IllustrationThe vacuum pump recall was replaced in 2016 and it’s bad again. I have the emissions warranty with ford I am 6 owner the other 5 owners were resale so I get the one time lifetime emission warranty. the truck is doing all kinds of crazy stuff
2011 Ford F-150
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most F-150 years
Owner complaints for the 2011 Ford F-150 are substantially higher than 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
3000–25K
29225–50K
35350–75K
28875–100K
381100–150K
205150K+
1,819 reports with mileage · 369 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.
- Power Train. Review the 824 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine. Review the 482 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Steering. Review the 419 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
45 crash reports18 fire reports25 injury reports
Engine complaints
482 reportsTiming chain broke
The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated while driving at various speeds, the vehicle shifted into first gear and became stuck in the first gear. The contact was able to pull to the side of the road and restart the vehicle after multiple attempts. The check engine and wrench warning lights were illuminated. The veh…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated while driving at various speeds, the vehicle shifted into first gear and became stuck in the first gear. The contact was able to pull to the side of the road and restart the vehicle after multiple attempts. The check engine and wrench warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was taken to a dealer to be diagnosed; however, the dealer was unable to determine the cause of the failure. The vehicle had not been repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and confirmed that the vehicle was not under warranty. The failure mileage was approximately 65,000.
The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated that while her daughter was driving at an undisclosed speed, the check engine warning light illuminated. The contact stated that her daughter stated when she pressed the accelerator pedal, the vehicle jerked and then stalled. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic …
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated that while her daughter was driving at an undisclosed speed, the check engine warning light illuminated. The contact stated that her daughter stated when she pressed the accelerator pedal, the vehicle jerked and then stalled. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic and was diagnosed with engine failure. The contact was informed that the engine needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and advised the contact to report the failure to the NHTSA Hotline. The failure mileage was approximately 204,000.
The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated while driving 60 MPH, the vehicle down shifted independently with the check engine and power train warning lights illuminated. The contact was able to pull over and shut off the vehicle. After several attempts the contact was able to restart the vehicle, but the vehicle woul…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated while driving 60 MPH, the vehicle down shifted independently with the check engine and power train warning lights illuminated. The contact was able to pull over and shut off the vehicle. After several attempts the contact was able to restart the vehicle, but the vehicle would only shift into drive. The vehicle was towed to the dealer and the contact was informed that the molded leadframe needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was contacted and stated that the warranty on the vehicle had expired and advised to contact NHTSA Hotline. The failure mileage was 120,000.
The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated that while driving for an extended period in humid weather, condensation would build up around the intercooler. The moisture around the intercooler then got sucked into engine combustion chamber resulting in engine misfire. There was no warning light illuminated. The vehicle…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated that while driving for an extended period in humid weather, condensation would build up around the intercooler. The moisture around the intercooler then got sucked into engine combustion chamber resulting in engine misfire. There was no warning light illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer and the contact was informed that the timing chain needed to be replaced. The manufacturer was also notified of the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure mileage was unknown.
The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated that at start up, he heard a rattling sound coming from the hood of the vehicle. There was no warning light illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer where it was diagnosed that the timing chain and camshaft failed and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repair…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated that at start up, he heard a rattling sound coming from the hood of the vehicle. There was no warning light illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer where it was diagnosed that the timing chain and camshaft failed and needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 180,000.
The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated while driving 40 MPH, the contact heard an abnormal sound coming from the vehicle. The vehicle inadvertently downshifted and the check engine warning light illuminated. The contact was able to pull over on the side of the road and shut off the vehicle. The contact restarted …
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated while driving 40 MPH, the contact heard an abnormal sound coming from the vehicle. The vehicle inadvertently downshifted and the check engine warning light illuminated. The contact was able to pull over on the side of the road and shut off the vehicle. The contact restarted the vehicle and the vehicle operated normally. The dealer was contacted and stated that the vehicle needed to be diagnosed. The manufacturer was contacted and stated that the vehicle was not under warranty and referred the contact to contact the dealer. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure mileage was 135,000.
Bought a used truck. That needed timing chain and cam phasers a week after I bought it from a Chevy dealer. They sent me to Ford dealer it cost $2800.00 a week later it did the same thing. I was out of town and could not get back in the month. So when I got back they scanned again and charged me again. Then told me it needs a ne…
Read full complaint
Bought a used truck. That needed timing chain and cam phasers a week after I bought it from a Chevy dealer. They sent me to Ford dealer it cost $2800.00 a week later it did the same thing. I was out of town and could not get back in the month. So when I got back they scanned again and charged me again. Then told me it needs a new engine. So I contacted Ford customer service and they said nothing they can do. I owe $10,000.00 and they want $11,000.00 for an engine. I have had the truck for a year but it all started in first week of buying truck.
The below was sent to me, It is difficult for me to understand why I was not told the recall expired in 2016 when I made the appointment (6-6-23) and when I handed my property over (6-12-23) to this dealership. Thank you for the diagnostic, it was very helpful, but, I still run the danger of crashing due to my breaks not pressin…
Read full complaint
The below was sent to me, It is difficult for me to understand why I was not told the recall expired in 2016 when I made the appointment (6-6-23) and when I handed my property over (6-12-23) to this dealership. Thank you for the diagnostic, it was very helpful, but, I still run the danger of crashing due to my breaks not pressing down when the pump goes out and the option to get FORD to fix it expired in 2016, My VIN is registered and I did not get a notice, I would gladly give this shop the $$ to fix the 2016 recall that expired. Now, that business will go to your competitor. If you were not aware of the expiration, I get that, but, you are a shop specifically designed for my Ford, again, thank you for the diagnostic but the way it was done I can't trust this shop or get other females to come there. Keep Jeff, do not run him off, his soul and manners feel safe and trusting, he treated me very well and I know he did what he was told to do by whoever was in charge. There is no need to contact me moving forward, but, this very email will be submitted to all the proper authorities (NHTSA.GOV, FTC.GOV, FORD.COM) when I hold FORD and others accountable. I work very hard for the life I have grown accustomed to. Respectfully, ************************************************************************** Chris Moore Service Advisor REQUESTED SERVICES (June 6-2023, email) PERFORM OPEN RECALL Wyatt Johnson FordDealership We look forward to seeing you! Wyatt Johnson Ford 646 Thompson Lane Nashville TN 37204 (615) 942-3165 https://www.wyattjohnsonford.com
Official recalls
619V075000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission; Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)
Feb 11, 2019
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2011-2013 F-150 vehicles equipped with a 6-speed automatic transmission. The transmission may unexpectedly downshift into first gear, regardless of vehicle speed.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: Unexpectedly downshifting into first gear may result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will reprogram the powertrain control module, free of charge. The recall began March 4, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S07.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2011-2013 F-150 vehicles equipped with a 6-speed automatic transmission. The transmission may unexpectedly downshift into first gear, regardless of vehicle speed.
Consequence: Unexpectedly downshifting into first gear may result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will reprogram the powertrain control module, free of charge. The recall began March 4, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S07.
Power Train:automatic Transmission
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2011-2013 F-150 vehicles equipped with a 6-speed automatic transmission. The transmission may unexpectedly downshift into first gear, regardless of vehicle speed.
Consequence: Unexpectedly downshifting into first gear may result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will reprogram the powertrain control module, free of charge. The recall began March 4, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S07.
16V248000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission
Apr 27, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2011-2012 Ford F-150 trucks, 2012 Ford Expedition, Lincoln Navigator, and Ford Mustang vehicles. The affected vehicles are equipped with an automatic transmission that may unexpectedly downshift to first gear, regardless of vehicle speed.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An unexpected downshift into first gear can cause the vehicle to slow down suddenly without warning and the rear tires may slide or lock, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will reprogram the powertrain control module with updated software, free of charge. The recall began on September 19, 2016. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S19.
12V190000 · Exterior Lighting:back Up Lights; Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)
May 3, 2012
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011-2012 FORD F-150, 2012 EXPEDITION AND LINCOLN NAVIGATOR, AND 2012-2013 MUSTANG VEHICLES, FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NOS. 102, "TRANSMISSION SHIFT LEVER SEQUENCE, STARTER INTERLOCK, AND TRANSMISSION BRAKING EFFECT" AND 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. THESE VEHICLES MAY HAVE A TRANSMISSION RANGE SENSOR (TRS) THAT WAS CALIBRATED OUT OF SPECIFICATION FOR REVERSE GEAR.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS CONDITION EXISTS, THE TRANSMISSION MAY NOT GO INTO REVERSE OR WHEN THE DRIVER PUSHES THE SHIFT LEVER IN THE REVERSE R POSITION AND THE VEHICLES TRANSMISSION DOES GO IN REVERSE, THE R MAY NOT ILLUMINATE ON THE DASHBOARD OF THE F-150, EXPEDITION, OR NAVIGATOR MODELS AND/OR THE BACKUP LAMP ON THE REAR OF THE F-150, EXPEDITION, NAVIGATOR, OR MUSTANG VEHICLES MAY NOT ILLUMINATE. THESE CONDITIONS INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH OR A PEDESTRIAN BEING STRUCK DUE TO THE VEHICLES NOT SIGNALING IT IS IN REVERSE.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND REPLACE THE TRS AS NECESSARY, FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON JUNE 11, 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Exterior Lighting:back Up Lights
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011-2012 FORD F-150, 2012 EXPEDITION AND LINCOLN NAVIGATOR, AND 2012-2013 MUSTANG VEHICLES, FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NOS. 102, "TRANSMISSION SHIFT LEVER SEQUENCE, STARTER INTERLOCK, AND TRANSMISSION BRAKING EFFECT" AND 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. THESE VEHICLES MAY HAVE A TRANSMISSION RANGE SENSOR (TRS) THAT WAS CALIBRATED OUT OF SPECIFICATION FOR REVERSE GEAR.
Consequence: IF THIS CONDITION EXISTS, THE TRANSMISSION MAY NOT GO INTO REVERSE OR WHEN THE DRIVER PUSHES THE SHIFT LEVER IN THE REVERSE R POSITION AND THE VEHICLES TRANSMISSION DOES GO IN REVERSE, THE R MAY NOT ILLUMINATE ON THE DASHBOARD OF THE F-150, EXPEDITION, OR NAVIGATOR MODELS AND/OR THE BACKUP LAMP ON THE REAR OF THE F-150, EXPEDITION, NAVIGATOR, OR MUSTANG VEHICLES MAY NOT ILLUMINATE. THESE CONDITIONS INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH OR A PEDESTRIAN BEING STRUCK DUE TO THE VEHICLES NOT SIGNALING IT IS IN REVERSE.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND REPLACE THE TRS AS NECESSARY, FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON JUNE 11, 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011-2012 FORD F-150, 2012 EXPEDITION AND LINCOLN NAVIGATOR, AND 2012-2013 MUSTANG VEHICLES, FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NOS. 102, "TRANSMISSION SHIFT LEVER SEQUENCE, STARTER INTERLOCK, AND TRANSMISSION BRAKING EFFECT" AND 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. THESE VEHICLES MAY HAVE A TRANSMISSION RANGE SENSOR (TRS) THAT WAS CALIBRATED OUT OF SPECIFICATION FOR REVERSE GEAR.
Consequence: IF THIS CONDITION EXISTS, THE TRANSMISSION MAY NOT GO INTO REVERSE OR WHEN THE DRIVER PUSHES THE SHIFT LEVER IN THE REVERSE R POSITION AND THE VEHICLES TRANSMISSION DOES GO IN REVERSE, THE R MAY NOT ILLUMINATE ON THE DASHBOARD OF THE F-150, EXPEDITION, OR NAVIGATOR MODELS AND/OR THE BACKUP LAMP ON THE REAR OF THE F-150, EXPEDITION, NAVIGATOR, OR MUSTANG VEHICLES MAY NOT ILLUMINATE. THESE CONDITIONS INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH OR A PEDESTRIAN BEING STRUCK DUE TO THE VEHICLES NOT SIGNALING IT IS IN REVERSE.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND REPLACE THE TRS AS NECESSARY, FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON JUNE 11, 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
11V582000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission
Dec 8, 2011
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011 F-150 VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 2011, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 22, 2011, AND MODEL YEAR 2012 F-250, F-350, F-450 AND F-550 HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM SEPTEMBER 12, 2011, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 22, 2011. THESE VEHICLES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NUMBER 114, THEFT PROTECTION. THE TRANSMISSION CAN BE SHIFTED OUT OF THE PARK POSITION WITHOUT PRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL DUE TO BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK SWITCH PROBLEM.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS WILL ALLOW THE OPERATOR TO INADVERTENTLY SHIFT THE VEHICLE INTO GEAR WITHOUT THE BRAKE PEDAL BEING DEPRESSED, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH OR INJURY TO A NEARBY PEDESTRIAN.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE BRAKE SHIFT INTERLOCK SWITCH FUNCTION AND REPLACE THE SWITCH IF NECESSARY, FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON DECEMBER 22, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
11V128000 · Electrical System:software
Feb 24, 2011
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011 FORD F-150, F-250, F-350, F-450, F-550, EDGE, AND LINCOLN MKX TRUCKS MANUFACTURED FROM OCTOBER 25, 2010, THROUGH NOVEMBER 20, 2010. THESE VEHICLES WERE INSPECTED USING INTEGRATED DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM (IDS) THAT HAD A CUSTOM SOFTWARE ROUTINE TO READ THE SUSPECT BODY CONTROL MODULE (BCM) SERIAL NUMBER. BASED ON THE SERIAL NUMBER THE BCM WAS EITHER NOT AFFECTED OR REPLACED. THE CUSTOM SOFTWARE ROUTINE WAS NOT READING THE CORRECT SET OF CHARACTERS, AND WAS NOT ABLE TO IDENTIFY A BCM THAT REQUIRED REPLACEMENT AFFECTED BCMS MAY HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR AN INTERNAL SHORT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF AN ELECTRICAL SHORT DEVELOPS, AN OVERHEATING CONDITION MAY OCCUR WHICH COULD RESULT IN A VEHICLE FIRE.
Remedy: DEALER WILL INSPECT THE BODY CONTROL MODULE AND IF NECESSARY REPLACE IT FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MARCH 7, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
10V659000 · Structure:body
Dec 29, 2010
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011 F-150, F-250, F-350, F-450, F-550, EDGE AND LINCOLN MKX VEHICLES. DURING A SIX-DAY PRODUCTION PERIOD, THE SUPPLIER OF THE BODY CONTROL MODULE MANUFACTURED MODULES THAT MAY HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR AN INTERNAL SHORT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF AN ELECTRICAL SHORT DEVELOPS, AN OVERHEATING CONDITION MAY OCCUR WHICH CAN RESULT IN AN UNATTENDED VEHICLE FIRE.
Remedy: DEALER WILL REPLACE THE BODY CONTROL MODULE IF NECESSARY FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON JANUARY 11, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD 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
4RQ17010 · Unexpected Transmission Downshift
Opened Dec 25, 2017 · Closed Oct 22, 2019
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Power Train:automatic Transmission; Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation based on consumer allegations of transmissions unexpectedly downshifting to a lower gear without input from the driver on model year (MY) 2011-2013 Ford F-150, Expedition and Navigator vehicles. ODI has received 455 unique reports related to the alleged problem that were not covered under a previous recall for this issue (16V-248).Expedition and Navigator complaint rates are lower than F-150 complaints. Of those 455 reports, 34.7% claimed that the rear wheels locked up when the transmission downshifted. There were 4 accident claims with no injuries. There are many instances where drivers report leaving their lane or the road because of this issue.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 783 unique reports related to the alleged problem. There were 6 accident claims with 3 injuries. Ford also submitted 1206 warranty claims related to transmission downshifting failures. The failure can occur at any time, but typically at higher speed, and include symptoms such as sudden transmission downshifting, loss of speedometer, erratic shifting of transmission, and transmission stuck in one gear. The failures typically occur without warning and may result in the rear wheels momentarily locking up. The driver often had to fully stop the vehicle and restart it to get the vehicle to shift properly.On February 2nd, 2019 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (19V-075) to remedy transmission downshifting failures on all 2011-2013 F-150 vehicles. Ford will also offer extended warranties to 2011-2013 Expedition and Navigator vehicles with the same issue. Per Ford, some vehicles may experience an intermittent loss of Transmission Output Speed Sensor (OSS) signal to the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), potentially resulting in a temporary unintended downshift into first gear. Ford will reprogram the PCM with software that will prevent an unintended downshift into first gear and illuminate the Malfunction Indicator Light in the event of an intermittent OSS signal loss.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation based on consumer allegations of transmissions unexpectedly downshifting to a lower gear without input from the driver on model year (MY) 2011-2013 Ford F-150, Expedition and Navigator vehicles. ODI has received 455 unique reports related to the alleged problem that were not covered under a previous recall for this issue (16V-248).Expedition and Navigator complaint rates are lower than F-150 complaints. Of those 455 reports, 34.7% claimed that the rear wheels locked up when the transmission downshifted. There were 4 accident claims with no injuries. There are many instances where drivers report leaving their lane or the road because of this issue.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 783 unique reports related to the alleged problem. There were 6 accident claims with 3 injuries. Ford also submitted 1206 warranty claims related to transmission downshifting failures. The failure can occur at any time, but typically at higher speed, and include symptoms such as sudden transmission downshifting, loss of speedometer, erratic shifting of transmission, and transmission stuck in one gear. The failures typically occur without warning and may result in the rear wheels momentarily locking up. The driver often had to fully stop the vehicle and restart it to get the vehicle to shift properly.On February 2nd, 2019 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (19V-075) to remedy transmission downshifting failures on all 2011-2013 F-150 vehicles. Ford will also offer extended warranties to 2011-2013 Expedition and Navigator vehicles with the same issue. Per Ford, some vehicles may experience an intermittent loss of Transmission Output Speed Sensor (OSS) signal to the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), potentially resulting in a temporary unintended downshift into first gear. Ford will reprogram the PCM with software that will prevent an unintended downshift into first gear and illuminate the Malfunction Indicator Light in the event of an intermittent OSS signal loss.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Power Train:automatic Transmission
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation based on consumer allegations of transmissions unexpectedly downshifting to a lower gear without input from the driver on model year (MY) 2011-2013 Ford F-150, Expedition and Navigator vehicles. ODI has received 455 unique reports related to the alleged problem that were not covered under a previous recall for this issue (16V-248).Expedition and Navigator complaint rates are lower than F-150 complaints. Of those 455 reports, 34.7% claimed that the rear wheels locked up when the transmission downshifted. There were 4 accident claims with no injuries. There are many instances where drivers report leaving their lane or the road because of this issue.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 783 unique reports related to the alleged problem. There were 6 accident claims with 3 injuries. Ford also submitted 1206 warranty claims related to transmission downshifting failures. The failure can occur at any time, but typically at higher speed, and include symptoms such as sudden transmission downshifting, loss of speedometer, erratic shifting of transmission, and transmission stuck in one gear. The failures typically occur without warning and may result in the rear wheels momentarily locking up. The driver often had to fully stop the vehicle and restart it to get the vehicle to shift properly.On February 2nd, 2019 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (19V-075) to remedy transmission downshifting failures on all 2011-2013 F-150 vehicles. Ford will also offer extended warranties to 2011-2013 Expedition and Navigator vehicles with the same issue. Per Ford, some vehicles may experience an intermittent loss of Transmission Output Speed Sensor (OSS) signal to the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), potentially resulting in a temporary unintended downshift into first gear. Ford will reprogram the PCM with software that will prevent an unintended downshift into first gear and illuminate the Malfunction Indicator Light in the event of an intermittent OSS signal loss.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
EA15006 · Brake Vacuum Pump Failure
Opened Oct 16, 2015 · Closed Apr 28, 2016
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Electric; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist:vacuum
On February 15, 2016, Ford Motor Company initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 15N05 to extend warranty coverage for the electric vacuum pump in certain model year (MY) 2011 through 2012 Ford F-150 pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engines.The program extends coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through July 30, 2016 regardless of mileage.Ford's program covers all repairs related to electric vacuum pump (EVP) malfunctions including excessive noise, vibration, or change in brake pedal feel while applying the brakes at cold start. Ford states that the engine intake manifold is the primary source of vacuum for the brake booster and is fully compliant to motor vehicle safety standards without the supplemental vacuum supplied by the EVP.The company also contends that failure modes related to the EVP are progressive and provide warning to operators by way of noise and vibration before an operator to experience any temporary change in brake pedal feel.ODI's analysis of warranty data found that the majority of claims involved consumer concerns with EVP noise or vibration from the left front fender area when the vehicle is first started. Continued operation in this mode with pump motor noise will eventually result in the EVP seizing or becoming non-functional.Component failure analysis indicated that Ford and its supplier, Continental, identified a pump crank drive corrosion condition due to moisture entry through the vacuum intake.Corrosion damage to EVP internal components may eventually result in a blown fuse in the power distribution box and total loss of EVP function.Analysis of consumer complaints, field reports, and warranty data related to EVP failures found thatincidents predominantly occurred in driveways and parking lots in the periods immediately after cold engine starts.Many consumers operated their vehicle for some period of time with a blown EVP fuse without realizing that the pump had failed or that the vehicle had a brake system malfunction.Consumers who did experience braking performance issues reporteda temporary hard brake pedal condition at start-up followed by more consistent normal pedal feel after few seconds.On June 22, 2015, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued TSB 15-0105 instructing dealers to replace the vacuum pump and install a new vacuum pump harness kit. In addition to reviewing test data submitted by Ford, ODI assessed safety risks associated with the alleged defect under various operating conditions, including: 1) baseline system performance with full engine and EVP vacuum available using exemplar parts, 2) disabled EVP and booster vacuum regulated to simulate worst case conditions for engine intake manifold vacuum supply to the brake booster (approximately 300 mbar); and 3) all source vacuum to the brake booster removed and Optimized Hydraulic Braking (OHB) mode active to represent complete loss of brake booster function (note: this condition is a more severe brake boost system failure mode than the alleged defect).ODI also analyzed all complaints and warranty claims to identify incidents alleging brake system performance concerns related to EVP failures.These analyses identified no brake performance issues or resulting changes in stopping distances either on highway or city traffic conditions.Two complaints alleging EVP malfunctions caused or contributed to rear-end collisions during attempted decelerations from road speeds are not believed to be related to the alleged defect.The EVP provides supplemental vacuum during initial start-up and idle
Additional source detail variants (3)
Service Brakes, Electric
On February 15, 2016, Ford Motor Company initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 15N05 to extend warranty coverage for the electric vacuum pump in certain model year (MY) 2011 through 2012 Ford F-150 pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engines.The program extends coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through July 30, 2016 regardless of mileage.Ford's program covers all repairs related to electric vacuum pump (EVP) malfunctions including excessive noise, vibration, or change in brake pedal feel while applying the brakes at cold start. Ford states that the engine intake manifold is the primary source of vacuum for the brake booster and is fully compliant to motor vehicle safety standards without the supplemental vacuum supplied by the EVP.The company also contends that failure modes related to the EVP are progressive and provide warning to operators by way of noise and vibration before an operator to experience any temporary change in brake pedal feel.ODI's analysis of warranty data found that the majority of claims involved consumer concerns with EVP noise or vibration from the left front fender area when the vehicle is first started. Continued operation in this mode with pump motor noise will eventually result in the EVP seizing or becoming non-functional.Component failure analysis indicated that Ford and its supplier, Continental, identified a pump crank drive corrosion condition due to moisture entry through the vacuum intake.Corrosion damage to EVP internal components may eventually result in a blown fuse in the power distribution box and total loss of EVP function.Analysis of consumer complaints, field reports, and warranty data related to EVP failures found thatincidents predominantly occurred in driveways and parking lots in the periods immediately after cold engine starts.Many consumers operated their vehicle for some period of time with a blown EVP fuse without realizing that the pump had failed or that the vehicle had a brake system malfunction.Consumers who did experience braking performance issues reporteda temporary hard brake pedal condition at start-up followed by more consistent normal pedal feel after few seconds.On June 22, 2015, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued TSB 15-0105 instructing dealers to replace the vacuum pump and install a new vacuum pump harness kit. In addition to reviewing test data submitted by Ford, ODI assessed safety risks associated with the alleged defect under various operating conditions, including: 1) baseline system performance with full engine and EVP vacuum available using exemplar parts, 2) disabled EVP and booster vacuum regulated to simulate worst case conditions for engine intake manifold vacuum supply to the brake booster (approximately 300 mbar); and 3) all source vacuum to the brake booster removed and Optimized Hydraulic Braking (OHB) mode active to represent complete loss of brake booster function (note: this condition is a more severe brake boost system failure mode than the alleged defect).ODI also analyzed all complaints and warranty claims to identify incidents alleging brake system performance concerns related to EVP failures.These analyses identified no brake performance issues or resulting changes in stopping distances either on highway or city traffic conditions.Two complaints alleging EVP malfunctions caused or contributed to rear-end collisions during attempted decelerations from road speeds are not believed to be related to the alleged defect.The EVP provides supplemental vacuum during initial start-up and idle
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist
On February 15, 2016, Ford Motor Company initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 15N05 to extend warranty coverage for the electric vacuum pump in certain model year (MY) 2011 through 2012 Ford F-150 pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engines.The program extends coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through July 30, 2016 regardless of mileage.Ford's program covers all repairs related to electric vacuum pump (EVP) malfunctions including excessive noise, vibration, or change in brake pedal feel while applying the brakes at cold start. Ford states that the engine intake manifold is the primary source of vacuum for the brake booster and is fully compliant to motor vehicle safety standards without the supplemental vacuum supplied by the EVP.The company also contends that failure modes related to the EVP are progressive and provide warning to operators by way of noise and vibration before an operator to experience any temporary change in brake pedal feel.ODI's analysis of warranty data found that the majority of claims involved consumer concerns with EVP noise or vibration from the left front fender area when the vehicle is first started. Continued operation in this mode with pump motor noise will eventually result in the EVP seizing or becoming non-functional.Component failure analysis indicated that Ford and its supplier, Continental, identified a pump crank drive corrosion condition due to moisture entry through the vacuum intake.Corrosion damage to EVP internal components may eventually result in a blown fuse in the power distribution box and total loss of EVP function.Analysis of consumer complaints, field reports, and warranty data related to EVP failures found thatincidents predominantly occurred in driveways and parking lots in the periods immediately after cold engine starts.Many consumers operated their vehicle for some period of time with a blown EVP fuse without realizing that the pump had failed or that the vehicle had a brake system malfunction.Consumers who did experience braking performance issues reporteda temporary hard brake pedal condition at start-up followed by more consistent normal pedal feel after few seconds.On June 22, 2015, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued TSB 15-0105 instructing dealers to replace the vacuum pump and install a new vacuum pump harness kit. In addition to reviewing test data submitted by Ford, ODI assessed safety risks associated with the alleged defect under various operating conditions, including: 1) baseline system performance with full engine and EVP vacuum available using exemplar parts, 2) disabled EVP and booster vacuum regulated to simulate worst case conditions for engine intake manifold vacuum supply to the brake booster (approximately 300 mbar); and 3) all source vacuum to the brake booster removed and Optimized Hydraulic Braking (OHB) mode active to represent complete loss of brake booster function (note: this condition is a more severe brake boost system failure mode than the alleged defect).ODI also analyzed all complaints and warranty claims to identify incidents alleging brake system performance concerns related to EVP failures.These analyses identified no brake performance issues or resulting changes in stopping distances either on highway or city traffic conditions.Two complaints alleging EVP malfunctions caused or contributed to rear-end collisions during attempted decelerations from road speeds are not believed to be related to the alleged defect.The EVP provides supplemental vacuum during initial start-up and idle
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist:vacuum
On February 15, 2016, Ford Motor Company initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 15N05 to extend warranty coverage for the electric vacuum pump in certain model year (MY) 2011 through 2012 Ford F-150 pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engines.The program extends coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through July 30, 2016 regardless of mileage.Ford's program covers all repairs related to electric vacuum pump (EVP) malfunctions including excessive noise, vibration, or change in brake pedal feel while applying the brakes at cold start. Ford states that the engine intake manifold is the primary source of vacuum for the brake booster and is fully compliant to motor vehicle safety standards without the supplemental vacuum supplied by the EVP.The company also contends that failure modes related to the EVP are progressive and provide warning to operators by way of noise and vibration before an operator to experience any temporary change in brake pedal feel.ODI's analysis of warranty data found that the majority of claims involved consumer concerns with EVP noise or vibration from the left front fender area when the vehicle is first started. Continued operation in this mode with pump motor noise will eventually result in the EVP seizing or becoming non-functional.Component failure analysis indicated that Ford and its supplier, Continental, identified a pump crank drive corrosion condition due to moisture entry through the vacuum intake.Corrosion damage to EVP internal components may eventually result in a blown fuse in the power distribution box and total loss of EVP function.Analysis of consumer complaints, field reports, and warranty data related to EVP failures found thatincidents predominantly occurred in driveways and parking lots in the periods immediately after cold engine starts.Many consumers operated their vehicle for some period of time with a blown EVP fuse without realizing that the pump had failed or that the vehicle had a brake system malfunction.Consumers who did experience braking performance issues reporteda temporary hard brake pedal condition at start-up followed by more consistent normal pedal feel after few seconds.On June 22, 2015, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued TSB 15-0105 instructing dealers to replace the vacuum pump and install a new vacuum pump harness kit. In addition to reviewing test data submitted by Ford, ODI assessed safety risks associated with the alleged defect under various operating conditions, including: 1) baseline system performance with full engine and EVP vacuum available using exemplar parts, 2) disabled EVP and booster vacuum regulated to simulate worst case conditions for engine intake manifold vacuum supply to the brake booster (approximately 300 mbar); and 3) all source vacuum to the brake booster removed and Optimized Hydraulic Braking (OHB) mode active to represent complete loss of brake booster function (note: this condition is a more severe brake boost system failure mode than the alleged defect).ODI also analyzed all complaints and warranty claims to identify incidents alleging brake system performance concerns related to EVP failures.These analyses identified no brake performance issues or resulting changes in stopping distances either on highway or city traffic conditions.Two complaints alleging EVP malfunctions caused or contributed to rear-end collisions during attempted decelerations from road speeds are not believed to be related to the alleged defect.The EVP provides supplemental vacuum during initial start-up and idle
PE15026 · Brake Vacuum Pump Failure
Opened Jun 22, 2015 · Closed Oct 19, 2015
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Electric; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist:vacuum
On June 22, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE15-026 to investigate incidents of increased brake pedal effort at cold start and extended stopping distance while driving in traffic, resulting from failures of the electric brake vacuum assist pump in model year (MY) 2011-2012 Ford F-150 pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engines. In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) for PE15-026, Ford provided ODI with 396 complaints and field reports relating to incidents of increased brake pedal effort or malfunctions in the electric vacuum pump (EVP). ODI's analysis of the data provided by Ford identified 7 crashes and 1,851 warranty claims related to either a hard brake pedal condition or reduced brake effectiveness. Additionally, ODI identified one report in its database alleging an injury to an occupant of a vehicle struck in the rear by a subject F-150 vehicle with a failed EVP as documented in the police accident report referencing a dealer assessment of the pump.According to Ford, the subject vehicles utilize a traditional brake vacuum booster to provide power assist for braking and the EVP is intended to operate to maintain consistent brake pedal feel. The engine intake manifold is the primary source of vacuum for the booster and is fully compliant to motor vehicle safety standards without the EVP. Ford described the conditions related to a change in brake pedal feel as limited and temporary and provided component failure analysis showing evidence of water entry into the EVP which caused internal pump corrosion. Ford indicated that the EVP failure mode is progressive and provides warning to operators by way of noise and vibration before an operator is likely to experience any temporary change in brake pedal feel. Damage to the EVP motor bearing may eventually result in a blown EVP fuse and total loss of EVP function. Ford provided test data showing the brake pedal forces and pedal travel curves over time for 0.3g decelerations to a stop from 80kph (50mph) for: 1) normal system (full engine and EVP vacuum available); 2) Ford's approximation of worst case booster performance with EVP failure (EVP disabled and booster vacuum regulated to 300mbar to simulate cold start, all accessory loads on, and starting at 0 vacuum); and 3) with all source vacuum to the brake booster removed and Hydraulic Boost Compensation (HBC) active to represent complete loss of brake booster function. The Ford tests showed that the brake pedal forces required for achieving the 0.3g decelerations were relatively low for the normal condition, 35-40 N (8-9 lbf), increased by approximately 2-3 times normal when the EVP is disabled, 75-115 N (17-26 lbf), and increased by about 5-6 times normal for the complete brake booster failure condition, 205-215 N (46-48 lbf). This Preliminary Evaluation has been upgraded to Engineering Analysis (EA15-006) to test for EVP malfunctions under other vehicle operating conditions (e.g., low-speed driveway braking after cold-start with failed EVP), potential human factors contributions and to further assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The VOQs associated with the opening of this investigation are:10565994, 10575987, 10598351, 10604687, 10605701, 10607811, 10610491, 10615536, 10617828, 10619545, 10643075, 10650578, 10662151, 10664415, 10666988, 10668069, 10678844, 10695537, 10700874, 10706217, 10706271, 10712465, 10723033, 10723792, 10726960, 10730549, 10730721, 10730735, 10730837, 10730909, 10731008, 10731135, 10731157, 10731165, 10731395, 10731758, 10732609, 10732878, 10733375, 10733804, 10734558, 10734613, 10743859, 10744214, 10
Additional source detail variants (3)
Service Brakes, Electric
On June 22, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE15-026 to investigate incidents of increased brake pedal effort at cold start and extended stopping distance while driving in traffic, resulting from failures of the electric brake vacuum assist pump in model year (MY) 2011-2012 Ford F-150 pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engines. In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) for PE15-026, Ford provided ODI with 396 complaints and field reports relating to incidents of increased brake pedal effort or malfunctions in the electric vacuum pump (EVP). ODI's analysis of the data provided by Ford identified 7 crashes and 1,851 warranty claims related to either a hard brake pedal condition or reduced brake effectiveness. Additionally, ODI identified one report in its database alleging an injury to an occupant of a vehicle struck in the rear by a subject F-150 vehicle with a failed EVP as documented in the police accident report referencing a dealer assessment of the pump.According to Ford, the subject vehicles utilize a traditional brake vacuum booster to provide power assist for braking and the EVP is intended to operate to maintain consistent brake pedal feel. The engine intake manifold is the primary source of vacuum for the booster and is fully compliant to motor vehicle safety standards without the EVP. Ford described the conditions related to a change in brake pedal feel as limited and temporary and provided component failure analysis showing evidence of water entry into the EVP which caused internal pump corrosion. Ford indicated that the EVP failure mode is progressive and provides warning to operators by way of noise and vibration before an operator is likely to experience any temporary change in brake pedal feel. Damage to the EVP motor bearing may eventually result in a blown EVP fuse and total loss of EVP function. Ford provided test data showing the brake pedal forces and pedal travel curves over time for 0.3g decelerations to a stop from 80kph (50mph) for: 1) normal system (full engine and EVP vacuum available); 2) Ford's approximation of worst case booster performance with EVP failure (EVP disabled and booster vacuum regulated to 300mbar to simulate cold start, all accessory loads on, and starting at 0 vacuum); and 3) with all source vacuum to the brake booster removed and Hydraulic Boost Compensation (HBC) active to represent complete loss of brake booster function. The Ford tests showed that the brake pedal forces required for achieving the 0.3g decelerations were relatively low for the normal condition, 35-40 N (8-9 lbf), increased by approximately 2-3 times normal when the EVP is disabled, 75-115 N (17-26 lbf), and increased by about 5-6 times normal for the complete brake booster failure condition, 205-215 N (46-48 lbf). This Preliminary Evaluation has been upgraded to Engineering Analysis (EA15-006) to test for EVP malfunctions under other vehicle operating conditions (e.g., low-speed driveway braking after cold-start with failed EVP), potential human factors contributions and to further assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The VOQs associated with the opening of this investigation are:10565994, 10575987, 10598351, 10604687, 10605701, 10607811, 10610491, 10615536, 10617828, 10619545, 10643075, 10650578, 10662151, 10664415, 10666988, 10668069, 10678844, 10695537, 10700874, 10706217, 10706271, 10712465, 10723033, 10723792, 10726960, 10730549, 10730721, 10730735, 10730837, 10730909, 10731008, 10731135, 10731157, 10731165, 10731395, 10731758, 10732609, 10732878, 10733375, 10733804, 10734558, 10734613, 10743859, 10744214, 10
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist
On June 22, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE15-026 to investigate incidents of increased brake pedal effort at cold start and extended stopping distance while driving in traffic, resulting from failures of the electric brake vacuum assist pump in model year (MY) 2011-2012 Ford F-150 pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engines. In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) for PE15-026, Ford provided ODI with 396 complaints and field reports relating to incidents of increased brake pedal effort or malfunctions in the electric vacuum pump (EVP). ODI's analysis of the data provided by Ford identified 7 crashes and 1,851 warranty claims related to either a hard brake pedal condition or reduced brake effectiveness. Additionally, ODI identified one report in its database alleging an injury to an occupant of a vehicle struck in the rear by a subject F-150 vehicle with a failed EVP as documented in the police accident report referencing a dealer assessment of the pump.According to Ford, the subject vehicles utilize a traditional brake vacuum booster to provide power assist for braking and the EVP is intended to operate to maintain consistent brake pedal feel. The engine intake manifold is the primary source of vacuum for the booster and is fully compliant to motor vehicle safety standards without the EVP. Ford described the conditions related to a change in brake pedal feel as limited and temporary and provided component failure analysis showing evidence of water entry into the EVP which caused internal pump corrosion. Ford indicated that the EVP failure mode is progressive and provides warning to operators by way of noise and vibration before an operator is likely to experience any temporary change in brake pedal feel. Damage to the EVP motor bearing may eventually result in a blown EVP fuse and total loss of EVP function. Ford provided test data showing the brake pedal forces and pedal travel curves over time for 0.3g decelerations to a stop from 80kph (50mph) for: 1) normal system (full engine and EVP vacuum available); 2) Ford's approximation of worst case booster performance with EVP failure (EVP disabled and booster vacuum regulated to 300mbar to simulate cold start, all accessory loads on, and starting at 0 vacuum); and 3) with all source vacuum to the brake booster removed and Hydraulic Boost Compensation (HBC) active to represent complete loss of brake booster function. The Ford tests showed that the brake pedal forces required for achieving the 0.3g decelerations were relatively low for the normal condition, 35-40 N (8-9 lbf), increased by approximately 2-3 times normal when the EVP is disabled, 75-115 N (17-26 lbf), and increased by about 5-6 times normal for the complete brake booster failure condition, 205-215 N (46-48 lbf). This Preliminary Evaluation has been upgraded to Engineering Analysis (EA15-006) to test for EVP malfunctions under other vehicle operating conditions (e.g., low-speed driveway braking after cold-start with failed EVP), potential human factors contributions and to further assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The VOQs associated with the opening of this investigation are:10565994, 10575987, 10598351, 10604687, 10605701, 10607811, 10610491, 10615536, 10617828, 10619545, 10643075, 10650578, 10662151, 10664415, 10666988, 10668069, 10678844, 10695537, 10700874, 10706217, 10706271, 10712465, 10723033, 10723792, 10726960, 10730549, 10730721, 10730735, 10730837, 10730909, 10731008, 10731135, 10731157, 10731165, 10731395, 10731758, 10732609, 10732878, 10733375, 10733804, 10734558, 10734613, 10743859, 10744214, 10
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:power Assist:vacuum
On June 22, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE15-026 to investigate incidents of increased brake pedal effort at cold start and extended stopping distance while driving in traffic, resulting from failures of the electric brake vacuum assist pump in model year (MY) 2011-2012 Ford F-150 pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engines. In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) for PE15-026, Ford provided ODI with 396 complaints and field reports relating to incidents of increased brake pedal effort or malfunctions in the electric vacuum pump (EVP). ODI's analysis of the data provided by Ford identified 7 crashes and 1,851 warranty claims related to either a hard brake pedal condition or reduced brake effectiveness. Additionally, ODI identified one report in its database alleging an injury to an occupant of a vehicle struck in the rear by a subject F-150 vehicle with a failed EVP as documented in the police accident report referencing a dealer assessment of the pump.According to Ford, the subject vehicles utilize a traditional brake vacuum booster to provide power assist for braking and the EVP is intended to operate to maintain consistent brake pedal feel. The engine intake manifold is the primary source of vacuum for the booster and is fully compliant to motor vehicle safety standards without the EVP. Ford described the conditions related to a change in brake pedal feel as limited and temporary and provided component failure analysis showing evidence of water entry into the EVP which caused internal pump corrosion. Ford indicated that the EVP failure mode is progressive and provides warning to operators by way of noise and vibration before an operator is likely to experience any temporary change in brake pedal feel. Damage to the EVP motor bearing may eventually result in a blown EVP fuse and total loss of EVP function. Ford provided test data showing the brake pedal forces and pedal travel curves over time for 0.3g decelerations to a stop from 80kph (50mph) for: 1) normal system (full engine and EVP vacuum available); 2) Ford's approximation of worst case booster performance with EVP failure (EVP disabled and booster vacuum regulated to 300mbar to simulate cold start, all accessory loads on, and starting at 0 vacuum); and 3) with all source vacuum to the brake booster removed and Hydraulic Boost Compensation (HBC) active to represent complete loss of brake booster function. The Ford tests showed that the brake pedal forces required for achieving the 0.3g decelerations were relatively low for the normal condition, 35-40 N (8-9 lbf), increased by approximately 2-3 times normal when the EVP is disabled, 75-115 N (17-26 lbf), and increased by about 5-6 times normal for the complete brake booster failure condition, 205-215 N (46-48 lbf). This Preliminary Evaluation has been upgraded to Engineering Analysis (EA15-006) to test for EVP malfunctions under other vehicle operating conditions (e.g., low-speed driveway braking after cold-start with failed EVP), potential human factors contributions and to further assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The VOQs associated with the opening of this investigation are:10565994, 10575987, 10598351, 10604687, 10605701, 10607811, 10610491, 10615536, 10617828, 10619545, 10643075, 10650578, 10662151, 10664415, 10666988, 10668069, 10678844, 10695537, 10700874, 10706217, 10706271, 10712465, 10723033, 10723792, 10726960, 10730549, 10730721, 10730735, 10730837, 10730909, 10731008, 10731135, 10731157, 10731165, 10731395, 10731758, 10732609, 10732878, 10733375, 10733804, 10734558, 10734613, 10743859, 10744214, 10
PE13018 · Reduced Power During Hard Acceleration
Opened May 22, 2013 · Closed Apr 7, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine; Engine And Engine Cooling
On May 22, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE13-018 to investigate 95 complaints alleging incidents of reduced engine power during hard accelerations in model year (MY) 2011 through 2013 Ford F-150 trucks.ODI was aware of three technical service bulletins (TSBs) issued by Ford for a condition that was related to moisture accumulation in the Charge Air Cooler (CAC) for the turbochargers.A Preliminary Evaluation was opened to gather information to assess whether the subject vehicles contain a safety related defect.The subject vehicles are powered by Ford?s 3.5L EcoBoost engine which uses twin turbochargers to obtain a balance of fuel economy and engine power based on the driver?s demand.When the driver requests more power from the engine, as in accelerating to pass, merge, ascend hills or haul a load the two turbochargers will spin up compressing the air which is then used to increase the power created by the combustion in the engine.The compressed air, which gains heat by the compression process, is passed through a Charge Air Cooler (CAC) which is designed to lower the temperature of the air in order to make the combustion process even more efficient (Figures 1 and 2).In response to ODI?s Information Request letter, Ford indicated that a misfire condition could occur after steady-speed operation under significantly humid and rainy conditions.Ford?s analysis found that under those conditions, condensation could form and accumulate on the inside of the CAC tubes which could then be ingested into the engine during particularly hard acceleration near wide-open throttle.An engine misfire of up to three cylinders could occur if the amount of condensed water released from the CAC exceeded the engine?s operating threshold for water ingestion.Ford noted that due to regulations set by the EPA, the powertrain software would disable up to two of the misfiring cylinders for no more than 30 seconds and until the driver tips out the throttle in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage. Ford?s testing of this condition on the subject vehicles showed that a vehicle experiencing such a condition would continue to maintain its speed as well as accelerate, albeit at a lower rate than expected by the driver.Similar results were obtained in testing done by NHTSA?s Vehicle Research and Testing Center in East Liberty, Ohio (Figure 6).In an ongoing process to address the problem Ford issued a series of TSBs where a deflector shield was installed onto the CAC (Figures 3, 4 and 5).In January 2014 Ford indicated that its data shows that the TSBs have been effective in resolving the problem, that for the MY 2013 vehicles their remedy is 100% effective and the latest TSBs for MY 2011 ? 2012 are 95% effective.The 525 complaints to ODI and the total 4,120 unique VIN complaints listed in the Failure Report are incidents of alleged reduced power or driveability symptoms and not all are necessarily related to the condition created by water ingestion.Reduced power conditions can occur for a variety of reasons including faults with ignition coils, spark plugs, a catalytic converter, the throttle body, turbocharger, fuel pump/filter, powertrain control module (hardware or software) or transmission shifting problems.Ford also noted that in a large number of warranty claims on the subject vehicles, the CAC was replaced or a TSB procedure was performed when the symptoms exhibited were inconsistent with a CAC water ingestion related issue.Given these circumstances, further use of the agency resources in this matter does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of
Additional source detail variants (2)
Engine And Engine Cooling
On May 22, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE13-018 to investigate 95 complaints alleging incidents of reduced engine power during hard accelerations in model year (MY) 2011 through 2013 Ford F-150 trucks.ODI was aware of three technical service bulletins (TSBs) issued by Ford for a condition that was related to moisture accumulation in the Charge Air Cooler (CAC) for the turbochargers.A Preliminary Evaluation was opened to gather information to assess whether the subject vehicles contain a safety related defect.The subject vehicles are powered by Ford?s 3.5L EcoBoost engine which uses twin turbochargers to obtain a balance of fuel economy and engine power based on the driver?s demand.When the driver requests more power from the engine, as in accelerating to pass, merge, ascend hills or haul a load the two turbochargers will spin up compressing the air which is then used to increase the power created by the combustion in the engine.The compressed air, which gains heat by the compression process, is passed through a Charge Air Cooler (CAC) which is designed to lower the temperature of the air in order to make the combustion process even more efficient (Figures 1 and 2).In response to ODI?s Information Request letter, Ford indicated that a misfire condition could occur after steady-speed operation under significantly humid and rainy conditions.Ford?s analysis found that under those conditions, condensation could form and accumulate on the inside of the CAC tubes which could then be ingested into the engine during particularly hard acceleration near wide-open throttle.An engine misfire of up to three cylinders could occur if the amount of condensed water released from the CAC exceeded the engine?s operating threshold for water ingestion.Ford noted that due to regulations set by the EPA, the powertrain software would disable up to two of the misfiring cylinders for no more than 30 seconds and until the driver tips out the throttle in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage. Ford?s testing of this condition on the subject vehicles showed that a vehicle experiencing such a condition would continue to maintain its speed as well as accelerate, albeit at a lower rate than expected by the driver.Similar results were obtained in testing done by NHTSA?s Vehicle Research and Testing Center in East Liberty, Ohio (Figure 6).In an ongoing process to address the problem Ford issued a series of TSBs where a deflector shield was installed onto the CAC (Figures 3, 4 and 5).In January 2014 Ford indicated that its data shows that the TSBs have been effective in resolving the problem, that for the MY 2013 vehicles their remedy is 100% effective and the latest TSBs for MY 2011 ? 2012 are 95% effective.The 525 complaints to ODI and the total 4,120 unique VIN complaints listed in the Failure Report are incidents of alleged reduced power or driveability symptoms and not all are necessarily related to the condition created by water ingestion.Reduced power conditions can occur for a variety of reasons including faults with ignition coils, spark plugs, a catalytic converter, the throttle body, turbocharger, fuel pump/filter, powertrain control module (hardware or software) or transmission shifting problems.Ford also noted that in a large number of warranty claims on the subject vehicles, the CAC was replaced or a TSB procedure was performed when the symptoms exhibited were inconsistent with a CAC water ingestion related issue.Given these circumstances, further use of the agency resources in this matter does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of
Engine
On May 22, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE13-018 to investigate 95 complaints alleging incidents of reduced engine power during hard accelerations in model year (MY) 2011 through 2013 Ford F-150 trucks.ODI was aware of three technical service bulletins (TSBs) issued by Ford for a condition that was related to moisture accumulation in the Charge Air Cooler (CAC) for the turbochargers.A Preliminary Evaluation was opened to gather information to assess whether the subject vehicles contain a safety related defect.The subject vehicles are powered by Ford?s 3.5L EcoBoost engine which uses twin turbochargers to obtain a balance of fuel economy and engine power based on the driver?s demand.When the driver requests more power from the engine, as in accelerating to pass, merge, ascend hills or haul a load the two turbochargers will spin up compressing the air which is then used to increase the power created by the combustion in the engine.The compressed air, which gains heat by the compression process, is passed through a Charge Air Cooler (CAC) which is designed to lower the temperature of the air in order to make the combustion process even more efficient (Figures 1 and 2).In response to ODI?s Information Request letter, Ford indicated that a misfire condition could occur after steady-speed operation under significantly humid and rainy conditions.Ford?s analysis found that under those conditions, condensation could form and accumulate on the inside of the CAC tubes which could then be ingested into the engine during particularly hard acceleration near wide-open throttle.An engine misfire of up to three cylinders could occur if the amount of condensed water released from the CAC exceeded the engine?s operating threshold for water ingestion.Ford noted that due to regulations set by the EPA, the powertrain software would disable up to two of the misfiring cylinders for no more than 30 seconds and until the driver tips out the throttle in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage. Ford?s testing of this condition on the subject vehicles showed that a vehicle experiencing such a condition would continue to maintain its speed as well as accelerate, albeit at a lower rate than expected by the driver.Similar results were obtained in testing done by NHTSA?s Vehicle Research and Testing Center in East Liberty, Ohio (Figure 6).In an ongoing process to address the problem Ford issued a series of TSBs where a deflector shield was installed onto the CAC (Figures 3, 4 and 5).In January 2014 Ford indicated that its data shows that the TSBs have been effective in resolving the problem, that for the MY 2013 vehicles their remedy is 100% effective and the latest TSBs for MY 2011 ? 2012 are 95% effective.The 525 complaints to ODI and the total 4,120 unique VIN complaints listed in the Failure Report are incidents of alleged reduced power or driveability symptoms and not all are necessarily related to the condition created by water ingestion.Reduced power conditions can occur for a variety of reasons including faults with ignition coils, spark plugs, a catalytic converter, the throttle body, turbocharger, fuel pump/filter, powertrain control module (hardware or software) or transmission shifting problems.Ford also noted that in a large number of warranty claims on the subject vehicles, the CAC was replaced or a TSB procedure was performed when the symptoms exhibited were inconsistent with a CAC water ingestion related issue.Given these circumstances, further use of the agency resources in this matter does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of