2012 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 2012 Ford F-150. The contact stated that while driving approximately 60-70 MPH, the transmission unexpectedly downshifted into first gear. The transmission warning light was intermittently illuminated. The vehicle was taken to an O'Reilly Auto Parts Store and DTC: P0717 (Input/Turbine Shaft Speed Sensor A) and C2775 (Electronic Stability Program / Traction Control System) was retrieved. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact related the failure to NHTSA Campaign Number: 19V075000 (Power Train); however, the VIN was not included in the recall. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was unknown.

NHTSA ID

11755277

Incident

Jul 1, 2026

At approximately 146,451 miles, the transmission molded leadframe on my 2012 Ford F-150 failed while I was driving approximately 60 mph on a highway. Without warning, the transmission harshly downshifted, the truck lost power, the speedometer stopped working, the wrench warning light came on, the seat belt warning light illuminated, and the transmission entered fail-safe (limp) mode. I could not maintain highway speed. This created a serious safety hazard. The unexpected downshift and sudden loss of power in moving traffic could have caused a crash. I was fortunate that no vehicle was directly behind me when the failure occurred. After a diagnostic code appeared, I identified the problem with my own code reader, and a Ford dealership confirmed the failure was the transmission molded leadframe. Ford declined to cover the repair because its Customer Satisfaction Program had expired. They acknowledged that it was a defective part, though. This leaves me paying to replace a part they know is defective and is highly severe and extremely dangerous, as it presents an immediate risk of a high-speed crash. I believe this is a serious safety defect because it can occur without warning and cause an unexpected downshift, sudden loss of power, loss of the speedometer, and fail-safe transmission operation while the vehicle is moving. I don't have the part, but I can ask that they save it. The vehicle has only been inspected by 2 dealerships. One diagnosed the issue. Again, no warning lights that the part was failing until it actually failed. That led to the first dealership misdiagnosing the issue. I believe this is a serious defect and can cause crashes, injury, or fatalities.

NHTSA ID

11753563

Incident

Jul 23, 2026

In my F 150 with41,000 miles on it I was traveling down a road about 45 mph and all of a sudden transmission went from 6th gear to first gear . This was a stressful situation as my dog got slammed around and I was stunned as the engine was revving high rpm and truck could only go 10mph. If i had been on a busy highway or interstate then it might’ve cost my dog and I’s lives! There was a car behind me going same speed and good thing he was paying attention or there would’ve been a bad rear end accident . I tried driving it locally at low speeds but it keeps doing it so basically an unsafe truck that I can’t use. I see numerous recalls for other years 2015i-17 and one for 2014 but none currently for my 2012. Please research and advise when you can. Thx [XXX] And just to be clear this is a dangerous safety recall need not a CSP solution. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ID

11752364

Incident

Jun 2, 2026

The contact owns a 2012 Ford F-150. The contact stated that while the vehicle was parked, the contact was unable to unlock the door while using the remote unlock feature. The lights to indicate that the vehicle was unlocked flashed, but the contact was unable to open the door. Additionally, the contact attempted to open the door manually right after using the key, but the door failed to open. The dealer was not contacted. The manufacturer was not aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 147,000.

NHTSA ID

11751067

Incident

Jul 17, 2026

Mileage

147,000 mi

Just had another incident where driving along about 30mph and all of a sudden vehicle slams into first gear from 4th gear. Luckily neither I or my dog was injured. And also lucky that another vehicle wasn’t following closely as this safety issue could easily cause a rear end collision. I have reported this to Ford customer support and their corporate office. This is a safety defect from years ago that wasn’t fixed from 2 other recalls. There are a lot of Ford F150 owners from many different gens and years now once again having this same dangerous issue. Ford refuses to my 012 F150 and says they closed the recall in 2019 and now address it as a Customer Service Program which they then put a ten year warranty/150k miles on. Well that might’ve been fair but they backdated that warranty to when truck was originally sold- well that unfair and unethical attempt to make trucks from 2015 and older pay for the lead frame replacement and updated software correction… I’ve heard it costs $1300 and up depending on which Ford Dealership is used. Now to add to their unfair and costly solution out of the blue they have decided to cover 2014 trucks on a new safety recall. Why not cover all 12th generation F150s experiencing this dangerous issue? Why are us 012 and 013 affected owners being discriminated against??Please investigate this sneaky, haphazard program for me. I just tried again to drive my truck but after driving 2 miles and shutting truck off then starting and driving it goes backfrom 3rd to first gear. Please advise . Ford has now issued at least 3 different recalls since 2015 and none of them have been a permanent, safe solution.

NHTSA ID

11750895

Incident

Jun 2, 2026

Backup camera interments . I have original stereo and system. No aftermarket components to effect backup camera

NHTSA ID

11749088

Incident

Jun 1, 2026

The contact owns a 2012 Ford F-150. The contact stated that the vehicle was previously serviced under NHTSA Campaign Number: 19V075000 (Power Train), but the failure persisted. The contact stated while driving at 40 MPH, the transmission would unexpectedly downshift from sixth gear to first gear. The dealer was contacted; however, the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 40,500.

NHTSA ID

11748750

Incident

Jun 27, 2026

Mileage

40,500 mi

I am filing this complaint because I believe I was the victim of odometer fraud in connection with the purchase of a vehicle from a private seller. At the time of the sale, I relied on the odometer reading and the seller’s representations about the vehicle’s mileage. After purchasing the vehicle, I discovered evidence indicating that the odometer had been rolled back by approximately 90,000 miles. I was not informed of any mileage discrepancy before the sale, and I would not have purchased the vehicle, or would have paid significantly less, had I known the vehicle’s true mileage. Because of the apparent odometer rollback, the vehicle’s value has been substantially reduced, and I have suffered financial harm. I am requesting that this matter be investigated and that any appropriate action be taken under applicable odometer fraud laws. I am also seeking reimbursement or other appropriate relief for my losses. I have attached copies of the documents and evidence I have available, including the title, bill of sale (if applicable), vehicle history information, communications with the seller, and any other documentation supporting my complaint.

NHTSA ID

11747594

Incident

Jan 21, 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.

While performing a transmission repair on some 2012-2024 Ford and Lincoln vehicles, a transmission seal kit may be on backorder due to supply chain interruptions. While performing a transmission repair on some 2012-2024 Ford and Lincoln vehicles, a transmission seal kit may be on backorder due to supply chain interruptions.

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.