← New search

2004 Ford F-350 Sd

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 2004 Ford F-350 Sd do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 73.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all F-350 Sd 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

114 reports with mileage · 16 unknown

NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

What to inspect

Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

  • Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 42 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 29 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Tires. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

3 crash reports2 fire reports2 injury reports

Electrical System complaints

29 reports
Clear category filter
22,000 miles · Nov 3, 2006
Electrical System

2004 F-350 SUPER DUTY WITH 6.0L BOUGHT NEW IN 2004.SUMMER OF 2006 EXPERANCED "SURGE" WHILE DRIVING ON INTERSTATE IN CRUSE CONTROL. LATER SAME PROBLEM AT 30 MPH. PROBLEM WAS WORST IN SEPTEMBER, TRUCK SURGING AND DIED AT IDLE. I REPLACED CAM SENSOR, NO FIX. TOOK TRUCK TO DEALER. LOADED NEW PROGRAM AND CHANGED SENSOR ON TURBO AND C…

Read full complaint

2004 F-350 SUPER DUTY WITH 6.0L BOUGHT NEW IN 2004.SUMMER OF 2006 EXPERANCED "SURGE" WHILE DRIVING ON INTERSTATE IN CRUSE CONTROL. LATER SAME PROBLEM AT 30 MPH. PROBLEM WAS WORST IN SEPTEMBER, TRUCK SURGING AND DIED AT IDLE. I REPLACED CAM SENSOR, NO FIX. TOOK TRUCK TO DEALER. LOADED NEW PROGRAM AND CHANGED SENSOR ON TURBO AND CHANGED TRANSMISSION FILTERS $200.00. MORNING OF OCT 19 ,LEAVING FOR ATLANTA WITH FAMILT AND CAMPER SAME "SURGE". IN ATLANTA OCT 20 IN TRAFIC TRUCK SURGED AND ALMOST HIT A CAR FROM BEHIND. MONDAY OCT 23, TRUCK SURGING BADLY , TRIED TO DIE AT TWO RED LIGHTS. LATER NO PROBLEM. TOOK TO DEALER AGAIN, FOUND NO PROBLEM. THEY WANTED TO CHANGE FUEL FILTERS ($120.00). NOV 02, SON DROVE TRUCK SCHOOL, TRUCK SURGED TWICE AT RED LIGHT, TRIED TO PUSH HIM THROUGH LNTERSECTION. DEALED HAS NO FIX. THEY HAVE TRUCK NOW (NOV 03). THEY OFFERED TO SELL MY A NEW ONE FOR $15,000.00

NHTSA ODI #10172522

16,793 miles · Sep 14, 2006
Electrical System

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND HESITATED WITHOUT WARNING. A NHTSA RECALL LETTER #05V270000, REGARDING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM: WIRING WAS RECEIVED AND THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP. THE DEALERSHIP INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND DETERMINED NOTHING NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE PROBLEM…

Read full complaint

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE VEHICLE STALLED AND HESITATED WITHOUT WARNING. A NHTSA RECALL LETTER #05V270000, REGARDING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM: WIRING WAS RECEIVED AND THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP. THE DEALERSHIP INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND DETERMINED NOTHING NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE PROBLEM PERSISTED.

NHTSA ODI #10168296

17,000 miles · Aug 17, 2006
Electrical System

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED RECALL (05V270000) REGARDING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM: WIRING WAS PERFORMED WHICH RESULTED THE VEHICLE TO STALL TWICE, MAKE DIFFERENT NOISES AND HAD PROBLEMS ACCELERATING AT 48 MPH. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER 8 TIMES FOR THIS PROBLEM SINCE 10/05 AND THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE ISSUE. ALSO T…

Read full complaint

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED RECALL (05V270000) REGARDING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM: WIRING WAS PERFORMED WHICH RESULTED THE VEHICLE TO STALL TWICE, MAKE DIFFERENT NOISES AND HAD PROBLEMS ACCELERATING AT 48 MPH. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER 8 TIMES FOR THIS PROBLEM SINCE 10/05 AND THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE ISSUE. ALSO THE GAS MILEAGE WENT DOWN FROM 17 TO 12 MILES PER GALLON.*AK

NHTSA ODI #10165883

15,000 miles · Mar 30, 2006
Electrical System

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THERE WAS A NHTSA RECALL # 05V270000, CONCERNING THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. AFTER THE RECALL WORK WAS PERFORMED, THE VEHICLE'S TIMING WAS OFF AND THE VEHICLE LOOSES POWER WHILE DRIVING. THE CONTACT HAS TAKEN THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALER AND SURROUNDING DEALERSHIPS NUMEROUS TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS. THE VEH…

Read full complaint

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THERE WAS A NHTSA RECALL # 05V270000, CONCERNING THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. AFTER THE RECALL WORK WAS PERFORMED, THE VEHICLE'S TIMING WAS OFF AND THE VEHICLE LOOSES POWER WHILE DRIVING. THE CONTACT HAS TAKEN THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALER AND SURROUNDING DEALERSHIPS NUMEROUS TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS. THE VEHICLE DID NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEMS BEFORE THE WIRING HARNESS WAS REPLACED. THE DEALER COMMENTED THE ELECTRONIC TIMING WAS OFF BECAUSE OF THE WIRING HARNESS. THE DEALER IS VERY UNWILLING TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM WITH THE VEHICLE SINCE THE PROBLEM IS RELATED TO THE RECALL REMEDY.

NHTSA ODI #10154171

10,000 miles · Sep 23, 2005
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine Cooling

DT: THE CALLER SAYS TRUCK SOMETIMES LOSES POWER. THERE IS NO WARNING THAT IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN EVERY TIME. THE CALLER SAID THAT SOMETIMES THE ENGINE LIGHT WOULD COME ON, AND THEN VEHICLE WOULD LOSE POWER, AND SOMETIMES THE LIGHT WOULD NOT COME ON WHEN HE LOST POWER. IT HAPPENS AT ANY SPEED AND WHEN SITTING STILL. TRUCK HAS B…

Read full complaint

DT: THE CALLER SAYS TRUCK SOMETIMES LOSES POWER. THERE IS NO WARNING THAT IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN EVERY TIME. THE CALLER SAID THAT SOMETIMES THE ENGINE LIGHT WOULD COME ON, AND THEN VEHICLE WOULD LOSE POWER, AND SOMETIMES THE LIGHT WOULD NOT COME ON WHEN HE LOST POWER. IT HAPPENS AT ANY SPEED AND WHEN SITTING STILL. TRUCK HAS BEEN TO DEALER 5 TIMES AND THEY COULD NOT FIND THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. HE RECENTLY HAD RECALL WORK DONE ON THE WIRING HARNESS. AFTER 170 MILES THE TRUCK CONTINUED TO LOSE POWER. THE CALLER HAD AN APPOINTMENT NEXT TUESDAY WITH DEALER. MANUFACTURER SAID TO KEEP BRINGING IT IN. *AK THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER EIGHT TIMES FOR THE SAME PROBLEM. THE LAST TIME IT WAS THERE THEY REPLACED THE TURBO AND REPROGRAMMED THE COMPUTER. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10134044

Mileage unknown · Sep 21, 2005
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingPower Train

DT: THE VEHICLE STOPS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN SEEN BY THE DEALER 30 OR 40 TIMES. THE MORE THE VEHICLE IS WORKED ON BY THE DEALER THE WORSE THE PROBLEM BECOMES. AFTER VEHICLES QUITS IT WILL NOT START FOR A FEW MINUTES. THEN WHEN IT STARTS IT SMOKES. THE DEALER DID RECALL REPAIR THE WIRING …

Read full complaint

DT: THE VEHICLE STOPS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN SEEN BY THE DEALER 30 OR 40 TIMES. THE MORE THE VEHICLE IS WORKED ON BY THE DEALER THE WORSE THE PROBLEM BECOMES. AFTER VEHICLES QUITS IT WILL NOT START FOR A FEW MINUTES. THEN WHEN IT STARTS IT SMOKES. THE DEALER DID RECALL REPAIR THE WIRING HARNESS. ALSO, REPAIRS WERE MADE TO TRANSMISSION, RADIATOR, WIRING HARNESS, TURBO HOSE, AND REPROGRAMMED THE COMPUTER. ALL THESE REPAIRS HAVE NOT FIXED THE PROBLEM. THE DEALER LAST INSTRUCTED THE OWNER TO WAIT UNTIL IT QUIT AND THEN THEY WOULD TOW IT TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE HAD THIS QUITTING PROBLEM FROM THE TIME IT WAS NEW. THERE WERE NEVER ANY LIGHTS OR WARNING BEFORE THE VEHICLE DIES. THE LAST PROBLEM OCCURRED ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES AGO, AND AT THIS TIME THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. *AK

NHTSA ODI #10137199

800 miles · Sep 9, 2005
Electrical System

DT: CONSUMER OWNS A 2004 F350 FORD DIESEL. HE BOUGHT VEHICLE NEW WITH ABOUT 3 MILES ON IT. THIS VEHICLE WAS A SAFETY HAZARD. THERE HAS BEEN SEVERAL TIMES THAT HE HAS ALMOST HAD AN ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE LAST TIME WAS ON AUGUST 16, 2005, HE DROVE THE VEHICLE ABOUT 110 MILES, SHUT OFF VEHICLE, AND LET IT SIT…

Read full complaint

DT: CONSUMER OWNS A 2004 F350 FORD DIESEL. HE BOUGHT VEHICLE NEW WITH ABOUT 3 MILES ON IT. THIS VEHICLE WAS A SAFETY HAZARD. THERE HAS BEEN SEVERAL TIMES THAT HE HAS ALMOST HAD AN ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE VEHICLE STALLED. THE LAST TIME WAS ON AUGUST 16, 2005, HE DROVE THE VEHICLE ABOUT 110 MILES, SHUT OFF VEHICLE, AND LET IT SIT IN THE SHADE FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES. HE THEN STARTED THE VEHICLE AND DROVE ABOUT 3 TENTHS OF A MILE AND SHUT VEHICLE OFF AGAIN, AND LET IT SIT IN THE SHADE FOR ABOUT AND HOUR AND THIRTY MINUTES. HE THEN TRIED TO START THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT START. HAS TO ROLL IT OFF TO START IT WHEN THIS HAPPENS. HE HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE DEALER AND THE MANUFACTURER TRYING TO GET SOMETHING DONE WITH THE VEHICLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED SEVERAL TIMES, AND FINALLY WANTED HIM TO TAKE THE VEHICLE BACK TO THE DEALER WHERE HE PURCHASED IT. HE TOOK THE VEHICLE BACK TO DEALER AT FORDS REQUEST, AND VEHICLE WAS STILL AT DEALER BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO PICK IT UP BECAUSE HE DID NOT FEEL THAT IT COULD BE FIXED. THE DEALER STARTED CHARGING A DEDUCTIBLE FOR EACH TIME IT WAS REPAIRED. ON AUGUST 2, 2005 HE TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER TO HAVE RECALL 05V27000 WORK DONE FOR THE STALLING AND STARTING PROBLEM. DEALER ASSURED HIM THAT THIS WOULD FIX THE STALLING AND RESTART PROBLEM. SINCE THE RECALL REPAIRS WERE DONE THE VEHICLE ALMOST STALLED 3 TIMES, AND ON 2 OCCASIONS DID NOT START. WHEN THE VEHICLE STALLED IT WILL NOT START BACK WITH STARTER, BUT FOR SOME REASON IT WILL ROLL OFF AND START. THE RECALL WORK DID NOT FIX PROBLEM, AND HE WANTED TO HAVE SOMETHING DONE SO THAT HE WILL NO LONGER HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS. HE DOES WANT VEHICLE REPLACED BY FORD.*AK *JB

NHTSA ODI #10133395

Mileage unknown · Aug 3, 2005
Electrical System

DT: 2004 FORD F350. THE VEHICLE TOOK OFF ON IT OWN AND QUIT. THE DEALERSHIP HAD THE VEHICLE FOR THREE WEEKS. THEY CALLED THE CONSUMER, AND TOLD HIM TO COME AND PICK UP VEHICLE BECAUSE THE RECALL HAS BEEN CANCELLED, THE REMEDY WILL NOT RECTIFY THE PROBLEM. CONSUMER CONTACTED FORD, THEY SENT AN ENGINEER TO THE DEALERSHIP,…

Read full complaint

DT: 2004 FORD F350. THE VEHICLE TOOK OFF ON IT OWN AND QUIT. THE DEALERSHIP HAD THE VEHICLE FOR THREE WEEKS. THEY CALLED THE CONSUMER, AND TOLD HIM TO COME AND PICK UP VEHICLE BECAUSE THE RECALL HAS BEEN CANCELLED, THE REMEDY WILL NOT RECTIFY THE PROBLEM. CONSUMER CONTACTED FORD, THEY SENT AN ENGINEER TO THE DEALERSHIP, WHO COULD NOT FIND WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE VEHICLE. HE WAS THE SECOND OWNER FOR THIS VEHICLE. FORD GAVE THE FIRST OWNER A NEW VEHICLE AND RESOLD THE DEFECTIVE TRUCK. THE CONSUMER STATED NONE OF THE RECALLS WERE HONORED. THERE WAS NO WARNING WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS NOT GOING TO WORK PROPERLY. THE VEHICLE LOST POWER AND BLACK SMOKE CAME OUT OF THE TAIL PIPE. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT STATED THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE COMPUTER, AND THEY COULD NOT FIX IT. THE DEALERSHIP KNEW THE VEHICLE WAS NOT FIXED, AND THEY CONTINUED TO PUT IT BACK ON THE ROAD.

NHTSA ODI #10131455

6,300 miles · Jul 29, 2005
Electrical System

DT: CONSUMER STATED 2004 FORD F350 SUPER DUTY WAS HAVING ELECTRICAL SURGE PROBLEMS. CONSUMER WAS COMPLAINING TO DEALERSHIP THAT VEHICLE HAD SURGE PROBLEMS FOR THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF. THE DEALER SAID THAT THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. DEALER DID UPDATED THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND THE TRUCK RAN SOME WHAT BETTER AFT…

Read full complaint

DT: CONSUMER STATED 2004 FORD F350 SUPER DUTY WAS HAVING ELECTRICAL SURGE PROBLEMS. CONSUMER WAS COMPLAINING TO DEALERSHIP THAT VEHICLE HAD SURGE PROBLEMS FOR THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF. THE DEALER SAID THAT THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. DEALER DID UPDATED THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND THE TRUCK RAN SOME WHAT BETTER AFTER THAT. THE PROBLEM CAME BACK AFTER A WEEK, AND WENT BACK TO HAVING COMPUTER SURGES. THE TRUCK WAS IN THE DEALERSHIP FOR REPAIRS ON THIS ISSUE FIVE TIMES. SAME RESULT, THE TRUCK WOULD WORK FOR A LITTLE WHILE, THEN BACK TO THE SAME SURGING PROBLEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN INTERMITTENT. THE MANUFACTURER HAS BEEN CONTACTED 5 TO 6 TIMES. FORD HAS NOT HELPED IN RESOLVING THIS ISSUE. THE LEMON LAW HAS BEEN LOOKED INTO BY THE CONSUMER. THE LEMON LAW WAS DENIED BY THE STATE. CONSUMER HAD ASKED FORD TO INVESTIGATE THIS PROBLEM. FORD SAID THAT THEY HAD NO RECALLS OR ANYTHING ELSE ON THE TRUCK. AS OF JULY 27, THE TRUCK STALLED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. THE TRUCK HAD TO SIT FOR AROUND 15 MINUTES BEFORE IT WOULD START OWNER COULD ACTUALLY DRIVE IT. THE TRUCK RAN YESTERDAY FOR 3 MILES AND STARTED STALLING AGAIN, TWICE YESTERDAY, 7-29-2005. THE OWNER PARKED THE TRUCK AND CALLED A TOW TRUCK TO COME AND GET IT. THE OWNER RECEIVED NHTSA RECALL 05V270000 ON 7-27-2005 AND NHTSA 05V270000 ON THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. *AK

NHTSA ODI #10130548

Official recalls

2

11V352000 · Exterior Lighting:brake Lights; Exterior Lighting:tail Lights

Jul 13, 2011

FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011 RANGER TRUCKS BUILT FROM JANUARY 25, 2011, THROUGH APRIL 25, 2011 AT THE TWIN CITIES ASSEMBLY PLANT, AND SERVICE PARTS DISTRIBUTED TO DEALERS FOR CERTAIN 2004 THROUGH 2011 MODEL YEAR RANGER TRUCKS, 2002 THROUGH 2005 MODEL YEAR EXCURSION VEHICLES, AND 2002 THROUGH 2007 MODEL YEAR F-250, F-350, F-450, AND F-550 TRUCKS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THE MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WAS SHIPPED WITH A SUBCOMPONENT (SLIDER) THAT MAY EXPERIENCE DEFORMATION. A MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WITH A DEFORMED SLIDER MAY MALFUNCTION CAUSING THE TURN SIGNAL, TAIL LIGHTS, HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FLASHERS AND/OR BRAKE LIGHTS NOT TO ACTIVATE.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: NON-FUNCTIONING LIGHTS COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SWITCHES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 15, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Exterior Lighting:brake Lights

FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011 RANGER TRUCKS BUILT FROM JANUARY 25, 2011, THROUGH APRIL 25, 2011 AT THE TWIN CITIES ASSEMBLY PLANT, AND SERVICE PARTS DISTRIBUTED TO DEALERS FOR CERTAIN 2004 THROUGH 2011 MODEL YEAR RANGER TRUCKS, 2002 THROUGH 2005 MODEL YEAR EXCURSION VEHICLES, AND 2002 THROUGH 2007 MODEL YEAR F-250, F-350, F-450, AND F-550 TRUCKS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THE MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WAS SHIPPED WITH A SUBCOMPONENT (SLIDER) THAT MAY EXPERIENCE DEFORMATION. A MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WITH A DEFORMED SLIDER MAY MALFUNCTION CAUSING THE TURN SIGNAL, TAIL LIGHTS, HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FLASHERS AND/OR BRAKE LIGHTS NOT TO ACTIVATE.

Consequence: NON-FUNCTIONING LIGHTS COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SWITCHES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 15, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.

Exterior Lighting:tail Lights

FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 2011 RANGER TRUCKS BUILT FROM JANUARY 25, 2011, THROUGH APRIL 25, 2011 AT THE TWIN CITIES ASSEMBLY PLANT, AND SERVICE PARTS DISTRIBUTED TO DEALERS FOR CERTAIN 2004 THROUGH 2011 MODEL YEAR RANGER TRUCKS, 2002 THROUGH 2005 MODEL YEAR EXCURSION VEHICLES, AND 2002 THROUGH 2007 MODEL YEAR F-250, F-350, F-450, AND F-550 TRUCKS FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT." THE MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WAS SHIPPED WITH A SUBCOMPONENT (SLIDER) THAT MAY EXPERIENCE DEFORMATION. A MULTI-FUNCTION SWITCH WITH A DEFORMED SLIDER MAY MALFUNCTION CAUSING THE TURN SIGNAL, TAIL LIGHTS, HAZARD WARNING SIGNAL FLASHERS AND/OR BRAKE LIGHTS NOT TO ACTIVATE.

Consequence: NON-FUNCTIONING LIGHTS COULD INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SWITCHES FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 15, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.

05V270000 · Electrical System:wiring

Jun 10, 2005

CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES AND VANS EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES MAY EXPERIENCE STALLING WITHOUT WARNING WHILE DRIVING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: SHOULD THE ENGINE STALL, A VEHICLE CRASH COULD OCCUR.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL UPGRADE THE FUEL INJECTION CONTROL MODULE (FICM) WIRE HARNESS OR REPLACED, AND/OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE (ICP)) SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 22, 2005. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.

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

2

DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head

Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline

ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.

Additional source detail variants (3)

Engine And Engine Cooling:engine

ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.

Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline

ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.

Engine And Engine Cooling

ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.

EA05003 · Engine Stalling

Opened Feb 15, 2005 · Closed Nov 2, 2005

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System:wiring:front Underhood; Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:diesel

IN A JUNE 7, 2005 LETTER, FORD NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL OF APPROXIMATELY 180,000 FORD F-SUPER DUTY, EXCURSION AND E-SERIES VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES TO CORRECT TWO WIRING RELATED CONDITIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-270, FORD NO. 05S34).THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE BUILT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 AND MAY 31, 2004.ACCORDING TO FORD, VEHICLES WITH THE CONDITIONS MAY STALL WITHOUT WARNING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS OF VEHICLES INCLUDED IN THE RECALL TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FUEL INJECTOR CONTROL MODULE WIRE HARNESS UPGRADED OR REPLACED AND OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED.DURING A MAY 2005 PRESENTATION TO ODI, FORD IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS THAT COULD AFFECT ENGINE PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION, INCLUDING THE WIRING CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY 05V-270.THE WIRING CONDITIONS, WHICH BOTH AFFECT ENGINE FUELING, WERE THE MOST LIKELY CONDITIONS TO RESULT IN ENGINE STALL.THE RECALLED VEHICLES COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 43% OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION AND ACCOUNT FOR 75 OF THE 113 ODI REPORTS THAT HAVE A VALID VIN (66%).THE VOQ COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE RECALL POPULATION IS 45/100K WHILE THE RATE FOR VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE RECALL POPULATION IS 17/100K AND THEIR TREND (BY DATE OF RECEIPT) IS DECLINING.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, ODI BELIEVES FORD?S ACTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT SAFETY RISKS AND THE INVESTIGATION IS THUS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Additional source detail variants (3)

Electrical System:wiring:front Underhood

IN A JUNE 7, 2005 LETTER, FORD NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL OF APPROXIMATELY 180,000 FORD F-SUPER DUTY, EXCURSION AND E-SERIES VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES TO CORRECT TWO WIRING RELATED CONDITIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-270, FORD NO. 05S34).THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE BUILT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 AND MAY 31, 2004.ACCORDING TO FORD, VEHICLES WITH THE CONDITIONS MAY STALL WITHOUT WARNING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS OF VEHICLES INCLUDED IN THE RECALL TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FUEL INJECTOR CONTROL MODULE WIRE HARNESS UPGRADED OR REPLACED AND OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED.DURING A MAY 2005 PRESENTATION TO ODI, FORD IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS THAT COULD AFFECT ENGINE PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION, INCLUDING THE WIRING CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY 05V-270.THE WIRING CONDITIONS, WHICH BOTH AFFECT ENGINE FUELING, WERE THE MOST LIKELY CONDITIONS TO RESULT IN ENGINE STALL.THE RECALLED VEHICLES COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 43% OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION AND ACCOUNT FOR 75 OF THE 113 ODI REPORTS THAT HAVE A VALID VIN (66%).THE VOQ COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE RECALL POPULATION IS 45/100K WHILE THE RATE FOR VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE RECALL POPULATION IS 17/100K AND THEIR TREND (BY DATE OF RECEIPT) IS DECLINING.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, ODI BELIEVES FORD?S ACTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT SAFETY RISKS AND THE INVESTIGATION IS THUS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:diesel

IN A JUNE 7, 2005 LETTER, FORD NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL OF APPROXIMATELY 180,000 FORD F-SUPER DUTY, EXCURSION AND E-SERIES VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES TO CORRECT TWO WIRING RELATED CONDITIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-270, FORD NO. 05S34).THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE BUILT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 AND MAY 31, 2004.ACCORDING TO FORD, VEHICLES WITH THE CONDITIONS MAY STALL WITHOUT WARNING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS OF VEHICLES INCLUDED IN THE RECALL TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FUEL INJECTOR CONTROL MODULE WIRE HARNESS UPGRADED OR REPLACED AND OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED.DURING A MAY 2005 PRESENTATION TO ODI, FORD IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS THAT COULD AFFECT ENGINE PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION, INCLUDING THE WIRING CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY 05V-270.THE WIRING CONDITIONS, WHICH BOTH AFFECT ENGINE FUELING, WERE THE MOST LIKELY CONDITIONS TO RESULT IN ENGINE STALL.THE RECALLED VEHICLES COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 43% OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION AND ACCOUNT FOR 75 OF THE 113 ODI REPORTS THAT HAVE A VALID VIN (66%).THE VOQ COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE RECALL POPULATION IS 45/100K WHILE THE RATE FOR VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE RECALL POPULATION IS 17/100K AND THEIR TREND (BY DATE OF RECEIPT) IS DECLINING.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, ODI BELIEVES FORD?S ACTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT SAFETY RISKS AND THE INVESTIGATION IS THUS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Engine And Engine Cooling

IN A JUNE 7, 2005 LETTER, FORD NOTIFIED ODI THAT IT WOULD BE CONDUCTING A SAFETY RECALL OF APPROXIMATELY 180,000 FORD F-SUPER DUTY, EXCURSION AND E-SERIES VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 6.0L DIESEL ENGINES TO CORRECT TWO WIRING RELATED CONDITIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL (NHTSA RECALL NO. 05V-270, FORD NO. 05S34).THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE BUILT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 AND MAY 31, 2004.ACCORDING TO FORD, VEHICLES WITH THE CONDITIONS MAY STALL WITHOUT WARNING AND MAY OR MAY NOT RESTART.FORD WILL INSTRUCT OWNERS OF VEHICLES INCLUDED IN THE RECALL TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER TO HAVE THE FUEL INJECTOR CONTROL MODULE WIRE HARNESS UPGRADED OR REPLACED AND OR HAVE A NEW INJECTION CONTROL PRESSURE SENSOR CONNECTOR INSTALLED.DURING A MAY 2005 PRESENTATION TO ODI, FORD IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL FAILURE MECHANISMS THAT COULD AFFECT ENGINE PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION, INCLUDING THE WIRING CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY 05V-270.THE WIRING CONDITIONS, WHICH BOTH AFFECT ENGINE FUELING, WERE THE MOST LIKELY CONDITIONS TO RESULT IN ENGINE STALL.THE RECALLED VEHICLES COMPRISE APPROXIMATELY 43% OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE POPULATION AND ACCOUNT FOR 75 OF THE 113 ODI REPORTS THAT HAVE A VALID VIN (66%).THE VOQ COMPLAINT RATE FOR THE RECALL POPULATION IS 45/100K WHILE THE RATE FOR VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE RECALL POPULATION IS 17/100K AND THEIR TREND (BY DATE OF RECEIPT) IS DECLINING.BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, ODI BELIEVES FORD?S ACTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT SAFETY RISKS AND THE INVESTIGATION IS THUS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IF WARRANTED BY FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES.