS, DEALERS WILL ALSO INSPECT THE ABS CONTROL MODULE CONNECTOR AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY. REPAIRS WILL BE COMPLETED FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON OCTOBER 27, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
Nov 6, 2003
CERTAIN MINIVANS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 225, "CHILD RESTRAINT ANCHORAGE SYSTEM." DURING TESTING, A THIRD ROW BENCH FLOOR-TO-SEAT LATCH RELEASED BEFORE THE STRENGTH REQUIREMENT WAS MET. IDENTICAL LATCHES ARE USED IN THE SECOND ROW OF SEATS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE LATCHES ON TH4E SECOND OR THIRD ROW SEATS OF THE VEHICLE RELEASE IN A CRASH, THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCUPANT INJURY IS INCREASED.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SEAT-TO-FLOOR LATCHES ON THE SECOND AND THIRD ROW OF SEATS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON NOVEMBER 21, 2003. OWNERS SHOULD 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
6EA10007 · Front Subframe Corrosion Failures
Opened Dec 20, 2010 · Closed Mar 17, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:frame And Members; Suspension
In a January 26, 2011 Defect Information Report, Ford Motor Company (Ford) notified the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that it will conduct a safety recall to address corrosion related fractures in the front lower control arm rear attaching brackets and body mount attachments at the rear of the front subframe in approximately 425,288 model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles manufactured from April 1998 to July 2003 and either sold or currently registered in the following high corrosion (Salt-Belt) states:Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin (NHTSA Recall No. 11V-030, Ford Recall No. 11S16).According to Ford, separation of a front lower control arm rear attaching bracket may result in a lower control arm separation and separations of both front subframe rear body mounts may result in separation of the steering intermediate shaft.Either condition could result in diminished vehicle directional control, increasing the risk of a crash.Dealers will inspect the lower control arm rear attachment flanges and the rear body mount sections of the subframe on the right (passenger) and left (driver) sides of the vehicle.Owners of vehicles that pass the inspection will be notified when to return for installation of reinforcement brackets to extend the durability of the front subframe assembly in affected areas in the presence of corrosion.Owners of vehicles that do not pass inspection, but can be repaired, will be offered transportation until parts become available.Repurchase offers will be extended to owners of vehicles that cannot be repaired with the reinforcement brackets.This investigation is closed.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Structure:frame And Members
In a January 26, 2011 Defect Information Report, Ford Motor Company (Ford) notified the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that it will conduct a safety recall to address corrosion related fractures in the front lower control arm rear attaching brackets and body mount attachments at the rear of the front subframe in approximately 425,288 model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles manufactured from April 1998 to July 2003 and either sold or currently registered in the following high corrosion (Salt-Belt) states:Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin (NHTSA Recall No. 11V-030, Ford Recall No. 11S16).According to Ford, separation of a front lower control arm rear attaching bracket may result in a lower control arm separation and separations of both front subframe rear body mounts may result in separation of the steering intermediate shaft.Either condition could result in diminished vehicle directional control, increasing the risk of a crash.Dealers will inspect the lower control arm rear attachment flanges and the rear body mount sections of the subframe on the right (passenger) and left (driver) sides of the vehicle.Owners of vehicles that pass the inspection will be notified when to return for installation of reinforcement brackets to extend the durability of the front subframe assembly in affected areas in the presence of corrosion.Owners of vehicles that do not pass inspection, but can be repaired, will be offered transportation until parts become available.Repurchase offers will be extended to owners of vehicles that cannot be repaired with the reinforcement brackets.This investigation is closed.
Suspension
In a January 26, 2011 Defect Information Report, Ford Motor Company (Ford) notified the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that it will conduct a safety recall to address corrosion related fractures in the front lower control arm rear attaching brackets and body mount attachments at the rear of the front subframe in approximately 425,288 model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles manufactured from April 1998 to July 2003 and either sold or currently registered in the following high corrosion (Salt-Belt) states:Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin (NHTSA Recall No. 11V-030, Ford Recall No. 11S16).According to Ford, separation of a front lower control arm rear attaching bracket may result in a lower control arm separation and separations of both front subframe rear body mounts may result in separation of the steering intermediate shaft.Either condition could result in diminished vehicle directional control, increasing the risk of a crash.Dealers will inspect the lower control arm rear attachment flanges and the rear body mount sections of the subframe on the right (passenger) and left (driver) sides of the vehicle.Owners of vehicles that pass the inspection will be notified when to return for installation of reinforcement brackets to extend the durability of the front subframe assembly in affected areas in the presence of corrosion.Owners of vehicles that do not pass inspection, but can be repaired, will be offered transportation until parts become available.Repurchase offers will be extended to owners of vehicles that cannot be repaired with the reinforcement brackets.This investigation is closed.
PE10026 · Front Subframe Corrosion Failures
Opened Jul 20, 2010 · Closed Dec 20, 2010
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:frame And Members; Suspension
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has identified 346 complaints to ODI and Ford alleging fracture, cracking and or excessive corrosion of the front subframes in model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles.Approximately 97 percent of these complaints (334) involve vehicles that have been operated in Salt Belt states, which make up approximately 60 percent of the subject vehicle sales in the United States.The front subframe, sometimes referred to as the engine cradle, is a structural component of the Windstar vehicles that carries the engine, transaxle, steering rack and certain front suspension components (e.g., lower control arm).For complaints with sufficient information to identify the location of the failure, most describe problems with the rear mounting bracket for the front passenger-side lower control arm with some related to the rear body mount attachment located in the same general area of the subframe (right-rear section near the front passenger wheel).The remainder of the reports allege fracture of the front subframe at other or, most often, unspecified locations.Almost all of the complaints that specified the side of the vehicle indicated that the problem occurred on the right/passenger side (106), with only a few indicating the left/driver side (2) or both sides (3) were affected.Ford and several complainants attributed the right-side failures to the routing of the air-conditioning lines above the front subframe on that side of the vehicle, further noting that condensation has been observed dripping onto the front subframe in the area of the affected components (the A/C drain tube is also located on the right side, near the front subframe).ODI has identified 93 complaints related to lower control arm attachments, including 80 that appear to involve complete separations.All but one of these involved vehicles from Salt Belt states.All three crash incidents appear to be related to lower control arm separations, including one road departure into a road-side sign resulting in a totalled vehicle and a lane departure into another vehicle.Almost half of the ODI complaints related to control arm separation occurred at speeds greater than 20 mph and about a quarter occurred at highway speeds.Three-quarters of these complaints allege experiencing difficulty controlling the vehicle and about 40 percent appear to have resulted in departures from the intended lane of travel.Testing by both Ford and NHTSA have demonstrated that lower control arm separation from the rear attachment bracket results in significant toe out of the affected wheel, which affects the driver's ability to control vehicle direction.According to Ford, moderate braking improved vehicle controllability by reducing the amount of toe out, possibly explaining incidents that did not allege a loss of control.ODI's analysis of complaints related to the rear body mount identified 41 complaints (ODI only).These complaints generally report experiencing progressively worsening noise concerns when turning, accelerating or braking.Although, some of the complaints that appeared to involve a complete separation of the body mount alleged difficulty steering, the effects on vehicle control from this failure mode do not appear to be as great as those resulting from control arm separation.However, ODI is seeking more information regarding two complaints which alleged that body mount failure resulted in disconnection of the steering wheel from the steering rack (one occurred during vehicle service).This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA10-007) for subject vehicles sold or currently re
Additional source detail variants (2)
Structure:frame And Members
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has identified 346 complaints to ODI and Ford alleging fracture, cracking and or excessive corrosion of the front subframes in model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles.Approximately 97 percent of these complaints (334) involve vehicles that have been operated in Salt Belt states, which make up approximately 60 percent of the subject vehicle sales in the United States.The front subframe, sometimes referred to as the engine cradle, is a structural component of the Windstar vehicles that carries the engine, transaxle, steering rack and certain front suspension components (e.g., lower control arm).For complaints with sufficient information to identify the location of the failure, most describe problems with the rear mounting bracket for the front passenger-side lower control arm with some related to the rear body mount attachment located in the same general area of the subframe (right-rear section near the front passenger wheel).The remainder of the reports allege fracture of the front subframe at other or, most often, unspecified locations.Almost all of the complaints that specified the side of the vehicle indicated that the problem occurred on the right/passenger side (106), with only a few indicating the left/driver side (2) or both sides (3) were affected.Ford and several complainants attributed the right-side failures to the routing of the air-conditioning lines above the front subframe on that side of the vehicle, further noting that condensation has been observed dripping onto the front subframe in the area of the affected components (the A/C drain tube is also located on the right side, near the front subframe).ODI has identified 93 complaints related to lower control arm attachments, including 80 that appear to involve complete separations.All but one of these involved vehicles from Salt Belt states.All three crash incidents appear to be related to lower control arm separations, including one road departure into a road-side sign resulting in a totalled vehicle and a lane departure into another vehicle.Almost half of the ODI complaints related to control arm separation occurred at speeds greater than 20 mph and about a quarter occurred at highway speeds.Three-quarters of these complaints allege experiencing difficulty controlling the vehicle and about 40 percent appear to have resulted in departures from the intended lane of travel.Testing by both Ford and NHTSA have demonstrated that lower control arm separation from the rear attachment bracket results in significant toe out of the affected wheel, which affects the driver's ability to control vehicle direction.According to Ford, moderate braking improved vehicle controllability by reducing the amount of toe out, possibly explaining incidents that did not allege a loss of control.ODI's analysis of complaints related to the rear body mount identified 41 complaints (ODI only).These complaints generally report experiencing progressively worsening noise concerns when turning, accelerating or braking.Although, some of the complaints that appeared to involve a complete separation of the body mount alleged difficulty steering, the effects on vehicle control from this failure mode do not appear to be as great as those resulting from control arm separation.However, ODI is seeking more information regarding two complaints which alleged that body mount failure resulted in disconnection of the steering wheel from the steering rack (one occurred during vehicle service).This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA10-007) for subject vehicles sold or currently re
Suspension
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has identified 346 complaints to ODI and Ford alleging fracture, cracking and or excessive corrosion of the front subframes in model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles.Approximately 97 percent of these complaints (334) involve vehicles that have been operated in Salt Belt states, which make up approximately 60 percent of the subject vehicle sales in the United States.The front subframe, sometimes referred to as the engine cradle, is a structural component of the Windstar vehicles that carries the engine, transaxle, steering rack and certain front suspension components (e.g., lower control arm).For complaints with sufficient information to identify the location of the failure, most describe problems with the rear mounting bracket for the front passenger-side lower control arm with some related to the rear body mount attachment located in the same general area of the subframe (right-rear section near the front passenger wheel).The remainder of the reports allege fracture of the front subframe at other or, most often, unspecified locations.Almost all of the complaints that specified the side of the vehicle indicated that the problem occurred on the right/passenger side (106), with only a few indicating the left/driver side (2) or both sides (3) were affected.Ford and several complainants attributed the right-side failures to the routing of the air-conditioning lines above the front subframe on that side of the vehicle, further noting that condensation has been observed dripping onto the front subframe in the area of the affected components (the A/C drain tube is also located on the right side, near the front subframe).ODI has identified 93 complaints related to lower control arm attachments, including 80 that appear to involve complete separations.All but one of these involved vehicles from Salt Belt states.All three crash incidents appear to be related to lower control arm separations, including one road departure into a road-side sign resulting in a totalled vehicle and a lane departure into another vehicle.Almost half of the ODI complaints related to control arm separation occurred at speeds greater than 20 mph and about a quarter occurred at highway speeds.Three-quarters of these complaints allege experiencing difficulty controlling the vehicle and about 40 percent appear to have resulted in departures from the intended lane of travel.Testing by both Ford and NHTSA have demonstrated that lower control arm separation from the rear attachment bracket results in significant toe out of the affected wheel, which affects the driver's ability to control vehicle direction.According to Ford, moderate braking improved vehicle controllability by reducing the amount of toe out, possibly explaining incidents that did not allege a loss of control.ODI's analysis of complaints related to the rear body mount identified 41 complaints (ODI only).These complaints generally report experiencing progressively worsening noise concerns when turning, accelerating or braking.Although, some of the complaints that appeared to involve a complete separation of the body mount alleged difficulty steering, the effects on vehicle control from this failure mode do not appear to be as great as those resulting from control arm separation.However, ODI is seeking more information regarding two complaints which alleged that body mount failure resulted in disconnection of the steering wheel from the steering rack (one occurred during vehicle service).This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA10-007) for subject vehicles sold or currently re
PE10016 · Rear Axle Cracking
Opened May 13, 2010 · Closed Sep 22, 2010
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension
In a letter dated August 26, 2010, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report notifying NHTSA that it will conduct a safety recall (NHTSA Recall No. 10V-385) to address a rear axle defect in model year (MY) 1998 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles built at the Oakville assembly plant from September 1, 1997 through February 28, 2003 and either sold or currently registered in high corrosion (Salt-Belt) states where the use of salt and other corrosive chemicals may be used to treat snow/ice covered roads.The following states are included in Ford's recall:Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The subject vehicles utilize a Stamped/Formed axle assembly manufactured by Benteler automotive Corporation of Galesburg, MI.According to Ford, after many years of vehicle service in the Salt-Belt states, corrosion can weaken the rear axle, making it susceptible to torsional stress.There is a risk that the combined effects of corrosion and stress can lead to cracks which, if undetected, can propagate and result in a complete fracture of the axle.A completely fractured axle can affect vehicle handling and increase the risk of a crash.To correct the safety defect, Ford will initially inspect all of the subject vehicles brought into Ford/Lincoln-Mercury dealerships for possible cracked axles.Owners of vehicles without cracked axles will be notified when to return for the installation of reinforcement brackets to extend the axle durability in the presence of corrosion.Owners who have vehicles with cracked axles will either be offered a repair or alternative transportation until parts become available. On May 13, 2010, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE10-016 to investigate complaints of rear axle cracking in MY 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar minivans.Combining ODI and Ford complaint data, ODI is aware of a total 891 complaints alleging rear axle cracking in the subject vehicles.Over a third of the complaints (334) allege that the cracking progressed to a complete fracture of the rear axle, including 8 allegations of crashes resulting in 3 injuries. Approximately 57 percent of the subject vehicles (524,661) were sold in Salt-Belt states covered by Ford's recall and Ford estimates that approximately 463,000 of these remain in service.Ninety-six percent of the complaints (858) and all of the complaints alleging complete fracture were from the recall region.The action taken by Ford is sufficient to resolve the issues raised by this investigation.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.
EA08021 · Engine Compartment Fires
Opened Sep 17, 2008 · Closed Oct 14, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System; Electrical System:wiring; Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module ; Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Additional source detail variants (7)
Electrical System
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Electrical System:wiring
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Vehicle Speed Control
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
PE08035 · Engine Compartment Fires
Opened May 13, 2008 · Closed Sep 17, 2008
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System; Electrical System:wiring; Vehicle Speed Control
ODI HAS RECEIVED 134 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, 285 MANUFACTURER COMPLAINTS, AND 137 MANUFACTURER WARRANTY CLAIMS ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1995 THRU 2003 FORD WINDSTAR VEHICLES.TWO OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THE FIRES CAUSED STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE COMPLAINANT'S HOME.OF THE 134 ODI COMPLAINTS, 36 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, 72 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING AND 26 OF THE COMPLAINTS DO NOT SPECIFY IF THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING OR NOT.FURTHER REVIEW OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS SHOWS THAT 72 ALLEGE THAT THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS) CAUSED THE FIRE AND 10 ALLEGE THAT THE SCDS LEAKED BRAKE FLUID ON TO THE ABS MODULE RESULTING IN THE FIRE.THERE WERE 52 THAT DID NOT IDENTIFY A CAUSE OR THAT IDENTIFIED MISCELLANEOUS OTHER CAUSES.ODI HAS ALSO RECEIVED 89 COMPLAINTS ( NOT COUNTED IN THIS RESUME) ALLEGING THAT THE SCDS DEVELOPED A BRAKE FLUID LEAK.THIRTEEN OF THESE COMPLAINTS SAY THAT THE LEAK AT THE SCDS RESULTED IN BRAKED FLUID REACHING THE ABS MODULE.THIS PE HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA) TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE CAUSE OF THE FIRES AND ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY, AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Electrical System
ODI HAS RECEIVED 134 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, 285 MANUFACTURER COMPLAINTS, AND 137 MANUFACTURER WARRANTY CLAIMS ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1995 THRU 2003 FORD WINDSTAR VEHICLES.TWO OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THE FIRES CAUSED STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE COMPLAINANT'S HOME.OF THE 134 ODI COMPLAINTS, 36 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, 72 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING AND 26 OF THE COMPLAINTS DO NOT SPECIFY IF THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING OR NOT.FURTHER REVIEW OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS SHOWS THAT 72 ALLEGE THAT THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS) CAUSED THE FIRE AND 10 ALLEGE THAT THE SCDS LEAKED BRAKE FLUID ON TO THE ABS MODULE RESULTING IN THE FIRE.THERE WERE 52 THAT DID NOT IDENTIFY A CAUSE OR THAT IDENTIFIED MISCELLANEOUS OTHER CAUSES.ODI HAS ALSO RECEIVED 89 COMPLAINTS ( NOT COUNTED IN THIS RESUME) ALLEGING THAT THE SCDS DEVELOPED A BRAKE FLUID LEAK.THIRTEEN OF THESE COMPLAINTS SAY THAT THE LEAK AT THE SCDS RESULTED IN BRAKED FLUID REACHING THE ABS MODULE.THIS PE HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA) TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE CAUSE OF THE FIRES AND ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY, AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.
Electrical System:wiring
ODI HAS RECEIVED 134 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, 285 MANUFACTURER COMPLAINTS, AND 137 MANUFACTURER WARRANTY CLAIMS ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1995 THRU 2003 FORD WINDSTAR VEHICLES.TWO OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THE FIRES CAUSED STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE COMPLAINANT'S HOME.OF THE 134 ODI COMPLAINTS, 36 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, 72 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING AND 26 OF THE COMPLAINTS DO NOT SPECIFY IF THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING OR NOT.FURTHER REVIEW OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS SHOWS THAT 72 ALLEGE THAT THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS) CAUSED THE FIRE AND 10 ALLEGE THAT THE SCDS LEAKED BRAKE FLUID ON TO THE ABS MODULE RESULTING IN THE FIRE.THERE WERE 52 THAT DID NOT IDENTIFY A CAUSE OR THAT IDENTIFIED MISCELLANEOUS OTHER CAUSES.ODI HAS ALSO RECEIVED 89 COMPLAINTS ( NOT COUNTED IN THIS RESUME) ALLEGING THAT THE SCDS DEVELOPED A BRAKE FLUID LEAK.THIRTEEN OF THESE COMPLAINTS SAY THAT THE LEAK AT THE SCDS RESULTED IN BRAKED FLUID REACHING THE ABS MODULE.THIS PE HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA) TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE CAUSE OF THE FIRES AND ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY, AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.
Vehicle Speed Control
ODI HAS RECEIVED 134 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, 285 MANUFACTURER COMPLAINTS, AND 137 MANUFACTURER WARRANTY CLAIMS ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1995 THRU 2003 FORD WINDSTAR VEHICLES.TWO OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THE FIRES CAUSED STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE COMPLAINANT'S HOME.OF THE 134 ODI COMPLAINTS, 36 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, 72 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING AND 26 OF THE COMPLAINTS DO NOT SPECIFY IF THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING OR NOT.FURTHER REVIEW OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS SHOWS THAT 72 ALLEGE THAT THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS) CAUSED THE FIRE AND 10 ALLEGE THAT THE SCDS LEAKED BRAKE FLUID ON TO THE ABS MODULE RESULTING IN THE FIRE.THERE WERE 52 THAT DID NOT IDENTIFY A CAUSE OR THAT IDENTIFIED MISCELLANEOUS OTHER CAUSES.ODI HAS ALSO RECEIVED 89 COMPLAINTS ( NOT COUNTED IN THIS RESUME) ALLEGING THAT THE SCDS DEVELOPED A BRAKE FLUID LEAK.THIRTEEN OF THESE COMPLAINTS SAY THAT THE LEAK AT THE SCDS RESULTED IN BRAKED FLUID REACHING THE ABS MODULE.THIS PE HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA) TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE CAUSE OF THE FIRES AND ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY, AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.
PE04022 · Power Sliding Door Opening
Opened Mar 3, 2004 · Closed Jul 1, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:door ; Structure:body:door:hinge And Attachments
THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH SINGLE OR DUAL POWER SLIDING DOORS (PSD).APPROXIMATELY 111,000 VEHICLES HAVE DUAL POWER SLIDING DOORS.THE PSD IS OPENED BY ANY OF 5 METHODS, THE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE MANUAL DOOR HANDLE, THE KEY FOB, THE OVERHEAD CONSOLE SWITCH AND THE B-PILLAR SWITCH.THE DOOR MAY BE OPENED ONLY UNDER THESE CONDITIONS: IGNITION KEY IS IN OFF/ACCESSORIES/ON/START POSITION, GEAR SELECTOR IN PARK, VEHICLE SPEED LESS THAN 6 MPH, AND DOOR UNLOCKED.THE PSD LATCH IS LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE DOOR AND HAS A SECONDARY AND PRIMARY LATCH POSITION.FULL AND PROPER CLOSURE ENGAGES BOTH THE SECONDARY AND PRIMARY LATCH.WITH THE IGNITION IN THE ON POSITION, AS THE GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED OUT OF PARK THE DOOR AUTOMATICALLY LOCKS AND THAT ACTION MECHANICALLY ISOLATES THE LATCH, SECONDARY AND PRIMARY, FROM ALL LATCH RELEASE CONNECTIONS.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS ALLEGING DOOR OPENING WHILE DRIVING, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 5,700 REPORTS THAT ALLEGE THE DOOR DOES NOT CLOSE PROPERLY OR POPS OPEN WITH NO MENTION OF WHILE DRIVING.FORD'S INVESTIGATION INTO THESE REPORT INCLUDED OWNER INTERVIEWS, VEHICLE BY-BACKS AND TESTING OF CONSUMER VEHICLES.IT FOUND THAT ALLEGATIONS OF DOOR OPENING WHILE DRIVING WERE IN FACT REPORTS OF DOORS NOT BEING PROPERLY CLOSED INITIALLY AND SUBSEQUENTLY OPENING TO THE SECONDARY LATCH POSITION AS A RESULT OF VEHICLE VIBRATIONS OR DRIVING MANEUVERS.FORD'S TESTING OF CONSUMER VEHICLES DID NOT RESULT IN ANY RECURRENCE OF PSD OPENING WHILE BEING DRIVEN.ODI INTERVIEWS WITH OWNERS AFFIRMED THE ALLEGATIONS OF PSD OPENING WHILE DRIVING; HOWEVER OWNERS INDICATED THE EVENT IS NOT A REGULAR OCCURRENCE (I.E.,IT OCCURRED ONLY ONCE OR HAS NOT OCCURRED RECENTLY) AND THAT THE UNINTENDED PSD OPENING MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE DUPLICATED.IN CONTRAST, THE IMPROPER CLOSING OF THE PSD (LATCHING ON THE SECONDARY BUT NOT THE PRIMARY LATCH) CAN BE DUPLICATED, AND ODI VERIFIED THIS DURING AN INSPECTION OF A CONSUMER VEHICLE.IN THIS CONDITION (SECONDARY BUT NO PRIMARY LATCH), WHEN THE VEHICLE'S GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED OUT OF PARK POSITION, A WARNING CHIME SOUNDS AND WARNING MESSAGE APPEARS ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL.MOST REPORTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE FILED IN THE EARLY SERVICE-LIFE OF THE VEHICLE AND PEAKED AROUND THE 18-MONTH IN-SERVICE TIME PERIOD.ODI AND MFR COMPLAINT TRENDS ARE DECLINING OVER THE LAST 8 QUARTERS.THERE IS NO ALLEGED INJURY ASSOCIATED WITH OCCUPANT FALLING OUT WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION.NO FAILURE MODE CAUSING FULL DOOR OPENING WHILE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION HAS BEEN VERIFIED (REPRODUCED BY ODI OR BY TRAINED SERVICE TECHNICIANS AT DEALERSHIPS) DURING THIS INVESTIGATION.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.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 MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Structure:body:door
THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH SINGLE OR DUAL POWER SLIDING DOORS (PSD).APPROXIMATELY 111,000 VEHICLES HAVE DUAL POWER SLIDING DOORS.THE PSD IS OPENED BY ANY OF 5 METHODS, THE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE MANUAL DOOR HANDLE, THE KEY FOB, THE OVERHEAD CONSOLE SWITCH AND THE B-PILLAR SWITCH.THE DOOR MAY BE OPENED ONLY UNDER THESE CONDITIONS: IGNITION KEY IS IN OFF/ACCESSORIES/ON/START POSITION, GEAR SELECTOR IN PARK, VEHICLE SPEED LESS THAN 6 MPH, AND DOOR UNLOCKED.THE PSD LATCH IS LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE DOOR AND HAS A SECONDARY AND PRIMARY LATCH POSITION.FULL AND PROPER CLOSURE ENGAGES BOTH THE SECONDARY AND PRIMARY LATCH.WITH THE IGNITION IN THE ON POSITION, AS THE GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED OUT OF PARK THE DOOR AUTOMATICALLY LOCKS AND THAT ACTION MECHANICALLY ISOLATES THE LATCH, SECONDARY AND PRIMARY, FROM ALL LATCH RELEASE CONNECTIONS.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS ALLEGING DOOR OPENING WHILE DRIVING, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 5,700 REPORTS THAT ALLEGE THE DOOR DOES NOT CLOSE PROPERLY OR POPS OPEN WITH NO MENTION OF WHILE DRIVING.FORD'S INVESTIGATION INTO THESE REPORT INCLUDED OWNER INTERVIEWS, VEHICLE BY-BACKS AND TESTING OF CONSUMER VEHICLES.IT FOUND THAT ALLEGATIONS OF DOOR OPENING WHILE DRIVING WERE IN FACT REPORTS OF DOORS NOT BEING PROPERLY CLOSED INITIALLY AND SUBSEQUENTLY OPENING TO THE SECONDARY LATCH POSITION AS A RESULT OF VEHICLE VIBRATIONS OR DRIVING MANEUVERS.FORD'S TESTING OF CONSUMER VEHICLES DID NOT RESULT IN ANY RECURRENCE OF PSD OPENING WHILE BEING DRIVEN.ODI INTERVIEWS WITH OWNERS AFFIRMED THE ALLEGATIONS OF PSD OPENING WHILE DRIVING; HOWEVER OWNERS INDICATED THE EVENT IS NOT A REGULAR OCCURRENCE (I.E.,IT OCCURRED ONLY ONCE OR HAS NOT OCCURRED RECENTLY) AND THAT THE UNINTENDED PSD OPENING MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE DUPLICATED.IN CONTRAST, THE IMPROPER CLOSING OF THE PSD (LATCHING ON THE SECONDARY BUT NOT THE PRIMARY LATCH) CAN BE DUPLICATED, AND ODI VERIFIED THIS DURING AN INSPECTION OF A CONSUMER VEHICLE.IN THIS CONDITION (SECONDARY BUT NO PRIMARY LATCH), WHEN THE VEHICLE'S GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED OUT OF PARK POSITION, A WARNING CHIME SOUNDS AND WARNING MESSAGE APPEARS ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL.MOST REPORTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE FILED IN THE EARLY SERVICE-LIFE OF THE VEHICLE AND PEAKED AROUND THE 18-MONTH IN-SERVICE TIME PERIOD.ODI AND MFR COMPLAINT TRENDS ARE DECLINING OVER THE LAST 8 QUARTERS.THERE IS NO ALLEGED INJURY ASSOCIATED WITH OCCUPANT FALLING OUT WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION.NO FAILURE MODE CAUSING FULL DOOR OPENING WHILE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION HAS BEEN VERIFIED (REPRODUCED BY ODI OR BY TRAINED SERVICE TECHNICIANS AT DEALERSHIPS) DURING THIS INVESTIGATION.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.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 MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Structure:body:door:hinge And Attachments
THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH SINGLE OR DUAL POWER SLIDING DOORS (PSD).APPROXIMATELY 111,000 VEHICLES HAVE DUAL POWER SLIDING DOORS.THE PSD IS OPENED BY ANY OF 5 METHODS, THE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE MANUAL DOOR HANDLE, THE KEY FOB, THE OVERHEAD CONSOLE SWITCH AND THE B-PILLAR SWITCH.THE DOOR MAY BE OPENED ONLY UNDER THESE CONDITIONS: IGNITION KEY IS IN OFF/ACCESSORIES/ON/START POSITION, GEAR SELECTOR IN PARK, VEHICLE SPEED LESS THAN 6 MPH, AND DOOR UNLOCKED.THE PSD LATCH IS LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE DOOR AND HAS A SECONDARY AND PRIMARY LATCH POSITION.FULL AND PROPER CLOSURE ENGAGES BOTH THE SECONDARY AND PRIMARY LATCH.WITH THE IGNITION IN THE ON POSITION, AS THE GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED OUT OF PARK THE DOOR AUTOMATICALLY LOCKS AND THAT ACTION MECHANICALLY ISOLATES THE LATCH, SECONDARY AND PRIMARY, FROM ALL LATCH RELEASE CONNECTIONS.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS ALLEGING DOOR OPENING WHILE DRIVING, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 5,700 REPORTS THAT ALLEGE THE DOOR DOES NOT CLOSE PROPERLY OR POPS OPEN WITH NO MENTION OF WHILE DRIVING.FORD'S INVESTIGATION INTO THESE REPORT INCLUDED OWNER INTERVIEWS, VEHICLE BY-BACKS AND TESTING OF CONSUMER VEHICLES.IT FOUND THAT ALLEGATIONS OF DOOR OPENING WHILE DRIVING WERE IN FACT REPORTS OF DOORS NOT BEING PROPERLY CLOSED INITIALLY AND SUBSEQUENTLY OPENING TO THE SECONDARY LATCH POSITION AS A RESULT OF VEHICLE VIBRATIONS OR DRIVING MANEUVERS.FORD'S TESTING OF CONSUMER VEHICLES DID NOT RESULT IN ANY RECURRENCE OF PSD OPENING WHILE BEING DRIVEN.ODI INTERVIEWS WITH OWNERS AFFIRMED THE ALLEGATIONS OF PSD OPENING WHILE DRIVING; HOWEVER OWNERS INDICATED THE EVENT IS NOT A REGULAR OCCURRENCE (I.E.,IT OCCURRED ONLY ONCE OR HAS NOT OCCURRED RECENTLY) AND THAT THE UNINTENDED PSD OPENING MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE DUPLICATED.IN CONTRAST, THE IMPROPER CLOSING OF THE PSD (LATCHING ON THE SECONDARY BUT NOT THE PRIMARY LATCH) CAN BE DUPLICATED, AND ODI VERIFIED THIS DURING AN INSPECTION OF A CONSUMER VEHICLE.IN THIS CONDITION (SECONDARY BUT NO PRIMARY LATCH), WHEN THE VEHICLE'S GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED OUT OF PARK POSITION, A WARNING CHIME SOUNDS AND WARNING MESSAGE APPEARS ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL.MOST REPORTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE FILED IN THE EARLY SERVICE-LIFE OF THE VEHICLE AND PEAKED AROUND THE 18-MONTH IN-SERVICE TIME PERIOD.ODI AND MFR COMPLAINT TRENDS ARE DECLINING OVER THE LAST 8 QUARTERS.THERE IS NO ALLEGED INJURY ASSOCIATED WITH OCCUPANT FALLING OUT WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION.NO FAILURE MODE CAUSING FULL DOOR OPENING WHILE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION HAS BEEN VERIFIED (REPRODUCED BY ODI OR BY TRAINED SERVICE TECHNICIANS AT DEALERSHIPS) DURING THIS INVESTIGATION.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.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 MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Illustration