An investigation means NHTSA has decided a pattern is worth examining. A
preliminary evaluation is often closed with no action; an engineering
analysis is the stage that usually precedes a recall.
Windshield trim molding Item detachment
PE23001
Closed preliminary evaluation · opened January 27, 2023 · closed February 8, 2024 · led to recall 24V031
the body structure
On January 27, 2023, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE23-001 to investigate allegations of A-pillar trim panel detachment on model year (MY) 2011-2019 Ford Explorer vehicles. At the time of opening, the office had received 164 Vehicle Owner Questionnaires (VOQs) reporting this failure. ODI has received 671 VOQs regarding this failure, including 1 alleged crash and 2 alleged injuries. Some consumers have reported that the failure occurred while they were driving at highway speeds, with the detached trim panel entering the path of travel of the vehicle behind them, requiring the driver of the following vehicle to take evasive action. It is noteworthy that motorists who experience this type of road hazard are less likely to accurately identify the subject vehicle the item detached from and report the event to the NHTSA. In its April 17, 2023 response to ODI’s information request, Ford provided 175 consumer complaints (including field reports) and 14,162 warranty claims related to A-pillar trim panel detachment. Ford relayed that the subject vehicles utilize a plastic A-pillar bracket, which is bolted to the vehicle structure during assembly. The A-pillar trim panel is attached to the bracket utilizing 7 plastic clips. Contributory factors which have been identified by Ford as leading to the subject defect include incomplete installation at the assembly plant, inadequate part stack up, damage to fasteners during installation, and failure to follow proper repair procedure during windshield replacements or other services. On January 19, 2024, Ford filed safety recall 24V-031 for MY 2011-2019 Ford Explorer vehicles to address the subject defect. In the Part 573 Safety Recall Report, Ford identified that a detached A-pillar trim panel can create a road hazard for other road users, increasing the risk of a crash. The recall remedy includes an inspection of the existing A-pillar trim panel and, if necessary, the replacement of the component. The remedy A-pillar trim panels will be installed with an additional adhesive for robustness and utilize an inspection procedure to ensure full engagement of all the retention clips during installation. In view of the recall action being taken by Ford, ODI is closing this Preliminary Evaluation. The agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.
Exhaust Odor in Passenger Cab
EA17002
Closed engineering analysis · opened July 27, 2017 · closed January 17, 2023
the engine and its cooling, the body structure
During the EA17-002 investigation, the agency reviewed and analyzed reports of exhaust odors in the passenger cabins of Model Year 2011 to 2017 Ford Explorers. This investigation required an approach that incorporated knowledge and expertise from the automotive, medical, environmental health, and occupational safety fields. The agency conducted an in-depth investigation that encompassed the review of over 6,500 consumer complaints, conducting field inspections, and testing the relevant vehicles, both independently and in coordination with Ford and other entities. During the investigation, the evolution of Ford service bulletins intended to reduce the level of exhaust odors and carbon monoxide (CO) entering the occupant compartment was examined and independent tests to evaluate the effectiveness of the final Field Service Actions (FSA) for both consumer and police vehicles were conducted. As part of the investigation, the agency also examined the effects of cracked exhaust mani-cats on the measured CO levels in the vehicles and tested the FSA repairs to ensure they did not adversely impact occupant compartment CO levels due to cracked mani-cats.The investigation identified upfitting issues for Police Interceptor vehicles. Upfitting (sirens, lights, cages, auxiliary power, etc.) is typically performed by governmental fleet operations, independent repair facilities, or local Ford dealers after the sale of the new vehicle. Sealing issues caused by upfitting were responsible for the highest measured carbon monoxide levels in tested vehicles. The police FSA instructs how to inspect the quality of the vehicle upfits and how to properly seal any leaks caused by these upfits, at no cost to the police agency. Similarly, the highest CO levels measured in consumer vehicles were usually traced to sealing issues caused by rear crash damage where the repairs did not ensure sealing integrity. The most recent Ford FSA procedure for both the police (17B25) and consumer vehicles (17N03) includes an HVAC reprogramming operation. Tests by Ford and NHTSA have demonstrated a substantial reduction of CO levels due solely to the HVAC reprogramming. Other FSA repairs also demonstrated measurable contributions to CO level reductions during controlled tests.Throughout the investigation, vehicles accurately measured with higher levels of carbon monoxide were almost always affected by upfitter alterations, damage, or other causes compromising rear passenger cabin seals.NHTSA received thousands of reports alleging odors which triggered a variety of physiological responses, predominately nausea, headaches, and lightheadedness. NHTSA focused the investigation on accurately measuring vehicle CO levels, and accurately measuring carboxyhemoglobin (COHB) levels from properly administered blood tests. Using rigorous test methods to produce exhaust gas intrusion in vehicles with a properly performed FSA, occupant compartment CO levels remained below current environmental limits for CO in any environment (EPA ambient air quality standards). Furthermore, even without FSA repairs, no vehicles unaffected by upfitter issues or prior crash damage were identified with CO levels that exceed accepted occupational CO exposure levels. This investigation finds that the 2011-2017 Ford Explorer vehicles when accurately measured produce occupant compartment CO levels which fall below current accepted health standards, and could not identify COHB levels for vehicle drivers or other occupants, which exceeded thresholds for acute physiological effects. Therefore, the agency has not identified a defect that represents an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.This inve
Ford Explorer Exhaust Odor
PE16008
Closed preliminary evaluation · opened July 1, 2016 · closed September 12, 2017
the engine and its cooling, the body structure
During the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?s (NHTSA?s) investigation into the Ford carbon monoxide allegations, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) identified additional Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) reports with similar exhaust odor claims.Presently, ODI has identified 791 VOQs for Model Year 2011-2017 Ford Explorers pertaining to exhaust odor claims.ODI has identified three crashes and 41 injuries potentially linked this issue.The reported injuries range from unspecified to loss of consciousness, with the majority being nausea, headaches, or dizziness ? all of which can be symptomatic of carbon monoxide exposure.Additionally, Ford provided 2,400 reports including owner complaints, warranty claims, dealer field reports, and legal claims, that involve 2,051 vehicles that may be connected to the exhaust odor issue.NHTSA's Vehicle Test and Research Center tested multiple vehicles, including complaint vehicles, during the investigation.ODI also conducted field inspections of complaint vehicles and crashes involving police units that occurred while the officers were on duty.When possible, data was collected to quantify carbon monoxide levels in the examined vehicles.Based on the information gathered to date, NHTSA upgraded this investigation to an Engineering Analysis (EA17-002).
Front Brake Hose Failure
EA15005
Closed engineering analysis · opened September 28, 2015 · closed November 2, 2018
the hydraulic brakes
On April 29, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE15-017 to investigate a report alleging incidents of front brake hose failure in model year (MY) 2015 Ford Explorer Police Interceptor vehicles used by the Sacramento Police Department in its pursuit driving training program (VOQ 10705832).On September 28, 2015, ODI upgraded the investigation to an Engineering Analysis (EA15-005) to assess maximum front caliper crimp temperatures under various test conditions, test hose assemblies removed from police interceptor service for any signs of thermal degradation, and further assess field data for evidence of a defect trend related to the alleged defect.The alleged defect results from exposure to extremely high heat at the caliper-side hose crimp. NHTSA?s vehicle testing suggests that the conditions necessary to produce the critical temperatures in the subject components result from drive-soak intervals that can occur during the Sacramento training program.NHTSA's testing of hose assemblies returned from police interceptor service did not identify any evidence of thermal degradation.NHTSA has not confirmed any incidents of caliper crimp failures due to overheating in vehicles not subjected to the Sacramento training course driving.The low number of hose assembly failure reports and the absence of any verified incidents of heat related front brake hose crimp failures since 2015 suggests that the Sacramento PD incidents resulted from conditions unique to the training program.A safety related defect trend has not been identified at this time and further use of Agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist.The Agency will take further action if warranted by the circumstances.For additional information, see the Closing Report in the document file for EA15-005 on www.nhtsa.gov.
Front brake hose failure
PE14027
Closed preliminary evaluation · opened August 22, 2014 · closed February 3, 2015
the hydraulic brakes
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE14-027 based on a report of 13 front brake hose (jounce hose) failures in 11 vehicles in the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (DCMPD) fleet of 46 model year (MY) 2013 Ford Explorer Police Interceptor (PI) vehicles (VOQ 10621634).The DCMPD fleet provided Ford with 71 jounce hoses for analysis, including 4 of the 13 failed hoses.Inspection of each of the failed hoses identified a small tear in the outer cover on the body end of the hoses on the outboard side. Ford?s lab analysis of these hoses identified splits in the inner liners 1.5-2.0mm from the end of the nipple (outside of the crimped ferrule joint).Ford conducted pressure testing of 10 randomly selected samples of the remaining 67 hoses that had not experienced leaks and 9 of the samples leaked at 6,000 psi.Ford?s examination of the 9 hoses that leaked in the pressure tests found 4 that failed on the outboard side of the hose (similar to the 4 leaking field parts) and 5 that failed on the body end of the hose on the inboard side.Four additional non-leaking hoses were sent to the hose supplier, Hitachi, for analysis.Broken yarn was observed in scanning electron microscope examinations at both the body side and caliper side hose to ferrule crimps, indicating severe bending stress had occurred at these locations. Hitachi supplied an additional set of non-leaking field return hoses and a brand new set of hoses to an outside laboratory (Element Materials Technology) for analysis.The lab did not identify any manufacturing or material deficiencies in the hoses and concluded that the hose failures were caused by excessive bending stresses.Based on the examinations of the returned jounce hoses, Ford conducted durability testing on new hoses that were the same design as those found on the subject vehicles.Ford first determined the worst case conditions for the hoses; jounce bumpers removed, internal rebound stops fully compressed, and shock absorbers attached. With the jounce hose installed, the steering was rotated to the maximum turn angle while the suspension was translated from full jounce to full rebound.This determined the maximum hose length of 13.0in (331mm) and a minimum hose bending radius of 1.6in (40mm).Using these conditions hoses tested on a Suspension Motion Simulator far surpassed Ford?s performance specifications. Twenty (20) complaints of front brake jounce hose failure were identified on a total of 18 Explorer PI vehicles, including the 13 hose failures in 11 vehicles from the DCMPD fleet that prompted PE14-027.The remaining 7 complaints included 3 from one fleet that reportedly occurred on the banjo block end of the hose assembly and single complaints from 4 other fleets.Only two brake hose assemblies were used in the subject and peer Explorer vehicles, with the BB53 level hose used until June 20, 2012, and an updated DB53 level hose used thereafter.No pattern of failures was observed by hose assembly, with 15 of failures involving the BB53 hose assembly (including the 13 from DCMPD manufactured in March 2012) and 5 the DB53 hose assembly built after June 20, 2012. No root cause was determined for the reported Explorer PI jounce hose failures, but Ford identified improper service repair procedures (e.g., hanging the brake caliper from the brake hose during brake pad replacement) as a possible contributor to higher than expected rate of front brake jounce hose leaks. ODI?s analysis of field data, hose inspection and test data did not identify evidence of any defects in hose material, manufacture or vehicle installation.The closing of this invest
Electric power steering failure
PE12017
Closed preliminary evaluation · opened June 19, 2012 · closed June 12, 2014 · led to recall 14V286000
the steering
On May 27, 2014 and amended June 2, 2014, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA describing a safety defect that may result in a sudden loss of power steering assist in approximately 179,027 model year (MY) 2011 through 2013 Ford Explorer vehicles equipped with electric power assisted steering (EPAS), including 82,328 MY 2011 Explorersthat are the subject of PE12-017.Ford has assigned the recall number 14S06.The NHTSA recall number is 14V-286.Ford's DIR indicates that loss of power steering assist while driving would require higher steering effort at lower vehicle speeds, which may result in an increased risk of a crash.Sudden loss of power steering assist while driving can occur in the subject vehicles if the system loses electrical power or whenever the system detects a fault that requires it to enter fail-safe mode, which removes power from the EPAS motor and defaults to manual steering.Ford's DIR indicates that the majority of steering assist failures in the recalled vehicles have been caused by an intermittent electrical connection in the Power Steering Control Module (PSCM) that can lead to a loss of the motor position sensor signal.Ford's remedy instructs dealers to check the PSCM for diagnostic trouble codes (DTC).If upon initial inspection a loss of steering assist DTC is present, dealers will replace the steering gear at no charge to the owner and update the PSCM with revised software.Following detection of a motor position sensor signal fault, the revised software will provide audible and visual warnings to the driver that a power steering system fault has been detected and will maintain steering assist for the remainder of that drive cycle.If no DTC is present, dealers will reprogram the PSCM with the revised software. Analysis of information from all sources identified a total of 969 complaints and 4,059 warranty claims related to loss of power steering assist while driving in the MY 2011 through 2012 Explorer vehicles, resulting in a complaint rate of 5.4 incidents per thousand vehicles and a warranty claim rate of 2.3 percent.ODI identified 15 crashes with evidence indicating loss of power steering assist may have been a factor.All 15 crashes involved low-speed impacts with roadside objects during turning maneuvers, resulting in minor vehicle damage or no damage.In one incident that occurred in a low-speed curve, the driver attempted to brake in response to the sudden increase in steering effort and inadvertently applied the accelerator pedal instead.This caused the vehicle to run off the side of the road and strike a wooden pole at approximately 15 mph.Another incident occurred when the driver was unable to to negotiate a left-turn at an intersection and ran off the road into a shallow ditch, resulting in moderate front-end damage to the vehicle and minor injuries to the driver that did not require medical treatment. This investigation is closed.All ODI complaints associated with this closing resume are listed in the Attachment 1.