← New search

2013 Ford F-150

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

More warning signs than most F-150 years

Owner complaints for the 2013 Ford F-150 are substantially higher than the model-year median of 676.

About this comparison →

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

2,215 reports with mileage · 765 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 1,335 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine. Review the 547 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 322 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

77 crash reports35 fire reports53 injury reports

Visibility/wiper complaints

146 reports
Clear category filter
90,000 miles · Dec 28, 2016
Visibility/wiper

THE VEHICLE WAS IN MY DRIVEWAY. I REMOTE STARTED IT. 10 MINUTES LATER I ENTERED VEHICLE AND INSERTED KEY AND TURNED ON THE VEHICLE. 10 SECONDS LATER I HEARD A LOUD POP AND WHAT SOUNDED LIKE LEAVES RUSTLING, VERY SLOWLY . IT WAS 5 AM AND DARK, FRIDAY DEC 23RD, SO I DROVE TO A LIT PARKING LOT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED. I NOTICED …

Read full complaint

THE VEHICLE WAS IN MY DRIVEWAY. I REMOTE STARTED IT. 10 MINUTES LATER I ENTERED VEHICLE AND INSERTED KEY AND TURNED ON THE VEHICLE. 10 SECONDS LATER I HEARD A LOUD POP AND WHAT SOUNDED LIKE LEAVES RUSTLING, VERY SLOWLY . IT WAS 5 AM AND DARK, FRIDAY DEC 23RD, SO I DROVE TO A LIT PARKING LOT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED. I NOTICED THE REAR GLASS BEHIND THE DRIVER'S SEAT WAS SHATTERED. IT WAS AROUND 30F. THERE ARE A LOT OF INSTANCES OF THIS HAPPENING WITH FORD PICKUPS.

NHTSA ODI #10938350

38,000 miles · Dec 22, 2016
Electrical SystemVisibility/wiper

JUST BOUGHT MY TRUCK AND I AUTO STARTED IT WITH DEFROST SET TO AUTO. I GOT IN AND HEARD A LOUD POP ONLY TO SEE MY WINDOW SHATTERED. NOTHING HIT IT. TOOK IT TO FORD AND THEY WONT COVER IT. I GOT ONLINE AND SAW HUNDREDS OF COMPLAINTS OF THE SAME THING HAPPENING TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. THIS SHOULD BE A SAFETY RECALL. WHAT IF MY KIDS W…

Read full complaint

JUST BOUGHT MY TRUCK AND I AUTO STARTED IT WITH DEFROST SET TO AUTO. I GOT IN AND HEARD A LOUD POP ONLY TO SEE MY WINDOW SHATTERED. NOTHING HIT IT. TOOK IT TO FORD AND THEY WONT COVER IT. I GOT ONLINE AND SAW HUNDREDS OF COMPLAINTS OF THE SAME THING HAPPENING TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. THIS SHOULD BE A SAFETY RECALL. WHAT IF MY KIDS WERE IN MY TRUCK!

NHTSA ODI #10937141

38,700 miles · Dec 20, 2016
VisibilityVisibility/wiper

STARTED THE TRUCK TO DEFROST WINDOWS ON A COLD MORNING. BOTH THE FRONT DEFROSTER AND REAR WINDOW DEFROSTER WERE TURNED ON. IT RAN FOR ABOUT 10 MINUTES BEFORE I STARTED DRIVING TO WORK. ABOUT 5 MINUTES INTO MY DRIVE I HEARD A LOUD POP. I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED. IT WAS STILL DARK OUTSIDE AT THE TIME AND WHEN I ARRIVED A…

Read full complaint

STARTED THE TRUCK TO DEFROST WINDOWS ON A COLD MORNING. BOTH THE FRONT DEFROSTER AND REAR WINDOW DEFROSTER WERE TURNED ON. IT RAN FOR ABOUT 10 MINUTES BEFORE I STARTED DRIVING TO WORK. ABOUT 5 MINUTES INTO MY DRIVE I HEARD A LOUD POP. I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED. IT WAS STILL DARK OUTSIDE AT THE TIME AND WHEN I ARRIVED AT MY WORK, THE PARKING LOT LIGHTS REVEALED THAT MY BACK DRIVERS SIDE WINDOW HAD SHATTERED. I DID NOTICE ON MY DRIVE THAT THE REAR DEFROSTER HAD TURNED OFF WHICH IT NORMALLY DOESN'T BUT I DIDN'T PUT IT TOGETHER THAT THE POP AND THE DEFROSTER WERE CONNECTED. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10936439

51,400 miles · Dec 16, 2016
Electrical SystemVisibility/wiper

USED REMOTE START TO WARM VEHICLE AND THE 1/3 OF THE REAR GLASS (THE DRIVER'S SIDE) EXPLODED AND SPIDERED. RESEARCH SHOWS THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM AND LIKELY DUE TO FAULTY DEFROSTER. FORD DOESN'T PART OUT THE GLASS SO THE ENTIRE REAR WINDOW NEEDS TO BE REPLACED AT A COST OF OVER $650. MY VEHICLE IS GARAGED WHEN AT HOME AND IS…

Read full complaint

USED REMOTE START TO WARM VEHICLE AND THE 1/3 OF THE REAR GLASS (THE DRIVER'S SIDE) EXPLODED AND SPIDERED. RESEARCH SHOWS THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM AND LIKELY DUE TO FAULTY DEFROSTER. FORD DOESN'T PART OUT THE GLASS SO THE ENTIRE REAR WINDOW NEEDS TO BE REPLACED AT A COST OF OVER $650. MY VEHICLE IS GARAGED WHEN AT HOME AND IS IN EXCELLENT CONDITION WITH ONLY 51400 MILES. SINCE IT IS OVER 36000 MILES, FORD WON'T DO ANYTHING OR ASSIST WITH COSTS.

NHTSA ODI #10935640

47,228 miles · Nov 27, 2016
Visibility/wiper

WAS HEADING TO WORK AROUND 750 A.M. AND HEARD A LOUD POP, LIKE A ROCK HITTING A WINDOW. I CHECKED ALL MY WINDOWS AND NOTICED MY BACK DRIVER SIDE WINDOW WAS BUSTED. AT THE TIME, I HAD MY REAR DEFROSTER ON. I DID NOT HIT A POTHOLE PRIOR OR DURING THE EVENT. I WAS TRAVELING ABOUT 60 M.P.H.

NHTSA ODI #10928094

59,000 miles · Nov 23, 2016
VisibilityVisibility/wiper

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 FORD F-150. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS WARMING UP IN THE MORNING, THE REAR HEATED SLIDING WINDOW EXPLODED AND SHATTERED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE MANUFACTURER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE HEATING ELEMENT FAILED AND THE WINDOW NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 FORD F-150. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS WARMING UP IN THE MORNING, THE REAR HEATED SLIDING WINDOW EXPLODED AND SHATTERED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE MANUFACTURER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE HEATING ELEMENT FAILED AND THE WINDOW NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE VIN WAS UNKNOWN. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 59,000. UPDATED 01/31/17*CT

NHTSA ODI #10927618

43,000 miles · Oct 31, 2016
Electrical SystemVisibility/wiper

STARTED TRUCK WITH REMOTE(FOB), YESTERDAY MORNING. I NEEDED TO DEFROST MY WINDOWS AS WELL. ON MY WAY TO WORK,TWENTY MINUTES LATER, I HEARD WHAT SOUNDED LIKE A GUN BLAST. I THOUGHT SOMEONE HAD SHOT MY TRUCK OR THREW A ROCK. I LOOKED IN MY REARVIEW WINDOW AND THE REAR DRIVER SIDE WINDOW WAS SHATTERED. I PULLED INTO A PARKING LOT A…

Read full complaint

STARTED TRUCK WITH REMOTE(FOB), YESTERDAY MORNING. I NEEDED TO DEFROST MY WINDOWS AS WELL. ON MY WAY TO WORK,TWENTY MINUTES LATER, I HEARD WHAT SOUNDED LIKE A GUN BLAST. I THOUGHT SOMEONE HAD SHOT MY TRUCK OR THREW A ROCK. I LOOKED IN MY REARVIEW WINDOW AND THE REAR DRIVER SIDE WINDOW WAS SHATTERED. I PULLED INTO A PARKING LOT AND NO SIGNS OF IMPACT BY A FOREIGN OBJECT. THE WINDOW WAS COMPLETELY SHATTERED. AFTER RESEARCHING THIS, I SEE THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE A DEFECTIVE DEFROSTER CONTRIBUTING TO SPONTANEOUS SHATTERING OF REAR WINDOWS ON THE F150. I CALLED THE DEALER AND THEY'RE GIVING ME "I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THIS" I'M NOT BUYING IT. ALSO, IF THIS HAD HAPPENED TODAY, MY SMALL CHILD WOULD HAVE BEEN SITTING RIGHT THERE. THIS IS NOT OKAY AND FORD SHOULD REPAIR THESE FOR CUSTOMERS. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10920276

50,000 miles · Oct 26, 2016
Electrical SystemVisibility/wiper

DURING THE START UP OF MY 2013 FORD F-150, I PROCEEDED TO UTILIZE THE REAR DEFROSTER TO GET THE ICE OFF THE REAR WINDOW. THE REAR WINDOW IS COMPRISED OF 3 PANELS OF GLASS, ONE ON EACH SIDE AND THE SLIDING WINDOW IN THE CENTER. LAST WEEK, THE REAR DEFROSTER WORKED INTERMITTENTLY, AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS AT DEPRESSING THE BUTTON IT…

Read full complaint

DURING THE START UP OF MY 2013 FORD F-150, I PROCEEDED TO UTILIZE THE REAR DEFROSTER TO GET THE ICE OFF THE REAR WINDOW. THE REAR WINDOW IS COMPRISED OF 3 PANELS OF GLASS, ONE ON EACH SIDE AND THE SLIDING WINDOW IN THE CENTER. LAST WEEK, THE REAR DEFROSTER WORKED INTERMITTENTLY, AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPTS AT DEPRESSING THE BUTTON IT WOULD EVENTUALLY TURN ON, NOT A WEEK LATER IT DOES NOT WORK AT ALL. THINKING IT WAS POSSIBLY THE FUSE OR A PROBLEM WITH THE BUTTON ITSELF, I SEARCHED ONLINE TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS SOMETHING I COULD DO, AND FOUND THAT THIS IS A COMMON ISSUE AND REQUIRES REPLACEMENT OF THE ENTIRE BACK GLASS AND THAT SOME HAD THIS COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. I CALLED THE FORD DEALERSHIP AND TALKED TO THE REPAIR DEPARTMENT AND WAS TOLD BY THE MANAGER THAT HE HAS THE SAME VEHICLE AND THE SAME PROBLEM AND THAT THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE REAR DEFROST TO WORK IS TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE BACK GLASS AND THAT THE COST IS AROUND $2200. SEARCHING ONLINE ON THE F150 FORUM BOARDS FINDS THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM AND THE FIX IS REPLACEMENT OF THE ENTIRE BACKGLASS. BECAUSE MY VEHICLE HAS 50,000 MILES AND IS PAST THE 36,000 MILES OF THE WARRANTY IT IS NOT FORDS PROBLEM. AS THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE (VISIBILITY THROUGH BACK GLASS) I SEARCHED ON THE GOVERNMENTS RECALL WEBSITE HERE AND FOUND SIMILAR COMPLAINTS AND THAT MANY HAVE ALSO EXPERIENCED THE WINDOWING CRACKING, SPIDERING AND EXPLODING WHEN USING ' WHICH TELLS ME DO NOT TURN ON THE REAR DEFROST FOR FEAR OF A BROKEN WINDOW EXPLODING WHILE IM DRIVING. THIS IS A SAFETY HAZARD AS IT DISTORTS AND SKEWS MY VISION AND ABILITY TO SEE OUT OF IT SAFELY UNTIL I CAN ATTEMPT TO HAVE FORD RECTIFY THIS ISSUE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10918982

47,000 miles · Oct 3, 2016
Visibility/wiper

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 FORD F-150. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THERE WAS A LOUD BANG NOISE COMING FROM THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT DISCOVERED THAT THE DRIVER SIDE REAR PANEL WINDOW SHATTERED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXI…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2013 FORD F-150. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 45 MPH, THERE WAS A LOUD BANG NOISE COMING FROM THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT DISCOVERED THAT THE DRIVER SIDE REAR PANEL WINDOW SHATTERED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 47,000.

NHTSA ODI #10911217

56,000 miles · Sep 1, 2016
Visibility/wiper

WHILE OPENING THE SUNROOF IT BINDS ON PASSENGER SIDE AND DOES NOT OPEN. THE SUNROOF WAS TO BE MANUALLY MANIPULATED TO CLOSE WHILE HOLDING DOWN THE MOTOR BUTTON. FORD HAS ISSUED A TSB, BUT IF THIS IS A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM, A RECALL SHOULD BE ISSUED.

NHTSA ODI #10903074

Official recalls

3

19V433000 · Power Train:automatic Transmission; Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)

Jun 10, 2019

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2013 F-150 vehicles equipped with 5.0L or 6.2L gasoline engines, that previously had the powertrain control module (PCM) software reprogrammed under recall 19V-075. The software used to reprogram the PCM did not have the necessary updates to prevent the transmission from unexpectedly downshifting 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 June 24, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S19.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2013 F-150 vehicles equipped with 5.0L or 6.2L gasoline engines, that previously had the powertrain control module (PCM) software reprogrammed under recall 19V-075. The software used to reprogram the PCM did not have the necessary updates to prevent the transmission from unexpectedly downshifting 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 June 24, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S19.

Power Train:automatic Transmission

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2013 F-150 vehicles equipped with 5.0L or 6.2L gasoline engines, that previously had the powertrain control module (PCM) software reprogrammed under recall 19V-075. The software used to reprogram the PCM did not have the necessary updates to prevent the transmission from unexpectedly downshifting 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 June 24, 2019. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S19.

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.

16V345000 · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid

May 24, 2016

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2013-2014 F-150 vehicles manufactured August 1, 2013, to August 31, 2014 equipped with 3.5L engines. The master cylinder rear cup seal may roll, resulting in brake fluid leakage from the primary reservoir into the brake booster.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: Loss of brake fluid from the primary reservoir results in a complete loss of front brake function, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the brake master cylinder and, if necessary, the brake booster, free of charge. The recall began on October 28, 2016. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S24.

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

3

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.

PE16003 · Master Cylinder External Leak

Opened Feb 29, 2016 · Closed Jul 26, 2016

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes; Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:master Cylinder

On May 23, 2016, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA regarding a master cylinder defect that could result in loss of the front brake circuit in approximately 225,012 model year 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 3.5-liter GTDI engines and built at the Dearborn Truck Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 22, 2014; and the Kansas City Assembly Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014 (NHTSA Recall #16V-345, Ford Recall #16S24).Ford indicated that the rearmost cup seal in the brake master cylinder may roll, resulting in leakage from the brake fluid reservoir to the brake booster.According to Ford's DIR, Depending on the amount of brake fluid loss from the brake master cylinder into the brake booster, the driver will experience an audible chime, message center alert, red brake warning light in the instrument cluster and may begin to experience a change in brake pedal travel and feel.In the event that a loss of brake fluid is substantial enough to reduce brake function to the front wheels, the driver may experience longer pedal travel, increased pedal effort, and extended stopping distance, increasing the risk of a crash.Full braking function would remain in the rear wheel brake circuit.Ford's recall will replace the master cylinder and, if the master cylinder is leaking, also replace the brake booster.Seventy-three (73) of the complaints received by ODI contained vehicle identification number (VIN) information required to determine date of build and recall applicability.ODI's analysis found that 66 complaints to ODI and 278 complaints to Ford involving vehicles built in the range covered by 16V-345, resulting in an overall complaint rate of 152.9 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Twelve (12) crash incidents were reported, including 11 with VIN information.All 11 crash incidents with VIN information reported involve vehicles covered by Ford's recall.ODI's analysis identified 7 ODI complaints and 36 Ford complaints in the 194,139 subject vehicles built outside of the build range for 16V-345, resulting in a complaint rate of 22.1 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Ford indicated that warranty return analyses identified issues with minor internal leakage between circuits due to internal contamination caused by supplier assembly plant cleanliness concerns in these vehicles.Ford assessed the internal leak condition as an early-life condition with minimal safety risk that does not result in loss of fluid or circuit failure.ODI will continue to monitor complaints in subject vehicles not included in 16V-345.No complaints have been identified in MY 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with other engine options.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks identified by this investigation.This preliminary evaluation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchSafetylssues under the following identification numbers:10870768, 10870747, 10870511, 10870395, 10870055, 10869981, 10865843, 10865521, 10865342, 10865043, 10864862, 10864714, 10864360, 10863982, 10863527, 10862333, 10862047, 10861735, 10861190, 10860378, 10860118, 10855381, 10855356, 10854785, 10853751, 10853295, 10853012, 10852349, 10852134, 10852037, 10851317, 10851268, 10851109, 10850015, 10849862, 10846488, 10846335, 10846193, 10846006, 10840414, 10840377, 10839994, 10839985, 10839981, 10839833, 10839825, 10839816, 10838782, 10838510, 10818273, 10817706, 10809601, 10788886, 10788369, 10785526, 10779854, 10776834, 10766291, 10762034, 10761412, 10760663, 10758997, 10750065, 10749886, 107

Additional source detail variants (4)

Service Brakes

On May 23, 2016, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA regarding a master cylinder defect that could result in loss of the front brake circuit in approximately 225,012 model year 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 3.5-liter GTDI engines and built at the Dearborn Truck Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 22, 2014; and the Kansas City Assembly Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014 (NHTSA Recall #16V-345, Ford Recall #16S24).Ford indicated that the rearmost cup seal in the brake master cylinder may roll, resulting in leakage from the brake fluid reservoir to the brake booster.According to Ford's DIR, Depending on the amount of brake fluid loss from the brake master cylinder into the brake booster, the driver will experience an audible chime, message center alert, red brake warning light in the instrument cluster and may begin to experience a change in brake pedal travel and feel.In the event that a loss of brake fluid is substantial enough to reduce brake function to the front wheels, the driver may experience longer pedal travel, increased pedal effort, and extended stopping distance, increasing the risk of a crash.Full braking function would remain in the rear wheel brake circuit.Ford's recall will replace the master cylinder and, if the master cylinder is leaking, also replace the brake booster.Seventy-three (73) of the complaints received by ODI contained vehicle identification number (VIN) information required to determine date of build and recall applicability.ODI's analysis found that 66 complaints to ODI and 278 complaints to Ford involving vehicles built in the range covered by 16V-345, resulting in an overall complaint rate of 152.9 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Twelve (12) crash incidents were reported, including 11 with VIN information.All 11 crash incidents with VIN information reported involve vehicles covered by Ford's recall.ODI's analysis identified 7 ODI complaints and 36 Ford complaints in the 194,139 subject vehicles built outside of the build range for 16V-345, resulting in a complaint rate of 22.1 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Ford indicated that warranty return analyses identified issues with minor internal leakage between circuits due to internal contamination caused by supplier assembly plant cleanliness concerns in these vehicles.Ford assessed the internal leak condition as an early-life condition with minimal safety risk that does not result in loss of fluid or circuit failure.ODI will continue to monitor complaints in subject vehicles not included in 16V-345.No complaints have been identified in MY 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with other engine options.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks identified by this investigation.This preliminary evaluation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchSafetylssues under the following identification numbers:10870768, 10870747, 10870511, 10870395, 10870055, 10869981, 10865843, 10865521, 10865342, 10865043, 10864862, 10864714, 10864360, 10863982, 10863527, 10862333, 10862047, 10861735, 10861190, 10860378, 10860118, 10855381, 10855356, 10854785, 10853751, 10853295, 10853012, 10852349, 10852134, 10852037, 10851317, 10851268, 10851109, 10850015, 10849862, 10846488, 10846335, 10846193, 10846006, 10840414, 10840377, 10839994, 10839985, 10839981, 10839833, 10839825, 10839816, 10838782, 10838510, 10818273, 10817706, 10809601, 10788886, 10788369, 10785526, 10779854, 10776834, 10766291, 10762034, 10761412, 10760663, 10758997, 10750065, 10749886, 107

Service Brakes, Hydraulic:fluid

On May 23, 2016, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA regarding a master cylinder defect that could result in loss of the front brake circuit in approximately 225,012 model year 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 3.5-liter GTDI engines and built at the Dearborn Truck Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 22, 2014; and the Kansas City Assembly Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014 (NHTSA Recall #16V-345, Ford Recall #16S24).Ford indicated that the rearmost cup seal in the brake master cylinder may roll, resulting in leakage from the brake fluid reservoir to the brake booster.According to Ford's DIR, Depending on the amount of brake fluid loss from the brake master cylinder into the brake booster, the driver will experience an audible chime, message center alert, red brake warning light in the instrument cluster and may begin to experience a change in brake pedal travel and feel.In the event that a loss of brake fluid is substantial enough to reduce brake function to the front wheels, the driver may experience longer pedal travel, increased pedal effort, and extended stopping distance, increasing the risk of a crash.Full braking function would remain in the rear wheel brake circuit.Ford's recall will replace the master cylinder and, if the master cylinder is leaking, also replace the brake booster.Seventy-three (73) of the complaints received by ODI contained vehicle identification number (VIN) information required to determine date of build and recall applicability.ODI's analysis found that 66 complaints to ODI and 278 complaints to Ford involving vehicles built in the range covered by 16V-345, resulting in an overall complaint rate of 152.9 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Twelve (12) crash incidents were reported, including 11 with VIN information.All 11 crash incidents with VIN information reported involve vehicles covered by Ford's recall.ODI's analysis identified 7 ODI complaints and 36 Ford complaints in the 194,139 subject vehicles built outside of the build range for 16V-345, resulting in a complaint rate of 22.1 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Ford indicated that warranty return analyses identified issues with minor internal leakage between circuits due to internal contamination caused by supplier assembly plant cleanliness concerns in these vehicles.Ford assessed the internal leak condition as an early-life condition with minimal safety risk that does not result in loss of fluid or circuit failure.ODI will continue to monitor complaints in subject vehicles not included in 16V-345.No complaints have been identified in MY 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with other engine options.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks identified by this investigation.This preliminary evaluation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchSafetylssues under the following identification numbers:10870768, 10870747, 10870511, 10870395, 10870055, 10869981, 10865843, 10865521, 10865342, 10865043, 10864862, 10864714, 10864360, 10863982, 10863527, 10862333, 10862047, 10861735, 10861190, 10860378, 10860118, 10855381, 10855356, 10854785, 10853751, 10853295, 10853012, 10852349, 10852134, 10852037, 10851317, 10851268, 10851109, 10850015, 10849862, 10846488, 10846335, 10846193, 10846006, 10840414, 10840377, 10839994, 10839985, 10839981, 10839833, 10839825, 10839816, 10838782, 10838510, 10818273, 10817706, 10809601, 10788886, 10788369, 10785526, 10779854, 10776834, 10766291, 10762034, 10761412, 10760663, 10758997, 10750065, 10749886, 107

Service Brakes, Hydraulic

On May 23, 2016, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA regarding a master cylinder defect that could result in loss of the front brake circuit in approximately 225,012 model year 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 3.5-liter GTDI engines and built at the Dearborn Truck Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 22, 2014; and the Kansas City Assembly Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014 (NHTSA Recall #16V-345, Ford Recall #16S24).Ford indicated that the rearmost cup seal in the brake master cylinder may roll, resulting in leakage from the brake fluid reservoir to the brake booster.According to Ford's DIR, Depending on the amount of brake fluid loss from the brake master cylinder into the brake booster, the driver will experience an audible chime, message center alert, red brake warning light in the instrument cluster and may begin to experience a change in brake pedal travel and feel.In the event that a loss of brake fluid is substantial enough to reduce brake function to the front wheels, the driver may experience longer pedal travel, increased pedal effort, and extended stopping distance, increasing the risk of a crash.Full braking function would remain in the rear wheel brake circuit.Ford's recall will replace the master cylinder and, if the master cylinder is leaking, also replace the brake booster.Seventy-three (73) of the complaints received by ODI contained vehicle identification number (VIN) information required to determine date of build and recall applicability.ODI's analysis found that 66 complaints to ODI and 278 complaints to Ford involving vehicles built in the range covered by 16V-345, resulting in an overall complaint rate of 152.9 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Twelve (12) crash incidents were reported, including 11 with VIN information.All 11 crash incidents with VIN information reported involve vehicles covered by Ford's recall.ODI's analysis identified 7 ODI complaints and 36 Ford complaints in the 194,139 subject vehicles built outside of the build range for 16V-345, resulting in a complaint rate of 22.1 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Ford indicated that warranty return analyses identified issues with minor internal leakage between circuits due to internal contamination caused by supplier assembly plant cleanliness concerns in these vehicles.Ford assessed the internal leak condition as an early-life condition with minimal safety risk that does not result in loss of fluid or circuit failure.ODI will continue to monitor complaints in subject vehicles not included in 16V-345.No complaints have been identified in MY 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with other engine options.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks identified by this investigation.This preliminary evaluation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchSafetylssues under the following identification numbers:10870768, 10870747, 10870511, 10870395, 10870055, 10869981, 10865843, 10865521, 10865342, 10865043, 10864862, 10864714, 10864360, 10863982, 10863527, 10862333, 10862047, 10861735, 10861190, 10860378, 10860118, 10855381, 10855356, 10854785, 10853751, 10853295, 10853012, 10852349, 10852134, 10852037, 10851317, 10851268, 10851109, 10850015, 10849862, 10846488, 10846335, 10846193, 10846006, 10840414, 10840377, 10839994, 10839985, 10839981, 10839833, 10839825, 10839816, 10838782, 10838510, 10818273, 10817706, 10809601, 10788886, 10788369, 10785526, 10779854, 10776834, 10766291, 10762034, 10761412, 10760663, 10758997, 10750065, 10749886, 107

Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:master Cylinder

On May 23, 2016, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA regarding a master cylinder defect that could result in loss of the front brake circuit in approximately 225,012 model year 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 3.5-liter GTDI engines and built at the Dearborn Truck Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 22, 2014; and the Kansas City Assembly Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014 (NHTSA Recall #16V-345, Ford Recall #16S24).Ford indicated that the rearmost cup seal in the brake master cylinder may roll, resulting in leakage from the brake fluid reservoir to the brake booster.According to Ford's DIR, Depending on the amount of brake fluid loss from the brake master cylinder into the brake booster, the driver will experience an audible chime, message center alert, red brake warning light in the instrument cluster and may begin to experience a change in brake pedal travel and feel.In the event that a loss of brake fluid is substantial enough to reduce brake function to the front wheels, the driver may experience longer pedal travel, increased pedal effort, and extended stopping distance, increasing the risk of a crash.Full braking function would remain in the rear wheel brake circuit.Ford's recall will replace the master cylinder and, if the master cylinder is leaking, also replace the brake booster.Seventy-three (73) of the complaints received by ODI contained vehicle identification number (VIN) information required to determine date of build and recall applicability.ODI's analysis found that 66 complaints to ODI and 278 complaints to Ford involving vehicles built in the range covered by 16V-345, resulting in an overall complaint rate of 152.9 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Twelve (12) crash incidents were reported, including 11 with VIN information.All 11 crash incidents with VIN information reported involve vehicles covered by Ford's recall.ODI's analysis identified 7 ODI complaints and 36 Ford complaints in the 194,139 subject vehicles built outside of the build range for 16V-345, resulting in a complaint rate of 22.1 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Ford indicated that warranty return analyses identified issues with minor internal leakage between circuits due to internal contamination caused by supplier assembly plant cleanliness concerns in these vehicles.Ford assessed the internal leak condition as an early-life condition with minimal safety risk that does not result in loss of fluid or circuit failure.ODI will continue to monitor complaints in subject vehicles not included in 16V-345.No complaints have been identified in MY 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with other engine options.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks identified by this investigation.This preliminary evaluation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchSafetylssues under the following identification numbers:10870768, 10870747, 10870511, 10870395, 10870055, 10869981, 10865843, 10865521, 10865342, 10865043, 10864862, 10864714, 10864360, 10863982, 10863527, 10862333, 10862047, 10861735, 10861190, 10860378, 10860118, 10855381, 10855356, 10854785, 10853751, 10853295, 10853012, 10852349, 10852134, 10852037, 10851317, 10851268, 10851109, 10850015, 10849862, 10846488, 10846335, 10846193, 10846006, 10840414, 10840377, 10839994, 10839985, 10839981, 10839833, 10839825, 10839816, 10838782, 10838510, 10818273, 10817706, 10809601, 10788886, 10788369, 10785526, 10779854, 10776834, 10766291, 10762034, 10761412, 10760663, 10758997, 10750065, 10749886, 107

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