FaultScore

FaultScore report

1994 Ford F-250 problems

Owners have filed 156 complaints about the 1994 Ford F-250 with NHTSA between 1995 and 2020. The largest single group is the brakes. Across this model's run it ranks 14 of 22 worst.

C

FaultScore 47/100

Higher is worse. Measured against the other years of the Ford F-250.

How this is worked out

The numbers

156

Complaints

7

Crashes reported

28

Fires reported

1

Injuries reported

114,581 mi

Median mileage at failure

Half of reported failures happened before this

4%

Failed under 36,000 miles

Inside a typical bumper-to-bumper warranty

What kind of bad

The letter says how bad. This says what kind — whether this year drew an unusual number of complaints, unusually dangerous ones, or failures that arrived unusually early.

Complaint volume 32 vs 50 Severity 100 vs 50 Early failure 7 vs 50
The dashed ring is 50 — the national norm. Further out is worse.
Complaint volume — 32
Against the median year of the Ford F-250. 50 means typical for this model; 100 means roughly double.
Severity — 100
23.1% of these complaints involved a crash, fire, injury or death, against a national rate of 9.7%.
Early failure — 7
4% of failures with a mileage on record happened under 36,000 miles, against a national rate of 29%.

How 1994 compares with every other Ford F-250

Click any bar to open that year's report.

Complaints filed with NHTSA, by model year. Bar colour is the FaultScore grade: A B C D F ungraded

What breaks on a 1994 Ford F-250

Every complaint is filed against a part. Follow any row for the complaints about that part alone.

Brakes 35 22.4%

6 crashes, 2 fires · median 69,081 mi

1 crashes, 3 fires

Engine & Cooling 20 12.8%

0 crashes, 4 fires · median 84,500 mi

Suspension 15 9.6%

Median failure at 79,000 miles

0 crashes, 9 fires · median 100,000 mi

0 crashes, 8 fires · median 166,500 mi

Tires 4 2.6%

Median failure at 201,500 miles

Windows, Mirrors & Wipers 4 2.6%
Lights 4 2.6%

0 crashes, 2 fires · median 140,000 mi

Body & Structure 4 2.6%

Median failure at 57,000 miles

Steering 3 1.9%
Seats 1 0.6%
Wheels 1 0.6%

Exactly what failed

NHTSA files every complaint against a named sub-assembly, not just a system. This is the difference between knowing it was "the engine" and knowing which part of it — the list to hand a mechanic.

Antilock/Traction Control/Electronic Limited Slip 13 21.3%
Front 9 14.8%
Cruise Control 8 13.1%
Automatic Transmission 8 13.1%
Gasoline 7 11.5%
Rotor 6 9.8%
Clutch Assembly 5 8.2%
Engine 5 8.2%

When it fails

Odometer readings owners gave when they filed. About half of all complaints include one.

10,000 – 24,999 miles 1 4.2%
50,000 – 74,999 miles 5 20.8%
75,000 – 99,999 miles 4 16.7%
100,000 – 149,999 miles 9 37.5%
150,000+ miles 5 20.8%

When owners complained

A spike years after the car went on sale usually means a part wearing out on schedule across the whole fleet — the kind of pattern no single owner can see from inside their own car.

Mar 1995 peak 10 Oct 2020

NHTSA investigations into the 1994 Ford F-250

An investigation is the step before a recall: the agency has seen enough complaints to look into a pattern itself. An open one means it thinks something may be wrong and nothing has been fixed yet.

EA05005 Opened 22 Mar 2005 Closed 2 Aug 2006 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRES

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 VEHIC...

RQ98006 Opened 18 Mar 1998 Closed 15 Aug 2000 AIR BAGS

INADVERTENT AIR BAG DEPLOYMENT

PE96052 Opened 23 Aug 1996 Closed 27 Jan 1997 SUSPENSION

SEPARATED FRONT SUSPENSION

CONSUMER COMPLAINTS REPORT THAT BOLTS WHICH RETAIN THE AXLE PIVOT BRACKET TO THE FRAME CROSS MEMBER CAN LOOSEN OR FAIL, CAUSING THE INBOARD END OR THE AXLE TO BECOME DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE.OWNERS ALLEGE THAT THIS COULD RESULT IN LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL, HOWEVER THE COMPLAINT DATA SHOWS ONLY ONE INCIDENT WHERE THE VEHICLE LEFT THE ROADWAY FOLLOWING AXLE SEPARATION, WITH NO DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE.IN ADDITION TO THE 225 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS, THERE WERE 4,315 WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO THE FRONT SUSPENSION AND MEMBERS, AND 22 VEHICLES WERE REPLACED FOR GOODWILL.DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY FORD, UNDER...

EA95012 Opened 31 Mar 1995 Closed 28 May 1996 POWER TRAIN

FAILURE OF SERPENTINE BELT

AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CLOSING REPORT IS INCLUDED.

PE94087 Opened 18 Nov 1994 Closed 31 Mar 1995 POWER TRAIN

TRNS OIL COOLER LINE FAILS

FORD HAS ACKNOWLEDGED A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THE ACCESSORY DRIVE BELT SYSTEM (SERPENTINE BELT) IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.SEVERAL SERVICE BULLETINS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO ADDRESS CONCERNS RELATED TO BELT TRACKING OR WEAR.FORD MAINTAINS THAT THE SUBJECT CONDITION DOES NOT PRESENT AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO HIGHWAY SAFETY, ARGUING THAT THE LOW INCIDENCE OF FAILURES ALLEGING SAFETY CONSEQUENCES (I.E., FIRES, FLUID LEAKS, AND/OR ACCIDENTS) IS STRONG EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM.FORD HAS INDICATED RECEIPT OF 4,445 FIELD REPORTS AND 46891 WARRANTY CLAIMS CONCERNING THE SUBJECT CONDITION. FORD MAINTAINS...

Recalls on the 1994 Ford F-250

A complaint is one owner's allegation. A recall is the point at which the manufacturer or a regulator agreed the defect is real and dangerous enough to fix for free — however old the car is.

United States — NHTSA

06V286000

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL

ON CERTAIN TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL, GASOLINE OR NATURAL GAS ENGINES, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY OVERHEAT.

Risk: OVERHEATING COULD RESULT IN SMOKE OR BURN AND AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.

06E049000

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

CERTAIN CK MOTORSPORTS COMBINATION HEADLIGHTS, CLEAR CORNER, BUMPER, AND SIDE MARKER LIGHTS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON THE PASSENGER VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE. SOME COMBINATION LAMPS THAT ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.

Risk: WITHOUT THE AMBER REFLECTORS, THE VEHICLE WILL BE POORLY ILLUMINATED, POSSIBLY RESULTING IN A VEHICLE CRASH WITHOUT WARNING.

05V388000

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL

ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS AND SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SPEED CONTROL, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.

Risk: A FIRE AT THE SWITCH COULD OCCUR.

01X001000

TIRES:TREAD/BELT

THIS IS NOT A SAFETY RECALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAFETY ACT. HOWEVER, IT IS DEEMED A SAFETY IMPROVEMENT CAMPAIGN BY THE AGENCY. EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION: FORD IS REPLACING ALL FIRESTONE WILDERNESS AT 15, 16, AND 17 INCH TIRES MOUNTED ON FORD TRUCKS AND SUVS. FORD REPORTS TREAD SEPARATION CAN OCCUR DUE TO A COMBINATION OF THE SENSITIVITY OF THE TIRE DESIGN TO STRESS, AGING, AND MANUFACTURING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PLANTS. FORD IS REPLACING THESE TIRES TO PREVENT POSSIBLE PREMATURE TIRE FAILURE. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: THE VEHICLES LISTED BELOW MAY HAVE BEEN ORIGINALLY EQUIPPED WITH FIRESTONE WILDERNESS AT TIRES OR MAY HAVE HAD WILDERNESS AT TIRES INSTALLED DURING THE FIRESTONE RECALL LAUNCHED IN AUGUST 2000. CERTAIN 1991 THROUGHT 2002 FORD EXPLORER CERTAIN 2001 THROUGHT 2002 EXPLORER SPORT, AND SPORT TRAC CERTAIN 1997 THROUGH 2002 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER CERTAIN 1991 THROUGH 2001 RANGER CERTAIN 1999 THROUGH 2001 EXPEDITION CERTAIN 1991 THROUGH 1994, AND 1997 MODEL YEAR F-SERIES CERTAIN 1991 THROUGH 1994 BRONCO NOTE: BOTH ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT AND REPLACEMENT TIRES ARE AFFECTED.

Risk: SHOULD THE TREAD SEPARATE AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS, A VEHICLE CRASH COULD OCCUR, POSSIBLY RESULTING IN PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH.

96V064000

SEATS

THE WIRE HARNESS FOR THE POWER LUMBAR FEATURE ON THE SEAT IS UNDERNEATH THE FRONT SEAT CUSHION SUPPORT WIRES. THE SUPPORT WIRES ON THE DRIVER SEAT CAN CONTACT AND DAMAGE THE INSULATION HARNESS RESULTING IN A HIGH RESISTANCE ELECTRICAL SHORT THROUGH THE SUPPORT WIRES.

Risk: CONSEQUENCE OF DEFECT: OVER HEATING OF THE SUPPORT WIRES COULD RESULT, AND MELTING, SMOKE, OR POSSIBLE IGNTION OF THE SURROUNDING MATERIALS COULD OCCUR.

94V169001

PARKING BRAKE:CONVENTIONAL

THE PARKING BRAKE CONTROL SELF-ADJUST PAWL DOES NOT LINE UP PROPERLY WITH THE SELF-ADJUST RACHET CAUSING THE PAWL TO SLIP OVER ONE OR MORE TEETH IN THE RACHET.

Risk: WHEN THE ABOVE OCCURS, IT CAN RESULT IN PARKING BRAKE SYSTEM INEFFECTIVENESS. THE PARKING BRAKE WILL NOT HOLD THE VEHICLE, CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO ROLL FREELY, IF THE TRANSMISSION IS NOT LEFT IN GEAR.

94V101000

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:IGNITION:MODULE

IN A HEAVILY LOADED VEHICLE, WHILE IN THE CRUISE CONTROL MODE, THE THROTTLE MAY NOT REDUCE IMMEDIATELY WHEN THE LOAD ON THE ENGINE IS DECREASED (SUCH AS WHEN THE VEHICLE CRESTS A HILL.) THIS CAN RESULT IN INCREASED VEHICLE SPEED WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING.

Risk: THIS CAN RESULT IN LOSS OF SPEED CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE, AND A POSSIBLE ACCIDENT.

94V018000

STRUCTURE:BODY:BUMPERS

THE U-CLIP STYLE NUTS THAT RETAIN THE FRONT BUMPERS TO THE FRONT BUMPER INNER ARMS CAN FRACTURE.

Risk: IF ONE OF THE U-CLIP NUTS FRACTURES, THE BUMPER WILL LOOSEN AND RATTLE CAUSING FRACTURE OF THE REMAINING U-CLIP NUTS, RESULTING IN SEPARATION OF THE BUMPER FROM THE VEHICLE. IF THE BUMPER WERE TO DETACH FROM THE VEHICLE WHILE IT IS BEING DRIVEN, A VEHICLE COLLISION COULD RESULT.

Canada — Transport Canada

Canada runs its own recall programme, and its campaigns do not always mirror the American ones.

Recall 2009292 492,877 units in Canada

Other

On certain vehicles, the speed control deactivation switch may overheat, smoke, or burn, potentially resulting in an underhood fire. The condition may occur either when the vehicle is parked or when it is in operation. Correction: Dealers will install a new switch or fused wiring harness. Note: This is an expansion of recall 2005028 (05S28) for vehicles not previously included in the campaign.

Recall 2005028 304,417 units in Canada

Electrical

On certain vehicles, the speed control deactivation switch may overheat, smoke, or burn, potentially resulting in an underhood fire. The condition may occur either when the vehicle is parked or when it is in operation. Correction: Initially as an interim repair, owners will be instructed to return their vehicles to their dealers to have the speed control deactivation switch disconnected. As soon as replacement parts are available, owners will be instructed to return to the dealers for installation of a new switch or fused wiring harness.

Recalls cover specific build ranges, so check your own vehicle by VIN at nhtsa.gov/recalls or, in Canada, Transport Canada.

Complaints that involved harm

Reports where the owner recorded a crash, a fire, an injury or a death.

Hattiesburg, MS Fire

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

1994 F250 SITTING IN DRIVEWAY, 10 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, CAUGHT ON FIRE, EXTENSIVE DAMAGE, TRUCK DESTROYED.

NHTSA complaint #10354511 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 254,000 miles Clinton Twp., MI Fire

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL

IN AUGUST, 2009, MY FORD TRUCK CAUGHT ON FIRE WHILE PARKED AND PLUGGED IN TO WARM THE ENGINE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAME TO PUT THE FIRE OUT AND I HAD MY VEHICLE TOWED WITH THE INTENTION OF GETTING IT REPAIRED. I WROTE TO FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S CLAIMS DEPARTMENT TO INFORM THEM WHAT HAPPENED, INCLUDING PICTURES, AND ADVISED THEM THAT THE VEHICLE WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM FOR INSPECTION. THEIR RESPONSE WAS THAT MY VEHICLE WAS NOT "INVOLVED IN ANY OPEN RECALLS THAT WOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED." IN NOVEMBER, 2009, I RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FROM FORD MOTOR COMPANY REGARDING THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH. THE RECALL LETTER DESCRIBES PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENED TO MY VEHICLE. IT STATES, IN PART, "FORD CANNOT BE CONFIDENT THAT OVER MANY YEARS IN SERVICE, A SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH WILL NOT LEAK BRAKE FLUID, POSING THE RISK OF A FIRE. THIS CONDITION MAY OCCUR EITHER WHEN THE VEHICLE IS PARKED OR WHEN IT IS BEING OPERATED." AFTER WRITING TO THE FORD CLAIMS DEPARTMENT AGAIN, ASKING FOR A RE-EVALUATION OF THIS PROBLEM, THEIR RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO OFFER ME ANY ASSISTANCE. THEY NEVER EXAMINED MY TRUCK, THEREFORE, THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE. THERE HAS BEEN NO EFFORT ON FORD'S PART TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR REMEDY MY SITUATION, YET, I NOW RECEIVED ANOTHER RECALL NOTICE (MARCH, 2010) REGARDING POSSIBILITY OF FIRE TO THIS VEHICLE!

NHTSA complaint #10328562 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 12,000 miles Lowell, MA Crash 3 injured

SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC

I OWNED A 1994 FORD F-250 4X4 AND FROM DAY ONE THE BRAKING SYSTEM HAD A PROBLEM. WHEN THE ANTI-LOCK BRAKING SYSTEM WOULD ACTIVATE INSTEAD OF WORKING THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSE TO THE BRAKE PETAL WOULD JUST BOTTOM OUT AND THAT WOULD RESULT IN FAILURE TO STOP THE TRUCK. THE RESULT OF WHICH CAUSED MORE THAN A FEW CRASHES WITH THE TRUCK. MY EMPLOYER'S BROTHER WAS A MECHANIC FOR A FORD DEALERSHIP AND TOLD ME THAT FORD HAD SENT OUT A SERVICE BULLETIN FOR THE ANTI LOCK COMPUTER ON MANY DIFFERENT VEHICLE'S OF THAT MODEL YEAR SAYING THAT IF A VEHICLE CAME IN FOR ROUTINE SERVICE TO CHECK THE NUMBER OF THE COMPUTER AND IF IT WAS ANY DIFFERENT THAN ONE CERTAIN NUMBER. TO REPLACE IT WITH OUT THE OWNER KNOWING IT WAS REPLACED. SEEING AS I DO ALL THE WORK ON MY VEHICLE'S MYSELF MY TRUCK NEVER SAW ANY DEALER FOR REPAIRS AS MY 5/60 WARRANTY DID NOT LAST ME MORE THAN 2.5 YEARS. AND THE TRUCK RAN FINE DURING THOSE 2.5 YEARS EXCEPT FOR THE BRAKING SYSTEM. IS THERE ANY WAY FOR YOU PEOPLE TO CHECK INTO THIS NOTICE TO SEE IF IT IS TRUE? THE RESULT OF THESE CRASHES WITH THE BRAKING SYSTEM HAS CAUSED MY INSURANCE RATES TO RISE TO A RIDICULOUS FIGURE. I KNOW IT COULD BE SAID IT IS JUST THE WAY I DRIVE. HOWEVER I HAVE DRIVING MANY A COMPANY VEHICLE IN MY MANY YEARS IN THE CONSTRUCTION TRADE. FROM PICKUPS TO DUMP TRUCKS TOWING BULLDOZERS AND NEVER HAD ANY ACCIDENTS WITH A COMPANY TRUCK.

NHTSA complaint #10278035 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 190,000 miles Capitan, NM Fire

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1994 FORD F250. THE VEHICLE CAUGHT FIRE WHILE PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE AND DEEMED IT AS AN ELECTRICAL FAILURE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT INFORMED THE CONTACT OF A RECALL FOR THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH FOR HER YEAR, MAKE, AND MODEL VEHICLE, WHICH COULD CAUSE A FIRE. THE CONTACT DOES NOT KNOW IF THE VEHICLE IS INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 190,000.

NHTSA complaint #10275870 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 222,000 miles Lewisville, TX Fire

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

1994 FORD F250 CAUGHT FIRE IN DALLAS TX. ALTERNATOR CONNECTOR CAUGHT FIRE AND BURNED WHILE DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY. WIRES MELTED, ALTERNATOR CONNECTOR MELTED. TRUCK IS STILL DOWN WIRING HARNESS TO ALTERNATOR NOT AVAILABLE. OLD PARTS ARE AVAILABLE.

NHTSA complaint #10225869 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 80,123 miles Spokane, WA Fire

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:CRUISE CONTROL

1. THE VEHICLE'S "CHECK BRAKE" AND "ABS" LIGHTS ILLUMINATED TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT. THE BRAKE SYSTEM WAS IMMEDIATELY EXAMINED BY A LOCAL SHOP. THE BRAKE FLUID WAS NOTED AS BEING LOW AND THE SYSTEM WAS TOPPED OFF. THE LIGHTS EXTINGUISHED AND REMAINED EXTINGUISHED. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN INFREQUENTLY FOR TWO MONTHS AND OTHERWISE PARKED AT A STORAGE LOT NEAR SPOKANE, WA. 2. AFTER BEING PARKED FOR SIX DAYS, THE VEHICLE CAUGHT FIRE. THE VEHICLE WAS A TOTAL LOSS DUE TO THE FIRE. A TRAILER PARKED NEXT TO IT ALSO SUFFERED EXTENSIVE FIRE DAMAGE. THE FIRE CHIEF STATED THAT IT WAS AN ELECTRICAL FIRE. BASED ON BURN AND SMOKE PATTERNS, HE STATED THE FIRE ORIGINATED IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT ON THE DRIVER?S SIDE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE FIREWALL AND THE BATTERY. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCATION OF THE CRUISE CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SEE NHTSA ACTION NUMBER EA05005) MOUNTED ON THE BRAKE ASSEMBLY. THIS PORTION OF THE BRAKE ASSEMBLY WAS NO LONGER VISIBLE AFTER THE FIRE BUT SEVERAL OTHER PARTS NEAR THAT AREA SHOWED SIGNS OF HAVING BEEN EXPOSED TO EXCESSIVE HEAT. 3. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF THERE WERE ANY OUTSTANDING RECALLS. BASED ON THE VIN, THE MANUFACTURER STATED THERE WERE NO OUTSTANDING RECALLS. A LOCAL DEALER?S SERVICE DEPARTMENT TECHNICIAN STATED THAT SEVERAL OTHER RECALLS HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED ON SIMILAR VEHICLES BECAUSE OF THE CRUISE CONTROL BUT FOR SOME REASON THE MANUFACTURER ELECTED NOT TO RECALL THIS VEHICLE. HOWEVER, THE SERVICE TECHNICIAN RECOMMENDED HAVING THE PART REPLACED ANYWAYS. THE ADVICE WAS APPRECIATED BUT OBVIOUSLY TOO LATE. A RECALL WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE FIRE, LOSS OF PROPERTY, AND POTENTIAL INJURY/DEATH.

NHTSA complaint #10213375 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

The most recent complaints

In the owners' own words, exactly as filed with NHTSA.

at 103,000 miles David City, NE

ENGINE

ENGINE SHUTS DOWN WITHOUT WARNING AT SPEEDS 50 TO 70 MPH AND WON'T RESTART SOMETIMES. IT MIGHT RESTART AFTER AN HOUR AND RUN FOR ABOUT 10 TO 15 MINUTES AND STOP AGAIN AND WON'T START AGAIN TILL NEXT MORNING. IS INTERMITTENTLY AND RANDOMLY STOPPING DEAD, LIKE TURNING OFF THE KEY. MECHANIC CANNOT MAKE IT HAPPEN IN SHOP!

NHTSA complaint #11365982 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 140,000 miles Spokane Valley, WA

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

DIMMER SWITCH SHUTS OFF ALL THE LIGHTS AT NIGHT WHEN I DRIVE AT NIGHT

NHTSA complaint #11075204 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 140,000 miles Spokane Valley, WA

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

DIMMER SWITCH SHUTS OFF ALL THE LIGHTS AT NIGHT WHEN I DRIVE AT NIGHT

NHTSA complaint #11075204 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 265,000 miles Houston, TX

TIRES:TREAD/BELT

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1994 FORD F-250 EQUIPPED WITH DOMINATOR SPORT ATZ TIRES, SIZE: LT265/75R16. WHILE DRIVING 35 MPH, THE CONTACT FELT A VIBRATION IN THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE TIRE. THE TIRE WAS ROCKING FROM SIDE TO SIDE. IN ADDITION, THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BELT WAS SEPARATED FROM THE FRONT PASSENGER SIDE TIRE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO THE DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND REFERRED THE CONTACT TO NHTSA. THE APPROXIMATE VEHICLE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 265,000 AND THE TIRE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 185.

NHTSA complaint #10992338 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 63,000 miles Johnston, IL

FUEL/PROPULSION SYSTEM

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1994 FORD F-250. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE FRONT FUEL TANK WOULD EXTRACT FUEL FROM THE REAR FUEL TANK CAUSING THE FUEL TO LEAK OUT THE FRONT FUEL TANK. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER HAD BEEN NOTIFIED. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 63,000.

NHTSA complaint #10630448 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 79,000 miles Dresher, PA

FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE:STORAGE:TANK ASSEMBLY

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 1994 FORD F-250. THE CONTACT STATED THE FUEL PRESSURE REGULATOR HAS WORN OUT AND CAUSE FUEL TO LEAK IN ONE OF THE DUAL FUEL TANKS. THE FUEL LEAKAGE IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE COULD RESULT IN A VEHICLE FIRE. THE CONTACT NOTICE A RECALL FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR MODEL REGARDING THE FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE:STORAGE:TANK ASSEMBLY (00V424000). HE HAD NOT CALLED THE MANUFACTURER TO SEE IF HIS VEHICLE IS INCLUDED IN THIS RECALL. THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE CAN CAUSE A FIRE WHILE DRIVING. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 79,000.

NHTSA complaint #10354665 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

Hattiesburg, MS Fire

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

1994 F250 SITTING IN DRIVEWAY, 10 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT, CAUGHT ON FIRE, EXTENSIVE DAMAGE, TRUCK DESTROYED.

NHTSA complaint #10354511 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 254,000 miles Clinton Twp., MI Fire

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL

IN AUGUST, 2009, MY FORD TRUCK CAUGHT ON FIRE WHILE PARKED AND PLUGGED IN TO WARM THE ENGINE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAME TO PUT THE FIRE OUT AND I HAD MY VEHICLE TOWED WITH THE INTENTION OF GETTING IT REPAIRED. I WROTE TO FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S CLAIMS DEPARTMENT TO INFORM THEM WHAT HAPPENED, INCLUDING PICTURES, AND ADVISED THEM THAT THE VEHICLE WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM FOR INSPECTION. THEIR RESPONSE WAS THAT MY VEHICLE WAS NOT "INVOLVED IN ANY OPEN RECALLS THAT WOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED." IN NOVEMBER, 2009, I RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FROM FORD MOTOR COMPANY REGARDING THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH. THE RECALL LETTER DESCRIBES PRECISELY WHAT HAPPENED TO MY VEHICLE. IT STATES, IN PART, "FORD CANNOT BE CONFIDENT THAT OVER MANY YEARS IN SERVICE, A SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH WILL NOT LEAK BRAKE FLUID, POSING THE RISK OF A FIRE. THIS CONDITION MAY OCCUR EITHER WHEN THE VEHICLE IS PARKED OR WHEN IT IS BEING OPERATED." AFTER WRITING TO THE FORD CLAIMS DEPARTMENT AGAIN, ASKING FOR A RE-EVALUATION OF THIS PROBLEM, THEIR RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO OFFER ME ANY ASSISTANCE. THEY NEVER EXAMINED MY TRUCK, THEREFORE, THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE. THERE HAS BEEN NO EFFORT ON FORD'S PART TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR REMEDY MY SITUATION, YET, I NOW RECEIVED ANOTHER RECALL NOTICE (MARCH, 2010) REGARDING POSSIBILITY OF FIRE TO THIS VEHICLE!

NHTSA complaint #10328562 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

Goldfield, NV

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL

THEY WILL NOT GIVE ME THE PARTS TO FIX IT. *TR THE CONSUMER STATED THE NEAREST DEALER IS 250 MILES FROM HIS HOME. HE ALSO STATED HE IS A MECHANIC AND CAN PERFORM THE REPAIRS HIMSELF. UPDATED 11/25/09

NHTSA complaint #10293052 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 12,000 miles Lowell, MA Crash 3 injured

SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC

I OWNED A 1994 FORD F-250 4X4 AND FROM DAY ONE THE BRAKING SYSTEM HAD A PROBLEM. WHEN THE ANTI-LOCK BRAKING SYSTEM WOULD ACTIVATE INSTEAD OF WORKING THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSE TO THE BRAKE PETAL WOULD JUST BOTTOM OUT AND THAT WOULD RESULT IN FAILURE TO STOP THE TRUCK. THE RESULT OF WHICH CAUSED MORE THAN A FEW CRASHES WITH THE TRUCK. MY EMPLOYER'S BROTHER WAS A MECHANIC FOR A FORD DEALERSHIP AND TOLD ME THAT FORD HAD SENT OUT A SERVICE BULLETIN FOR THE ANTI LOCK COMPUTER ON MANY DIFFERENT VEHICLE'S OF THAT MODEL YEAR SAYING THAT IF A VEHICLE CAME IN FOR ROUTINE SERVICE TO CHECK THE NUMBER OF THE COMPUTER AND IF IT WAS ANY DIFFERENT THAN ONE CERTAIN NUMBER. TO REPLACE IT WITH OUT THE OWNER KNOWING IT WAS REPLACED. SEEING AS I DO ALL THE WORK ON MY VEHICLE'S MYSELF MY TRUCK NEVER SAW ANY DEALER FOR REPAIRS AS MY 5/60 WARRANTY DID NOT LAST ME MORE THAN 2.5 YEARS. AND THE TRUCK RAN FINE DURING THOSE 2.5 YEARS EXCEPT FOR THE BRAKING SYSTEM. IS THERE ANY WAY FOR YOU PEOPLE TO CHECK INTO THIS NOTICE TO SEE IF IT IS TRUE? THE RESULT OF THESE CRASHES WITH THE BRAKING SYSTEM HAS CAUSED MY INSURANCE RATES TO RISE TO A RIDICULOUS FIGURE. I KNOW IT COULD BE SAID IT IS JUST THE WAY I DRIVE. HOWEVER I HAVE DRIVING MANY A COMPANY VEHICLE IN MY MANY YEARS IN THE CONSTRUCTION TRADE. FROM PICKUPS TO DUMP TRUCKS TOWING BULLDOZERS AND NEVER HAD ANY ACCIDENTS WITH A COMPANY TRUCK.

NHTSA complaint #10278035 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 190,000 miles Capitan, NM Fire

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1994 FORD F250. THE VEHICLE CAUGHT FIRE WHILE PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXTINGUISHED THE FIRE AND DEEMED IT AS AN ELECTRICAL FAILURE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT INFORMED THE CONTACT OF A RECALL FOR THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH FOR HER YEAR, MAKE, AND MODEL VEHICLE, WHICH COULD CAUSE A FIRE. THE CONTACT DOES NOT KNOW IF THE VEHICLE IS INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. THE NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 190,000.

NHTSA complaint #10275870 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 222,000 miles Lewisville, TX Fire

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM

1994 FORD F250 CAUGHT FIRE IN DALLAS TX. ALTERNATOR CONNECTOR CAUGHT FIRE AND BURNED WHILE DRIVING ON THE FREEWAY. WIRES MELTED, ALTERNATOR CONNECTOR MELTED. TRUCK IS STILL DOWN WIRING HARNESS TO ALTERNATOR NOT AVAILABLE. OLD PARTS ARE AVAILABLE.

NHTSA complaint #10225869 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 80,123 miles Spokane, WA Fire

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:CRUISE CONTROL

1. THE VEHICLE'S "CHECK BRAKE" AND "ABS" LIGHTS ILLUMINATED TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT. THE BRAKE SYSTEM WAS IMMEDIATELY EXAMINED BY A LOCAL SHOP. THE BRAKE FLUID WAS NOTED AS BEING LOW AND THE SYSTEM WAS TOPPED OFF. THE LIGHTS EXTINGUISHED AND REMAINED EXTINGUISHED. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN INFREQUENTLY FOR TWO MONTHS AND OTHERWISE PARKED AT A STORAGE LOT NEAR SPOKANE, WA. 2. AFTER BEING PARKED FOR SIX DAYS, THE VEHICLE CAUGHT FIRE. THE VEHICLE WAS A TOTAL LOSS DUE TO THE FIRE. A TRAILER PARKED NEXT TO IT ALSO SUFFERED EXTENSIVE FIRE DAMAGE. THE FIRE CHIEF STATED THAT IT WAS AN ELECTRICAL FIRE. BASED ON BURN AND SMOKE PATTERNS, HE STATED THE FIRE ORIGINATED IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT ON THE DRIVER?S SIDE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE FIREWALL AND THE BATTERY. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCATION OF THE CRUISE CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SEE NHTSA ACTION NUMBER EA05005) MOUNTED ON THE BRAKE ASSEMBLY. THIS PORTION OF THE BRAKE ASSEMBLY WAS NO LONGER VISIBLE AFTER THE FIRE BUT SEVERAL OTHER PARTS NEAR THAT AREA SHOWED SIGNS OF HAVING BEEN EXPOSED TO EXCESSIVE HEAT. 3. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF THERE WERE ANY OUTSTANDING RECALLS. BASED ON THE VIN, THE MANUFACTURER STATED THERE WERE NO OUTSTANDING RECALLS. A LOCAL DEALER?S SERVICE DEPARTMENT TECHNICIAN STATED THAT SEVERAL OTHER RECALLS HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED ON SIMILAR VEHICLES BECAUSE OF THE CRUISE CONTROL BUT FOR SOME REASON THE MANUFACTURER ELECTED NOT TO RECALL THIS VEHICLE. HOWEVER, THE SERVICE TECHNICIAN RECOMMENDED HAVING THE PART REPLACED ANYWAYS. THE ADVICE WAS APPRECIATED BUT OBVIOUSLY TOO LATE. A RECALL WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE FIRE, LOSS OF PROPERTY, AND POTENTIAL INJURY/DEATH.

NHTSA complaint #10213375 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 300,000 miles Conroe, TX Fire

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:CRUISE CONTROL

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1994 FORD F-250. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE CAUGHT FIRE. THE FIRE MARSHALL ARRIVED AND FILED A REPORT, WHICH STATED THAT THE CRUISE CONTROL SWITCH CAUSED THE FIRE. THE VEHICLE WAS DESTROYED. FORD STATED THAT HIS CLAIM WAS DENIED. THE CONTACT HAS PICTURES OF THE DAMAGE. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 300,000.

NHTSA complaint #10195269 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

Warren, MI Fire

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE 1995 F250 UNDER HOOD FIRE DEFECT. *TS THE CONSUMER STATED SHE HAS 2 OTHER FORD VEHICLES A 1994 FORD F250 AND 1994 FORD F350 THAT DID HAVE UNDER HOOD FIRES, BUT NOT THE 1995 F250 WHICH A RECALL LETTER WAS SENT.

NHTSA complaint #10171198 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

Warren, MI Fire

ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE 1995 F250 UNDER HOOD FIRE DEFECT. *TS THE CONSUMER STATED SHE HAS 2 OTHER FORD VEHICLES A 1994 FORD F250 AND 1994 FORD F350 THAT DID HAVE UNDER HOOD FIRES, BUT NOT THE 1995 F250 WHICH A RECALL LETTER WAS SENT.

NHTSA complaint #10171198 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

Warren, MI Fire

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:CRUISE CONTROL

1994 FORD F-250 CAUGHT FIRE UNDER THE HOOD. *KB A RECALL WAS RECEIVED IN REFERENCE TO FAULTY SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH FOR THE CONSUMER'S 1995 F-250 BUT NOT THE 1994 F-250.

NHTSA complaint #10170136 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 100,000 miles Bountiful, UT Fire

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:CRUISE CONTROL

1994 F250 WHILE TRAVELING ON THE FREEWAY FOR A PERIOD OF 2 HRS. THE ENGINE SUDDENLY BUSTED INTO FLAMES. THE TRUCK COMPLETELY BURNED DOWN EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE ATTEMPTS TO PUT THE FIRE OUT WITH A FIRE EXTINGUISHER.

NHTSA complaint #10164411 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

Kennewick, WA

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:CRUISE CONTROL

CONSUMER CONCERNED ABOUT F250 CATCHING ON FIRE WHILE PARKED IN GARAGE. *TS ***NO ANSWER REQUIRED*** UPDATED 11/7/2005 - THE CONSUMER INDICATED THAT HIS VEHICLE HAS THE SAME TYPE OF SWITCH IN HIS FORD F250 THAT IS BEING RECALLED ON THE FORD F150. THE CONSUMER WOULD LIKE A WIRING DIAGRAM TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HIS VEHICLE IS SAFE. *NM UPDATED 01/23/06.

NHTSA complaint #10142151 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 138,000 miles Laverne, OK Fire

VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:CRUISE CONTROL

I HAVE A 1994 FORD F150 TRUCK, ON MARCH THE 4TH. 2005, AFTER A WIND STORM, I HAULED A LOAD OF TREE LIMBS TO MY BACK PASTURE, AS I WAS UNLOADING THEM FROM THE BACK OF MY TRUCK I NOTICED SMOKE ROLLING OUT FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF MY TRUCK, BEFORE I COULD MAKE A MOVE TO THE FRONT OF MY TRUCK THERE WERE FLAMES EVERYWHERE (THE GRASS HAD CAUGHT ON FIRE). I ESCAPED DANGER ONLY BECAUSE THERE WAS A HEAVY WIND OUT OF THE NW. MY TRUCK WAS TOTALLY BURNED UP, THE ENGINE WAS MELTED INTO A BALL OF METAL, ALL THE GLASS WAS MELTED TO NOTHING, ALL THE PAINT SEATS, TIRES AND DOORS WERE BURNED TO NOTHING, EVEN THE RINO BED IN THE BACK OF THE TRUCK WAS MELTED TO THE FLOOR OF THE BED. THE ONLY THING LEFT UNBURNED WAS THE TWO BACK TIRES. I HAD JUST DROPPED FULL COVERAGE ON MY TRUCK IN FEB. AFTER I BOUGHT A MOTOR HOME, AS I WAS ONLY PUTTING APPROX. 2000 MILES PER YEAR. ON THE TRUCK. NOW ALL IS FORGOTTEN AND I HAD TAKEN FULL LOSS ON THIS TRUCK UNTIL I RECEIVED THIS RECALL LETTER FROM FORD MOTOR CO. (05S28). WHAT HAPPENED TO MY TRUCK WAS EXACTLY AS DESCRIBED IN THE RECALL, SO I CONTACTED FORD MOTOR CO. TODAY I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM MICHAEL DIRKSEN, CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FORD MOTOR CO., (3136212816) TELLING ME THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CLAIM UNLESS I CAN SOMEHOW GET THIS PILE OF BURNT METAL TO A FORD DEALERSHIP AT MY COST AND HAVE IT REMOVED AT MY COST AFTER THEY SEND SOMEONE DOWN TO THE DEALERSHIP TO LOOK AT IT AND THEN REMOVE THE TRUCK AT MY COST WHEN THEY ARE THROUGH. JUST SEEMS KIND A FISHY TO ME. ANY IDEAS AS TO WHAT MY RECOURSE SHOULD BE. IT WILL PROBABLY COST ME $400. OR $500. DOLLARS TO GET THE TRUCK TO THEM AS THEY ARE APPROX. 35 MILES AWAY. THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE.

NHTSA complaint #10139072 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

Nampa, ID

TIRES:SIDEWALL

DT: CONTACT NOTICED A BUBBLE ON THE SIDE WALL OF THE LEFT REAR TIRE. TOOK THE TIRE OFF, AND CALLED THE MANUFACTURER TO GET THE WARRANTY SERVICE. THEY SENT HIM TO THE LOCAL SERVICE DEALER. WHEN THE DEALER TOOK THE TIRE OFF THE SIDEWALL SEPARATED AWAY FROM THE TIRE. CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER AGAIN, AND THEY PUT THE CONTACT IN TOUCH WITH THE SAFETY TECHNICIAN. CONTACT FELT THE COST OF THE REPLACEMENT TIRE INCREASED BECAUSE HE CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER. THE SERVICE DEALER PERFORMED A VISUAL INSPECTION AND CONCLUDED IT WAS A DEFECTIVE TIRE.

NHTSA complaint #10129726 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 138,000 miles Idaho Falls, ID

TIRES:TREAD/BELT

I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE HYWAY AT 65MPH. THE TREAD ON THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE CAME OFF. THE TIRE DID NOT EVEN GO FLAT. IT DESTROID BOTH THE INNER AND OUTER FENDER. THE TRUCK THAT I WAS DRIVING IS AN 1994 F250 4X4. THE TIRE WAS A FIRESTONE STEELTEX RADIAL A/T LT245/75R 16

NHTSA complaint #10128230 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 135,774 miles Benton, KY Fire

ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING:ENGINE

WHILE DRIVING OUR 1994 FORD F250, IT CAUGHT ON FIRE. THIS TRUCK WAS USED IN OUR BUSINESS AND WAS WELL TAKEN CARE OF WITH REGULAR MAINTENANCE PERFORMED. IT WAS A TOTAL LOSS ALONG WITH TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT USED IN OUR BUSINESS. WE REALIZE THIS IS NOT A RECALL YEAR, BUT APARENTLY THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

NHTSA complaint #10125606 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 85,000 miles Chesapeake, VA

FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE:STORAGE:TANK ASSEMBLY:FILLER PIPE AND CAP

FUEL FLOWING FROM FUEL TANK FILLER CAP. 1994 FORD F-250 WITH DUAL FUEL TANKS HAS CONDITION WHICH OVERFILLS TANK AND CAUSES STEADY FUEL FLOW FROM FILLER CAP. CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED REPLACING BOTH FUEL PUMP ASSEMBLIES. THERE ARE MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS OF THIS CONDITION IN THIS DATABASE, UNFORTUNATELY THEY ARE SPREAD THROUGH VARYING CATEGORIES. MANUFACTURER WARRANTED SAME CONDITION FOR PREVIOUS MODEL YEAR (1993) BUT WAS UNRESPONSIVE TO INQUIRIES REGARDING 1994 MODEL YEAR.

NHTSA complaint #10116910 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.

at 126,162 miles North Haven, CT

SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC:FOUNDATION COMPONENTS:HOSES, LINES/PIPING, AND FITTINGS

BRAKE FAILURE DUE TO CORROSION AND PERFERATION OF BRAKE LINE. NO ACTION TAKEN AT THIS TIME. WAITING FOR RESPONSE AND SUGGESTED ACTION TO BE TAKEN.

NHTSA complaint #10116677 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.