2001 Ford Expedition problems

What is wrong

On certain pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles equipped with speed control, the speed control deactivation switch may overheat, smoke, or burn.

Risk

A fire at the switch could occur.

Remedy

By letter dated september 12, 2005, owners were instructed to return their vehicles to their dealers to have the speed control deactivation switch disconnected. Owners who have had their speed control deactivated are being notified that parts will be available and advised to make an appointment to reconnect the speed control beginning in february 2006. Owners who did not have their speed control deactivated are being notified to have their system remedied beginning in february 2006. Owners are urged to avail themselves of the free disconnect service as soon as possible because of the significant risk of fire. Owners may contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673. (note: also see recalls 05v017 and 06v286)

Recall number 05V388000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Certain pickup truck, van, and mini van conversions equipped with southern comfort built running boards that contain certain courtesy lights manufactured by american technology components, inc. These units contain a courtesy light or lights that might overheat when the wire harness is exposed to excessive moisture and road salt.

Risk

This overheating condition can cause the running board to melt or cause a fire.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the wiring harness on these running boards. Owner notification began march 7, 2003. 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 southern comfort at 1‑800‑745‑6096.

Recall number 03V094000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, and light and medium duty pickup trucks. A switch located in the plastic cover of the wiper motor gear case could malfunction and overheat, potentially resulting in loss of intermittent wiper function, loss of wiper park function, complete loss of wiper function, or ignition of the plastic cover material. Switch malfunction is most likely to occur when the intermittent setting of the wipers is being used, or when snow or ice obstructs the blades from returning to the "parked" position at the bottom of the windshield. These vehicles were built at the following assembly plants: atlanta plant from 2/11/00 through 7/31/00; chicago plant from 2/14/00 through 8/4/00; kansas city plant from 2/26/00 to 9/4/00; kentucky truck plant from 2/18/00 to 8/31/00; michigan truck plant from 2/23/00 through 8/3/00; norfolk plant from 2/21/00 through 7/27/00; wayne stamping and assembly plant from 2/25/00 through 8/15/00; and wixom plant from 2/15/00 through 8/8/00.

Risk

Loss of visibility while driving increases the risk of a crash.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the date code on the wiper motor. Motors built with the suspect time frame will have the wiper motor gear case cover replaced. Owner notification began august 20, 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 1‑866‑436‑7332.

Recall number 01V258000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger and sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. Equipped with seat belts supplied by trw. It is possible that the driver's and/or front passenger's outboard seat belt buckle may not fully latch. Ford crown victoria built at st. Thomas assembly plant from 4/17/00 - 5/29/01 mercury grand marquis built at st. Thomas assembly plant from 4/17/00 - 5/29/01. Lincoln town cars built at wixom assembly plant from 3/27/00 - 5/30/01. Lincoln navigators built at michigan truck plant from 4/11/00 - 5/31/01. Ford windstars built at oakville assembly plant from 3/23/00 - 5/30/01. Ford rangers built at twin cities plant from 3/28/00 - 5/30/01, and also at the edison plant from 3/13/00 - 5/25/01. Ford f-150 truck built at norfolk plant from 4/18/00 - 5/25/00; at ontario plant from 5/10/00 - 5/28/01; at kansas city plant from 9/11/99 - 5/25/01; and at cuautitlan plant from 5/16/00 - 6/9/01. Ford super duty f-250, f-350, f-450, and f-550 trucks built at kentucky plant from 4/17/00 - 5/27/01; and at cuautitlan plant from 5/16/00 - 6/19/01. Ford excursions built at kentucky plant from 4/17/00 - 10/2/00. Ford expeditions built at michigan truck plant from 4/11/00 - 5/31/01.

Risk

In the event of a crash, the restraint system may not provide adequate occupant protection, increasing the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the front outboard seat belt buckles and if the buckle fails the inspection process, it will be replaced. Owner notification began july 25, 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 1‑866‑436‑7332.

Recall number 01V227001 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: passenger and sport utility vehicles. The inflator canister in the driver air bag module may have an inadequate weld near the igniter.

Risk

In the event of a vehicle crash, the driver air bag may not deploy as intended, potentially resulting in reduced occupant protection, or a burn injury.

Remedy

Dealers will install a driver air bag module. Owner notification began march 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 01V082000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: certain sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and passenger vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of fmvss 225, "child restraint anchorage systems." the affected expedition/navigator owner guides do not identify the locations of seating positions equipped with tether anchorages, and do not provide instructions for securing child seats to these tether anchorages. The f150 sc owner guides do not provide the procedure for securing child seats to the tether anchorages. The taurus/sable owner guides do not identify the center rear seating position as having latch compatible lower anchorages.

Risk

In the event of a crash, the child seat may not be properly attached increasing the risk of injury to the child.

Remedy

Owners will be provided with owner guide inserts revised to provide the required information, and instructions for affixing these inserts to their owner guides. Customers will also be advised that if they prefer, their dealer will affix the inserts to their owner guides.

Recall number 00V396000 · Recall details

Consumers alleged that when it rained or snowed, water leaked into the vehicle around the windshield.moisture flowing through the seal that surrounds the front windshield follows a path through the seal into the generic electronic module (gem) and fuse box, and may cause the electrical components in the vehicle to malfunction.overall, the number of reports alleging wiper failures and lighting failures is relatively small.in reviewing a large sample of the 1503 complaints for windshield leaks, odi's analysis reveals that 0.04% of the total vehicle population reported improper windshield wiper operation and 0.01% of the total vehicle populationreported lighting failures.the warranty claims reveal that approximately 0.10% of the population has been serviced for wiper malfunctions and 0.08% for lighting malfunctions as a result of windshield leaking. Odi's analysis of the field performance statistics and available technical information has not established that a defect trend exists in the malfunction, failure or intermittent operation of the front windshield wipers or headlights.see the attached summary report.

EA05015

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

Odi has received 39 reports alleging that water leaks around the windshield causing electrical failures, including but not limited to the windshield wipers and the headlamps.ford reports that water entering the vehicle can wet the power distribution box (pdb) and the generic electronic module (gem).these components control various electrical systems in the vehicle.this investigation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis, ea05015, to allow further investigation of the issue and to assess the nature of the potential safety consequence.

PE05033

Ea05-005 is closed with ford?s actions in recalls 05v‑017, 05v‑388, and 06v‑286, recalling approximately 6.7 million vehicles equipped with texas instruments speed control deactivation switches (scds).the brake systems in these recalled vehicles generate a vacuum that can potentially cause the scds to fail and, in certain switch installation orientations, catch fire.ford is also including the entire population of 1998 explorers.ford has informed odi that testing to determine the cause of failures in the 1998 explorers will continue after this investigation is closed.odi believes that the vehicles exhibiting the factors causing scds failure described in this report correlate well with the observed failure rates on these vehicles by model and model year.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by the federal safety agency that a safety-related defect does not exist in the non-recalled vehicles manufactured with scds that are not included in ford?s recalls.odi will continue to monitor the non-recalled population for incidence of engine compartment fires.the agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.see attached closing report for details.

EA05005

During the initial recall campaign in 2001, the subject vehicles were inspected by ford dealerships using a test tool that would detect a defective front seat outboard seat belt buckle assembly.approximately one million vehicles passed the inspection test for one or both front buckles.subsequent to the recall service action, odi received 15 consumer reports alleging that a passed inspection buckle subsequently failed to latch or inadvertently unlatched during use.in addition, ford has identified 543 owner and field reports alleging buckle failure subsequent to passing the inspection test.ford tested and examined over 100 warranty-returned buckles and found that 44% of the buckles had no problem or a condition not related to the recall inspection (non-latch related buckle damage or foreign contamination).warranty claims were highest during the 18-month period after the start of the recall (july 2001) and have been declining during the past 24 months.over the past 12 months, ford has received approximately 12 warranty claims per month out of a vehicle population of about one million.complaints counts are also decreasing.during the past seven months, odi has received only two complaints. A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.accordingly, this investigation is closed.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by the federal safety agency that a safety-related defect does not exist.the agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

EA05004

Under recall campaign (01v227), ford recalled approximately 1.3 million vehicles to inspect and if necessary replace the front driver and/or passenger seat belt buckle.approximately 1.1 million owners responded by taking their vehicles to a dealer for inspection of the buckle using a specialized buckle test tool.ford reported that 829,927 vehicles had both buckles pass the tool test and another 167,336 vehicles had one buckle pass.odi and ford received complaints alleging seat belt buckle failure shortly after passing the original recall inspection service.complainants alleged that the buckle failed by either not latching or false-latching (partial engagement of the latch to the latch plate).a false-latched buckle may release with minor movement or impact against the buckle housing including inadvertent release while the vehicle is in motion.odi is upgrading this recall query to an engineering analysis (ea05-004) to further analyze the field performance of those vehicles that ford dealers passed (one or both buckles) using ford's inspection test (997,263 vehicles).

RQ04011