2002 Ford F-250 SD problems

What is wrong

Ford is recalling certain model year 2011 ranger trucks built from january 25, 2011, through april 25, 2011 at the twin cities assembly plant, and service parts distributed to dealers for certain 2004 through 2011 model year ranger trucks, 2002 through 2005 model year excursion vehicles, and 2002 through 2007 model year f-250, f-350, f-450, and f-550 trucks for failing to comply with the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment." the multi-function switch was shipped with a subcomponent (slider) that may experience deformation. A multi-function switch with a deformed slider may malfunction causing the turn signal, tail lights, hazard warning signal flashers and/or brake lights not to activate.

Risk

Non-functioning lights could increase the risk of a crash.

Remedy

Dealers will replace the switches free of charge. The safety recall began on august 15, 2011. Owners may contact ford motor company customer relationship center at 1‑866‑436‑7332.

Recall number 11V352000 · Recall details

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

On certain heavy duty trucks equipped with 7.3l diesel engines, the camshaft position sensor located on the engine of the vehicle may function intermittently, possibly resulting in an engine stall.

Risk

In the event of an engine stall, a crash could result without warning.

Remedy

Dealers will inspect the sensor and replace it with an improved camshaft position sensor free of charge. The recall began on december 29, 2007. Owners may contact ford at 1‑866‑436‑7332.

Recall number 07V553000 · Recall details

In a december 3, 2007 letter, ford advised the federal safety agency that it will conduct a safety recall to replace the cam position sensor (cps) in approximately 1.2 million subject vehicles to address reports of engine stalling.a new design cps with improved performance and durability will be installed as a remedy.owner notifications will begin in december 2007. The subject vehicles are durable, full-sized, medium duty trucks commonly used for commercial purposes, rescue/emergency response, and commercial or recreational towing.cps failure is comparable to unexpectedly turning the key off since the signal it produces is vital to the electronic engine control system.cps signal loss terminates fuel injection resulting in an engine stall.once stalled, the engine may restart right away, or may restart after a delay (typically 5 to 10 minutes), or may not restart at all.in addition to exposing the driver and other motorists to crash risk due to loss of motive power or vehicle disablement, engine stalling also effects the power assisted steering and braking. Through consumer interviews, odi determined that cps failures occurred without any form of warning, at any vehicle speed (50% at highway speeds), and under any driving condition, such as accelerating.consumers reported that about a third of the vehicles failed to restart, with another third reporting delayed restarting.half the vehicles that did restart experienced another stall on the same or a subsequent drive cycle (before cps replacement) re-exposing those consumers to the risks associated with a stalling event.in their voq reports, half of the odi complainants described difficulty controlling the vehicle due to lose of power assist systems, especially those who were towing at the time of the incident. The one alleged injury incident occurred in an intersection when a subject vehicle stalled while turning across oncoming lanes of traffic.although unsubstantiated, the complainant alleged an injury to a child occupant during odi's interview.the other crash allegations mostly involved low speed, loss of control incidents often caused by lack of power assist; no injuries are reported in these incidents, and property damage, if any, was minimal.consumers also reported other incidents with significant safety risks, such as disablement in a lane or on a shoulder of a high-speed roadway or interstate, or extended disablement in remote areas during severe weather conditions. The population above is ford's estimate of the 1.4 million subject vehicles produced that are currently registered.the ford complaint and warranty counts noted above are current as of ford's last submission dated june 21, 2007; they do not include f-450, f-550, or econoline counts as these products were not formally within scope of the investigation when failure information was requested.warranty data analysis indicates that about half the claims involved a stall while driving event ( ford's assessment) and that poor cps durability was a longstanding concern.ford reported that the new cps design should meet or exceed their 10 year, 150k mile life expectancy design requirement.

EA06012

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

Failure counts from odi?s analysis are stated above; see the additional problem experience discussion in the summary report.ford data contained duplicative reports for 4 odi complaints and 1 crash.three crashes were allegedly due to intermittent operation of the electronic throttle control (etc) pedal, one crash occurred when an etc disabled vehicle was struck by another motorist, one report contained no detail.the injuries were minor.an issue involving fixed etc pedals was investigated also, however failure reports and populations are not shown above; see summary report for detail.although ford has used etc based throttle control systems for many years, the pap feature was new for my 2002.the subject etc sensor produces two output signals which the engine management system (ems) utilizes to:1) determine fueling requirements; and 2) perform sensor diagnostics.one signal is linearly proportional to throttle pedal position; the second is a digital signal.by design, the detection of a sensor fault results in the engine returning to (or remaining at) the idle state.ford identified a defect in the pap etc sensor which prematurely affected an output signal; the migration of internal sensor lubricant caused a loss of proportional signal.the failure mechanism is progressive and as the sensor deteriorates, the ems will detect a fault, store a fault code, illuminate a warning lamp, and the engine may remain at/return to idle.in the early stages, normal operation can be regained by pedal re-application.the failure progresses until the engine remains at idle.the engine does not stall, power assisted steering and braking systems are unaffected. Ford corrected the etc sensor defect and conducted field service action (fsa) 03b03 to replace etc pedals, addressing 50% of vehicles.at agency request to improve completion rate, ford extended fsa 03b03 for 6 months.based on odi's analysis of available data, ford's action has appropriately resolved the etc sensor proplem in the subject vehicles.the closing of the investigation does not constitute a finding by the federal safety agency that a safety-related defect does not exist, and should not be considered as having any precedential value or effect binding the agency in future defect investigations. See the attached summary report for additional information.

EA04006