NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Vehicle Speed Control complaints
147 reportsClear category filter176,500 miles · Feb 29, 2008
Service Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
THIS HAS HAPPENED OVER THE PAST TWO WEEKS. ABOUT FEBRUARY 15, 2008 I WAS HAVING TROUBLE KEEPING PRESSURE IN MY BRAKES. THEY WERE SPONGY. I CALLED A MECHANIC AND BROUGHT IT TO HIM ON FEBRUARY 16TH. HE SAID IT WAS THE MASTER CYLINDER, AND REPLACED IT AND THE WHEEL CYLINDERS. WELL, THE VAN WORKED FOR ABOUT A WEEK. THEN MONDAY, FEBR…
Read full complaint
THIS HAS HAPPENED OVER THE PAST TWO WEEKS. ABOUT FEBRUARY 15, 2008 I WAS HAVING TROUBLE KEEPING PRESSURE IN MY BRAKES. THEY WERE SPONGY. I CALLED A MECHANIC AND BROUGHT IT TO HIM ON FEBRUARY 16TH. HE SAID IT WAS THE MASTER CYLINDER, AND REPLACED IT AND THE WHEEL CYLINDERS. WELL, THE VAN WORKED FOR ABOUT A WEEK. THEN MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2008 MY BRAKES AGAIN WENT SPONGY. I CHECKED THE BRAKE FLUID AND THERE WAS NONE. I REFILLED THE CONTAINER, AND CALLED A MECHANIC. I BROUGHT THE VEHICLE TO HIM ON FEBRUARY 26, 2008. HE DETERMINED IT WAS THE CRUISE CONTROL PRESSURE SWITCH. I THEN WENT TO TOUSLEY FORD DEALERSHIP AND GOT THE PART. TOUSLEY FORD IN MINNESOTA SAID THIS PARTICULAR PART IS IN RECALL FOR SEVERAL OTHER VEHICLES BUT NOT MINE. MY MECHANIC REPLACED THE PART AND THE VEHICLE HASN'T HAD ANY PROBLEMS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, NOW THE CRUISE CONTROL WORKS AGAIN. IT HAD GONE OUT LAST SUMMER SOME TIME. THIS RECALL IS FOR A FIRE HAZARD, AND I SAW WHERE THE BRAKE FLUID CAN LEAK THROUGH THAT SWITCH ONTO WIRING SO THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A FIRE IN MY VAN. MY COMPLAINT IS THAT MY VEHICLE, AND FAMILY ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT TO ME AS THE VEHICLES AND FAMILIES OF THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE ABLE TO GET THEIR VEHICLES FIXED IN THE RECALL. I DRIVE A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR SPORT MINIVAN. I DO FOSTER CARE AND HAVE BIRTH CHILDREN, AND GRANDCHILDREN IN THAT VEHICLE ALL THE TIME. SO, I AM VERY UPSET THAT FORD DOES NOT RECALL THIS FIRE HAZARD ON ALL VEHICLES. MY FAMILY IS VERY IMPORTANT! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10219652
Mileage unknown · Jan 18, 2008
Electrical SystemService Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed Control
MY CRUISE CONTROL SPEED ACCELERATED THEN WENT OUT NOT WORKING AT ALL, ABS LIGHT GOES OFF AND ON EVEN AFTER I HAD BRAKE WORK DONE, ODOMETER AND SPEEDOMETER STOPPED WORKING ON 1/16/08, BRAKE FLUID IS LEAKING FROM THE MASTER CYLINDER, FUSE 10 KEEPS BLOWING, THIS LAST TIME 1/18/08 SMOKE UNDER THE HOOK BY MASTER CYLINDER. SOMEONE SAI…
Read full complaint
MY CRUISE CONTROL SPEED ACCELERATED THEN WENT OUT NOT WORKING AT ALL, ABS LIGHT GOES OFF AND ON EVEN AFTER I HAD BRAKE WORK DONE, ODOMETER AND SPEEDOMETER STOPPED WORKING ON 1/16/08, BRAKE FLUID IS LEAKING FROM THE MASTER CYLINDER, FUSE 10 KEEPS BLOWING, THIS LAST TIME 1/18/08 SMOKE UNDER THE HOOK BY MASTER CYLINDER. SOMEONE SAID IT MIGHT CATCH FIRE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10215402
132,000 miles · Nov 9, 2007
Vehicle Speed Control
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ABS LIGHT ILLUMINATED INTERMITTENTLY. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH DOES NOT ACTIVATE. HE HAS NOT TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT YET CAUGHT FIRE. THE CONTACT FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE MANUFACTURER. T…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE ABS LIGHT ILLUMINATED INTERMITTENTLY. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH DOES NOT ACTIVATE. HE HAS NOT TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION. THE VEHICLE HAS NOT YET CAUGHT FIRE. THE CONTACT FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE MANUFACTURER. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 124,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE IS 132,000. UPDATED 01/17/08 *BF
NHTSA ODI #10208550
76,849 miles · Oct 4, 2007
Vehicle Speed Control
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. THE BRAKE WARNING INDICATOR LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE CRUISE CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH FOR THE MASTER CYLINDER WAS LEAKING. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT HER VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL). THE CURRENT AND F…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. THE BRAKE WARNING INDICATOR LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE CRUISE CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH FOR THE MASTER CYLINDER WAS LEAKING. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT HER VEHICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 07V336000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL). THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 76,849. THE CONSUMER STATED THE DEFECT WAS THE CRUISE CONTROL CANCELING SWITCH ON BRAKE MASTER CYLINDER. REPLACED KIT BRAKE REPAIR WAS DONE 10/13/07. UPDATED 11/01/07 *TR
NHTSA ODI #10204813
142,000 miles · Sep 26, 2007
Vehicle Speed Control
OUR CRUISE CONTROL WENT OUT ON OUR 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. WE TOOK IT TO THE LOCAL FORD SERVICE STATION AND THEY EXPLAINED THAT THE BRAKE FLUID WAS LEAKING ONTO THE CRUISE CONTROL. IT APPARENTLY IS A RECALL WITH SEVERAL FORD BRANDS BUT NOT WITH THE WINDSTAR YET. THE MECHANIC EXPLAINED THAT WE WERE LUCKY THE CRUISE CONTROL WENT OU…
Read full complaint
OUR CRUISE CONTROL WENT OUT ON OUR 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. WE TOOK IT TO THE LOCAL FORD SERVICE STATION AND THEY EXPLAINED THAT THE BRAKE FLUID WAS LEAKING ONTO THE CRUISE CONTROL. IT APPARENTLY IS A RECALL WITH SEVERAL FORD BRANDS BUT NOT WITH THE WINDSTAR YET. THE MECHANIC EXPLAINED THAT WE WERE LUCKY THE CRUISE CONTROL WENT OUT AND THAT IT DIDN'T START A FIRE! *JB
NHTSA ODI #10204136
81,601 miles · Sep 19, 2007
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING TO WORK I NOTICED MY ODOMETER AND SPEEDOMETER QUIT WORKING AND THEN EVERY LIGHT POSSIBLE LIT UP, SO WHEN I GOT TO WORK MY HUSBAND TOLD ME TO SEE IF I COULD GET IT TO GRANDE TRUCK CENTER IN SAN ANTONIO. I LEFT IT AND LATER RECEIVED A CALL TELLING ME THE WIRING HARNESS HAD SHORTED OUT AND I WAS VERY LUCKY THAT MY VA…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING TO WORK I NOTICED MY ODOMETER AND SPEEDOMETER QUIT WORKING AND THEN EVERY LIGHT POSSIBLE LIT UP, SO WHEN I GOT TO WORK MY HUSBAND TOLD ME TO SEE IF I COULD GET IT TO GRANDE TRUCK CENTER IN SAN ANTONIO. I LEFT IT AND LATER RECEIVED A CALL TELLING ME THE WIRING HARNESS HAD SHORTED OUT AND I WAS VERY LUCKY THAT MY VAN DID NOT BURN UP. I WAS TOLD MAYBE A VARMINT HAD CHEWED ON THE WIRES, BUT MY VAN IS ALWAYS PARKED IN THE GARAGE AT NIGHT.. I DECIDED TO DO SOME RESEARCH AFTER RECALLING AN INCIDENT NOT FAR FROM OUR HOME THAT INVOLVED SOME TYPE OF FORD SUV THAT CAUGHT FIRE IN THE GARAGE AND BURNED THE HOUSE DOWN. ALL THIS WAS DUE TO A FAULTY CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH THAT COST ABOUT 21.00. I FOUND THAT MILLIONS OF VEHICLES HAD BEEN RECALLED BY FORD BECAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM AND THE WINDSTAR WAS ON THE LIST OF HAVING THE SAME OR SIMILAR SWITCH, BUT WAS NOT RECALLED AND STILL HAS NOT BEEN RECALLED. I HAVE PUT A REQUEST IN WITH GRANDE TRUCK TO BE REIMBURSED, SINCE IT WAS A MANUFACTURER ERROR AND NOTHING I DID, BUT TO DATE I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THEM. I EMAILED FORD TO ASK WHY MY VAN WAS NOT RECALLED AND RECEIVED AN ANSWER THAT ALL RECALLS ARE HANDLED BY THE NHTSA. YES, I DO HAVE THE ORIGINAL SWITCH THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE VAN (LOOKS LIKE PART#F58A-9F924-AA 2063) IT WAS KIND OF HARD TO READ. THE INVOICE STATES REPLACE ABS MODULE & HYDRAULIC UNIT, REPLACE WIRE HARNESS & CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH, SERVICE BLEED, BLEED SYS. $2654.81. MY HUSBAND WAS ALLOWED TO SEE THE WIRING HARNESS THAT WAS ALMOST BURNT IN HALF, BUT THAT WAS NOT KEPT. I THANK GOD THAT THERE WAS NO REAL TRAGEDY THAT CAME OUT OF THIS, BUT I ALSO FEEL THAT FORD IS RESPONSIBLE AND SHOULD TAKE ACTION TO REIMBURSE ME MY MONEY. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED ANY OTHER COMPLAINTS ON THE FORD WINDSTAR. WHEN I CONTACTED YOUR OFFICE BY PHONE I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS A NEW RECALL AS OF 8-31-2007, THAT INCLUDED THE WINDSTAR, BUT I DID NOT SEE THAT INFORMATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. UPDATED 12/12/07 *TR
NHTSA ODI #10203486
56,000 miles · Aug 7, 2007
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT BOTH THE YELLOW ABS AND THE RED BRAKE LIGHT ILLUMINATE INTERMITTENTLY. HE STATED THAT THE LIGHTS WOULD STAY OFF FOR APPROXIMATELY 2-3 DAYS AND THEN ILLUMINATE AGAIN. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS CAUSED BY A CIRCUIT FAILURE IN THE ABS UNIT IN THE COMP…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT BOTH THE YELLOW ABS AND THE RED BRAKE LIGHT ILLUMINATE INTERMITTENTLY. HE STATED THAT THE LIGHTS WOULD STAY OFF FOR APPROXIMATELY 2-3 DAYS AND THEN ILLUMINATE AGAIN. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FAILURE WAS CAUSED BY A CIRCUIT FAILURE IN THE ABS UNIT IN THE COMPUTER PROGRAMMING. THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THERE WAS NO RECALL OR SERVICE BULLETIN AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGES WERE 56,000. UPDATED 06/05/08 *BF THE CONSUMER STATED FLUID WAS LEAKING FROM THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH ONTO THE MASTER CYLINDER. UPDATED 06/05/08
NHTSA ODI #10198728
79,000 miles · May 2, 2007
Electrical SystemVehicle Speed Control
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 79000 ,AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 84000. THE DASHBOARD BRAKE WARNING LIGHT WAS CONSTANTLY TURNED ON. BRAKE FLUID WAS PUT INTO THE VEHICLE. HOWEVER THE WARNING LIGHT REMAINED ON, AND THE VEHICLE STILL NEEDED MORE BRAKE FLUID. THE VEHICLE HAS HAD NO FAILUR…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 79000 ,AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 84000. THE DASHBOARD BRAKE WARNING LIGHT WAS CONSTANTLY TURNED ON. BRAKE FLUID WAS PUT INTO THE VEHICLE. HOWEVER THE WARNING LIGHT REMAINED ON, AND THE VEHICLE STILL NEEDED MORE BRAKE FLUID. THE VEHICLE HAS HAD NO FAILURE STOPPING. THE DASHBOARD LIGHTS TURNED OFF, BUT THE POWER WINDOWS AND DOORS MALFUNCTIONED. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS WERE THE RESULT OF THE DEFECTIVE CRUISE CONTROL. THE MECHANIC DISCONNECTED THE CRUISE CONTROL. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10189533
4,000 miles · Nov 9, 2006
Electrical SystemExterior LightingLatches/locks/linkages
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE BRAKING FROM 10 MPH UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD, ALMOST GOING OVER A CURB. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A SERVICE DEALER, WHERE THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALSO NOTIFIED. THERE WAS A SQUEAKING NOISE WHEN THE SLIDING DOOR WAS CLOSED. TH…
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE BRAKING FROM 10 MPH UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, THE VEHICLE SURGED FORWARD, ALMOST GOING OVER A CURB. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A SERVICE DEALER, WHERE THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALSO NOTIFIED. THERE WAS A SQUEAKING NOISE WHEN THE SLIDING DOOR WAS CLOSED. THE CONSUMER COMPLAINED OF THE TRANSMISSION SLIPPING, THE DEALER REPROGRAMMED THE PCM AND RE-FILLED THE TRANSMISSION FLUID. THE SHIFTER WAS RE-ADJUSTED. THE VEHICLE PULLED TO THE RIGHT OCCASIONALLY, THE SPEEDOMETER WAS INACCURATE. THE HEADLIGHTS WOULD GO DIM AT TIMES. UPDATED 01/09/07.*JB
NHTSA ODI #10173041
91,000 miles · Oct 11, 2006
Vehicle Speed ControlFire
MY HUSBAND, MY 7 MONTH OLD BABY AND I WERE DRIVING ON OUR WAY TO LUNCH AT ABOUT 30 MPH WHEN WE NOTICED SMOKE COMING OUT OF THE HOOD OF OUR 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. IMMEDIATELY SMOKE FILLED UP OUR CABIN THROUGH THE VENTS. MY HUSBAND PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, AND I QUICKLY GOT MY BABY OUT OF THE VAN. MY HUSBAND OPENED THE…
Read full complaint
MY HUSBAND, MY 7 MONTH OLD BABY AND I WERE DRIVING ON OUR WAY TO LUNCH AT ABOUT 30 MPH WHEN WE NOTICED SMOKE COMING OUT OF THE HOOD OF OUR 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. IMMEDIATELY SMOKE FILLED UP OUR CABIN THROUGH THE VENTS. MY HUSBAND PULLED OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, AND I QUICKLY GOT MY BABY OUT OF THE VAN. MY HUSBAND OPENED THE HOOD AND SAW FLAMES AND WE ALL RAN AWAY FROM THE CAR. MY HUSBAND RAN TO A NEARBY BUSINESS THAT LUCKILY HAD A FIRE EXTINGUISHER. MY HUSBAND WAS ABLE TO PUT THE FIRE OUT IN TIME BEFORE WHO KNOWS WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. MY HUSBAND TOOK THE CAR TO AN AUTO SHOP THAT HAPPENED TO BE VERY CLOSE TO WHERE THE INCIDENT HAPPENED. AFTER HAVING TO LET THE CAR COOL DOWN AND THE TERRIBLE SMELL GO AWAY THE MECHANICS LOOKED AT THE CAR AND TOLD US RIGHT AWAY THAT THEY KNEW IT WAS THE SAME CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH THAT HAS BEEN RECALLED ON FORD TRUCKS. HE ADVISED US TO TAKE THE VAN TO FORD AND HAVE THEM FIX IT WITHOUT ANY CHARGE BECAUSE THAT WAS A PROBLEM THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECALLED IN THE WINDSTAR AS WELL. MY HUSBAND TOOK THE VAN TO THE LOCAL FORD SHOP AND THEY DID AGREE THAT THE PROBLEM WAS THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH. THEY "UPGRADED" THE PART AND THEN TRIED TO CHARGE US ALMOST $400 FOR THE JOB. NOT UNTIL AFTER I COMPLAINED TO THE MANAGER DID THEY WAIVE THE FEE, BUT TOLD ME IT WAS BECAUSE "I WAS A LOCAL CUSTOMER" (I HAVE NEVER BOUGHT ANYTHING FROM THEIR DEALERSHIP) THEY WAIVED THE FEE BECAUSE THEY KNEW THIS WAS A PROBLEM OF FORDS. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10170525
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