NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Wheels complaints
26 reportsClear category filter195,000 miles · Jul 18, 2017
Power TrainSuspensionWheels
ON SATURDAY MORNING JULY 15TH 2017, I WAS DRIVING AT 2:30 AM. I HAD JUST LEFT FOR MY FIRST JOB AND CROSSED A SET OF TRAIN TRACKS. WHEN I DID, THE REAR AXLE SNAPPED ALMOST CAUSING ME TO CRASH. AFTER LOOKING FOR THE COST TO REPLACE THE AXLE, I CAME UPON A FORD RECALL. WHEN I PLACED MY VIN IN THE COMPUTER IT CAME UP THAT MY 2002 FO…
Read full complaint
ON SATURDAY MORNING JULY 15TH 2017, I WAS DRIVING AT 2:30 AM. I HAD JUST LEFT FOR MY FIRST JOB AND CROSSED A SET OF TRAIN TRACKS. WHEN I DID, THE REAR AXLE SNAPPED ALMOST CAUSING ME TO CRASH. AFTER LOOKING FOR THE COST TO REPLACE THE AXLE, I CAME UPON A FORD RECALL. WHEN I PLACED MY VIN IN THE COMPUTER IT CAME UP THAT MY 2002 FORD WINDSTAR WAS IN FACT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. I TALKED TO SOMEONE AT FORD VIA LIVE CHAT ON SATURDAY AFTER HAVING THE VEHICLE TOWED HOME AND THEY STATED THAT THE RECALL WAS OUTSTANDING AND I NEEDED TO CALL THE FORD DEALERSHIP. I PAID AGAIN TO HAVE THE VEHICLE TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP. NOW TUESDAY MORNING JULY 18TH 2017, BOTH THE DEALERSHIP AND FORD IS SAYING THAT THEY CANT HELP ME AND I NEED TO TAKE CARE OF REPLACING THE COMPLETELY RUSTED REAR AXLE. THE RUST CAUSING THE AXLE TO SNAP WAS THE REASON FOR THE RECALL IN THE FIRST PLACE. I HAVE OWNED THIS VEHICLE LESS THAN 6 MONTHS AND NOW AS A SINGLE MOM AM LEFT WITHOUT A VEHICLE. I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER FORD AGAIN IN MY LIFE AND I WILL ALSO DISCOURAGE MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY FROM PURCHASING FORDS AS WELL.
NHTSA ODI #11006093
113,775 miles · Mar 6, 2017
SuspensionWheels
REAR AXLE FRACTURED WHILE DRIVING FROM SCHOOL TO HOME, THERE IS UNEVEN ROAD SURFACE BETWEEN THE SCHOOL DRIVEWAY OR PARKING LOT AND GOING INTO THE FIRST STREET ROADS INTERSECTION, I HEARD A NOISE IN THE REAR WHILE CROSSING THIS UNEVEN SURFACE INTERSECTION, HANDLING OF THE VEHICLE BECAME NOTICEABLE DIFFERENT AND A SMELL OF BURNT R…
Read full complaint
REAR AXLE FRACTURED WHILE DRIVING FROM SCHOOL TO HOME, THERE IS UNEVEN ROAD SURFACE BETWEEN THE SCHOOL DRIVEWAY OR PARKING LOT AND GOING INTO THE FIRST STREET ROADS INTERSECTION, I HEARD A NOISE IN THE REAR WHILE CROSSING THIS UNEVEN SURFACE INTERSECTION, HANDLING OF THE VEHICLE BECAME NOTICEABLE DIFFERENT AND A SMELL OF BURNT RUBBER AND SMOKE STARTED, AFTER STOPPING THE VEHICLE, THE REAR WHEEL WAS CROOKED AND AFTER FURTHER OBSERVATION I OBSERVED THE REAR AXLE FRACTURED CLOSE TO THE REAR WHEEL (DRIVING SIDE) CAUSING THE REAR WHEEL TO RUB AGAINST THE INNER WHEEL HOUSE AND AFFECTING CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. FORD FIRST INSTALLED BRACKETS OVER THE AXLE TO REINFORCE IT IN 2010 (RECALL 10S13), THEN IN SEPTEMBER OF 2016 SENT ME ANOTHER LETTER (SAFETY RECALL NOTICE 15S27) TO BRING MY VEHICLE TO THE DEALER TO VERIFY IF THE BRACKETS WERE INSTALLED CORRECTLY, AFTER BRINGING MY VEHICLE TO THE DEALER I WAS TOLD THE BRACKETS WERE INSTALLED CORRECTLY AND IF I WANTED MY AXLE REPLACED ANYWAY I WOULD HAVE TO COVER THE PART COST. I CALLED TO THE FORD PHONE NUMBER IN THE LETTER TO REQUEST THE CHANGE OF MY REAR AXLE AT NO CHARGE BUT THEY DID REJECT MY REQUEST AND SAID THAT BRACKETS WERE INSTALLED CORRECTLY IN THE PAST BUT MY REAR AXLE WOULD BE REPLACED IF I WOULD PAY THE $300 USD, THEY COULD NOT GIVE FURTHER DETAILS ABOUT WHY I WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THE WHOLE AXLE IF THEY STATED THE REINFORCEMENT BRACKETS WERE PROPERLY INSTALLED.
NHTSA ODI #10959000
186,000 miles · Feb 9, 2017
Wheels
REAR AXLE BROKEN. MECHANIC AT BELL TIRE IT WAS RELATED TO THE RECALL ISSUE WITH THAT PART. HE ALSO SHOWED ME ANOTHER AREA OF CONCERN AROUND THE FRONT SUPPORTS WHICH IS ALSO RECALL RELATED. I AM NOT A MECHANIC SO DON'T EXPECT THIS INFORMATION TO BE ALL TECHNICAL.
NHTSA ODI #10953770
76,698 miles · Aug 29, 2016
SuspensionWheels
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE CONTACT HEARD AN ABNORMAL NOISE AND THE VEHICLE MOVED FROM SIDE TO SIDE. THE CONTACT OBSERVED THAT THE REAR PASSENGER WHEEL BECAME INOPERABLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE WHEEL AXLE WAS FRACTURED AND NEEDED TO…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. WHILE DRIVING APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH, THE CONTACT HEARD AN ABNORMAL NOISE AND THE VEHICLE MOVED FROM SIDE TO SIDE. THE CONTACT OBSERVED THAT THE REAR PASSENGER WHEEL BECAME INOPERABLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS DIAGNOSED THAT THE WHEEL AXLE WAS FRACTURED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE 76,698.
NHTSA ODI #10899328
89,000 miles · Jun 23, 2016
SteeringUnknown Or OtherWheels
VEHICLE CURRENTLY AT THE DEALERSHIP FOR MORE THAN TWO MONTHS AWAITING FROM FORD CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE AS THE DEALER WONT FIX THE CORRODED SUB FRAME INSTEAD THEY WANT THE CRC DEPT SEND THE PARTS TO THEM, ACCORDING TO CRC DEPT THEY ESCALATED THE ISSUE TO THE SECOND LEVEL BUT NO ACTION UNTIL NOW HAS BEEN…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE CURRENTLY AT THE DEALERSHIP FOR MORE THAN TWO MONTHS AWAITING FROM FORD CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP CENTER TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE AS THE DEALER WONT FIX THE CORRODED SUB FRAME INSTEAD THEY WANT THE CRC DEPT SEND THE PARTS TO THEM, ACCORDING TO CRC DEPT THEY ESCALATED THE ISSUE TO THE SECOND LEVEL BUT NO ACTION UNTIL NOW HAS BEEN TAKEN...I FEEL THAT THEY'RE IGNORING MY REQUEST OR HAS BEEN SITTING THERE WITHOUT TAKING ANY ACTION. WE ALMOST DIED ON THIS AS THE PASSENGER SIDE WHEEL FELL OFF..I'M TRYING MY LUCK IF YOU CAN HELP US TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE WITH THEM...THANKS [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #10876054
146,000 miles · Jul 22, 2015
SteeringSuspensionWheels
REAR AXEL CRACKED AFTER PERIOD OF TIME RESULTING IN BLOW OUT TIRE IN A PARKING LOT. AFTER RESEARCHING THIS ONLINE, I HAVE FOUND FORD RECALLED THIS SAME VAN FOR THIS SAME PROBLEM BUT DID NOT IN OUR STATE ALTHOUGH THE RECALL WAS DUE TO STATES WITH WEATHER LIKE SNOW, ICE, SALT, ETC WHICH CAUSED SAID ISSUE. WHY WOULDNT NEBRASKA BE I…
Read full complaint
REAR AXEL CRACKED AFTER PERIOD OF TIME RESULTING IN BLOW OUT TIRE IN A PARKING LOT. AFTER RESEARCHING THIS ONLINE, I HAVE FOUND FORD RECALLED THIS SAME VAN FOR THIS SAME PROBLEM BUT DID NOT IN OUR STATE ALTHOUGH THE RECALL WAS DUE TO STATES WITH WEATHER LIKE SNOW, ICE, SALT, ETC WHICH CAUSED SAID ISSUE. WHY WOULDNT NEBRASKA BE INCLUDED IN THIS SINCE ITS NEBRASKA AND ITS SNOWY ALOT? LUCKILY WE WERE IN A PARKING LOT, WE WERE NOT DRIVING AT HIGH RATE OF SPEED DOWN HIGHWAY LIKE I SAW WHILE RESEARCHING THIS ONLINE WHICH A MAN WAS KILLED WHO HAD THIS HAPPEN. I HAVE FOUND THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE A VERY DANGEROUS AND TRAGIC MISTAKE MADE BY FORD AND NOW MY VAN SITS IN A PARKING LOT WITH NO WAY FOR ME TO GET IT TO A SHOP TO GET A REPAIR MADE EVEN IF I DID HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO THIS. AT LEAST I WOULD WANT MY VAN IN MY DRIVEWAY, NOT IN A GROCERY STORE PARKING LOT WITH NO MEANS OF GETTING IT HOME, BESIDES THE FACT THAT BEING A WOMAN, I WOULD HAVE KEPT DRIVING IT NOT KNOWING AND COULD HAVE BEEN IN A SERIOUS ACCIDENT SUCH AS ONES I HAVE SEEN SINCE LOOKING INTO THIS ISSUE. I HAVE TAKEN PHOTOS OF CRACKED AXEL IN REAR AND ALSO FRONT DUE TO WEATHER AND CLIMATE AND FOUND THE COURT PAPERS SAYING WHICH STATES WERE INCLUDED IN THIS RECALL, YET NEBRASKA NOT ONE OF THEM? MAKES NO SENSE. SO DO I GO AND DRIVE IT HOME ANYWAYS AND JUST HOPE WE DONT DIE IN THE PROCESS..OR DO I LET IT SIT IN A SHADY PART OF TOWN PARKING LOT FOREVER? BEING A SINGLE MOTHER OF 3, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT FORD MIGHT SEE THE ALL THE NEWS ABOUT THIS AND HAVE DONE MORE TO PREVENT SO MANY INCIDENTS, ONE OF WHICH SOMEONE DIED. THE COURT PAPERS INDICATED THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT IT 10 YEARS BEFORE RECALL. I NOTICED THE VAN DROVE ROUGH OVER BUMPS RECENTLY, BUT THOUGHT MAYBE IT WAS SHOCKS, UNTIL I FOUND MY TIRE NOT JUST FLAT, BUT LOOKING AS IF IT WAS SLASHED IN THE PARKING LOT BECAUSE IT LITERALLY BLEW UP.
NHTSA ODI #10735792
85,000 miles · May 12, 2015
Equipment Adaptive/mobilityStructureWheels
THEY HAD A RECALL IN 2011 WHERE THEY PUT SUPPORT BRACKETS ON THE REAR AXLES. MINE DID HAVE THE BRACKETS PUT ON AND RIGHT BEHIND THE BRACKET THE AXLE STILL BROKE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AT 40 MPH WHERE WE ALMOST HIT ANOTHER CAR WITH CHILDREN INSIDE HER AND MY VEHICLE. FORD SAID THE BRACKETS ARE ONLY WARRANTIED FOR 12 MONTHS. TH…
Read full complaint
THEY HAD A RECALL IN 2011 WHERE THEY PUT SUPPORT BRACKETS ON THE REAR AXLES. MINE DID HAVE THE BRACKETS PUT ON AND RIGHT BEHIND THE BRACKET THE AXLE STILL BROKE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AT 40 MPH WHERE WE ALMOST HIT ANOTHER CAR WITH CHILDREN INSIDE HER AND MY VEHICLE. FORD SAID THE BRACKETS ARE ONLY WARRANTIED FOR 12 MONTHS. THESE VANS DO NOT NEED BRACKETS THEY NEED NEW AXLES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10715920
128,987 miles · Mar 26, 2015
SuspensionWheels
I HEARD A LOUD POPPING NOISE COMING FROM THE BACK OF MY VAN. TOOK IT TO THE REPAIR SHOP AND LEARNED THE REAR AXLE HAD A LARGE CRACK AND WAS ALMOST BROKEN IN HALF. FORD HAS A RECALL IN EFFECT FOR 2002 FORD WINDSTAR'S FOR AXLES THAT ARE CRACKING/BREAKING (NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 12V195000); HOWEVER, FORD IS SAYING THAT MY VIN NUMBE…
Read full complaint
I HEARD A LOUD POPPING NOISE COMING FROM THE BACK OF MY VAN. TOOK IT TO THE REPAIR SHOP AND LEARNED THE REAR AXLE HAD A LARGE CRACK AND WAS ALMOST BROKEN IN HALF. FORD HAS A RECALL IN EFFECT FOR 2002 FORD WINDSTAR'S FOR AXLES THAT ARE CRACKING/BREAKING (NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 12V195000); HOWEVER, FORD IS SAYING THAT MY VIN NUMBER IS NOT A PART OF THEIR RECALL EVEN THOUGH I HAVE A 2002 FORD WINDSTAR. I HAD THE REAR AXLE WELDED TO REPAIR THE CRACK. THIS WAS ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE AXLE. I STARTED HEARING POPPING SOUNDS AGAIN, RETURNED TO THE REPAIR SHOP ONLY TO LEARN THE AXLE IS NOW BROKEN ON THE DRIVER SIDE OF THE AXLE. THIS IS A SERIOUS SITUATION AND I FEEL SINCE FORD HAS A RECALL ON THIS ISSUE THAT MY VEHICLE SHOULD BE INCLUDED. I AM AFRAID TO MAKE ANOTHER REPAIR SINCE THE AXLE MAY STILL CRACK AGAIN. PLEASE CONTACT FORD TO MAKE THEM INCLUDE ALL EFFECTED 2002 FORD WINDSTAR VEHICLES BEFORE SOMEONE GETS SERIOUSLY HURT!! *TR
NHTSA ODI #10701869
112,972 miles · Oct 30, 2014
Power TrainWheels
AFTER DRIVING DOWN A MAJOR HIGHWAY NORTH OF BOSTON, MA (128/95 NORTH) MY WIFE AND I, FIRST HEARD SCRAPING NOISE THAT BECAME LOUDER AND BEGAN SMELL LIKE BURNING RUBBER/BRAKES. THE CAR LURCHED ACROSS THE ROADWAY/HIGHWAY AND WE SWERVED AND ALMOST SIDESWIPED CAR IN THE ADJACENT LANE. WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF EXITING THE HIGHWAY ON …
Read full complaint
AFTER DRIVING DOWN A MAJOR HIGHWAY NORTH OF BOSTON, MA (128/95 NORTH) MY WIFE AND I, FIRST HEARD SCRAPING NOISE THAT BECAME LOUDER AND BEGAN SMELL LIKE BURNING RUBBER/BRAKES. THE CAR LURCHED ACROSS THE ROADWAY/HIGHWAY AND WE SWERVED AND ALMOST SIDESWIPED CAR IN THE ADJACENT LANE. WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF EXITING THE HIGHWAY ON THE OFF RAMP TO MY WORK AT RTE 28 SOUTH STONEHAM/WAKEFIELD. WE WERE ABLE TO PULL OVER, GATHER OUR THOUGHTS AND CONTINUE TO A GULF STATION ON RTE 28 IN STONEHAM, MA. THE GULF STATION MECHANIC/MANAGER SAID HE HAD NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT, A REAR AXLE LITERALLY SPLITTING IN HALF. AFTER VIEWING THE REAR BROKEN AXLE AND LOOKING AT THE CONDITION OF THE FRONT RIGHT END AND THE OVERALL CONDITION OF THE SUB FRAME THEY POLITELY AND FORGIVINGLY SAID THEY HAVE RARELY SEEN SUCH A THING (CRACKED/SEPARATED REAR AXLE AND WENT ON TO SAY THEY HAVE ONLY SEEN THIS IN FORD WINDSTARS AND WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT A LOCAL WOMEN WHOSE FORD WINDSTAR LOST CONTROL ON THE HIGHWAY AT 60 MPH WITH HER 3 CHILDREN AND WERE SCARED TO DEATH AND IN CONCLUSION WOULD NOT TOUCH THE VEHICLE AND WARNED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS BEYOND SAFE DRIVING AND REPAIR. THEY WERE SHOCKED THAT ALTHOUGH THERE WAS SOME KIND OF BRACE ON THE AXLE IN TWO PLACES THAT THE AXLE HAD SNAPPED IN TWO AT THE REINFORCEMENT AND SAID EVEN WITHOUT THE REINFORCEMENT ON THE REAR AXLE THEY HAVE NEVER SEEN A REAR AXLE SPLIT IN TWO AND COMPOUNDED WITH THE FACT THAT IT ACTUALLY HAD A REINFORCEMENT BRACKET FAIL. REITERATING AXLES AND SUB FRAMES ARE NOT WEAR AND TEAR PARTS AND IN FACT HAD NEVER SEEN BROKEN REAR AXLES AND SUB FRAMES CRACK AND BREAK AND CORRODED TO THIS EXTENT. THEIR REACTION WAS OF DISTURBING TO SAY THE LEAST. THEY SAID BROKEN AXLES JUST DON,T HAPPEN AND WITH ADDED REINFORCEMENT IT WAS "BEYOND BELIEF" THEY HAD BROKEN IN HALF. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10651544
167,300 miles · Aug 18, 2014
SuspensionWheels
WHILE DRIVING MY VAN I HEARD A VERY LOUD NOISE AND MY DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE IMMEDIATELY WENT FLAT. I WAS ABLE TO PULL THE VEHICLE SAFELY TO A STOP ALONG THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I CALLED A TOW TRUCK AND HAD MY VEHICLE LOOKED AT BY THE MECHANIC WHO INFORMED ME THAT A COIL SPRING AROUND MY STRUT BROKE WHICH CAUSED MY TIRE TO BE SLICED O…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING MY VAN I HEARD A VERY LOUD NOISE AND MY DRIVER'S SIDE TIRE IMMEDIATELY WENT FLAT. I WAS ABLE TO PULL THE VEHICLE SAFELY TO A STOP ALONG THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I CALLED A TOW TRUCK AND HAD MY VEHICLE LOOKED AT BY THE MECHANIC WHO INFORMED ME THAT A COIL SPRING AROUND MY STRUT BROKE WHICH CAUSED MY TIRE TO BE SLICED OPEN FROM THE INSIDE OF THE TIRE. I WAS VERY LUCKY I WAS NOT GOING ANY FASTER WHEN THE SPRING BROKE AND SLICED MY TIRE OPEN. I REVIEWED ISSUES ONLINE THAT OTHER PEOPLE WERE HAVING RELATING TO MY ISSUE REGARDING THE MAKE AND MODEL OF MY VEHICLE. APPARENTLY FORD HAD A RECALL ON THE WINDSTAR COIL SPRINGS FROM A DIFFERENT YEAR OF THE FORD WINDSTAR VANS DUE TO THE VERY SAME PROBLEM WITH THE COIL SPRINGS BREAKING AND CAUSING THE TIRE TO BE PUNCTURED OR SLICED OPEN FROM THE INSIDE. I AM ALSO VERY CONCERNED AFTER READING THAT THE PART HAD TO FAIL BEFORE IT WOULD BE ADDRESSED. IT SEEMS THAT IF THERE IS A SAFETY RECALL IT SHOULD BE COMPLETED BEFORE A FAILURE OCCURS AND NOT AFTER. THIS COULD HAVE CAUSED A VERY SERIOUS ACCIDENT HAD I BEEN ON AN INTERSTATE OR EVEN IF I WERE GOING 55 MILES PER HOUR ON THE HIGHWAY. I DID CONTACT FORD MOTOR COMPANY REGARDING THIS ISSUE AND WAS TOLD THAT FORD WOULD NOT ASSIST WITH THE REPAIRS BECAUSE MY VEHICLE WAS NOT RECALLED FOR THIS ISSUE. I OWN TWO FORD VEHICLES AND I COULD NOT BELIEVE THAT MY ISSUE WAS NOT OF A CONCERN TO FORD. I PROBABLY WILL NOT BUY ANOTHER FORD BECAUSE OF THIS. MY FAMILY'S SAFETY HAS TO COME FIRST AND I AM NOT CONVINCED WE WILL BE SAFE IF THE COMPANY WON'T ADDRESS THESE TYPES OF SAFETY ISSUES. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10625916
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