NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Structure complaints
101 reportsClear category filter152,934 miles · Sep 1, 2009
Structure
WHEN DRIVING MY 2002 FORD WINDSTAR MINI VAN ON THE HIGHWAY WE NOTICED A LOUD SLAMMING NOISE FROM THE REAR CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO LOSE CONTROL, SWERVING TO THE RIGHT SHOULDER AND STALLING WITH THE TAIL END STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO LANE HIGHWAY, AS THE TRACTOR TRAILER BEHIND US WHO WAS VERY ALERT NEARLY MISSED A REAR END C…
Read full complaint
WHEN DRIVING MY 2002 FORD WINDSTAR MINI VAN ON THE HIGHWAY WE NOTICED A LOUD SLAMMING NOISE FROM THE REAR CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO LOSE CONTROL, SWERVING TO THE RIGHT SHOULDER AND STALLING WITH THE TAIL END STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO LANE HIGHWAY, AS THE TRACTOR TRAILER BEHIND US WHO WAS VERY ALERT NEARLY MISSED A REAR END COLLISION WITH OUR VEHICLE. UPON INSPECTION OF THE UNDERSIDE OF THE VEHICLE WE NOTICED THE REAR AXLE BEAM WAS SPLIT IN TWO, RUSTED AND ROTTED OUT AND HANGING TO THE GROUND, A TOW TRUCK WAS NOTIFIED AND THE OPERATOR STARED IN DISBELIEF THAT THE AXLE HAD BROKEN IN HALF. THIS OBVIOUS DEFECT COULD HAVE COST US OUR LIVES. THIS DEFECT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IMMEDIATELY BEFORE A SOME LIVES ARE LOST AS A RESULT OF THE FORD WINDSTAR REAR AXLE BEAM BREAKING WHILE OCCUPANTS AND PASSENGERS ARE RIDING IN THIS VEHICLE. THIS INCIDENT WAS REPORTED TO THE FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE ASSISTANCE CENTER AND THEY TOOK THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE VEHICLE AND THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT ADVISING ME TO SPEAK TO A FORD SERVICE MANGER AND FOR THE DEFECTIVE VEHICLES BROKEN AXLE TO BE INSPECTED BY A FORD DEALER.FORDS CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE REP ADVISED ME NOT TO RETURN A CALL TO THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE INCIDENT ON FILE AND THE FORD SERVICE MANAGER WOULD FOLLOW UP ON THE COMPLAINT. UPON SPEAKING TO THE FORD SERVICE MANAGER HE ASKED A BOUT THE TYPE OF PROBLEM YEAR AND MODEL OF THE VEHICLE. BEING A 2002 WINDSTAR WITH 153,000 MILES HE STATED THAT BECAUSE OF THE MILEAGE AND THE AGE OF THE VEHICLE FORD WOULD NOT ASSIST ME IN GETTING THIS SITUATION RESOLVED. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE COST TO REPAIR THIS PROBLEM WOULD BE 5 HOURS LABOR CHARGE @ $100.00 PER HOUR AND THE COST OF THE AXLE BEAM WOULD BE $500.00 PLUS WHAT EVER OTHER DAMAGES INCURRED. AS THESE WOULD BE MY OUT OF POCKET COSTS PLUS A $275.00 TOW CHARGE. NEEDLESS TO SAY HOW COSTLY THIS EVENT BECAME AS WELL AS THE POSSIBLE WORST CASE SCENARIO A FATAL ACCIDENT COULD HAVE OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF THIS DEFECT. THIS MUST BE ADDRESSED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10282589
110,000 miles · Jul 17, 2009
Structure
I WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, HEARD AN UNUSUAL NOISE, FELT LIKE I HIT A BUMP, MOMENTARILY LOST CONTROL OF VEHICLE, TRAVELED APPROXIMATELY 50 MORE FEET TO SIDE OF ROAD WITH ALL KINDS OF INTERMITTENT BUMPING, SCREECHING AND UNUSUAL SOUNDS. I GOT OUT AND SAW MY DRIVER'S SIDE REAR TIRE FOLDED INTO THE WHEEL-WELL. I SAW …
Read full complaint
I WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH, HEARD AN UNUSUAL NOISE, FELT LIKE I HIT A BUMP, MOMENTARILY LOST CONTROL OF VEHICLE, TRAVELED APPROXIMATELY 50 MORE FEET TO SIDE OF ROAD WITH ALL KINDS OF INTERMITTENT BUMPING, SCREECHING AND UNUSUAL SOUNDS. I GOT OUT AND SAW MY DRIVER'S SIDE REAR TIRE FOLDED INTO THE WHEEL-WELL. I SAW THE SAME THING ON THE OTHER SIDE. HAD TO HAVE A FLATBED TAKE IT TO A GARAGE. REAR AXLE HAD BROKEN IN TWO AND WILL BE REPLACED. THERE IS SOME OTHER POSSIBLE DAMAGE TO EQUIPMENT NEAR REAR AXLE THAT HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10277085
125,000 miles · May 17, 2009
Structure
MY 2002 FORD WINDSTAR HAS A CRACKED REAR AXLE! MY FIANCE NOTICED IT "FISHTAILING" ALOT AND A NOISE FROM THE REAR OF THE VAN. I CHECKED RIGHT AWAY AND SAW THE TIRE LEANING IN ON THE PASSENGER SIDE. UPON LOOKING UNDERNEATH I SAW THE AXLE CRACKED ALMOST COMPLETELY IN TWO! SEARCHED THE INTERNET AND GOT HUNDREDS OF HITS ON WINDSTARS …
Read full complaint
MY 2002 FORD WINDSTAR HAS A CRACKED REAR AXLE! MY FIANCE NOTICED IT "FISHTAILING" ALOT AND A NOISE FROM THE REAR OF THE VAN. I CHECKED RIGHT AWAY AND SAW THE TIRE LEANING IN ON THE PASSENGER SIDE. UPON LOOKING UNDERNEATH I SAW THE AXLE CRACKED ALMOST COMPLETELY IN TWO! SEARCHED THE INTERNET AND GOT HUNDREDS OF HITS ON WINDSTARS WITH THE SAME PROBLEM!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10268983
92,300 miles · Feb 13, 2009
StructureInjury
WHILE DRIVING AT A LOW SPEED (35 MPH), SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT WARNING OR APPARENT REASON, THE REAR AXLE SNAPPED ON MY 2002 FORD WINDSTAR MINIVAN, LOCKING THE REAR WHEELS AND CAUSING ME TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. THE AXLE, (FORD CALLS IT A "HOUSING" LOOKED AS IF IT HAD SIMPLE SNAPPED IN HALF. - AT THE DEALERSHIP, I LEARN…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT A LOW SPEED (35 MPH), SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT WARNING OR APPARENT REASON, THE REAR AXLE SNAPPED ON MY 2002 FORD WINDSTAR MINIVAN, LOCKING THE REAR WHEELS AND CAUSING ME TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. THE AXLE, (FORD CALLS IT A "HOUSING" LOOKED AS IF IT HAD SIMPLE SNAPPED IN HALF. - AT THE DEALERSHIP, I LEARNED THAT A SIMILAR INCIDENT HAD BEEN REPORTED A MONTH EARLIER. - MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS MAY OCCUR REPEATEDLY AND TO OTHERS TRAVELING AT HIGHWAY SPEED. THE WINDSTAR MINIVAN IS THE VEHICLE OF CHOICE FOR PEOPLE WITH YOUNG CHILDREN. THIS FAILURE CAUSED BOTH REAR TIRES TO FAIL TO MOVE, AND IN MY OPINION IS A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE VEHICLE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10258624
70,000 miles · Jul 10, 2008
Structure
CLUNKING NOISE HEARD IN RIGHT REAR OF 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. INSPECTION BY OWNER FOUND CRACK IN REAR AXLE BEAM. FORD DEALER REPLACED AXLE BEAM STATING IT WAS CRACKED DUE TO IMPROPER JACKING. THEY POINTED OUT TWO "DIMPLES" IN THE UNDERSIDE OF THE AXLE BEAM AS EVIDENCE OF THE IMPROPER JACKING, AND STATED THAT THE CRACK STARTED THERE.…
Read full complaint
CLUNKING NOISE HEARD IN RIGHT REAR OF 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. INSPECTION BY OWNER FOUND CRACK IN REAR AXLE BEAM. FORD DEALER REPLACED AXLE BEAM STATING IT WAS CRACKED DUE TO IMPROPER JACKING. THEY POINTED OUT TWO "DIMPLES" IN THE UNDERSIDE OF THE AXLE BEAM AS EVIDENCE OF THE IMPROPER JACKING, AND STATED THAT THE CRACK STARTED THERE. AFTER THE REAR AXLE BEAM WAS REPLACED, I INVESTIGATED THE UNDERSIDE OF THE NEW BEAM, AND FOUND THE IDENTICAL "DIMPLES" WERE PRESENT ON THE NEW BEAM. THESE "DIMPLES" ARE, I BELIEVE, CAUSED BY THE FORMING OF THE BEAM BY THE MANUFACTURER AND NOT DUE TO IMPROPER JACKING. I BELIEVE THAT THE REAR AXLE BEAM OF MY FORD WINDSTAR CRACKED BECAUSE OF AN INHERENT DEFECT CAUSED DURING THE FORMING PROCESS. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10233771
49,000 miles · Jan 23, 2007
Structure
REAR SLIDING PASSENGER DOORS FAIL TO CLOSE WHEN USING AUTO CLOSE FEATURE. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP AND EACH TIME THE DOORS ARE SERVICED. SHORTLY AFTER BEING SERVICED THE DOOR STOP LATCHING CLOSED AGAIN. THE DOOR SLIDE HARDER ON THE VEHICLE EQUIPPED WITH THE AUTO CLOSE FEATURE SO SOME OPERATORS WILL USE THE AU…
Read full complaint
REAR SLIDING PASSENGER DOORS FAIL TO CLOSE WHEN USING AUTO CLOSE FEATURE. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP AND EACH TIME THE DOORS ARE SERVICED. SHORTLY AFTER BEING SERVICED THE DOOR STOP LATCHING CLOSED AGAIN. THE DOOR SLIDE HARDER ON THE VEHICLE EQUIPPED WITH THE AUTO CLOSE FEATURE SO SOME OPERATORS WILL USE THE AUTO FEATURE AND THEN LATCH THE DOOR BY MANUALLY PUSHING ON IT. MISCOMMUNICATION HAS LEAD TO DRIVING WITH THE DOOR NOT LATCHED. WHEN DRIVING WITH DOOR UNLATCHED THE POWER LOCKS, AND INTERIOR LIGHTS MAY CYCLE ON AND OFF CAUSING A DISTRACTION TO THE DRIVER AND INCREASE RISK OF ACCIDENT. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10179458
Mileage unknown · Jun 20, 2005
Interior LightingStructure
DT: THE DOOR AJAR LIGHT IS ON, CHECKED ALL DOORS TRYING TO OPEN WITHOUT TOUCHING THE HANDLES, AND HAVE CLEANED THE CONNECTIONS. ALSO, CHECKED THEM TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO DEBRIS, AND LIGHT WAS STILL ON. HAD AN ISSUE LAST YEAR, CLEANED IT, AND IT WENT OFF, BUT NOW IT WAS ON. *AK.
NHTSA ODI #10125930
Mileage unknown · Jan 28, 2005
Structure
POWER SLIDING DOORS OPEN WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD. POWER DOORS DO NOT RELEASE WHEN PERSON IS IN THE WAY. POWER DOORS DO NOT CLOSE AND OPERATE TO SPECIFICATIONS. VEHICLE HAS BEEN SERVICED BY EXTREME FORD IN OVERLAND PARK, KS NUMEROUS TIMES. THERE CONTINUES TO BE ISSUES SURROUNDING THIS PROBLEM. POWER DOORS HAVE ALSO CHIPP…
Read full complaint
POWER SLIDING DOORS OPEN WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD. POWER DOORS DO NOT RELEASE WHEN PERSON IS IN THE WAY. POWER DOORS DO NOT CLOSE AND OPERATE TO SPECIFICATIONS. VEHICLE HAS BEEN SERVICED BY EXTREME FORD IN OVERLAND PARK, KS NUMEROUS TIMES. THERE CONTINUES TO BE ISSUES SURROUNDING THIS PROBLEM. POWER DOORS HAVE ALSO CHIPPED REAR GLASS FORD HAS REPLACED GLASS ONCE ALREADY. **AK UPDATED 07/16/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #10108184
27,503 miles · Dec 30, 2004
StructureInjury
1) WE WERE DRIVING HOME FROM TULAS,OK AFTER THE THANKSGIVING DAY HOLIDAY ON SATURDAY AFTERNOON. PULLED INTO OUR DRIVEWAY. OPENED THE POWER DOORS.) THE RIGHT SIDE POWER DOOR TRAPPED MY DAUGHTERS RIGHT LEG WHEN IT WAS OPENING AND DID NOT SENSE THERE WAS RESISTANCE. THE DOOR BROKE HER FEMUR. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10104763
16,000 miles · Jan 15, 2004
Structure
IN THE FRONT OF THE CAR UNDER MY FEET AS I DRIVE, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE I HEAR A LOUD METAL NOISE AND I CAN FEEL THE VIBRATION. IT'S HARD TO EXPLAIN THE NOISE BUT IT SOUNDS MOST LIKE A LOW SOUNDING POP. IT GENERALLY HAPPENS WHEN I'M TURNING OR GOING OVER A BUMP. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE DEALER THAT THE BOLTS ON THE SUB FRAME W…
Read full complaint
IN THE FRONT OF THE CAR UNDER MY FEET AS I DRIVE, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE I HEAR A LOUD METAL NOISE AND I CAN FEEL THE VIBRATION. IT'S HARD TO EXPLAIN THE NOISE BUT IT SOUNDS MOST LIKE A LOW SOUNDING POP. IT GENERALLY HAPPENS WHEN I'M TURNING OR GOING OVER A BUMP. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE DEALER THAT THE BOLTS ON THE SUB FRAME WERE LOOSE AND HAD TO BE TOURIST. THEY HAVE HAD TO DO THIS TWICE NOW AND MY CAR CURRENTLY HAS 35,000 MILES ON IT. I FIRST NOTICED THE NOISE IN JANUARY OF 2003 AND MY CAR PROBABLY HAD ABOUT 16,000 MILES ON IT THEN. *CB
NHTSA ODI #10053270
Official recalls
8Sep 29, 2015
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 1998-2003 Windstar vehicles manufactured September 2, 1997, to July 3, 2003. The affected vehicles were previously remedied to safeguard against the rear axle cracking from corrosion, however, the remedy brackets may have been misinstalled. The incorrect bracket installations may limit the effectiveness of the service repair for NHTSA recalls 10V-385, 12V-193, and 12V-195.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the brackets were not installed properly, the rear axle may fracture, affecting the vehicle handling and increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the brackets to verify their proper installation. If a bracket is found to have been misinstalled, the rear axle will be replaced. These repairs will be performed free of charge. The began on October 21, 2015. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 15S27.
May 3, 2012
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1998-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1997, THROUGH JULY 3, 2003, AND CURRENTLY REGISTERED OR ORIGINALLY SOLD IN VIRGINIA. OVER TIME, CORROSION CAN WEAKEN THE REAR AXLE MAKING IT SUSCEPTIBLE TO TORSIONAL STRESS. CORROSION AND STRESS CAN LEAD TO CRACKS WHICH, IF UNDETECTED, CAN INCREASE AND RESULT IN A COMPLETE FRACTURE OF THE AXLE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A FRACTURED AXLE CAN AFFECT VEHICLE HANDLING AND INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND INSTALL REAR AXLE REINFORCEMENT BRACKETS, OR REPLACE THE AXLES, AS NECESSARY. THIS SERVICE WILL BE PERFORMED FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JUNE 19, 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
May 3, 2012
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1999-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES ORIGINALLY SOLD IN OR CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. CORROSION-RELATED FRACTURES OF THE FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM REAR ATTACHING BRACKETS AND BODY MOUNT ATTACHMENTS MAY OCCUR.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A SEPARATION OF A FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM REAR ATTACHING BRACKET MAY RESULT IN A LOWER CONTROL ARM SEPARATION. A SEPARATION OF BOTH FRONT SUBFRAME REAR BODY MOUNTS MAY RESULT IN SEPARATION OF THE STEERING INTERMEDIATE SHAFT. EITHER CONDITION COULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT BOTH FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM REAR ATTACHING BRACKETS AND BOTH BODY MOUNT ATTACHMENTS AT THE REAR OF THE FRONT SUBFRAME AND MAKE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JUNE 18, 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
May 3, 2012
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1998-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1997, THROUGH JULY 3, 2003, REGISTERED IN PUERTO RICO. DUE TO INCREASED STRESSES CAUSED BY HIGH CYCLES OF TORSIONAL LOADING, SPECIFIC TO THIS MARKET, THE REAR AXLE CAN CRACK.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A FRACTURED AXLE MAY RESULT IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS, AND DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND INSTALL A REINFORCEMENT BRACKET ON THE REAR AXLE OR REPLACE THE AXLES, AS NECESSARY. THIS SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JUNE 1, 2012. OWNERS MAY CONTACT THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER AT 1-866-436-7332.
Jan 26, 2011
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1999-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES ORIGINALLY SOLD IN OR CURRENTLY REGISTERED IN THE STATES OF CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KENTUCKY, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, UTAH, VERMONT, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN. A SEPARATION OF A FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM REAR ATTACHING BRACKET MAY RESULT IN A LOWER CONTROL ARM SEPARATION. A SEPARATION OF BOTH FRONT SUBFRAME REAR BODY MOUNTS MAY RESULT IN SEPARATION OF THE STEERING INTERMEDIATE SHAFT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN REDUCED STEERING CONTROL INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT BOTH FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM REAR ATTACHING BRACKETS, AND BOTH BODY MOUNT ATTACHMENTS AT THE REAR OF THE FRONT SUBFRAME, AND MAKE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS FREE OF CHARGE. IF REPAIRS CANNOT BE MADE TO A VEHICLE, FORD WILL OFFER TO REPURCHASE THE VEHICLE. THE SAFETY RECALL IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 21, 2011. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
Aug 26, 2010
FORD IS RECALLING CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1998-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1997 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2003 AND CURRENTLY REGISTERED OR ORIGINALLY SOLD IN CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KENTUCKY, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VERMONT, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN. AFTER MANY YEARS OF VEHICLE SERVICE IN THESE AREAS, CORROSION CAN WEAKEN THE REAR AXLE, MAKING IT SUSCEPTIBLE TO TORSIONAL STRESS. CORROSION AND STRESS CAN LEAD TO CRACKS WHICH IF UNDETECTED CAN PROPAGATE AND RESULT IN A COMPLETE FRACTURE OF THE AXLE.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A FRACTURED AXLE CAN AFFECT VEHICLE HANDLING AND INCREASE THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: AS PARTS BECOME AVAILABLE, DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND IF NECESSARY INSTALL THE REAR AXLE REINFORCEMENT BRACKETS FREE OF CHARGE. THIS SERVICE WILL BE PERFORMED FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON OCTOBER 20, 2010. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-866-436-7332.
Oct 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.
Nov 6, 2003
CERTAIN MINIVANS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 225, "CHILD RESTRAINT ANCHORAGE SYSTEM." DURING TESTING, A THIRD ROW BENCH FLOOR-TO-SEAT LATCH RELEASED BEFORE THE STRENGTH REQUIREMENT WAS MET. IDENTICAL LATCHES ARE USED IN THE SECOND ROW OF SEATS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE LATCHES ON TH4E SECOND OR THIRD ROW SEATS OF THE VEHICLE RELEASE IN A CRASH, THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCUPANT INJURY IS INCREASED.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE SEAT-TO-FLOOR LATCHES ON THE SECOND AND THIRD ROW OF SEATS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON NOVEMBER 21, 2003. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
6EA10007 · Front Subframe Corrosion Failures
Opened Dec 20, 2010 · Closed Mar 17, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:frame And Members; Suspension
In a January 26, 2011 Defect Information Report, Ford Motor Company (Ford) notified the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that it will conduct a safety recall to address corrosion related fractures in the front lower control arm rear attaching brackets and body mount attachments at the rear of the front subframe in approximately 425,288 model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles manufactured from April 1998 to July 2003 and either sold or currently registered in the following high corrosion (Salt-Belt) states:Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin (NHTSA Recall No. 11V-030, Ford Recall No. 11S16).According to Ford, separation of a front lower control arm rear attaching bracket may result in a lower control arm separation and separations of both front subframe rear body mounts may result in separation of the steering intermediate shaft.Either condition could result in diminished vehicle directional control, increasing the risk of a crash.Dealers will inspect the lower control arm rear attachment flanges and the rear body mount sections of the subframe on the right (passenger) and left (driver) sides of the vehicle.Owners of vehicles that pass the inspection will be notified when to return for installation of reinforcement brackets to extend the durability of the front subframe assembly in affected areas in the presence of corrosion.Owners of vehicles that do not pass inspection, but can be repaired, will be offered transportation until parts become available.Repurchase offers will be extended to owners of vehicles that cannot be repaired with the reinforcement brackets.This investigation is closed.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Structure:frame And Members
In a January 26, 2011 Defect Information Report, Ford Motor Company (Ford) notified the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that it will conduct a safety recall to address corrosion related fractures in the front lower control arm rear attaching brackets and body mount attachments at the rear of the front subframe in approximately 425,288 model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles manufactured from April 1998 to July 2003 and either sold or currently registered in the following high corrosion (Salt-Belt) states:Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin (NHTSA Recall No. 11V-030, Ford Recall No. 11S16).According to Ford, separation of a front lower control arm rear attaching bracket may result in a lower control arm separation and separations of both front subframe rear body mounts may result in separation of the steering intermediate shaft.Either condition could result in diminished vehicle directional control, increasing the risk of a crash.Dealers will inspect the lower control arm rear attachment flanges and the rear body mount sections of the subframe on the right (passenger) and left (driver) sides of the vehicle.Owners of vehicles that pass the inspection will be notified when to return for installation of reinforcement brackets to extend the durability of the front subframe assembly in affected areas in the presence of corrosion.Owners of vehicles that do not pass inspection, but can be repaired, will be offered transportation until parts become available.Repurchase offers will be extended to owners of vehicles that cannot be repaired with the reinforcement brackets.This investigation is closed.
Suspension
In a January 26, 2011 Defect Information Report, Ford Motor Company (Ford) notified the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that it will conduct a safety recall to address corrosion related fractures in the front lower control arm rear attaching brackets and body mount attachments at the rear of the front subframe in approximately 425,288 model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles manufactured from April 1998 to July 2003 and either sold or currently registered in the following high corrosion (Salt-Belt) states:Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin (NHTSA Recall No. 11V-030, Ford Recall No. 11S16).According to Ford, separation of a front lower control arm rear attaching bracket may result in a lower control arm separation and separations of both front subframe rear body mounts may result in separation of the steering intermediate shaft.Either condition could result in diminished vehicle directional control, increasing the risk of a crash.Dealers will inspect the lower control arm rear attachment flanges and the rear body mount sections of the subframe on the right (passenger) and left (driver) sides of the vehicle.Owners of vehicles that pass the inspection will be notified when to return for installation of reinforcement brackets to extend the durability of the front subframe assembly in affected areas in the presence of corrosion.Owners of vehicles that do not pass inspection, but can be repaired, will be offered transportation until parts become available.Repurchase offers will be extended to owners of vehicles that cannot be repaired with the reinforcement brackets.This investigation is closed.
PE10026 · Front Subframe Corrosion Failures
Opened Jul 20, 2010 · Closed Dec 20, 2010
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:frame And Members; Suspension
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has identified 346 complaints to ODI and Ford alleging fracture, cracking and or excessive corrosion of the front subframes in model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles.Approximately 97 percent of these complaints (334) involve vehicles that have been operated in Salt Belt states, which make up approximately 60 percent of the subject vehicle sales in the United States.The front subframe, sometimes referred to as the engine cradle, is a structural component of the Windstar vehicles that carries the engine, transaxle, steering rack and certain front suspension components (e.g., lower control arm).For complaints with sufficient information to identify the location of the failure, most describe problems with the rear mounting bracket for the front passenger-side lower control arm with some related to the rear body mount attachment located in the same general area of the subframe (right-rear section near the front passenger wheel).The remainder of the reports allege fracture of the front subframe at other or, most often, unspecified locations.Almost all of the complaints that specified the side of the vehicle indicated that the problem occurred on the right/passenger side (106), with only a few indicating the left/driver side (2) or both sides (3) were affected.Ford and several complainants attributed the right-side failures to the routing of the air-conditioning lines above the front subframe on that side of the vehicle, further noting that condensation has been observed dripping onto the front subframe in the area of the affected components (the A/C drain tube is also located on the right side, near the front subframe).ODI has identified 93 complaints related to lower control arm attachments, including 80 that appear to involve complete separations.All but one of these involved vehicles from Salt Belt states.All three crash incidents appear to be related to lower control arm separations, including one road departure into a road-side sign resulting in a totalled vehicle and a lane departure into another vehicle.Almost half of the ODI complaints related to control arm separation occurred at speeds greater than 20 mph and about a quarter occurred at highway speeds.Three-quarters of these complaints allege experiencing difficulty controlling the vehicle and about 40 percent appear to have resulted in departures from the intended lane of travel.Testing by both Ford and NHTSA have demonstrated that lower control arm separation from the rear attachment bracket results in significant toe out of the affected wheel, which affects the driver's ability to control vehicle direction.According to Ford, moderate braking improved vehicle controllability by reducing the amount of toe out, possibly explaining incidents that did not allege a loss of control.ODI's analysis of complaints related to the rear body mount identified 41 complaints (ODI only).These complaints generally report experiencing progressively worsening noise concerns when turning, accelerating or braking.Although, some of the complaints that appeared to involve a complete separation of the body mount alleged difficulty steering, the effects on vehicle control from this failure mode do not appear to be as great as those resulting from control arm separation.However, ODI is seeking more information regarding two complaints which alleged that body mount failure resulted in disconnection of the steering wheel from the steering rack (one occurred during vehicle service).This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA10-007) for subject vehicles sold or currently re
Additional source detail variants (2)
Structure:frame And Members
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has identified 346 complaints to ODI and Ford alleging fracture, cracking and or excessive corrosion of the front subframes in model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles.Approximately 97 percent of these complaints (334) involve vehicles that have been operated in Salt Belt states, which make up approximately 60 percent of the subject vehicle sales in the United States.The front subframe, sometimes referred to as the engine cradle, is a structural component of the Windstar vehicles that carries the engine, transaxle, steering rack and certain front suspension components (e.g., lower control arm).For complaints with sufficient information to identify the location of the failure, most describe problems with the rear mounting bracket for the front passenger-side lower control arm with some related to the rear body mount attachment located in the same general area of the subframe (right-rear section near the front passenger wheel).The remainder of the reports allege fracture of the front subframe at other or, most often, unspecified locations.Almost all of the complaints that specified the side of the vehicle indicated that the problem occurred on the right/passenger side (106), with only a few indicating the left/driver side (2) or both sides (3) were affected.Ford and several complainants attributed the right-side failures to the routing of the air-conditioning lines above the front subframe on that side of the vehicle, further noting that condensation has been observed dripping onto the front subframe in the area of the affected components (the A/C drain tube is also located on the right side, near the front subframe).ODI has identified 93 complaints related to lower control arm attachments, including 80 that appear to involve complete separations.All but one of these involved vehicles from Salt Belt states.All three crash incidents appear to be related to lower control arm separations, including one road departure into a road-side sign resulting in a totalled vehicle and a lane departure into another vehicle.Almost half of the ODI complaints related to control arm separation occurred at speeds greater than 20 mph and about a quarter occurred at highway speeds.Three-quarters of these complaints allege experiencing difficulty controlling the vehicle and about 40 percent appear to have resulted in departures from the intended lane of travel.Testing by both Ford and NHTSA have demonstrated that lower control arm separation from the rear attachment bracket results in significant toe out of the affected wheel, which affects the driver's ability to control vehicle direction.According to Ford, moderate braking improved vehicle controllability by reducing the amount of toe out, possibly explaining incidents that did not allege a loss of control.ODI's analysis of complaints related to the rear body mount identified 41 complaints (ODI only).These complaints generally report experiencing progressively worsening noise concerns when turning, accelerating or braking.Although, some of the complaints that appeared to involve a complete separation of the body mount alleged difficulty steering, the effects on vehicle control from this failure mode do not appear to be as great as those resulting from control arm separation.However, ODI is seeking more information regarding two complaints which alleged that body mount failure resulted in disconnection of the steering wheel from the steering rack (one occurred during vehicle service).This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA10-007) for subject vehicles sold or currently re
Suspension
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has identified 346 complaints to ODI and Ford alleging fracture, cracking and or excessive corrosion of the front subframes in model year (MY) 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles.Approximately 97 percent of these complaints (334) involve vehicles that have been operated in Salt Belt states, which make up approximately 60 percent of the subject vehicle sales in the United States.The front subframe, sometimes referred to as the engine cradle, is a structural component of the Windstar vehicles that carries the engine, transaxle, steering rack and certain front suspension components (e.g., lower control arm).For complaints with sufficient information to identify the location of the failure, most describe problems with the rear mounting bracket for the front passenger-side lower control arm with some related to the rear body mount attachment located in the same general area of the subframe (right-rear section near the front passenger wheel).The remainder of the reports allege fracture of the front subframe at other or, most often, unspecified locations.Almost all of the complaints that specified the side of the vehicle indicated that the problem occurred on the right/passenger side (106), with only a few indicating the left/driver side (2) or both sides (3) were affected.Ford and several complainants attributed the right-side failures to the routing of the air-conditioning lines above the front subframe on that side of the vehicle, further noting that condensation has been observed dripping onto the front subframe in the area of the affected components (the A/C drain tube is also located on the right side, near the front subframe).ODI has identified 93 complaints related to lower control arm attachments, including 80 that appear to involve complete separations.All but one of these involved vehicles from Salt Belt states.All three crash incidents appear to be related to lower control arm separations, including one road departure into a road-side sign resulting in a totalled vehicle and a lane departure into another vehicle.Almost half of the ODI complaints related to control arm separation occurred at speeds greater than 20 mph and about a quarter occurred at highway speeds.Three-quarters of these complaints allege experiencing difficulty controlling the vehicle and about 40 percent appear to have resulted in departures from the intended lane of travel.Testing by both Ford and NHTSA have demonstrated that lower control arm separation from the rear attachment bracket results in significant toe out of the affected wheel, which affects the driver's ability to control vehicle direction.According to Ford, moderate braking improved vehicle controllability by reducing the amount of toe out, possibly explaining incidents that did not allege a loss of control.ODI's analysis of complaints related to the rear body mount identified 41 complaints (ODI only).These complaints generally report experiencing progressively worsening noise concerns when turning, accelerating or braking.Although, some of the complaints that appeared to involve a complete separation of the body mount alleged difficulty steering, the effects on vehicle control from this failure mode do not appear to be as great as those resulting from control arm separation.However, ODI is seeking more information regarding two complaints which alleged that body mount failure resulted in disconnection of the steering wheel from the steering rack (one occurred during vehicle service).This investigation has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA10-007) for subject vehicles sold or currently re
PE10016 · Rear Axle Cracking
Opened May 13, 2010 · Closed Sep 22, 2010
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension
In a letter dated August 26, 2010, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report notifying NHTSA that it will conduct a safety recall (NHTSA Recall No. 10V-385) to address a rear axle defect in model year (MY) 1998 through 2003 Ford Windstar vehicles built at the Oakville assembly plant from September 1, 1997 through February 28, 2003 and either sold or currently registered in high corrosion (Salt-Belt) states where the use of salt and other corrosive chemicals may be used to treat snow/ice covered roads.The following states are included in Ford's recall:Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The subject vehicles utilize a Stamped/Formed axle assembly manufactured by Benteler automotive Corporation of Galesburg, MI.According to Ford, after many years of vehicle service in the Salt-Belt states, corrosion can weaken the rear axle, making it susceptible to torsional stress.There is a risk that the combined effects of corrosion and stress can lead to cracks which, if undetected, can propagate and result in a complete fracture of the axle.A completely fractured axle can affect vehicle handling and increase the risk of a crash.To correct the safety defect, Ford will initially inspect all of the subject vehicles brought into Ford/Lincoln-Mercury dealerships for possible cracked axles.Owners of vehicles without cracked axles will be notified when to return for the installation of reinforcement brackets to extend the axle durability in the presence of corrosion.Owners who have vehicles with cracked axles will either be offered a repair or alternative transportation until parts become available. On May 13, 2010, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE10-016 to investigate complaints of rear axle cracking in MY 1999 through 2003 Ford Windstar minivans.Combining ODI and Ford complaint data, ODI is aware of a total 891 complaints alleging rear axle cracking in the subject vehicles.Over a third of the complaints (334) allege that the cracking progressed to a complete fracture of the rear axle, including 8 allegations of crashes resulting in 3 injuries. Approximately 57 percent of the subject vehicles (524,661) were sold in Salt-Belt states covered by Ford's recall and Ford estimates that approximately 463,000 of these remain in service.Ninety-six percent of the complaints (858) and all of the complaints alleging complete fracture were from the recall region.The action taken by Ford is sufficient to resolve the issues raised by this investigation.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.
EA08021 · Engine Compartment Fires
Opened Sep 17, 2008 · Closed Oct 14, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System; Electrical System:wiring; Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module ; Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Additional source detail variants (7)
Electrical System
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Electrical System:wiring
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
Vehicle Speed Control
EA08-021 IS CLOSED WITH FORD'S ACTIONS IN RECALL 09V-399 RECALLING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCHES (SCDS).WITH THIS RECALL FORD HAS NOW RECALLED ALL OF THE APPROXIMATE 16 MILLION FORD MODEL VEHICLES THAT WERE MANUFACTURED FROM MY 1992 THROUGH 2003 WITH A TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SCDS.NHTSA WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE RECALLED VEHICLES TO ENSURE REMEDIES INSTALLED BY FORD TOMITIGATE THE POTENTIAL FOR SCDS RELATED FIRES ARE EFFECTIVE.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE ATTACHED CLOSING REPORT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.
PE08035 · Engine Compartment Fires
Opened May 13, 2008 · Closed Sep 17, 2008
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Electrical System; Electrical System:wiring; Vehicle Speed Control
ODI HAS RECEIVED 134 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, 285 MANUFACTURER COMPLAINTS, AND 137 MANUFACTURER WARRANTY CLAIMS ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1995 THRU 2003 FORD WINDSTAR VEHICLES.TWO OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THE FIRES CAUSED STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE COMPLAINANT'S HOME.OF THE 134 ODI COMPLAINTS, 36 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, 72 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING AND 26 OF THE COMPLAINTS DO NOT SPECIFY IF THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING OR NOT.FURTHER REVIEW OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS SHOWS THAT 72 ALLEGE THAT THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS) CAUSED THE FIRE AND 10 ALLEGE THAT THE SCDS LEAKED BRAKE FLUID ON TO THE ABS MODULE RESULTING IN THE FIRE.THERE WERE 52 THAT DID NOT IDENTIFY A CAUSE OR THAT IDENTIFIED MISCELLANEOUS OTHER CAUSES.ODI HAS ALSO RECEIVED 89 COMPLAINTS ( NOT COUNTED IN THIS RESUME) ALLEGING THAT THE SCDS DEVELOPED A BRAKE FLUID LEAK.THIRTEEN OF THESE COMPLAINTS SAY THAT THE LEAK AT THE SCDS RESULTED IN BRAKED FLUID REACHING THE ABS MODULE.THIS PE HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA) TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE CAUSE OF THE FIRES AND ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY, AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Electrical System
ODI HAS RECEIVED 134 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, 285 MANUFACTURER COMPLAINTS, AND 137 MANUFACTURER WARRANTY CLAIMS ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1995 THRU 2003 FORD WINDSTAR VEHICLES.TWO OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THE FIRES CAUSED STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE COMPLAINANT'S HOME.OF THE 134 ODI COMPLAINTS, 36 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, 72 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING AND 26 OF THE COMPLAINTS DO NOT SPECIFY IF THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING OR NOT.FURTHER REVIEW OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS SHOWS THAT 72 ALLEGE THAT THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS) CAUSED THE FIRE AND 10 ALLEGE THAT THE SCDS LEAKED BRAKE FLUID ON TO THE ABS MODULE RESULTING IN THE FIRE.THERE WERE 52 THAT DID NOT IDENTIFY A CAUSE OR THAT IDENTIFIED MISCELLANEOUS OTHER CAUSES.ODI HAS ALSO RECEIVED 89 COMPLAINTS ( NOT COUNTED IN THIS RESUME) ALLEGING THAT THE SCDS DEVELOPED A BRAKE FLUID LEAK.THIRTEEN OF THESE COMPLAINTS SAY THAT THE LEAK AT THE SCDS RESULTED IN BRAKED FLUID REACHING THE ABS MODULE.THIS PE HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA) TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE CAUSE OF THE FIRES AND ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY, AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.
Electrical System:wiring
ODI HAS RECEIVED 134 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, 285 MANUFACTURER COMPLAINTS, AND 137 MANUFACTURER WARRANTY CLAIMS ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1995 THRU 2003 FORD WINDSTAR VEHICLES.TWO OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THE FIRES CAUSED STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE COMPLAINANT'S HOME.OF THE 134 ODI COMPLAINTS, 36 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, 72 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING AND 26 OF THE COMPLAINTS DO NOT SPECIFY IF THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING OR NOT.FURTHER REVIEW OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS SHOWS THAT 72 ALLEGE THAT THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS) CAUSED THE FIRE AND 10 ALLEGE THAT THE SCDS LEAKED BRAKE FLUID ON TO THE ABS MODULE RESULTING IN THE FIRE.THERE WERE 52 THAT DID NOT IDENTIFY A CAUSE OR THAT IDENTIFIED MISCELLANEOUS OTHER CAUSES.ODI HAS ALSO RECEIVED 89 COMPLAINTS ( NOT COUNTED IN THIS RESUME) ALLEGING THAT THE SCDS DEVELOPED A BRAKE FLUID LEAK.THIRTEEN OF THESE COMPLAINTS SAY THAT THE LEAK AT THE SCDS RESULTED IN BRAKED FLUID REACHING THE ABS MODULE.THIS PE HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA) TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE CAUSE OF THE FIRES AND ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY, AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.
Vehicle Speed Control
ODI HAS RECEIVED 134 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, 285 MANUFACTURER COMPLAINTS, AND 137 MANUFACTURER WARRANTY CLAIMS ALLEGING INCIDENTS OF ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 1995 THRU 2003 FORD WINDSTAR VEHICLES.TWO OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THE FIRES CAUSED STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE COMPLAINANT'S HOME.OF THE 134 ODI COMPLAINTS, 36 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED, 72 ALLEGE THE FIRE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING AND 26 OF THE COMPLAINTS DO NOT SPECIFY IF THE VEHICLE WAS RUNNING OR NOT.FURTHER REVIEW OF THE ODI COMPLAINTS SHOWS THAT 72 ALLEGE THAT THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS) CAUSED THE FIRE AND 10 ALLEGE THAT THE SCDS LEAKED BRAKE FLUID ON TO THE ABS MODULE RESULTING IN THE FIRE.THERE WERE 52 THAT DID NOT IDENTIFY A CAUSE OR THAT IDENTIFIED MISCELLANEOUS OTHER CAUSES.ODI HAS ALSO RECEIVED 89 COMPLAINTS ( NOT COUNTED IN THIS RESUME) ALLEGING THAT THE SCDS DEVELOPED A BRAKE FLUID LEAK.THIRTEEN OF THESE COMPLAINTS SAY THAT THE LEAK AT THE SCDS RESULTED IN BRAKED FLUID REACHING THE ABS MODULE.THIS PE HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA) TO FURTHER EVALUATE THE CAUSE OF THE FIRES AND ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY, AND SAFETY CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT.
PE04022 · Power Sliding Door Opening
Opened Mar 3, 2004 · Closed Jul 1, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:body:door ; Structure:body:door:hinge And Attachments
THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH SINGLE OR DUAL POWER SLIDING DOORS (PSD).APPROXIMATELY 111,000 VEHICLES HAVE DUAL POWER SLIDING DOORS.THE PSD IS OPENED BY ANY OF 5 METHODS, THE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE MANUAL DOOR HANDLE, THE KEY FOB, THE OVERHEAD CONSOLE SWITCH AND THE B-PILLAR SWITCH.THE DOOR MAY BE OPENED ONLY UNDER THESE CONDITIONS: IGNITION KEY IS IN OFF/ACCESSORIES/ON/START POSITION, GEAR SELECTOR IN PARK, VEHICLE SPEED LESS THAN 6 MPH, AND DOOR UNLOCKED.THE PSD LATCH IS LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE DOOR AND HAS A SECONDARY AND PRIMARY LATCH POSITION.FULL AND PROPER CLOSURE ENGAGES BOTH THE SECONDARY AND PRIMARY LATCH.WITH THE IGNITION IN THE ON POSITION, AS THE GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED OUT OF PARK THE DOOR AUTOMATICALLY LOCKS AND THAT ACTION MECHANICALLY ISOLATES THE LATCH, SECONDARY AND PRIMARY, FROM ALL LATCH RELEASE CONNECTIONS.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS ALLEGING DOOR OPENING WHILE DRIVING, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 5,700 REPORTS THAT ALLEGE THE DOOR DOES NOT CLOSE PROPERLY OR POPS OPEN WITH NO MENTION OF WHILE DRIVING.FORD'S INVESTIGATION INTO THESE REPORT INCLUDED OWNER INTERVIEWS, VEHICLE BY-BACKS AND TESTING OF CONSUMER VEHICLES.IT FOUND THAT ALLEGATIONS OF DOOR OPENING WHILE DRIVING WERE IN FACT REPORTS OF DOORS NOT BEING PROPERLY CLOSED INITIALLY AND SUBSEQUENTLY OPENING TO THE SECONDARY LATCH POSITION AS A RESULT OF VEHICLE VIBRATIONS OR DRIVING MANEUVERS.FORD'S TESTING OF CONSUMER VEHICLES DID NOT RESULT IN ANY RECURRENCE OF PSD OPENING WHILE BEING DRIVEN.ODI INTERVIEWS WITH OWNERS AFFIRMED THE ALLEGATIONS OF PSD OPENING WHILE DRIVING; HOWEVER OWNERS INDICATED THE EVENT IS NOT A REGULAR OCCURRENCE (I.E.,IT OCCURRED ONLY ONCE OR HAS NOT OCCURRED RECENTLY) AND THAT THE UNINTENDED PSD OPENING MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE DUPLICATED.IN CONTRAST, THE IMPROPER CLOSING OF THE PSD (LATCHING ON THE SECONDARY BUT NOT THE PRIMARY LATCH) CAN BE DUPLICATED, AND ODI VERIFIED THIS DURING AN INSPECTION OF A CONSUMER VEHICLE.IN THIS CONDITION (SECONDARY BUT NO PRIMARY LATCH), WHEN THE VEHICLE'S GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED OUT OF PARK POSITION, A WARNING CHIME SOUNDS AND WARNING MESSAGE APPEARS ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL.MOST REPORTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE FILED IN THE EARLY SERVICE-LIFE OF THE VEHICLE AND PEAKED AROUND THE 18-MONTH IN-SERVICE TIME PERIOD.ODI AND MFR COMPLAINT TRENDS ARE DECLINING OVER THE LAST 8 QUARTERS.THERE IS NO ALLEGED INJURY ASSOCIATED WITH OCCUPANT FALLING OUT WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION.NO FAILURE MODE CAUSING FULL DOOR OPENING WHILE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION HAS BEEN VERIFIED (REPRODUCED BY ODI OR BY TRAINED SERVICE TECHNICIANS AT DEALERSHIPS) DURING THIS INVESTIGATION.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 WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Structure:body:door
THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH SINGLE OR DUAL POWER SLIDING DOORS (PSD).APPROXIMATELY 111,000 VEHICLES HAVE DUAL POWER SLIDING DOORS.THE PSD IS OPENED BY ANY OF 5 METHODS, THE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE MANUAL DOOR HANDLE, THE KEY FOB, THE OVERHEAD CONSOLE SWITCH AND THE B-PILLAR SWITCH.THE DOOR MAY BE OPENED ONLY UNDER THESE CONDITIONS: IGNITION KEY IS IN OFF/ACCESSORIES/ON/START POSITION, GEAR SELECTOR IN PARK, VEHICLE SPEED LESS THAN 6 MPH, AND DOOR UNLOCKED.THE PSD LATCH IS LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE DOOR AND HAS A SECONDARY AND PRIMARY LATCH POSITION.FULL AND PROPER CLOSURE ENGAGES BOTH THE SECONDARY AND PRIMARY LATCH.WITH THE IGNITION IN THE ON POSITION, AS THE GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED OUT OF PARK THE DOOR AUTOMATICALLY LOCKS AND THAT ACTION MECHANICALLY ISOLATES THE LATCH, SECONDARY AND PRIMARY, FROM ALL LATCH RELEASE CONNECTIONS.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS ALLEGING DOOR OPENING WHILE DRIVING, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 5,700 REPORTS THAT ALLEGE THE DOOR DOES NOT CLOSE PROPERLY OR POPS OPEN WITH NO MENTION OF WHILE DRIVING.FORD'S INVESTIGATION INTO THESE REPORT INCLUDED OWNER INTERVIEWS, VEHICLE BY-BACKS AND TESTING OF CONSUMER VEHICLES.IT FOUND THAT ALLEGATIONS OF DOOR OPENING WHILE DRIVING WERE IN FACT REPORTS OF DOORS NOT BEING PROPERLY CLOSED INITIALLY AND SUBSEQUENTLY OPENING TO THE SECONDARY LATCH POSITION AS A RESULT OF VEHICLE VIBRATIONS OR DRIVING MANEUVERS.FORD'S TESTING OF CONSUMER VEHICLES DID NOT RESULT IN ANY RECURRENCE OF PSD OPENING WHILE BEING DRIVEN.ODI INTERVIEWS WITH OWNERS AFFIRMED THE ALLEGATIONS OF PSD OPENING WHILE DRIVING; HOWEVER OWNERS INDICATED THE EVENT IS NOT A REGULAR OCCURRENCE (I.E.,IT OCCURRED ONLY ONCE OR HAS NOT OCCURRED RECENTLY) AND THAT THE UNINTENDED PSD OPENING MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE DUPLICATED.IN CONTRAST, THE IMPROPER CLOSING OF THE PSD (LATCHING ON THE SECONDARY BUT NOT THE PRIMARY LATCH) CAN BE DUPLICATED, AND ODI VERIFIED THIS DURING AN INSPECTION OF A CONSUMER VEHICLE.IN THIS CONDITION (SECONDARY BUT NO PRIMARY LATCH), WHEN THE VEHICLE'S GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED OUT OF PARK POSITION, A WARNING CHIME SOUNDS AND WARNING MESSAGE APPEARS ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL.MOST REPORTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE FILED IN THE EARLY SERVICE-LIFE OF THE VEHICLE AND PEAKED AROUND THE 18-MONTH IN-SERVICE TIME PERIOD.ODI AND MFR COMPLAINT TRENDS ARE DECLINING OVER THE LAST 8 QUARTERS.THERE IS NO ALLEGED INJURY ASSOCIATED WITH OCCUPANT FALLING OUT WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION.NO FAILURE MODE CAUSING FULL DOOR OPENING WHILE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION HAS BEEN VERIFIED (REPRODUCED BY ODI OR BY TRAINED SERVICE TECHNICIANS AT DEALERSHIPS) DURING THIS INVESTIGATION.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 WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Structure:body:door:hinge And Attachments
THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH SINGLE OR DUAL POWER SLIDING DOORS (PSD).APPROXIMATELY 111,000 VEHICLES HAVE DUAL POWER SLIDING DOORS.THE PSD IS OPENED BY ANY OF 5 METHODS, THE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE MANUAL DOOR HANDLE, THE KEY FOB, THE OVERHEAD CONSOLE SWITCH AND THE B-PILLAR SWITCH.THE DOOR MAY BE OPENED ONLY UNDER THESE CONDITIONS: IGNITION KEY IS IN OFF/ACCESSORIES/ON/START POSITION, GEAR SELECTOR IN PARK, VEHICLE SPEED LESS THAN 6 MPH, AND DOOR UNLOCKED.THE PSD LATCH IS LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE DOOR AND HAS A SECONDARY AND PRIMARY LATCH POSITION.FULL AND PROPER CLOSURE ENGAGES BOTH THE SECONDARY AND PRIMARY LATCH.WITH THE IGNITION IN THE ON POSITION, AS THE GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED OUT OF PARK THE DOOR AUTOMATICALLY LOCKS AND THAT ACTION MECHANICALLY ISOLATES THE LATCH, SECONDARY AND PRIMARY, FROM ALL LATCH RELEASE CONNECTIONS.IN ADDITION TO THE REPORTS ALLEGING DOOR OPENING WHILE DRIVING, FORD HAS RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 5,700 REPORTS THAT ALLEGE THE DOOR DOES NOT CLOSE PROPERLY OR POPS OPEN WITH NO MENTION OF WHILE DRIVING.FORD'S INVESTIGATION INTO THESE REPORT INCLUDED OWNER INTERVIEWS, VEHICLE BY-BACKS AND TESTING OF CONSUMER VEHICLES.IT FOUND THAT ALLEGATIONS OF DOOR OPENING WHILE DRIVING WERE IN FACT REPORTS OF DOORS NOT BEING PROPERLY CLOSED INITIALLY AND SUBSEQUENTLY OPENING TO THE SECONDARY LATCH POSITION AS A RESULT OF VEHICLE VIBRATIONS OR DRIVING MANEUVERS.FORD'S TESTING OF CONSUMER VEHICLES DID NOT RESULT IN ANY RECURRENCE OF PSD OPENING WHILE BEING DRIVEN.ODI INTERVIEWS WITH OWNERS AFFIRMED THE ALLEGATIONS OF PSD OPENING WHILE DRIVING; HOWEVER OWNERS INDICATED THE EVENT IS NOT A REGULAR OCCURRENCE (I.E.,IT OCCURRED ONLY ONCE OR HAS NOT OCCURRED RECENTLY) AND THAT THE UNINTENDED PSD OPENING MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE DUPLICATED.IN CONTRAST, THE IMPROPER CLOSING OF THE PSD (LATCHING ON THE SECONDARY BUT NOT THE PRIMARY LATCH) CAN BE DUPLICATED, AND ODI VERIFIED THIS DURING AN INSPECTION OF A CONSUMER VEHICLE.IN THIS CONDITION (SECONDARY BUT NO PRIMARY LATCH), WHEN THE VEHICLE'S GEAR SELECTOR IS MOVED OUT OF PARK POSITION, A WARNING CHIME SOUNDS AND WARNING MESSAGE APPEARS ON THE INSTRUMENT PANEL.MOST REPORTS AND WARRANTY CLAIMS WERE FILED IN THE EARLY SERVICE-LIFE OF THE VEHICLE AND PEAKED AROUND THE 18-MONTH IN-SERVICE TIME PERIOD.ODI AND MFR COMPLAINT TRENDS ARE DECLINING OVER THE LAST 8 QUARTERS.THERE IS NO ALLEGED INJURY ASSOCIATED WITH OCCUPANT FALLING OUT WHILE THE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION.NO FAILURE MODE CAUSING FULL DOOR OPENING WHILE VEHICLE IS IN MOTION HAS BEEN VERIFIED (REPRODUCED BY ODI OR BY TRAINED SERVICE TECHNICIANS AT DEALERSHIPS) DURING THIS INVESTIGATION.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 WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Illustration