Engine shuts down without warning at speeds 50 to 70 MPH and won't restart sometimes. It might restart after an hour and run for about 10 to 15 minutes and stop again and won't start again till next morning. Is intermittently and randomly stopping dead, like turning off the key. Mechanic cannot make it happen in shop!
The worst 1994 Ford F-250 problems
Ranked by number of owner complaints. Mileage and cost come from what owners wrote.
Problems by type
Tap a problem to see which part fails, at what mileage and in which other years.
- Brakes23
- Transmission23
- Engine18
- Suspension14
- Acceleration13
- Fuel system13
- Electrical12
- Body4
- Lights4
- Tires4
- Visibility4
- Steering3
- Seats1
- Wheels1
Specific symptoms reported on the 1994 Ford F-250
Recalls 8
Vehicle speed control
- 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 or burn and an underhood fire.
- Remedy
- Dealers will install a fused wiring harness into the speed control system free of charge. The recall began on august 7, 2006. Owners may contact ford at 1‑866‑436‑7332. (note: also see recalls 05v017 and 05v388)
Recall number 06V286000 · Recall details
Vehicle speed control
- 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
Seats
- What is wrong
- The wire harness for the power lumbar feature on the seat is underneath the front seat cushion support wires. The support wires on the driver seat can contact and damage the insulation harness resulting in a high resistance electrical short through the support wires.
- Risk
- Consequence of defect: over heating of the support wires could result, and melting, smoke, or possible igntion of the surrounding materials could occur.
- Remedy
- Dealers will inspect the seats on the affected vehicles. If no damage is found, the driver seat wire harness will be covered with a protective convolute tubing, wrapped with electrical tape and the harness will be rerouted. If damage is found, the wire harness will be replaced.
Recall number 96V064000 · Recall details
Parking brake: conventional
- What is wrong
- The parking brake control self-adjust pawl does not line up properly with the self-adjust rachet causing the pawl to slip over one or more teeth in the rachet.
- Risk
- When the above occurs, it can result in parking brake system ineffectiveness. The parking brake will not hold the vehicle, causing the vehicle to roll freely, if the transmission is not left in gear.
- Remedy
- A wedge will be installed which will serve to lock the parking brake self-adjust mechanism pawl into engagement with the rachet. Also, owners will be advised to release and reapply the parking brake whenever tooth skip occurs and will be reminded to always turn off the engine and leave the vehicle in gear when the vehicle is parked.
Recall number 94V169001 · Recall details
Electrical system: ignition: module
- What is wrong
- In a heavily loaded vehicle, while in the cruise control mode, the throttle may not reduce immediately when the load on the engine is decreased (such as when the vehicle crests a hill.) this can result in increased vehicle speed without prior warning.
- Risk
- This can result in loss of speed control of the vehicle, and a possible accident.
- Remedy
- Dealers will replace the electronic engine control module.
Recall number 94V101000 · Recall details
Structure: body: bumpers
- What is wrong
- The u-clip style nuts that retain the front bumpers to the front bumper inner arms can fracture.
- Risk
- If one of the u-clip nuts fractures, the bumper will loosen and rattle causing fracture of the remaining u-clip nuts, resulting in separation of the bumper from the vehicle. If the bumper were to detach from the vehicle while it is being driven, a vehicle collision could result.
- Remedy
- Inspection and replacement of the four u-clip nuts and the associated bolts.
Recall number 94V018000 · Recall details
Air bags
- What is wrong
- These vehicles were built with nonfunctional air bag diagnostic modules intended for certain vehicles over 8,500 bls. Gvwr.
- Risk
- The air bag supplemental restraint and the air bagwarning light will not function. This could result in reduced occupantprotection in the event of a collision that should activate the air bagsupplemental restraint system.
- Remedy
- Dealers will inspect these vehicles and, if necessary, install the correct air bag diagnostic module.
Recall number 93V184000 · Recall details
Air bags
- What is wrong
- The design of the air bag diagnostic monitor causes the driver's side air bag to deploy when the passenger door is slammed while the ignition key is turned to the start position.
- Risk
- Inadvertent deployment of the air bag can result ininjury to the driver.
- Remedy
- Install a redesigned air bag diagnostic monitor.
Recall number 93V155000 · Recall details
See all 8 recalls for the 1994 Ford F-250
Defect investigations
Engine compartment fires
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
Inadvertent air bag deployment
There is no summary currently available
RQ98006
Separated front suspension
Consumer complaints report that bolts which retain the axle pivot bracket to the frame cross member can loosen or fail, causing the inboard end or the axle to become detached from the vehicle.owners allege that this could result in loss of steering control, however the complaint data shows only one incident where the vehicle left the roadway following axle separation, with no damage to the vehicle.in addition to the 225 consumer complaints, there were 4,315 warranty claims related to the front suspension and members, and 22 vehicles were replaced for goodwill.documents submitted by ford, under request for confidential treatment indicate that the bolts were inadequate for the durability requirements of the vehicle.also, bolts were found to have been inadequately torqued at one or more assembly plants.other factors, such as wax treatment of the frame, contributed to the problem.increased bolt diameter and increased torque apparently corrected the problem.a service bulletin, 96-20-13, was issued to advise dealers of this corrective action.in these documents, ford also reported that a vehicle, equipped for simultaneous catastrophic failure of all pivot bracket fasteners, was evaluated resulting in a slight vehicle pull to one side with no loss of vehicle control.odi has not replicated ford's vehicle testing, however analysis of the design of the front suspension indicates that even if the inboard end of theaxle became disconnected from the frame, the outboard end would remain firmly attached to the leaf spring with two u-bolts.this would retain the wheel in its approximate position, although the wheel alignment would be greatly in error.therefore it is unlikely that control of the vehicle would be lost.owners reprot many significant noises in the suspension, such as creaking, groaning, clunking, and squeaking, prior to noticing any separation of the axle.this provides warning of the loosening of the bolts to the driver, and should not be ignored.ford has stated that repairs will be covered under the vehicle's bumper warranty.complaints about warranty coverage by a ford dealer should be addressed to ford, or to appropriate state and local agencies.a safety-related defect trend has not been identified at this time and 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.
PE96052
Failure of serpentine belt
An engineering analysis closing report is included.
EA95012
Trns oil cooler line fails
Ford has acknowledged a serious problem with the accessory drive belt system (serpentine belt) in the subject vehicles.several service bulletins have been issued to address concerns related to belt tracking or wear.ford maintains that the subject condition does not present an unreasonable risk to highway safety, arguing that the low incidence of failures alleging safety consequences (I.e., fires, fluid leaks, and/or accidents) is strong evidence in support of this claim.ford has indicated receipt of 4,445 field reports and 46891 warranty claims concerning the subject condition. Ford maintains that the low number of reported hose ruptures and/or fires, relative to total belt failures, shows that the problem is a durability concern that presents very little risk to motor vehicle safety.ford intends to address the problemin a service bulletin scheduled for publication the week of march 13, 1995.odi has received several claims alleging that incidents of belt failure are causing collateral damage to adjacent fluid systems (e.g., power steering hose, coolant hose, and automatic transmission oil cooler hose).release of these fluids within the engine compartment may result in a vehicle fire, if exposed to a sufficiently hot surface area.the autoignition temperature for transmission oil may be as low as 300 c (570 f), while power steering fluid and engine coolant are generally harder to ignite (closer to 500 degree c (900 degreef)).damage to battery cable insulation has also been alleged as a consequence of serpentine belt failure.odi has received four reports alleging failure of adjacent fluid system hoses from contact with a broken serpentine belt.one report involved an econoline rv cutaway chassis with a 7.3l v-8 navistar engine, used in the transport of disabled children.an engine compartment fire destroyed the vehicle in november 1994.the fire is alleged to have been caused when the serpentine belt broke at highway speed and ruptured a transmission coller line. The report alleges finding belt fragments and traces of transmission fluid up the road from the fire scene, near where the driver had heard a pop just prior to the fire.the driver reportedly sustained minor burn injuries while evacuating passengers.owner reports also allege some loss of vehicle control occurs with the belt failures, due to the loss of power assist capability to the braking and steering systems.the serpentine belt drives the power steering pump and the vacuum pump for the brake booster in the subject vehicles.as stated in ford bulletin 93-23-27: some diesel powered vehicles are experiencing drive belt tracking concerns.this is caused by front end accessory drive (fead) misalignment, which may result in the belt coming off the accessory drive pulleys.if this occurs, several warning lights will illuminate and the vehicle will lose alternator and A/C function and water pump circulation.in addition, steering efforts will increase and, after one or a few brake applications, brake efforts wil progressively increase. There are three odi complaints and five ford complaints, not included in the failure report summary of this resume, alleging that the reductionin vehicle control associated with acessory drive belt failure resulted in an accident.this investigation is being upgraded to further analyze the potential safety consequences of serpentine belt failure in the subject vehicles.
PE94087
Technical service bulletins for the 1994 Ford F-250 156
Bulletins tell dealers how to fix known problems. A warranty extension means the manufacturer pays for that repair for longer.
- Malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) on with diagnostic trouble codes P0603 (powertrain control module keep...
- Oil leak at high pressure pump fittings and/or plug
- Hesitation, stumble, lack of power, rough idle and poor performance on vehicles with 7.3L di turbo diesel...
- A no-start or reduced power condition may occur intermittently
- Poor idle quality and/or low output after the engine returns to idle speed
- Hard starting after the fuel injectors have been replaced
- A lack of accelerator control when moving off of the idle position
- Rear of engine oil pan, near the crankshaft, may leak oil
- The water-in-fuel lamp may stay on and the fuel may be slow to drain or not drain at all when the fuel...
- Hard or no start, hesitation, idle rough, low power, misses, stalls
1994 Ford F-250 fuel economy
Official EPA estimates in miles per gallon (MPGe for electric). Ranges cover trims that share the same engine.
| Engine | Drive | City | Highway | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.9L 6‑cyl | RWD | 13 | 17 | 14 |
| 5.0L 8‑cyl | RWD | 12 | 16-17 | 14 |
| 5.8L 8‑cyl | RWD | 11 | 16 | 13 |
What 1994 Ford F-250 owners say
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
Dimmer switch shuts off all the lights at night when I drive at night
Tl* the contact owns a 1994 ford f-250 equipped with dominator sport atz tires, size: lt265/75r16. While driving 35 MPH, the contact felt a vibration in the front passenger side tire. The tire was rocking from side to side. In addition, the contact stated that the belt was separated from the front passenger side tire. The vehicle was not taken to the dealer. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and referred the contact to the federal safety agency. The approximate vehicle failure mileage was 265,000 and the tire failure mileage was 185.
Tl* the contact owns a 1994 ford f-250. The contact stated that while driving at various speeds, the front fuel tank would extract fuel from the rear fuel tank causing the fuel to leak out the front fuel tank. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer had been notified. The approximate failure mileage was 63,000.
Tl* the contact owns a 1994 ford f-250. The contact stated the fuel pressure regulator has worn out and cause fuel to leak in one of the dual fuel tanks. The fuel leakage in the presence of an ignition source could result in a vehicle fire. The contact notice a recall for the previous year model regarding the fuel system, gasoline:storage:tank assembly (00v424000). He had not called the manufacturer to see if his vehicle is included in this recall. The contact stated the vehicle can cause a fire while driving. The failure mileage was 79,000.
1994 f250 sitting in driveway, 10 o'clock at night, caught on fire, extensive damage, truck destroyed.
In august, 2009, my ford truck caught on fire while parked and plugged in to warm the engine. The fire department came to put the fire out and I had my vehicle towed with the intention of getting it repaired. I wrote to ford motor company's claims department to inform them what happened, including pictures, and advised them that the vehicle was available to them for inspection. Their response was that my vehicle was not "involved in any open recalls that would have contributed to the circumstances described." in november, 2009, I received a recall notice from ford motor company regarding the speed control deactivation switch. The recall letter describes precisely what happened to my vehicle. It states, in part, "ford cannot be confident that over many years in service, a speed control deactivation switch will not leak brake fluid, posing the risk of a fire. This condition may occur either when the vehicle is parked or when it is being operated." after writing to the ford claims department again, asking for a re-evaluation of this problem, their response was that they were unable to offer me any assistance. They never examined my truck, therefore, they cannot possibly determine the cause of the fire. There has been no effort on ford's part to acknowledge or remedy my situation, yet, I now received another recall notice (march, 2010) regarding possibility of fire to this vehicle!
They will not give me the parts to fix it. *tr the consumer stated the nearest dealer is 250 miles from his home. He also stated he is a mechanic and can perform the repairs himself. Updated 11/25/09
I owned a 1994 ford f-250 4x4 and from day one the braking system had a problem. When the anti-lock braking system would activate instead of working the way it was suppose to the brake petal would just bottom out and that would result in failure to stop the truck. The result of which caused more than a few crashes with the truck. My employer's brother was a mechanic for a ford dealership and told me that ford had sent out a service bulletin for the anti lock computer on many different vehicle's of that model year saying that if a vehicle came in for routine service to check the number of the computer and if it was any different than one certain number. To replace it with out the owner knowing it was replaced. Seeing as I do all the work on my vehicle's myself my truck never saw any dealer for repairs as my 5/60 warranty did not last me more than 2.5 years. And the truck ran fine during those 2.5 years except for the braking system. Is there any way for you people to check into this notice to see if it is true? The result of these crashes with the braking system has caused my insurance rates to rise to a ridiculous figure. I know it could be said it is just the way I drive. However I have driving many a company vehicle in my many years in the construction trade. From pickups to dump trucks towing bulldozers and never had any accidents with a company truck.
Tl*the contact owns a 1994 ford f250. The vehicle caught fire while parked in the driveway. The fire department extinguished the fire and deemed it as an electrical failure. The fire department informed the contact of a recall for the cruise control switch for her year, make, and model vehicle, which could cause a fire. The contact does not know if the vehicle is included in the recall. The federal safety agency campaign id number was unknown. The current and failure mileages were 190,000.
Compare the 1994 Ford F-250
Other model years
1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014
Questions about the 1994 Ford F-250
Is the 1994 Ford F-250 reliable?
Owners have filed 122 complaints about the 1994 Ford F-250, fewer than a typical F-250 model year.
What is the most common problem with the 1994 Ford F-250?
Brakes, with 23 complaints. Next is transmission (23).
How many recalls does the 1994 Ford F-250 have?
8 recalls, covering vehicle speed control, seats and parking brake.
Was there a recall on the 1994 Ford F-250 brakes?
Yes, 1 recall: 94V169001. Check your VIN to see if your car still needs the free repair.
What year does the Ford F-250 have bad brakes?
The Ford F-250 model years with the most brakes complaints are 1999 (108 complaints), 1995 (41 complaints) and 2000 (38 complaints).
What gas mileage does the 1994 Ford F-250 get?
Official estimates for the 1994 Ford F-250 range from 13 to 14 mpg combined. The most efficient version (4.9L 6-cyl, RWD) gets 13 city and 17 highway.
VIN decoder
See the problems and recalls for an exact car
Buying a used 1994 Ford F-250?
Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.
Check its history