My 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid has experienced significant water intrusion and intermittent electrical malfunctions. During heavy rain, water saturated the passenger-side floor areas, including the rear passenger floor. The source of the water intrusion has not been identified despite professional inspection and water testing. After the water-intrusion events, the vehicle experienced intermittent electrical problems including the passenger-side window not operating, HVAC/air-conditioning controls becoming inoperative, radio/front controls not responding, and at times multiple electrical functions becoming inoperative together. I also observed that moving the passenger seat sometimes appeared to coincide with the affected functions beginning to work again. I do not know whether the seat movement is causally related. An independent automotive electrical facility performed a diagnostic scan. Multiple communication-related DTCs were recorded across vehicle systems. Several were identified as current faults, including lost communication or invalid-data faults involving the Front Controls Interface Module, Door Control Module B, Gateway A and HVAC Control Module. Other codes were historical/not current. The vehicle was subsequently inspected by a Lincoln dealer. The dealer performed water testing but was unable to identify the source of the leak. Some electrical connections near the floor were inspected without visible moisture or corrosion being found. The dealer also reported an intermittent loose connection involving communication with the gateway during diagnostic testing. The underlying cause of the intermittent electrical malfunction was not identified or repaired. The electrical malfunction occurred again shortly after the vehicle was returned and remains intermittent. Because multiple vehicle functions can become unavailable unpredictably, I am concerned about the reliability and safety of the vehicle's electrical/network systems. The vehicle remains available for ins
The worst 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid problems
Ranked by number of owner complaints. Mileage and cost come from what owners wrote.
- Brakes13
- Fuel system3
- Wheels3
- Acceleration2
- Body2
Problems by type
Tap a problem to see which part fails, at what mileage and in which other years.
- Brakes13
- Fuel system3
- Wheels3
- Acceleration2
- Body2
- Electrical2
- Locks2
- Seat belts2
- Engine1
- Steering1
- Transmission1
Recalls
No recalls on record for this model year.
Defect investigations
Pedestrian alert sounds
the federal safety agency received a petition on or about July 18, 2022, requesting that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the United States. The petition can be reviewed at under ODI Number 11486072. FMVSS 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. The standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 KG or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. The standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after March 1, 2021.On January 27, 2023, the federal safety agency opened Defect Petition (DP) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. On June 24, 2023 and as supplemented on June 25, 2023, the petitioner notified the federal safety agency he was withdrawing his petition. The petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. Based on the petitioner's withdrawal, DP22-005 is closed. Closure of this DP does not represent a determination by the federal safety agency regarding the subject matter of the petition.
DP22005
Front Brake Jounce Hose Failures
On August 8, 2022, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation based on 50 Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs) alleging front brake jounce hose ruptures on model year (MY) 2013-2018 Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ vehicles. A ruptured front brake hose results in a brake fluid leak. As a result, the driver may experience an increase in pedal travel and a reduction in the rate of deceleration, increasing the risk of a crash. It should be noted that the subject vehicles identified fell outside the scope of the federal safety agency Safety Recall 20V‑469, which addressed front brake hoses rupturing on certain MY 2015-2018 Ford Edge and 2016-2018 Lincoln MKX vehicles. The result causes a brake fluid leak, lengthening the distance needing to stop the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.On March 10, 2023, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted to the federal safety agency Safety Recall 23V‑162 (Ford Recall 23S12) to address front brake jounce hoses that may rupture. Ford found the rupture occurs from a localized failure of the internal reinforcement braid due to cyclic fatigue through tensile/bending and torsional inputs during suspension and steering articulations. The supplier for the front brake jounce hoses is Hitachi. This recall affects the subject vehicles equipped with non-hybrid engines and the suspect front brake jounce hoses (a total of 1,280,726 vehicles). The recall covers subject vehicles built from February 3, 2012 to July 19, 2017 when the suspect hoses were used in vehicle production. The remedy is for dealerships to replace both front brake jounce hoses with new hoses that have a revised braid material at no cost. The vehicles equipped with hybrid engines are excluded from the recall because the internal hose pressure is much lower due to the regenerative braking provided by the hybrid brake system. No failures of brake hoses on hybrid vehicles have been reported to ODI or Ford.Ford's actions address ODIs concerns at this time. Hybrid vehicles will be monitored for related failures. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by new circumstances.The 103 ODI numbers cited above can be viewed at under the following ID numbers:11511014, 11510867, 11510318, 11509030, 11505993, 11504989, 11504400, 11502147, 11502082, 11501820, 11501283, 11498439, 11498296, 11496842, 11496335, 11494931, 11494851, 11494252, 11493001, 11492084, 11492070, 11491444, 11491274, 11488858, 11488027, 11487627, 11487416, 11487233, 11486150, 11484924, 11484526, 11484080, 11483948, 11483926, 11483739, 11483723, 11482773, 11482690, 11481077, 11480788, 11480294, 11480052, 11479338, 11479334, 11479252, 11479247, 11479187, 11479094, 11479048, 11478985, 11478953, 11478729, 11478216, 11476892, 11476282, 11470558, 11468994, 11467109, 11466294, 11462746, 11461217, 11456065, 11455367, 11444848, 11436419, 11436376, 11430685, 11428329, 11425083, 11421026, 11420738, 11420735, 11420298, 11418197, 11403926, 11397549, 11366991, 11366757, 11361016, 11359968, 11354569, 11352165, 11350344, 11348799, 11343929, 11343205, 11331947, 11329020, 11319596, 11310529, 11292271, 11288455, 11254787, 11253479, 11253244, 11234622, 11230669, 11230050, 11228240, 11221111, 11143630, 11129392 and 11120228.
RQ22004
Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
EA21002
Door Latch Failures
In December 2019, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this investigation based on 235 Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs) alleging doors failed to latch when closed, and/or inadvertently opened while driving, on model year (MY) 2012-2014 Ford Fiesta, and 2013-2014 Fusion and Lincoln MKZ. Some VOQs reported the failure occurred after the latch had been remedied under a prior recall which involved fracture of the latch pawl spring tab due to thermally induced cyclic fatigue. Other VOQs alleged a similar failure in vehicles not previously recalled. A latch with a fractured pawl spring tab typically results in a ?door will not close? condition, however in certain somewhat rare circumstances, may result in the door coming open while driving. In response to ODI?s investigation, Ford has announced three field actions, as discussed below.On March 23, 2020, Ford submitted Safety Recall 20V‑177 (Ford 20S15), a regional recall campaign to address door latch failures in vehicles not previously recalled under Safety Recalls 15V‑246, 16V‑643 and 17V‑210. The recall affects vehicles currently or ever registered in certain high ambient temperature states (see 20V‑177 for affected states). As a remedy, Ford will replace all four door latches free of charge.On August 24, 2020, Ford issued a non-safety regional field action (Ford 20R01) to address door latch failures on the same model/MY vehicles not covered under 20V‑177 (i.e., not currently/ever registered in affected states). According to Ford, spring tab failure rates for vehicles covered by this action are about half that of the 20V‑177 vehicles. Under this action, dealers will replace all door latches, free of charge, if either; a) the vehicle exhibits a related latch concern, or b) if the vehicle owner expresses a concern about the latches in their vehicles. Details can be found under the federal safety agency TSB No. 10190990, a copy of which is available in this investigative file available at June 8, 2020, Ford submitted Safety Recall 20V‑331 (Ford 20S30) addressing vehicles previously remedied under the federal safety agency Recalls 15V‑246, 16V‑643 and 17V‑210, where the repair may not have been properly completed, specifically not all of the door latches were replaced, or replaced correctly. This recall involves an inspection of the latches, with the option for a consumer self-inspection; owners could view the date codes on their latches (and confirm child safety locks are present on the rear doors) and then submit the information to Ford?s mobile app or website. A dealership inspection option was also available. Any vehicle found to have unreplaced defective latches requires the replacement of all door latches as directed by Ford.Regarding the 4,494 reports cited above, 1,485 involve scope-related failures (with 13% alleging door opening), and the remaining 3,009 reports involving remedy concerns (with 18% alleging door opening - note ODI was unable to verify the allegations of door opening). The three ODI injuries were all relatively minor. Ford?s reported injury incidences include one (unconfirmed) report of an ejection, three minor injuries with the others involving undisclosed injuries. Ford?s crashes involved two (unconfirmed) crashes alleging the incident door contacted another vehicle and three involving doors striking other property.The recalled vehicles include MY 2011-2015 Ford Fiesta, 2013-2016 Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ, 2015 Ford Mustang and Lincoln MKC, 2013-2015 Ford Escape and Ford C-MAX, 2012-2015 Ford Focus and 2014-2016 Ford Transit Connect.Ford's actions address ODI's concerns at this time. ODI will take further action if warranted by new information. The reference (OD
RQ19005
Technical service bulletins for the 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid 21
Bulletins tell dealers how to fix known problems. A warranty extension means the manufacturer pays for that repair for longer.
- For 2000-2024 Ford and Lincoln vehicles, swapping a module from a vehicle for diagnosis purposes is likely to
- Noise when the brakes are applied
- Error message when updating the All Wheel Drive-ATC Barcode using the IDS service function after...
- Thumping/rubbing or grinding noise coming from the transmission
- Been the result of a differential or transfer shaft bearing failure and the transmission can be...
- This article supersedes TSB 21-2236 to update the models and year affected
- Some 2013-2018 C-Max, 2013-2020 Fusion/MKZ, 2013-2021 Escape, 2015-2018 Focus, 2015-2019 MKC, 2015-2021...
- Some 2013-2020 MKZ vehicles may need the exterior rear view mirror replaced
- This article supersedes 17-2225 to update the vehicle model years affected and Service Procedure
- Oil leak from the turbocharger oil supply or return tubes, O-rings or 6.7L pedestal gasket
What 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid owners say
Most recent owner complaints, unedited.
Rear backup camera is defective and not working. Initially it would work intermittently and but now for the last few months it does not work at all. I went to dealership and contacted Lincoln directly and they refused to repair the defective rear camera. Despite there being an open recall for the exact same problem for model years 2015 and up.
The contact owns a 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid. The contact stated while driving approximately 60 MPH and making a lane change, the brake pedal was depressed and went to the floorboard. The contact pumped the brake pedal however, the vehicle failed to respond as needed. The contact stated no warning light was illuminated. The contact drove the vehicle to an independent mechanic between neutral(N) and drive(D) because the brakes failed to work as designed. The independent mechanic diagnosed the vehicle and determined that the brake lines needed to be replaced and that the brake fluid reservoir needed to be refilled. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer had not been informed of the failure. The contact stated that she had recently received notification of the federal safety agency Campaign Number: 23V162000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic) and related the failure to the recall. The failure mileage was unknown.
The contact owns a 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid. The contact stated that while driving approximately 10 MPH and pressing the brake pedal, the brake pedal extended to the floor causing the stopping distance to be extended, almost causing the vehicle to crash into the rear of another vehicle. Upon inspection, it was discovered that brake fluid had leak from the vehicle. The vehicle was later towed the residence. The cause of the failure was not yet determined. The failure mileage was 70,000.
The contact owns a 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid. The contact stated while driving at various speeds, the check engine warning light illuminated, and the vehicle stalled inadvertently. The contact was unable to veer to the side of the road and turned on the hazard lights. The contact was able to restart the vehicle after several minutes; however, the failure recurred every 2 miles. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, where the failure could not be duplicated; however, the failure recurred. The vehicle was taken back to the dealer, where the fuel rail pressure sensor was replaced; however, the failure persisted while the contact was driving back to the residence. The vehicle was taken back to the dealer, who informed the contact that the second fuel rail pressure sensor needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. Additionally, the contact stated that she noticed a strong fuel odor while starting the vehicle, and there was white smoke coming out of the exhaust pipe. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic, where it was diagnosed that the engine needed to be replaced. The vehicle was towed to the dealer, who diagnosed that there was coolant intrusion into cylinder #4, and the engine needed to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 94,884.
The contact owns a 2014 Lincoln MKZ. The contact stated that the VIN was included in the federal safety agency Campaign Number: 23V162000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic) and the recall repair was performed, and the contact stated that several electrical systems malfunctioned after the repair. The contact stated that several attempts were needed to start the vehicle and the windows would roll up and down independently. The contact had not taken the vehicle to the dealer. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 90,000.
The contact owns a 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid. The contact stated that while driving downhill at 10 MPH, the brake pedal was depressed to the floorboard, and the vehicle failed to slow or come to a complete stop. The contact stated she was able to pull over onto a grassy area, avoiding a collision, and the vehicle stalled and failed to restart. The contact stated that several unknown warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was towed to the dealer, who determined that the brake failure was caused by a leak in the brake hose related to the federal safety agency Campaign Number: 23V162000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic). In addition, the dealer advised the contact that the tie rod, sway bar, control arm, and wheel bearing needed to be repaired before the brakes could be repaired. The vehicle was not repaired, pending an inspection by the manufacturer. A case was opened. The failure mileage was 123,000.
The contact owns a 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid. The contact stated while driving at approximately 70 MPH, the brake warning light illuminated. The brake pedal was depressed and went to the floorboard. The contact stated that he was able to drive the vehicle to an independent mechanic. The independent mechanic diagnosed the failure as a ruptured front driver’s side brake hose. The vehicle was repaired. The contact stated that 2-months later while driving 70 MPH, the brake warning light illuminated again, and the brake pedal was depressed and went to the floorboard again. The vehicle was driven to a Firestone repair center and diagnosed with a ruptured front passenger’s side brake hose. The brake hose was replaced. The contact stated that he received notification of the federal safety agency Campaign Number: 23V162000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic) in April of 2023. Neither the dealer nor the manufacturer was notified due to the recall notification stating that the remedy parts were not available. The contact stated that the letter stated parts would be available in the third quarter of 2023. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair since the vehicle had already experienced the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 128,000. VIN tool confirms parts not available.
The contact owns a 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid. The contact received notification of the federal safety agency Campaign Number: 23V162000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic) however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The local dealer was contacted. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufacturer was not made aware of the issue. The contact had not experienced a failure. VIN tool confirms parts not available.
The contact owns a 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid. The contact received notification of the federal safety agency Campaign Number: 23V162000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic) however, the part to do the recall repair was unavailable. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The contact stated that while the brake pedal was depressed, the braking distance was extended. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and informed the contact that the part to do the recall repair was expected September 2023. The approximate failure mileage was 96,000. VIN tool confirms parts not available.
Compare the 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid
Other model years
Questions about the 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid
Is the 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid reliable?
Owners have filed 28 complaints about the 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid, 2.2 times a typical MKZ Hybrid model year.
What is the 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid year score?
The 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid scores 37 out of 100 (poor). The score compares it with the other model years of the Lincoln MKZ Hybrid: 75 is a typical year, 50 means twice the usual complaints, and serious complaints and recalls lower it.
What is the most common problem with the 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid?
Brakes, with 13 complaints, typically around 114,000 miles. Next is fuel system (3).
How many recalls does the 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid have?
No recalls on record.
VIN decoder
See the problems and recalls for an exact car
Buying a used 2014 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid?
Check the exact car before you pay: accidents, salvage or flood titles, odometer readings and previous owners.
Check its history