2000 Ford F Super Duty
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Ford › F Super Duty › 2000
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 2000 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 2000 Ford F Super Duty. Newest first.
Vehicle description: motor home chassis. these vehicles may have a mis-routed wire harness that attaches to the brake pedal position switch. the wire could rub on the steering column, resulting in a short circuit and a blown fuse, causing a loss of stop lamp function.
This would fail to warn a following driver that the vehicle IS braking and could lead to a crash.
Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, repair the wire harness to the brake pedal switch. owner notification began september 25, 2000. owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact ford at 1-800-392-3673.
Vehicle description: f-super duty stripped motor home chassis because they may have a missing or partially installed brake pedal to master cylinder pushrod retaining clip.
If the clip IS missing or falls out, the pushrod could disconnect from the brake pedal, resulting in the operator being unable to apply the brakes, increasing the risk of a crash.
Dealers will inspect the retaining clip installation. missing or partially installed clips will be properly installed. in addition, dealers will also inspect vehicles for lower than intended wheel lug nut torque; incomplete transmission shift cable installation; steering column shift lever bracket bolt torque lower than intended; steering gear bracket fastener torque lower than intended; and lower steering column yoke bolt torque lower than intended.
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.
Hood flew up and Brakes locked up when I tried to stop causing me to slide sideways unable to control it and flipped four times and the air bags never came out and truck was totaled.
Travelling along alcan highway in remote canada. We had tread seperation blowout on the driver side front that damaged the F350 dually. Tire size was 285/75/16 with around 20,000 miles on them. Tire was unusable and replaced with spare. Scrapped the rim as well due to damage when arriving in anchorage alaska. Do not trust these tires for long road trips.
For the second time in 10 years a spark plug has blown out of the head on the engine the second time being today july 13TH 2016 my concern besides the fact that the spark plugs are blowing out IS the possibility of fire gas papers being ignited by the spark plug on top of the engine instead of in the engine the first time it happened I was driving on the interstate running 60 miles an hour the second time it happened was this morning on the entrance ramp getting on the interstate
While driving in town, heard a noise in engine compartment, upon inspection, noticed spark plug blew from engine. A few years later it blew another spark plug. Repair shop inserted helicoil both times.
I just left home and have had prior problems. I was traveling about 35-40 mph when boom tat tat tat tat tat tat. I lost control major control of my truck. I got it pulled off the road where I lifted the hood and sure enough a plug had been blown out of the block, had broken the coil pack and was laying on top of the motor. I have researched this and this IS a very dangerous and common issue with the vehicle. I drive my nieces and nephews most days and do not need fuel to be ejected out causing an engine fire. Why has ford not been held accountable for this? *tr
The 5.4L engine has blown 3 spark plugs now , cylinders 7,6,and 4. *tr
I have a 2000 ford F350 dwd 4X4 and have had both front stock aluminum wheels develop large cracks and deemed unsafe. My wife contacted ford to inquire if there was a recall, and the answer was no, she took it to ford, and they looked at the truck, and did nothing else. Furthermore, they did not want to discuss the issue and told her there was nothing that would come of it. There will be accidents and perhaps deaths from the rims being defective. I have talked to everyone I could find driving the same vehicle, and all have had the same problems exactly. There should be a recall on these wheels.this statement makes the nhtsa liable should there be no action on their part and there be any accidents with deaths. *Tr
I've had two spark plugs blow out of the engine. Both on driver side. Tearing up their boot and breaking off the coil. The cost to replace the boot and coil IS aprox 50+ each time. First time I was driving aprox 35mph when it blew out the second time aprox 45mph. 2000 ford F250 gas engine super duty extend a cab. *Tr
Engine on my 2000 ford F-250 V10 started "missing" intermittently about 1 week ago. yesterday, the "service engine soon" light came on. about 10 miles down the road, the engine ejected a spark plug out of the cylinder head while towing at 50 mph. vehicle IS at ford dealership now for assessment and repair. *Tr
Spark plug blown out of ford V10. It was the factory plug to the best of my knowledge. Installed heli coil and been good since. *Tr
Failure of front wheel bearing at 60,000 miles. *tr
Newspaper, august 2007, identified my vehicle was subject to recall. Contacted ford to verify recall. Ford verified but refused to issue letter. Finally got a letter dated september 2007. Ford identified two dealers for my area. One sunland ford stated they never knew when parts would be available and made no effort to schedule a repair. Second dealer said he would call when he had parts. no calls. Received new letter from ford 26 october 2007. Called second dealer to schedule repair 29 october 2007. Dealer said no parts were expected until after 1 december 2007. I had this same experience on a 2001 navigator beginning 2002 and never was able to have the repair made. I ended up disposing the vehicle. I do not plan to chase after ford any more. *tr
2000 ford excursion with 7.3 power stroke diesel. sudden stall of engine while driving. No warning, just quit while driving causing loss of power steering and power brakes which are necessary for adequate control of a vehicle of this size. replacement of the camshaft position solved the problem. To date, and 260,000 miles on the vehicle, this sensor has failed three times. I now carry a spare sensor, and know how to replace it. *Tr
2000 ford super duty crewcab with a "service engine soon" light that will not stay off. Obd code reads gross vapor leak. After 8 attempts to correct, dealer IS unable to find problem. all parts of the vapor system have been replaced including the on board computer. Personal research indicates that other ford truck owners are experiencing the same problem. *nm
I was driving down the road, heard a loud pop and lost power and control to the vehicle. Pulled onto the shoulder and found the engine had blown a spark plug out of the cylinder head. Had to take to dealership to replace the aluminum, poorly engineered cylinder head. Many, many, many people have reported this same issue and nothing IS being done. This has the potential of causing engine fires as the fuel rail can be damaged and ruptured when the plug IS ejected out of the head. This needs to be recalled. See how many people are reporting this at: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/ford_spark.html . *nm
Spark plug blown out of cylinder head. *nm
Right headlight very dim. Wiggle switch and it used to return to full bright now it stays dim. Replaced bulbs no change. I have seen this other ford super duty trucks here in conyers ga. *nm
Cam position sensor failed without warning truck shut-off and would not restart on busy residential street. Vehicle had to be towed. *nm
Truck engine quit running. Can happen at any engine speed has happened in park and while driving. Troubleshoot problem. Bad cam position sensor. Ford F250 with 7.3 diesel. *nm
Second spark plug in my 2000 ford V10 has blown out of cylinder head in last three months. Last plug came out tuesday after christmas. Dealer now says it needs to do $3475 head replacement for both heads. *jb
My vehicle has blown out a spark plug on two separate occasions while on the freeway almost causing a accident on both incidents. I know that this IS a major problem do to what I have found on-line. There IS even a company that makes a repair kit and it IS only a matter of time before someone IS stranded in a remote area which will be very dangerous. *nm
Bolts rusted to my manifolds ( on both ) sides. had to have both manifolds replaced and the heads bored out. if I did not realize the noise and had it fixed it would have cracked my heads.*jb
Belts shifting in tread of tire, causing tire to become out of round and causing vehicle to shake and wonder very badly. Both times at interstate highway speeds in traffic.*ak
The center support bearing failed and now has caused the transmission and torque convertor to be rebuilt. called ford and they said since not at ford repair center will not look into compensation of a transmission with the know production flaw. it IS allover the interned, center support bearing failure, bad design of case.*ak
2000 F-250 4X4 front hub: I had to change both front hubs on my 2000 4X4 F-250 with only 62,790 miles and the bearing locked-up on one side and the other was loose. It cost me $ 1,225.00 to replace the hubs and seals, each hub cost 408.00 and each seal cost 38.00 from ford. I talked to 2 other people with a ford 4X4 and thay had the same problem. I think ford should pay for the cost because it has only 62,790 miles on my truck and the other people ,one had 46,000 miles and the other had 74,000 miles . The bearing could be changed @ around 40.00 to 60.00 but ford has on the bearingretaner nut part do not remove. To me I think ford just want to make more money on the whole hub with the bearings . ps also glad I wasn't going to fast when it locked up
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
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.