2003 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, 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 trucks equipped with speed control, gasoline or natural gas engines, the speed control deactivation switch may overheat.

Risk

Overheating could result in smoke, burn, or an underhood fire.

Remedy

Dealers will install a fused wiring harness into the speed control system free of charge. The recall began on march 12, 2007. Owners may contact ford at 1‑800‑392‑3673. (note: also see recalls 05v017, 05v388, and 06v286)

Recall number 07V078000 · Recall details

What is wrong

On certain pickup trucks, the pitman arm to steering gear retaining nut was not fully tightened to the required specification.

Risk

If the pitman arm to gearbox attachment nut loosens, a noise and a loose feel in the steering could occur. If the condition progressed and service was not sought, the nut could back off completely and the pitman arm could separate from the gear causing a loss of steering. If the warning is not heeded and steering is lost, a crash may result.

Remedy

Dealers will tighten the pitman arm retaining nut to specifications. Owner notification began on october 1, 2003. Owners should contact ford at 1‑866‑436‑7332.

Recall number 03V349000 · 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

The agency has closed this investigation based on its review of complaint reports, discussions with complainants and field and technical data provided by ford.the subject vehicles are 1/2 ton pickup trucks and are natural gas vehicles (ngv) that are fueled by gasoline or compressed natural gas.the agency has received reports alleging improper operation of the natural gas fuel pressure regulator allowing release of excess amounts of natural gas into the engine compartment.ford reports that the regulator contains an over pressure relief valve that will vent natural gas should the pressure exceed a set threshold.the complaint reports and data reviewed by the agency indicate that an improperly operating pressure regulator can result in an overpressure condition and activate the regulator pressure relief valve.the released natural gas is directed through a vent hose that discharges the natural gas in the vicinity of the right front wheel house and away from the engine compartment's extremely hot areas/surfaces.owners are normally aware of this problem by the presence of an illuminated warning light inside the vehicle, odor of natural gas or the sound of venting gas.when the operator turns the engine off, the natural gas supply tank solenoid will close and the regulator will not release natural gas.at vehicle restart, the solenoid valve will remain closed to prevent leakage and the vehicle will only operate in the gasoline mode.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 will monitor this issue and reserves the right to take further action if warranted by the circumstances.

PE08063

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