2016 Ford Edge

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

On October 3, 2024, NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened this Preliminary Evaluation to investigate instances of rear brake hose ruptures causing a sudden and unexpected loss of braking in model year (MY) 2015-2017 Ford Edge vehicles manufactured by Ford Motor Company. The complaints allege that, without warning, the vehicle lost its ability to brake causing an unanticipated increase in the vehicle’s stopping distance. The complaints also allege that, prior to the rear brake hose rupture event, the vehicle had been serviced under recall 20V-469. Recall 20V469 involved MY 2015-2018 Ford Edge and MY 2016-2018 Lincoln MKX vehicles which may experience front brake hose ruptures causing increased brake pedal travel and a reduction in the rate of deceleration. Ford identified the cause of this safety defect as a consistent localized failure of the internal reinforcement braid of the brake hose due to cyclic fatigue via tensile/bending and torsional inputs during suspension and steering articulations. Ford also identified that only 88% of suspension articulation was utilized on the front brake hose test rig during life cycle testing. These findings, along with ODI’s identification of an emerging trend involving rear brake hose ruptures, prompted the opening of this investigation. ODI identified 64 Vehicle Owners Questionnaires related to this investigation, 2 involving a crash. These consumers were interviewed and reported experiencing sudden loss of braking ability while traveling at low and highway speeds without any prior warning such as a “low brake fluid” warning indicator. Consumers reported that, as they tried to stop their vehicle, the brake pedal traveling to the floorboard and the vehicle required more stopping distance than anticipated or considered normal. Consumers also observed brake fluid present on the rear tires and roadway near the rear tires immediately after the incident. Some consumers provided photographs of the rear brake hose ruptures which depicted a similar rupture pattern and location (near the crimp on the dynamic section of the brake hose). 1 photograph showed an installation alignment mark pulled out near the crimp suggesting exposure to unanticipated tensile forces pulling the hose away from the crimp. During this investigation, Ford responded to Information Request Letters detailing information such as warranty claim data, brake hose specifications and engineering drawings, production part changes logs, and Ford’s assessments of potential root cause. Ford reported that the front and rear brake jounce hoses equipped on the subject vehicle population utilized the same construction and material. Therefore, Ford’s analysis consisted of a comparison between the front and rear hoses demonstrating that the rear hose bend radii in full jounce and full rebound were larger than the front hose. Ford also described that the two hoses are exposed to different loading environments as the rear brake hose is exposed to suspension inputs only, while the front hose is exposed to both suspension and steering inputs; thus, the rear hose is subjected to lower tension and fatigue loads. However, it is important to point out that larger bend radii alone do not necessarily mean a brake hose can withstand the dynamic loading requirements of a brake hose (as discussed earlier, the defect identified in the front brake hoses were attributed to the hose material). Rear brake hose failures were identified through exemplar vehicle and parts inspections conducted by NHTSA’s Vehicle Research and Testing Center. Ford stated that its investigation did not identify any specific or common root cause for this safety defect, and that brake hoses can fail for many reasons including contact with road debris, improper vehicle servicing, and fatigue, as well as vehicle age and miles in service. Based on its assessment of failure rates and warranty claims, Ford concluded that the rear brake hose ruptures did not present an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety because consumers would experience a progressive leak accompanied by a red brake warning indicator within the instrument panel and would not experience a total loss of braking due to the diagonally split brake system. Note that these assessments are contrary to the consumer experiences described above. As previously described, consumers described a sudden, unexpected loss of braking ability with no prior warning in their instrument cluster (not a progressive leak) and an increase in anticipated vehicle stopping distance (presenting an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety). ODI conveyed these perspectives and investigative findings to Ford during a technical discussion on July 23, 2025. On August 22, 2025, Ford submittedrecall 25V-544 which included MY 2015-2018 Ford Edge and MY 2016-2018 Lincoln MKX vehicles, for a total recall population of 499,129 vehicles. As described in the Part 573, in September 2024, Ford concluded that this concern did not present an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and closed its investigation into allegations involving rear brake jounce hose ruptures within this vehicle population. Ford reopened this investigation in July 2025 following the technical discussion with ODI referenced above. Ford identified the safety defect as a rupture of the rear brake jounce hose resulting in an increase in pedal travel and increase in vehicle stopping distance elevating the risk of a crash. To date, Ford has not fully determined the root cause of this safety defect and is currently working to develop a remedy program. In view of the recall action taken by Ford, ODI is closing this Preliminary Evaluation. The agency reserves the right to take additional action if warranted by future circumstances. To review the reports cited in the Closing Resume ODI Report Identification Number document, go to NHTSA.gov.

The contact owns a 2016 Ford Edge. The contact stated that the brake warning light illuminated while driving at an undisclosed speed. The contact was notified of NHTSA Campaign Number 25V544000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic); however, the part to do the recall repair was on back order. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic, who replaced the brake pads and brake lines. The vehicle was then taken to a local dealer, where an unknown diagnosis and repair were performed. The brake pads and brake lines had been replaced three times, but the failure persisted. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 160,000.

NHTSA ID

11756124

Incident

Jan 1, 2020

Mileage

160,000 mi

"Ford Emissions Recall 24E10 addresses defective factory PCM software parameters. This software defect caused unbalanced air-fuel ratios to ruin both catalytic converters on my 2016 Ford Edge (Bank 2 at 128k miles and Bank 1 at 157,552 miles). The dealership, [XXX] of [XXX], completed the 24E10 software flash under Repair Order #XXX, but Ford Corporate's SSSC portal (Contact ID: [XXX]) officially denied the consequential hardware replacement. They claim that because the new software prevents future codes, they are not responsible for the massive hardware degradation caused by forcing my engine to run on their old defective software for 157,000 miles before a fix was available. This is an attempt by Ford to evade financial responsibility for physical components destroyed by a known factory engineering defect." INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ID

11755562

Incident

Aug 7, 2026

The contact owns a 2016 Ford Edge. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V544000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic); however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The local dealer was contacted. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufacturer was not made aware of the issue. The contact had not experience a failure.

NHTSA ID

11755289

Incident

Aug 6, 2026

Confirmed Coolant intrusion into the cylinder. Low coolant level, white exhaust smoke, runs rough, code P0303

NHTSA ID

11753876

Incident

Jun 1, 2026

The vehicle shake while idling, and a check engine light indicating code P0302 (Cylinder 2 Misfire). After looking under the hood the engine cooling system was severely low on coolant, and a loud sloshing liquid noise could be heard behind the dashboard. The vehicle was brought to an authorized Ford dealership, where technicians confirmed internal EcoBoost coolant intrusion into Cylinder 2 as documented in Ford Technical Service Bulletin TSB 22-2229. This structural design flaw creates an immediate safety hazard, as the engine is at risk of catastrophic failure and stalling while operating at highway speeds.

NHTSA ID

11750718

Incident

Jun 12, 2026

The contact owns a 2016 Ford Edge. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V544000 (SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC); however, the part to do the recall repair was unavailable. The local dealer was contacted, and it was confirmed that the part was not yet available for the recall repair. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufacturer was made aware of the issue. The vehicle experienced the failure stated in the recall and the brake lines were replaced and the vehicle was repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 65,000.

NHTSA ID

11750201

Incident

Oct 10, 2025

Mileage

65,000 mi

The contact owns a 2016 Ford Edge. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, there was an abnormal sound coming from the vehicle. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic, where it was diagnosed with bearing failure. The contact was informed that the bearing needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired; however, the failure reoccurred. The vehicle was towed to the dealer, where it was diagnosed with a failed torque converter and transmission failure. The contact was informed that the transmission needed to be replaced. The vehicle was in the process of being repaired. The contact stated that the failure was a known failure with the vehicle. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 104,000.

NHTSA ID

11750103

Incident

Jul 2, 2026

Mileage

104,000 mi

The contact owns a 2016 Ford Edge. The contact received notification for NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V544000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic); however, the part to complete the recall repair was unavailable. A local dealer was contacted and confirmed that the part was unavailable. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time to perform the recall repair. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The contact stated that while stopped at a stop sign and depressing the brake pedal, the brake pedal extended to the floorboard and the vehicle failed to stop as intended. The failure mileage was 100,000.

NHTSA ID

11749300

Incident

Mar 10, 2026

Mileage

100,000 mi

Customer Satisfaction Program 25N15 - Supplement #1 Certain 2015-2019 Model Year Multiple Vehicle Lines Rear View Camera Inspection For One-Time Replacement

Ford and Lincoln vehicles equipped with wired keyless entry keypad systems and accessory wireless keyless entry keypad systems may or may not come with a wallet card containing the master code. Unlike the integrated wired keypad, the accessory wireless keypad master code cannot be retrieved from the vehicle using a diagnostic scan tool or from the label printed on the body control module (BCM). The Factory Keyless Entry Code application within the diagnostic scan tool will not provide an applicable master code for the accessory wireless keypad. If the wallet card for an accessory keypad is not available, the "Wireless RF Keypad Diagnosis Guide" can be referenced and provides direction on how to retrieve the master code. This guide is located under the Workshop Manual tab > Accessories > Installation > Wireless RF Keypad Diagnosis Guide > PPT C > Step C2.<br /><br /> Note: The only available keypad for some vehicles from the assembly plant is the accessory wireless keyless entry keypad. The integrated wired keypad cannot be installed on vehicles not equipped from the factory with a wired keyless entry k

Some 2016-2017 Edge/MKX, 2017 Continental/Fusion/MKZ vehicles equipped with a 2.7L or 3.0L EcoBoost engine and built on 1-Apr-2016 and through 1-Jan-2017 may exhibit white or blue smoke from the exhaust, rough idle in neutral or park at normal operating temperature or after a hot restart. The vehicle may also exhibit an illuminated malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) with diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs) P0300, P0301, P0302, P0303, P0304, P0305, P0306 and/or P0316, P0524 and/or P06DD with excessive oil consumption. Oil consumption may be 1 Liter (1 quart) in less than 4,800 km (3,000 miles). This may be due to the valve guides. To correct the condition replace the cylinder heads. During service and repair, achieving proper torque of the crankshaft pulley bolt is critical. Incorrect torque may allow the bolt to loosen resulting in timing gear failure and engine damage. Replacement of the bolt is critical to the repair. The bolt requires a 4 stage torque procedure. Hold the pulley using a universal holding tool OTC 4754 or equivalent. Refer to Workshop Manual, Section 303-01. The bolt torque procedure can be

This article supersedes TSB 24-2165 to update the TSB Service Procedure. Some vehicles listed in the Model statement above may exhibit various SYNC performance related concerns including but not limited to:  Display operation concerns  Navigation inoperative  Voice recognition concerns  Phone connection issues  Dropped phone connections  Applink related performance  Travel Link not present or showing incorrect traffic  Slow system response NOTE: Ford has found some of the APIMs replaced and returned for inspection contained an outdated software level and the APIM did not require replacement. The customer concern may have been resolved by updating the APIM with latest level of software. The SYNC 3 universal thumb drive will be able to update the APIM software without the use of a scan tool and does not require the process to be monitored. Ford will be monitoring APIM replacements to confirm TSB directed software updates have been performed.

Some 2015-2021 Ford and Lincoln vehicles may exhibit an illuminated MIL with diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs) P0011, P0012, P0014, P0015, P0016, P0017, P0018, P0019, P0021, P0022, P0024 and/or P0025. Pinpoint test HK in the Powertrain Control and Emissions Diagnosis (PC/ED) or in Section 303-14 of the Workshop Manual (WSM) has been updated to address this concern.

This article supersedes TSB 24-2345 to update the Service Procedure. Some of the vehicles listed in the Model statement above may exhibit an oil leak from the engine oil pan RTV seal. This may be due to a lack of RTV adhesion.