FORD F-350 SD 6.0 L DIESEL, SEVERAL TIMES WHILE DRIVING, TRUCK BEGAN TO SURGE/CUT-OFF. THIS HAPPENED UNDER LOAD WHILE GOING UPHILL. TRUCK TAKEN TO SEVERAL DEALERSHIPS CROSS COUNTRY DURING TRIP. NO ONE ABLE TO DIAGNOSE OR REPRODUCE FAULT. *NM
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
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.
Engine And Engine Cooling complaints
42 reportsDT*: THE CONTACT STATED INTERMITTENTLY WHILE TRAVELING 60 MPH, THE VEHICLE LOST POWER BUT DID NOT STALL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THE TURBO WAS REPLACED. THIS OCCURRED AT LEAST FOUR MORE TIMES AND THE DEALERSHIP REATTACHED THE HOSE FROM THE TURBO TO THE ENGINE. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN DRIVEN SINCE THAT …
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED INTERMITTENTLY WHILE TRAVELING 60 MPH, THE VEHICLE LOST POWER BUT DID NOT STALL. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THE TURBO WAS REPLACED. THIS OCCURRED AT LEAST FOUR MORE TIMES AND THE DEALERSHIP REATTACHED THE HOSE FROM THE TURBO TO THE ENGINE. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN DRIVEN SINCE THAT REPAIR. 06/02/06 UPDATED TURBO HOSE TO INTAKE MANIFOLD CONTINUES TO BLOW OFF CAUSING LOSS OF POWER AND LARGE AMOUNT OF SMOKE EMITTED FROM EXHAUST PIPE. *TT
I HAVE A 2004 F-350 TURBO DIESEL 6.0 L. TRUCK. THE TRUCK SURGES WHEN YOU DRIVE IT. IT CUTS OUT. IT DIES ON THE ROAD WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING IT. WE HAVE MADE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS TO RICH FORD IN EDGEWOOD AND ALBUQUERQUE. THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD. THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO FIX IT FOUR TIMES. THE LAST TIME I TOOK IT TO R…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2004 F-350 TURBO DIESEL 6.0 L. TRUCK. THE TRUCK SURGES WHEN YOU DRIVE IT. IT CUTS OUT. IT DIES ON THE ROAD WHEN YOU ARE DRIVING IT. WE HAVE MADE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS TO RICH FORD IN EDGEWOOD AND ALBUQUERQUE. THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD. THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO FIX IT FOUR TIMES. THE LAST TIME I TOOK IT TO RICH FORD IN ALBUQUERQUE WAS BECAUSE I WAS WAITING TO PULL OUT INTO TRAFFIC WITH MY FOOT ON THE BRAKE AND THE TRUCK WAS SURGING FORWARD INTO TRAFFIC. I WAS VERY SCARED AS WAS MY TEN YEAR OLD SON. I HAD MY FOOT PRESSED AS HARD AS I COULD ON THE BREAK AND THAT WAS NOT STOPPING THE TRUCK FROM MOVING FORWARD. I DROVE STRAIGHT TO THE DEALERSHIP, RICH FORD OF ALBUQUERQUE, AND THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY COULD NOT SERVICE MY VEHICLE THAT DAY. I WOULD HAVE TO WAIT TWO WEEKS. I WAS SCARED TO DRIVE THE TRUCK HOME. I AM AFRAID FOR MY FAMILY'S SAFETY. THIS IS A DANGEROUS VEHICLE AND FORD IS NOT WILLING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THEY HAVE MADE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO FIX THE PROBLEM BUT THEY CAN NOT "DUPLICATE" THE PROBLEM WHEN THEY HAVE IT IN THEIR CUSTODY. THIS IS A DANGEROUS VEHICLE AND SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF THE ROAD. THIS STARTED ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO MAYBE LONGER. THE LAST TIME I TOOK IT TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THEY TURNED ME AWAY WAS FEBRUARY 1, 2006. *NM
DROVE TRUCK 9 HOURS FELT ILL. WENT TO DOCTOR HE ORDERED BLOOD TEST. RESULT WAS CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING. I WAS TOLD NOT TO DRIVE VEHICLE.
DT: THE CONTACT STATED THAT A TURBO CHARGER FAILURE RESULTED IN A BLOWN HEAD GASKET. THERE HAVE BEEN NO PARTS REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT THIS TIME. THE VEHICLE IS CURRENTLY AT THE DEALER SERVICE WAITING FOR REPAIR. THE PROBLEM IS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. THE VEHICLE STARTED SMOKING AND WHEN INSPECTING THE VEHICLE THE TURBO C…
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONTACT STATED THAT A TURBO CHARGER FAILURE RESULTED IN A BLOWN HEAD GASKET. THERE HAVE BEEN NO PARTS REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT THIS TIME. THE VEHICLE IS CURRENTLY AT THE DEALER SERVICE WAITING FOR REPAIR. THE PROBLEM IS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. THE VEHICLE STARTED SMOKING AND WHEN INSPECTING THE VEHICLE THE TURBO CHARGER PROBLEM WAS DISCOVERED. *AK THE CONSUMER WAS BEING DENIED REPAIRS UNDER WARRANTY. HE WAS TOLD THE REASON HE EXPERIENCED PROBLEMS WITH HIS TRUCK WAS DUE TO THE AFTER MARKETS PARTS INSTALLED ON THE VEHICLE. UPDATED 12/07/05.*JB
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
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
I HAVE A 2004 FORD F350 AND A F250 BOTH HAVE THE 6.0L DIESEL ENGINE. THERE IS A REAL PROBLEM WITH THE FUEL INJECTORS AND TURBO AND POSSIBLY THE FUEL PUMP ACCORDING TO THE DEALER. BOTH TRUCKS LOAD UP AND START TO RUN VERY ROUGHT THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE SITUATION IS TO FLOOR THE THROTTLE INTILL IT CLEARS UP PRODUCING AN EXTREME…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2004 FORD F350 AND A F250 BOTH HAVE THE 6.0L DIESEL ENGINE. THERE IS A REAL PROBLEM WITH THE FUEL INJECTORS AND TURBO AND POSSIBLY THE FUEL PUMP ACCORDING TO THE DEALER. BOTH TRUCKS LOAD UP AND START TO RUN VERY ROUGHT THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE SITUATION IS TO FLOOR THE THROTTLE INTILL IT CLEARS UP PRODUCING AN EXTREMELY AMOUNT OF BLACK SMOG. SEVERAL TIMES THE TRUCKS HAVE STALLED WHILE DRIVING LEAVING US WITHOUT POWER BRAKES AND STEERING. RET URN TRIPS TO THE NEAREST DEALER HAVE NOT BEEN A GOOD EXPERINCE THEY TELL US THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY 6.0L DIESELS WITH THE SAME PROBLEM FORD IS SLAPPING THEM ON THIER HANDS FOR FIXING THESE PROBLEMS WITH THE DRIVIABILITY WARRENTY. I LEFT THE DEALER NOT SURE WHERE TO TURN THE TRUCKS ARE NOT FIXED AND THIS CONDITIONS DO CREATE A HAZARD. THE DEALER EVEN TOLD ME THEY HAD A WHOLE FLEET OF SCHOOL BUSES WITH THE SAME PROBLEM THEY WERE FIXING SO THE PROBLEM IS NOT JUST MY PROBLEM THEY KNOW OF THE PROBLEM AND EVEN KNOW OF THE SOLUTION WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING BUT IT APPEARS FORD IS HOLDING THE DEALERS HOSTAGE AND LEAVING THE CUSTOMERS WITH A HAZARDOUS VECHICLE. I FEEL THIS IS NOT A DRIVIABLITY WARRENTY BUT A SERIOUS RECALL ISSUE. THANKS FOR ANY HELP YOU CAN DO WITH THIS
WE PURCHASED 4, 2004 F-350 FORD DIESEL 6.0 LITER AMBULANCE CONVERSIONS. ALL 4 VEHICLES ARE HAVING REOCCURRING ENGINE FAILURES. THE PROBLEMS BEGAN ON SOME OF THE VEHICLES AT LOW MILEAGE. THE DEALER CONTINUES TO "PATCH" THE ENGINE PROBLEM. I HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH SEVERAL OTHER AMBULANCE SERVICES AND HAVE FOUND THAT THEY ARE HAVI…
Read full complaint
WE PURCHASED 4, 2004 F-350 FORD DIESEL 6.0 LITER AMBULANCE CONVERSIONS. ALL 4 VEHICLES ARE HAVING REOCCURRING ENGINE FAILURES. THE PROBLEMS BEGAN ON SOME OF THE VEHICLES AT LOW MILEAGE. THE DEALER CONTINUES TO "PATCH" THE ENGINE PROBLEM. I HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH SEVERAL OTHER AMBULANCE SERVICES AND HAVE FOUND THAT THEY ARE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEMS. THE FAILURE OF THESE ENGINES WHILE TRANSPORTING CRITICAL PATIENTS CREATS A VERY RISKY AND DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR THE PATIENTS AND A HUGH LIABILITY ISSUE FOR THE PARAMEDICS AND OUR COMPANY.LAST NIGHT ANOTHER ENGINE FAILED WHILE TRANSPORTING AN 18 YEAR OLD WITH A BROKEN NECK TO A HIGHER LEVEL HOSPITAL. THE DELIVERY OF THE PATIENT WAS DELAYED UNNECESSARILY BECAUSE ANOTHER AMBULANCE SERVICE HAD TO BE CALLED AND WAITED ON TO GET TO MY CREW TO TRANSPORT THE PATIENT. THIS HAPPENS ALMOST EACH TIME I SENT ONE OF THESE AMBULANCES ON A TRIP. NOT ONLY IS THE PATIENT PLACED IN DANGER, BUT MY COMPANY IS QUICKLY GETTING AN UNFAVORABLY REPUTATION BECAUSE OF THESE BREAKDOWNS. THIS IS COSTING US BUSINESS. MY PARAMEDICS ARE REFUSING TO DRIVE THESE VEHICLES BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF LIABILITY THAT THEY MAY HAVE KNOWING THE MECHANICAL HISTORY OF THESE VEHICLES. ALL OF THE TRUCKS ARE STILL UNDER THE 100,000 MILE WARRANTY. FORD HAS SHOWN NO INTEREST IN HELPING US WITH THIS ISSUE. EVEN IF THE ENGINES MAKE IT TO 100,000 MILES , I KNOW THAT THEY WILL NOT LAST MUCH PAST THAT. PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS. WE ARE PAYING GOOD MONEY OUT EACH MONTH FOR VEHICLES THAT WILL NOT DO THE JOB . THE GEORGIA LEMON LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO US . HELP!
DT: THE CONTACT STATES 2004 F-350 6.0 DIESEL TRUCK HAS LOW OIL PRESSURE. A VERY SHORT TIME AFTER BUYING THE CAR IT STARTED HAVING LOW POWER AND SHUT DOWN. ALSO, HEAD GASKET FAILURE. THIS WAS THE FIFTH TIME THAT VEHICLE SHUT DOWN ON THE HIGHWAY OR ON CURVES IN A MOUNTAIN ROAD WITHIN 6 MONTHS. THE DEALER TOLD HIM THE PROBLEM …
Read full complaint
DT: THE CONTACT STATES 2004 F-350 6.0 DIESEL TRUCK HAS LOW OIL PRESSURE. A VERY SHORT TIME AFTER BUYING THE CAR IT STARTED HAVING LOW POWER AND SHUT DOWN. ALSO, HEAD GASKET FAILURE. THIS WAS THE FIFTH TIME THAT VEHICLE SHUT DOWN ON THE HIGHWAY OR ON CURVES IN A MOUNTAIN ROAD WITHIN 6 MONTHS. THE DEALER TOLD HIM THE PROBLEM WAS FIXED, BUT IT KEPT HAPPENING. THE DEALERS REPLACED THE FUEL INJECTORS, BUT MORE OF THEM GO OUT. *AK
Official recalls
211V352000 · 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
2DP05005 · 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.
Illustration