2000 Ford F Super Duty engine problems

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

The cam position sensor (cps) provides a critical signal to the subject vehicle (sv) engine management system, the loss of which results in an engine stall.during pe06-011, ford stated in their response to odi that it is continuing to investigate allegations of cps related engine stall and further advised that an update will be provided upon completion of the investigation.ford data shows that 20% of the 716,000 svs are equipped with manual transmissions which are capable of back-driving the engine when a stall occurs; power assisted steering and braking are not lost during engine back-drive.ford data also indicates that back-drive occurs in automatic transmission vehicles above certain road speeds.the manufacturer reports noted reference 755 unique vehicles; 2 are duplicative of odi reports.in its review of customer and field reports, ford identified some 800 reports alleging one or more engine stalls potentially related to a cps failure in these 755 vehicles (ford?s ?a? Category reports).odi has not completed its review of these or other ford reports, nor has it confirmed this count.all but one of the 9 crash allegations appear to be minor in nature although odi is still investigating these crash/injury allegations and whether or not they involve a cps failure.based on early assessment of the approximately 166,000 subject vehicle warranty claims ford paid, there appears to be variability in claim rates between certain sv production periods; an explanation for this has not been identified.ford reviewed a sample of the warranty claims and indicated that about half may involve a stall due to cps failure; odi has yet to confirm this assessment.the investigation is therefore upgraded to engineering analysis ea06-012 so that odi can continue to investigate the scope, frequency and consequences of cps related engine stalling.

PE06011

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