2022 Lincoln Nautilus
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
Vehicles › Lincoln › Nautilus › 2022
Safety record from NHTSA: recalls, owner complaints, investigations and service bulletins.
These records cover every 2022 Lincoln Nautilus. To see whether one car still needs a recall repair, decode its VIN or check it with NHTSA.
2 recalls name the 2022 Lincoln Nautilus. Newest first.
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2021-2024 Bronco, F-150, 2021-2024 Edge, 2022-2025 Escape, F-250, F-350, F-450, F-550, F-600, 2022-2024 Expedition, 2022-2025 Transit, 2021-2023 Mach-E, 2024 Ranger, Mustang, 2021-2023 Lincoln Nautilus, 2022-2024 Navigator, and 2023-2024 Corsair vehicles. A software error may cause the rearview camera image to…
A frozen or missing rearview camera image can reduce the driver's view behind the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.
The accessory protocol interface module (APIM) software will be updated by a dealer or through an over-the-air update, free of charge. This will be a phased campaign, with the remedy becoming available in different phases based on model and model years. Interim letters notifying owners of the safety risk were mailed on June 26, 2025. Additional letters will be mailed once the final remedy is available on each phase. Owner notification letters were sent on October 8, 2025. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 25S49.
Ford Motor Company (Ford) is recalling certain 2021-2022 Bronco, F-150, Edge, Explorer, Lincoln Nautilus, and Lincoln Aviator vehicles equipped with either a 2.7L or 3.0L Nano EcoBoost engine. The engine intake valves may break while driving, which can result in engine failure and a loss of drive power.
A loss of drive power increases the risk of a crash.
Dealers will perform an engine cycle test and replace the engine as necessary, free of charge. Owner notification letters were mailed July 3, 2025. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 24S55.
I have door cracks that are starting do develop on the front door check arms that hold the door open as well as stop it from opening to far. If not repaired, the check-arm reinforcement may eventually detach from the door structure. This can cause a rattling noise and increased door opening/closing efforts. It may also interfere with door glass operation and the ability of the check arm to hold the door in the open position. This could also compromise the hinges if the crack grows and may effect the door in an impact causing a safety hazard for the front occupants. I was alerted to inspect for this problem a message board for this vehicle. Some have been able to have the door replaced under warranty while other say Ford/Lincoln will not handle it at all.
The contact owns a 2022 Lincoln Nautilus. The contact stated that when opening the front driver-side door, squeaking occurred near the check link. The contact noticed structural stress pulling the door apart, causing cracks in the interior steel. The dealer was contacted. The manufacturer was notified of the failure by telephone. The failure mileage was approximately 32,000.
There was a slight popping noise when closing my driver door for a few days, I thought It was the mirror. Took my car for an oil change and mentioned the noise. They checked it out and said the door check was broken, which they would fix for me at no charge, but they can't fix it because the my door frame was broken, "shattered" is how they described itso they can't fix the check because they're nothing to attach it to. They said that the entire door needs to be replaced. I am 5 months out of factory warranty. Someone from my extended warranty came to inspect it but said they will not cover it. The dealer told me that this is a known problem and they were frustrated that Lincoln is not addressing it or paying for the repairs. They quoted me over $4000 for the entire replacement/repair.
Both of the front doors have developed loud popping noises while opening and closing. A temporary fix was done by Lincoln on the passenger front door (at my expense) and the driver door is not having the same issue. Vehicle not under warranty now, so cost to me will be >$4000. Based on discussions with Lincoln body shop personnel and web search, this is a problem that has occurred with other Ford Vehicles, particularly the Escape. IF not fixed, web says internal spot welds on the door check bracket can break, causing a loud popping noise when the door opens, potential window track damage, or the door check separating from the door frame. So the door could fall off in extreme cases..... Body shop personnel say (anonymously) they're seeing lots of Lincoln Nautilus with this issue.
Both front doors were replaced under warranty, as the point where the hinge stop attached to the doors, was making a loud cracking sound. The dealer found that the internal metal of the doors was seperating. Our car was fixed at 48,000 miles, but in online forums, there are many people reporting this, and either have more than 50,000 miles or the dealers are saying it's not covered. Also now that we have our doors replaced, I'm skeptical that the paint will not last as long as the factory applied paint.
Unsure which individual or multiple system components failing. All occurred within 5 miles of home. Driving to destination noted that vehicle was acting or responding weird but did not show signs of any failure reported to daughter while speaking to her on the hands free system in vehicle but did not really pay much attention to what was happening because it did not affect the driving at that time. Approx. 1hr later left destination to head home and vehicle decided it had a mind of its own and would not respond to most physical commands ie, braking, slowing down, etc. and was actually increasing in speed. attempted to change the vehicle shifter to park, push the engine on / off button, depress brakes but no response to any of the commands. At this point so not to hurt anyone else drove into a fenced field and back out eventually hitting a tree head on. Prior to this occurring there was reporting to dealership of hard shifting but nothing else and dealership wrote off to the adaptive learning of the transmission. Vehicle was inspected by the Lincoln rep with assistance from the dealership / svc dept. and was deemed nothing was found to be wrong with car per the data box of vehicle, BUT the dealership noted in the finding in emails that the black box was only scanned for the day the Lincoln rep was at vehicle NOT the day the vehicle was in accident. as noted above the vehicle did appear o not be responding correctly driving the destination that day but it was minor not something that would have caused concern at that time BUT again on the way back home is when the incident occurred and was on phone at that time panicking on what to do hence ended up driving off road and ending up stopping due running into the tree.
The driver’s side front door inner sheet metal housing has suffered a severe structural failure where the door check-arm brackets mount to the vehicle frame. Under completely normal vehicle operation, the thin-gauge metal has cracked, buckled, and completely torn away from the inner door assembly. This creates an immediate safety hazard as the door can no longer be safely controlled, dampening its swing. A certified independent collision center evaluated the damage and officially recommended a total door shell replacement, explicitly warning that localized spot-weld patching is structurally insufficient to restore safety due to metal fatigue. Lincoln Client Services was formally contacted regarding this defect but refused assistance or goodwill coverage, citing a minor calendar expiration of the factory warranty. If left unaddressed by the manufacturer, this stamping defect risks the door catching wind, overextending, or failing to latch and secure properly while the vehicle is in motion, presenting a direct risk to occupants and nearby traffic.
Drivers side door hinge has completely broken away from interior side panel. This is a know manufacturing defect due to the weight of the door on this vehicle. We called dealership on 5/4/2026 after discovering issue, spoke with the service manager who advised us to bring vehicle to the dealership. On 5/5/2026 the vehicle was brought to Tasca Collision Center a service team member took extensive pictures of damage, stated how the repair would go forth which has since not happened. Tasca and Lincoln have refused to make repair stating that the vehicle was out of warranty effective 5/4/2026. This is also a safety issue in the advent of a side crash.
Spot welds in both front doors are failing. How would these cars do in a side impact with failing spot welds? The drivers door has approximately a 4" tear/crack around the broken spot welds.
Lincoln Nautilus door hinge and check strap area of the driver's door has a significant crack which could lead to door failure in the event of a crash. Manufacture has issued a CSP (Customer Satisfaction Program 23B56. Year models 2022-2024. Mine is a 2022 but the VIN does not fall in the range of known defects. Mfg. refused repair based on the VIN, but all other criteria have been met. Dealer acknowledges the defect.
The sheet metal around both front door hinges are cracking. Just as the Ford Escape did.
Good afternoon, I am an owner of a 2002 Lincoln Nautilus. I wanted to report an electrical/battery issue with the vehicle that started a year and a half ago. In the past year and a half I have had 2 battery replacements with the most recent one being changed end of December of 2025 and in early March the battery went again so it's not even 3 months that it lasted. The battery completely dies and each time I have to jump start it in order to have a vehicle to work or take my kids places. As a single mom I do not want to put my safety or my kids safety at risk if I get stranded somewhere at night time with no means of getting it jump started. Upon reading some reviews online, I have noticed a lot of Lincoln owners especially the years of 2022-2023 have complained and reported the same issues with dealerships just changing out their batteries and not looking for the deep problem. I have dropped off the car at the dealership and they do not what's causing the issue. My car warranty has 300 miles left and they told me after my bumper to bumper expires there is not much they can do to cover it. I was wondering if this was ever reported or has there been previous recalls on it. Thank you very much for your time.
The transmission jerks at low speeds between 10mph-60mph. Has been duplicated at Lincoln dealership. A torque converter was replaced , but did not correct problem. I know that there is a class action suit for this problem for 2019-2021 it needs to add the 2022 suv also. Lincoln paid for parts , I paid labor . Total repair was 2200$
The contact owns a 2022 Lincoln Nautilus. The contact stated that while another person was driving approximately 15-50 MPH, the vehicle sputtered and jerked. The vehicle was driven to the workplace, and the contact attempted to test-drive the vehicle. The contact stated that upon starting the vehicle and shifting to drive, there was delay while responding, with a clunking sound coming from the vehicle. The contact stated that the vehicle failed to shift into gear the following day. The contact stated that upon shifting to reverse, the vehicle jerked forward, and upon shifting to park(P), there was a delay before the vehicle responded. There was a delay after shifting out of park(P). There was no warning light illuminated. The vehicle was towed to the dealer, where several internal diagnostic trouble codes were found. The dealer determined that the transmission had failed and needed to be replaced. The contact related the failure to NHTSA Campaign Number: 22V413000 (Power Train). The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure, but no assistance was provided because the VIN was not included in the recall. The failure mileage was approximately 149,200.
There is a class action lawsuit for the 2019-2021 Nautilus with the 8F35 transmission, which is the same transmission that my 2022 Nautilus has. Ford has also issued multiple technical service bulletins (25-2154, 21-2389) regarding the 8F35 transmission. My transmission has had a catastrophic failure and began slipping out of gear while driving on the highway. The vehicle lost power several times while driving. The wrench light came on. I was able to make it to the dealership where they are quoting me for a total replacement of the transmission. One week prior, I brought the vehicle in to reprogram the PCM due to a recall alert I got from the Lincoln app. I was experiencing jerking and shuddering prior to the PCM reprogram, then within days of the reprogramming, the transmission completely failed.
Submitted by: [XXX] Dealership: Joe Rizza Ford of Orland Park Vehicle: 2021 Lincoln Nautilus VIN: [XXX] Date: 04/04/25 Overview: Vehicle VIN [XXX] has shown persistent signs of remote system manipulation, unauthorized firmware behavior, and OTA event spoofing. These symptoms have manifested in repeated diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs) across key modules, backdated OTA logging activity, and anomalous file sizes inconsistent with Ford’s documented OTA campaigns. Additionally, the vehicle owner has experienced personal harm attributed to the manipulation: numbness in the back, significant financial and mental distress, and deterioration in relationships with family members, which all correlate with the suspected interference and systemic issues. Key Findings: RFA (Remote Function Actuator) Module Behavior: Repeated DTCs across antennas #2, #3, #4, #6, #8, #11, and #12. Frequent B1B59:87 (BLE Low Energy Module fault) — indicates repeated Bluetooth stack failure or interference. U200F:00 Control Module Output Power C faults consistently recorded. GWM (Gateway Module A) and TCU (Telematics Control Unit) Logs: Software package inconsistencies including large firmware blocks (176 MB to 764 MB). Mismatched "Current Software" vs. "Available Software" versions. Cloud/server-pushed updates logged without dealership-initiated campaign. Confirmed campaign expired for firmware block logged on January 27, 2025, raising further questions on the legitimacy of update triggers. OTAM (Over-The-Air Manager) Log Red Flags: Entries showing timestamps such as January 3, 2000 and January 1, 2018. Consent flags spoofed: "sourceOfConsent='User(1)'" Trigger expiration hours preset to "336" (14-day OTA window, commonly used in timed malware execution) Absence of release notes or authorized campaign identifiers. Pattern Confirmation: Activity spikes on: [XXX], [XXX], and [XXX]. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened these reviews into vehicles including this one.
On July 22, 2022, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) granted a Defect Petition (DP22001) and opened a Preliminary Evaluation (PE22007) to investigate allegations of loss of motive power in model year (MY) 2021 Ford Bronco vehicles equipped with 2.7L EcoBoost engines. Complainants were reporting sudden engine failure while driving resulting in a loss of motive power, often without the ability to restart. During PE22007, the cause of engine failure and loss of motive power in the subject vehicles was determined to be intake valve fracture, and the full scope of vehicles affected by the subject defect was identified as all MY 2021-2022 Ford and Lincoln models equipped with either the 2.7L or 3.0L EcoBoost engines, referred to as the “Nano” engine family. If an intake valve fractures in the subject engines, it may drop into the cylinder and contact the piston, often resulting in catastrophic engine damage. On September 29, 2023, PE22007 was upgraded to an Engineering Analysis (EA23002) to further investigate the subject defect across the full scope of affected vehicles. During EA23002, ODI visited Ford facilities to review technical information related to intake valve fracture in “Nano” engines, coordinated with NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Testing Center (VRTC), and analyzed updated field data relating the subject defect. Forensic analysis of fractured intake valves demonstrated that the defective components exhibited “grinding burn” or out of specification hardness in the area of the keeper grooves. The presence of grinding burn is evidence that during the groove grinding phase of production, the temperature of the valve became sufficiently high to alter the microstructure of the material and is indicative that the valve supplier’s manufacturing processes were not within control specifications. Grinding burn results in a hard, brittle microstructure and high residual stresses toward the surface of the valve. Through normal engine loading, a valve with grinding burn will likely fracture at the area of highest vulnerability, which is the third keeper groove. In its response to the EA23002 Information Request (IR) letter, Ford provided evidence of 396 customer complaints (including field reports), 825 warranty claims, and 936 engine exchanges. When considering both ODI and manufacturer failure report data, there have been reports representing 1066 unique vehicles within the subject vehicle population. Analysis of the failure report data demonstrates that vehicles equipped with potentially defective intake valves were built within a production “spike period” of May 2021 – October 2021. The beginning of the spike period corresponds to a ramp up in production at the valve supplier manufacturing facility, and the end of the spike period aligns with the implementation of several mid-production process improvements and the decision to change the metal alloy used to produce intake valves from “Silchrome Lite” to “Silchrome 1”. Ford began investigating the subject defect in July 2021, determined the root cause, and took corrective measures for the new production vehicles. Analysis of the failure report data demonstrates that these corrective actions were successful in eliminating the risk of intake valve fracture for subject vehicles produced after October 2021. However, Ford did not take any field action to address vehicles produced during the spike period, and in the several months following the implementation of the production changes, a significant number of field failures continued to occur. It is Ford’s assessment that not all valves produced during the spike period are defective, and that failures associated with the subject defect occur at low time in service. Analysis of the failure report data demonstrates that the vast majority of failures have occurred before 20,000 miles with over half of all reported failures occurring before 5,000 miles. The rate of reported failures related to the subject defect has steadily decreased since November 2021. ODI coordinated with NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) to conduct statistical analysis and predict the number of future failures associated with the subject defect. The results of this analysis, and the trends identified through the failure report data are generally consistent with Ford’s assessment that defective intake valves will likely fail at a low time in service and indicate that the majority of subject vehicles equipped with defective valves have already experienced a failure. On August 23, 2024, Ford submitted recall 24V635 for subject vehicles equipped with “Nano” engines and built within the production spike period identified above (total population 90,736 vehicles). The remedy includes an inspection at a Ford/Lincoln dealership where the lifetime engine cycles of the vehicle will be determined. If a vehicle does not meet a threshold for lifetime engine cycles, the dealership will conduct a high RPM engine cycle accumulation procedure, which aims to identify if the vehicle is equipped with defective intake valves. Any vehicle that fails the accumulation procedure will receive an engine replacement under the recall. In addition to recall 24V635, Ford has stated that it will launch customer satisfaction campaign 24N12, which will provide extended warranty coverage to the subject vehicles through the earlier of 10 years or 150,000 miles. In view of the recall action being taken by Ford, ODI is closing this Engineering Analysis. To review the reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.
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.