Ford does not have the parts to repair my car; my rear camera gets fuzzy at times
2016 Lincoln Mkc
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Similar to other model years
Owner complaints for the 2016 Lincoln Mkc do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 119.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all Mkc years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
33 reports with mileage · 46 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Engine. Review the 41 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 11 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 11 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
79 reportsThe contact owns a 2016 Lincoln MKC. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V572000 (BACK OVER PREVENTION); however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The contact stated that the rearview camera displayed a black screen or was glitching while the vehicle was in reverse(R). The contact…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Lincoln MKC. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V572000 (BACK OVER PREVENTION); however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The contact stated that the rearview camera displayed a black screen or was glitching while the vehicle was in reverse(R). The contact stated that the failure obstructed the driver's visibility, which prevented the driver from safely operating the vehicle. The local dealer was not contacted. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufacturer was not made aware of the issue. The failure mileage was approximately 200,000.
As far as everybody did and shut down three times in a major intersections as far as to completely shut off or keep up with the camera activity and it seems to not be able to empower through the cabin or central part of the cabin where the computer is stored when I had my f****** completely turn itself off and ran or red lights …
Read full complaint
As far as everybody did and shut down three times in a major intersections as far as to completely shut off or keep up with the camera activity and it seems to not be able to empower through the cabin or central part of the cabin where the computer is stored when I had my f****** completely turn itself off and ran or red lights just to barely make it to my house and in the car would not start I had various problems with his car and I admit paid thousands at this point to see it keep up with it and I've seen it the under several recalls and just now seeing that my car is reaching some of the max amount that I've ever even been issue. I've never received an email on this car having a recall because I moved a few years ago and although I pick up my mail there I've never received anything from Lincoln or have I had any things in the middle for you guys my main concern is getting this rental car in place while all these updates I haven't paid for are completely addressed immediately and in their entirety no longer putting my life safety and the lives of others at risk around me
The contact owns a 2016 Lincoln MKC. The contact stated that while starting the vehicle, the vehicle was shaking, and the check engine warning light was intermittently illuminated. The contact stated that her brother had replaced the spark plugs and ignition coils. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, who determined that there w…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Lincoln MKC. The contact stated that while starting the vehicle, the vehicle was shaking, and the check engine warning light was intermittently illuminated. The contact stated that her brother had replaced the spark plugs and ignition coils. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, who determined that there was coolant intrusion into the engine. The contact was informed that the spark plugs and coils needed to be replaced with OEM parts, and the turbocharger, purge valve, vacuum line, long block, and fuel pressure sensor needed to be replaced. The contact stated that her nephew replaced the spark plugs and ignition coils with OEM parts, and AAMCO replaced the fuel pressure sensor; however, the failure recurred. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and advised the contact to report the failure to the NHTSA Hotline. The failure mileage was approximately 158,000.
At 85,000 miles I was experiencing a grinding noise coming from my front end when making sharp turns to left or right. Took car to my mechanic immediately for diagnosis. They found the motor mounts and rear differential is binding and close to failure. My mechanic contacted FOMOCO to see about a replacement for the rear differen…
Read full complaint
At 85,000 miles I was experiencing a grinding noise coming from my front end when making sharp turns to left or right. Took car to my mechanic immediately for diagnosis. They found the motor mounts and rear differential is binding and close to failure. My mechanic contacted FOMOCO to see about a replacement for the rear differential and was told that there were not any available due to a REDESIGN of the product. He was asked to check back in two weeks! Two weeks w/o my transportation! I replaced the motor mounts, (85Kmi?) After researching on line, several ford & lincoln sites the problems I am experiencing are not unique or infrequent on Lincolns and ford Edges. It would seem to me that these problems are frequent enough to have the manufacturer ininitiate a recall on these products! My mechanic also works on our Sherriff department vehicles and their Ford Edge units are experiencing same problems. I would hope these problems will initiate an investigation into this matter!
While driving a short distance to work, my 2016 MKC check engine light came on. The previous week I noticed that the engine hesitated slightly when it first started, but it drove normally. However, when the light came on, my husband took the vehicle to the dealership where we bought it in Dec 2019. We were shocked when we were t…
Read full complaint
While driving a short distance to work, my 2016 MKC check engine light came on. The previous week I noticed that the engine hesitated slightly when it first started, but it drove normally. However, when the light came on, my husband took the vehicle to the dealership where we bought it in Dec 2019. We were shocked when we were told this was a very common problem with this type of engine, a 2.0 eco boost, and that the engine would have to be replaced due to coolant intrusion, at the cost of $9300! The vehicle only has 57,000 miles on it and has always been maintained at Prater Ford Lincoln in Calhoun GA. After some research I've found this to be a very well documented problem/engine design failure. Ford and Lincoln have refused any assistance in this matter. The local dealership where we purchased it has told us they won't provide any assistance either. The vehicle is currently in the shop, and the engine is being replaced. It was supposed to be completed 5 days ago. Why hasn't there been a recall? Even though there were no deaths or injuries in my case as well as the others on this site, the financial burden is immense! Since this is such a well-documented problem, there should be a recall on the affected engines, or at the very least some assistance should be provided by Ford and/or Lincoln to the unfortunate owners of these vehicles. Thank you.
Engin light came on, was diagenosed as coolent leaking in spark plug , or Bad head gasket.
Was at the Drive-thru ordering speaker and the car would not shift out of park and could not manually be shifted into neutral so the car could be moved. Drive-thru ordering window was blocked for 16 hyrs. Had to have the car towed with dolly. Vehicle was inspected by independent mechanic and found that the bushing was damaged.
The contact owns a 2016 Lincoln MKC. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, there was white smoke coming from the exhaust pipe. Upon inspection, the contact discovered a low coolant level. The vehicle was taken to an unknown dealer, who determined that there was coolant intrusion into cylinders #2 and #3.…
Read full complaint
The contact owns a 2016 Lincoln MKC. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, there was white smoke coming from the exhaust pipe. Upon inspection, the contact discovered a low coolant level. The vehicle was taken to an unknown dealer, who determined that there was coolant intrusion into cylinders #2 and #3. The contact was informed that the engine needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 120,000.
I purchased a 2016 Lincoln MKC 2.0 with 96k miles on it 2 months ago, and we just discovered a coolant leak into the first cylinder, causing a cracked head gasket. The engine needs to be replaced, and will cost $15k. Many other drivers have experienced this problem and reported it, and Ford has done nothing to correct the main i…
Read full complaint
I purchased a 2016 Lincoln MKC 2.0 with 96k miles on it 2 months ago, and we just discovered a coolant leak into the first cylinder, causing a cracked head gasket. The engine needs to be replaced, and will cost $15k. Many other drivers have experienced this problem and reported it, and Ford has done nothing to correct the main issue. This problem is causing overheating of the engine, and could potentially cause injury if not fixed.
Official recalls
526V011000 · Equipment:electrical:engine Block Heater
Jan 15, 2026
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2013-2018 Focus, 2013-2019 Escape, and 2015-2016 MKC vehicles equipped with a 2.0L engine. The engine block heater may crack and develop a coolant leak, causing it to short circuit when the block heater is plugged in.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An electrical short circuit can increase the risk of a fire.
Remedy: Owners are advised not to plug in their block heater until the vehicle is remedied. Dealers will replace the block heater, free of charge. Owners will also have a alternative option to replace engine block heater element with a threaded plug, and remove the block heater electrical cord. Interim letters, notifying owners of the safety risk, were mailed March 6, 2026. Additional letters will be sent once the final remedy is available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 26S01. Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) involved in this recall became searchable on NHTSA.gov on January 16, 2026.
25V685000 · Equipment:electrical:engine Block Heater
Oct 10, 2025
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2016-2019 Lincoln MKC, 2016-2023 Explorer, 2019-2020 Fusion, 2019-2024 Ranger, 2020-2022 Lincoln Corsair, Escape, 2021-2024 Bronco, Bronco Sport, and 2022-2024 Maverick vehicles. The engine block heater may crack and develop a coolant leak, causing it to short circuit when the block heater is plugged in.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An electrical short circuit can increase the risk of a fire.
Remedy: Owners are advised not to plug in their block heater until the vehicle is remedied. Dealers will replace the block heater, free of charge. Owners will also have a alternative option to replace engine block heater element with a threaded blanking plug, and remove the block heater electrical cord. Interim letters, notifying owners of the safety risk, were mailed December 3, 2025. Additional letters will be sent once the final remedy is available, anticipated September 2026. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 25SA4. Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) involved in this recall became searchable on NHTSA.gov on October 15, 2025.
25V572000 · Back Over Prevention: Sensing System: Camera
Sep 3, 2025
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2015-2019 Lincoln MKC, Mustang, F-350 SD, F-250 SD, F-450 SD, 2015-2017 Lincoln Navigator, Expedition, 2015-2018 Edge, Transit Connect, 2016-2019 F-550 SD, Transit, 2017-2019 Econoline, and 2019 Ranger vehicles. The rearview camera may display a distorted, inverted, or blank image when the vehicle is in reverse.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A rearview camera that displays an inverted, distorted, or blank image can reduce the driver’s view behind the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Dealers will inspect and replace the rearview camera as necessary, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed January 13, 2026. Ford owners will receive letters in phases, beginning January 2026 and June 2026. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 25S89. This recall expands previous NHTSA recall number 25V270. Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) involved in this recall will be searchable on NHTSA.gov beginning September 8, 2025.
23V378000 · Engine
May 26, 2023
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2015-2019 Lincoln MKC vehicles. The battery monitor sensor may short-circuit and overheat, causing a fire in the engine compartment while parked or driving.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An engine compartment fire while parked or driving can increase the risk of injury.
Remedy: Owners are advised to park outside and away from structures until the recall repair is complete. Dealers will add an in-line fuse to the battery monitor sensor power circuit, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed August 8, 2023. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 23S28.
16V183000 · Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
Mar 31, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2015-2016 Lincoln MKC vehicles manufactured November 25, 2013, to January 25, 2016, and 2016 Ford Explorer vehicles manufactured October 20, 2014, to January 28, 2016. The affected vehicles are equipped with 2.3L GTDI engines and engine block heaters. These engine block heaters have elements that may overheat while plugged in.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: Overheating of the engine block increase the risk of a fire.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the engine block heater, free of charge. Dealers will also inspect and replace the electrical cord, as necessary. The recall began on May 18, 2016. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 16S14. Note: Owners should not use the engine block heater until the vehicle has been remedied.
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
1EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture
Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Illustration