NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Fuel System, Gasoline complaints
33 reportsClear category filter2,000 miles · Jun 29, 2014
EngineFuel System, Gasoline
UNDER MEDIUM TO HARD ACCELERATION A STRONG SULFUR SMELL ENTERS THE CABIN THROUGH THE AIR CONDITIONING VENTS AND IT SMELLS VERY BAD. FAMILY OF FOUR AND CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WE ARE ALL BREATHING IN. CONTACTED FORD AND THEY HAVE CONFIRMED IT AND THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE IT IS COMING FROM AND REFUSED TO FIX IT. THIS IS THE ONL…
Read full complaint
UNDER MEDIUM TO HARD ACCELERATION A STRONG SULFUR SMELL ENTERS THE CABIN THROUGH THE AIR CONDITIONING VENTS AND IT SMELLS VERY BAD. FAMILY OF FOUR AND CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WE ARE ALL BREATHING IN. CONTACTED FORD AND THEY HAVE CONFIRMED IT AND THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE IT IS COMING FROM AND REFUSED TO FIX IT. THIS IS THE ONLY CAR I HAVE EVER DRIVEN WHERE THERE IS THIS TYPE OF SMELL COMING FROM AC UNDER ACCELERATION. SMELL COMES THROUGH FOR ABOUT 30 SECONDS AND THEN STOPS. STINKS UP THE CAR UNTIL WE ROLL DOWN THE WINDOWS TO GET THE BAD AIR OUT. EMBARRASSING WHEN WE HAVE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE CAR. I KNOW I AM NOT THE ONLY PERSON EXPERIENCING THIS PROBLEM. IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED IN NUMEROUS CHAT FORUMS AND WEBSITES ALL OVER THE WWW. THIS HAPPENS EVERY TIME THE VEHICLE IS ACCELERATED HARD SINCE WE HAVE OWNED IT.(HUNDREDS OF TIMES). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10606792
36,000 miles · Jun 25, 2014
EngineFuel System, Gasoline
DURING STOP AND GO CONDITIONS THE VEHICLE EXHAUST FUMES WITH ENTER THE CABIN OF THE VEHICLE AND BEING TO MAKE THE OCCUPANTS FEEL ILL. BROUGHT THIS ISSUE TO A FORD SERVICE DEALER, WHICH CONFIRMED THIS WAS EXHAUST FUMES ENTERING THE VEHICLE. THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SOLUTION FROM THE MANUFACTURER YET. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10606061
Mileage unknown · Jun 21, 2014
EngineFuel System, Gasoline
I HAVE A 2013 FORD EXPLORER SPORT WITH APPROXIMATELY 8500 MILES. THE INTERIOR CABIN OFTEN FILLS WITH EXHAUST FUMES. MANY OCCURRENCE OVER SEVERAL MONTHS WHETHER AC RUNNING WITH FRESH OR RECIRCULATING AIR. I CALLED THE DEALER AND THEY WERE UNAWARE OF ANY ISSUES WITH THIS PROBLEM. OF COURSE I WILL TAKE THE VEHICLE TO DEALER BUT BA…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2013 FORD EXPLORER SPORT WITH APPROXIMATELY 8500 MILES. THE INTERIOR CABIN OFTEN FILLS WITH EXHAUST FUMES. MANY OCCURRENCE OVER SEVERAL MONTHS WHETHER AC RUNNING WITH FRESH OR RECIRCULATING AIR. I CALLED THE DEALER AND THEY WERE UNAWARE OF ANY ISSUES WITH THIS PROBLEM. OF COURSE I WILL TAKE THE VEHICLE TO DEALER BUT BASED ON OTHER COMPLAINTS, I HAVE REVIEWED I DON'T EXPECT MUCH WILL BE DONE UNLESS FORD MOTOR CO TAKES A DEEPER LOOK TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10604955
4,000 miles · Jun 21, 2014
EngineEquipment Adaptive/mobilityFuel System, Gasoline
THERE IS A FOUL SMELL IN THE VEHICLE, MAYBE BURNING PLASTIC ON THE VEHICLE OR EXHAUST. THE FUMES GETS INSIDE THE VEHICLE THAT CAN MAKE IT UNBEARABLE WHEN YOU HAVE THE AC ON. YOU CAN NOT STAY IN THE CAR. THE AC HAS TO BE TURN OFF AND ALL WINDOWS OPEN IN ORDER TO CONTINUE DRIVING. I BROUGHT THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP F…
Read full complaint
THERE IS A FOUL SMELL IN THE VEHICLE, MAYBE BURNING PLASTIC ON THE VEHICLE OR EXHAUST. THE FUMES GETS INSIDE THE VEHICLE THAT CAN MAKE IT UNBEARABLE WHEN YOU HAVE THE AC ON. YOU CAN NOT STAY IN THE CAR. THE AC HAS TO BE TURN OFF AND ALL WINDOWS OPEN IN ORDER TO CONTINUE DRIVING. I BROUGHT THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR SERVICE, LAST YEAR. THE SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE INFORMED ME THAT IT WAS A PLASTIC BAG THAT GOT STUCK IN THE EXHAUST. ONCE ITS BURNED OFF THE SMELL WILL BE GONE. HOWEVER. IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE THE CASE. THE FOUL SMELL IS GETTING WORSE THAT ITS UNBEARABLE TO STAY IN THE VEHICLE WITH THE AC ON. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10604931
Mileage unknown · Mar 3, 2014
Fuel System, Gasoline
I RECEIVED A SAFETY RECALL NOTICE # 13S04 FROM FORD ON A FUEL DELIVERY MODULE THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. THE RECALL NOTICE WAS DATED JULY OF 2013. MY FORD DEALER TELLS ME THEY CANNOT GET THE PART--DON'T KNOW WHY. I CALLED FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE AND WAS TOLD--COMPUTER HAS MY PART ON ORDER--BUT THEY CANNOT OR WOULD NOT TELL ME WHEN…
Read full complaint
I RECEIVED A SAFETY RECALL NOTICE # 13S04 FROM FORD ON A FUEL DELIVERY MODULE THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. THE RECALL NOTICE WAS DATED JULY OF 2013. MY FORD DEALER TELLS ME THEY CANNOT GET THE PART--DON'T KNOW WHY. I CALLED FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE AND WAS TOLD--COMPUTER HAS MY PART ON ORDER--BUT THEY CANNOT OR WOULD NOT TELL ME WHEN I COULD EXPECT THE PART AND IF I SHOULD HAPPEN TO SMELL GAS TAKE THE CAR TO A FORD DEALER. WHAT'S GOING ON???????? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10566843
4,513 miles · Feb 13, 2014
EngineFuel System, Gasoline
WHEN I ACCELERATE FAST, THE EXHAUST ENTERS THE VEHICLE FROM THE AC UNIT. MY CAR WAS IN 3 TIMES BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN (12-12-4) WAS PERFORMED, WHICH BY THE WAY DOES NOT FIX THE ISSUE. CANT EVEN IMAGINE HOOKING UP OUR BOAT TO THIS VEHICLE AS IT WILL PROBABLY KILL US WITH CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING. MY 10 …
Read full complaint
WHEN I ACCELERATE FAST, THE EXHAUST ENTERS THE VEHICLE FROM THE AC UNIT. MY CAR WAS IN 3 TIMES BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN (12-12-4) WAS PERFORMED, WHICH BY THE WAY DOES NOT FIX THE ISSUE. CANT EVEN IMAGINE HOOKING UP OUR BOAT TO THIS VEHICLE AS IT WILL PROBABLY KILL US WITH CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING. MY 10 YEAR OLD SON HAS HAD BRONCHITIS 4 TIMES SINCE WE HAVE HAD THIS VEHICLE.. HMMM POSSIBLY RELATED!! IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE A CHILD THAT IS STRAPPED INTO HIS SEAT DIES OF C.M. POISONING! THE SMELL IS EXTREMELY WORSE IN THE BACK SEAT, NEVERMIND SITTING IN THE 3RD ROW! YOU WOULD PROBABLY DIE A SILENT DEATH RATHER QUICKLY!! AND THE WORST PART OF ALL... FORD'S CEO [XXX] AND FORD AS A WHOLE IS VERY AWARE OF THIS ISSUE. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10564269
38,000 miles · Aug 27, 2013
Fuel System, Gasoline
AS I WAS DRIVING I-10 WESTBOUND IN HOUSTON THERE WAS A VERY LOUD DEFINITIVE EXPLOSION IN THE AREA OF THE GAS TANK ON MY 2013 FORD EXPLORER. I IMMEDIATELY LOST POWER AND COASTED TO THE HAZARD LANE. THE FIRE TRUCKS ARRIVED AND THE FIREMEN APPLIED PUTTY TO ALL OF THE LEAKS AROUND THE FUEL TANK. IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT ALL OF MY FUEL…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS DRIVING I-10 WESTBOUND IN HOUSTON THERE WAS A VERY LOUD DEFINITIVE EXPLOSION IN THE AREA OF THE GAS TANK ON MY 2013 FORD EXPLORER. I IMMEDIATELY LOST POWER AND COASTED TO THE HAZARD LANE. THE FIRE TRUCKS ARRIVED AND THE FIREMEN APPLIED PUTTY TO ALL OF THE LEAKS AROUND THE FUEL TANK. IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT ALL OF MY FUEL HAD DUMPED OUT IMMEDIATELY DURING THE EXPLOSION PREVENTING FURTHER DAMAGE AND FIRE. JUST HAVING FILLED MY GAS TANK, I FEEL LUCKY TO BE ALIVE RIGHT NOW. I AM REALLY AT A LOSS OF WORDS AS TO WHY FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND THE DEALER MAC HAIK FORD DID NOT NOTIFY ME OF THE FUEL TANK LEAK RECALL, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS JUST IN THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AT MAK HAIK LESS THAN A WEEK AGO. I HAD CLEARLY REQUESTED THAT ALL RECALLS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THIS VEHICLE BE ASCERTAINED PRIOR TO RELEASING IT TO ME. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10537494
200 miles · Jul 25, 2013
Engine And Engine CoolingFuel System, Gasoline
PURCHASED VEHICLE IN EARLY 2013. WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS NOTICED EXHAUST FUMES COMING FROM AIR VENTS. CALLED MY LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY ADVISED THAT IT WAS NORMAL TO SMELL FUMES BECAUSE IT WAS A NEW ENGINE. NOW SIX MONTHS LATER, I CONTINUE TO SMELL EXHAUST FUMES THROUGH AIR VENTS WHILE DRIVING BUT IT SEEMS TO BE W…
Read full complaint
PURCHASED VEHICLE IN EARLY 2013. WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS NOTICED EXHAUST FUMES COMING FROM AIR VENTS. CALLED MY LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP AND THEY ADVISED THAT IT WAS NORMAL TO SMELL FUMES BECAUSE IT WAS A NEW ENGINE. NOW SIX MONTHS LATER, I CONTINUE TO SMELL EXHAUST FUMES THROUGH AIR VENTS WHILE DRIVING BUT IT SEEMS TO BE WHILE AT HIGH RPM'S OVER 3000. I RESEARCHED THE NHTSA WEBSITE JUST TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T THE ONLY ONE AND NOTICED THAT THE FOLLOWING NHTSA ID COMPLAINT NUMBERS ARE ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH EXHAUST FUMES COMING THROUGH AIR VENTS. THEY ARE #10522939, 10521718, 10511749, 10503135, 10472937, 10497684 AND 10493493. IT SEEMS THAT THERE DEFINITELY IS A PROBLEM WITH EXHAUST FUMES ENTERING THE CABIN WHILE DRIVING. I JUST RECEIVED SAFETY RECALL NOTICE 13S04 FOR A POSSIBLE FUEL LEAK BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WILL STOP SMELL FROM COMING THROUGH THE AIR VENTS. SEEMS TO BE THAT SOME KIND OF SEAL OR GASKET IS NOT OPERATING AS REQUIRED TO KEEP FUMES FROM ENTERING THE CABIN. I HOPE THAT FORD GETS SERIOUS ABOUT CONDUCTING SOME TESTING FOR A POSSIBLE FIX OR RECALL. AS OTHERS HAVE COMPLAINED, I TRY NOT TO USE MY VEHICLE WHEN TRANSPORTING MY FAMILY AS THEY COULD BE EXPOSED TO HARMFUL EXHAUST FUMES. THIS VEHICLE IS NOT SAFE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10531802
18,000 miles · Jul 7, 2013
Fuel System, Gasoline
MY WIFE BROUGHT OUR 2013 FORD EXPLORER INTO OUR DEALERSHIP, EARLY MAY 2013, IN REGARDS TO SMELLING GAS FUMES OUTSIDE THE CAR AND THE SERVICE ADVISOR AT THE TIME MENTIONED TECHNICAL TERMS THAT MADE MY WIFE BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS NORMAL. LATER, I DROPPED OFF OUR 2013 FORD EXPLORER ON JUNE 13, 2013 (8AM ON THURS) AT OUR DEALERSHIP I…
Read full complaint
MY WIFE BROUGHT OUR 2013 FORD EXPLORER INTO OUR DEALERSHIP, EARLY MAY 2013, IN REGARDS TO SMELLING GAS FUMES OUTSIDE THE CAR AND THE SERVICE ADVISOR AT THE TIME MENTIONED TECHNICAL TERMS THAT MADE MY WIFE BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS NORMAL. LATER, I DROPPED OFF OUR 2013 FORD EXPLORER ON JUNE 13, 2013 (8AM ON THURS) AT OUR DEALERSHIP IN REGARDS TO PERSONALLY SMELLING GAS FUMES OUTSIDE MY WIFE'S PRIMARY CAR. THEY TOOK THE VEHICLE IN DURING OUR 2ND VISIT TO INVESTIGATE THIS GAS ODOR AND THEY CONFIRMED IT. THE SERVICE ADVISOR ALSO MENTIONED A RECALL WAS ISSUED FOR A FUEL RELATED ISSUE (DURING 2ND VISIT) AND WE WERE NOT SURE IF THIS WAS RELATED AT THE TIME. MY CONCERN ARE THE FOLLOWING; WHY WAS THIS NOT TAKEN CARE OF DURING AN EARLIER VISIT AND I'M FRUSTRATED WITH THE PROTOCOL OUR DEALERSHIP FOLLOWED FOR THIS POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARD. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10523510
1,000 miles · Jul 2, 2013
Fuel System, Gasoline
I BOUGHT MY EXPLORER JANUARY 3, 2013. A FEW WEEKS LATER I BEGAN TO SMELL GAS FUMES COMING FROM THE AIRCONDITIONER VENTS WHEN STARTING THE IGNITION. IT ONLY LASTED A FEW MINUTES BEFORE THE FUMES WERE NO LONGER SMELT. THIS CONTINUED TO GO ON FOR MONTHS, RANDOMLY, WHETHER THE GAS TANK WAS FULL OR EMPTY, WHETHER IT WAS DRIVEN FOR M…
Read full complaint
I BOUGHT MY EXPLORER JANUARY 3, 2013. A FEW WEEKS LATER I BEGAN TO SMELL GAS FUMES COMING FROM THE AIRCONDITIONER VENTS WHEN STARTING THE IGNITION. IT ONLY LASTED A FEW MINUTES BEFORE THE FUMES WERE NO LONGER SMELT. THIS CONTINUED TO GO ON FOR MONTHS, RANDOMLY, WHETHER THE GAS TANK WAS FULL OR EMPTY, WHETHER IT WAS DRIVEN FOR MILES OR IF IT WAS STARTING FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT DAY. MULTIPLE PASSENGERS, INCLUDING MY DAUGHTER, HAVE SMELT THE FUMES AND QUESTIONED WHETHER IT WAS SAFE. MY MOTHER AND COUSIN BOTH PURCHASED AN EXPLORER AS WELL & BOTH IMMEDIATELY HAD THE SAME PROBLEMS. I CALLED THE SALESMAN THAT I PURCHASED IT FROM AND HE ADVISED THAT I HAVE IT LOOKED AT. SHORTLY AFTER, I LEARNED ABOUT THE MASS RECALL THAT FORD HAD PLACED ON THE EXPLORERS. I IMMEDIATELY TOOK IT TO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT (JUNE 6, 2013) & WAS TOLD THAT THEY COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT ACCORDING TO THE COMPUTER. I INSISTED THAT THEY TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT BECAUSE THIS WAS HAPPENING TOO OFTEN & BY THIS TIME MY GARAGE HAD STARTED TO SMELL LIKE GAS. THE DEALERSHIP DECIDED TO PLACE ME IN A RENTAL CAR & TAKE A LONGER LOOK IT. I WAS TOLD THAT NEXT MONDAY THAT FORD WOULD HONOR MY COMPLAINTS & HAVE THE PARTS REPLACED. THIS HAS YET TO HAPPEN. I AM CURRENTLY STILL IN A RENTAL DUE TO FORD NOT WANTING TO REPLACE MY PARTS UNTIL THEY MASS PRODUCE THE FAULTY PART. I WAS TOLD THAT IT WILL BE THIS OCTOBER BEFORE THEY CONSIDER REPLACING MY PART NOW. THIS EXPLORER IS DANGEROUS DUE TO THE FUMES AND CHANCE OF EXPLOSION. IT IS ALSO A FIRE/EXPLOSION HAZARD FOR ME TO HAVE IT PARKED AT MY HOUSE. MY EXPLORER REMAINS USELESS AT THE DEALERSHIP. MY MOM WAS TOLD SHE SHOULDN'T BRING IN HER VEHICLE UNTIL OCTOBER SOME TIME DUE TO NOT HAVING THE PART. THIS IS 3 NEW EXPLORERS THAT ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE RECALL AND THAT ARE DANGEROUS TO MY FAMILY AND OTHER FAMILIES ON THE HIGHWAYS. I CAN ONLY WONDER IF THERE ARE MORE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10522939
Official recalls
11Jan 19, 2024
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2011-2019 Explorer vehicles. The A-pillar trim retention clips may not be properly engaged, allowing the trim to detach.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A detached trim piece can fall off the vehicle, becoming a road hazard and increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will inspect and replace the A-pillar trim as necessary, free of charge. This will be a phased campaign, with the remedy becoming available in different phases based on model years. Owner notification letters were mailed between July 18, 2024 and December 16, 2025. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 24S02.
Sep 22, 2021
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2011-2013 Explorer vehicles originally sold, or currently registered in 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, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. These vehicles may be equipped with a cross-axis ball joint (CABJ) replacement part that could seize, and result in a fracture of the outboard section of the rear suspension toe link.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A rear toe link fracture can result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Dealer will inspect for the presence of a CABJ. If a CABJ of any design is found, the dealer will inspect the tightness of the CABJ, and replace the CABJ, knuckle, and/or toe link as necessary, free of charge. Interim notification letters were mailed November 10, 2021. Owner notification letters were mailed on March 17, 2022. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S43.
Jul 15, 2021
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2013-2017 Explorer vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. Exposure to road salt can cause the cross-axis ball joint to corrode and seize, resulting in a fracture of the outboard section of the rear suspension toe link.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A rear toe-link fracture can result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will inspect and replace as necessary, the cross-axis ball joint (CABJ) knuckle, and replace the rear suspension toe links, free of charge. This recall is an expansion of previous NHTSA recall numbers 16V-245, 19V-435, and 20V-675. Certain vehicles previously repaired will need to return for the new remedy. An interim notification letter notifying owners of the safety risk were mailed on September 10, 2021. Owner notification letters were mailed on March 16, 2022. Owners may contact Ford's customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S32.
Mar 12, 2021
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2013-2017 Explorer vehicles originally sold, or currently registered in 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, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin that were previously repaired under a prior recall numbers 16V-245 or 19V-435. The outboard section of a rear suspension toe link may fracture.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A rear toe link fracture can result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the cross-axis ball joint (CABJ) knuckle attached to the rear suspension toe link and replace it as necessary, free of charge. The recall began November 27, 2020. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 20S62.
Jun 10, 2019
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2011-2017 Explorer vehicles. The rear suspension toe links may fracture due to stress on the rear suspension.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A fractured rear toe link will cause a sudden change in vehicle handling and increase the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the rear suspension toe links, and inspect both rear toe link ball joints, replacing the rear wheel knuckle(s), if necessary, free of charge. The recall began June 26, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S17.
Dec 2, 2015
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2013 Explorer, Explorer Police Utility, Taurus, Taurus Police Interceptor, Flex, Lincoln MKS, and Lincoln MKT vehicles. In the affected vehicles, the fuel delivery module may crack, allowing fuel to leak.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source may result in a fire.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the fuel delivery module, free of charge. The recall began on December 21, 2015. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 13S04-S1.
Mar 24, 2015
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2011-2013 Explorer vehicles. In the affected vehicles, the interior door handle return spring may unseat, resulting in interior door handle that does not return to the fully stowed position after actuation.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the interior door handle return spring is unseated, the door may unlatch in the event of a side impact crash, increasing the risk of personal injury.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will inspect all four of the interior door handles and either repair or replace them, free of charge. The recall began on July 23, 2015. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 15S11.
May 29, 2014
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2011-2013 Ford Explorer vehicles manufactured May 17, 2010, through February 28, 2012. The affected vehicles may experience an intermittent connection in the electric power steering gear, which can cause a loss of the motor position sensor signal resulting in a shut down of the power steering assist.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the vehicle experiences a loss of power steering assist it will require extra steering effort at lower speeds, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will update the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) software, free of charge. If a vehicle shows a history of a loss of motor position sensor signal when the vehicle is brought in for the recall remedy, its steering rack assembly will be replaced, free of charge. The recall began on July 23, 2014. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-800-392-3673. Ford's number for this recall is 14S06.
Jun 26, 2013
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2013 Ford Explorer, Taurus, and Lincoln MKS vehicles manufactured November 29, 2012, through December 12, 2012. In the affected vehicles, with sufficient door openings and closings, the child safety locks may change from an activated position to a deactivated position without notice.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the child lock is deactivated, the door could be unlocked and opened from the inside which could lead to personal injury to an unrestrained child.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will test the safety locks. If necessary, the locks will be replaced free of charge. The recall began on August 2, 2013. Ford's recall number is 13S07. Owners may contact the Ford customer relationship center at 1-866-436-7332.
May 31, 2013
Ford is recalling certain model year 2013 Explorer, Taurus, Flex, Fusion, Police Interceptor Sedan and Police Interceptor Utility vehicles; and certain model year 2013 Lincoln MKS, MKT, and MKZ vehicles. In the affected vehicles, the fuel delivery module may develop a crack, allowing fuel to leak.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source may result in a fire.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the fuel delivery module, free of charge. The recall began on July 20, 2013. Owners may contact Ford Motor Company Customer Relationship Center at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's recall campaign number is 13S04.
Mar 27, 2013
Ford is recalling certain model year 2012 Taurus, Lincoln MKS, and model year 2013 Explorer vehicles manufactured July 19, 2011, through March 15, 2012. In the affected vehicles, the fuel tanks may have a marginally sealed seam in the side of the tank. As a result, the fuel tanks may not provide the expected strength in the event of an impact. The tanks may also leak.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source may result in a fire.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the fuel tanks and replace them as necessary, free of charge. The recall began on May 9, 2013. Ford's recall campaign number is 13S03. Owners may contact Ford Motor Company Customer Relationship Center at 1-866-436-7332.
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
6PE23001 · Windshield Trim Molding Item Detachment
Opened Jan 27, 2023 · Closed Feb 8, 2024
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:roof And Pillars
On January 27, 2023, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE23-001 to investigate allegations of A-pillar trim panel detachment on model year (MY) 2011-2019 Ford Explorer vehicles. At the time of opening, the office had received 164 Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs) reporting this failure. ODI has received 671 VOQs regarding this failure, including 1 alleged crash and 2 alleged injuries. Some consumers have reported that the failure occurred while they were driving at highway speeds, with the detached trim panel entering the path of travel of the vehicle behind them, requiring the driver of the following vehicle to take evasive action. It is noteworthy that motorists who experience this type of road hazard are less likely to accurately identify the subject vehicle the item detached from and report the event to the NHTSA. In its April 17, 2023 response to ODI’s information request, Ford provided 175 consumer complaints (including field reports) and 14,162 warranty claims related to A-pillar trim panel detachment. Ford relayed that the subject vehicles utilize a plastic A-pillar bracket, which is bolted to the vehicle structure during assembly. The A-pillar trim panel is attached to the bracket utilizing 7 plastic clips. Contributory factors which have been identified by Ford as leading to the subject defect include incomplete installation at the assembly plant, inadequate part stack up, damage to fasteners during installation, and failure to follow proper repair procedure during windshield replacements or other services. On January 19, 2024, Ford filed safety recall 24V-031 for MY 2011-2019 Ford Explorer vehicles to address the subject defect. In the Part 573 Safety Recall Report, Ford identified that a detached A-pillar trim panel can create a road hazard for other road users, increasing the risk of a crash. The recall remedy includes an inspection of the existing A-pillar trim panel and, if necessary, the replacement of the component. The remedy A-pillar trim panels will be installed with an additional adhesive for robustness and utilize an inspection procedure to ensure full engagement of all the retention clips during installation. In view of the recall action being taken by Ford, ODI is closing this Preliminary Evaluation. The agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.
EA17002 · Exhaust Odor In Passenger Cab
Opened Jul 27, 2017 · Closed Jan 17, 2023
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System:manifold/header/muffler/tail Pipe; Structure:body
During the EA17-002 investigation, the agency reviewed and analyzed reports of exhaust odors in the passenger cabins of Model Year 2011 to 2017 Ford Explorers. This investigation required an approach that incorporated knowledge and expertise from the automotive, medical, environmental health, and occupational safety fields. The agency conducted an in-depth investigation that encompassed the review of over 6,500 consumer complaints, conducting field inspections, and testing the relevant vehicles, both independently and in coordination with Ford and other entities. During the investigation, the evolution of Ford service bulletins intended to reduce the level of exhaust odors and carbon monoxide (CO) entering the occupant compartment was examined and independent tests to evaluate the effectiveness of the final Field Service Actions (FSA) for both consumer and police vehicles were conducted. As part of the investigation, the agency also examined the effects of cracked exhaust mani-cats on the measured CO levels in the vehicles and tested the FSA repairs to ensure they did not adversely impact occupant compartment CO levels due to cracked mani-cats.The investigation identified upfitting issues for Police Interceptor vehicles. Upfitting (sirens, lights, cages, auxiliary power, etc.) is typically performed by governmental fleet operations, independent repair facilities, or local Ford dealers after the sale of the new vehicle. Sealing issues caused by upfitting were responsible for the highest measured carbon monoxide levels in tested vehicles. The police FSA instructs how to inspect the quality of the vehicle upfits and how to properly seal any leaks caused by these upfits, at no cost to the police agency. Similarly, the highest CO levels measured in consumer vehicles were usually traced to sealing issues caused by rear crash damage where the repairs did not ensure sealing integrity. The most recent Ford FSA procedure for both the police (17B25) and consumer vehicles (17N03) includes an HVAC reprogramming operation. Tests by Ford and NHTSA have demonstrated a substantial reduction of CO levels due solely to the HVAC reprogramming. Other FSA repairs also demonstrated measurable contributions to CO level reductions during controlled tests.Throughout the investigation, vehicles accurately measured with higher levels of carbon monoxide were almost always affected by upfitter alterations, damage, or other causes compromising rear passenger cabin seals.NHTSA received thousands of reports alleging odors which triggered a variety of physiological responses, predominately nausea, headaches, and lightheadedness. NHTSA focused the investigation on accurately measuring vehicle CO levels, and accurately measuring carboxyhemoglobin (COHB) levels from properly administered blood tests. Using rigorous test methods to produce exhaust gas intrusion in vehicles with a properly performed FSA, occupant compartment CO levels remained below current environmental limits for CO in any environment (EPA ambient air quality standards). Furthermore, even without FSA repairs, no vehicles unaffected by upfitter issues or prior crash damage were identified with CO levels that exceed accepted occupational CO exposure levels. This investigation finds that the 2011-2017 Ford Explorer vehicles when accurately measured produce occupant compartment CO levels which fall below current accepted health standards, and could not identify COHB levels for vehicle drivers or other occupants, which exceeded thresholds for acute physiological effects. Therefore, the agency has not identified a defect that represents an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.This inve
Additional source detail variants (2)
Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System:manifold/header/muffler/tail Pipe
During the EA17-002 investigation, the agency reviewed and analyzed reports of exhaust odors in the passenger cabins of Model Year 2011 to 2017 Ford Explorers. This investigation required an approach that incorporated knowledge and expertise from the automotive, medical, environmental health, and occupational safety fields. The agency conducted an in-depth investigation that encompassed the review of over 6,500 consumer complaints, conducting field inspections, and testing the relevant vehicles, both independently and in coordination with Ford and other entities. During the investigation, the evolution of Ford service bulletins intended to reduce the level of exhaust odors and carbon monoxide (CO) entering the occupant compartment was examined and independent tests to evaluate the effectiveness of the final Field Service Actions (FSA) for both consumer and police vehicles were conducted. As part of the investigation, the agency also examined the effects of cracked exhaust mani-cats on the measured CO levels in the vehicles and tested the FSA repairs to ensure they did not adversely impact occupant compartment CO levels due to cracked mani-cats.The investigation identified upfitting issues for Police Interceptor vehicles. Upfitting (sirens, lights, cages, auxiliary power, etc.) is typically performed by governmental fleet operations, independent repair facilities, or local Ford dealers after the sale of the new vehicle. Sealing issues caused by upfitting were responsible for the highest measured carbon monoxide levels in tested vehicles. The police FSA instructs how to inspect the quality of the vehicle upfits and how to properly seal any leaks caused by these upfits, at no cost to the police agency. Similarly, the highest CO levels measured in consumer vehicles were usually traced to sealing issues caused by rear crash damage where the repairs did not ensure sealing integrity. The most recent Ford FSA procedure for both the police (17B25) and consumer vehicles (17N03) includes an HVAC reprogramming operation. Tests by Ford and NHTSA have demonstrated a substantial reduction of CO levels due solely to the HVAC reprogramming. Other FSA repairs also demonstrated measurable contributions to CO level reductions during controlled tests.Throughout the investigation, vehicles accurately measured with higher levels of carbon monoxide were almost always affected by upfitter alterations, damage, or other causes compromising rear passenger cabin seals.NHTSA received thousands of reports alleging odors which triggered a variety of physiological responses, predominately nausea, headaches, and lightheadedness. NHTSA focused the investigation on accurately measuring vehicle CO levels, and accurately measuring carboxyhemoglobin (COHB) levels from properly administered blood tests. Using rigorous test methods to produce exhaust gas intrusion in vehicles with a properly performed FSA, occupant compartment CO levels remained below current environmental limits for CO in any environment (EPA ambient air quality standards). Furthermore, even without FSA repairs, no vehicles unaffected by upfitter issues or prior crash damage were identified with CO levels that exceed accepted occupational CO exposure levels. This investigation finds that the 2011-2017 Ford Explorer vehicles when accurately measured produce occupant compartment CO levels which fall below current accepted health standards, and could not identify COHB levels for vehicle drivers or other occupants, which exceeded thresholds for acute physiological effects. Therefore, the agency has not identified a defect that represents an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.This inve
Structure:body
During the EA17-002 investigation, the agency reviewed and analyzed reports of exhaust odors in the passenger cabins of Model Year 2011 to 2017 Ford Explorers. This investigation required an approach that incorporated knowledge and expertise from the automotive, medical, environmental health, and occupational safety fields. The agency conducted an in-depth investigation that encompassed the review of over 6,500 consumer complaints, conducting field inspections, and testing the relevant vehicles, both independently and in coordination with Ford and other entities. During the investigation, the evolution of Ford service bulletins intended to reduce the level of exhaust odors and carbon monoxide (CO) entering the occupant compartment was examined and independent tests to evaluate the effectiveness of the final Field Service Actions (FSA) for both consumer and police vehicles were conducted. As part of the investigation, the agency also examined the effects of cracked exhaust mani-cats on the measured CO levels in the vehicles and tested the FSA repairs to ensure they did not adversely impact occupant compartment CO levels due to cracked mani-cats.The investigation identified upfitting issues for Police Interceptor vehicles. Upfitting (sirens, lights, cages, auxiliary power, etc.) is typically performed by governmental fleet operations, independent repair facilities, or local Ford dealers after the sale of the new vehicle. Sealing issues caused by upfitting were responsible for the highest measured carbon monoxide levels in tested vehicles. The police FSA instructs how to inspect the quality of the vehicle upfits and how to properly seal any leaks caused by these upfits, at no cost to the police agency. Similarly, the highest CO levels measured in consumer vehicles were usually traced to sealing issues caused by rear crash damage where the repairs did not ensure sealing integrity. The most recent Ford FSA procedure for both the police (17B25) and consumer vehicles (17N03) includes an HVAC reprogramming operation. Tests by Ford and NHTSA have demonstrated a substantial reduction of CO levels due solely to the HVAC reprogramming. Other FSA repairs also demonstrated measurable contributions to CO level reductions during controlled tests.Throughout the investigation, vehicles accurately measured with higher levels of carbon monoxide were almost always affected by upfitter alterations, damage, or other causes compromising rear passenger cabin seals.NHTSA received thousands of reports alleging odors which triggered a variety of physiological responses, predominately nausea, headaches, and lightheadedness. NHTSA focused the investigation on accurately measuring vehicle CO levels, and accurately measuring carboxyhemoglobin (COHB) levels from properly administered blood tests. Using rigorous test methods to produce exhaust gas intrusion in vehicles with a properly performed FSA, occupant compartment CO levels remained below current environmental limits for CO in any environment (EPA ambient air quality standards). Furthermore, even without FSA repairs, no vehicles unaffected by upfitter issues or prior crash damage were identified with CO levels that exceed accepted occupational CO exposure levels. This investigation finds that the 2011-2017 Ford Explorer vehicles when accurately measured produce occupant compartment CO levels which fall below current accepted health standards, and could not identify COHB levels for vehicle drivers or other occupants, which exceeded thresholds for acute physiological effects. Therefore, the agency has not identified a defect that represents an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.This inve
PE16008 · Ford Explorer Exhaust Odor
Opened Jul 1, 2016 · Closed Sep 12, 2017
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System; Structure:body
During the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?s (NHTSA?s) investigation into the Ford carbon monoxide allegations, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) identified additional Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) reports with similar exhaust odor claims.Presently, ODI has identified 791 VOQs for Model Year 2011-2017 Ford Explorers pertaining to exhaust odor claims.ODI has identified three crashes and 41 injuries potentially linked this issue.The reported injuries range from unspecified to loss of consciousness, with the majority being nausea, headaches, or dizziness ? all of which can be symptomatic of carbon monoxide exposure.Additionally, Ford provided 2,400 reports including owner complaints, warranty claims, dealer field reports, and legal claims, that involve 2,051 vehicles that may be connected to the exhaust odor issue.NHTSA's Vehicle Test and Research Center tested multiple vehicles, including complaint vehicles, during the investigation.ODI also conducted field inspections of complaint vehicles and crashes involving police units that occurred while the officers were on duty.When possible, data was collected to quantify carbon monoxide levels in the examined vehicles.Based on the information gathered to date, NHTSA upgraded this investigation to an Engineering Analysis (EA17-002).
Additional source detail variants (2)
Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System
During the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?s (NHTSA?s) investigation into the Ford carbon monoxide allegations, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) identified additional Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) reports with similar exhaust odor claims.Presently, ODI has identified 791 VOQs for Model Year 2011-2017 Ford Explorers pertaining to exhaust odor claims.ODI has identified three crashes and 41 injuries potentially linked this issue.The reported injuries range from unspecified to loss of consciousness, with the majority being nausea, headaches, or dizziness ? all of which can be symptomatic of carbon monoxide exposure.Additionally, Ford provided 2,400 reports including owner complaints, warranty claims, dealer field reports, and legal claims, that involve 2,051 vehicles that may be connected to the exhaust odor issue.NHTSA's Vehicle Test and Research Center tested multiple vehicles, including complaint vehicles, during the investigation.ODI also conducted field inspections of complaint vehicles and crashes involving police units that occurred while the officers were on duty.When possible, data was collected to quantify carbon monoxide levels in the examined vehicles.Based on the information gathered to date, NHTSA upgraded this investigation to an Engineering Analysis (EA17-002).
Structure:body
During the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?s (NHTSA?s) investigation into the Ford carbon monoxide allegations, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) identified additional Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) reports with similar exhaust odor claims.Presently, ODI has identified 791 VOQs for Model Year 2011-2017 Ford Explorers pertaining to exhaust odor claims.ODI has identified three crashes and 41 injuries potentially linked this issue.The reported injuries range from unspecified to loss of consciousness, with the majority being nausea, headaches, or dizziness ? all of which can be symptomatic of carbon monoxide exposure.Additionally, Ford provided 2,400 reports including owner complaints, warranty claims, dealer field reports, and legal claims, that involve 2,051 vehicles that may be connected to the exhaust odor issue.NHTSA's Vehicle Test and Research Center tested multiple vehicles, including complaint vehicles, during the investigation.ODI also conducted field inspections of complaint vehicles and crashes involving police units that occurred while the officers were on duty.When possible, data was collected to quantify carbon monoxide levels in the examined vehicles.Based on the information gathered to date, NHTSA upgraded this investigation to an Engineering Analysis (EA17-002).
EA15005 · Front Brake Hose Failure
Opened Sep 28, 2015 · Closed Nov 2, 2018
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
On April 29, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE15-017 to investigate a report alleging incidents of front brake hose failure in model year (MY) 2015 Ford Explorer Police Interceptor vehicles used by the Sacramento Police Department in its pursuit driving training program (VOQ 10705832).On September 28, 2015, ODI upgraded the investigation to an Engineering Analysis (EA15-005) to assess maximum front caliper crimp temperatures under various test conditions, test hose assemblies removed from police interceptor service for any signs of thermal degradation, and further assess field data for evidence of a defect trend related to the alleged defect.The alleged defect results from exposure to extremely high heat at the caliper-side hose crimp. NHTSA?s vehicle testing suggests that the conditions necessary to produce the critical temperatures in the subject components result from drive-soak intervals that can occur during the Sacramento training program.NHTSA's testing of hose assemblies returned from police interceptor service did not identify any evidence of thermal degradation.NHTSA has not confirmed any incidents of caliper crimp failures due to overheating in vehicles not subjected to the Sacramento training course driving.The low number of hose assembly failure reports and the absence of any verified incidents of heat related front brake hose crimp failures since 2015 suggests that the Sacramento PD incidents resulted from conditions unique to the training program.A safety related defect trend 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 take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For additional information, see the Closing Report in the document file for EA15-005 on www.nhtsa.gov.
PE14027 · Front Brake Hose Failure
Opened Aug 22, 2014 · Closed Feb 3, 2015
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE14-027 based on a report of 13 front brake hose (jounce hose) failures in 11 vehicles in the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (DCMPD) fleet of 46 model year (MY) 2013 Ford Explorer Police Interceptor (PI) vehicles (VOQ 10621634).The DCMPD fleet provided Ford with 71 jounce hoses for analysis, including 4 of the 13 failed hoses.Inspection of each of the failed hoses identified a small tear in the outer cover on the body end of the hoses on the outboard side. Ford?s lab analysis of these hoses identified splits in the inner liners 1.5-2.0mm from the end of the nipple (outside of the crimped ferrule joint).Ford conducted pressure testing of 10 randomly selected samples of the remaining 67 hoses that had not experienced leaks and 9 of the samples leaked at 6,000 psi.Ford?s examination of the 9 hoses that leaked in the pressure tests found 4 that failed on the outboard side of the hose (similar to the 4 leaking field parts) and 5 that failed on the body end of the hose on the inboard side.Four additional non-leaking hoses were sent to the hose supplier, Hitachi, for analysis.Broken yarn was observed in scanning electron microscope examinations at both the body side and caliper side hose to ferrule crimps, indicating severe bending stress had occurred at these locations. Hitachi supplied an additional set of non-leaking field return hoses and a brand new set of hoses to an outside laboratory (Element Materials Technology) for analysis.The lab did not identify any manufacturing or material deficiencies in the hoses and concluded that the hose failures were caused by excessive bending stresses.Based on the examinations of the returned jounce hoses, Ford conducted durability testing on new hoses that were the same design as those found on the subject vehicles.Ford first determined the worst case conditions for the hoses; jounce bumpers removed, internal rebound stops fully compressed, and shock absorbers attached. With the jounce hose installed, the steering was rotated to the maximum turn angle while the suspension was translated from full jounce to full rebound.This determined the maximum hose length of 13.0in (331mm) and a minimum hose bending radius of 1.6in (40mm).Using these conditions hoses tested on a Suspension Motion Simulator far surpassed Ford?s performance specifications. Twenty (20) complaints of front brake jounce hose failure were identified on a total of 18 Explorer PI vehicles, including the 13 hose failures in 11 vehicles from the DCMPD fleet that prompted PE14-027.The remaining 7 complaints included 3 from one fleet that reportedly occurred on the banjo block end of the hose assembly and single complaints from 4 other fleets.Only two brake hose assemblies were used in the subject and peer Explorer vehicles, with the BB53 level hose used until June 20, 2012, and an updated DB53 level hose used thereafter.No pattern of failures was observed by hose assembly, with 15 of failures involving the BB53 hose assembly (including the 13 from DCMPD manufactured in March 2012) and 5 the DB53 hose assembly built after June 20, 2012. No root cause was determined for the reported Explorer PI jounce hose failures, but Ford identified improper service repair procedures (e.g., hanging the brake caliper from the brake hose during brake pad replacement) as a possible contributor to higher than expected rate of front brake jounce hose leaks. ODI?s analysis of field data, hose inspection and test data did not identify evidence of any defects in hose material, manufacture or vehicle installation.The closing of this invest
PE12017 · Electric Power Steering Failure
Opened Jun 19, 2012 · Closed Jun 12, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Steering:electric Power Assist System
On May 27, 2014 and amended June 2, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA describing a safety defect that may result in a sudden loss of power steering assist in approximately 179,027 model year (MY) 2011 through 2013 Ford Explorer vehicles equipped with electric power assisted steering (EPAS), including 82,328 MY 2011 Explorersthat are the subject of PE12-017.Ford has assigned the recall number 14S06.The NHTSA recall number is 14V-286.Ford's DIR indicates that loss of power steering assist while driving would require higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased risk of a crash.Sudden loss of power steering assist while driving can occur in the subject vehicles if the system loses electrical power or whenever the system detects a fault that requires it to enter fail-safe mode, which removes power from the EPAS motor and defaults to manual steering.Ford's DIR indicates that the majority of steering assist failures in the recalled vehicles have been caused by an intermittent electrical connection in the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) that can lead to a loss of the motor position sensor signal.Ford's remedy instructs dealers to check the PSCM for diagnostic trouble codes (DTC).If upon initial inspection a loss of steering assist DTC is present, dealers will replace the steering gear at no charge to the owner and update the PSCM with revised software.Following detection of a motor position sensor signal fault, the revised software will provide audible and visual warnings to the driver that a power steering system fault has been detected and will maintain steering assist for the remainder of that drive cycle.If no DTC is present, dealers will reprogram the PSCM with the revised software. Analysis of information from all sources identified a total of 969 complaints and 4,059 warranty claims related to loss of power steering assist while driving in the MY 2011 through 2012 Explorer vehicles, resulting in a complaint rate of 5.4 incidents per thousand vehicles and a warranty claim rate of 2.3 percent.ODI identified 15 crashes with evidence indicating loss of power steering assist may have been a factor.All 15 crashes involved low-speed impacts with roadside objects during turning maneuvers, resulting in minor vehicle damage or no damage.In one incident that occurred in a low-speed curve, the driver attempted to brake in response to the sudden increase in steering effort and inadvertently applied the accelerator pedal instead.This caused the vehicle to run off the side of the road and strike a wooden pole at approximately 15 mph.Another incident occurred when the driver was unable to to negotiate a left-turn at an intersection and ran off the road into a shallow ditch, resulting in moderate front-end damage to the vehicle and minor injuries to the driver that did not require medical treatment. This investigation is closed.All ODI complaints associated with this closing resume are listed in the Attachment 1.
Illustration