IllustrationDRIVERS SIDE SEAT BELT TAKES A FEW TRIES TO GET IT TO CLICK AND SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T ENGAGE ALL THE WAY AND THE LATCH COMES OUT. A MISFIRE IN CYLINDER 1 LEAD THE DISCOVERY OF KNOWN ISSUES WITH SPARK PLUGS AND REMOVAL. 3 OF THE PLUGS WERE LOOSE. *TR
2008 Ford F-150
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2008 Ford F-150 do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 676.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all F-150 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
770–25K
5725–50K
5750–75K
4875–100K
53100–150K
28150K+
320 reports with mileage · 49 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Engine. Review the 53 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 53 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 50 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
39 crash reports12 fire reports28 injury reports
What owners actually said
369 reportsMOTOR EJECTED SPARK PLUG PASSENGER SIDE THIRD ONE BACK. SHOULD BE A RECALL BECAUSE IT IS A FAULTY DESIGN. *TR
VEHICLE WOULD STALL AT SLOW SPEED AND SEVERE RATTLING AND LOSS OF POWER TO VEHICLE WHICH COULD EASILY RESULT IN ACCIDENT. FORD SERVICE INDICATED THAT IT WAS CAM PHASING OR OTHERWISE KNOWN AS INTAKE CAMSHAFT POSITION TIMING OVER RETARDED PROBLEM. VERY DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH SHOULD BE ADDRESSED VIA RECALL. *TR
THE CLEAR COAT PAINT IS PEALING OFF THE FRONT TRUCKER AROUND THE HEADLIGHT AND FRONT BUMPER. *TR
STARTED VEHICLE WITH NO ISSUES, DROVE FROM HOME TO LOCATION APPROXIMATELY 30 MILES AWAY. DURING THE DRIVE, I COULD FEEL A "HESITATION" DURING THE AUTOMATIC SHIFTING OF GEARS. HESITATION SEEMED TO PROGRESS DURING DRIVE TO LOCATION. ARRIVED AT LOCATION WITH NO FURTHER ISSUES. 3 HOURS LATER I LEFT LOCATION, IN ROUTE BACK TO MY H…
Read full complaint
STARTED VEHICLE WITH NO ISSUES, DROVE FROM HOME TO LOCATION APPROXIMATELY 30 MILES AWAY. DURING THE DRIVE, I COULD FEEL A "HESITATION" DURING THE AUTOMATIC SHIFTING OF GEARS. HESITATION SEEMED TO PROGRESS DURING DRIVE TO LOCATION. ARRIVED AT LOCATION WITH NO FURTHER ISSUES. 3 HOURS LATER I LEFT LOCATION, IN ROUTE BACK TO MY HOME, AND NOTICED SAME HESITATION. ON THE WAY HOME THE "TRANS FAULT" CODE CAME ON AND THE "O/D OFF" INDICATOR LIGHT BEGAN BLINKING ON AND OFF. I ARRIVED AT MY HOME WITH NO FURTHER ISSUES. WHILE AT HOME, I ATTEMPTED TO PLACE THE VEHICLE IN REVERSE AND IT DID NOT SHIFT FOR ALMOST 3-5 SECONDS, THEN THE TRANSMISSION SEEMED TO ABRUPTLY SHIFT INTO REVERSE. AT THIS POINT MY VEHICLE IS NOT OPERABLE FOR FEAR OF CAUSING FURTHER DAMAGE. *TR
WHEN TURNING LEFT OR RIGHT THE STEERING GETS STIFF AND JERKING CAUSING OVERSTEER AND ERRATIC MOTION. ADDED POWERSTEERING FLUID BUT DID NOT HELP. *TR
WHILE MAKING A LEFT HAND TURN, NOTICED STEERING BECAME VERY TIGHT. HAD TO FORCE IT THEN IT "RELEASED" RESULTING IN AN OVER STEER AND ALMOST VEERING TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC. CENTERING THE WHEEL ALSO BECAME DIFFICULT AND RESULTING IN OVERSTEER THE OPPOSITE WAY. SAME PROBLEM - RIGHT OR LEFT HAND TURN. WAS INTERMITTENT BUT HAS BECOME CH…
Read full complaint
WHILE MAKING A LEFT HAND TURN, NOTICED STEERING BECAME VERY TIGHT. HAD TO FORCE IT THEN IT "RELEASED" RESULTING IN AN OVER STEER AND ALMOST VEERING TO ONCOMING TRAFFIC. CENTERING THE WHEEL ALSO BECAME DIFFICULT AND RESULTING IN OVERSTEER THE OPPOSITE WAY. SAME PROBLEM - RIGHT OR LEFT HAND TURN. WAS INTERMITTENT BUT HAS BECOME CHRONIC NOW AND GETTING WORSE. HAVE NOT HAD IT IN THE SHOP YET. *TR
STARTED SHAKING AND SPUTTERING IN REVERSE AT LOW RPM. TWO TRANSMISSION SHOPS SAID IT WAS THE REVERSE BAND IN TRANSMISSION AND NEEDED REBUILD. HAD TRANS REBUILT (AT COST OF 2390.00). AFTER REBUILD, MECHANIC WAS DRIVING AND IT STILL HAD PROBLEM. AFTER RESEARCHING, HE THINKS IT IS THE CAM PHASERS CAUSING PROBLEM. HE HAD REPLACED MY…
Read full complaint
STARTED SHAKING AND SPUTTERING IN REVERSE AT LOW RPM. TWO TRANSMISSION SHOPS SAID IT WAS THE REVERSE BAND IN TRANSMISSION AND NEEDED REBUILD. HAD TRANS REBUILT (AT COST OF 2390.00). AFTER REBUILD, MECHANIC WAS DRIVING AND IT STILL HAD PROBLEM. AFTER RESEARCHING, HE THINKS IT IS THE CAM PHASERS CAUSING PROBLEM. HE HAD REPLACED MY PLUGS BEFORE TRANSMISSION WORK TO RULE THAT OUT (ALL 8 OF THE PLUGS BROKE WHILE TAKING THEM OUT, HE HAD NEVER SEEN ALL BREAK ON A F150 BEFORE). THIS ENGINE/TRANSMISSION IS A BAD DESIGN ALL AROUND AND FORD NEEDS TO STEP UP, ADMIT IT AND FIX AND OR REIMBURSE CUSTOMERS FOR REPAIRS. YOU CAN SPEND THOUSANDS CHASING PROBLEMS IN THIS POWER TRAIN! EVEN THOUGH THE TRANSMISSION REBUILD DID NOT FIX THE INITIAL PROBLEM, THE REAR BAND WAS WORN, AND THE PLATE IN THE TRANSMISSION HAD A SMALL DENT AND HAIR LINE CRACKS, SO IT WAS GOING TO FAIL EVENTUALLY! THE TRANSMISSION SHOP SAID THIS IS COMMON IN THESE. I WANT SOMETHING DONE! *TR
STEERING STICKS. *TR
MY TRUCK HAS 81K MILES ON IT AND THE TORQUE CONVERTER HAS GONE BAD. I HAVE NEVER IN THE PAST HEARD OF A BAD TORQUE CONVERTER FROM NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR. THE TOP OF MY STEERING WHEEL IS SHOWING MAJOR WEAR. MY WIFE'S 2000 MINI VAN HAS NO WEAR ON IT. WHY WOULD THE TOP OF MY STEERING WHEEL BE FALLING APART? *TR
Official recalls
108V523000 · Engine And Engine Cooling
Oct 8, 2008
ROUSH IS RECALLING 213 MY 2007-2008 FORD F-150 TRUCKS ALTERED TO OPERATE USING LIQUID PROPANE INJECTION. THE HYDRO-CARBON PAPER AFFIXED TO THE INSIDE OF THE AIRBOX LID WITH ADHESIVE MAY BECOME DISLODGED DURING OPERATION.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS FAILURE MAY RESULT IN A LOSS OF PERFORMANCE, ILLUMINATION OF THE MALFUNCTION INDICATOR LAMP (MIL) AND, IN EXTREME CASES, A STALLING OF THE VEHICLE DURING OPERATION WITHOUT NOTICE, WHICH COULD RESULT IN A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE AIRBOX LID WITH A NEW ONE THAT INCLUDES THE HYDRO-CARBON PAPER WHICH HAS BEEN AFFIXED USING AN ADHESIVE PROMOTER AND GREATER PRESSURE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON OCTOBER 21, 2008. OWNERS MAY CONTACT ROUSH AT 1-866-307-6788.
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
1PE08060 · Tire Valve Cracking
Opened Oct 14, 2008 · Closed Apr 9, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Tires:valve
ON OCTOBER 14, 2008, ODI OPENED PE08-060 TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF CRACKED AND LEAKING SNAP-IN TIRE VALVES IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2007 VEHICLES MANUFACTURED BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY.THE VALVES WERE SUPPLIED TO FORD BY TOPSEAL AUTO-PARTS, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE SHANGHAI BAOLONG AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION IN CHINA.VALVES MADE BY TOPSEAL FOR AFTERMARKET SALE WERE THE SUBJECT OF TWO RECENT SAFETY RECALLS BY TECH INTERNATIONAL (08T-018) AND DILL AIR CONTROLS (08T-028), THE LATTER OF WHICH WAS INVESTIGATED BY ODI IN PE08-036 AND EA08-022.THE DEFECT CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY THE AFTERMARKET TIRE VALVE RECALLS BOTH INVOLVED INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING DUE TO ISSUES WITH THE SUPPLY OF ANTI-OZONANT CHEMICALS TO TOPSEAL FOR A PERIOD FROM JULY TO MID-NOVEMBER 2006.THE AFTERMARKET VALVES WERE COMPOUNDED WITH A BLEND OF EPDM AND NATURAL RUBBER, USING A RELATIVELY LOW PERCENTAGE OF EPDM (EPDM PROVIDES INHERENT RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING).HENCE, THE NEED FOR ANTI-OZONANT CHEMICALS AND THE PROBLEMS WITH CRACKING WHEN THOSE CHEMICALS WERE MISSING OR OUT OF SPECIFICATION IN SOME LOTS OF VALVES.BOTH RECALL CAMPAIGNS INVOLVED INSPECTION PROGRAMS TO IDENTIFY AND REPLACE VALVES WITH VISIBLE SURFACE CRACKING.ALTHOUGH THE TOPSEAL VALVES SUPPLIED TO FORD ALSO APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE ANTI-OZONANT SUPPLY ISSUES IN MID TO LATE-2006, FORD INDICATED THAT ITS VALVES WERE MADE AT A DIFFERENT TOPSEAL PRODUCTION LINE AND WERE COMPOUNDED WITH A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF EPDM RUBBER TO MEET MORE STRINGENT SPECIFICATIONS FROM FORD.ODI'S ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA PROVIDED BY FORD SHOWED THAT PROBLEMS WITH CRACKED TIRE VALVES WERE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER FOR MY 2007 VEHICLES PRODUCED FROM DECEMBER 2006 THROUGH MARCH 2007.FORD RESPONDED BY IMPLEMENTING CHANGES IN ITS MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR SNAP-IN RUBBER TIRE VALVES AND ALSO INCREASING THE QUALITY AND ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS FOR VALVES IMPORTED FOR USE IN ITS VEHICLES.WHILE THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM RATES ARE ELEVATED FOR SUBJECT VEHICLES PRODUCED FROM DECEMBER 2006 THROUGH MARCH 2007, THE RATES OF LEAKING VALVES ARE WELL BELOW ONE PERCENT OF PRODUCTION FOR EACH OF THE PEAK MONTHS FOR ALL OF THE AFFECTED MODELS.A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING SYSTEMS (TPMS) WHICH WARN THE DRIVER WHEN ANY TIRE PRESSURES DROPS BELOW 25 PERCENT OF RECOMMENDED INFLATION PRESSURE. AS OUTLINED IN A LETTER TO ODI DATED APRIL 6, 2009, FORD HAS AGREED TO SEND LETTERS TO OWNERS OF CERTAIN MY 2007 AND 2008 FORD, LINCOLN AND MERCURY VEHICLES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CRACKING CONCERN. LETTERS WILL BE SENT TO OWNERS OF VEHICLES BUILT FROM NOVEMBER 2006 THROUGH MAY 2007.OWNERS CAN OPT FOR A FREE DEALER INSPECTION.VALVES EXHIBITING SURFACE CRACKS OR AIR LEAKAGE RELATED TO OZONE ATTACK WILL BE REPLACED BY FORD UNDER ITS NORMAL WARRANTY TERMS.FORD EXPECTS TO SEND THE LETTER BY APPROXIMATELY MID-MAY 2009. BASED ON THE USE OF TPMS IN THE MAJORITY OF SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE RELATIVELY LOW RATES OF REPAIRS ASSOCIATED WITH LEAKING VALVES AND RESULTANT TIRE DAMAGE, ODI BELIEVES THAT THE ACTIONS FORD HAS AGREED TO TAKE WILL PROVIDE EFFECTIVE AND EXPEDITIOUS RESOLUTION FOR VEHICLES THAT WERE BUILT DURING THE PERIOD WHEN VALVES WITH INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING WERE MOST LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN USED IN VEHICLE PRODUCTION.FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER WOULD NOT BE AN EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF AGENCY RESOURCES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO