Illustration3.5L ECOBOOST F150 BEGAN TO SHUDDER AND FAIL TO ACCELERATE WHILE TRYING TO MERGE INTO INTERSTATE TRAFFIC. HAD TO SLOW DOWN TO KEEP IT FROM CONTINUING TO SHUDDER. THIS HAS HAPPEN REPEATEDLY ON AT LEAST 4 DIFFERENT OCCASIONS! DEALERSHIP SAYS IT SHOW NO CODES FOR MISFIRES??? *TR
2012 Ford F-150
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most F-150 years
Owner complaints for the 2012 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
3550–25K
24225–50K
26450–75K
21775–100K
259100–150K
133150K+
1,470 reports with mileage · 310 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 678 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 204 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
40 crash reports14 fire reports23 injury reports
Engine complaints
482 reportsTHIS IS THE 2ND (AND 3RD, 4TH, 5TH) INSTANCE OF A PROBLEM I ORIGINALLY DESCRIBED IN ODI 10659481. AGAIN, AFTER TRAVELING ON THE INTERSTATE FOR A FEW HOURS IN VERY LIGHT RAIN, THE ENGINE FAILED TO ACCELERATE NORMALLY WHILE MERGING INTO TRAFFIC FROM AN ON-RAMP. THIS CREATED A VERY HAZARDOUS SITUATION, WITH TRAFFIC BEARING DOWN ON …
Read full complaint
THIS IS THE 2ND (AND 3RD, 4TH, 5TH) INSTANCE OF A PROBLEM I ORIGINALLY DESCRIBED IN ODI 10659481. AGAIN, AFTER TRAVELING ON THE INTERSTATE FOR A FEW HOURS IN VERY LIGHT RAIN, THE ENGINE FAILED TO ACCELERATE NORMALLY WHILE MERGING INTO TRAFFIC FROM AN ON-RAMP. THIS CREATED A VERY HAZARDOUS SITUATION, WITH TRAFFIC BEARING DOWN ON US FROM BEHIND AT APPROXIMATELY 75 MPH AND STEADY TRAFFIC ALSO IN THE LEFT LANES. UNLIKE THE EARLIER OCCURRENCE ON OCT 28, THE TRUCK DID NOT SHAKE VIOLENTLY AND THE CHECK-ENGINE LIGHT (CEL) DID NOT FLASH. HOWEVER, THE TRUCK WAS NOTICEABLY VIBRATING AND VERY SLOW TO ACCELERATE TO HIGHWAY SPEED. BECAUSE FORD HAD DECLINED TO MAKE REPAIRS AFTER THE FIRST INCIDENT DUE TO ODB CODES REPORTEDLY NOT BEING PRESENT, I HAD PURCHASED MY OWN ODB-II SCAN TOOL. INDEED, NO CODES WERE LOGGED FOR THIS INCIDENT EITHER. ON DEC 28 I TRAVELED 550 ADDITIONAL MILES ON INTERSTATE IN STEADY RAIN. I TESTED THE ENGINE 3 SEPARATE TIMES BY ATTEMPTING SUSTAINED HARD ACCELERATION. EACH TIME THE TRUCK SHOOK AND FAILED TO ACCELERATE NORMALLY, THE CEL FINALLY ILLUMINATED STEADY AND MISFIRE CODES WERE LOGGED P0304, P0305 AND P0306. IN SUMMARY, I HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS F-150 ECOBOOST ENGINE FAILURE FIVE TIMES, BUT ODB CODES WERE NOT LOGGED ON THE FIRST TWO WHEN ATTEMPTING REAL-WORLD CRITICAL MANEUVERS. THE CODES WERE ONLY LOGGED DURING INTENTIONAL TESTING FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME. I AM CONFIRMING THAT THIS IS THE SAFETY DEFECT AS DESCRIBED IN FORD TSB 13-8-1 "3.5L GTDI - INTERMITTENT STUMBLE/MISFIRE ON ACCELERATION FROM HIGHWAY CRUISE IN HUMID OR DAMP CONDITIONS". IT IS PARTICULARLY CONCERNING THAT EVIDENCE OF THIS DEFECT IS NOT ALWAYS LOGGED BY THE VEHICLE COMPUTER AND CUSTOMERS ARE THEREFORE BEING DENIED THE PRESCRIBED REPAIRS. IT IS ALSO CONCERNING THAT FUEL MILEAGE HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED (ABOUT 3 MPG HIGHWAY) SINCE THE FIRST OCCURRENCE. *TR
THERE WAS A MISFIRE AND NO CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. THIS HAPPENED 5 TIMES BEFORE THE COMPUTER SHOWED THERE WAS AN ISSUE. ON THE THIRD TIME I HAD FORD INSTALL THE DEFLECTOR TO KEEP WATER AWAY FROM THE TURBO CHARGERS. THE LAST TIME IT HAPPENED THE COMPUTER FINALLY SHOWED A CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO AUTO ZONE TO HAVE…
Read full complaint
THERE WAS A MISFIRE AND NO CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. THIS HAPPENED 5 TIMES BEFORE THE COMPUTER SHOWED THERE WAS AN ISSUE. ON THE THIRD TIME I HAD FORD INSTALL THE DEFLECTOR TO KEEP WATER AWAY FROM THE TURBO CHARGERS. THE LAST TIME IT HAPPENED THE COMPUTER FINALLY SHOWED A CHECK ENGINE LIGHT. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO AUTO ZONE TO HAVE THEM DIAGNOSE IT. THE COMPUTER WAS SHOWING MISFIRES IN 3 CYLINDERS. WHEN I GOT THE VEHICLE TO FORD IT WAS ONLY SHOWING ONE CYLINDER HAVING HAD A MISFIRE. BASED ON THIS, AND THE FACT THAT THE COMPUTER DIDN'T REGISTER THE PREVIOUS MISFIRES. I FEEL THERE IS A DEFECT WITH THE COMPUTER IN MY VEHICLE. FORD REFUSES TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE. I KNOW THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION ON THIS, BUT THE MISFIRES HAVE HAPPENED WHEN IT WAS NOT RAINING OR HUMID, IN FACT THE FIRST MISFIRE HAPPENED ON A DRY DAY. ALSO, I HAVE HAD THE REPAIRS MADE BASED ON MOISTURE CAUSING THE ISSUE AND STILL HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM. PLEASE ADVISE. *TR
I WAS WITH MY FAMILY ON THE WAY TO CHURCH. I WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ONTO THE HIGHWAY WHEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN THERE WAS A COMPLETE LOSS IN POWER AND WAS UNABLE TO RESUME ACCELERATION. THE HIGHWAY ALSO HAS A MODERATE INCLINE IN SLOPE WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO SLOW DRAMATICALLY. WE WERE ALMOST REAR-ENDED F…
Read full complaint
I WAS WITH MY FAMILY ON THE WAY TO CHURCH. I WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ONTO THE HIGHWAY WHEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN THERE WAS A COMPLETE LOSS IN POWER AND WAS UNABLE TO RESUME ACCELERATION. THE HIGHWAY ALSO HAS A MODERATE INCLINE IN SLOPE WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO SLOW DRAMATICALLY. WE WERE ALMOST REAR-ENDED FROM THE CAR HEADING IN THE SAME DIRECTION WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY A SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE AWAY. LUCKILY THE CAR THAT WAS APPROACHING FROM BEHIND WAS ABLE TO SLOW DOWN FAST ENOUGH CONSIDERING WE HAD A 1 YEAR AND 4 YEAR OLD SON IN THE BACK SEAT. I CALLED THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP AND THE EARLIEST APPOINTMENT THEY COULD OFFER TO CHECK THE PROBLEM WAS ON WEDNESDAY 10/10/2014. THIS IS OVER 3 DAYS AFTER THE INCIDENT OCCURRED. THE TRUCK ONLY HAS 40,000 MILES ON IT SO I BEGAN RESEARCHING THIS ISSUE. I DISCOVERED THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF COMPLAINTS AND IT SEEMS FORD IS AWARE OF THE ISSUE AND IS EVEN ATTEMPTING TO MODIFY THE AIR INDUCTION SYSTEM AND RE FLASH THE PCM. WITH ISSUES LIKE THE MILLIONS OF VEHICLES BEING RECALLED FOR AIRBAGS THAT HAVE LED TO SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH, FAR BEYOND THE MANUFACTURE ORIGINALLY BECOMING AWARE OF THE ISSUES. HOW LONG IS THE ISSUE REGARDING THE 2011-2013 FORD F150 ECOBOOST GOING TO REMAIN SHOVED UNDER THE RUG? HOW MANY LIVES HAVE TO BE LOST BEFORE FORD TAKES ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PUTTING THE PUBLIC AT RISK. IN THEIR REPORT TO THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE (ON THE NHTSA WEBSITE), IT IS MORE THAN OBVIOUS THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED A DEFECT IN THE 2012 FORD F150 AND THE ECOBOOST ENGINES WITHIN THE TRUCKS. CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW AND WHY THEY ARE NOT BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR RISKING THE LIVES OF MANY PEOPLE. ALSO, WHY IS THE NHTSA ALLOWING FORD TO SHRUG THIS OFF AND CLOSE THIS INVESTIGATION? THERE IS A CLEAR DEFECT PRESENT THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL OF LEADING TO LOSS OF LIFE. IS THIS NOT PURE NEGLIGENCE? *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 FORD F-150. THE CONTACT STATED WHEN DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE VEHICLE DECELERATED INDEPENDENTLY AND STARTED SHAKING BEFORE STALLING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2012 FORD F-150. THE CONTACT STATED WHEN DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 65 MPH, THE VEHICLE DECELERATED INDEPENDENTLY AND STARTED SHAKING BEFORE STALLING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE TECHNICIAN WAS UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE ISSUE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 43,000. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
I HAD BEEN ON THE HIGHWAY FOR 6 HOURS WITH INTERMITTENT RAIN, ABOUT 3.5 HOURS SINCE LAST STOP, 1/2 TANK OF GAS REMAINING. LOCATION WAS I-65 NORTH NEAR ELIZABETHTOWN, KY, 11:15 PM, WITH MIST, WET ROAD AND SPRAY. WEATHER RECORDS INDICATE 50 DEGREES AND FALLING, LIGHT RAIN, 84% HUMIDITY. I HAD THE F-150 IN 4WD-AUTO MODE DUE TO THE …
Read full complaint
I HAD BEEN ON THE HIGHWAY FOR 6 HOURS WITH INTERMITTENT RAIN, ABOUT 3.5 HOURS SINCE LAST STOP, 1/2 TANK OF GAS REMAINING. LOCATION WAS I-65 NORTH NEAR ELIZABETHTOWN, KY, 11:15 PM, WITH MIST, WET ROAD AND SPRAY. WEATHER RECORDS INDICATE 50 DEGREES AND FALLING, LIGHT RAIN, 84% HUMIDITY. I HAD THE F-150 IN 4WD-AUTO MODE DUE TO THE ROAD CONDITIONS. FOR SEVERAL MILES ANOTHER CAR HAD BEEN CONTINUALLY STAYING IN MY BLIND SPOT IN THE LANE IMMEDIATELY TO THE LEFT, DESPITE ATTEMPTS TO CLEAR WITH GRADUAL REDUCTIONS/INCREASES IN MY SPEED. MY GENERAL CRUISING SPEED WAS ABOUT 70 MPH. I WAS IN THE RIGHT LANE APPROACHING A VERY SLOW-MOVING TRACTOR TRAILER, SO I ACCELERATED MODERATELY-HARD TO MOVE AHEAD OF THE CAR TO MY LEFT AND WAS CHANGING INTO THAT LANE WHEN THE F-150 STARTED SHAKING VIOLENTLY AND LOST SPEED. MY WIFE THOUGHT THAT WE HAD COLLIDED WITH SOMETHING IN THE ROAD. I QUICKLY VEERED BACK INTO THE RIGHT LANE AND BRAKED HARD, NARROWLY AVOIDING AN ACTUAL COLLISION. I SUSPECTED WE HAD SOME TYPE OF ENGINE OR TRANSMISSION PROBLEM, BUT WHILE COASTING THE VEHICLE SEEMED TO BE RUNNING SMOOTHLY. I SWITCHED FROM 4WD-AUTO TO 2WD AND TRIED TO GENTLY ACCELERATE AGAIN, BUT THE F-150 STARTED SHAKING AGAIN AND THE CHECK-ENGINE LIGHT STARTED FLASHING. I PULLED OFF OF THE ROAD, AND BY THE TIME I CAME TO A STOP THE LIGHT HAD STOPPED FLASHING. I CHECKED ALL AROUND AND UNDER THE VEHICLE, UNDER HOOD, GAUGES, ETC. WITH NO FURTHER SIGN OF A PROBLEM. I STOPPED AND STARTED THE ENGINE, THEN DROVE AWAY AND THE F-150 PERFORMED NORMALLY FOR REMAINDER OF TRIP TO LOUISVILLE, KY. THE NEXT DAY I TOOK THE F-150 TO A LOCAL DEALER, WHO ADVISED THAT I HAD EXPERIENCED THE "CLASSIC SCENARIO" FOR CONDENSATION IN THE CHARGE-AIR COOLER, CAUSING ENGINE MISFIRES. THE F-150 IS GETTING VERY POOR GAS MILEAGE EVER SINCE. HOME DEALER HAS DECLINED SERVICE BECAUSE OBD CODES ARE NO LONGER PRESENT. ENGINE: 3.5L GTDI (ECOBOOST). *TR
WHEN TRYING TO PASS A SLOW MOVING VEHICLE ( GOING 45 IN A 55) I TRIED TO PASS. WHEN I MOVED INTO OTHER LANE AND GASSED TRUCK I LOST POWER AND STARTED JERKING. I HAD TO LET UP COMPLETELY OFF THE GAS AND FALL BACK BEHIND THE CAR THAT I WAS PASSING. THIS WAS A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION SINCE THERE WERE OTHER CARS BEHIND ME THAT HA…
Read full complaint
WHEN TRYING TO PASS A SLOW MOVING VEHICLE ( GOING 45 IN A 55) I TRIED TO PASS. WHEN I MOVED INTO OTHER LANE AND GASSED TRUCK I LOST POWER AND STARTED JERKING. I HAD TO LET UP COMPLETELY OFF THE GAS AND FALL BACK BEHIND THE CAR THAT I WAS PASSING. THIS WAS A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION SINCE THERE WERE OTHER CARS BEHIND ME THAT HAD ALSO STARTED TO PASS AS WELL AS ONCOMING CARS UP AHEAD (A SAFE DISTANCE BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO PASS OF COURSE). THIS SEEMS TO BE A MAJOR ISSUE SINCE MANY OF THE SAME STORIES CAME UP WHEN SEARCHING THE INTERNET ABOUT THIS. *TR
UNDER NON-TOW SITUATIONS TRUCK WILL SHUDDER/MISFIRE DURING HARD ACCELERATION. ACCELERATION DOES NOT HAVE TO BE WOT. WEATHER CONDITIONS CAN BE HOT AND SUNNY OR CLOUDY, RAINING AND HUMID. TRUCK DID NOT START DOING THIS UNTIL 60,000 + MILES. *TR
WAS PREPARING TO PASS A SLOW MOVING VEHICLE MY TRUCK STARTED TO SHUDDER AND BEGAN TO SHUT DOWN..LEAVING ME HUNG OUT IN TRAFFIC.I BACKED OFF OF THE GAS AND IT BEGAN TO RUN CORRECTLY.THIS WAS A SCARY INCIDENT. TRUCK HAS DONE THIS MANY TIMES BUT I AM VERY CAREFUL WHEN I TRY TO PASS. FORD SAYS THEY HAVE A FIX BUT I WILL HAVE TO PAY …
Read full complaint
WAS PREPARING TO PASS A SLOW MOVING VEHICLE MY TRUCK STARTED TO SHUDDER AND BEGAN TO SHUT DOWN..LEAVING ME HUNG OUT IN TRAFFIC.I BACKED OFF OF THE GAS AND IT BEGAN TO RUN CORRECTLY.THIS WAS A SCARY INCIDENT. TRUCK HAS DONE THIS MANY TIMES BUT I AM VERY CAREFUL WHEN I TRY TO PASS. FORD SAYS THEY HAVE A FIX BUT I WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT I DID NOT DESIGN OR SELL THIS TRUCK FORD DID THEY SHOULD CORRECT. *TR
WHEN YOU PRESS THE THROTTLE PEDAL TO PASS THE VEHICLE HAS A SLIGHT ACCELERATION AND THEN SHAKES, SHUDDERS AND WILL NOT ACCELERATE. I NEED TO COAST FOR SEVERAL HUNDRED YARDS BEFORE THE SYSTEM RECOVERS AND THE TRUCK ACCELERATES. THIS HAPPENS ALL SUMMER LONG PRETTY MUCH EVERY TIME I NEED TO PASS. MY FORD DEALER SAYS THEY HAVE AP…
Read full complaint
WHEN YOU PRESS THE THROTTLE PEDAL TO PASS THE VEHICLE HAS A SLIGHT ACCELERATION AND THEN SHAKES, SHUDDERS AND WILL NOT ACCELERATE. I NEED TO COAST FOR SEVERAL HUNDRED YARDS BEFORE THE SYSTEM RECOVERS AND THE TRUCK ACCELERATES. THIS HAPPENS ALL SUMMER LONG PRETTY MUCH EVERY TIME I NEED TO PASS. MY FORD DEALER SAYS THEY HAVE APPLIED THE SERVICE BULLETINS BUT THAT DOES NOT CORRECT THE PROBLEM. IN YOUR INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER IT IS STATED THAT FORD SAYS YOU CAN STILL ACCELERATE I CAN TELL YOU THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE WITH MY TRUCK. I SHOULD NOTE THAT MOST OF THE TIME I AM PULLING AN 18' FISHING BOAT THAT WEIGHTS ABOUT 3000 LBS. ON AT LEAST SIX DIFFERENT OCCASIONS NOW WHILE ON VACATION I HAVE BEEN IN A LONG STRING OF TRAFFIC BEHIND EITHER MOTOR HOMES OR LOGGING TRUCKS THAT COULD NOT GO HIGHWAY SPEED, I PULL OUT TO PASS THEM STEP ON THE GAS, IT SHAKES, SHUDDERS AND THERE I SIT IN THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC LANE, MEANWHILE THE STRING OF VEHICLES BEHIND ME HAVE CLOSED THE GAP, I CANNOT PULL BACK INTO THE RIGHT LANE AND I CANNOT ACCELERATE TO GET IN FRONT OF THEM. I END UP JUST SLOWLY MOVING BACK TO THE RIGHT HOPING THE OTHER VEHICLES WILL BACK OFF AND MOVE OUT OF THE WAY, THEN COMES THE BLASTING OF THEIR HORNS AND SHAKING OF THEIR FISTS WHEN THEY EVENTUALLY PASS ME. I CANNOT IMAGINE HOW THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED A SAFETY ISSUE. FORD SPECIFICALLY MARKETS THIS ECOBOOST ENGINE BASED ON IT'S TORQUE FOR TOWING TO PEOPLE THAT NEED A TRUCK FOR TOWING BUT YOU CANNOT USE ANY OF THAT TORQUE ALL SUMMER LONG AND I AM PULLING A BOAT THAT IS ONLY AT ONE THIRD OF THE TOWING CAPACITY. *TR
Official recalls
419V075000 · 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.
12V198000 · Air Bags:frontal:sensor/control MODULE-INACTIVE
May 3, 2012
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2012 F-150 VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM NOVEMBER 6, 2011, THROUGH NOVEMBER 15, 2011. INCORRECT SOFTWARE FOR THE OCCUPANT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MODULE (OCSM) WAS INSTALLED ON THE VEHICLES EITHER AT THE TIME OF MANUFACTURING OR DURING THE COURSE OF REPLACEMENT OF THE MODULE AS PART OF A SERVICE REPAIR. UNDER CERTAIN DRIVING CONDITIONS, THE OCSM MAY MISCLASSIFY THE PASSENGER SEATS OCCUPANT SUCH THAT THE PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG DOES NOT DEPLOY WHEN IT SHOULD, DOES NOT DEPLOY AS INTENDED, OR DEPLOYS WHEN IT SHOULD NOT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A FAILURE TO DEPLOY, FAILURE TO DEPLOY AS INTENDED, OR A DEPLOYMENT WHEN NOT INTENDED, INCREASES THE RISK OF INJURY TO THE PASSENGER SIDE SEAT OCCUPANT.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE OCSM FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON MAY 21, 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
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