2000 Ford E-350 problems

What is wrong

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.

Risk

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.

Recall number 09V399000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Mobilityworks is recalling 133 my 2005-2006 ford e250, my 2000, 2004-2006 e350, my 2000, 2005 e450, my 2005-2006 gmc 2500, gmc 3500, and my 2006 dodge 2500 vans equipped with ricon platform style wheelchair lifts. These lifts fail to comply with the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 403, "platform lift systems for motor vehicles." the anti-stow interlock may not detect the presence of a wheelchair or mobility aid user. The pressure sensing switch that detects the presence of weight on the platform was not adjusted to the necessary sensitivity level. The lift could stow even though someone or something is still on the lift.

Risk

A lift occupant can be injured should the lift begin to stow unintentionally.

Remedy

Mobilityworks is working with ricon to correct the wheelchair lifts free of charge (please see 07e097). Owners may contact ricon at 1‑818‑267‑3000 or mobilityworks at 1‑800‑769‑8267.

Recall number 08V519000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Ford is recalling 225,000 my 1992-2003 econoline, my 1993-1995 taurus sho, my 1992-1998 crown victoria, my 1993 bronco, f-series, my 1995-1997 f-series super duty stripped chassis, my 1992-1998 mercury grand marquis, and my 1992-1995 lincoln town car vehicles. The affected vehicles were previously repaired using a wiring harness that is not compatible with the vehicle circuit polarity.

Risk

As a result, the fuse is located in the output circuit rather than in the intended input power feed circuit, and may not offer the intended protection in the event of an electrical short to ground.

Remedy

Dealers will install a new wiring harness, or replace the mating electrical component. The recall began on february 18, 2008. Owners may contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673.

Recall number 08V051000 · Recall details

What is wrong

On certain pickup trucks, passenger vehicles, sport utility vehicles, and motor homes chassis, the speed control deactivation switch may, under certain conditions, leak internally and then overheat, smoke, or burn.

Risk

This could result in an underhood fire.

Remedy

Dealers will install a fused wiring harness. Owners of the passenger cars included in this campaign will be instructed to return their vehicles to their dealers to have the speed control deactivation switch disconnected as an interim repair. As soon as repair parts are available (expected october 2007), owners will be instructed to return to the dealers for installation of a fused wiring harness. The recall began on august 13, 2007, and mailing completed by september 19, 2007. Owners may contact ford at 1‑888‑222‑2751.

Recall number 07V336000 · Recall details

What is wrong

On certain vans equipped with sure-lok wheelchair securement systems, the sprocket teeth of the retractor assembly is out of alignment.

Risk

In the event of a vehicle crash, the wheelchair may not be adequately secured possibly resulting in injuries to a wheelchair occupant.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect and replace the wheelchair securement retractors as necessary. Sure-lok will handle the repairs for this campaign. Owners should contact sure-lock at 1‑908‑231‑1804 or mobilityworks at 1‑800‑769‑8267.

Recall number 04V562000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: on certain vans with ambulance prep packages or other severe-duty applications involving operation at or near the gross vehicle weight with frequent twisting of the vehicle body, such as off-road, rough road or speed bump events, the 35 gallon mid-ship fuel tank could develop a crack where it contacts the frame cross member. If the fuel tank cracks, fuel leakage could occur.

Risk

Fuel leakage in the presence of an ignition source could result in a fire.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the fuel tank and, if cracked, will replace the tank. Insulator pads will be installed on all vehicles to reduce the stress levels in the fuel tank. Owner notification began april 19, 2001. Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673.

Recall number 01V114000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: bi-fuel cng pickup trucks and bi-fuel cng vans, modified by cfi control systems, inc., fail to conform to the requirements of fmvss no. 303, "fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles." the label affixed to the fuel filler door by the vehicle modifier contains the inspection date and expiration date of the cng tank. However, it does not contain the statement "see instructions on the fuel container for inspection and service life."

Risk

These vehicles do not comply with the requirements.

Remedy

Owners will be provided a label with the required statement, along with instructions for affixing the label at the fuel filler door. Owner notification began november 2, 2000. Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673.

Recall number 00V284000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: cutaways and stripped chassis with single rear wheels. The lug nuts can potentially bottom out on a shoulder on the studs.

Risk

If this occurs, there can be an inadequate clamp load to attach the wheel to the axle, resulting in noise, damage to the wheel and hub, or in extreme cases, loss of a rear wheel while the vehicle is being driven.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the rear wheel attaching studs.

Recall number 00V115000 · Recall details

This investigation was opened based on one complaint and reports from four transportation fleets alleging 182 blower motor control switch failures.ODI was concerned that these melting and burning switches could lead to an open flame that could spread throughout the vehicle.After a comprehensive review of all data related to overheating blower motor control switches in the subject vehicles, ODI did not identify the existence of a safety defect trend.ODI reviewed 1,036 complaints, claims, and field reports of failed blower motor control switches and determined that only two fires were likely to have been caused by a failing subject blower motor control switch.This represents a failure rate of 0.2 R/100K on a population of 1,076,975 vehicles that have been in service for up to 14 years.ODI has found that when the subject switches do fail and begin to melt, they are constructed in a manner that typically prevents the failing switch from igniting and developing into an open flame.Ford Motor Company has agreed to take two actions to further reduce the likelihood an overheated blower motor switch in the subject vehicles.Ford informed ODI that it has implemented a series of design changes to the subject switch that will help prevent it from developing internal high resistance short circuits.Ford has also informed ODI that it would release a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB-11-11-21) instructing subject vehicle owners to replace the electrical connector at the same time a failed switch is replaced.In light of the low rate of failure resulting in open flame and fire spread on the subject vehicles, and Ford's actions to reduce the likelihood of a switch failure through switch design changes and a TSB, further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by the federal safety agency that no safety-related defect exists.The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.The ODI complaints cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.the federal safety agency.dot.gov/owners/Searchreference under the following (ODI) numbers: 10427875, 10114393, 10257890For additional information, see the attached closing report.

EA10003

ODI has received 1 complaint and reports from 4 transportation fleets alleging 182 switch failures.Each fleet operates mini buses built on a Ford E350 or E450 cutaway chassis.The OEM HVAC blower switches have melted, smoked, burned or experienced open flame and become inoperable on vehicles in each fleet.Some drivers have reported a burning smell or smoke coming from the dash.One fleet reported a vehicle fire.No injuries were sustained.However, the bus was carrying special needs children when the driver noticed smoke coming from the dash.The driver was able to evacuate the children prior to the vehicle becoming engulfed in flames.This PE has been upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA) to determine if the blower motor switch failures create a situation where a vehicle fire is possible and presents a safety risk to the driver and other passengers.

PE09055

On september 6, 2005, odi received a petition requesting that the agency investigate allegations of engine spark plug ejection in certain model year 1997 through 2004 ford vehicles with triton v-8 and v-10 engines.odi received a total of 474 non-duplicative complaints on the subject vehicles where the complainant, or the dealer repairing the vehicle, reported that a spark plug detached from the cylinder and/or ejected from the engine.as of december 8, 2005, odi is not aware of any allegations where the alleged defect resulted in a loss of vehicle control, a crash, an injury, or a fatality in any of the 10,319,810 subject vehicles.in addition, odi is aware of only two incidents where the vehicle stalled without restart.information contained in the odi consumer complaints and obtained from 72 telephone interviews with complainants showed the following:(1) 99% of the complaints were on my 1997 to 2002 subject vehicles.(2) most the complainants reported hearing a loud pop while driving or upon starting up the vehicle followed by a loud, repetitive clicking or popping sound.(3) many of the complainants reported that the popping sound was accompanied by some loss of vehicle power; however, in 99% of the incidents reported, the vehicle did not stall.in the very few incidents where the vehicle did stall, most vehicles could be restarted.(4) only a small percentage of the complainants cited that they smelled gas or a slight burning smell when the incident occurred.(5) in all but a very few incidents, vehicle damage was limited to the engine.in one incident, the complaint reported that the fuel rail was damaged and replaced after one of the spark plugs ejected from the engine; however, the complainant reported that the damage did not result in any type of fuel leak or fire.in another incident, the only incident where a fire was alleged, the complainant reported that no fluid leak was observed, but that a fire resulted after the spark plug had ejected from the engine and he had restarted the vehicle and driven to another location.none of the complainants reported any damage to the vehicle hood.(6) only two complainants reported that they observed what appeared to be some drops of fuel coming from the cylinder where the spark plug had failed or on the spark plug itself; however, each of these complainants reported that there was no smoke or flames as a result of his incident.as the petitioner noted, and odi?s analysis showed, it is possible for a spark plug to detach from the engine cylinder threads in the subject vehicles.however, odi?s analysis of 474 complaints describing such incidents found only a very few alleged any safety-related consequences.none of these showed any evidence of a serious safety consequence.given the large population and relatively long exposure time of the subject vehicles, the complaint analysis indicates that the risk to motor vehicle safety from the alleged defect is very low.in view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that the federal safety agency would issue an order for the notification and remedy of the alleged defect at the conclusion of the investigation requested in the petition.therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize the federal safety agency?s limited resources to best accomplish the agency?s safety mission, the petition is denied.

DP05005

This investigation was opened on certain ford pickup trucks and vans to evaluate the effects of a valve stem ejection (with rapid air loss) and a slow leaking valve stem on vehicle handing.during the investigation, odi evaluated over 1,100 complaints and warranty claims, conducted vehicle dynamic testing on a subject vehicle with the failure mode replicated, interviewed owners, and examined complaint vehicles in the field.the results of the test program indicates the effect of a valve stem ejection on these vehicles is easily controlled. Further, with a population of almost 900,000 vehicles, having two to four years of exposure, odi is aware of only 3 minor crashes and is unaware of any injuries.the small number of crashes relative to the large population of vehicles is consistent with the testing which was performed. Therefore, this investigation is closed.see the attached report for full technical details.

EA02018