2017 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 2017 Ford Edge. While the contact's wife was driving at an undisclosed speed, the engine seized. No warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was towed to the dealer, where it was diagnosed with engine failure. The contact was informed that the engine needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired. The contact stated that two months later, while the contact's wife was driving at an undisclosed speed, the brake pedal was depressed; however, the vehicle failed to stop as intended. The vehicle was taken to Firestone, where the vehicle was diagnosed with failed rear flexible brake hoses. The contact's wife was informed that the rear flexible brake hoses needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired. The contact stated that two weeks later, while the contact's wife was driving at an undisclosed speed, the accelerator pedal was depressed, and the vehicle failed to accelerate as intended. The contact stated that the vehicle failed to move forward or backwards. No warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was towed to the dealer, where it was diagnosed with transmission failure. The contact was informed that the transmission needed to be replaced. The vehicle was repaired. The contact stated that two weeks later, while driving at an undisclosed speed, the steering wheel failed to steer in the intended direction. In addition, the electrical features were disabled and the engine seized. The vehicle was towed to the dealer; however, the failure was not diagnosed. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V544000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic); however, the part to do the recall repair was unavailable. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 50,000.

NHTSA ID

11756328

Incident

May 20, 2026

Mileage

50,000 mi

2017 FORD EDGE WITH APPX. 82,000 MILES DIAGNOSED WITH COOLANT INTRUSION IN # 3 CYCLINDER (FORD 2.0 LITTER MOTOR)

NHTSA ID

11754456

Incident

Aug 3, 2026

I HAVE A KNOWN ISSUE OF COOLANT INTRUSION IN CYLINDER 2 FORD HAS A TSB 19-2346 AND ARE AWARE OF THE ISSUE I AM ALSO AWARE OF MILLER VS FORD WICH WAS SETTLED JUNE 22, 2026 DUE TO THE SAME ISSUE I AM LOOKING FOR A GOODWILL ENGINE REPLACEMENT FROM FORD.

NHTSA ID

11753937

Incident

Jul 24, 2026

Problem: Rear brake flexible hose leak. The right rear flexible brake hose failed as I was driving home. The brake pedal went to the floor. Fortunately, that only occurred one block from my home. I parked my car in my driveway and looked for the source of the problem. My initial thought was that my brake master cylinder may have failed, so I added DOT4 brake fluid to the brake fluid reservoir. The fluid immediately drained to the right rear tire and on to the ground. I did an internet search and discovered the recall. On XXX I called my local dealer (Bob Bell Ford, [XXX]) and the lady confirmed that the flexible brake hose for the recall was NOT available. I asked her to document my phone call and concern. Ford's own web site stated that my vehicle has a Ford recall campaign dated 2025-08-25, Campaign 25S87/25V544. Rear flexible brake hose leak. This is a SAFETY issue. I was advised to get the flexible brake line replaced at an independent repair shop and provide the receipts to them for possible reimbursement from Ford. I was informed that the recall has NOT officially been issued and that I should receive notification in September 2026. On XXX called Ford HQ on their Customer Service line. They recorded my VIN. The lady informed me that the flexible brake line was not available and to wait for the official recall notice. I stated to her, in other words, my car should be a paper weight that can't be used. She understood my concern. The only way that Ford would reimburse me would be if the work was done by a Ford dealer, using Ford parts (that's currently impossible). I advised that I had no choice but to take it to an independent repair shop and use aftermarket parts to get the SUV back on the road. She said that she would advise her superiors of my concern. On XXX, my SUV was towed on a flatbed to Prince's Tire and Auto Service Pasadena MD for repair. On XXX Prince's CONFIRMED that the right rear flexible brake hose had failed. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.

NHTSA ID

11753501

Incident

Jul 21, 2026

Over several days prior to 2/10/2026, my vehicle showed continuous brake fluid loss, brake fluid warning light illumination, and significantly increased pedal travel, causing extended stopping distance and near loss of braking. On 2/10/2026 I brought the vehicle to AutoNation Ford Frisco (WO #963104); their OASIS report confirmed open recall 25S87 — rear brake flexible hose leak — on my VIN. The advisor confirmed no remedy was available and advised against driving until Ford released a fix. Because this was my only vehicle and it was unsafe to operate, I had no option but to take it to an independent shop, which confirmed and repaired the failed rear brake hose. This defect posed a serious risk of extended stopping distance and reduced braking capability, endangering myself and others on the road. Documentation (dealer work order, OASIS report, repair invoice) available upon request. Total out-of-pocket cost: $959.60

NHTSA ID

11753277

Incident

Feb 10, 2026

The contact owns a 2017 Ford Edge. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the low brake fluid warning light illuminated. The brake fluid reservoir was refilled; however, the failure reoccurred. The dealer was made aware of the failure. The vehicle was scheduled for a diagnostic test within several days. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired by an independent mechanic or dealer. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 25V544000 (Service Brakes, Hydraulic); however, the part to do the recall repair was unavailable. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 90,000.

NHTSA ID

11752057

Incident

Jul 19, 2026

Mileage

90,000 mi

My motor failed me in my 2017 ford edge 2.0. Very bad misfire from the famous coolent problem caused by Fords decision to make a bad design with coolent ports between the cylinders, that as had my car bucking and was actually very dangerous on the highway i broke down on. Almost cause a accident. When this happen i lost brakes for a second. Car was clunking and bucking do to the motor not running probably with the misfire and motor filled with coolent.. I have 90k miles on this car. Ridiculous. There's no recall yet which is very unprofessional on ford end to make people pay for this fix that is uncontrollable and very pricey

NHTSA ID

11752004

Incident

Jun 5, 2026

I just bought this used ford edge for my high school daughter. I took it to two different mechanics. Both indicated misfiring happening which means need a new engine. Mechanics said this is widely known issue. Why can dealers sell these cars with a widely known defect. This will create undue financial hardship to me and my family. My stress and anxiety are terrible on this issue.

NHTSA ID

11751958

Incident

Jul 14, 2026

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.