NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Service Brakes complaints
178 reportsClear category filterMileage unknown · May 17, 2021
Air BagsService Brakes
I have been notified by Ford Motor Company several times about the recalls on my vehicle. One recall is for airbags. I went to the closest dealership new my small town and thought they issued the fix, only to learn later that they just disconnect the airbag light. The second recall is for the brakes, I have been calling since…
Read full complaint
I have been notified by Ford Motor Company several times about the recalls on my vehicle. One recall is for airbags. I went to the closest dealership new my small town and thought they issued the fix, only to learn later that they just disconnect the airbag light. The second recall is for the brakes, I have been calling since January of 2021 to request a service date only to be told they have no knowledge of the recall. On march 30,2021 I finally got a service date and express to the representative on the phone to assure that she knew it was for the break recall 19S54, she assured me the knew. I took off work that morning for by service appointment only to be told that they did not have the equipment to fix the issue. I was told to call other dealerships and turned away. I called 4 surrounding dealerships with in a 50 mile radius only to be told no one can perform the procedure. I then called ford Customer Relationship Center for assistance. She called one other dealership that said they could not fix the issue as well. April 2020 I receive a letter from Ford Motor Company saying Parts are now available to repair you vehicle. Called dealership 5/17/2021 they still cannot fix issue nor have any information on who can. HELP! Ford Motor Company, How can I get the recalls fix if none of your dealerships in my area are capable of repairing them?
NHTSA ODI #11417451
Mileage unknown · Apr 7, 2021
Service Brakes
THE RECALL 19V904 HAS BEEN UNRESOLVED NOW FOR 16 MONTHS. MY BRAKE PEDAL MUST BE PUSHED ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR TO STOP THE VEHICLE. MY TAGS HAVE BEEN EXPIRED FOR 11 MONTHS BECAUSE I CAN'T PASS AN INSPECTION. I HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE TO WORK AND NOW I'M PAYING TICKETS FOR EXPIRED TAGS. FORD IS WORTHLESS TO…
Read full complaint
THE RECALL 19V904 HAS BEEN UNRESOLVED NOW FOR 16 MONTHS. MY BRAKE PEDAL MUST BE PUSHED ALL THE WAY TO THE FLOOR TO STOP THE VEHICLE. MY TAGS HAVE BEEN EXPIRED FOR 11 MONTHS BECAUSE I CAN'T PASS AN INSPECTION. I HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE TO WORK AND NOW I'M PAYING TICKETS FOR EXPIRED TAGS. FORD IS WORTHLESS TO SPEAK TO ABOUT IT.
NHTSA ODI #11406903
148,358 miles · Mar 16, 2021
Air BagsService Brakes
MY VEHICLE HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF TWO RECALLS WITH NO ACTION ON THE PART OF THE MANUFACTURER TO FIX THE PROBLEMS. ON 1/21/20 I TOOK THE VEHICLE IN TO THE DEALER, HERTRICH CAPITOL, 1127 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY, DOVER, DE, BECAUSE THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS SOFT. I WAS CHARGED $58 FOR A BRAKE INSPECTION AND WAS TOLD THEY COULD NOT DUPLICAT…
Read full complaint
MY VEHICLE HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF TWO RECALLS WITH NO ACTION ON THE PART OF THE MANUFACTURER TO FIX THE PROBLEMS. ON 1/21/20 I TOOK THE VEHICLE IN TO THE DEALER, HERTRICH CAPITOL, 1127 SOUTH DUPONT HIGHWAY, DOVER, DE, BECAUSE THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS SOFT. I WAS CHARGED $58 FOR A BRAKE INSPECTION AND WAS TOLD THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. NO MENTION OF THE RECALL OR A FIX WAS MENTIONED. TWO RECALLS ON THIS VEHICLE, FOR AIRBAG AND BRAKE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN LEFT UNRESOLVED FOR YEARS. I AM THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THIS VEHICLE PURCHASED AT THIS LOCATION.
NHTSA ODI #11403355
179,300 miles · Jan 25, 2021
Service Brakes
AS I WAS DRIVING MY VEHICLE, THERE WILL CONSTANTLY BE A LOSS OF BRAKING PRESSURE IN THE BRAKE PEDAL DURING MY DAILY TRAVELS. AT TIMES I WOULD HEAR THE AIR HUFF AS I BROKE INTO SLOWING DOWN MY VEHICLE OR HAVING TO MAKE A COMPLETE STOP I WOULD HAVE TO SWITCH LANES TO DECREASE MY SPEED IF POSSIBLE OR BEGIN TO BREAK SERVAL CARS AWAY…
Read full complaint
AS I WAS DRIVING MY VEHICLE, THERE WILL CONSTANTLY BE A LOSS OF BRAKING PRESSURE IN THE BRAKE PEDAL DURING MY DAILY TRAVELS. AT TIMES I WOULD HEAR THE AIR HUFF AS I BROKE INTO SLOWING DOWN MY VEHICLE OR HAVING TO MAKE A COMPLETE STOP I WOULD HAVE TO SWITCH LANES TO DECREASE MY SPEED IF POSSIBLE OR BEGIN TO BREAK SERVAL CARS AWAY TO COME TO A COMPLETE STOP BECAUSE THERE WAS A LACK OF BRAKE PRESSURE . I WAS ONLY INFORMED OF THIS RECALL LAST YEAR IN NOVEMBER AFTER DRIVING THE VEHICLE FOR SERVAL MONTHS. AFTER MONTHS OF CONTACTING SERVAL DEALERSHIPS AND CONSISTENTLY BEING TOLD THAT THE PART WAS NOT AVAILABLE. OR BEING DIRECTED TO THE MANUFACTURER FOR ANSWERS TO STILL TO BE TOLD TO CONTACT THE DEALERS AGAIN TO NO AVAIL THERE WAS STILL NO PARTS MADE AVAILABLE. IT HAS BEEN A CONSTANT WORRY ON THE SAFETY OF MY LIFE AND THOSE WHO ENTER MY VEHICLE. THERE HAS ONLY BEEN ONE MOMENT WHILE DRIVING MY VEHICLE WHERE I FELT IMMEDIATE DANGER. WHILE DRIVING ON THE HIGHWAY WHEN TRAFFIC CAME TO AN ABRUPT STOP AND THE ONLY WAY I DID NOT CRASH MY VEHICLE GOING AT 45 MPH WAS BY SWERVING INTO THE NEXT LANE TO SLOW DOWN. THIS SHOULD NOT BE A CONTINUOUS ISSUE WHEN THE SAFETY OF NOT ONLY MYSELF BUT OTHER DRIVES ON THE ROAD AT AT STAKE.
NHTSA ODI #11389885
105,000 miles · Jan 25, 2021
Service Brakes
FOR SEVERAL YEARS, I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO TRUST MY BRAKES. IF I HIT A BUMP I WILL LOSE MY BRAKES, AND HAVE TO KEEP PUMPING THEM THE GET THEM TO STOP. IF I HIT ANOTHER BUMP, IT SEEMS TO PUT THEM BACK TO NORMAL. HOWEVER, OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST 2 YEARS MY BRAKES HAVE GOTTEN STEADILY WORSE. AT THIS POINT, THEY DO NOT WANT TO S…
Read full complaint
FOR SEVERAL YEARS, I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO TRUST MY BRAKES. IF I HIT A BUMP I WILL LOSE MY BRAKES, AND HAVE TO KEEP PUMPING THEM THE GET THEM TO STOP. IF I HIT ANOTHER BUMP, IT SEEMS TO PUT THEM BACK TO NORMAL. HOWEVER, OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST 2 YEARS MY BRAKES HAVE GOTTEN STEADILY WORSE. AT THIS POINT, THEY DO NOT WANT TO STOP ME AT ALL. 01/19/2021 I ALMOST HAD A SERIOUS ACCIDENT DRIVING DOWN BASE (A COUNTRY ROAD), I WAS DRIVING AROUND 35 MILES AN HOUR BUT WAS SLOWING DOWN BECAUSE I KNEW THE STOP SIGN WAS UP AHEAD. I CAME TO THE STOP SIGN AND HAD NO BRAKES. A CAR WAS COMING AND I KEPT PULLING THE STEERING WHEEL TO THE RIGHT AND I WAS FINALLY ABLE TO GET THE CAR PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD.BY A DITCH. NO ONE WAS HURT LUCKILY, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE. MY BRAKES HAVE BEEN RECALLED, SINCE JANUARY OF 2020 AND I HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH THEM SINCE 2017. BUT NO ONE COULD FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON. I DO HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION FROM DON MEYER FORD SHOWING WHERE I TOOK MY BRAKES IN EXPLAINING THAT MY BRAKES WERE BAD. THEY EXPLAINED TO ME THE COST OF GETTING NEW BRAKES BUT ALSO TOLD ME THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY AND THEN I MAY GET REIMBURSED OR I MAY NOT. I DO NOT HAVE THAT KIND OF MONEY TO PAY FOR NEW BRAKES AT THIS TIME. NOT ONLY DO I DRIVE THIS CAR BACK AND FORTH TO WORK, I RAISE MY GRANDDAUGHTER WHO ALSO RIDES IN THIS CAR WITH ME. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED INVOICE FROM WHERE I HAD MY BRAKES CHECKED, ALSO FIRST RECALL DATE JAN 2020 AND SECOND RECALL DATED OCT 2020. I DO HAVE A CASE # THAT I FILED WITH FORD MOTOR COMPANY IT IS CAS-283-77206 AND I TALKED TO RON. I CALLED TO SEE IF I REPLACED THE BRAKES WOULD I BE REIMBURSED, AND WAS TOLD PROBABLY NOT. THIS IS MY ONLY MODE OF TRANSPORTATION. ANY HELP WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. I AM ALSO ATTACHING THE SERVICE BILLING FROM WHERE I FIRST TOLD THEM ABOUT MY BRAKES AND BOTH RECALLS
NHTSA ODI #11389737
105,000 miles · Jan 25, 2021
Service Brakes
FOR SEVERAL YEARS I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO TRUST MY BRAKES. IF I HIT A BUMP I WILL LOSE MY BRAKES, AND HAVE TO KEEP PUMPING THEM THE GET THEM TO STOP. IF I HIT ANOTHER BUMP IT SEEMS TO PUT THEM BACK TO NORMAL. HOWEVER OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST 2 YEARS MY BRAKES HAVE GOTTEN STEADILY WORSE. AT THIS POINT THEY DON'T WANT TO STOP M…
Read full complaint
FOR SEVERAL YEARS I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO TRUST MY BRAKES. IF I HIT A BUMP I WILL LOSE MY BRAKES, AND HAVE TO KEEP PUMPING THEM THE GET THEM TO STOP. IF I HIT ANOTHER BUMP IT SEEMS TO PUT THEM BACK TO NORMAL. HOWEVER OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST 2 YEARS MY BRAKES HAVE GOTTEN STEADILY WORSE. AT THIS POINT THEY DON'T WANT TO STOP ME AT ALL. 01/19/2021 I ALMOST HAD A SERIOUS ACCIDENT DRIVING DOWN BASE (A COUNTRY ROAD), I WAS DRIVING AROUND 35 MILES AN HOUR BUT WAS SLOWING DOWN BECAUSE I KNEW THE STOP SIGN WAS UP AHEAD. I CAME TO THE STOP SIGN AND HAD NO BRAKES. A CAR WAS COMING AND I KEPT PULLING THE STEERING WHEEL TO THE RIGHT AND I WAS FINALLY ABLE TO GET THE CAR PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD.BY A DITCH. NO ONE WAS HURT LUCKILY, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE. MY BRAKES HAVE BEEN RECALLED SINCE JANUARY OF 2020 AND I HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH THEM SINCE 2017. BUT NO ONE COULD FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON. I DO HAVE THE DOCUMENTION FROM DON MEYER FORD SHOWING WHERE I TOOK MY BRAKES IN EXPLAINING THAT MY BRAKES WERE BAD. THEY EXPLAINED TO ME THE COST OF GETTING NEW BRAKES BUT ALSO TOLD ME THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY AND THEN I MAY GET REIMBURSED OR I MAY NOT. I DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF MONEY TO PAY FOR NEW BRAKES AT THIS TIME. NOT ONLY DO I DRIVE THIS CAR BACK AND FORTH TO WORK I RAISE MY GRANDDAUGHTER WHO ALSO RIDES IN THIS CAR WITH ME. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED INVOICE FROM WHERE I HAD MY BRAKES CHECKED, ALSO FIRST RECALL DATE JAN 2020 AND SECOND RECALL DATED OCT 2020. .
NHTSA ODI #11389721
Mileage unknown · Jan 23, 2021
Service Brakes
I RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE IN JANUARY 2000 RECALL #19S54/NHTSA RECALL 19-904. I HAVE CALLED NUMEROUS TIMES TO HAVE THIS RECALL CORRECTED ON MY CAR AND I CALLED AGAIN THIS WEEK JANUARY 2001AND THEY STILL DO NOT HAVE THE PARTS TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM, IN THINK THIS TO LONG THEY TELL ME ANOTHER 3 MONTHS BEFORE THEY CAN FIX THE PROB…
Read full complaint
I RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE IN JANUARY 2000 RECALL #19S54/NHTSA RECALL 19-904. I HAVE CALLED NUMEROUS TIMES TO HAVE THIS RECALL CORRECTED ON MY CAR AND I CALLED AGAIN THIS WEEK JANUARY 2001AND THEY STILL DO NOT HAVE THE PARTS TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM, IN THINK THIS TO LONG THEY TELL ME ANOTHER 3 MONTHS BEFORE THEY CAN FIX THE PROBLEM. THEY DID TELL ME THEY COULD FIX IT HOWEVER I WOULD NEED TO PAY FOR IT. I FEEL WAITING A YEAR AND 3 MONTHS TO CORRECT THIS PROBLEM IS UNHEARD OF. I HAVE OVER $800. THAT I HAVE ALREADY PAID TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM. MY BRAKE PEDAL AND GAS PEDAL ARE THE SAME POSITION AND NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL DRIVING THIS CAR WHAT EVER HELP YOU CAN GIVE ME IS WELCOMED [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #11389545
Mileage unknown · Dec 14, 2020
Service Brakes
I AM [XXX] ATTEMPTING TO ASSIST MY WIFE'S SISTER; [XXX] SHE HAS TURNED THE CAR INTO HER LOCAL FORD DEALER FOR REPAIR AND HAS BEEN INFORMED THE PARTS WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE UNTIL SOME TIME IN THE FIRST QUOTER OF 2021. SHE IS 75 PLUS YEARS OLD AND HAS MULTIPLE MEDICAL ISSUES REQUIRING MANY VISITS TO THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE FOR SPEC…
Read full complaint
I AM [XXX] ATTEMPTING TO ASSIST MY WIFE'S SISTER; [XXX] SHE HAS TURNED THE CAR INTO HER LOCAL FORD DEALER FOR REPAIR AND HAS BEEN INFORMED THE PARTS WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE UNTIL SOME TIME IN THE FIRST QUOTER OF 2021. SHE IS 75 PLUS YEARS OLD AND HAS MULTIPLE MEDICAL ISSUES REQUIRING MANY VISITS TO THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE FOR SPECIFIC TREATMENTS. SHE HAS REQUESTED A OWNER VEHICLE AND HAS ASKED IF SHE RENTED A VEHICLE WOULD FORD MOTOR COMPANY REIMBURSE HER EXPENSE? BOTH REQUEST HAVE BEEN DENIED. HAD A VERY CLOSE INCIDENT WHILE DRIVING IN HIHESVILL, GA. SHE AVOIDED HITTING A CAR IN FRONT BEHIND THE BRAKES FAILED TO OPERATE CORRECTLY. AGAIN: I AM [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
NHTSA ODI #11383423
Mileage unknown · Nov 19, 2020
Service Brakes
2008 FORD MILAN. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO SAFETY RECALL RELATED TO BRAKES ON VEHICLE. *LD THE CONSUMER STATED THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME DISCOVERING A FIX FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. *JS
NHTSA ODI #11375537
75,000 miles · Nov 4, 2020
Service BrakesCrash
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 MERCURY MILAN. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH AND THE BRAKES MALFUNCTIONED WHEN DEPRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL CAUSING THE DRIVER TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND CRASH INTO A GUARD RAIL. DURING THE CRASH NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED. NO POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN AND…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 MERCURY MILAN. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DAUGHTER WAS DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 35 MPH AND THE BRAKES MALFUNCTIONED WHEN DEPRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL CAUSING THE DRIVER TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND CRASH INTO A GUARD RAIL. DURING THE CRASH NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED. NO POLICE REPORT WAS TAKEN AND THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TOWED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE LOCAL DEALER (LITHIA FORD LOCATED AT 501 MARY JANE WOOD CIRCLE, MORGANTOWN, WV 2650) WHO WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE FAILURE AND NO SERVICE WAS PERFORMED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT INDICATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN THE NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 19V904000 (SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC) BUT THE PARTS NEEDED TO REPAIR THE DEFECT WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE CONTACT ALSO INDICATED THAT THE VEHICLE HAD EXPERIENCED THE SAME FAILURE LISTED IN THE RECALL ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 75,000. * (RECALL RELATED INCIDENT) TS
NHTSA ODI #11373028
Official recalls
4Mar 10, 2021
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2007-2011 Ranger, 2006-2012 Fusion, Lincoln Zephyr, Lincoln MKZ, 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, 2007-2010 Ford Edge, and Lincoln MKX vehicles. The driver's side air bag inflator may explode due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to high absolute humidity, high temperatures, and high temperature cycling.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An inflator explosion may result in sharp metal fragments striking the driver or other occupants, resulting in serious injury or death.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the driver-side airbag inflator or module with an alternate one, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed on April 9, 2021 for the passenger side, and November 14, 2022 for the driver side. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 21S12.
Dec 18, 2019
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2006-2010 Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr and MKZ vehicles. The valves within the ABS Hydraulic Control Units (HCU) may react with brake fluids containing specific corrosion preventative additives. This reaction may cause the valves to not close properly.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: If the valves do not properly close, additional brake pedal travel may be required to stop the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
Remedy: Ford will notify owners, and dealers will flush the brake system with DOT 4 fluid and install a new brake fluid reservoir cap. In addition, the HCU will be tested to detect a possible stuck valve condition, replacing the HCU as necessary. All services will be performed free of charge. The recall began April 1, 2021. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S54.
Jan 10, 2017
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2012 Ford Fusion and Mustang and Lincoln Zephyr and MKZ vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan), and the U.S. Virgin Islands, or "Zone A." Additionally, unless included in "Zone A" above, Ford is recalling certain 2009 Ford Ranger, Edge, Fusion and Mustang, Lincoln MKX, MKZ and Zephyr and Mercury Milan vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia, or "Zone B." Additionally, unless included in "Zone A" or "Zone B" above, Ford is recalling certain 2007-2008 Ford Ranger, Edge and Lincoln MKX, 2006-2008 Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr and MKZ, 2005-2008 Ford Mustang and 2005-2006 Ford GT vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in the states of Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. These vehicles are equipped with certain air bag inflators assembled as part of the passenger frontal air bag modules used as original equipment or replacement equipment. In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the passenger frontal air bag, these inflators may rupture due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to absolute humidity and temperature cycling.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An inflator rupture may result in metal fragments striking the vehicle occupants resulting in serious injury or death.
Remedy: Owners are advised not to drive their vehicles until the repair has been performed. Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the passenger frontal air bag inflator, free of charge. Interim letters informing owners of the recall and that parts are not yet available began mailing March 1, 2017. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S01.
May 31, 2016
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain model year 2007-2011 Ford Ranger vehicles, 2006-2011 Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan and Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ vehicles, 2007-2010 Ford Edge, Lincoln MKX vehicles, 2005-2006 Ford GT vehicles, and 2005-2011 Ford Mustang vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan), and the U.S. Virgin Islands, or "Zone A." Additionally, unless included in "Zone A" above, Ford is recalling certain model year 2007-2008 Ford Ranger, Edge and Lincoln MKX vehicles, 2006-2008 Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan and Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ vehicles, 2005-2006 Ford GT vehicles and 2005-2008 Ford Mustang vehicles originally sold, or ever registered, in Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, or "Zone B." Any vehicle not included in "Zone A", or "Zone B" is not included in the safety recall. These vehicles are equipped with certain air bag inflators assembled as part of the passenger frontal air bag modules, and used as original equipment or replacement equipment. In the event of a crash necessitating deployment of the front air bags, these inflators may rupture due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to absolute humidity and temperature cycling.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: An inflator rupture may result in metal fragments striking the vehicle occupants resulting in serious injury or death.
Remedy: Owners are advised not to drive their vehicles until the repair has been performed. Ford will notify owners, and dealers will replace the passenger frontal air bag inflator, free of charge. Ford mailed interim letters informing owners that parts are not yet available on July 15, 2016. Owners will receive a second notice when remedy parts become available. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 19S01.
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
5EA18002 · Extended Braking Distance
Opened Apr 18, 2018 · Closed Jan 15, 2021
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Air:antilock:control Unit/module
On April 18, 2018, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Engineering Analysis (EA) 18-002 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year (MY) 2006-12 Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ, and MY 2006-11 Mercury Milan vehicles manufactured with Continental Automotive System?s ABS hydraulic control units (HCUs). Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (initiated by slippery or uneven surfaces) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the vehicle stopping distance increased beyond driver expectations.Inside the HCU are four hydraulic normally closed (NC) valves with zinc-coated moving armatures that control the flow of brake fluid. Unstable brake fluid can degrade over time, allow the brake fluid to gel, and corrosion to form on the armatures. The high-viscosity gelation and corrosion can cause the armatures to become stuck (open). In some cases, braking returns to normal when the armature(s) subsequently become unstuck. The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose with complainants reporting having (non-HCU) repairs conducted only to have the condition return.During the investigation, 14 HCUs from complaint vehicles were recovered, including seven from reported crashes. NHTSA?s Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) disassembled the HCUs, removed the four NC valves in each, and confirmed 22 of the 56 NC valves contained stuck armatures. On seven of the 14 HCUs, both front wheel armatures were stuck, on nine of the 14 HCUs two or three armatures were stuck. And 52 of the 56 NC armatures exhibited corrosion of the zinc coating. Forces required to extract stuck armatures from the valve sleeve were measured to range from 1.1 to 18.0 lbs. VRTC also conducted ABS braking tests on a variety of test surfaces that showed HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel and braking distances. Testing also showed that if the driver was able to apply four times the brake pedal force and two times the brake pedal travel, then high-vehicle decelerations could be achieved, however, single or multiple wheel lockups were also occurring.Based on Ford?s response to ODI?s July 20, 2018 information request letter, and complainants' reports to NHTSA, ODI identified a population of vehicles with an elevated level of field failure compared to vehicles produced both before and after.Further evaluation of Ford?s response identified that the brake fluid used to produce these vehicles, a specific formulation of a DOT3 fluid provided by CCI Corporation between February 2006 and July 2009, differed from the brake fluid used in other vehicle populations. ODI used the correlation of fluid specification and elevated field failures to identify a vehicle population exhibiting a defect trend. The complaints, crashes and injuries cited above, and the 14 recovered HCUs involve vehicles from this population.On December 18, 2019, Ford submitted safety recall (19V-904) to remedy HCU failures on the MY 2006-2010 Ford Fusion, Lincoln MKZ, and Mercury Milan vehicles manufactured with the suspect CCI brake fluid formulation. Ford will function test the HCU and replace the DOT 3 brake fluid with an improved DOT 4 brake fluid. If the HCU fails the function test, Ford will install an HCU with a different armature coating (black oxide). HCUs with black oxide coating were fully phased into Ford?s new vehicle production by MY 2016; these HCUs do not appear to be experiencing armature corrosion. ODI notes that the non-recalled EA18-002 subject vehicles, which were manufactured with a different specification brake fluid, did not display an elevated level of field failures like the recalled vehicles.Based on available information, Ford?s rec
PE16017 · Extended Braking Distance
Opened Dec 20, 2016 · Closed May 4, 2018
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes; Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Service Brakes
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip:control Unit/module
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:antilock/traction Control/electronic Limited Slip
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
On December 20, 2016, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 16-017 to investigate reports of braking concerns in model year 2007 through 2009 Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan vehicles.Complainants report that after an ABS braking event (caused by braking on a slippery or uneven surface) the brake pedal moved towards the floor and the distance in which the vehicle stopped increased beyond what was expected by the driver.The cause of the problem appears to be the Antilock Braking System (ABS) Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU), a component manufactured for Ford by Continental Automotive Systems.Hydraulic control valves within the HCU can experience corrosion and become stuck.In some cases, braking returns to normal when the valve(s) subsequently become unstuck.The intermittent condition proves difficult to diagnose and complainants report having several brake system components replaced only to have the condition return.ODI has identified 544 reports submitted to the agency that relate to this issue in model year 2006-2012 Ford Fusion/MKZ and MY 2006-2011 Mercury Milan, the subject vehicles.Complainants report an increase in pedal travel which in some cases resulted in going past expected stopping points or having to steer to avoid contacting another vehicle; twenty six report a crash with 3 injuries alleged.The Ford reports shown above, which are from PE16-017 and involved the scope discussed above, were similar in content and identified 7 crashes without injury.During PE16-017, ODI was able to recover HCUs from some complaint vehicles, including some from the reported crashes.The recovered HCUs were sent to NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC) in East Liberty, Ohio for evaluation.VRTC was able to confirm stuck valves and corrosion of the zinc coated control valves, and it's testing indicates that HCU failures cause increases in pedal travel that may affect braking distance.According to Ford, newer version HCUs have a different coating on the affected valves that do not currently appear to be experiencing corrosion.In it's response to ODI's information request letter, Ford described analysis of two failed HCUs removed from complainant vehicles.In both cases, a gelatinous material found inside the HCU prevented control valves from properly returning to the closed position after actuation.Ford found that an interaction between the valve coating and brake fluid was the likely source of the gelatinous material.It acknowledged that stuck valves can result in increased pedal travel but maintains the affected brake circuit will develop pressure and respond if the brake pedal is pressed sufficiently.While it has not identified an unreasonable risk to safety due to this issue, Ford states that it continues to investigate the possible causal and contributory factors including additional engineering evaluations and testing.An Engineering Analysis has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect.Based on information received during PE16-017, the scope of the investigation has been increased to include another model, the Lincoln MKZ, and to expand the model years of the subject vehicles.
EA12009 · Floor Mat Interference With Accelerator
Opened Dec 12, 2012 · Closed Jun 12, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
On May 27, 2014, Ford Motor Company submitted recall 14E-028 (Ford recall #14S07) to correct a safety-related problem with certain driver's side Ford optional all-weather floor mats sold for use in model year 2006 through 2011 model year Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, and Lincoln MKZ vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant (HAP) from November 9, 2007, to October 31 ,2010.NHTSA testing determined that the original accessory all-weather mat with a single retention clip (Figure 1), may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle with the mat retained by the clip and rotated clockwise.Both the single- and double-clip (Figure 2) all-weather floor mats may interfere with the accelerator pedal return to idle when the mats are not secured by the retention clip(s).Testing showed that this can occur if the mats are moved forward from the clipped position approximately two inches into a position in which the rear edge of the mats will abut the retention clip(s) when installed singly and align with the clip(s) when stacked on another floor mat.The pedal interference incidents reviewed by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) include 1 crash and 9 incidents with allegations of brake friction materials smoking and/or requiring repair for heat related damage.The crash incident occurred after the parking brake was applied at speed, resulting in loss-of-control vehicle yaw event caused by lock-up of the rear tires.The spin-out resulted in a side impact collision with an oncoming vehicle in an opposing lane of traffic. For the 29 incidents with sufficient information available to make an assessment; 23 (79%) were controlled by the driver either shifting to neutral, turning the engine off, or both; 4 (14%) were ended by the driver either kicking the pedal free (2) or pulling the mat away from the pedal (2); and 2 (7%) were ended by the pedal freeing itself from the mat with no apparent driver action.None of the drivers who reacted to the incident by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off reported any difficulties with either action.The subject mats were sold by Ford and Lincoln dealers directly to customers as an optional accessory equipment item or, beginning in November 2007, the mats were also available as a factory installed accessory if ordered with a new vehicle.Ford estimates that approximately 82,579 affected driver's side all weather floor mats were sold worldwide; either over the counter through Ford dealerships or as original equipment.Owners that purchased the subject all-weather floor mats as a factory installed accessory with their new vehicle will be notified to return their all weather floor mats to their Ford or Lincoln Dealership in exchange for replacement mats.Owners of all other potentially affected vehicles will be notified that, if they have an affected Ford driver's side all weather floor mat, they should return their mats to the dealership in exchange for replacement mats.The VOQs associated with the closing of this investigation are: 10327597, 10332233, 10334211, 10335336, 10339330, 10348772 (and duplicate 10342572), 10372674, 10379562, 10415911, 10426255, 10434107, 10521053, 10554966.This investigation is hereby closed.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
On May 27, 2014, Ford Motor Company submitted recall 14E-028 (Ford recall #14S07) to correct a safety-related problem with certain driver's side Ford optional all-weather floor mats sold for use in model year 2006 through 2011 model year Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, and Lincoln MKZ vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant (HAP) from November 9, 2007, to October 31 ,2010.NHTSA testing determined that the original accessory all-weather mat with a single retention clip (Figure 1), may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle with the mat retained by the clip and rotated clockwise.Both the single- and double-clip (Figure 2) all-weather floor mats may interfere with the accelerator pedal return to idle when the mats are not secured by the retention clip(s).Testing showed that this can occur if the mats are moved forward from the clipped position approximately two inches into a position in which the rear edge of the mats will abut the retention clip(s) when installed singly and align with the clip(s) when stacked on another floor mat.The pedal interference incidents reviewed by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) include 1 crash and 9 incidents with allegations of brake friction materials smoking and/or requiring repair for heat related damage.The crash incident occurred after the parking brake was applied at speed, resulting in loss-of-control vehicle yaw event caused by lock-up of the rear tires.The spin-out resulted in a side impact collision with an oncoming vehicle in an opposing lane of traffic. For the 29 incidents with sufficient information available to make an assessment; 23 (79%) were controlled by the driver either shifting to neutral, turning the engine off, or both; 4 (14%) were ended by the driver either kicking the pedal free (2) or pulling the mat away from the pedal (2); and 2 (7%) were ended by the pedal freeing itself from the mat with no apparent driver action.None of the drivers who reacted to the incident by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off reported any difficulties with either action.The subject mats were sold by Ford and Lincoln dealers directly to customers as an optional accessory equipment item or, beginning in November 2007, the mats were also available as a factory installed accessory if ordered with a new vehicle.Ford estimates that approximately 82,579 affected driver's side all weather floor mats were sold worldwide; either over the counter through Ford dealerships or as original equipment.Owners that purchased the subject all-weather floor mats as a factory installed accessory with their new vehicle will be notified to return their all weather floor mats to their Ford or Lincoln Dealership in exchange for replacement mats.Owners of all other potentially affected vehicles will be notified that, if they have an affected Ford driver's side all weather floor mat, they should return their mats to the dealership in exchange for replacement mats.The VOQs associated with the closing of this investigation are: 10327597, 10332233, 10334211, 10335336, 10339330, 10348772 (and duplicate 10342572), 10372674, 10379562, 10415911, 10426255, 10434107, 10521053, 10554966.This investigation is hereby closed.
Vehicle Speed Control
On May 27, 2014, Ford Motor Company submitted recall 14E-028 (Ford recall #14S07) to correct a safety-related problem with certain driver's side Ford optional all-weather floor mats sold for use in model year 2006 through 2011 model year Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, and Lincoln MKZ vehicles built at Hermosillo Assembly Plant (HAP) from November 9, 2007, to October 31 ,2010.NHTSA testing determined that the original accessory all-weather mat with a single retention clip (Figure 1), may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle with the mat retained by the clip and rotated clockwise.Both the single- and double-clip (Figure 2) all-weather floor mats may interfere with the accelerator pedal return to idle when the mats are not secured by the retention clip(s).Testing showed that this can occur if the mats are moved forward from the clipped position approximately two inches into a position in which the rear edge of the mats will abut the retention clip(s) when installed singly and align with the clip(s) when stacked on another floor mat.The pedal interference incidents reviewed by the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) include 1 crash and 9 incidents with allegations of brake friction materials smoking and/or requiring repair for heat related damage.The crash incident occurred after the parking brake was applied at speed, resulting in loss-of-control vehicle yaw event caused by lock-up of the rear tires.The spin-out resulted in a side impact collision with an oncoming vehicle in an opposing lane of traffic. For the 29 incidents with sufficient information available to make an assessment; 23 (79%) were controlled by the driver either shifting to neutral, turning the engine off, or both; 4 (14%) were ended by the driver either kicking the pedal free (2) or pulling the mat away from the pedal (2); and 2 (7%) were ended by the pedal freeing itself from the mat with no apparent driver action.None of the drivers who reacted to the incident by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off reported any difficulties with either action.The subject mats were sold by Ford and Lincoln dealers directly to customers as an optional accessory equipment item or, beginning in November 2007, the mats were also available as a factory installed accessory if ordered with a new vehicle.Ford estimates that approximately 82,579 affected driver's side all weather floor mats were sold worldwide; either over the counter through Ford dealerships or as original equipment.Owners that purchased the subject all-weather floor mats as a factory installed accessory with their new vehicle will be notified to return their all weather floor mats to their Ford or Lincoln Dealership in exchange for replacement mats.Owners of all other potentially affected vehicles will be notified that, if they have an affected Ford driver's side all weather floor mat, they should return their mats to the dealership in exchange for replacement mats.The VOQs associated with the closing of this investigation are: 10327597, 10332233, 10334211, 10335336, 10339330, 10348772 (and duplicate 10342572), 10372674, 10379562, 10415911, 10426255, 10434107, 10521053, 10554966.This investigation is hereby closed.
PE10019 · Accel Pedal Interference - Acc Floormat
Opened May 28, 2010 · Closed Jan 11, 2013
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:accelerator Pedal
Unsecured mats may interfere with accelerator pedal return to idle. A heel blocker in the floor pan provides a platform that may lift an unsecured mat into contact with the pedal. Ford introduced new pedals as a running change early in model year (MY) 2010 vehicles. Analysis of complaints received by ODI and Ford show elevated rates of pedal entrapment incidents in MY 2008 through early 2010 production vehicles. Incidents typically occur following hard pedal applications to pass slower traffic or when merging into faster traffic. Drivers allege continued high engine power after releasing the accelerator pedal and difficulty braking, including reports that the incident was controlled by shifting to neutral or turning the engine off. Drivers and service technicians reference observing evidence of mat interference or note unsecured Ford or aftermarket all weather floor mats in post-incident inspections.Based on information gathered during the Preliminary Evaluation the population being investigated has been narrowed to model years 2008 to 2010.This investigation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis on MY 2008 through early-2010 vehicles (produced through September 2009) to further assess the scope, frequency and safety consequences of the alleged defect.The VOQs associated with the opening of this Engineering Analysis are: 10479693, 10415911, 10379562, 10372674, 10345830, 10342572, 10339330, 10335336, 10334211, 10332233, 10331160, 10329659, 10327597, 10320011, 10232027, 10214131
PE08060 · Tire Valve Cracking
Opened Oct 14, 2008 · Closed Apr 9, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Tires:valve
ON OCTOBER 14, 2008, ODI OPENED PE08-060 TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF CRACKED AND LEAKING SNAP-IN TIRE VALVES IN MODEL YEAR (MY) 2007 VEHICLES MANUFACTURED BY FORD MOTOR COMPANY.THE VALVES WERE SUPPLIED TO FORD BY TOPSEAL AUTO-PARTS, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE SHANGHAI BAOLONG AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION IN CHINA.VALVES MADE BY TOPSEAL FOR AFTERMARKET SALE WERE THE SUBJECT OF TWO RECENT SAFETY RECALLS BY TECH INTERNATIONAL (08T-018) AND DILL AIR CONTROLS (08T-028), THE LATTER OF WHICH WAS INVESTIGATED BY ODI IN PE08-036 AND EA08-022.THE DEFECT CONDITIONS ADDRESSED BY THE AFTERMARKET TIRE VALVE RECALLS BOTH INVOLVED INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING DUE TO ISSUES WITH THE SUPPLY OF ANTI-OZONANT CHEMICALS TO TOPSEAL FOR A PERIOD FROM JULY TO MID-NOVEMBER 2006.THE AFTERMARKET VALVES WERE COMPOUNDED WITH A BLEND OF EPDM AND NATURAL RUBBER, USING A RELATIVELY LOW PERCENTAGE OF EPDM (EPDM PROVIDES INHERENT RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING).HENCE, THE NEED FOR ANTI-OZONANT CHEMICALS AND THE PROBLEMS WITH CRACKING WHEN THOSE CHEMICALS WERE MISSING OR OUT OF SPECIFICATION IN SOME LOTS OF VALVES.BOTH RECALL CAMPAIGNS INVOLVED INSPECTION PROGRAMS TO IDENTIFY AND REPLACE VALVES WITH VISIBLE SURFACE CRACKING.ALTHOUGH THE TOPSEAL VALVES SUPPLIED TO FORD ALSO APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE ANTI-OZONANT SUPPLY ISSUES IN MID TO LATE-2006, FORD INDICATED THAT ITS VALVES WERE MADE AT A DIFFERENT TOPSEAL PRODUCTION LINE AND WERE COMPOUNDED WITH A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF EPDM RUBBER TO MEET MORE STRINGENT SPECIFICATIONS FROM FORD.ODI'S ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA PROVIDED BY FORD SHOWED THAT PROBLEMS WITH CRACKED TIRE VALVES WERE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER FOR MY 2007 VEHICLES PRODUCED FROM DECEMBER 2006 THROUGH MARCH 2007.FORD RESPONDED BY IMPLEMENTING CHANGES IN ITS MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR SNAP-IN RUBBER TIRE VALVES AND ALSO INCREASING THE QUALITY AND ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS FOR VALVES IMPORTED FOR USE IN ITS VEHICLES.WHILE THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY CLAIM RATES ARE ELEVATED FOR SUBJECT VEHICLES PRODUCED FROM DECEMBER 2006 THROUGH MARCH 2007, THE RATES OF LEAKING VALVES ARE WELL BELOW ONE PERCENT OF PRODUCTION FOR EACH OF THE PEAK MONTHS FOR ALL OF THE AFFECTED MODELS.A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE EQUIPPED WITH TIRE PRESSURE MONITORING SYSTEMS (TPMS) WHICH WARN THE DRIVER WHEN ANY TIRE PRESSURES DROPS BELOW 25 PERCENT OF RECOMMENDED INFLATION PRESSURE. AS OUTLINED IN A LETTER TO ODI DATED APRIL 6, 2009, FORD HAS AGREED TO SEND LETTERS TO OWNERS OF CERTAIN MY 2007 AND 2008 FORD, LINCOLN AND MERCURY VEHICLES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CRACKING CONCERN. LETTERS WILL BE SENT TO OWNERS OF VEHICLES BUILT FROM NOVEMBER 2006 THROUGH MAY 2007.OWNERS CAN OPT FOR A FREE DEALER INSPECTION.VALVES EXHIBITING SURFACE CRACKS OR AIR LEAKAGE RELATED TO OZONE ATTACK WILL BE REPLACED BY FORD UNDER ITS NORMAL WARRANTY TERMS.FORD EXPECTS TO SEND THE LETTER BY APPROXIMATELY MID-MAY 2009. BASED ON THE USE OF TPMS IN THE MAJORITY OF SUBJECT VEHICLES AND THE RELATIVELY LOW RATES OF REPAIRS ASSOCIATED WITH LEAKING VALVES AND RESULTANT TIRE DAMAGE, ODI BELIEVES THAT THE ACTIONS FORD HAS AGREED TO TAKE WILL PROVIDE EFFECTIVE AND EXPEDITIOUS RESOLUTION FOR VEHICLES THAT WERE BUILT DURING THE PERIOD WHEN VALVES WITH INADEQUATE RESISTANCE TO OZONE CRACKING WERE MOST LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN USED IN VEHICLE PRODUCTION.FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER WOULD NOT BE AN EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF AGENCY RESOURCES.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 CONTINUE TO
Illustration