IllustrationWhen braking hard, braking power declines after mid peddle range, resulting in crash. Had taken to dealer many years earlier for ABS recall fix.
1998 Ford E-350
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Limited comparison data
There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all E-350 years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
Limited mileage data: 17 of 63 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
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.
- Tires. Review the 14 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 8 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 8 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
3 crash reports1 fire reports0 injury reports
What owners actually said
63 reportsSPARK PLUGS POTENTIALLY EJECT FROM CYLINDER HEADS DUE TO BAD ENGINEERING DESIGN USING ALUMINUM HEADS WITH INSUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF THREADS TO HOLD SPARK PLUGS WHEN IN MOTION. NEWER VEHICLES WERE RE-ENGINEERED TO ELIMINATE THIS HAPPENING. REQUEST RECALL AND REPAIR.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 FORD E-350 EQUIPPED WITH STARFIRE SF-510 TIRES, SIZE LT245-75-R16 (NA). WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS AT AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR A STATE INSPECTION, THE SIDEWALL OF THE REAR DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE WAS FOUND WITH INTERNAL INDENTATIONS. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE TIRE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE TIRE WAS NOT R…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 FORD E-350 EQUIPPED WITH STARFIRE SF-510 TIRES, SIZE LT245-75-R16 (NA). WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS AT AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC FOR A STATE INSPECTION, THE SIDEWALL OF THE REAR DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE WAS FOUND WITH INTERNAL INDENTATIONS. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE TIRE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE TIRE WAS NOT REPLACED. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER WERE NOT CONTACTED. THE DOT NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE TIRE AND VEHICLE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 130,000.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 FOR E-350. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VAN WAS IDLE WHEN HE NOTICED SMOKE COMING FROM THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND VENTS. THE VEHICLE BECAME ENGULFED IN FLAMES. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXTINGUISHED THE FLAMES. A FIRE REPORT WAS NOT FILED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 200,000.
I RECENTLY HAD A PROBLEM AND STILL HAVE WITH THE PASSENGER SIDE REAR DOOR OF NOT BEING ABLE TO OPEN IT. I GOT OUT OF THE MY FORD VAN AND WENT AROUND TO THE SIDE DOOR TO OPEN IT UP TO GET MY DOGS OUT OF IT. I COULD NOT OPEN THE SIDE DOOR, I THOUGHT THE DOORS HAD SOMEHOW GOT LOCKED AND I WAS PANICING. IT WAS VERY HOT AND I KNEW I …
Read full complaint
I RECENTLY HAD A PROBLEM AND STILL HAVE WITH THE PASSENGER SIDE REAR DOOR OF NOT BEING ABLE TO OPEN IT. I GOT OUT OF THE MY FORD VAN AND WENT AROUND TO THE SIDE DOOR TO OPEN IT UP TO GET MY DOGS OUT OF IT. I COULD NOT OPEN THE SIDE DOOR, I THOUGHT THE DOORS HAD SOMEHOW GOT LOCKED AND I WAS PANICING. IT WAS VERY HOT AND I KNEW I HAD TO GET MY DOGS OUT FAST. I WAS HUNTING FOR SOMETHING TO BREAK THE WINDOW OUT WITH BUT HAD NO LUCK FINDING ANYTHING. AFTER ABOUT 20 OR SO MINUTES I FINALLY NOTICED THAT THE FRONT DOOR LOCKS WERE IN THE UP POSITION INDICATING THAT THE DOORS WERE NOT LOCKED. I WAS ABLE TO OPEN THE FRONT DOOR SAVING ME FROM HAVING TOO BREAK OUT THE GLASS AND THEN I WAS ABLE TO GET INTO THE VAN AND OPEN THE REAR DOOR. I LOVE MY DOGS BUT WHAT IF THIS HAD BEEN A CHILD.AND COULDN'T OPEN THE DOORS IN TIME. LUCKLY I DISCOVERED THAT THE FRONT DOORS WERE NOT LOCKED AND THAT IT WAS A MALFUNCTION OF THE BACK DOOR MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO OPEN THAT DOOR. THE RESULTS COULD HAVE BEEN DISTRASTROUS AND NOT TO MENTION THE COST OF REPAIRING THE WINDOW HAD I BEEN ABLE TO BREAK IT, THINGS TURNED OUT WELL THANK GOODNESS BUT IF IT SHOULD HAPPEN TO SOMEONE ELSE THE RESULTS COULD BE VERY DIFFERENT. THIS IS SUNDAY AND I NOW HAVE TO GET MY VAN TO A FORD DEALER TO FIX THE REAR DOOR SO I CAN OPEN IT UP AS I STILL CAN'T OPEN IT UP FROM THE OUTSIDE.. I THINK THE IS A SERIOUS SAFETY PROBLEM THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1998 FORD E-350. WHILE DRIVING THE CONTACT EXPERIENCED A LOSS OF POWER AND THE ENGINE WOULD BEGAN TO MALFUNCTION. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE FUEL SYSTEM WAS DELAMINATING. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 198,910 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 202,300.
POWERSTROKE 7.3 DIESEL. THE CAMSHAFT POSITIONING SENSOR (CPS) FAILURE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT FORD WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH. I HAVE HAD THREE INSTANCES OF THE UNIT FAILING ON ME SINCE THIS FIRST ONE ON DEC 13TH, 2007. IN THE FIRST CASE, I WAS TAKING MY SON TO SCHOOL. THE VAN WAS SPUTTERING THE WHOLE WAY AND I EVENTUALLY HAD TO H…
Read full complaint
POWERSTROKE 7.3 DIESEL. THE CAMSHAFT POSITIONING SENSOR (CPS) FAILURE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT FORD WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH. I HAVE HAD THREE INSTANCES OF THE UNIT FAILING ON ME SINCE THIS FIRST ONE ON DEC 13TH, 2007. IN THE FIRST CASE, I WAS TAKING MY SON TO SCHOOL. THE VAN WAS SPUTTERING THE WHOLE WAY AND I EVENTUALLY HAD TO HAVE IT TOWED TO A REPAIR SHOP AFTER A COMPLETE ENGINE FAILURE. FORD HAD JUST ISSUED THE RECALL ON DEC 6TH, 2007, AND THEY HONORED THE REPAIR. THE SECOND CPS INCIDENT HAPPENED ON FEB 23RD, 2010. THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT START; I HAD IT TOWED TO A REPAIR SHOP AFTER GETTING A PARKING TICKET. I CANNOT FIND PROOF THAT FORD HONORED THE REPAIR. THE 3RD CPS INCIDENT HAPPENED ON SUNDAY FEB 27TH, 2011, ONE YEAR AFTER THE 2ND INCIDENT. I WAS IN FLAGSTAFF, AZ DURING A SNOWSTORM, AND THE VEHICLE WAS FAILING ON ME ON ROUTE 66. IT STALLED TWICE ON THE MAIN HIGHWAY AS THE SNOWPLOWS WHIPPED AROUND ME. I GOT BACK TO WHERE I WAS STAYING, AND WAITED UNTIL MONDAY MORNING WHEN I HAD IT TOWED TO A REPAIR SHOP AND HAD THE CPS UNIT REPLACED. THIS ENGINE IS UNSAFE AND UNRELIABLE. THE CPS UNIT CAN FAIL AT ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, AND MAYBE AT ANY SPEED, THOUGH MY ISSUES WERE AT LOW SPEED OR AT STARTUP. FORD WILL NOT HONOR THIS LATEST INCIDENT BECAUSE THEY SAY AFTER MY FIRST REPLACEMENT IN DEC 2007 THAT MY "CASE WAS CLOSED IN 2007".
1998 FORD E 350 POWERSTROKE 7.3 DIESEL. THE CAMSHAFT POSITIONING SENSOR (CPS) FAILURE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT FORD WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH. I HAVE HAD THREE INSTANCES OF THE UNIT FAILING ON ME SINCE THIS FIRST ONE ON DEC 13TH, 2007. IN THE FIRST CASE, I WAS TAKING MY SON TO SCHOOL. THE VAN WAS SPUTTERING THE WHOLE WAY AND I EVE…
Read full complaint
1998 FORD E 350 POWERSTROKE 7.3 DIESEL. THE CAMSHAFT POSITIONING SENSOR (CPS) FAILURE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT FORD WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH. I HAVE HAD THREE INSTANCES OF THE UNIT FAILING ON ME SINCE THIS FIRST ONE ON DEC 13TH, 2007. IN THE FIRST CASE, I WAS TAKING MY SON TO SCHOOL. THE VAN WAS SPUTTERING THE WHOLE WAY AND I EVENTUALLY HAD TO HAVE IT TOWED TO A REPAIR SHOP AFTER A COMPLETE ENGINE FAILURE. FORD HAD JUST ISSUED THE RECALL ON DEC 6TH, 2007, AND THEY HONORED THE REPAIR. THE SECOND CPS INCIDENT HAPPENED ON FEB 23RD, 2010. THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT START; I HAD IT TOWED TO A REPAIR SHOP AFTER GETTING A PARKING TICKET. I CANNOT FIND PROOF THAT FORD HONORED THE REPAIR. THE 3RD CPS INCIDENT HAPPENED ON SUNDAY FEB 27TH, 2011, ONE YEAR AFTER THE 2ND INCIDENT. I WAS IN FLAGSTAFF, AZ DURING A SNOWSTORM, AND THE VEHICLE WAS FAILING ON ME ON ROUTE 66. IT STALLED TWICE ON THE MAIN HIGHWAY AS THE SNOWPLOWS WHIPPED AROUND ME. I GOT BACK TO WHERE I WAS STAYING, AND WAITED UNTIL MONDAY MORNING WHEN I HAD IT TOWED TO A REPAIR SHOP AND HAD THE CPS UNIT REPLACED. THIS ENGINE IS UNSAFE AND UNRELIABLE. THE CPS UNIT CAN FAIL AT ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, AND MAYBE AT ANY SPEED, THOUGH MY ISSUES WERE AT LOW SPEED OR AT STARTUP. FORD WILL NOT HONOR THIS LATEST INCIDENT BECAUSE THEY SAY AFTER MY FIRST REPLACEMENT IN DEC 2007 THAT MY 'CASE WAS CLOSED'. *TR
BRAKE LINE CORROSION THAT LET FLUID DRAIN AND CAUSED BRAKE FAILURE. *TR
I PURCHASED A TOTAL OF 7 MICHELIN LTX M/S TIRES LT225/75R16 E FOR MY MINI MOTORHOME. THEY ARE DRY-ROTTING RIGHT OFF THE RIMS. THIS IS AN ESTABLISHED PROBLEM. WHEN I WAS DIRECTED TO A DEALER (FORREST TIRE OF ARTESIA, NM) I WAS OFFERED A DISCOUNT ON BUYING MORE TIRES. I WAS EXTREMELY DISMAYED THAT MICHELIN WAS QUERYING THE TIR…
Read full complaint
I PURCHASED A TOTAL OF 7 MICHELIN LTX M/S TIRES LT225/75R16 E FOR MY MINI MOTORHOME. THEY ARE DRY-ROTTING RIGHT OFF THE RIMS. THIS IS AN ESTABLISHED PROBLEM. WHEN I WAS DIRECTED TO A DEALER (FORREST TIRE OF ARTESIA, NM) I WAS OFFERED A DISCOUNT ON BUYING MORE TIRES. I WAS EXTREMELY DISMAYED THAT MICHELIN WAS QUERYING THE TIRE DEALER ABOUT THE MAKE, MODEL, YEAR AND MILEAGE OF MY MOTORHOME! WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH DEFECTIVE/DANGEROUS TIRES? I SPOKE WITH A MAN WHO HAD THE SAME PROBLEM WITH LTX M/S TIRES THAT CAME ON HIS NEW PICKUP AND THEY WERE REPLACED FOR MOUNTING AND BALANCING ONLY. I PURCHASED TWO FOR THE FRONT, BUT SIMPLY CAN'T BUY ALL 7 ON SOCIAL SECURITY, THEN SUE MICHELIN. THESE ARE LOT NUMBERS B3JH FBXX 0905, 0205, AND 4204. I CAN SCRAPE DRIED RUBBER OFF THE SIDEWALL WITH MY FINGERNAIL! THIS IS DANGEROUS, AND I AM SITTING HERE AFRAID TO DRIVE ON THE HIGHWAY, WAITING FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN. *TR
Official recalls
714V197000 · Equipment Adaptive/mobility
Apr 16, 2014
Cummings Mobility Conversion & Supply, Inc. (Cummings) is recalling various model year 1994-2011 Ford and Chevrolet vans equipped with Braun NCL-2, and NVL-2 wheel chair lifts manufactured November 20, 2006, through September 10, 2010. Over time, and with frequent use, the roll stop latches on the outer barrier of the lifts in these vans may become bent or misaligned.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A wheelchair occupant may defeat or ride over the insufficiently latched roll stop. If this occurs when the lift platform is in an elevated position, the wheelchair's occupant could fall and sustain injury.
Remedy: Braun Corporation notified all the vehicle owners, and Cummings Mobility replaced the recalled parts with new parts, free of charge. The recall was completed as of April 10, 2014. Owners may contact Cummings customer service at 1-800-639-5438.
09V399000 · Vehicle Speed Control
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.
09V014000 · Equipment Adaptive/mobility
Jan 14, 2009
ONENESS MOBILITY IS RECALLING 19 MY 1998, AND 2005-2006 E-350 VANS BUILT ON FORD CHASSIS AND EQUIPPED WITH RICON PLATFORM STYLE WHEELCHAIR LIFTS. THESE LIFTS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 403, "PLATFORM LIFT SYSTEM ACCESSIBLE FOR MOTOR VEHICLES." THE ANTI-STOW INTERLOCK MAY NOT DETECT THE PRESENCE OF A WHEELCHAIR OR MOBILITY AID USER. THE PRESSURE SENSING SWITCH THAT DETECTS THE PRESENCE OF WEIGHT ON THE PLATFORM WAS NOT ADJUSTED TO THE NECESSARY SENSITIVITY LEVEL. THE LIFT COULD STOW EVEN THOUGH SOMEONE OR SOMETHING IS STILL ON THE LIFT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A LIFT OCCUPANT CAN BE INJURED SHOULD THE LIFT BEGIN TO STOW UNINTENTIONALLY.
Remedy: ONENESS MOBILITY IS WORKING WITH RICON TO CORRECT THE WHEELCHAIR LIFTS FREE OF CHARGE (PLEASE SEE 07E097). OWNERS MAY CONTACT RICON AT 1-818-267-3000 OR ONENESS MOBILITY AT 1-818-267-3000.
08V051000 · Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
Feb 4, 2008
FORD IS RECALLING 225,000 MY 1992-2003 ECONOLINE, MY 1993-1995 TAURUS SHO, MY 1992-1998 CROWN VICTORIA, MY 1993 BRONCO, F-SERIES, MY 1995-1997 F-SERIES SUPER DUTY STRIPPED CHASSIS, MY 1992-1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, AND MY 1992-1995 LINCOLN TOWN CAR VEHICLES. THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE PREVIOUSLY REPAIRED USING A WIRING HARNESS THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE VEHICLE CIRCUIT POLARITY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AS A RESULT, THE FUSE IS LOCATED IN THE OUTPUT CIRCUIT RATHER THAN IN THE INTENDED INPUT POWER FEED CIRCUIT, AND MAY NOT OFFER THE INTENDED PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF AN ELECTRICAL SHORT TO GROUND.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A NEW WIRING HARNESS, OR REPLACE THE MATING ELECTRICAL COMPONENT. THE RECALL BEGAN ON FEBRUARY 18, 2008. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
07V336000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Aug 3, 2007
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, PASSENGER VEHICLES, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND MOTOR HOMES CHASSIS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. OWNERS OF THE PASSENGER CARS INCLUDED IN THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED AS AN INTERIM REPAIR. AS SOON AS REPAIR PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED OCTOBER 2007), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 13, 2007, AND MAILING COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
01V114000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
Apr 5, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: ON CERTAIN VANS WITH AMBULANCE PREP PACKAGES OR OTHER SEVERE-DUTY APPLICATIONS INVOLVING OPERATION AT OR NEAR THE GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT WITH FREQUENT TWISTING OF THE VEHICLE BODY, SUCH AS OFF-ROAD, ROUGH ROAD OR SPEED BUMP EVENTS, THE 35 GALLON MID-SHIP FUEL TANK COULD DEVELOP A CRACK WHERE IT CONTACTS THE FRAME CROSS MEMBER. IF THE FUEL TANK CRACKS, FUEL LEAKAGE COULD OCCUR.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: FUEL LEAKAGE IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE COULD RESULT IN A FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE FUEL TANK AND, IF CRACKED, WILL REPLACE THE TANK. INSULATOR PADS WILL BE INSTALLED ON ALL VEHICLES TO REDUCE THE STRESS LEVELS IN THE FUEL TANK. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN APRIL 19, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
00V284000 · Equipment:other:labels
Sep 21, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: BI-FUEL CNG PICKUP TRUCKS AND BI-FUEL CNG VANS, MODIFIED BY CFI CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., FAIL TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 303, "FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY OF COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS VEHICLES." THE LABEL AFFIXED TO THE FUEL FILLER DOOR BY THE VEHICLE MODIFIER CONTAINS THE INSPECTION DATE AND EXPIRATION DATE OF THE CNG TANK. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE STATEMENT "SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE FUEL CONTAINER FOR INSPECTION AND SERVICE LIFE."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THESE VEHICLES DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED A LABEL WITH THE REQUIRED STATEMENT, ALONG WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR AFFIXING THE LABEL AT THE FUEL FILLER DOOR. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN NOVEMBER 2, 2000. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME 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
4EA10003 · Hvac Switch Failures
Opened Apr 13, 2010 · Closed Mar 5, 2012
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:wiring:interior/under Dash
This investigation was opened based on one complaint and reports from four transportation fleets alleging 182 blower motor control switch failures.ODI was concerned that these melting and burning switches could lead to an open flame that could spread throughout the vehicle.After a comprehensive review of all data related to overheating blower motor control switches in the subject vehicles, ODI did not identify the existence of a safety defect trend.ODI reviewed 1,036 complaints, claims, and field reports of failed blower motor control switches and determined that only two fires were likely to have been caused by a failing subject blower motor control switch.This represents a failure rate of 0.2 R/100K on a population of 1,076,975 vehicles that have been in service for up to 14 years.ODI has found that when the subject switches do fail and begin to melt, they are constructed in a manner that typically prevents the failing switch from igniting and developing into an open flame.Ford Motor Company has agreed to take two actions to further reduce the likelihood an overheated blower motor switch in the subject vehicles.Ford informed ODI that it has implemented a series of design changes to the subject switch that will help prevent it from developing internal high resistance short circuits.Ford has also informed ODI that it would release a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB-11-11-21) instructing subject vehicle owners to replace the electrical connector at the same time a failed switch is replaced.In light of the low rate of failure resulting in open flame and fire spread on the subject vehicles, and Ford's actions to reduce the likelihood of a switch failure through switch design changes and a TSB, further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that no safety-related defect exists.The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.The ODI complaints cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the following (ODI) numbers: 10427875, 10114393, 10257890For additional information, see the attached closing report.
PE09055 · Hvac Switch Failures
Opened Dec 7, 2009 · Closed Apr 21, 2010
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:wiring:interior/under Dash
ODI has received 1 complaint and reports from 4 transportation fleets alleging 182 switch failures.Each fleet operates mini buses built on a Ford E350 or E450 cutaway chassis.The OEM HVAC blower switches have melted, smoked, burned or experienced open flame and become inoperable on vehicles in each fleet.Some drivers have reported a burning smell or smoke coming from the dash.One fleet reported a vehicle fire.No injuries were sustained.However, the bus was carrying special needs children when the driver noticed smoke coming from the dash.The driver was able to evacuate the children prior to the vehicle becoming engulfed in flames.This PE has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA) to determine if the blower motor switch failures create a situation where a vehicle fire is possible and presents a safety risk to the driver and other passengers.
DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
PE99047 · Blow Back During Refueling
Opened Jul 12, 1999 · Closed Sep 23, 1999
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
There is no summary currently available