2000 Ford F-350 problems

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

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: pickup trucks equipped with gasoline engines and 8 foot boxes, may not fully satisfy the requirements of fmvss no. 301, "fuel system integrity." in a 30 MPH frontal barrier crash test, a fuel tank vapor recovery valve separated internally. During the subsequent static rollover test, fuel spillage exceeded the specified rate.

Risk

Fuel leakage, in the presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire.

Remedy

Dealers will install a stop plate assembly on the vehicle frame to prevent recovery valve contact with a frame crossmember during the impact sequence.

Recall number 99V311000 · Recall details

What is wrong

Vehicle description: gasoline and diesel engine pickup trucks equipped with 8 foot beds, do not fully satisfy the requirements of fmvss no. 301, "fuel system integrity." the fuel tank front strap isolator may not be properly positioned which could result in the strap cutting the tank during a 30 MPH front barrier test, resulting in fuel spillage.

Risk

During the subsequent static rollover test, fuel spillage exceeded the specified rate, increasing the risk of a fire.

Remedy

Dealers will reposition the front strap isolator.

Recall number 99V219000 · Recall details

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

This investigation was opened on certain ford pickup trucks and vans to evaluate the effects of a valve stem ejection (with rapid air loss) and a slow leaking valve stem on vehicle handing.during the investigation, odi evaluated over 1,100 complaints and warranty claims, conducted vehicle dynamic testing on a subject vehicle with the failure mode replicated, interviewed owners, and examined complaint vehicles in the field.the results of the test program indicates the effect of a valve stem ejection on these vehicles is easily controlled. Further, with a population of almost 900,000 vehicles, having two to four years of exposure, odi is aware of only 3 minor crashes and is unaware of any injuries.the small number of crashes relative to the large population of vehicles is consistent with the testing which was performed. Therefore, this investigation is closed.see the attached report for full technical details.

EA02018

On may 11, 1998, ford motor company filed a defect information report concerning parking brake failure on certain 1999 f-350 super duty vehicles built at the kentucky truck plant from january 26, 1998 through april 24, 1998; recall 98v‑101.the reduction in parking brake effectiveness may occur on some of these vehicles, and is caused by the rust preventative coating the surface of the parking brake lining material which reduces the frictional characteristics at the lining and rotor interface.on march 13, 2000, odi opened rq00-010 on parking brake failures on 1999-2000 model year super duty f-series vehicles, on the basis of six failure reports on those vehicles.odi now has 10 reports of parking brake failure on the 1999 subject vehicles, built outside of the recall population, including three crashes.the data in the above table does not include parking brake failures on the recalled 1999 f-350 vehicles.the data received from ford in its response to the rq00-010 information request, revealed a high failure rate for the 1999 f-450/550 vehicles (1200r/100k), and a high failure rate of the 1999 f-250/350 vehicles, manufactured outside several of the recall build months.it is recommended that an engineering analysis be opened to address the parking brake problem in the 1999 model year super duty f-series vehicles.

RQ00010