SkipThatYearREAL DATA. SMARTER CAR DECISIONS.
← New search

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 →
2,188Owner complaints

Model-year median: 676

6Recall campaigns

View recall details →

4Investigations

View investigation details →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
369
2008324
2009842
20102,188
20111,780
20122,980
20131,531
2014
Compare all F-150 years →

Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.

What owners reported most

Power Train
824Engine
482Steering
419Electrical System
233Vehicle Speed Control
212
All reported categories
Service Brakes
162Unknown Or Other
112Visibility/wiper
91Fuel/propulsion System
75Visibility
56Electronic Stability Control (esc)
44Fuel System, Gasoline
43Engine And Engine Cooling
33Structure
33Exterior Lighting
30Service Brakes, Hydraulic
19Tires
18Air Bags
14Suspension
14Wheels
13Seats
9Seat Belts
8Traction Control System
4Back Over Prevention
3Equipment Adaptive/mobility
3Service Brakes, Air
3Forward Collision Avoidance
2Lane Departure
2Latches/locks/linkages
1Service Brakes, Electric
1

Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

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

Exterior Lighting complaints

30 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Oct 10, 2017
Electrical SystemExterior LightingPower Train

WHEN TRYING TO SHIFT INTO REVERSE THE DASH LIGHT WILL NOT ILLUMINATE, WILL NOT SHIFT INTO REVERSE, AND MAINTENANCE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON. I AM ABLE TO SHIFT INTO NEUTRAL, DRIVE, AND ANY OTHER GEAR WITH DASH ILLUMINATION AND OPERATE THE VEHICLE. REVERSE WILL NOT SHIFT AND AFTER MULTIPLE TRIES IT FINALLY TAKES AND "JOLTS" BACKWA…

Read full complaint

WHEN TRYING TO SHIFT INTO REVERSE THE DASH LIGHT WILL NOT ILLUMINATE, WILL NOT SHIFT INTO REVERSE, AND MAINTENANCE WRENCH LIGHT COMES ON. I AM ABLE TO SHIFT INTO NEUTRAL, DRIVE, AND ANY OTHER GEAR WITH DASH ILLUMINATION AND OPERATE THE VEHICLE. REVERSE WILL NOT SHIFT AND AFTER MULTIPLE TRIES IT FINALLY TAKES AND "JOLTS" BACKWARDS WITHOUT WARNING AND ALLOWS ME TO BACKUP. HOWEVER DASH LIGHT NEVER CHANGES AND AM UNSURE WHEN IT WILL SHIFT. I AM TOLD BY THE DEALERSHIP THAT IT IS A MALFUNCTIONING "TRANSMISSION RANGE SENSOR". MY VEHICLE MATCHES THE MAKE, MODEL, AND YEAR OF AN ACTIVE RECALL: #12V190000 HOWEVER I AM INFORMED BY THE LOCAL FORD DEALERSHIP THAT MY VIN NUMBER DOES NOT MATCH THE RECALL LIST IN OASIS? AND THEREFORE IS NOT COVERED BY FORD. I HAVE HAD NO ISSUES WITH MY VEHICLE UP UNTIL THIS POINT AND CANNOT BELIEVE THAT FORD IS REFUSING TO COVER THIS OBVIOUS SAFETY HAZARD.

NHTSA ODI #11032809

51,250 miles · Jul 18, 2016
Electrical SystemExterior LightingPower Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD F-150. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE FAILED TO REVERSE FROM THE GEAR SHIFTER SEVERAL TIMES, THE INSTRUMENT PANEL FAILED TO ILLUMINATE FOR THE GEAR IN REVERSE, THERE WAS NO ILLUMINATION ON THE GEAR SHIFTER, AND THE GEAR WAS DIFFICULT TO CHANGE IN REVERSE. PRIOR TO THE FAILURE, THE INSTRUMENT…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD F-150. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE FAILED TO REVERSE FROM THE GEAR SHIFTER SEVERAL TIMES, THE INSTRUMENT PANEL FAILED TO ILLUMINATE FOR THE GEAR IN REVERSE, THERE WAS NO ILLUMINATION ON THE GEAR SHIFTER, AND THE GEAR WAS DIFFICULT TO CHANGE IN REVERSE. PRIOR TO THE FAILURE, THE INSTRUMENT PANEL LIGHTS ILLUMINATED FOR THE GEAR SHIFTER WHEN CHANGING GEARS. THE FAILURE CONTINUED TO RANDOMLY PROGRESS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 51,250.

NHTSA ODI #10885446

67,252 miles · Jan 18, 2016
Exterior Lighting

WHEN THE "SERVICE ADVANCE TRACK" LIGHT INDICATOR LIGHTS UP, WHEN YOU ACTUATE THE TURN SIGNAL LEVER, THE TURN SIGNALS WILL ONLY FLASH ONCE, AND THEN THEY STOP FLASHING. THIS CAN HAPPEN WHEN THE VEHICLE IS STATIONARY OR MOVING AT ANY TIME.

NHTSA ODI #10820870

55,000 miles · Oct 23, 2015
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting

I OWN A 2011 FORD F150 FX4. WHILE MY TRUCK IS PARKED AND ENGINE OFF AND DOORS LOCKED THE DASH BACKLIGHT STAYS ILLUMINATED AND DRAINS THE BATTERY COMPLETELY. Z THIS BEGIN ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO. AROUND 55K MILES ON IT. I HAVE TO UNHOOK MY BATTERY WHEN I GET OUT OF THE TRUCK TO PREVENT MY BATTERY FROM DRAINING. I FOUND IF I UNPL…

Read full complaint

I OWN A 2011 FORD F150 FX4. WHILE MY TRUCK IS PARKED AND ENGINE OFF AND DOORS LOCKED THE DASH BACKLIGHT STAYS ILLUMINATED AND DRAINS THE BATTERY COMPLETELY. Z THIS BEGIN ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO. AROUND 55K MILES ON IT. I HAVE TO UNHOOK MY BATTERY WHEN I GET OUT OF THE TRUCK TO PREVENT MY BATTERY FROM DRAINING. I FOUND IF I UNPLUG BATTERY FOR ABOUT 10 MIN I FIND THE BACKLIGHT WILL NOT COME ON FOR ABOUT DAYS. ALSO, MY DRIVERS SIDE BACK DOOR WILL NOT UNLOCK REMOTELY OR INSIDE THE CAR. IT CAN ONLY BE LOCKED OR UNLOCKED MANUALLY.

NHTSA ODI #10785578

68,000 miles · Jul 6, 2015
Exterior LightingPower Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD F-150. WHILE SHIFTING FROM REVERSE, THE TRANSMISSION JERKED AND THE REVERSE TAIL LIGHT FAILED TO ILLUMINATE. IN ADDITION, THE REVERSE LIGHTS WOULD NOT ILLUMINATE WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 12V190000 (EXTERIOR LIGHTING, POWER TRAIN). THE …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD F-150. WHILE SHIFTING FROM REVERSE, THE TRANSMISSION JERKED AND THE REVERSE TAIL LIGHT FAILED TO ILLUMINATE. IN ADDITION, THE REVERSE LIGHTS WOULD NOT ILLUMINATE WHEN THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED. THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 12V190000 (EXTERIOR LIGHTING, POWER TRAIN). THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 68,000. UPDATED 09/21/15*LJ THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE CONSUMER WOULD LIKE FOR THE VEHICLE TO BE ADDED TO THE RECALL LIST. UPDATED 3/29/2016*JS UPDATED 11/07/2017*CN

NHTSA ODI #10732295

85,000 miles · Jun 18, 2015
Exterior LightingPower Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD F-150. THE CONTACT STATED THAT UPON STARTING THE VEHICLE AND ATTEMPTING TO SHIFT INTO REVERSE, THE VEHICLE WOULD HESITATE. THE CONTACT OBSERVED THAT THE REVERSE LIGHTS WERE NOT WORKING. THE CHECK ENGINE AND TOOL WARNING LIGHTS WERE ALSO ILLUMINATED. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS SHIFTED BETWEEN DRIVE AND …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD F-150. THE CONTACT STATED THAT UPON STARTING THE VEHICLE AND ATTEMPTING TO SHIFT INTO REVERSE, THE VEHICLE WOULD HESITATE. THE CONTACT OBSERVED THAT THE REVERSE LIGHTS WERE NOT WORKING. THE CHECK ENGINE AND TOOL WARNING LIGHTS WERE ALSO ILLUMINATED. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS SHIFTED BETWEEN DRIVE AND REVERSE THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE TECHNICIAN DIAGNOSED THAT THE TRANSMISSION SENSOR NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 85,000. UPDATE 01/13/16 MA UPDATED 01/19/16. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10725968

135,000 miles · May 13, 2015
Electrical SystemExterior LightingPower Train

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD F-150. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS SHIFTED INTO REVERSE, THE REVERSE TAIL LIGHTS WERE NOT ILLUMINATED AND THE "R" WAS NOT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE FAILURE RECURRED EACH TIME THE VEHICLE WAS SHIFTED INTO REVERSE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE TRAN…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 FORD F-150. WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS SHIFTED INTO REVERSE, THE REVERSE TAIL LIGHTS WERE NOT ILLUMINATED AND THE "R" WAS NOT ILLUMINATED ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL. THE FAILURE RECURRED EACH TIME THE VEHICLE WAS SHIFTED INTO REVERSE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE TRANSMISSION SENSOR WAS FAULTY AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VIN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 12V190000 (EXTERIOR LIGHTING, POWER TRAIN). THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 135,000. ..UPDATED 06-16-15 *BF UPDATED 10/16/2017*CN

NHTSA ODI #10716125

99,000 miles · Jan 16, 2015
Exterior LightingPower Train

2011 F-150 XLT WILL NOT GO INTO REVERSE OR OTHER TIMES WHEN YOU PUT IT IN REVERSE THE VEHICLE BEHAVES LIKE IT'S IN NEUTRAL THEN WILL SUDDENLY SHOOT BACKWARDS (DOES THIS IN DRIVE AS WELL-FORWARD). WHEN THIS OCCURS THE BACKUP LAMPS DO NOT ILLUMINATE AND THE BACKUP CAMERA DOES NOT FUNCTION AND THE INSTRUMENT PANEL DOES NOT DISPLAY …

Read full complaint

2011 F-150 XLT WILL NOT GO INTO REVERSE OR OTHER TIMES WHEN YOU PUT IT IN REVERSE THE VEHICLE BEHAVES LIKE IT'S IN NEUTRAL THEN WILL SUDDENLY SHOOT BACKWARDS (DOES THIS IN DRIVE AS WELL-FORWARD). WHEN THIS OCCURS THE BACKUP LAMPS DO NOT ILLUMINATE AND THE BACKUP CAMERA DOES NOT FUNCTION AND THE INSTRUMENT PANEL DOES NOT DISPLAY THE WHAT STATUS THE VEHICLE IS IN...IE DRIVE/REVERSE ETC.... I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO MY MECHANIC WHO IMMEDIATELY INFORMED ME THE VEHICLE WAS UNDER RECALL (NHTSA CAMPAIGN #12V190000). HE PRINTED THE SERVICE BULLETIN AND RECALL INFO. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO FORD WHERE I WAS TOLD MY VIN # DID NOT FALL UNDER THE RECALL DESPITE THE FACT IT'S THE SAME EXACT MODEL TRANSMISSION, VEHICLE, AND ISSUE TO THE LETTER. IT SHOULD BE KNOWN THAT MANY MORE VEHICLES ARE AFFECTED BEYOND THE INITIAL RECALL. THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS DEFECT AS THE VEHICLE LUNGES BACKWARDS/FORWARDS WITHOUT ANY INDICATION OF THE STATUS OF THE VEHICLE AND WHILE THE VEHICLE'S SAFETY FEATURES ARE NOT WORKING PROPERLY. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10673029

22,550 miles · Jan 31, 2014
Exterior Lighting

REVERSE LIGHTS FAILURE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10562334

Mileage unknown · Jan 26, 2012
Electrical SystemExterior Lighting

I RENTED A FORD PICKUP TRUCK FROM U-HAUL, AND I FEEL THAT THE AUTOMATIC LIGHTING CONTROLS ON IT ARE A SAFETY ISSUE. AT NIGHT, WHEN YOU OPEN THE DRIVER'S DOOR, THE DASHBOARD ILLUMINATION (SPEEDOMETER, OTHER GAUGES) COMES ON AUTOMATICALLY. WHEN YOU PUT IN THE KEY AND START THE ENGINE, THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS (WHITE LIGHTS ON …

Read full complaint

I RENTED A FORD PICKUP TRUCK FROM U-HAUL, AND I FEEL THAT THE AUTOMATIC LIGHTING CONTROLS ON IT ARE A SAFETY ISSUE. AT NIGHT, WHEN YOU OPEN THE DRIVER'S DOOR, THE DASHBOARD ILLUMINATION (SPEEDOMETER, OTHER GAUGES) COMES ON AUTOMATICALLY. WHEN YOU PUT IN THE KEY AND START THE ENGINE, THE DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS (WHITE LIGHTS ON THE FRONT OF THE TRUCK THAT ARE NOT AS INTENSE AS THE NORMAL LOW-BEAM HEADLAMPS) COME ON. THE DASHBOARD ILLUMINATION REMAINS ON AT ALL TIMES. *THE REAR RED RUNNING LAMPS/TAIL LAMPS DO NOT ILLUMINATE*, BUT THIS IS NOT OBVIOUS WHEN YOU ARE IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT. THE RESULT IS THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO DRIVE AT NIGHT WITH SOME WHITE LIGHT COMING OUT OF THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE, AND THE ABILITY TO READ THE SPEEDOMETER, BUT WITH *NO REAR LIGHTING*. I VERIFIED THAT THE PARKING/EMERGENCY BRAKE WAS FULLY OFF (AS THAT IS SOMETIMES AN INPUT TO THE DRLS), AND HAD A FRIEND STAND ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET AND OBSERVE AS I DROVE THE TRUCK, AND HE VERIFIED THAT I HAD NO RUNNING LIGHTS/TAIL LIGHTS ON THE BACK. THE BRAKE LAMPS OPERATED NORMALLY WHEN I STEPPED ON THE BRAKE, BUT THERE WAS NO RED LIGHT TO THE REAR UNLESS I WAS STEPPING ON THE BRAKE. ALL OF THE ABOVE WAS WITH THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH OFF. WHEN I CLICKED THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH TO THE FIRST POSITION, THE RUNNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED (ORANGE ON THE FRONT NEAR THE HEADLAMPS, RED IN THE REAR LAMP CLUSTERS.) WHEN I CLICKED IT TO THE SECOND POSITION, THE NORMAL LOW BEAMS CAME ON AT FULL INTENSITY. WHAT I THINK SHOULD BE DIFFERENT: EITHER THE AUTOMATIC LIGHTS/DRLS SHOULD ALSO TURN ON THE TAIL LIGHTS AT NIGHT, OR THERE SHOULD BE SOME INDICATION TO THE DRIVER THAT HE NEEDS TO TAKE ADDITIONAL ACTION (OPERATE THE HEADLIGHT SWITCH) IN ORDER TO HAVE TAIL LIGHTS. HAVING THE SPEEDOMETER ILLUMINATION GO OUT WHEN THE ENGINE IS STARTED MIGHT BE A GOOD CHOICE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10445535

Official recalls

6

19V075000 · 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 VEHICLE’S 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 VEHICLE’S 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 VEHICLE’S 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 VEHICLE’S 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 VEHICLE’S 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 VEHICLE’S 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

4

RQ17010 · 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