IllustrationLOSS OF POWER WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY. LUCKILY THERE WAS MINIMAL TRAFFIC AND I WAS ABLE TO GET TO THE EMERGENCY LANE WITHOUT BEING HIT OR RUN OVER BY A TRACTOR TRAILER.
2007 Ford Fusion
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2007 Ford Fusion do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 1,109.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Fusion 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
320–25K
6825–50K
10650–75K
13075–100K
155100–150K
48150K+
539 reports with mileage · 525 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.
- Air Bags. Review the 615 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes. Review the 126 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 74 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
58 crash reports5 fire reports38 injury reports
Engine complaints
56 reportsTL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 FORD FUSION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED AND WAS TOWED. IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE POWER STEERING FAILED. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE VEHICLE STALLED AND WAS COASTED TO THE SIDE OF ROAD. THE CONTACT DISCOVERED THAT THE FUSE WAS BLOWN FROM THE E…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2007 FORD FUSION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE STALLED AND WAS TOWED. IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE POWER STEERING FAILED. WHILE DRIVING 25 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE VEHICLE STALLED AND WAS COASTED TO THE SIDE OF ROAD. THE CONTACT DISCOVERED THAT THE FUSE WAS BLOWN FROM THE ENGINE. THE VEHICLE COULD NOT BE RESTARTED. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE SPARK PLUGS AND IGNITION COIL PLUGS FAILED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURES. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 70,000. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE.
THE TRANSMISSION WENT OUT APPROXIMATELY NOVEMBER 1ST, 2014 AFTER DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AND HAVING THE GEAR SLIP AND NOT ACCELERATE PAST 25 MPH WITH HIGH RPMS. WHEN ATTEMPTING TO SHIFT INTO REVERSE FROM A STOPPED POSITION, THE CAR JOLTS VERY ABRUPTLY AS WELL. THE TRANSMISSION WAS REBUILT PER AAMCO RECOMMENDATION. ON APRIL 29TH, …
Read full complaint
THE TRANSMISSION WENT OUT APPROXIMATELY NOVEMBER 1ST, 2014 AFTER DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY AND HAVING THE GEAR SLIP AND NOT ACCELERATE PAST 25 MPH WITH HIGH RPMS. WHEN ATTEMPTING TO SHIFT INTO REVERSE FROM A STOPPED POSITION, THE CAR JOLTS VERY ABRUPTLY AS WELL. THE TRANSMISSION WAS REBUILT PER AAMCO RECOMMENDATION. ON APRIL 29TH, 2015, THE TRANSMISSION WENT OUT AGAIN WITH THE SAME ISSUE AS BEFORE. AAMCO STATED THAT THE SOLENOIDS NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE TOTAL COST FOR REPAIRS HAS BEEN $2,500 TO DATE. *TR
FOR THE PAST MONTH I HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING LOSS OF ACCELERATION. MY CAR BASICALLY GOES INTO "LIMP MODE" WHEN THE PROBLEM ARISES. THE CAR LOSES ALL ACCELERATION AND CAN ONLY GO ABOUT 10MPH. THE FIRST TIME I NOTICED IT, I WAS DRIVING TO WORK AND THE CAR STARTED TO MAKE A "HICCUP" FEELING RESULTING IN TOTAL LOSS OF ACCELERATION…
Read full complaint
FOR THE PAST MONTH I HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING LOSS OF ACCELERATION. MY CAR BASICALLY GOES INTO "LIMP MODE" WHEN THE PROBLEM ARISES. THE CAR LOSES ALL ACCELERATION AND CAN ONLY GO ABOUT 10MPH. THE FIRST TIME I NOTICED IT, I WAS DRIVING TO WORK AND THE CAR STARTED TO MAKE A "HICCUP" FEELING RESULTING IN TOTAL LOSS OF ACCELERATION POWER. ALMOST IMMEDIATELY THE WRENCH ICON LIGHTS UP. THE ONLY WAY TO START DRIVING AGAIN IS TO PULL OVER AND TURN THE CAR OFF. UPON RESTARTING THE CAR THE WRENCH ICON IS OFF AND SEEMS TO DRIVE FINE FOR A LITTLE WHILE. SINCE THEN, I HAVE EXPERIENCED THE PROBLEM AT LEAST 8 TIMES PER WEEK, AND THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT WILL COME ON AS WELL FOR A FEW DAYS THEN DISAPPEAR. I HAVE NOTICED THAT 2010-2013 FORD FUSIONS HAVE HAD A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION PROGRAM ASSIGNED BY FORD FOR THIS SAME PROBLEM, PROVIDING A 10 YEAR/150,000 MILE WARRANTY FOR THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY. WHY ARE THE EARLIER MODELS NOT COVERED UNDER THIS SAME PROGRAM WHEN THEY ARE CLEARLY HAVING THE SAME ISSUES (ACCORDING TO THE NUMEROUS REPORTS LISTED ON HERE)??!! *TR
HAD TO REPLACE AN IGNITION COIL FOR A MISFIRE OBD CODE. AFTER REPLACING COIL PROBLEM STILL EXISTED, SO I RESEARCHED ONLINE AND FOUND A GREAT NUMBER OF OTHER FUSION OWNERS WHO HAVE HAD THIS SAME PROBLEM. NOW I AM SUPPOSED TO REPLACE ALL THE IGNITION COILS AND THE PCM. WITH THE NUMBER OF AFFECTED VEHICLES BEING STAGGERING I FEEL T…
Read full complaint
HAD TO REPLACE AN IGNITION COIL FOR A MISFIRE OBD CODE. AFTER REPLACING COIL PROBLEM STILL EXISTED, SO I RESEARCHED ONLINE AND FOUND A GREAT NUMBER OF OTHER FUSION OWNERS WHO HAVE HAD THIS SAME PROBLEM. NOW I AM SUPPOSED TO REPLACE ALL THE IGNITION COILS AND THE PCM. WITH THE NUMBER OF AFFECTED VEHICLES BEING STAGGERING I FEEL THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A RECALL FOR THIS ISSUE. *TR
I WAS DRIVING AT ABOUT 60 MPH AND SUDDENLY I FELT THE VEHICLE HAVE SOME TYPE OF LOSS OF POWER. I TRIED TO PRESS ON THE GAS PEDAL AND THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND THE RPM ODOMETER WAS "JUMPING" FROM 1 TO 1.5 AND THE IDLE WAS HORRIBLY ROUGH.THE MOTOR SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS A FORCED IDLE. I PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND OPENE…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING AT ABOUT 60 MPH AND SUDDENLY I FELT THE VEHICLE HAVE SOME TYPE OF LOSS OF POWER. I TRIED TO PRESS ON THE GAS PEDAL AND THE CAR WOULD NOT ACCELERATE AND THE RPM ODOMETER WAS "JUMPING" FROM 1 TO 1.5 AND THE IDLE WAS HORRIBLY ROUGH.THE MOTOR SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS A FORCED IDLE. I PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND OPENED THE HOOD TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON, I CHECKED EVERYTHING TO SEE IF MAYBE THERE WAS ANYTHING LOOSE OR SOMETHING IN THERE AND THERE WAS NOTHING THAT I COULD SEE SPOT ON OR NOTICE SPOT ON. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON THE 'SYMPTOMS" AND CLEANING OR FORCING SHUT THE THROTTLE ACTUATOR WAS THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT KEPT SHOWING. SO I PULLED EVERYTHING APART AND CLEANED IT AND SPRAYED SOME WD-40. ONCE I OUT EVERYTHING BACK TOGETHER I THEN STARTED THE VEHICLE AND THE WRENCH LIGHT TURNED OFF AND IT WAS RUNNING LIKE NORMAL. *TR
NO PROBLEMS DRIVING CAR AND FAITHFUL OIL CHANGES WITH FULL SYNTHETIC OIL. WENT TO LEAVE ONE MORNING AND CAR WAS KNOCKING LIKE IT WAS LOW ON OIL. NO ENGINE LIGHT ON AT ALL. TURNED OFF CAR, OIL SHOWED FINE. CAR WOULD NOT RESTART. NOTHING. TOOK TO SHOP AND ENGINE HAS BLOWN. OIL PUMP FAILURE APPARENTLY. *TR
MY CAR HAS A HISTORY OF LOST POWER/STALL DURING NORMAL DRIVING, IT IS HAPPENING MORE FREQUENT SO I WANT TO FILE THIS COMPLAIN TO HAVE SOME INVESTIGATION. WHILE ACCELERATING TO MERGE TO THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC/SPEED, THE ENGINE LOST POWER AND NOT RESPONSE TO PRESSING ON THE GAS PEDAL. MY WIFE HAD TO STEER THE CAR BACK TO THE SHOUL…
Read full complaint
MY CAR HAS A HISTORY OF LOST POWER/STALL DURING NORMAL DRIVING, IT IS HAPPENING MORE FREQUENT SO I WANT TO FILE THIS COMPLAIN TO HAVE SOME INVESTIGATION. WHILE ACCELERATING TO MERGE TO THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC/SPEED, THE ENGINE LOST POWER AND NOT RESPONSE TO PRESSING ON THE GAS PEDAL. MY WIFE HAD TO STEER THE CAR BACK TO THE SHOULDER TO AVOID ACCIDENT. THIS CAR IS SERVICE BY FORD DEALER UNDER PURCHASED MAINTENANCE PLAN SINCE WE BOUGHT IT NEW. THERE WAS NO MENTION TO SERVICE THE INTAKE/THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY, WHICH IS NOT SERVICEABLE. I UNDERSTAND THIS CAR SHARE SAME PLATFORM WITH FORD ESCAPE WHICH HAD A RECALL ON THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY LAST YEAR. I WONDER THIS CAR MODE SHOULD BE RECALLED TO FIX THE PROBLEM. *TR
THIS CAR HAD A HISTORY OF LOST POWER/STALL WHILE DRIVING ON CITY AND HIGHWAYS WITHOUT ANY SYMPTOMS NOR WARNINGS. MY PARTICULAR CONCERN WAS LAST WEEK IT LOST POWER/STALL WHILE DRIVING ON MULTI-LANE EB I-96 FROM DETROIT TO GRAND RAPIDS, MI, WHICH WE HAD TO PERFORM EMERGENCY EVASIVE ACTIONS TO GET OUT OF THE BUSY HIGHWAY TRAFFIC TO…
Read full complaint
THIS CAR HAD A HISTORY OF LOST POWER/STALL WHILE DRIVING ON CITY AND HIGHWAYS WITHOUT ANY SYMPTOMS NOR WARNINGS. MY PARTICULAR CONCERN WAS LAST WEEK IT LOST POWER/STALL WHILE DRIVING ON MULTI-LANE EB I-96 FROM DETROIT TO GRAND RAPIDS, MI, WHICH WE HAD TO PERFORM EMERGENCY EVASIVE ACTIONS TO GET OUT OF THE BUSY HIGHWAY TRAFFIC TO AVOID COLLISION/ACCIDENT THAT MAY RESULT WITH PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH. IT HAD NO SYMPTOMS NOR WARNING. THE CAR SIMPLE LOST POWER REDUCE TO IDLE SPEED AT AROUND 600 RPM. IT FAILED TO RESPONSE TO CRUISE CONTROL, GAS PEDAL CONTROL. MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT THE CAUSE LIKELY THE THROTTLE BODY ASSEMBLY OR THE MASS AIRFLOW SWITCH. BOTH OF THEM ARE NOT SERVICEABLE PARTS AND NOT RELATE TO MAINTENANCE, WEAR OR TEAR. THIS CAR HAD BEEN SERVICED BY FORD DEALER SINCE WE BOUGHT IT NEW. NO ADVICE OR ANYTHING WAS GIVEN ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. I BELIEVE THIS IS A MANUFACTURER DEFECT WHICH HAS DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON SAFETY THAT NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED. THANK YOU. *TR
A WRENCH IS DISPLAYED ON THE DASH, AND THE ENGINE LOSES POWER. THE POWER IS NOT RESTORE UNTIL THE CAR IS TURNED OFF. *TR
Official recalls
421V158000 · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
Mar 10, 2021
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2007-2011 Ranger, 2006-2012 Fusion, Lincoln Zephyr, Lincoln MKZ, 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, 2007-2010 Ford Edge, and Lincoln MKX vehicles. The driver's side air bag inflator may explode due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to high absolute humidity, high temperatures, and high temperature cycling.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An inflator explosion may result in sharp metal fragments striking the driver or other occupants, resulting in serious injury or death.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the driver-side airbag inflator or module with an alternate one, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed on April 9, 2021 for the passenger side, and November 14, 2022 for the driver side. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S12.
19V904000 · Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module
Dec 18, 2019
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2006-2010 Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr and MKZ vehicles. The valves within the ABS Hydraulic Control Units (HCU) may react with brake fluids containing specific corrosion preventative additives. This reaction may cause the valves to not close properly.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the valves do not properly close, additional brake pedal travel may be required to stop the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will flush the brake system with DOT 4 fluid and install a new brake fluid reservoir cap. In addition, the HCU will be tested to detect a possible stuck valve condition, replacing the HCU as necessary. All services will be performed free of charge. The recall began April 1, 2021. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S54.
17V024000 · Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
Jan 10, 2017
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2012 Ford Fusion and Mustang and Lincoln Zephyr and MKZ vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan), and the U.S. Virgin Islands, or "Zone A." Additionally, unless included in "Zone A" above, Ford is recalling certain 2009 Ford Ranger, Edge, Fusion and Mustang, Lincoln MKX, MKZ and Zephyr and Mercury Milan vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia, or "Zone B." Additionally, unless included in "Zone A" or "Zone B" above, Ford is recalling certain 2007-2008 Ford Ranger, Edge and Lincoln MKX, 2006-2008 Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr and MKZ, 2005-2008 Ford Mustang and 2005-2006 Ford GT vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in the states of Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. These vehicles are equipped with certain air bag inflators assembled as part of the passenger frontal air bag modules used as original equipment or replacement equipment. In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the passenger frontal air bag, these inflators may rupture due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to absolute humidity and temperature cycling.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An inflator rupture may result in metal fragments striking the vehicle occupants resulting in serious injury or death.
Remedy: Owners are advised not to drive their vehicles until the repair has been performed. Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the passenger frontal air bag inflator, free of charge. Interim letters informing owners of the recall and that parts are not yet available began mailing March 1, 2017. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S01.
16V384000 · Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
May 31, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2007-2011 Ford Ranger vehicles, 2006-2011 Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan and Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ vehicles, 2007-2010 Ford Edge, Lincoln MKX vehicles, 2005-2006 Ford GT vehicles, and 2005-2011 Ford Mustang vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan), and the U.S. Virgin Islands, or "Zone A." Additionally, unless included in "Zone A" above, Ford is recalling certain model year 2007-2008 Ford Ranger, Edge and Lincoln MKX vehicles, 2006-2008 Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan and Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ vehicles, 2005-2006 Ford GT vehicles and 2005-2008 Ford Mustang vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, or "Zone B." Any vehicle not included in "Zone A", or "Zone B" is not included in the safety recall. These vehicles are equipped with certain air bag inflators assembled as part of the passenger frontal air bag modules, and used as original equipment or replacement equipment. In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the front air bags, these inflators may rupture due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to absolute humidity and temperature cycling.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An inflator rupture may result in metal fragments striking the vehicle occupants resulting in serious injury or death.
Remedy: Owners are advised not to drive their vehicles until the repair has been performed. Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the passenger frontal air bag inflator, free of charge. Ford mailed interim letters informing owners that parts are not yet available on July 15, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S01.
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
4EA18002 · Extended Braking Distance
Opened Apr 18, 2018 · Closed Jan 15, 2021
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Air:antilock:control Unit/module
On April 18, 2018, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Engineering Analysis (EA) 18-002 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year (MY) 2006-12 Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ, and MY 2006-11 Mercury Milan vehicles manufactured with Continental Automotive System?s ABS hydraulic control units (HCUs). Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (initiated by slippery or uneven surfaces) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the vehicle stopping distance increased beyond driver expectations.Inside the HCU are four hydraulic normally closed (NC) valves with zinc-coated moving armatures that control the flow of brake fluid. Unstable brake fluid can degrade over time, allow the brake fluid to gel, and corrosion to form on the armatures. The high-viscosity gelation and corrosion can cause the armatures to become stuck (open). In some cases, braking returns to normal when the armature(s) subsequently become unstuck. The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose with complainants reporting having (non-HCU) repairs conducted only to have the condition return.During the investigation, 14 HCUs from complaint vehicles were recovered, including seven from reported crashes. NHTSA?s Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) disassembled the HCUs, removed the four NC valves in each, and confirmed 22 of the 56 NC valves contained stuck armatures. On seven of the 14 HCUs, both front wheel armatures were stuck, on nine of the 14 HCUs two or three armatures were stuck. And 52 of the 56 NC armatures exhibited corrosion of the zinc coating. Forces required to extract stuck armatures from the valve sleeve were measured to range from 1.1 to 18.0 lbs. VRTC also conducted ABS braking tests on a variety of test surfaces that showed HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel and braking distances. Testing also showed that if the driver was able to apply four times the brake pedal force and two times the brake pedal travel, then high-vehicle decelerations could be achieved, however, single or multiple wheel lockups were also occurring.Based on Ford?s response to ODI?s July 20, 2018 information request letter, and complainants' reports to NHTSA, ODI identified a population of vehicles with an elevated level of field failure compared to vehicles produced both before and after.Further evaluation of Ford?s response identified that the brake fluid used to produce these vehicles, a specific formulation of a DOT3 fluid provided by CCI Corporation between February 2006 and July 2009, differed from the brake fluid used in other vehicle populations. ODI used the correlation of fluid specification and elevated field failures to identify a vehicle population exhibiting a defect trend. The complaints, crashes and injuries cited above, and the 14 recovered HCUs involve vehicles from this population.On December 18, 2019, Ford submitted safety recall (19V-904) to remedy HCU failures on the MY 2006-2010 Ford Fusion, Lincoln MKZ, and Mercury Milan vehicles manufactured with the suspect CCI brake fluid formulation. Ford will function test the HCU and replace the DOT 3 brake fluid with an improved DOT 4 brake fluid. If the HCU fails the function test, Ford will install an HCU with a different armature coating (black oxide). HCUs with black oxide coating were fully phased into Ford?s new vehicle production by MY 2016; these HCUs do not appear to be experiencing armature corrosion. ODI notes that the non-recalled EA18-002 subject vehicles, which were manufactured with a different specification brake fluid, did not display an elevated level of field failures like the recalled vehicles.Based on available information, Ford?s rec
PE16017 · Extended Braking Distance
Opened Dec 20, 2016 · Closed May 4, 2018
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes; Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Service Brakes
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
EA12009 · Floor Mat Interference With Accelerator
Opened Dec 12, 2012 · Closed Jun 12, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
On May 27, 2014, Ford Motor Company submitted recall 14E-028 (Ford recall #14S07) to correct a safety-related problem with certain driver's side Ford optional all-weather floor mats sold for use in model year 2006 through 2011 model year Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, and Lincoln MKZ vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant (HAP) from November 9, 2007, to October 31 ,2010.NHTSA testing determined that the original accessory all-weather mat with a single retention clip (Figure 1), may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle with the mat retained by the clip and rotated clockwise.Both the single- and double-clip (Figure 2) all-weather floor mats may interfere with the accelerator pedal return to idle when the mats are not secured by the retention clip(s).Testing showed that this can occur if the mats are moved forward from the clipped position approximately two inches into a position in which the rear edge of the mats will abut the retention clip(s) when installed singly and align with the clip(s) when stacked on another floor mat.The pedal interference incidents reviewed by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) include 1 crash and 9 incidents with allegations of brake friction materials smoking and/or requiring repair for heat related damage.The crash incident occurred after the parking brake was applied at speed, resulting in loss-of-control vehicle yaw event caused by lock-up of the rear tires.The spin-out resulted in a side impact collision with an oncoming vehicle in an opposing lane of traffic. For the 29 incidents with sufficient information available to make an assessment; 23 (79%) were controlled by the driver either shifting to neutral, turning the engine off, or both; 4 (14%) were ended by the driver either kicking the pedal free (2) or pulling the mat away from the pedal (2); and 2 (7%) were ended by the pedal freeing itself from the mat with no apparent driver action.None of the drivers who reacted to the incident by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off reported any difficulties with either action.The subject mats were sold by Ford and Lincoln dealers directly to customers as an optional accessory equipment item or, beginning in November 2007, the mats were also available as a factory installed accessory if ordered with a new vehicle.Ford estimates that approximately 82,579 affected driver's side all weather floor mats were sold worldwide; either over the counter through Ford dealerships or as original equipment.Owners that purchased the subject all-weather floor mats as a factory installed accessory with their new vehicle will be notified to return their all weather floor mats to their Ford or Lincoln Dealership in exchange for replacement mats.Owners of all other potentially affected vehicles will be notified that, if they have an affected Ford driver's side all weather floor mat, they should return their mats to the dealership in exchange for replacement mats.The VOQs associated with the closing of this investigation are: 10327597, 10332233, 10334211, 10335336, 10339330, 10348772 (and duplicate 10342572), 10372674, 10379562, 10415911, 10426255, 10434107, 10521053, 10554966.This investigation is hereby closed.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
On May 27, 2014, Ford Motor Company submitted recall 14E-028 (Ford recall #14S07) to correct a safety-related problem with certain driver's side Ford optional all-weather floor mats sold for use in model year 2006 through 2011 model year Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, and Lincoln MKZ vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant (HAP) from November 9, 2007, to October 31 ,2010.NHTSA testing determined that the original accessory all-weather mat with a single retention clip (Figure 1), may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle with the mat retained by the clip and rotated clockwise.Both the single- and double-clip (Figure 2) all-weather floor mats may interfere with the accelerator pedal return to idle when the mats are not secured by the retention clip(s).Testing showed that this can occur if the mats are moved forward from the clipped position approximately two inches into a position in which the rear edge of the mats will abut the retention clip(s) when installed singly and align with the clip(s) when stacked on another floor mat.The pedal interference incidents reviewed by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) include 1 crash and 9 incidents with allegations of brake friction materials smoking and/or requiring repair for heat related damage.The crash incident occurred after the parking brake was applied at speed, resulting in loss-of-control vehicle yaw event caused by lock-up of the rear tires.The spin-out resulted in a side impact collision with an oncoming vehicle in an opposing lane of traffic. For the 29 incidents with sufficient information available to make an assessment; 23 (79%) were controlled by the driver either shifting to neutral, turning the engine off, or both; 4 (14%) were ended by the driver either kicking the pedal free (2) or pulling the mat away from the pedal (2); and 2 (7%) were ended by the pedal freeing itself from the mat with no apparent driver action.None of the drivers who reacted to the incident by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off reported any difficulties with either action.The subject mats were sold by Ford and Lincoln dealers directly to customers as an optional accessory equipment item or, beginning in November 2007, the mats were also available as a factory installed accessory if ordered with a new vehicle.Ford estimates that approximately 82,579 affected driver's side all weather floor mats were sold worldwide; either over the counter through Ford dealerships or as original equipment.Owners that purchased the subject all-weather floor mats as a factory installed accessory with their new vehicle will be notified to return their all weather floor mats to their Ford or Lincoln Dealership in exchange for replacement mats.Owners of all other potentially affected vehicles will be notified that, if they have an affected Ford driver's side all weather floor mat, they should return their mats to the dealership in exchange for replacement mats.The VOQs associated with the closing of this investigation are: 10327597, 10332233, 10334211, 10335336, 10339330, 10348772 (and duplicate 10342572), 10372674, 10379562, 10415911, 10426255, 10434107, 10521053, 10554966.This investigation is hereby closed.
Vehicle Speed Control
On May 27, 2014, Ford Motor Company submitted recall 14E-028 (Ford recall #14S07) to correct a safety-related problem with certain driver's side Ford optional all-weather floor mats sold for use in model year 2006 through 2011 model year Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, and Lincoln MKZ vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant (HAP) from November 9, 2007, to October 31 ,2010.NHTSA testing determined that the original accessory all-weather mat with a single retention clip (Figure 1), may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle with the mat retained by the clip and rotated clockwise.Both the single- and double-clip (Figure 2) all-weather floor mats may interfere with the accelerator pedal return to idle when the mats are not secured by the retention clip(s).Testing showed that this can occur if the mats are moved forward from the clipped position approximately two inches into a position in which the rear edge of the mats will abut the retention clip(s) when installed singly and align with the clip(s) when stacked on another floor mat.The pedal interference incidents reviewed by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) include 1 crash and 9 incidents with allegations of brake friction materials smoking and/or requiring repair for heat related damage.The crash incident occurred after the parking brake was applied at speed, resulting in loss-of-control vehicle yaw event caused by lock-up of the rear tires.The spin-out resulted in a side impact collision with an oncoming vehicle in an opposing lane of traffic. For the 29 incidents with sufficient information available to make an assessment; 23 (79%) were controlled by the driver either shifting to neutral, turning the engine off, or both; 4 (14%) were ended by the driver either kicking the pedal free (2) or pulling the mat away from the pedal (2); and 2 (7%) were ended by the pedal freeing itself from the mat with no apparent driver action.None of the drivers who reacted to the incident by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off reported any difficulties with either action.The subject mats were sold by Ford and Lincoln dealers directly to customers as an optional accessory equipment item or, beginning in November 2007, the mats were also available as a factory installed accessory if ordered with a new vehicle.Ford estimates that approximately 82,579 affected driver's side all weather floor mats were sold worldwide; either over the counter through Ford dealerships or as original equipment.Owners that purchased the subject all-weather floor mats as a factory installed accessory with their new vehicle will be notified to return their all weather floor mats to their Ford or Lincoln Dealership in exchange for replacement mats.Owners of all other potentially affected vehicles will be notified that, if they have an affected Ford driver's side all weather floor mat, they should return their mats to the dealership in exchange for replacement mats.The VOQs associated with the closing of this investigation are: 10327597, 10332233, 10334211, 10335336, 10339330, 10348772 (and duplicate 10342572), 10372674, 10379562, 10415911, 10426255, 10434107, 10521053, 10554966.This investigation is hereby closed.
PE08060 · Tire Valve Cracking
Opened Oct 14, 2008 · Closed Apr 9, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Tires:valve
ON OCTOBER 14, 2008, ODI OPENED PE08-060 TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF CRACKED AND LEAKING SNAP-IN TIRE VALVES IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2007 VEHICLES MANUFACTURED BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY.THE VALVES WERE SUPPLIED TO FORD BY TOPSEAL AUTO-PARTS, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE SHANGHAI BAOLONG AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION IN CHINA.VALVES MADE BY TOPSEAL FOR AFTERMARKET SALE WERE THE SUBJECT OF TWO RECENT SAFETY RECALLS BY TECH INTERNATIONAL (08T-018) AND DILL AIR CONTROLS (08T-028), THE LATTER OF WHICH WAS INVESTIGATED BY ODI IN PE08-036 AND EA08-022.THE DEFECT CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY THE AFTERMARKET TIRE VALVE RECALLS BOTH INVOLVED INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING DUE TO ISSUES WITH THE SUPPLY OF ANTI-OZONANT CHEMICALS TO TOPSEAL FOR A PERIOD FROM JULY TO MID-NOVEMBER 2006.THE AFTERMARKET VALVES WERE COMPOUNDED WITH A BLEND OF EPDM AND NATURAL RUBBER, USING A RELATIVELY LOW PERCENTAGE OF EPDM (EPDM PROVIDES INHERENT RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING).HENCE, THE NEED FOR ANTI-OZONANT CHEMICALS AND THE PROBLEMS WITH CRACKING WHEN THOSE CHEMICALS WERE MISSING OR OUT OF SPECIFICATION IN SOME LOTS OF VALVES.BOTH RECALL CAMPAIGNS INVOLVED INSPECTION PROGRAMS TO IDENTIFY AND REPLACE VALVES WITH VISIBLE SURFACE CRACKING.ALTHOUGH THE TOPSEAL VALVES SUPPLIED TO FORD ALSO APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE ANTI-OZONANT SUPPLY ISSUES IN MID TO LATE-2006, FORD INDICATED THAT ITS VALVES WERE MADE AT A DIFFERENT TOPSEAL PRODUCTION LINE AND WERE COMPOUNDED WITH A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF EPDM RUBBER TO MEET MORE STRINGENT SPECIFICATIONS FROM FORD.ODI'S ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA PROVIDED BY FORD SHOWED THAT PROBLEMS WITH CRACKED TIRE VALVES WERE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER FOR MY 2007 VEHICLES PRODUCED FROM DECEMBER 2006 THROUGH MARCH 2007.FORD RESPONDED BY IMPLEMENTING CHANGES IN ITS MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR SNAP-IN RUBBER TIRE VALVES AND ALSO INCREASING THE QUALITY AND ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS FOR VALVES IMPORTED FOR USE IN ITS VEHICLES.WHILE THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM RATES ARE ELEVATED FOR SUBJECT VEHICLES PRODUCED FROM DECEMBER 2006 THROUGH MARCH 2007, THE RATES OF LEAKING VALVES ARE WELL BELOW ONE PERCENT OF PRODUCTION FOR EACH OF THE PEAK MONTHS FOR ALL OF THE AFFECTED MODELS.A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING SYSTEMS (TPMS) WHICH WARN THE DRIVER WHEN ANY TIRE PRESSURES DROPS BELOW 25 PERCENT OF RECOMMENDED INFLATION PRESSURE. AS OUTLINED IN A LETTER TO ODI DATED APRIL 6, 2009, FORD HAS AGREED TO SEND LETTERS TO OWNERS OF CERTAIN MY 2007 AND 2008 FORD, LINCOLN AND MERCURY VEHICLES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CRACKING CONCERN. LETTERS WILL BE SENT TO OWNERS OF VEHICLES BUILT FROM NOVEMBER 2006 THROUGH MAY 2007.OWNERS CAN OPT FOR A FREE DEALER INSPECTION.VALVES EXHIBITING SURFACE CRACKS OR AIR LEAKAGE RELATED TO OZONE ATTACK WILL BE REPLACED BY FORD UNDER ITS NORMAL WARRANTY TERMS.FORD EXPECTS TO SEND THE LETTER BY APPROXIMATELY MID-MAY 2009. BASED ON THE USE OF TPMS IN THE MAJORITY OF SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE RELATIVELY LOW RATES OF REPAIRS ASSOCIATED WITH LEAKING VALVES AND RESULTANT TIRE DAMAGE, ODI BELIEVES THAT THE ACTIONS FORD HAS AGREED TO TAKE WILL PROVIDE EFFECTIVE AND EXPEDITIOUS RESOLUTION FOR VEHICLES THAT WERE BUILT DURING THE PERIOD WHEN VALVES WITH INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING WERE MOST LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN USED IN VEHICLE PRODUCTION.FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER WOULD NOT BE AN EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF AGENCY RESOURCES.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO