2003 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

Around town is recalling 6 my 2003 ford e-350 and my 2006 e-250 wheelchair conversion vans equipped with ricon platform style wheelchair lifts. These vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 404, "platform lift installations in motor vehicles." the threshold warning system may not detect the presence of a wheelchair or mobility aid user in a certain spot within the defined threshold area.

Risk

The user of the lift could be injured should the lift move unintentionally.

Remedy

Around town is working with ricon to correct the wheelchair lifts free of charge (please see 07e095). Owners may contact ricon at 1‑818‑267‑3000 or around town at 1‑678‑364‑8594.

Recall number 08V478000 · 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 built on ford e250/e350 chassis and 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 is conducting the owner notification and remedy for this campaign. Owners should contact sure-lock at 1‑908‑231‑1804 or accubuilt at 419‑222‑1501.

Recall number 04V589000 · Recall details

What is wrong

On certain vans, a diode in the anti-lock braking system (ABS) module may experience an electrical short.

Risk

The electrical short may cause an ABS malfunction that would illuminate the ABS warning light, or the module may overheat resulting in a burning odor, smoke, and/or fire. This condition may occur while the vehicle is being driven or unattended.

Remedy

Dealers will install a new fuse in the ABS circuit and install a heat shield over the ABS module. The recall began on october 15, 2004. Owners should contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673. Also ford is extending the limited warranty (for a one time replacement) of the ABS module for a total of 10 years or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date, whichever occurs first. If your vehicle has already accumulated more than 150,000 miles, this coverage will last until september 30, 2005.

Recall number 04V444000 · Recall details

What is wrong

On certain vans, the air filter element material process resulted in an air filter paper element that can smolder or burn. This change in filter paper composition combined with the configuration of the air induction system, may allow hot carbon particles to contact the air filter element during certain driving conditions that create hot particles.

Risk

These hot particles may ignite the air filter element with the potential for air induction system damage or underhood fire.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect and replace the air filter element. The recall began september 27, 2004. Owners should contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673. Also ford is extending the limited warranty (for a one time replacement) of the ABS module for a total of 10 years or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date, whichever occurs first. If your vehicle has already accumulated more than 150,000 miles, this coverage will last until september 30, 2005.

Recall number 04V445000 · 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