IllustrationI DON'T HAVE A CLUE . IT'S JUST BUST TO FLAME
2008 Ford Fusion
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2008 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
300–25K
6225–50K
11650–75K
18575–100K
234100–150K
135150K+
762 reports with mileage · 591 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 638 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes. Review the 479 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Structure. Review the 82 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
53 crash reports6 fire reports21 injury reports
Electrical System complaints
28 reportsMANY TIMES AFTER THIS INITIAL INCIDENT, MY 2008 FORD FUSION WOULD AGAIN NOT START UPON FIRST FULL TURNING OF IGNITION KEY. THEN UPON SECOND ATTEMPT IT STARTS. THE FIRST KEY TURNING RESULTS IN CRANK BUT NO TURNOVER OF ENGINE, LONG CRANK. THIS HAPPENS AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH, SOMETIMES 2-3 TIMES A MONTH. INVOICE [XXX], DATED…
Read full complaint
MANY TIMES AFTER THIS INITIAL INCIDENT, MY 2008 FORD FUSION WOULD AGAIN NOT START UPON FIRST FULL TURNING OF IGNITION KEY. THEN UPON SECOND ATTEMPT IT STARTS. THE FIRST KEY TURNING RESULTS IN CRANK BUT NO TURNOVER OF ENGINE, LONG CRANK. THIS HAPPENS AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH, SOMETIMES 2-3 TIMES A MONTH. INVOICE [XXX], DATED 3/1/2011 AND ODOMETER READING 53088, FROM FLUORESCENT GARAGE & RADIATOR; 549 ST. FERDINAND; FLUORESCENT, MO, DESCRIBES MY ATTEMPT TO SOLVE PUZZLING LONG CRANK. THEIR INVOICE DESCRIPTION OF WORK, RELATED TO THE PROBLEM: "HARD TO START SOME TIMES LONG CRANK, NO CODES STORED, SCAN DATA NORMAL. CLEANED ELECTRIC THROTTLE PLATE. FUEL PUMP MARGINAL ON SCOPE. POSSIBLE ECM UPDATE/ FLASH PER/ IDENTIFIX.". THIS DID NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. SO FEW DAYS LATER, HAD MY 2008 FORD FUSION CHECKED OUT FOR PROBLEM AT DAVE SINCLAIR AUTO, FORD DEALER IN ST. PETERS, MISSOURI, SINCE CAR WAS WITHIN 100,000 MILES WARRANTY, INVOICE [XXX], ODOMETER READING 53195, DATED 3/4/2011. INVOICE DESCRIPTION: "A CRANKS. WONT START. SUSPECTS FUEL PUMP. CAUSE: 06 EEC TEST FOUND PATS CODES, NONE RELATED TO FUEL PUMP. REPROGRAMMED PCM. ALL TESTS PASS. 97233 CP 95.00 PARTS: 0.00 LABOR: 95.00 5.70 ENVIRONMENTAL FEE. TOTAL CHG 101.13 W SALES TAX. TECHNICIAN SAID THEY REPLACED FUEL PUMP AND I HAD TO SIGN STATEMENT THAT THEY WERE NOT LIABLE FOR FURTHER WORK IF FUEL PUMP WAS REPLACED. THIS ANNOYED ME. MY DAD, [XXX] , WORKED AT THE HAZELWOOD, MISSOURI LINCOLN-MERCURY-FORD PLANT FOR MANY YEARS. IT WAS DIFFICULT TO MAKE THE PROBLEM EVIDENT AS IT OCCURRED RANDOMLY. THIS DID NOT SOLVE PROBLEM EITHER. PROBLEM CONTINUES TODAY, ALL ELSE OK ON CAR. I AM WONDERING IF ORIGINAL KEY BOBS SOMETIMES DON'T ALLOW THE START, JUST AS SOMETIMES THEY DON'T OPEN THE DOORS. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
CAR PARKED AT THE DRIVEWAY, STARTED THE CAR, SEE AN ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT IN THE DASHBOARD, TRIED TO ACCELERATE GAS PEDAL, IT APPEARS THERE'S NO ACCELERATING POWER. RPM UNSTABLE, ENGINE SHAKING. CALLED AAA ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE, AAA TECHNICIAN CHECKED AND STARTED THE CAR ITS THE SAME ISSUE. HE RECOMMENDED TO DISCONNECT THE…
Read full complaint
CAR PARKED AT THE DRIVEWAY, STARTED THE CAR, SEE AN ENGINE LIGHT AND WRENCH LIGHT IN THE DASHBOARD, TRIED TO ACCELERATE GAS PEDAL, IT APPEARS THERE'S NO ACCELERATING POWER. RPM UNSTABLE, ENGINE SHAKING. CALLED AAA ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE, AAA TECHNICIAN CHECKED AND STARTED THE CAR ITS THE SAME ISSUE. HE RECOMMENDED TO DISCONNECT THE POSITIVE BATTERY CABLE TO RESET COMPUTER SYSTEM. DISCONNECTED WAIT FOR 10 SECONDS AND RE-START THE ENGINE, THEN EVERYTHING WORKED. TOOK THE CAR TO A FORD DEALER, SERVICE ADVISOR BELIEVE TO BE THE ELECTRONIC THROTTLE BODY PROBLEM. VERIFIED IN THE COMPUTER IF THERE'S A RECALL FOR 2008 FORD FUSION, HOWEVER NOTHING REPORTED AT THIS TIME. *TR
BELT IDLER PULLEY ATTACHMENT BOLT BROKE OFF WHILE NEGOTIATING A CORNER, DETACHING THE PULLEY FROM THE FRONT OF THE MOTOR CAUSING SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER STEERING ASSIST, ALTERNATOR CHARGING, AND ENGINE COOLING. FORD FUSION EQUIPPED WITH THE 2.3L MOTOR. THIS ISSUE HAS NOW HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES, WITH MULTIPLE PARTS REPLACED EACH …
Read full complaint
BELT IDLER PULLEY ATTACHMENT BOLT BROKE OFF WHILE NEGOTIATING A CORNER, DETACHING THE PULLEY FROM THE FRONT OF THE MOTOR CAUSING SUDDEN LOSS OF POWER STEERING ASSIST, ALTERNATOR CHARGING, AND ENGINE COOLING. FORD FUSION EQUIPPED WITH THE 2.3L MOTOR. THIS ISSUE HAS NOW HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES, WITH MULTIPLE PARTS REPLACED EACH TIME IN AN ATTEMPT TO FIX THE UNDERLYING ISSUE. A QUICK SEARCH ONLINE REVEALS THIS TO BE A VERY COMMON PROBLEM WITH THE FORD/MAZDA 2.3L 4 CYLINDER. *JS
AFTER I PURCHASE MY VEHICLE ABOUT 2 1/2 YEARS AGO I CONTACTED MY DEALER MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PAST AND I LET THEM KNOW IT FELT LIKE MY CAR WAS NOT ACCELERATING PROPERLY AND I WAS TOLD THAT'S JUST HOW FORD'S DRIVE. EVENTUALLY THE DEALER ENDED UP HAVING TO REPLACE THE COIL STATING THAT IT HAD BEEN BURNED OUT IN THE LLAMA PROBLEM…
Read full complaint
AFTER I PURCHASE MY VEHICLE ABOUT 2 1/2 YEARS AGO I CONTACTED MY DEALER MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PAST AND I LET THEM KNOW IT FELT LIKE MY CAR WAS NOT ACCELERATING PROPERLY AND I WAS TOLD THAT'S JUST HOW FORD'S DRIVE. EVENTUALLY THE DEALER ENDED UP HAVING TO REPLACE THE COIL STATING THAT IT HAD BEEN BURNED OUT IN THE LLAMA PROBLEM SHOULD BE FIXED. NOW BACK IN AUGUST IT JUST GOT COMPLETELY WORSE. I WAS DRIVING AND ATTEMPTED TO ACCELERATE AT A GREEN LIGHT AND MY CAR WOULD NOT PROCEED, AT THAT POINT I CONTINUED TO PRESS ON THE GAS AND EVENTUALLY MY CAR SLOWLY PICKED UP AND BEGIN TO GO NOW EVERY TIME I ACCELERATE MY CAR FEELS AS IF IT IS STALLING. *TR
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AND MY CAR WOULD NOT GO PASS 20 MPH. I HADN'T PREVIOUS HAD ANY PROBLEMS FROM MY VEHICLE. THE CAR SHUT OFF AND I GOT IT TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP. THE MECHANIC TOLD ME THAT I WOULD NEED A NEW COMPUTER AND MY CURRENT COMPUTER WAS BURNING OUT MY IGNITION COILS. IT TURNED OUT TO BE ABOUT ~$1800 WORTH OF W…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AND MY CAR WOULD NOT GO PASS 20 MPH. I HADN'T PREVIOUS HAD ANY PROBLEMS FROM MY VEHICLE. THE CAR SHUT OFF AND I GOT IT TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP. THE MECHANIC TOLD ME THAT I WOULD NEED A NEW COMPUTER AND MY CURRENT COMPUTER WAS BURNING OUT MY IGNITION COILS. IT TURNED OUT TO BE ABOUT ~$1800 WORTH OF WORK. I WAS TOLD THAT THIS PROBLEM IS BECOMING MORE COMMON AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE A RECALL ON THE COMPUTER AND IGNITION COILS SOON IF IT'S NOT ALREADY IN THE WORKS. OF COURSE, THE ONLY RECALL I NOTICED FOR THIS VEHICLE IS THE FLOOR MATS. THIS SAME PROBLEM OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY 2 WEEKS AFTER THE CAR WAS FIXED. *TR
2008 FORD FUSION. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO ALL WEATHER FLOOR MAT ISSUES WITH ACCELERATOR PEDAL RECALL NOTICE. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED SHE DID NOT USE RUBBER FLOOR MATS IN HER VEHICLE. HOWEVER, ON JULY 25, 2012 SHE EXPERIENCED A FRIGHTENING SUDDEN ACCELERATION WHEN SHE SHIFTED FROM PARK TO REVERSE AND THEN TO DRIVE. SHE …
Read full complaint
2008 FORD FUSION. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO ALL WEATHER FLOOR MAT ISSUES WITH ACCELERATOR PEDAL RECALL NOTICE. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED SHE DID NOT USE RUBBER FLOOR MATS IN HER VEHICLE. HOWEVER, ON JULY 25, 2012 SHE EXPERIENCED A FRIGHTENING SUDDEN ACCELERATION WHEN SHE SHIFTED FROM PARK TO REVERSE AND THEN TO DRIVE. SHE NOTICED SOME UNUSUAL MOVEMENT AS SHE SHIFTED INTO REVERSE AND THEN TO DRIVE, THERE WAS DEFINITELY UNWANTED ACCELERATION. SHE WAS IN A PARKING LOT AND MANAGED TO GET THE VEHICLE STOPPED AND TURNED IT OFF. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER. THE FLOOR MATS WERE NOT IN THE WAY OF THE ACCELERATOR WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED. THE DEALER REPLACED THE BATTERY, DUE TO LOW VOLTAGE CODES AND IT WAS EXPLAINED TO HER, THE BATTERY WAS THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. *JB
MY CAR WOULDN'T ACCELERATE, THEN MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON. WITHIN 20 MY CAR COMPLETELY SHUTS OFF. HAD TO TOW IT TO A MECHANIC, TO TELL ME THE COMPUTER SYSTEM IN MY IS BURNING UP THE COILS IN MY ENGINE. I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP TO SEE IF THERE WAS A RECALL ON THIS, AND THERE WAS NOT. IN FACT AS I LOOK ON THE INTERNET I HAVE …
Read full complaint
MY CAR WOULDN'T ACCELERATE, THEN MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT COMES ON. WITHIN 20 MY CAR COMPLETELY SHUTS OFF. HAD TO TOW IT TO A MECHANIC, TO TELL ME THE COMPUTER SYSTEM IN MY IS BURNING UP THE COILS IN MY ENGINE. I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP TO SEE IF THERE WAS A RECALL ON THIS, AND THERE WAS NOT. IN FACT AS I LOOK ON THE INTERNET I HAVE SIMILAR STORIES ABOUT THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM. I TOLD THE DEALERSHIP THAT AND THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO. ALSO ON THIS SITE I READING HOW SOME OF THEM THE DASHBOARD CURLS UP, MINE IS ALSO DOING THAT. I BOUGHT THIS CAR BRAND NEW, JUST PAID IT OFF AND THIS HAPPENS. I EVEN FINANCE THROUGH FORD, YOU THINK THEY WOULD TRY TO HELP. *TR
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 FORD FUSION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE POWER LOCKS FAILED. IN ADDITION, THE REAR DRIVERS AND PASSENGERS SIDE POWER LOCKS FAILED. THE CONTACT ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE WINDOW HAD TO BE OPENED MANUALLY AND THE DOORS WOULD HAVE TO BE OPENED FROM THE OUTSIDE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 FORD FUSION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE POWER LOCKS FAILED. IN ADDITION, THE REAR DRIVERS AND PASSENGERS SIDE POWER LOCKS FAILED. THE CONTACT ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE WINDOW HAD TO BE OPENED MANUALLY AND THE DOORS WOULD HAVE TO BE OPENED FROM THE OUTSIDE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. . THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 98,000.
TRAVELED FROM CT TO MARATHON, FL, ARRIVING AFTER NOON. WITHIN SIGHT OF THE HOTEL DESTINATION THE ENGINE BEGAN TO BREAK DOWN AND RUN ROUGH. I ALSO SMELLED SMOKE. I MANAGED TO GET TO THE HOTEL PARKING LOT BEFORE THE ENGINE QUIT ALTOGETHER. A LOCAL SHOP DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS TWO CYLINDER MISFIRES AND FAILED IGNITION COILS. …
Read full complaint
TRAVELED FROM CT TO MARATHON, FL, ARRIVING AFTER NOON. WITHIN SIGHT OF THE HOTEL DESTINATION THE ENGINE BEGAN TO BREAK DOWN AND RUN ROUGH. I ALSO SMELLED SMOKE. I MANAGED TO GET TO THE HOTEL PARKING LOT BEFORE THE ENGINE QUIT ALTOGETHER. A LOCAL SHOP DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS TWO CYLINDER MISFIRES AND FAILED IGNITION COILS. 57 MI FROM THE DEALER IN KEY WEST AND OVER 100 MI FROM MIAMI, I ELECTED TO HAVE A LOCAL ASE CERTIFIED SHOP REPLACE THE COILS. REFLASHING THE PCM SHOWED A NEW SET OF CODES AND THAT THE PCM WAS FAILED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. ACCORDING TO MACHADO FORD IN MIAMI, THERE WERE NO PCMS IN FORD'S INVENTORY IN ALL OF THE US. SEARCHED FOR REMANUFACTURED PCMS WAS FRUITLESS AS WELL. FINALLY CONTACTED ARMSTRONG FORD IN HOMESTEAD AND THEY SAID THEY COULD FIX THE CAR. $996.56 TO THE SHOP IN BIG PINE KEY. TRANSPORTED THE CAR TO HOMESTEAD ON FRI 2/21. MONDAY THE DEALER HAD LOCATED A PCM AND REPLACEMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER WARRANTY TUESDAY AFTERNOON. I PICKED UP THE CAR ON WEDNESDAY AND LEFT FOR JACKSONVILLE IN THE AFTERNOON. 120 MI NORTH IN JUPITOR, THE ENGINE FAILED AGAIN. WE SAT ON THE SIDE OF THE FL TURNPIKE'S 70 MPH TRAFFIC UNTIL WE COULD HAVE THE CAR TRANSPORTED TO MULLINAX FORD IN WEST PALM, ARRIVING AFTER THE SERVICE DEPT HAD CLOSED. THE NEXT DAY I LEARNED THAT ALL THREE CATALYTIC CONVERTERS WERE PLUGGED AND NEEDED REPLACEMENT. TWO CONVERTERS WERE AVAILABLE AND WERE REPLACED ON 2/28. THE THIRD CONVERTER WAS BACK ORDERED WITH AN EXPECTED AVAILABILITY OF 3/31. SINCE THE REMAINING UNIT HAD DISCHARGED ITS CONTENTS INTO THE TAILPIPE AND WAS DISCARDED, I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE BACK TO CT. TASCA FORD IN BERLIN CT IS STILL WAITING FOR THE REPLACEMENT CONVERTER AFTER NUMEROUS EXTENSIONS OF DELIVERY DATES FROM FORD. THE FORD CUSTOMER SERV REP REFUSED TO RETURN MY CALLS. MY TOTAL OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES EXCEED $4000 TO DATE. *TR
Official recalls
521V158000 · 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.
21V081000 · Air Bags:frontal; Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
Feb 16, 2021
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2005-2014 Mustang, 2004-2011 Ranger, 2009-2011 Mercury Milan, 2006 Ford GT, 2008-2012 Fusion, 2007-2010 Edge and Lincoln MKX, and 2009-2010 Lincoln MKZ vehicles. These vehicles may be equipped with a driver or passenger frontal air bag inflator used as a replacement service part, that may explode due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to high absolute humidity, temperature and temperature cycling.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the frontal air bag, 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 inspect the driver and passenger air bag module, and replace either the module or the inflator, if necessary, free of charge. The recall began March 17, 2021. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S05.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2005-2014 Mustang, 2004-2011 Ranger, 2009-2011 Mercury Milan, 2006 Ford GT, 2008-2012 Fusion, 2007-2010 Edge and Lincoln MKX, and 2009-2010 Lincoln MKZ vehicles. These vehicles may be equipped with a driver or passenger frontal air bag inflator used as a replacement service part, that may explode due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to high absolute humidity, temperature and temperature cycling.
Consequence: In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the frontal air bag, 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 inspect the driver and passenger air bag module, and replace either the module or the inflator, if necessary, free of charge. The recall began March 17, 2021. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S05.
Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2005-2014 Mustang, 2004-2011 Ranger, 2009-2011 Mercury Milan, 2006 Ford GT, 2008-2012 Fusion, 2007-2010 Edge and Lincoln MKX, and 2009-2010 Lincoln MKZ vehicles. These vehicles may be equipped with a driver or passenger frontal air bag inflator used as a replacement service part, that may explode due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to high absolute humidity, temperature and temperature cycling.
Consequence: In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the frontal air bag, 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 inspect the driver and passenger air bag module, and replace either the module or the inflator, if necessary, free of charge. The recall began March 17, 2021. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S05.
Air Bags:frontal
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2005-2014 Mustang, 2004-2011 Ranger, 2009-2011 Mercury Milan, 2006 Ford GT, 2008-2012 Fusion, 2007-2010 Edge and Lincoln MKX, and 2009-2010 Lincoln MKZ vehicles. These vehicles may be equipped with a driver or passenger frontal air bag inflator used as a replacement service part, that may explode due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to high absolute humidity, temperature and temperature cycling.
Consequence: In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the frontal air bag, 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 inspect the driver and passenger air bag module, and replace either the module or the inflator, if necessary, free of charge. The recall began March 17, 2021. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S05.
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
5EA18002 · 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.
PE10019 · Accel Pedal Interference - Acc Floormat
Opened May 28, 2010 · Closed Jan 11, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
Unsecured mats may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle. A heel blocker in the floor pan provides a platform that may lift an unsecured mat into contact with the pedal. Ford introduced new pedals as a running change early in model year (MY) 2010 vehicles. Analysis of complaints received by ODI and Ford show elevated rates of pedal entrapment incidents in MY 2008 through early 2010 production vehicles. Incidents typically occur following hard pedal applications to pass slower traffic or when merging into faster traffic. Drivers allege continued high engine power after releasing the accelerator pedal and difficulty braking, including reports that the incident was controlled by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off. Drivers and service technicians reference observing evidence of mat interference or note unsecured Ford or aftermarket all weather floor mats in post-incident inspections.Based on information gathered during the Preliminary Evaluation the population being investigated has been narrowed to model years 2008 to 2010.This investigation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis on MY 2008 through early-2010 vehicles (produced through September 2009) to further assess the scope, frequency and safety consequences of the alleged defect.The VOQs associated with the opening of this Engineering Analysis are: 10479693, 10415911, 10379562, 10372674, 10345830, 10342572, 10339330, 10335336, 10334211, 10332233, 10331160, 10329659, 10327597, 10320011, 10232027, 10214131
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