2002 Ford F-350 SD
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Ford › F-350 SD › 2002
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 2002 Ford F-350 SD. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
4 recalls name the 2002 Ford F-350 SD. Newest first.
Ford IS recalling certain model year 2011 ranger trucks built from january 25, 2011, through april 25, 2011 at the twin cities assembly plant, and service parts distributed to dealers for certain 2004 through 2011 model year ranger trucks, 2002 through 2005 model year excursion vehicles, and 2002 through 2007 model year F-250, F-350, F-450, and F-550 trucks…
Non-functioning lights could increase the risk of a crash.
Dealers will replace the switches free of charge. the safety recall began on august 15, 2011. owners may contact ford motor company customer relationship center at 1-866-436-7332.
Ford IS recalling model years 1995-2003 windstar, 2000-2003 excursion diesel, 1993-1997 and 1999-2003 F-250 sd through F-550 sd diesel, 1992-2003 E-150 through E-550, 1995-2002 explorer, 1997 and 2002 mercury mountaineer, 1995-1997 and 2001-2003 ranger, and 1994 F53 vehicles equipped with the texas instruments speed control deactivation switch (scds). the…
A vehicle fire could occur with or without the engine running.
Ford will notify owners that dealers will install a fused wiring harness in line with the scds. on 1999-2003 windstar vehicles with a leaking scds, dealers will also inspect the ABS control module connector and repair as necessary. repairs will be completed free of charge. the safety recall began on october 27, 2009. owners may contact ford at 1-888-222-2751.
Certain federal-mogul replacement wheel hub assemblies with the brand names: national, carquest p/nos. 515020, 515021, 515025, 515053, 515054, 515059, and 515060, shipped between january 23, 2006, and december 20, 2007, sold for light duty and medium duty trucks. the inboard retention nut used to maintain hub bearing assembly can loosen resulting in an ABS…
Wheel separation can result in a vehicle crash.
Federal-mogul will notify customers and will replace the hub assembly free of charge. the recall began on february 7, 2008. owners can contact federal-mogul toll-free at 877-489-6659.
On certain heavy duty trucks equipped with 7.3L diesel engines, the camshaft position sensor located on the engine of the vehicle may function intermittently, possibly resulting in an engine stall.
In the event of an engine stall, a crash could result without warning.
Dealers will inspect the sensor and replace it with an improved camshaft position sensor free of charge. the recall began on december 29, 2007. owners may contact ford at 1-866-436-7332.
Improper protection of the oil pan to elements causes metal pan to rot prematurely gear box for steeering not designed properly for the weight class of truck constantly breaking causing sloppy steering and loss of control 2 leaf springs on front end are only rated to a weight of 1950lbs for a 1 ton truck that weighs almost 9,000 pounds causing springs to break or wear prematurely unless you pay ford 2,000-5,000 dollars to our grade the suspension
Vsm has failed this controls the door ajar and power locks. power locks fail to function or are hyper active (locking and unlocking by themselves). door ajar light flashing and emitting a sound indication a vehicle's door IS not secure while driving after vehicle has warmed up.
Periodically, when setting the cruise control at different speeds, it won't immediately engage, which means that there IS a loss of speed of around 5 mph. Then it will engage, kick down a gear, and accelerate super quick. Scary if you are not prepared.
After experiencing tire failure / tread separation on lr tire, inspection of remaining tires performed for signs of tread separation. Cracks noted in tire on rr which was purchased at the same time as lr between tread and sidewall.
Traveling westbound on interstate 8 just west of ca/az border at 3PM pdt. Weather IS sunny with amb temp approx 105 degrees. Without warning an explosion / complete tire failure. 2-3 seconds after explosion tread completely separates from tire. Damage to lr body panel, wheel well and associated parts. Tire replacement along with repair/replacement of damaged body parts done to correct problem.
The front passenger seat buckle releases unexpectedly. When I began to research how to replace this component, I discovered that there was an nhtsa recall#01v227001, ford recall# 01s21 issued for the same hazard. My truck was assembled in 2001 at the kentucky plant but when I contacted ford they explained that my truck was not included in the recall. Since this IS such a safety hazard, I am reporting to you so that you may consider expanding the scope of this recall. Also, what are the identifying marks to determine if I do indeed have the faulty components in my vehicle? The buckles are trw 33012760, the drivers side IS embossed with #343013 and the passenger side IS embossed #321013. *tr
The tie rod end at the pitman arm sheared off suddenly at the point where the ball meets the shaft of the tie rod causing a complete loss of steering control. This IS not a wear point and IS not something that could have been inspected since it IS covered with a rubber boot, the steel looks as if it fatigued over time leading to the sudden failure. Luckily this occurred in a parking lot, had it happened on the highway someone else would have possibly been writing this. *tr
Left front tire thread separated while traveling northbound on I75 at mile marker 311. separation caused truck to veer left into the median guard rail at high rate of speed and continue along guard rail until stopped. 911 called which brought ems and fhp. aaa called which brought wrecker. driver and passenger shaken up with passenger being transported to hospital by ems for hypertension/high blood pressure. fhp filed report, case #fhpc140ff039496. wrecker removed truck front left wheel/tire from under guard rail and transported to impound lot. damage to left front of truck and along left side to rear dual wheels; front bumper, front grill, broken steering rod, left fender, left wheel, left side of hood, driver's door, and rear passenger door. unknown condition of front 4WD axle or frame. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 2002 ford F-350 sd. The contact stated that while decelerating, a loud bang was heard from the front end of the vehicle. The contact later discovered that the front driver's side leaf spring was fractured. The vehicle was not taken to a mechanic but was repaired by the contact. The manufacturer was contacted about the failure. The failure mileage was 256,000.
This spector tire just blew up. the tire separated at the tread and split open 6-8 inches. *jb
All four tires have a continuous cut all the way around the sidewall. Bf goodrich lt285/75r16. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 2002 ford F-350 sd. The contact stated that he plugged an engine block warmer up for approximately 1.5 hours. The contact later heard a loud explosion and found that the vehicle caught on fire. The police and fire department were contacted. The vehicle was inspected by an independent mechanic and they deemed the vehicle destroyed. The manufacturer was contacted and offered no assistance to the contact. The failure and current mileages was approximately 150,000. *tr
I have had this truck for about one year and have blown four spark plugs so far. *tr
2002 ford F-350, 7.3 ltr diesel displayed loss of power and severe shaking at lower rpm's with a check engine light. Took to ford dealer and was told it was a delaminate problem inside the fuel tank and I was told that this would cost in excess of $2800 to repair. This IS a serious safety problem on the highway as I could only maintain 25 mph ( highway minimum IS 45 mph) in an attempt to find a safe place to pull over. Once the vehicle was shut down for a short time the problem resolved itself and I was able to continue on only to have the problem reoccur several miles later. I noticed that this problem basically occurs when under load and when extra throttle IS needed. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 2002 ford F-350 sd. the contact stated that the brake lights and turn signals became inoperative. the contact identified nhtsa campaign ID number: 11v352000 (exterior lighting:tail lights) and nhtsa campaign ID number: 11v352000 (exterior lighting:brake lights) recalls; however, the dealer and manufacturer were notified, but denied any assistance with repairing the defect. the vehicle was not repaired. the failure mileage was 189,000 and the current mileage was unavailable.
TL* the contact owns a 2002 ford F-350 sd. The contact stated that the exterior lighting was defective and would not operate when the turn signals, blinkers or brakes were engaged. The vehicle was towed to the dealer but the dealer was unable to diagnose the failure. the manufacturer was notified of the failure but did not assist the contact with repairs. the vehicle was not repaired. the failure mileage was 151,818 and the current mileage was 171,000.
TL* the contact owns a 2002 ford F-350. The contact stated rust in the fuel tank built up causing her vehicle to continue accelerating after it came to a complete stop. The vehicle was taken to a mechanic and the failure was diagnosed as delamanination of the fuel tank. The vehicle was repaired; however, the repair was temporary. The failure continued to occur. The vin and mileage were unknown.
Re: ford truck 4X4 F350 diesel. this IS my 2ND complaint to you in about a year for the same problem. There are no warning signs, just failure of the alternator. We have a 2002 ford F350 super duty diesel, crew cab, 7.3L engine. Today, we are installing the 5TH or 6TH (we've stopped counting, but have records) alternator!! this occurs at least every year, and we have the old alternator now. this IS beyond ridiculous, expensive, and unsafe. It warrants a look see by you. Our truck only has 88 thousand (can't see, the alternator IS out, but this IS approximate) miles. Please, help! If this were to happen while we were going down the highway, at high speeds, someone could be hurt or killed. *tr
I have a 2002 F350 ford truck, I was driving along when I heard this big pop noise with shaking I stop and smelled gas ,i shut it off open the hood and the motor was starting to catch on fire,needless to say the spark plug blew out hit the coil and fuel line which ruptured it and caused the fire. If this had been my wife or one of my kids driving it they might have been killed. I think ford should step up and recall there problems that they no they have and fix them before somebody gets hurt or worse killed,this isn't right that they can get away with this knowing what can happen,they said I caused it,how did I do that when hundreds if not thousands have had this same problem. I hope that you can do something about this before it's to late ! Thanks they fixed it and it done it again. *Tr
TL* the contact owns a 2002 ford F-350 sd diesel. The contact stated that the vehicle was leaking fuel. The vehicle was taken to a local repair shop where the contact was informed that the injector cup was fractured and would need to be replaced. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact called the manufacturer who offered no assistance. The current mileage was approximately 150,000 and the failure mileage was approximately 145,000.
I have been stranded on two occasions with fuel flow problems. at highway speeds of 50mph to 65 mph the truck begins to bog down and loose speed. it IS imperative that you attempt to get to the sholder becouse the trucks engine IS starved for fuel and will compleatly stall if you attempt to continue. I was stranded on the lie limped truck to the cross island parkway, limped over throgs neck bridge, choked and stalled on the cross bronx, finally towed from harlem back to nj at 4AM. on the second occasion I had already gone to significant expense in the attempt to mitigate the problem but the same fuel flow interuption occured again requiring the truck to be towed. I had changed the fuel filter on the road with no improvements. so I did some research and paid to have the tank to my 2002 ford F350 7.3 liter turbo diesel drained and dropped. the lift pump was pulled and large quantity of a stringy silver matalic chips were cloging the corse screen. The pump was opened and the two interior torpedo shaped screens were compleatly coated in silver chip residue. the tank was emptied, flushed, cleaned and wiped down. all filters soaked and sprayed with compressed air. everything reasembled, reinstall tank, pump fuel. this complete cleaning of the matalic debris delaminating off the inside of the tank made the truck usable for about 800 miles and then the exact same problem occured. towed a second time. drain drop tank, find renu provider. take a day off work drive to swap old tank for replacement with the renu coating baked in. clean lift pump reinstall tank, transfer fuel, replace filter, hope new tank lasts and injectors have not been effected. what a hastle. lost work lost time and $3,500 in expenses so far. I do have my old fuel tank. a friend had an F350 tank that would have worked but it had a similar problem. I swapped his tank with the renu man and kept my original as exibit a. I feel a recall IS warented and I need the $3,500 back. *tr
TL* the contact owns a 2002 ford F350 superduty. The contact stated that the vehicle would stall intermittently and when that failure occurred, he would notice smoke coming from the engine. The dealer was unable to duplicate the failure. The vehicle had not been repaired. The current mileage was 164,000 and the failure mileage was 160,000.
TL* the contact owns a 2002 ford f350sd . While driving approximately 50 mph up a hill, the vehicle would perform as if it were in neutral. the contact would press on the accelerator pedal and the vehicle would not accelerate. when the vehicle finally reached the top of the hill and IS on a flat surface,the accelerator will engage . The dealer had been contacted and they stated they would have to diagnose the vehicle . The vehicle had not been repaired. The failure mileage was 170000 and the current mileage was 175000.
TL* the contact owns a 2002 ford F350 sd. The contact stated while driving at an unknown speed, the vehicle began to lose power. The contact shut off the vehicle and restarted. After driving a very short distance, the vehicle would not accelerate past 5 mph. The vehicle was taken to an authorized dealer where the contact was informed that the fuel pump, filters, fuel tank and eight fuel injectors would need to be replaced because the fuel tank was rusted. The contact repaired the vehicle himself. The manufacturer advised the failure occurred because the contact failed to keep the fuel tank full. The failure mileage was 39,246 and the current mileage was approximately 50,102.
I am writing to report a tire defect and a resultant accident, although there was no bodily injury to myself or two young grandsons I had approximately $2,000 dollars worth of damage to my vehicle. thankfully I had the presence of mind to safely navigate the vehicle to the side of the interstate. *Tr
NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened these reviews into vehicles including this one.
In a december 3, 2007 letter, ford advised nhtsa 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.
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 nhtsa 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 nhtsa?s limited resources to best accomplish the agency?s safety mission, the petition IS denied.
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 nhtsa 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.
Failure counts from odi?s analysis are stated above; see the additional problem experience discussion in the summary report.ford data contained duplicative reports for 4 odi complaints and 1 crash.three crashes were allegedly due to intermittent operation of the electronic throttle control (etc) pedal, one crash occurred when an etc disabled vehicle was struck by another motorist, one report contained no detail.the injuries were minor.an issue involving fixed etc pedals was investigated also, however failure reports and populations are not shown above; see summary report for detail.although ford has used etc based throttle control systems for many years, the pap feature was new for my 2002.the subject etc sensor produces two output signals which the engine management system (ems) utilizes TO:1) determine fueling requirements; and 2) perform sensor diagnostics.one signal IS linearly proportional to throttle pedal position; the second IS a digital signal.by design, the detection of a sensor fault results in the engine returning to (or remaining at) the idle state.ford identified a defect in the pap etc sensor which prematurely affected an output signal; the migration of internal sensor lubricant caused a loss of proportional signal.the failure mechanism IS progressive and as the sensor deteriorates, the ems will detect a fault, store a fault code, illuminate a warning lamp, and the engine may remain at/return to idle.in the early stages, normal operation can be regained by pedal re-application.the failure progresses until the engine remains at idle.the engine does not stall, power assisted steering and braking systems are unaffected. Ford corrected the etc sensor defect and conducted field service action (fsa) 03b03 to replace etc pedals, addressing 50% of vehicles.at agency request to improve completion rate, ford extended fsa 03b03 for 6 months.based on odi's analysis of available data, ford's action has appropriately resolved the etc sensor proplem in the subject vehicles.the closing of the investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that a safety-related defect does not exist, and should not be considered as having any precedential value or effect binding the agency in future defect investigations. See the attached summary report for additional information.
Technical service bulletins and other communications the manufacturer sent dealers about this vehicle. Ask a dealer for the full document by its number.
Bars are owner complaints, dots mark years with recalls. Select a year to open its report.