2011 Ford F-150

The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation based on consumer allegations of transmissions unexpectedly downshifting to a lower gear without input from the driver on model year (MY) 2011-2013 Ford F-150, Expedition and Navigator vehicles. ODI has received 455 unique reports related to the alleged problem that were not covered under a previous recall for this issue (16V-248).Expedition and Navigator complaint rates are lower than F-150 complaints. Of those 455 reports, 34.7% claimed that the rear wheels locked up when the transmission downshifted. There were 4 accident claims with no injuries. There are many instances where drivers report leaving their lane or the road because of this issue.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 783 unique reports related to the alleged problem. There were 6 accident claims with 3 injuries. Ford also submitted 1206 warranty claims related to transmission downshifting failures. The failure can occur at any time, but typically at higher speed, and include symptoms such as sudden transmission downshifting, loss of speedometer, erratic shifting of transmission, and transmission stuck in one gear. The failures typically occur without warning and may result in the rear wheels momentarily locking up. The driver often had to fully stop the vehicle and restart it to get the vehicle to shift properly.On February 2nd, 2019 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (19V-075) to remedy transmission downshifting failures on all 2011-2013 F-150 vehicles. Ford will also offer extended warranties to 2011-2013 Expedition and Navigator vehicles with the same issue. Per Ford, some vehicles may experience an intermittent loss of Transmission Output Speed Sensor (OSS) signal to the Powertrain Control Module (PCM), potentially resulting in a temporary unintended downshift into first gear. Ford will reprogram the PCM with software that will prevent an unintended downshift into first gear and illuminate the Malfunction Indicator Light in the event of an intermittent OSS signal loss.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.

On February 15, 2016, Ford Motor Company initiated Customer Satisfaction Program 15N05 to extend warranty coverage for the electric vacuum pump in certain model year (MY) 2011 through 2012 Ford F-150 pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engines.The program extends coverage for up to 10 years of service or 150,000 miles from the warranty start date of the vehicle, all vehicles are eligible for the program through July 30, 2016 regardless of mileage.Ford's program covers all repairs related to electric vacuum pump (EVP) malfunctions including excessive noise, vibration, or change in brake pedal feel while applying the brakes at cold start. Ford states that the engine intake manifold is the primary source of vacuum for the brake booster and is fully compliant to motor vehicle safety standards without the supplemental vacuum supplied by the EVP.The company also contends that failure modes related to the EVP are progressive and provide warning to operators by way of noise and vibration before an operator to experience any temporary change in brake pedal feel.ODI's analysis of warranty data found that the majority of claims involved consumer concerns with EVP noise or vibration from the left front fender area when the vehicle is first started. Continued operation in this mode with pump motor noise will eventually result in the EVP seizing or becoming non-functional.Component failure analysis indicated that Ford and its supplier, Continental, identified a pump crank drive corrosion condition due to moisture entry through the vacuum intake.Corrosion damage to EVP internal components may eventually result in a blown fuse in the power distribution box and total loss of EVP function.Analysis of consumer complaints, field reports, and warranty data related to EVP failures found thatincidents predominantly occurred in driveways and parking lots in the periods immediately after cold engine starts.Many consumers operated their vehicle for some period of time with a blown EVP fuse without realizing that the pump had failed or that the vehicle had a brake system malfunction.Consumers who did experience braking performance issues reporteda temporary hard brake pedal condition at start-up followed by more consistent normal pedal feel after few seconds.On June 22, 2015, Ford developed a remedy procedure and issued TSB 15-0105 instructing dealers to replace the vacuum pump and install a new vacuum pump harness kit. In addition to reviewing test data submitted by Ford, ODI assessed safety risks associated with the alleged defect under various operating conditions, including: 1) baseline system performance with full engine and EVP vacuum available using exemplar parts, 2) disabled EVP and booster vacuum regulated to simulate worst case conditions for engine intake manifold vacuum supply to the brake booster (approximately 300 mbar); and 3) all source vacuum to the brake booster removed and Optimized Hydraulic Braking (OHB) mode active to represent complete loss of brake booster function (note: this condition is a more severe brake boost system failure mode than the alleged defect).ODI also analyzed all complaints and warranty claims to identify incidents alleging brake system performance concerns related to EVP failures.These analyses identified no brake performance issues or resulting changes in stopping distances either on highway or city traffic conditions.Two complaints alleging EVP malfunctions caused or contributed to rear-end collisions during attempted decelerations from road speeds are not believed to be related to the alleged defect.The EVP provides supplemental vacuum during initial start-up and idle

On June 22, 2015, the Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) opened Preliminary Evaluation PE15-026 to investigate incidents of increased brake pedal effort at cold start and extended stopping distance while driving in traffic, resulting from failures of the electric brake vacuum assist pump in model year (MY) 2011-2012 Ford F-150 pickup trucks equipped with 3.5L GTDI engines. In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) for PE15-026, Ford provided ODI with 396 complaints and field reports relating to incidents of increased brake pedal effort or malfunctions in the electric vacuum pump (EVP). ODI's analysis of the data provided by Ford identified 7 crashes and 1,851 warranty claims related to either a hard brake pedal condition or reduced brake effectiveness. Additionally, ODI identified one report in its database alleging an injury to an occupant of a vehicle struck in the rear by a subject F-150 vehicle with a failed EVP as documented in the police accident report referencing a dealer assessment of the pump.According to Ford, the subject vehicles utilize a traditional brake vacuum booster to provide power assist for braking and the EVP is intended to operate to maintain consistent brake pedal feel. The engine intake manifold is the primary source of vacuum for the booster and is fully compliant to motor vehicle safety standards without the EVP. Ford described the conditions related to a change in brake pedal feel as limited and temporary and provided component failure analysis showing evidence of water entry into the EVP which caused internal pump corrosion. Ford indicated that the EVP failure mode is progressive and provides warning to operators by way of noise and vibration before an operator is likely to experience any temporary change in brake pedal feel. Damage to the EVP motor bearing may eventually result in a blown EVP fuse and total loss of EVP function. Ford provided test data showing the brake pedal forces and pedal travel curves over time for 0.3g decelerations to a stop from 80kph (50mph) for: 1) normal system (full engine and EVP vacuum available); 2) Ford's approximation of worst case booster performance with EVP failure (EVP disabled and booster vacuum regulated to 300mbar to simulate cold start, all accessory loads on, and starting at 0 vacuum); and 3) with all source vacuum to the brake booster removed and Hydraulic Boost Compensation (HBC) active to represent complete loss of brake booster function. The Ford tests showed that the brake pedal forces required for achieving the 0.3g decelerations were relatively low for the normal condition, 35-40 N (8-9 lbf), increased by approximately 2-3 times normal when the EVP is disabled, 75-115 N (17-26 lbf), and increased by about 5-6 times normal for the complete brake booster failure condition, 205-215 N (46-48 lbf). This Preliminary Evaluation has been upgraded to Engineering Analysis (EA15-006) to test for EVP malfunctions under other vehicle operating conditions (e.g., low-speed driveway braking after cold-start with failed EVP), potential human factors contributions and to further assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The VOQs associated with the opening of this investigation are:10565994, 10575987, 10598351, 10604687, 10605701, 10607811, 10610491, 10615536, 10617828, 10619545, 10643075, 10650578, 10662151, 10664415, 10666988, 10668069, 10678844, 10695537, 10700874, 10706217, 10706271, 10712465, 10723033, 10723792, 10726960, 10730549, 10730721, 10730735, 10730837, 10730909, 10731008, 10731135, 10731157, 10731165, 10731395, 10731758, 10732609, 10732878, 10733375, 10733804, 10734558, 10734613, 10743859, 10744214, 10

On May 22, 2013, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened PE13-018 to investigate 95 complaints alleging incidents of reduced engine power during hard accelerations in model year (MY) 2011 through 2013 Ford F-150 trucks.ODI was aware of three technical service bulletins (TSBs) issued by Ford for a condition that was related to moisture accumulation in the Charge Air Cooler (CAC) for the turbochargers.A Preliminary Evaluation was opened to gather information to assess whether the subject vehicles contain a safety related defect.The subject vehicles are powered by Ford?s 3.5L EcoBoost engine which uses twin turbochargers to obtain a balance of fuel economy and engine power based on the driver?s demand.When the driver requests more power from the engine, as in accelerating to pass, merge, ascend hills or haul a load the two turbochargers will spin up compressing the air which is then used to increase the power created by the combustion in the engine.The compressed air, which gains heat by the compression process, is passed through a Charge Air Cooler (CAC) which is designed to lower the temperature of the air in order to make the combustion process even more efficient (Figures 1 and 2).In response to ODI?s Information Request letter, Ford indicated that a misfire condition could occur after steady-speed operation under significantly humid and rainy conditions.Ford?s analysis found that under those conditions, condensation could form and accumulate on the inside of the CAC tubes which could then be ingested into the engine during particularly hard acceleration near wide-open throttle.An engine misfire of up to three cylinders could occur if the amount of condensed water released from the CAC exceeded the engine?s operating threshold for water ingestion.Ford noted that due to regulations set by the EPA, the powertrain software would disable up to two of the misfiring cylinders for no more than 30 seconds and until the driver tips out the throttle in order to protect the catalytic converter from damage. Ford?s testing of this condition on the subject vehicles showed that a vehicle experiencing such a condition would continue to maintain its speed as well as accelerate, albeit at a lower rate than expected by the driver.Similar results were obtained in testing done by NHTSA?s Vehicle Research and Testing Center in East Liberty, Ohio (Figure 6).In an ongoing process to address the problem Ford issued a series of TSBs where a deflector shield was installed onto the CAC (Figures 3, 4 and 5).In January 2014 Ford indicated that its data shows that the TSBs have been effective in resolving the problem, that for the MY 2013 vehicles their remedy is 100% effective and the latest TSBs for MY 2011 ? 2012 are 95% effective.The 525 complaints to ODI and the total 4,120 unique VIN complaints listed in the Failure Report are incidents of alleged reduced power or driveability symptoms and not all are necessarily related to the condition created by water ingestion.Reduced power conditions can occur for a variety of reasons including faults with ignition coils, spark plugs, a catalytic converter, the throttle body, turbocharger, fuel pump/filter, powertrain control module (hardware or software) or transmission shifting problems.Ford also noted that in a large number of warranty claims on the subject vehicles, the CAC was replaced or a TSB procedure was performed when the symptoms exhibited were inconsistent with a CAC water ingestion related issue.Given these circumstances, further use of the agency resources in this matter does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of

The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. While driving 50 MPH, the transmission unexpectedly downshifted into first gear and the rear wheels locked up. The contact stated that while in third gear, the vehicle shifted to fourth gear unexpectedly. The transmission failed to shift above fifth gear. The contact stated that the transmission failed to shift out of first gear. After turning off the vehicle, the vehicle resumed normal operation. The check engine warning light was illuminated, and the wrench symbol was displayed. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic, and the failure was associated with the sensor. The transmission sensor was replaced; however, the failure reoccurred. The failure persisted over time. The local dealer was contacted, but the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was contacted and opened a case and confirmed that the vehicle was previously repaired in 2017 under NHTSA Campaign Number: 16V248000 (Power Train). The manufacturer declined to provide any additional assistance. The failure mileage was approximately 159,599.

NHTSA ID

11755860

Incident

Apr 25, 2026

Mileage

159,599 mi

The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated that upon starting the vehicle or while driving at various speeds, the instrument panel intermittently went blank. The contact used an OBD machine to retrieve a fault code related to the Output Shaft Speed (OSS) sensor. The contact was informed that the OSS sensor needed to be replaced. The dealer was notified of the failure but provided no assistance. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure mileage was unknown.

NHTSA ID

11752386

Incident

Jun 29, 2026

Transmission software safety recall was identified due and performed by Phil Long Ford Pro team. Following the software update they vehicle 2011 F150 Raptor [XXX] developed shifting issues 4th-5th gear and 5th-6th gear shifting. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ID

11750404

Incident

Feb 12, 2026

The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated that while driving 65 MPH, the transmission unexpectedly downshifted into low gear, and the rear wheels locked up. There was no warning light illuminated. The vehicle lost traction and slid uncontrollably before coming to a stop on the side of the road. The vehicle was towed to a dealer, where it was diagnosed and determined that the rear differential needed to be replaced. The VIN was included in NHTSA Campaign Number: 19V075000 (Power Train); however, the vehicle was not repaired because the manufacturer required that the owner pay out-of-pocket for the rear differential replacement, even though the rear differential failure was directly associated with the recall. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 300,000.

NHTSA ID

11750320

Incident

Jun 3, 2026

Mileage

300,000 mi

The contact owns a 2011 Ford F-150. The contact stated that while his fiancé was stopped at a stop sign, the vehicle accelerated violently after depressing the accelerator pedal, and the driver lost control of the vehicle. The vehicle continued accelerating while depressing the brake pedal. The contact stated that the vehicle crashed through a yard, into a road sign, before crashing into the rear of a parked vehicle, where the vehicle came to a stop. The contact stated that the air bags failed to deploy upon impact. The driver sustained whiplash and soreness in various parts of the body but had not sought medical attention. A Police report was filed. The road sign was damaged. The driver coasted the vehicle back to the residence before the vehicle was towed to an independent mechanic. A diagnostic test was performed on the vehicle; however, the mechanic was unable to determine the cause of the failure or duplicate the failure. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and provided a case number. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 120,000.

NHTSA ID

11749933

Incident

Jul 5, 2026

Mileage

120,000 mi

While driving at highway speed my f150 justdown shited to third gear after stoopping it wouldn't take off.Ihad to shut engine off to get back to first gear .

NHTSA ID

11749133

Incident

Jul 8, 2026

Made a complete stop and vehicle accelerated at a high rate of speed and could not stop.

NHTSA ID

11748976

Incident

Jul 5, 2026

I am having a lead frame issue. At various speeds, the vehicle will just down shift, locking the tires and causing a hazard for other drivers which could be a very dangerous situation. I was impacted from the rear due to this occurrence. It causes extreme jerkiness when doing this which is also injurious to my back and neck and shoulders.

NHTSA ID

11743046

Incident

Jun 8, 2026

Harvest Program 25H05 – Supplement #1 Certain 2011-2021 Model Year Vehicles Software Verification Harvest Program

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

This is a proactive investigation program by Ford Motor Company to inspect a limited number of affected vehicles that are customer-owned. Ford is voluntarily conducting this program to evaluate the software currently installed on one or more electronic modules in the affected vehicles.

This article supersedes TSB 22-2219 to update the Parts List and Service Procedure to clarify applicable steps by vehicle application. Some 2003-2020 Expedition/Navigator and 2006-2020 F-150 (non-Raptor) vehicles equipped with 4WD may exhibit grinding/clicking/ratcheting noise from the front wheel area. This may be due to partial engagement of the integrated wheel ends (IWE). To correct this condition, follow the Service Procedure to remove and cap the vacuum supply line or to reprogram the transfer case control module (TCCM) and replace any worn vacuum and/or IWE components.

All accessory stick-on keyless entry keypads come with a wallet card containing the master code. If the accessory keypad was factory installed, this card will be placed in the glove box and should be handed to the vehicles owner during initial delivery. Unlike the integrated (wired) factory keypad, the accessory keypad master code cannot be retrieved from the vehicle using a diagnostic scan tool. If the wallet card for an accessory keypad is lost, follow these steps to recover the code. Dealer Key Code access is granted through the Dealer Program Enrollment System (DPES); dealership management can authorize users. The authorized user must go to FMCDealer.com > Parts and Service > Parts Product Line Information > Keys/Entry Devices > Aftermarket Keyless Entry Keypad Code Access. Follow the instructions on the screen to obtain the master code for the accessory keypad.

Some 2011-2024 Mustang and F-150 vehicles equipped with a 5.0L engine may exhibit a tick tap and/or typewriter ticking noise at idle after an engine oil change. It is often referred to as typewriter noise because of its similarity to the sound of a mechanical typewriter. The noise in question may be heard on some engines when engine temperatures reach 150°F (65°C) or higher and engine speed is at idle up to approximately 1700 RPM. It can typically be heard at the front wheel well and is often isolated to the transmission bell housing or oil pan area. The typewriter noise tick rate can be faster or slower and is not detrimental to the engine function or durability and has no short or long term effects on the engine. This an operating characteristic of the 5.0L engine and no repairs should be attempted. This information along with an example audio clip has been added to the WSM Section 303-00 Engine System  General Information > Diagnosis and Testing > Engine > PPT F > Step F2.