NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
49 reportsClear category filter226,000 miles · Apr 6, 2026
EngineService Brakes, Hydraulic
The contact owns a 2001 Ford Ranger. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the brake pedal was depressed; however, the vehicle failed to stop. The contact stated that there was smoke coming from underneath the hood. The brakes and check engine warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was not diagnose…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2001 Ford Ranger. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the brake pedal was depressed; however, the vehicle failed to stop. The contact stated that there was smoke coming from underneath the hood. The brakes and check engine warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The contact referenced an unknown recall with a similar failure; however, the VIN was not under recall. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 226,000.
NHTSA ODI #11729501
Mileage unknown · Nov 29, 2011
Engine And Engine CoolingService Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed ControlCrash
TRUCK VEHICLE WAS SHIFTING INTO REVERSE AND A BRAKE FAILURE PROMPT THE DRIVER TO SWITCH INTO DRIVE AND SUDDENLY THE VEHICLE SPUN OFF OUT OF CONTROL(BURNING TIRE) AND IT TOOK OFF VERY FAST WITHOUT EVEN TOUCHING THE GAS PEDAL. DRIVER TRIED TO STOP IT BUT NOTHING WORKED. *KB
NHTSA ODI #10437685
Mileage unknown · Oct 30, 2011
Electrical SystemService Brakes, HydraulicFire
I WAS DRIVING 20 MPH WHEN I PRESS THE BRAKE AND THE PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR, A FIRE STARTED UNDER THE HOOD, I NOTICED ONE OF THE BRAKE LINES WAS BURNING. PUT FIRE OUT AND TOWED THE PICK UP TO THE SHOP WHERE IT REMAINS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10433605
250 miles · Jan 31, 2011
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD RANGER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKES ON THE VEHICLE DID NOT FUNCTION PROPERLY WHEN IT WAS FOGGY, COLD, RAINY OR DAMP. THE BRAKES WERE REPLACED SEVERAL TIMES BUT THE FAILURE CONTINUED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHO STATED THAT THE SEALS ON THE REAR AXLE LEAKED FLUID ONTO T…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD RANGER. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKES ON THE VEHICLE DID NOT FUNCTION PROPERLY WHEN IT WAS FOGGY, COLD, RAINY OR DAMP. THE BRAKES WERE REPLACED SEVERAL TIMES BUT THE FAILURE CONTINUED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER WHO STATED THAT THE SEALS ON THE REAR AXLE LEAKED FLUID ONTO THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A CRASH IN 2009 THAT THE CONTACT BELIEVED WAS DUE TO BRAKE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 250 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 102,000.
NHTSA ODI #10379655
82,000 miles · Oct 21, 2010
Service Brakes, HydraulicStructure
IN 2001 PURCHASED A NEW FORD 2001 XLT RANGER FROM A DEALERSHIP. IN MARCH/APRIL 2009, AT 76,000 MILES IT BECAME NECESSARY TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE REAR BRAKELINE SYSTEM DUE TO ROT. IN DEC /JAN 2009 THE BED OF THE TRUCK AND THE REAR BUMPER BECAME LOOSE. IN THE EARLY SPRING OF 2010 THE REAR BUMPER FELL OFF IN MY HANDS. THE VEHICL…
Read full complaint
IN 2001 PURCHASED A NEW FORD 2001 XLT RANGER FROM A DEALERSHIP. IN MARCH/APRIL 2009, AT 76,000 MILES IT BECAME NECESSARY TO REPLACE THE ENTIRE REAR BRAKELINE SYSTEM DUE TO ROT. IN DEC /JAN 2009 THE BED OF THE TRUCK AND THE REAR BUMPER BECAME LOOSE. IN THE EARLY SPRING OF 2010 THE REAR BUMPER FELL OFF IN MY HANDS. THE VEHICLE WAS SET FOR SERVICE AT AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP. UPON INSPECTION THE FRAME AND BED ATTACHMENT, LEAF SPRINGS AND FRAME ATTACHMENTS, MAIN FRAME, WERE CORRODED AND ROTTED WITH VISIBLE HOLES. THE VEHICLE WAS DEEMED UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE REPAIRS HAVE NOT BEEN UNDERTAKEN BECAUSE A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT FRAME IS UNAVAILABLE AND REPAIRS AT THIS TIME ARE UNAFFORDABLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10361526
48,000 miles · Oct 7, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD RANGER. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE INTO AN AUTOMOTIVE CENTER FOR A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE. THE MECHANIC SHOWED THE CONTACT WHERE THE METAL ON THE CALIPER WAS DETERIORATING AND FLAKING OFF. THE CONTACT HAD NO PRIOR PROBLEMS WITH THE BRAKES BEFORE BEING INFORMED BY THE MECHANIC. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD RANGER. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE INTO AN AUTOMOTIVE CENTER FOR A ROUTINE OIL CHANGE. THE MECHANIC SHOWED THE CONTACT WHERE THE METAL ON THE CALIPER WAS DETERIORATING AND FLAKING OFF. THE CONTACT HAD NO PRIOR PROBLEMS WITH THE BRAKES BEFORE BEING INFORMED BY THE MECHANIC. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED. THE VIN WAS UNAVAILABLE. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE APPROXIMATELY 44,000.
NHTSA ODI #10359529
36,800 miles · Jul 21, 2010
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD RANGER. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH EXTREME PRESSURE WAS APPLIED TO THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE CONTACT STATED THAT OCCASIONALLY YOU CAN FEEL THE BRAKE PEDAL PULSATE WHEN THE ANTI LOCK BRAKING SYSTEM ENGAGED BUT THE BRAKES DID NOT PULSATE. THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SLOW DOWN INSTEAD OF COMING TO A S…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2001 FORD RANGER. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH EXTREME PRESSURE WAS APPLIED TO THE BRAKE PEDAL. THE CONTACT STATED THAT OCCASIONALLY YOU CAN FEEL THE BRAKE PEDAL PULSATE WHEN THE ANTI LOCK BRAKING SYSTEM ENGAGED BUT THE BRAKES DID NOT PULSATE. THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO SLOW DOWN INSTEAD OF COMING TO A STOP. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE OCCURRED SEVERAL TIMES. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT EXAMINED TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 36,800.
NHTSA ODI #10344453
56,860 miles · Oct 24, 2009
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
COMPLETE BRAKE FAILURE DUE TO A LEAK OVER THE REAR DRIVER SIDE WHEEL. THIS OCCURRED AT LOW SPEED (10 MPH), AND I WAS ABLE TO STOP THE TRUCK WITH THE EMERGENCY BRAKE. I THOUGHT THE BRAKING SYSTEMS IN MODERN TRUCKS HAVE REDUNDANT LINES SO THAT IF THERE IS A LEAK, ONLY HALF THE BRAKES FAIL? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10289669
Mileage unknown · Mar 4, 2008
Seat BeltsService Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
2001 FORD RANGER WITH SPEED CONTROL RECALL. CONSUMER STATES THAT HE WAS INFORMED THAT NO REPLACEMENT HARNESS WAS AVAILABLE. WHEN THE HARNESS WAS AVAILABLE AFTER THE REPAIR THE ABS AND AIRBAG WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. *KB THE CONSUMER STATED THE BRAKES HAVE STARTED TO GRAB ON INITIAL BRAKE APPLICATION. WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICL…
Read full complaint
2001 FORD RANGER WITH SPEED CONTROL RECALL. CONSUMER STATES THAT HE WAS INFORMED THAT NO REPLACEMENT HARNESS WAS AVAILABLE. WHEN THE HARNESS WAS AVAILABLE AFTER THE REPAIR THE ABS AND AIRBAG WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATED. *KB THE CONSUMER STATED THE BRAKES HAVE STARTED TO GRAB ON INITIAL BRAKE APPLICATION. WHICH CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO JOLT TO A STOP. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED THE HARNESS DISCONNECTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WARNING LIGHTS ILLUMINATING. THE DEALER STATED THE AIR BAG PROBLEM WAS DUE TO A SEAT BELT PROBLEM. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10220574
Mileage unknown · Jan 20, 2008
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
FORD 2001 RANGER WAS NOTIFIED AUGUST 2007 OF A SAFETY DEFECT WITH THE SPEED CONTROL WIRING. I WENT TO MY DEALER, AND WAS TOLD THE NEW WIRING HARNESS WAS NOT AVAILABLE, BUT THE EXISTING WIRING WAS UNPLUGGED, WHICH WOULD DISABLE THE CRUISE CONTROL, & THE NEW HARNESS WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN NOVEMBER. IMMEDIATELY, AFTER THE DEA…
Read full complaint
FORD 2001 RANGER WAS NOTIFIED AUGUST 2007 OF A SAFETY DEFECT WITH THE SPEED CONTROL WIRING. I WENT TO MY DEALER, AND WAS TOLD THE NEW WIRING HARNESS WAS NOT AVAILABLE, BUT THE EXISTING WIRING WAS UNPLUGGED, WHICH WOULD DISABLE THE CRUISE CONTROL, & THE NEW HARNESS WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN NOVEMBER. IMMEDIATELY, AFTER THE DEALER UNPLUGGED THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS), THERE WAS A FAULT LIGHT FOR THE BRAKE ANTI-LOCK SYSTEM. I WENT BACK TO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AND ASK WHY, & WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO CONNECTION TO THE SPEED CONTROL SENSOR. THEY SAID THEY 'FIXED' THE PROBLEM, AND I DROVE HOME. IN LESS THAN TWO MILES THE ANTI-LOCK BRAKE LIGHT CAME BACK ON. THE NEXT MORNING, THE LIGHT CAME ON TWICE WHILE DRIVING TO AND FROM WORK. AGAIN THE DEALER SAID IT WAS NOT RELATED TO THE SPEED CONTROL PROBLEM. HOWEVER, I HAVE VISITED SEVERAL WEB SITES WHERE MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE ALSO HAVING THE IDENTICAL PROBLEM, WHICH ONLY STARTED WHEN THE SCDS WAS DISCONNECTED, WHILE WAITING FOR THEIR NEW WIRING HARNESS. WHEN THIS WARNING LIGHT IS ON, THE ANTI-LOCK BRAKE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK. WHEN I RECONNECTED THE SCDS, THE WARNING LIGHT DOES NOT TURN ON AND THE ANTI-LOCK SYSTEM WORKS NORMALLY. I HAVE CALLED THE DEALER ABOUT THIS PROBLEM, AND TO ASK WHEN I CAN GET THE NEW WIRING HARNESS INSTALLED. I AM BEING TOLD THE TWO PROBLEMS ARE NOT RELATED, AND THAT THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH NEW HARNESS KITS AVAILABLE. I CHOOSE TO HAVE BETTER BRAKES EVERY DAY, SO I HAVE RECONNECTED THE SCDS UNTIL I CAN GET THE NEW WIRING HARNESS INSTALLED. HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING THE SAME THING? HOW LONG IS REASONABLE FOR FORD TO DELAY GETTING THE NEW HARNESS INSTALLED? *TR
NHTSA ODI #10215473
Official recalls
4Oct 13, 2009
FORD IS RECALLING MODEL YEARS 1995-2003 WINDSTAR, 2000-2003 EXCURSION DIESEL, 1993-1997 AND 1999-2003 F-250 SD THROUGH F-550 SD DIESEL, 1992-2003 E-150 THROUGH E-550, 1995-2002 EXPLORER, 1997 AND 2002 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER, 1995-1997 AND 2001-2003 RANGER, AND 1994 F53 VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS). THE SCDS MAY LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE FIRE COULD OCCUR WITH OR WITHOUT THE ENGINE RUNNING.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS THAT DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS IN LINE WITH THE SCDS. ON 1999-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES WITH A LEAKING SCDS, DEALERS WILL ALSO INSPECT THE ABS CONTROL MODULE CONNECTOR AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY. REPAIRS WILL BE COMPLETED FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON OCTOBER 27, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
Aug 3, 2007
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, PASSENGER VEHICLES, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND MOTOR HOMES CHASSIS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. OWNERS OF THE PASSENGER CARS INCLUDED IN THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED AS AN INTERIM REPAIR. AS SOON AS REPAIR PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED OCTOBER 2007), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 13, 2007, AND MAILING COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
Jul 16, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, PICKUP TRUCKS, AND MINIVANS. EQUIPPED WITH SEAT BELTS SUPPLIED BY TRW. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE DRIVER'S AND/OR FRONT PASSENGER'S OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLE MAY NOT FULLY LATCH. FORD CROWN VICTORIA BUILT AT ST. THOMAS ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 4/17/00 - 5/29/01 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS BUILT AT ST. THOMAS ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 4/17/00 - 5/29/01. LINCOLN TOWN CARS BUILT AT WIXOM ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 3/27/00 - 5/30/01. LINCOLN NAVIGATORS BUILT AT MICHIGAN TRUCK PLANT FROM 4/11/00 - 5/31/01. FORD WINDSTARS BUILT AT OAKVILLE ASSEMBLY PLANT FROM 3/23/00 - 5/30/01. FORD RANGERS BUILT AT TWIN CITIES PLANT FROM 3/28/00 - 5/30/01, AND ALSO AT THE EDISON PLANT FROM 3/13/00 - 5/25/01. FORD F-150 TRUCK BUILT AT NORFOLK PLANT FROM 4/18/00 - 5/25/00; AT ONTARIO PLANT FROM 5/10/00 - 5/28/01; AT KANSAS CITY PLANT FROM 9/11/99 - 5/25/01; AND AT CUAUTITLAN PLANT FROM 5/16/00 - 6/9/01. FORD SUPER DUTY F-250, F-350, F-450, AND F-550 TRUCKS BUILT AT KENTUCKY PLANT FROM 4/17/00 - 5/27/01; AND AT CUAUTITLAN PLANT FROM 5/16/00 - 6/19/01. FORD EXCURSIONS BUILT AT KENTUCKY PLANT FROM 4/17/00 - 10/2/00. FORD EXPEDITIONS BUILT AT MICHIGAN TRUCK PLANT FROM 4/11/00 - 5/31/01.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THE RESTRAINT SYSTEM MAY NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE OCCUPANT PROTECTION, INCREASING THE RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY TO THE SEAT OCCUPANT.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE FRONT OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLES AND IF THE BUCKLE FAILS THE INSPECTION PROCESS, IT WILL BE REPLACED. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN JULY 25, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
Nov 28, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES WITH STEEL HOODS AND CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH SHEET MOLDING COMPOUND HOODS. A WIRE FORMED HOOD STRIKER COULD BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO FATIGUE FRACTURES. IF THE HOOD STRIKER FRACTURES, THE HOOD COULD FLY OPEN WHILE THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A HOOD FLY-UP WHILE THE VEHICLE IS BEING OPERATED COULD RESULT IN REDUCED DRIVER VISIBILITY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE HOOD STRIKER.
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
2EA05004 · Front Seat Belt Buckle Assembly
Opened Feb 17, 2005 · Closed Jul 6, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seat Belts; Seat Belts:front:buckle Assembly
DURING THE INITIAL RECALL CAMPAIGN IN 2001, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WERE INSPECTED BY FORD DEALERSHIPS USING A TEST TOOL THAT WOULD DETECT A DEFECTIVE FRONT SEAT OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLE ASSEMBLY.APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION VEHICLES PASSED THE INSPECTION TEST FOR ONE OR BOTH FRONT BUCKLES.SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECALL SERVICE ACTION, ODI RECEIVED 15 CONSUMER REPORTS ALLEGING THAT A PASSED INSPECTION BUCKLE SUBSEQUENTLY FAILED TO LATCH OR INADVERTENTLY UNLATCHED DURING USE.IN ADDITION, FORD HAS IDENTIFIED 543 OWNER AND FIELD REPORTS ALLEGING BUCKLE FAILURE SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING THE INSPECTION TEST.FORD TESTED AND EXAMINED OVER 100 WARRANTY-RETURNED BUCKLES AND FOUND THAT 44% OF THE BUCKLES HAD NO PROBLEM OR A CONDITION NOT RELATED TO THE RECALL INSPECTION (NON-LATCH RELATED BUCKLE DAMAGE OR FOREIGN CONTAMINATION).WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE HIGHEST DURING THE 18-MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE START OF THE RECALL (JULY 2001) AND HAVE BEEN DECLINING DURING THE PAST 24 MONTHS.OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 12 WARRANTY CLAIMS PER MONTH OUT OF A VEHICLE POPULATION OF ABOUT ONE MILLION.COMPLAINTS COUNTS ARE ALSO DECREASING.DURING THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS, ODI HAS RECEIVED ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS. A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.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 RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Seat Belts
DURING THE INITIAL RECALL CAMPAIGN IN 2001, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WERE INSPECTED BY FORD DEALERSHIPS USING A TEST TOOL THAT WOULD DETECT A DEFECTIVE FRONT SEAT OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLE ASSEMBLY.APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION VEHICLES PASSED THE INSPECTION TEST FOR ONE OR BOTH FRONT BUCKLES.SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECALL SERVICE ACTION, ODI RECEIVED 15 CONSUMER REPORTS ALLEGING THAT A PASSED INSPECTION BUCKLE SUBSEQUENTLY FAILED TO LATCH OR INADVERTENTLY UNLATCHED DURING USE.IN ADDITION, FORD HAS IDENTIFIED 543 OWNER AND FIELD REPORTS ALLEGING BUCKLE FAILURE SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING THE INSPECTION TEST.FORD TESTED AND EXAMINED OVER 100 WARRANTY-RETURNED BUCKLES AND FOUND THAT 44% OF THE BUCKLES HAD NO PROBLEM OR A CONDITION NOT RELATED TO THE RECALL INSPECTION (NON-LATCH RELATED BUCKLE DAMAGE OR FOREIGN CONTAMINATION).WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE HIGHEST DURING THE 18-MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE START OF THE RECALL (JULY 2001) AND HAVE BEEN DECLINING DURING THE PAST 24 MONTHS.OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 12 WARRANTY CLAIMS PER MONTH OUT OF A VEHICLE POPULATION OF ABOUT ONE MILLION.COMPLAINTS COUNTS ARE ALSO DECREASING.DURING THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS, ODI HAS RECEIVED ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS. A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.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 RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Seat Belts:front:buckle Assembly
DURING THE INITIAL RECALL CAMPAIGN IN 2001, THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WERE INSPECTED BY FORD DEALERSHIPS USING A TEST TOOL THAT WOULD DETECT A DEFECTIVE FRONT SEAT OUTBOARD SEAT BELT BUCKLE ASSEMBLY.APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION VEHICLES PASSED THE INSPECTION TEST FOR ONE OR BOTH FRONT BUCKLES.SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECALL SERVICE ACTION, ODI RECEIVED 15 CONSUMER REPORTS ALLEGING THAT A PASSED INSPECTION BUCKLE SUBSEQUENTLY FAILED TO LATCH OR INADVERTENTLY UNLATCHED DURING USE.IN ADDITION, FORD HAS IDENTIFIED 543 OWNER AND FIELD REPORTS ALLEGING BUCKLE FAILURE SUBSEQUENT TO PASSING THE INSPECTION TEST.FORD TESTED AND EXAMINED OVER 100 WARRANTY-RETURNED BUCKLES AND FOUND THAT 44% OF THE BUCKLES HAD NO PROBLEM OR A CONDITION NOT RELATED TO THE RECALL INSPECTION (NON-LATCH RELATED BUCKLE DAMAGE OR FOREIGN CONTAMINATION).WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE HIGHEST DURING THE 18-MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE START OF THE RECALL (JULY 2001) AND HAVE BEEN DECLINING DURING THE PAST 24 MONTHS.OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 12 WARRANTY CLAIMS PER MONTH OUT OF A VEHICLE POPULATION OF ABOUT ONE MILLION.COMPLAINTS COUNTS ARE ALSO DECREASING.DURING THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS, ODI HAS RECEIVED ONLY TWO COMPLAINTS. A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.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 RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
RQ04011 · Front Seat Belt Buckle Assembly
Opened Oct 22, 2004 · Closed Feb 17, 2005
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Seat Belts:front:buckle Assembly
UNDER RECALL CAMPAIGN (01V227), FORD RECALLED APPROXIMATELY 1.3 MILLION VEHICLES TO INSPECT AND IF NECESSARY REPLACE THE FRONT DRIVER AND/OR PASSENGER SEAT BELT BUCKLE.APPROXIMATELY 1.1 MILLION OWNERS RESPONDED BY TAKING THEIR VEHICLES TO A DEALER FOR INSPECTION OF THE BUCKLE USING A SPECIALIZED BUCKLE TEST TOOL.FORD REPORTED THAT 829,927 VEHICLES HAD BOTH BUCKLES PASS THE TOOL TEST AND ANOTHER 167,336 VEHICLES HAD ONE BUCKLE PASS.ODI AND FORD RECEIVED COMPLAINTS ALLEGING SEAT BELT BUCKLE FAILURE SHORTLY AFTER PASSING THE ORIGINAL RECALL INSPECTION SERVICE.COMPLAINANTS ALLEGED THAT THE BUCKLE FAILED BY EITHER NOT LATCHING OR FALSE-LATCHING (PARTIAL ENGAGEMENT OF THE LATCH TO THE LATCH PLATE).A FALSE-LATCHED BUCKLE MAY RELEASE WITH MINOR MOVEMENT OR IMPACT AGAINST THE BUCKLE HOUSING INCLUDING INADVERTENT RELEASE WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION.ODI IS UPGRADING THIS RECALL QUERY TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA05-004) TO FURTHER ANALYZE THE FIELD PERFORMANCE OF THOSE VEHICLES THAT FORD DEALERS PASSED (ONE OR BOTH BUCKLES) USING FORD'S INSPECTION TEST (997,263 VEHICLES).
Illustration