1997 Ford F-150 problems

What is wrong

Ford is recalling certain 1997 through 2003 model year ford f-150, 2004 model year ford f-150 heritage, 1997 through 1999 model year f-250 less than 8,500 lbs. Gross vehicle weight rating (gvwr), and 2002 and 2003 lincoln blackwood vehicles manufactured from june 20, 1995, through august 4, 2004, originally sold, or currently registered in, connecticut, delaware, illinois, indiana, iowa, kentucky, maine, maryland, massachusetts, michigan, minnesota, missouri, new hampshire, new jersey, new york, ohio, pennsylvania, rhode island, vermont, west virginia, wisconsin, and the district of columbia. Prolonged exposure to road deicing chemicals may cause severe corrosion of the fuel tank straps which secure the tank to the vehicle.

Risk

As a result of the corrosion, one or both straps may fail allowing the fuel lines to separate from the tank, or in some cases, causing the tank to contact the ground. Either scenario may result in a fuel leak presenting a fire hazard.

Remedy

Ford will notify owners and instruct them to take their vehicles to a ford or lincoln dealer to have the fuel tank straps replaced with straps that have increased corrosion protection. Early in this campaign, if replacement straps are not available, dealers may install a cable support under the strap as an interim repair or a steel reinforcement over the existing strap as a permanent repair. Any repairs will be performed free of charge. The safety recall began on september 16, 2011. Owners may contact ford motor company customer relationship center at 1‑866‑436‑7332. Ford's recall campaign number is 11s21

Recall number 11V385000 · Recall details

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

On certain pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, if the intermediate shaft yoke separates from the steering gear input shaft, the steering system becomes disconnected.

Risk

This could result in loss of steering control, potentially resulting in a vehicle crash without warning.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the steering intermediate shaft yoke to determine if the yoke is fully seated on the steering gear input shaft. If the yoke is fully seated no service is required. If the yoke is not fully seated and bolt groove and spline is visible, the intermediate shaft and bolt will be replaced as well as the bolt at the steering column connection. Owner notification began on may 30, 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 ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673.

Recall number 03V196000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: light duty pickup trucks manufactured at the kansas city or norfolk assembly plants. The front fuel line assembly could have a hole rubbed through in one of two locations. The first location is below the fuel rail connection where the flexible hose is crimped to the steel tube. The bracket that attaches the front fuel line to the transmission could have been bent during assembly. The second location is at the rear steel tube section forward of the rear bracket. During installation the rear steel tubes of the front fuel line assembly could have been bent downward. In vehicles equipped with a manual 4xz4 transfer case shifter, the shifter linkage may contact the steel tubes as it is being shifted between 4h, 4l, 2l and neutral.

Risk

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

Remedy

Dealers will inspect these lines and replace the front fuel line assembly if necessary. Owner notification began october 27, 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 00V231000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: mini vans, light pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. Off lease canadian vehicles equipped with daytime running lights which meet canadian requirements and not the photometric requirements of fmvss 108, "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment." according to ford, the vehicles were imported into the u.s. Erroneously.

Risk

The light given off from the daytime running lights is brighter than allowed by u.s. Standards.

Remedy

Dealers will be advised to deactivate the running light function and to complete any outstanding safety recalls on these vehicles.

Recall number 00V168000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: light duty 4-wheel drive pickup trucks. If the vehicle is overloaded, the rear leaf springs can be overstressed. A fatigue fracture of the spring can occur. The center leaf of the spring can fracture at the forward edge of the spring seat and, in some cases, contact the fuel tank.

Risk

Fuel tank contact can damage the tank and result in fuel leakage. Fuel leakage in the presence of an ignition source can result in a fire.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the rear springs and install an additional clip on the forward end of the rear springs to prevent fuel tank contact in the event of a leaf fracture. Any fractured springs will be replaced.

Recall number 98V161000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: multi-purpose vehicles and light duty pickup trucks. The lug nuts on these vehicles may not create sufficient clamp load allowing wheel movement in relation to the hub/rotor mounting surface.

Risk

This can result in the loosening of lug nuts, stud fatigue failure, and the potential for a wheel separation from the vehicle, increasing the risk of a vehicle crash.

Remedy

Owners of these vehicles will be receiving two notifications. The first notification, which began in may 1998, will provide an interim repair procedure until parts become available. This interim procedure can be completed by owners or their dealers. It specifies that the lug nut torque must be verified to be 100 lbs. Then the lug nuts need to be tightened an additional 1/8 to 1/4 turn more. There will be a second owner notification, which is expected to begin july 20, 1998, under which dealers will inspect the wheel studs and replace the wheel lug nuts.

Recall number 98V095000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: light duty pickup trucks equipped with a 4.2l engine and originally sold or currently registered in one of the following states: alaska, montana, north dakota, minnesota, wisconsin, new york, vermont, new hampshire, maine, michigan, idaho, wyoming, south dakota, colorado, nebraska, kansas, iowa, missouri, illinois, indiana, ohio, pennsylvania, and massachusetts. The throttle is unable to return to idle due to ice forming in the throttle body when the temperature ranges from -10 to -40 degrees fahrenheit.

Risk

Increased brake pedal efforts or some increase in stopping distance could result.

Remedy

Dealers will install a revised pcv system on these vehicles.

Recall number 98V007000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: light duty pickup trucks and multi-purpose passenger vehicles. If the automatic transmission shift cable assembly was not fully attached to the steering column bracket, the shift cable assembly can come out of the bracket. The vehicle operator would then not be able to shift the transmission from one of the drive gear positions into the park position even though the gear shift selector would indicate "park."

Risk

The condition would not allow a disengagement of the transmission from the park position or affect proper neutral start switch operation. Unintended vehicle movement could occur if the parking brake was not set.

Remedy

Dealers will make the proper attachment of the transmission shift control cable to the steering column bracket and add a tie strap to that connection.

Recall number 97V171000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: light duty pickup trucks. The transmission bracket end fitting can separate from the shift cable assembly resulting in operator inability to shift the transmission from one of the drive gear positions into the park position.

Risk

This condition can result in unintended vehicle movement if the parking brake is not set.

Remedy

Dealers will install a new transmission shift control cable.

Recall number 97V147000 · Recall details

What is wrong

The seat elt anchorage attachments are missing or misinstalled on these vehicles.

Risk

A loose fastener can eventually detach and would not properly restrain an occupant in the event of a vehicle accident.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect and, as necessary, repair the seat belt anchorage attachments.

Recall number 96V256000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicles originally sold or currently registered in the following states: alaska, montana, north dakota, minnesota, wisconsin, michigan (upper peninsula), new york, maine, vermont, and new hampshire. Operation at highway speeds during extreme cold, northern climate winter conditions, can result in ice forming in the throttle body of the engine.

Risk

This ice can cause the throttle plate to remain in the highway cruising position after the accelerator is released or the speed control is deactivated. Under such conditions, the vehicle stopping distances would be increased possibly resulting in an accident.

Remedy

Dealers will install a foam insulating sleeve on the line from the pcv to the hose fitting on the throttle plate.

Recall number 96V251000 · Recall details

What is wrong

The retainer clip that holds the master cylinder push rod to the brake pedal arm is missing.

Risk

A loss of service braking can occur increasing the risk of a vehicle accident.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect to verify that the retainer clips are installed and if clips are missing will install clips.

Recall number 96V184000 · Recall details

What is wrong

The certification labels on the involved vehicles has incorrect rear tire inflation pressure designations. This does not comply with fmvss no. 120, "tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars."

Risk

Incorrect inflation pressures could cause premature wear of the rear tires. .

Remedy

Owners will be provided with correct certification labels and instructions for installing these labels. Dealers can install this label if the owner so desires.

Recall number 96V161000 · Recall details

One or both of the steel straps holding up the fuel tank and attaching it to the truck frame can corrode and fail (break or separate).If one strap fails, the tank may tilt and drop and possibly contact the road surface.If both straps break, the entire tank may drop to the road.If either failure occurs while the vehicle is being driven, contact with the road can abrade the tank and create a hole from which gasoline can spill.When the tank drops, it remains attached to the vehicle only by the fuel filler hose and/or supply lines, or in rare instances, by the skid plate, if present.In some cases the weight of the tank sufficiently strained the hoses and fittings and caused separation and subsequent fuel leaks from those connections.The fire hazard created by leaking gasoline is increased by the possible presence of sparks created by the metal tank being dragged along the road.Corrosion of the straps appears to be caused by prolonged exposure to road deicers, frequently road salt, used to treat snow or ice covered roads.States in which large quantities of deicers are applied to roads during the winter season (salt belt states) account for the predominant portion of strap failures.Vehicles in these salt belt states are prone to experience corrosion related failures more frequently and earlier in a vehicle?s life cycle.Ford reports approximately 97 percent of reports it received relating to strap failure involve vehicles that were operated in these high corrosion areas, and 95 percent of the reports to the federal safety agency involved such vehicles.Approximately one-third of F-150 U.S. production was sold in salt belt states.ODI has included in the above counts reports it has received from consumers and reports it has received from Ford in which either the complaint involved confirmed strap corrosion or ODI's assessment of available information suggests corrosion caused the reported problem.Among the incidents reported to the federal safety agency, 441 involved one or both straps failing due to corrosion, 353 involved the fuel tank dropping and/or dragging on the ground, and 180 involved fuel leakage.ODI has received four reports of strap failure in which the leaking fuel ignited but self-extinguished, and one incident in which fire destroyed the vehicle and injured its driver.Ford reported the same injury incident and three other unique fire incidents, including two in which the leaking fuel ignited and fire destroyed the vehicle.There were no injuries associated with the three unique Ford incidents.Ford has agreed to conduct a recall to repair the subject vehicles.The recall will cover vehicles that were originally sold or are currently registered in salt belt states (regardless of vehicle age).The vehiclesincluded in the recall are those subject vehicles that are, or have ever been, registered in Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, or the District of Columbia.Ford's recall action appears to adequately address the problem at this time.The above vehicle population (1,340,349) includes subject vehicles originally delivered or sold in salt belt states.ODI does not know the current or historical locations of all subject vehicles.According to Ford approximately 73% of the recall population is currently registered (a 27% attrition rate).Ford is also recalling certain MY 1997-1999 F-250 vehicles (under 8,500 GVWR), and MY2002-2003 Lincoln Blackwood vehicles for the same condition, resulting in an estimated 1.1 million total vehicles

EA11006

One or both of the steel straps holding up the fuel tank and attaching it to the truck frame can corrode and break.If one strap breaks, the tank may tilt and drop and possibly contact the road surface.If both straps break, the entire tank may drop to the road.If either failure occurs while the vehicle is being driven, contact with the road can abrade the tank and create a hole from which gasoline can spill.When the tank drops, it remains attached to the vehicle only by the fuel filler hose and/or supply lines, or in rare instances, by the skid plate, if present.This raises the possibility that the weight of the dropped tank could sufficiently strain the hoses and fittings to cause separation and fuel leaks between those components.The fire hazard created by the leaking gasoline is increased by the possible presence of sparks created by the metal tank being dragged along the road.The sparks could ignite the escaped fuel.ODI has included in its incident counts reports it has received from consumers and reports provided by Ford in which either the complaint involved confirmed strap corrosion or ODI's investigation yielded information that strongly suggests the subject defect as the cause of the reported problem.Among the incidents reported to the federal safety agency or Ford, 243 involved the fuel tank dropping below the vehicle and/or dragging on the ground, 95 involved fuel leakage, and nine included reports of sparks from the tank being dragged on the road.ODI has received one report of strap failure in which the leaking fuel ignited but self-extinguished.Ford reported another incident in which the leaking fuel ignited and the resultant fire destroyed the vehicle.There have been no injuries associated with these incidents.ODI has received reports of corrosion induced tank strap failures with other model year F-150 vehicles.ODI is upgrading this investigation to further investigate the frequency, severity and scope of this problem.

PE10036

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

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

See attached summary for technical details

EA02001

PE01033

In july 1998, ford submitted a part 573 notification to the federal safety agency concerning broken rear springs on certain 1997-98 ford f150 trucks, with four-wheel drive.ford stated that fatigue fracture of the rear springs may occur if the spring are over stresses(sic) by vehicle overloading.the broken piece of the spring leaf may splay inward, damaging the fuel tank and causing fuel leakage.ford also stated that a broken spring would cause vehicle sag and loss in load carring capability.ford had 43 reports of fuel tank damage.ford will install a clip on the forward end (only) of the rear springs to prevent fuel tank contact in the event of a leaf fracture.only broken springs will be replaced.odi has received three reports of broken rear springs on 1997-98 f150 trucks;two of them have two-wheel drive.a tire puncture occurred on a four-wheel drive truck in which the broken middle spring leaf splayed outward at the rear of the spring assembly.eight other reports describe rear springs that have moved out of position or became loose; three of these reported some loss of vehicle control.closing note: while there isn't any strong evidence that the rear springs are only breaking under conditions of overload and severe use, the recall remedy to prevent fuel tank damage may be adequate and there is not a significant spring failure rate outside the recall population.thi rq should be closed, subject to future failure occurances.

RQ98022

The details of information and data evaluated during this investigation are stated in the engineering analysis closing report, dated september 30, 1999.a safety-related defect trend resulting from interference by the floor mat with proper operation of the throttle in the subject vehicles was not identified during the course of the ea, and the invrestigation has been closed.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding that no safety-related defect exists.the agency will continue to monitor future complaints on this issue to identify any increasing trend of occurrence, and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

EA98018

There is no summary currently available

PE98024

There is no summary currently available

PE98021

On september 4, 1997, ford filed a defect information report concerning approximately 15,000 1997 model year f-150 trucks, manufactured from february 16 through march 4, 1996, and built at the norfolk or kansas city assembly plants.these vehicles could have incorrectly manufactured automatic transmission control cables installed which can result in a separation of the cable end fitting from the cable conduit at the transmission end of the cable.if the transmisssion end fitting were to separate from the shift cable assembly, theoperator would not be able to shift the transmission from one of the drive gear positions into the park position even though the gear shift selector would indicate park.odi has received 6 reports alleging transmission fault shifting resulting in 3 crashes.the reported vehicles were identified as follows:three were manuactured outside of the recall build dates; two were within the scope of the recall and the remaining vehicle was unknown due to missing VIN.the purpose of this investigation is to examine the scope of recall 97v‑147, in particular, the basis for limiting the recall to those built within a specific time period and whether the cable is used on other ford vehicles.

RQ98005

There is no summary currently available

RQ98003

Three consumers have reported failure of one of the two front suspension torsion bars in the subject vehicles.in one case the failure occurred while the vehicle was in operation, and the vehicles were parked when the other two failures occurred.no crashes have been reported.torsion bar failures are considered to be fairly uncommon and in each of the reported cases, the failures occurred at relatively low mileages.the failures are also reported to have occurred in a common location, approximately six inches from the control arm.a preliminary evaluation has been opened to evaluate the scope and potential safety related consequences of these failures.

PE98009

By letter dated may 6, 1998, the manufacturer advised the federal safety agency of its decision to initiate a safety recall of approximately 1,520,000 of the subject vehicles, including f-250 light duty trucks, and navigator vehicles built at the norfolk, michigan truck, kansas city, and ontario truck assembly plants between december 1, 1995 and mid-april 1998.the federal safety agency has designated this recall action as campaign number 98v‑095.

EA97027

In addition to the a failure report tabulations given above, the manufacturer reported that an additional 33 owner and field reports have been filed which refer to problems (lug not torque loss, lug bolt fracture) that did not involve actual wheel separation, but which may be potentially relevant events.the manufacturer also reported that a total of 815 warranty claims have been filed for repairs potentially related to the matter by purchasing the vehicles back from owners as a goodwill measure.the wheel separations cited in this pe include many which occurred with the vehicle being driven; in these cases some property damage to the vehicle itself almost always resulted from collapse of the suspension .the crash incidents cited in the tabulations above are limited to those incidents in which damage was also sustained by a second vehicle or a fixed object.there are indications that problems of lug not torque retention had been experienced during vehicle final assembly, and failure analyses indicate that lug nut torque loss could result in fatigue failure of the lug bolts. There are also indications that under certain conditions, the lug nuts may be unusually susceptible to over-torquing, resulting in plastic deformation of the lug bolts which in turn, could lead to fatigue failure.due to the open issues and question raised by the pe, this matter has been upgraded to an engineering analysis.

PE97033

By letter dated september 4, 1997, the manufacturer advised the federal safety agency that a safety-related recall action would be initiated to correct a potential failure of the transmission shift cable in approximately 15,000 of the subject vehicles.the suspect cables were supplied to ford by teleflex automotive and installed in the subject f-150 trucks built at ford's norforlk and kansas city assembly plants between february 16, 1996 and march 4, 1996.a copy of the ford's letter to the federal safety agency regarding this recall action is attached.based on the pending safety recall (97v‑147), this preliminary evaluation has been closed.

PE97019

Ford notified odi that they are conducting a recall to inspect and, as necessary, repair the seat belt anchorage attachments on 1997 ford f150 vehicles built from the beginning of production through april of 1996.odi's database contains one complaint alleging the center front seat belt anchorage was not bolted to the floor.ford has located 60 additional field reports and warranty claims that appear to be the result of improper assembly of or missing seat belt components on vehicles built at both the kansas city and norfolk assembly plants.complaints allege that a seat belt was not bolted to the floor, not attached, not hooked up, or the owner complained that the seat belt was loose.the causes have included a missing bolt, missing nut, bolt hole not threaded, weld nut missing, or bolt not completely tightened into its mounting hole.the alleged conditions have occurred in all potential seating positions in the front and rear seats in both the regular and super cab models.ford's analysis of their complaints indicate that this situation occurred predominantly in vehicles built from august 14, 1995 through april 30 1996.in late april, in response to the field reprots and warranty claims, ford retained line operators, line supervisors, and plant repair personnel.owners of vehicles built within this time period will be notified of the condition and instructed to return their vehicles to dealers for inspection of and, as necessary, repair of seat belt anchorage attachments.this engineering analysis is closed.recall 96v‑256

EA96020

Odi's database contains one complaint alleging the center front seat belt anchorage was not bolted to the floor.ford submitted 28 additional field reports and warrant claims alleging that a seat belt was not bolted to the floor, not attached, not hooked up, or the owner complainted that the seat belt was loose.the causes have included a missing bolt, missing nut, bolt hole not threaded, weld nut missing, or bolt not completely tightened into mounting hole.ford states that factors that may have caused the non-attachment of the seat belt anchorage include improper assembly of or missing components.ford has made no modifications or changes to the installation procedures of the seat belts at the factory. However, ford states that the manufacturing plant has added a redundant inspection for this alleged condition.over 95% of the vehicles involved were built on or before may 1, 1996 and over 80% of the vehicles involved were built between january and march or 1996.the alleged conditions have occurred in all potential seating positions in the front and rear seats in both the regular and super cab models.ford believes that there is no indication of a pattern with regard to any particular belt location.odi is upgradig this investigation to obtain additional information about the reports gathered to date and to assess the impact that the alleged defect has on highway safety.

PE96030