NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes complaints
479 reportsClear category filter150,000 miles · Jun 1, 2017
Service Brakes
I WAS DRIVING ON A ROAD AND WENT OVER A POTHOLE. AFTER DOING THAT, THE BRAKES WENT SOFT AND I HAD TO PUSH THE BRAKES ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR TO GET THE CAR TO STOP AND, EVEN THEN, I FELT THAT THE CAR BARELY STOPPED. THE CAR WAS NOT BRAKING PROPERLY AND THE STOPPING DISTANCE NEEDED TO STOP VARIED EACH TIME I PUSHED THE BRAKE AFT…
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING ON A ROAD AND WENT OVER A POTHOLE. AFTER DOING THAT, THE BRAKES WENT SOFT AND I HAD TO PUSH THE BRAKES ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR TO GET THE CAR TO STOP AND, EVEN THEN, I FELT THAT THE CAR BARELY STOPPED. THE CAR WAS NOT BRAKING PROPERLY AND THE STOPPING DISTANCE NEEDED TO STOP VARIED EACH TIME I PUSHED THE BRAKE AFTER THE INCIDENT. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. THIS HAS OCCURRED WITH MY BRAKES THREE TIMES IN THE PAST TWO YEARS AND IN EACH INSTANCE, I'VE ALMOST BEEN IN ACCIDENTS BECAUSE OF THE VARYING STOPPING DISTANCE NEEDED. IT ALWAYS SEEMS TO HAPPEN WHEN I'VE ENCOUNTERED ROUGH ROAD CONDITIONS OR HAD TO SLAM ON MY BRAKES. IT IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND MAKES ME FEEL UNSAFE DRIVING MY VEHICLE. I'VE HAD TO TAKE THE CAR TO BE SERVICED SEVERAL TIMES AND HAVE SPENT OVER $1,000 TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION.
NHTSA ODI #10992650
148,000 miles · May 27, 2017
Service Brakes
I HAVE EXPERIENCED DANGEROUS BRAKING ISSUES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ENGAGEMENT OF THE ABS SYSTEM. IT FIRST HAPPENED ON WET ROADS NOT TOO LONG AFTER CHANGING BRAKES (ROTORS/PADS). A FIRM BRAKING WAS BEING DONE, BUT IT WASN'T ENOUGH TO KICK IN ABS UNTIL GOING OVER A PAINTED RR CROSSING SIGN ON THE ROAD. THE PAINT WAS SLIPPERY AND…
Read full complaint
I HAVE EXPERIENCED DANGEROUS BRAKING ISSUES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ENGAGEMENT OF THE ABS SYSTEM. IT FIRST HAPPENED ON WET ROADS NOT TOO LONG AFTER CHANGING BRAKES (ROTORS/PADS). A FIRM BRAKING WAS BEING DONE, BUT IT WASN'T ENOUGH TO KICK IN ABS UNTIL GOING OVER A PAINTED RR CROSSING SIGN ON THE ROAD. THE PAINT WAS SLIPPERY AND CAUSED THE ABS TO FIRE AND IMMEDIATELY IT FELT LIKE THE BRAKES WENT OUT ENTIRELY. PUSHING ALMOST TO THE FLOOR WOULD STOP THE CAR AND AT THAT POINT THEY BRAKES FELT STRONG. THE PROBLEM WENT AWAY AFTER ABOUT 30 MINUTES. IT HAPPENED AGAIN A SECOND TIME WHEN MAKING A LEFT TURN. I WAS GOING A BIT TO FAST INTO THE TURN AND THE ROAD WAS ROUGH. SAME SYMPTOMS. IT'S HAPPENED PROBABLY 4 OR 5 TIMES IN TOTAL. ONCE IT HAPPENED MAKING A RIGHT TURN INTO A BUSINESS. I WENT OVER A BUMP IN THE ROAD THAT YOU NORMALLY PAY NO ATTENTION TO (RAISED AREA WHERE A PIPE OR SOMETHING WAS DUG UP AND REPLACED, THEN PAVED OVER). THE IMMEDIATE LOSS OF PEDAL FIRMNESS AND BRAKING POWER CAUSED ME TO OVERSHOOT THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ENTRANCE. IF A CAR HAD BEEN EXITING, I WOULD HAVE HIT IT. MOST OF THE TIME THE PROBLEM RESOLVES ITSELF IN A DAY OR SO, BUT THE LONGEST LASTED ABOUT 5 DAYS. I'M HESITANT TO GET IT FIXED BECAUSE THE HYDRAULIC CONTROL UNIT IS VERY EXPENSIVE. INTERNET RESEARCH ALSO POINTS OUT THAT THIS VERY COMMON ISSUE IS BEING DIAGNOSED AS A FAILING MASTER CYLINDER AND MANY PEOPLE INDICATE THAT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM. AS OF NOW, THIS IS NOT FIXED. I DRIVE MUCH MORE CAUTIOUSLY, ESPECIALLY IN SLIPPERY CONDITIONS.
NHTSA ODI #10991898
57,682 miles · May 22, 2017
Service Brakes
DRIVER HIT POTHOLE/BUMP WHILE DRIVING WHICH ACTIVATED THE ABS BRAKE SYSTEM. BRAKE PETAL WENT TO THE FLOOR, REMAINED VERY SOFT AND IS VERY CLOSE TO THE FLOOR. BRAKES WORK BUT HAVE TO BE DEPRESSED ALMOST TO THE FLOOR. INFORMED ABS CONTROL/HYDRAULIC ASSEMBLY NEEDS GO BE REPLACED. THE ABS PUMP/HYDRAULIC ASSEMBLY FAILED WHICH IS A…
Read full complaint
DRIVER HIT POTHOLE/BUMP WHILE DRIVING WHICH ACTIVATED THE ABS BRAKE SYSTEM. BRAKE PETAL WENT TO THE FLOOR, REMAINED VERY SOFT AND IS VERY CLOSE TO THE FLOOR. BRAKES WORK BUT HAVE TO BE DEPRESSED ALMOST TO THE FLOOR. INFORMED ABS CONTROL/HYDRAULIC ASSEMBLY NEEDS GO BE REPLACED. THE ABS PUMP/HYDRAULIC ASSEMBLY FAILED WHICH IS A BRAKING SAFETY HAZARD.
NHTSA ODI #10991069
105,000 miles · May 21, 2017
Service Brakes
BRAKES WERE OPERATIONAL W/ NORMAL FUNCTION/ RESPONSE. I FIRMLY PRESSED THE PEDAL, TO AVOID A POTHOLE, TRAVELING OVER A RAILROAD CROSSING. IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, THE BRAKES BECAME/REMAIN 30% EFFECTIVE, W/ NO LOSS OF FLUID. I'VE HAD MY MECHANIC REPLACE THE ABS MODULE & MASTER CYLINDER TO NO AVAIL/ SUCCESS. I'LL NOW TAKE TO DEALER…
Read full complaint
BRAKES WERE OPERATIONAL W/ NORMAL FUNCTION/ RESPONSE. I FIRMLY PRESSED THE PEDAL, TO AVOID A POTHOLE, TRAVELING OVER A RAILROAD CROSSING. IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, THE BRAKES BECAME/REMAIN 30% EFFECTIVE, W/ NO LOSS OF FLUID. I'VE HAD MY MECHANIC REPLACE THE ABS MODULE & MASTER CYLINDER TO NO AVAIL/ SUCCESS. I'LL NOW TAKE TO DEALER FOR DIAGNOSTICS, SO I MAY UNLOAD/SELL IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER REPAIRS.
NHTSA ODI #10990787
133,000 miles · May 20, 2017
Service Brakes
HIT A POTHOLE IN ROAD JUST PRIOR TO STOP LIGHT, BRAKES DID NOT STOP CAR UNTIL AFTER GOING THROUGH INTERSECTION, THEN TOOK A LONG TIME TO STOP EVEN AT SLOW SPEEDS WHILE DRIVING TO REPAIR SHOP. I HAD TO PUSH BRAKE PEDAL NEARLY TO THE FLOOR TO GET IT TO STOP, EVEN AT SLOW SPEEDS.
NHTSA ODI #10990698
127,000 miles · May 19, 2017
Service Brakes
BRAKING SYSTEM PROBLEMS. GOING TO STOP WITH BRAKES VERY SOFT OR NON EXISTENT. MOST OF THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH OEM PARTS TO NO AVAIL. PROBLEM TO BE HYDRAULIC CONTROL UNIT FOR ABS SYSTEM. ALMOST CAUSED NUMEROUS ACCIDENTS BECAUSE THE CAR WOULD NOT STOP WHEN THE BRAKE PETAL WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR. STARTED AFTER ABS …
Read full complaint
BRAKING SYSTEM PROBLEMS. GOING TO STOP WITH BRAKES VERY SOFT OR NON EXISTENT. MOST OF THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH OEM PARTS TO NO AVAIL. PROBLEM TO BE HYDRAULIC CONTROL UNIT FOR ABS SYSTEM. ALMOST CAUSED NUMEROUS ACCIDENTS BECAUSE THE CAR WOULD NOT STOP WHEN THE BRAKE PETAL WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR. STARTED AFTER ABS SYSTEM KICKED IN LAST WINTER. THE CAR WAS IN MOTION AND ROADS WERE SLIGHTLY ICY. HAPPENED AGAIN LAST NIGHT MAY 18 2017 AT 1130 AT NIGHT. CAR FAILED TO STOP AT INTERSECTION AT MY WORK IN BUTLER PA PULLING ON TO ROUTE 8 A MAJOR HIGHWAY. CAR FINALLY STOPPED ABOUT AN 1/8 TH OF WAY THREW THEN LIGHT CHANGED TO GREEN THEN PROCEED IN MY WAY HOME BRAKES RETURNED TO THE NORMAL SOFT PETAL AND MADE IT HOME SAFELY.
NHTSA ODI #10990599
126,000 miles · May 19, 2017
Service Brakes
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 FORD FUSION. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO STOP THE VEHICLE AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED, BUT FAILED TO OPERATE AS INTENDED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS SPONGY AND ALLOWED THE BRAKE PEDAL TO TRAVEL TO THE FLOORBOARD BEFORE BEING ABLE TO BRING THE VEHICLE TO A COMPLETE STOP. …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 FORD FUSION. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO STOP THE VEHICLE AT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED, BUT FAILED TO OPERATE AS INTENDED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS SPONGY AND ALLOWED THE BRAKE PEDAL TO TRAVEL TO THE FLOORBOARD BEFORE BEING ABLE TO BRING THE VEHICLE TO A COMPLETE STOP. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED AFTER THE BRAKES WERE SERVICED BY AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE INDEPENDENT MECHANIC AND THE BRAKE LINES WERE BLED; HOWEVER, THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED WHENEVER THE VEHICLE ENCOUNTERED A ROUGH ROADWAY. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ABS WARNING INDICATOR ILLUMINATED AND THE BRAKING FUNCTION WOULD DIMINISH. THE CONTACT STATED THAT IF THE VEHICLE WAS TURNED OFF AND THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED SEVERAL TIMES, THE VEHICLE COULD THEN BE TURNED ON AND WOULD OPERATE AS INTENDED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 126,000.
NHTSA ODI #10990570
76,000 miles · May 13, 2017
Service BrakesCrash
ABS HYDRAULIC CONTROL UNIT, I HAD GOTTEN REAR ENDED IN OCTOBER 2016 AS I WAS TURNING INTO MY HOUSING COMPLEX AND I HIT THE BRAKES AFTER I WAS HIT AND THE PEDAL HAD GONE COMPLETELY TO THE FLOOR AND I HAD LOST BRAKE PRESSURE AND IT WAS DIFFICULT TO STOP. I TOOK IT INTO A REPUTABLE REPAIR SHOP AND THEY SAID THERE WAS NO ISSUE WITH …
Read full complaint
ABS HYDRAULIC CONTROL UNIT, I HAD GOTTEN REAR ENDED IN OCTOBER 2016 AS I WAS TURNING INTO MY HOUSING COMPLEX AND I HIT THE BRAKES AFTER I WAS HIT AND THE PEDAL HAD GONE COMPLETELY TO THE FLOOR AND I HAD LOST BRAKE PRESSURE AND IT WAS DIFFICULT TO STOP. I TOOK IT INTO A REPUTABLE REPAIR SHOP AND THEY SAID THERE WAS NO ISSUE WITH MY BRAKES AND NOW THEY ARE ONLY GETTING WORSE AND WITH THE RESEARCH THAT I HAVE BEEN DOING IT SEEMS THAT THIS IS A PRETTY COMMON ISSUE WITH FORD FUSIONS AND FORD IS NOT DOING A RECALL FOR THIS $600 PART. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PART OF A VEHICLE AND I HOPE THAT THIS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND FORD WILL ISSUE A RECALL SO CUSTOMERS AREN'T PAYING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS DUE TO A PROBLEM WITH THEIR ENGINEERING ON THIS PART.
NHTSA ODI #10985561
38,000 miles · May 10, 2017
Service Brakes
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 FORD FUSION. WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND TRAVELED TO THE FLOORBOARD. THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO STOP AFTER PUMPING THE BRAKE PEDAL MULTIPLE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE REAR BRAKES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRE…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 FORD FUSION. WHILE DRIVING 40 MPH, THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED AND TRAVELED TO THE FLOORBOARD. THE VEHICLE WAS ABLE TO STOP AFTER PUMPING THE BRAKE PEDAL MULTIPLE TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC WHO DIAGNOSED THAT THE REAR BRAKES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED; HOWEVER, THE FAILURE RECURRED FIVE MONTHS LATER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 38,000. UPDATED 06/23/17*LJ *CN
NHTSA ODI #10984616
123,430 miles · May 5, 2017
Service Brakes
WHEN HITTING BRAKES WHILE GOING OVER ROUGH OR BUMPY ROADS AT 25 MILES PER HOUR OR HIGHER BRAKES ENGAGE ANTI-LOCK BRAKING AND BRAKE PEDAL STOPS WORKING WITH NOW POWER AND NO RESISTANCE. BRAKES STOP WORKING AND MUST BE PUMPED SEVERAL TIMES TO GET A RESPONSE. SLOWLY AT TIMES IT MAY TAKE DAYS TO GET BACK TO WORKING A FULL PRESSURE U…
Read full complaint
WHEN HITTING BRAKES WHILE GOING OVER ROUGH OR BUMPY ROADS AT 25 MILES PER HOUR OR HIGHER BRAKES ENGAGE ANTI-LOCK BRAKING AND BRAKE PEDAL STOPS WORKING WITH NOW POWER AND NO RESISTANCE. BRAKES STOP WORKING AND MUST BE PUMPED SEVERAL TIMES TO GET A RESPONSE. SLOWLY AT TIMES IT MAY TAKE DAYS TO GET BACK TO WORKING A FULL PRESSURE UNLESS ISSUE ARISES WITH ROUGH ROAD.
NHTSA ODI #10983789
Official recalls
5Mar 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Illustration