1999 Ford F Super Duty
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Ford › F Super Duty › 1999
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 1999 Ford F Super Duty. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
3 recalls name the 1999 Ford F Super Duty. Newest first.
Vehicle description: super duty trucks and chassis-cabs equipped with 5.4L manual transmission powertrains. the accelerator cable core wire can wear the cable conduit end fitting due to a fifteen degree angle it makes with the conduit at the throttle body end. this could also lead to wear or separation of strands of the core wire, which could prevent the…
A "stuck" throttle could adversely affect vehicle control.
Dealers will replace the accelerator cable and throttle body.
Vehicle description: motor home chassis. the accelerator cable IS susceptible to freezing. water can accumulate in the end fitting and can freeze at temperatures of 32 degrees fahrenheit and below. the ice could prevent the accelerator from returning to idle.
Increased stopping distance would be required, increasing the risk of a crash.
Dealers will replace the accelerator cable with a revised accelerator cable.
Vehicle description: motor home chassis. the accelerator cable IS susceptible to freezing. water can accumulate in the end fitting and at temperatures of 32 degrees fahrenheit and below, can freeze. the ice could prevent the accelerator from return to idle.
Increased stopping distance would be required, increasing the risk of a crash.
Dealers will replace the accelerator cable with a revised accelerator cable.
1999.5 ford-f350 diesel steering sector shaft snapped. driving down highway, steering wheel was off 1/4 turn. in parking lot, shaft snapped and steering wheel spun freely without any wheel movement. looks like there was an investigation, action # ea01009 (sector shaft fractures) but no recall. chat boards have this happening way too often. the only things on a car that should not break are the breaks and the steering! *js
Fuel tank straps rusting front and rear.....the rear strap broke allowing fuel tank to drop. *tr
Vehicle had a full fuel tank (approx 38 gallons). vehicle was parked in a shopping plaza. when I returned to the vehicle I found the gas tank had fallen to the ground. the rear support strap had failed from corrosion. the front strap was still intact but severely corroded as well. fuel lines into the top of the tank were severed due to the strap failure. vehicle was purchased new and IS lightly used, thus the low mileage for the year of the vehicle. *js
I bought the truck new in 1999, and never had a problem until 2005 when the first spark plug blow. It cost me $520.00 to have it towed and repaired. The second time the plug blow (2007), it cost me $620.00 to have it towed and repaired. Yesterday (06/02/2012), it cost me $740.00 to have it towed and repaired. Since I have owned the truck I have been extremely happy with the performance, I have only replaced the alternator, which IS great for most car & trucks. But! To have as much trouble with this engine and from what I have heard about the V10 & other ford truck engines ford should correct the problem & pay atleast half the cost! I love my truck, but if this continue (with the other seven plugs), I will have to look at gm. Come on ford.... Don't lose me!! *tr
Ford F-250 super duty pick up truck caught fire while sitting in the garage. Insurance vehicle arson investigator determined cruise control switch component was source of ignition in fire. Half my house burned down as a result of fire. *kb
After filling up with gas and continuing on the highway, we began to smell gas fumes. upon our arrival at home, we noticed the gas tank was hanging by the fuel line and front strap. the rear strap had broke (from rust) and fuel filler hose was often broken off the vehicle. *tr
Have had my ford F250 for a few years. It has only 43,000 miles on it. The frame IS rotting and IS in need of a replacement. This IS not the first time I have seen this issue. This seems to be a common problem wit many ford frames from 1997 to 2004. *tr
5.4L ford triton engine spark plugs were changed at 84,000, at 110,128 spark plug on #7 cylinder came loose and blew out. fuel air mixture comes out the spark plug hole which IS dangerous(has been known to start engine fires). there IS a design defect in the aluminum heads not having enough threads to keep the spark plug tight. this IS an expensive repair that ford IS not paying for when it IS a poor design with the potential of it continuing to happen again on another cylinder. *Tr
On my F-250 super duty the #4 spark plus blew out causing it to run bad and fuel fume to escape that could have caused a fire. Friend has had this happen 3 times so far. I've only driven 9,000 miles in the last three years because of the safety issue and the cost to repair it each time it happens at over 1000.00 dollars a hole X10 that uncalled for and unsafe. *tr
While driving on the highway, crossing an intersection, or idle in traffic, the diesel engine in my1999 ford F250 dies, leaving me stranded in dangerous situations. I have replaced 2 in the last 6 mos. At my cost. *tr
The clutch throwout bearing was made in plastic which cause the clutch to go out fast and damage the clutch finger,it may cause a fatal if it happen in traffic,more ever it gets expensive esp. When you have to do it twice in a year but the most important IS life. *Tr
Torque converter went out at 130,000 miles. It IS a 1999 F-250 super duty xlt. Truck IS louder with a rattle to it now. I took it to a mechanic and he confirmed it IS the torque converter. I am currently waiting to get it repaired. *Tr
While driving the vehicle I noticed a difference in the ride and handling characteristics which was not there on the previous day. It felt like an unresponsive steering and a vibration. When I arrived at my destination 50 miles from where I started and looked at all of my tires. Visually there was no apparent deformities or anything out of normal character. Later when I got in the vehicle and was driving home the same effects were present. About 10 miles later it suddenly got worse just before a bang and a sudden pull to the left as what happens when a tire blows out. I was able to control the steering enough to pull to the left side of the road and get out of the traveled portion of the highway. When I observed the driver's side front tire, it was flat and sections of the tread layer were missing as well as damage to the wheel well and vacuum hose for the 4 wheel drive control.the vacuum line was ripped from both ends of its connectors. Fortunately the brake line was still connected as it IS dressed to the vacuum line. After changing the tire, I looked at it and observed the following; large sections of the tread layer missing which had previously been on the tire, steel belts damaged and broken apart and pulled away from the inner layer, 2 slits going from near the bead on one side across the area where tread and belts had existed to the other bead area. the tire and rim were the removed and the spare put on to continue back home. After the spare was placed on the vehicle the problem noticed previously while driving did not exist anymore. *Tr
Tl*the contact owns a 1999 ford f super duty. the contact received a recall notice for nhtsa campaign ID number 99v265000 (vehicle speed control) in september of 2007. the cruise control was deactivated in either december of 2007 or january of 2008 to avoid a potential fire as described in the notice. the dealer stated that the parts were unavailable, but would arrive in december of 2007. he called the dealer again in january of 2008 and was informed that the parts were still unavailable. in march, he was informed that a dealer had the parts and was advised to bring his vehicle. once he arrived, the dealer informed him that they had the wrong part and could not perform the repair. there had been no failure to date. the purchase date was unknown. the current mileage was 42,000.
1999 motorhome ford f super duty speed control sensor was disconnected by ford. Customer stated that they disconnected the speed sensor due to not having the parts to fix it. *kb the consumer stated he had the same problem 3 years with the speed control recall and the part never come in. *Jb
At about 55,000 mile the engine began to randomly stop. it would start right back up. this usually happened when accelerating from a stop. after a while it began to happen more often and not restart right away. after having the truck looked at, I replaced the camshaft position sensor (cps). I am unsure if the old part IS still available. *Tr
The parking brake cable end came off of the cable from where it attaches to the parking brake pedal. *nm
This has happened at least 3 times since I have owned this truck. Traveling down the interstate the engine for no reason and with out any warning just shut down leaving me with no braking power or any steering. This in turn almost caused a wreck involving several automobiles. From there I had it towed into my shop where they had determined that my cps had gone out. They replaced the item and everything was fine thus far. this was the first time for me this happened and there where two more times this occurred. I did not keep any of the old parts. Also on this complaint form there was no choice for international (ihc) so the equipment page IS messed up. *nm
Fuel leak on H2O drain valve at fuel filter on 1999 7.3 power stroke ford truck. this IS a wide sread problem as the dealership IS selling 3 to 4 of these valves per week.*ak
Driving 1999 F250 superduty sudden and complete loss of brake function. Later found ruptured corroded rear brake line responsible for sudden loss of brake pressure, dual circuit master cylinder was not effective in allowing alternate brake circuit to slow truck creating a dangerous situation.
1999 ford F250 super duty diesel pickup (63K miles), truck would start with no dash cluster gauges or lights and no throttle response. I had the truck diagnosed at a local shop and scan tool indicated throttle control module which was replaced and still same problem persists. Had truck towed to local ford dealership and diagnosed as a fuse panel problem and ford highly recommends replacement of fuse panel due to a high risk of fire. I have spoken to several ford technicians and tell me this IS common with the early ford super duties.*ak
On accleration from a complete stop,since purchase.i get a clunk or a jolt.not always but often. *ak
At low speed, spark plug blew out of engine, causing loud exhaust noise and gasoline fumes were immediately smelled inside passenger compartment. If this were to happen at high speed with engine under load when immediate engine shutdown was not safe or possible, this condition would cause large amounts gasoline/air mixture to be exposed to hot exhaust components, causing fire hazard. If this occurred when power was critical (passing or turning in front of traffic), the loss of power could also cause an accident. If this occurred when driving on slick road conditions, it could contribute to loss of control of vehicle. This IS considered a "heavy duty" engine, but does not use a hardened threaded insert in the cylinder heads to strengthen the threads that the spark plugs screw into. Searching on the internet for (triton blew sparkplug) reveals that this IS not an isolated incident. Also, the manufacturers torque specification for the spark plugs IS quite low - probably due to the aluminum threads in the head. This could be a cause for the spark plugs loosening. *Ak
Ford motor company refuses to acknowledge a recall of my truck (1999 ford F-250) that IS listed on your website. the recall IS for a faulty parking brake, and mine has broken as noted in the recall. what if any recorurse do I have through your agency to force ford to repair this vehicle? the information I have been able to get indicates that the recall numbers are as follows: nhtsa 02v068 ford recall number 02s34 *la
While driving 35 mph, the consumer depressed the clutch and the pedal stayed on the floor of the vehicle. The pedal eventually came back up, but upon depressing it again the pedal stayed down on the floor of the vehicle. the vehicle was taken to dealer and it was found that the clutch fork was defective. the dealer repaired the problem with a clutch fork of a different configuration. *jb
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.
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.
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.
There is no summary currently available
There is no summary currently available
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.