POWER TRAIN:AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION; POWER TRAIN:AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION:CONTROL MODULE (TCM/PCM/TECM)
2013 Ford F-150
Recalls, owner-reported complaints, investigations and safety data
Data refreshed
Overview
Our database contains 2,970 NHTSA owner-reported complaints for the 2013 Ford F-150, most frequently naming the powertrain (other), engine and brakes categories. 3 safety recalls have been issued covering this model year; 3 NHTSA investigations name it; and 141 manufacturer communications are on file.
Complaints are reports submitted by owners and drivers to NHTSA. They are not verified and do not establish that a defect exists.
Complaint activity over time
When owners filed reports about this model year
View as table
| Month | Complaints filed | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2021 | 11 | 1,988 |
| Oct 2021 | 12 | 2,000 |
| Nov 2021 | 11 | 2,011 |
| Dec 2021 | 11 | 2,022 |
| Jan 2022 | 15 | 2,037 |
| Feb 2022 | 13 | 2,050 |
| Mar 2022 | 17 | 2,067 |
| Apr 2022 | 12 | 2,079 |
| May 2022 | 15 | 2,094 |
| Jun 2022 | 6 | 2,100 |
| Jul 2022 | 11 | 2,111 |
| Aug 2022 | 20 | 2,131 |
| Sep 2022 | 21 | 2,152 |
| Oct 2022 | 8 | 2,160 |
| Nov 2022 | 20 | 2,180 |
| Dec 2022 | 14 | 2,194 |
| Jan 2023 | 20 | 2,214 |
| Feb 2023 | 14 | 2,228 |
| Mar 2023 | 18 | 2,246 |
| Apr 2023 | 6 | 2,252 |
| May 2023 | 14 | 2,266 |
| Jun 2023 | 6 | 2,272 |
| Jul 2023 | 17 | 2,289 |
| Aug 2023 | 19 | 2,308 |
| Sep 2023 | 24 | 2,332 |
| Oct 2023 | 14 | 2,346 |
| Nov 2023 | 14 | 2,360 |
| Dec 2023 | 7 | 2,367 |
| Jan 2024 | 9 | 2,376 |
| Feb 2024 | 21 | 2,397 |
| Mar 2024 | 19 | 2,416 |
| Apr 2024 | 15 | 2,431 |
| May 2024 | 19 | 2,450 |
| Jun 2024 | 44 | 2,494 |
| Jul 2024 | 29 | 2,523 |
| Aug 2024 | 27 | 2,550 |
| Sep 2024 | 18 | 2,568 |
| Oct 2024 | 22 | 2,590 |
| Nov 2024 | 13 | 2,603 |
| Dec 2024 | 17 | 2,620 |
| Jan 2025 | 19 | 2,639 |
| Feb 2025 | 10 | 2,649 |
| Mar 2025 | 40 | 2,689 |
| Apr 2025 | 28 | 2,717 |
| May 2025 | 25 | 2,742 |
| Jun 2025 | 29 | 2,771 |
| Jul 2025 | 26 | 2,797 |
| Aug 2025 | 15 | 2,812 |
| Sep 2025 | 14 | 2,826 |
| Oct 2025 | 14 | 2,840 |
| Nov 2025 | 9 | 2,849 |
| Dec 2025 | 13 | 2,862 |
| Jan 2026 | 14 | 2,876 |
| Feb 2026 | 11 | 2,887 |
| Mar 2026 | 16 | 2,903 |
| Apr 2026 | 22 | 2,925 |
| May 2026 | 12 | 2,937 |
| Jun 2026 | 14 | 2,951 |
| Jul 2026 | 16 | 2,967 |
| Aug 2026 | 3 | 2,970 |
What owners report
Complaints grouped by the component NHTSA recorded
- Powertrain (other)1,30335.3%
- Engine56415.3%
- Brakes3609.8%
- Driver assistance3369.1%
- Electrical3198.7%
- Steering2165.9%
- Visibility1905.2%
- Fuel system1594.3%
Percentages are of component mentions. A single complaint can name more than one component, so these do not sum to the total complaint count.
Safety recalls
3 campaigns cover this model year
Recalls apply to specific vehicles, not to every vehicle of a model year. Check your VIN with NHTSA or your manufacturer's dealer to confirm whether a recall affects your vehicle.
Check a VIN on NHTSA.govPOWER TRAIN:AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION; POWER TRAIN:AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION:CONTROL MODULE (TCM/PCM/TECM)
SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC:FLUID
Safety investigations
NHTSA inquiries naming this vehicle. An investigation is not a finding of a defect.
Unexpected Transmission Downshift
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.
Master Cylinder External Leak
On May 23, 2016, Ford Motor Company (Ford) submitted a Defect Information Report (DIR) to NHTSA regarding a master cylinder defect that could result in loss of the front brake circuit in approximately 225,012 model year 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with 3.5-liter GTDI engines and built at the Dearborn Truck Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 22, 2014; and the Kansas City Assembly Plant from August 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014 (NHTSA Recall #16V-345, Ford Recall #16S24).Ford indicated that the rearmost cup seal in the brake master cylinder may roll, resulting in leakage from the brake fluid reservoir to the brake booster.According to Ford's DIR, Depending on the amount of brake fluid loss from the brake master cylinder into the brake booster, the driver will experience an audible chime, message center alert, red brake warning light in the instrument cluster and may begin to experience a change in brake pedal travel and feel.In the event that a loss of brake fluid is substantial enough to reduce brake function to the front wheels, the driver may experience longer pedal travel, increased pedal effort, and extended stopping distance, increasing the risk of a crash.Full braking function would remain in the rear wheel brake circuit.Ford's recall will replace the master cylinder and, if the master cylinder is leaking, also replace the brake booster.Seventy-three (73) of the complaints received by ODI contained vehicle identification number (VIN) information required to determine date of build and recall applicability.ODI's analysis found that 66 complaints to ODI and 278 complaints to Ford involving vehicles built in the range covered by 16V-345, resulting in an overall complaint rate of 152.9 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Twelve (12) crash incidents were reported, including 11 with VIN information.All 11 crash incidents with VIN information reported involve vehicles covered by Ford's recall.ODI's analysis identified 7 ODI complaints and 36 Ford complaints in the 194,139 subject vehicles built outside of the build range for 16V-345, resulting in a complaint rate of 22.1 incidents per 100,000 vehicles.Ford indicated that warranty return analyses identified issues with minor internal leakage between circuits due to internal contamination caused by supplier assembly plant cleanliness concerns in these vehicles.Ford assessed the internal leak condition as an early-life condition with minimal safety risk that does not result in loss of fluid or circuit failure.ODI will continue to monitor complaints in subject vehicles not included in 16V-345.No complaints have been identified in MY 2013 through 2014 Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with other engine options.The recall action initiated by the manufacturer appears to address the safety risks identified by this investigation.This preliminary evaluation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchSafetylssues under the following identification numbers:10870768, 10870747, 10870511, 10870395, 10870055, 10869981, 10865843, 10865521, 10865342, 10865043, 10864862, 10864714, 10864360, 10863982, 10863527, 10862333, 10862047, 10861735, 10861190, 10860378, 10860118, 10855381, 10855356, 10854785, 10853751, 10853295, 10853012, 10852349, 10852134, 10852037, 10851317, 10851268, 10851109, 10850015, 10849862, 10846488, 10846335, 10846193, 10846006, 10840414, 10840377, 10839994, 10839985, 10839981, 10839833, 10839825, 10839816, 10838782, 10838510, 10818273, 10817706, 10809601, 10788886, 10788369, 10785526, 10779854, 10776834, 10766291, 10762034, 10761412, 10760663, 10758997, 10750065, 10749886, 107
Reduced power during hard acceleration
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
Recent owner complaints
Reports submitted to NHTSA, shown in the owner's own words
Brake master cylinder failed at only 98000 miles
- NHTSA ID
- 11756470
- Incident
- Aug 6, 2026
Right front brake continuously freezes up making impossible to drive safely. ABS does not show any default or warnings. Truck shakes all over. Had rotors, calibers, and brake pads replied, but right side brake continues to freeze up. Brake lines checked and show no signs of collapse.
- NHTSA ID
- 11754600
- Incident
- Aug 3, 2026
When backing up in reverse the parking camera goes black and this is a safety issue. It happens multiple times.
- NHTSA ID
- 11754314
- Incident
- Jul 1, 2026
The contact owns a 2013 Ford F-150. The contact stated that while driving at an undisclosed speed, the vehicle stalled in the middle of an intersection and was nearly involved in a crash. The vehicle restarted after approximately three minutes. The contact stated that the failure recurred on a second occasion. No warning lights were illuminated. The vehicle was taken to the dealer to be repaired under NHTSA Campaign Number: 19V075000 (Power Train); however, the dealer informed the contact that a liability waiver needed to be signed prior to servicing the vehicle. The contact declined to sign the waiver, stating that the requirement violated federal law regarding recall repairs. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. 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, but no assistance was provided. The failure mileage was approximately 195,000.
- NHTSA ID
- 11751897
- Incident
- Jul 21, 2026
- Mileage
- 195,000 mi
My teenage son bought a used 2013 Ford F-150 with 111,000 miles on it about a year and a half ago. It had been running fine up until about 3 months ago when he started having issues with the transmission intermittently jumping gears while he is driving. The vehicle jumps to 3rd and 5th gear out of nowhere and then doesn't come out of that gear. Even when you turn it off and back on, the vehicle will stay in 3rd or 5th gear and then randomly fix itself. There are other times where the vehicle will not come out of first gear. We brought the truck into a local repair shop and and the mechanic informed us that Ford had an Extended Warranty Program, campaign 19N01, that should cover this known safety issue. When we brought it into Ford they confirmed the issue qualified for the campaign but the truck was out of time so they would not cover the repair. This is tough to understand since the vehicle didn't show any issues related to the problem until after the time ran out. Also, when buying the vehicle, we ran the VIN to check for recalls and this issue did not show up. I find it interesting that they categorized it in a way that it would not show up on a recall list and someone buying a used truck would not be aware of this problem. This is a huge safety concern since he could be driving down the road, or even on the highway, and the truck could jump to 5th gear and then downshift to 3rd gear or even worse all the way down to 1st gear. Why isn't Ford being held accountable to fix these issues even if they show up 10 years after the manufacture date?
- NHTSA ID
- 11751768
- Incident
- Apr 13, 2026
The contact owns a 2013 Ford F-150. The contact stated that while driving 70 MPH, the vehicle unexpectedly downshifted into first gear, causing the rear wheels to lock up and slide, jerking the contact back and forth. The contact sustained pain in the neck, shoulders, and back. The check engine and power train warning lights were illuminated. The contact pulled over to the side of the road, and the vehicle was towed to the dealer, where it was diagnosed with molded leadframe failure; however, the contact was informed that the extended warranty coverage associated with the failure had expired. The vehicle was not yet repaired due to the cost. The manufacturer was notified of the failure, but no assistance was provided. The failure mileage was approximately 157,000.
- NHTSA ID
- 11751562
- Incident
- Jun 28, 2026
- Mileage
- 157,000 mi
Sudden and catastrophic master cylinder failure. Complete loss of brakes at speed
- NHTSA ID
- 11751407
- Incident
- Jul 19, 2026
Lead frame. It is currently scheduled to be replaced for ~$915. XXX- Vehicle suddenly downshifted hard into first gear, all gages dropped to 0 values and then remained in limp mode until powering it off and then back on. The wrench was lit up on the dash initially but went away with no code stored after restarting. XXX- Vehicle experienced sudden, hard downshift again, this time to third gear. Speedometer dropped to 0mph and odometer dropped to 0 miles. The wrench came on. The problem resolved after turning off and then restarting it. Again, no codes were found stored. XXX- The truck experienced the same symptoms again, but this time restarting it didn't help. The truck would stay in limp mode in either 1st or 3rd gear. I "limped" it to an Autozone while the wrench was still on the dash and the OBDII scanner found the codes P0720, P0722 and P0731. I limped it from there to XX Ford where they reprogrammed the transmission based on the 19S07 recall. After reprogramming it Waldorf Ford said it was still having issues and that diagnosing it would cost $199. I opted to take it to a trusted transmission shop around the corner (XXX transmissions in [XXX]) and had them diagnose it and now have the work scheduled to be performed. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
- NHTSA ID
- 11750518
- Incident
- Jul 7, 2026
Manufacturer communications
A bulletin sent by a manufacturer to its dealers. Not a recall, and repairs are not necessarily free.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Harvest Program 25H05 – Supplement #1 Certain 2011-2021 Model Year Vehicles Software Verification Harvest Program
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM; STRUCTURE:BODY
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
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
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.
WHEELS
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.
EQUIPMENT
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.
Manufacturers file copies of the bulletins they send to dealers with NHTSA. These often describe diagnostic or repair procedures for a known condition. They are not recalls: repairs described in a bulletin are usually only free if the vehicle is still under warranty or the manufacturer has extended coverage.
Compare model years
Complaint and recall counts across every year of this model
| Year | Complaints | Recalls | Investigations | Issue Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 4 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 2025 | 100 | 12 | 0 | 62.6 |
| 2024 | 183 | 10 | 0 | 68.1 |
| 2023 | 396 | 12 | 0 | 60.7 |
| 2022 | 574 | 23 | 2 | 68.2 |
| 2021 | 974 | 29 | 1 | 63.2 |
| 2020 | 709 | 11 | 1 | 64.2 |
| 2019 | 1,302 | 9 | 1 | 64.0 |
| 2018 | 2,265 | 19 | 2 | 66.3 |
| 2017 | 1,401 | 18 | 3 | 70.1 |
| 2016 | 2,010 | 14 | 4 | 67.5 |
| 2015 | 1,671 | 14 | 5 | 68.3 |
| 2014 | 1,515 | 8 | 2 | 62.6 |
| 2013Viewing | 2,970 | 3 | 3 | 61.0 |
| 2012 | 1,776 | 4 | 4 | 58.8 |
| 2011 | 2,184 | 6 | 4 | 58.8 |
| 2010 | 842 | 1 | 0 | 42.6 |
| 2009 | 324 | 2 | 0 | 50.5 |
| 2008 | 368 | 1 | 1 | 51.0 |
| 2007 | 488 | 7 | 1 | 59.4 |
| 2006 | 585 | 14 | 2 | 63.9 |
| 2005 | 1,112 | 14 | 3 | 62.1 |
| 2004 | 2,028 | 16 | 4 | 60.6 |
| 2003 | 422 | 11 | 3 | 66.8 |
| 2002 | 821 | 10 | 3 | 66.2 |
| 2001 | 1,236 | 19 | 6 | 70.9 |
| 2000 | 1,074 | 17 | 4 | 74.6 |
| 1999 | 1,044 | 18 | 5 | 65.6 |
| 1998 | 1,381 | 18 | 11 | 65.5 |
| 1997 | 2,758 | 26 | 18 | 66.9 |
| 1996 | 324 | 7 | 2 | 67.6 |
| 1995 | 626 | 7 | 1 | 64.4 |
| 1994 | 676 | 13 | 2 | 66.4 |
| 1993 | 586 | 13 | 2 | 60.0 |
| 1992 | 470 | 9 | 8 | 67.2 |
| 1991 | 304 | 6 | 12 | 68.8 |
| 1990 | 275 | 5 | 11 | 68.3 |
| 1989 | 224 | 4 | 5 | 67.8 |
| 1988 | 139 | 2 | 6 | 70.4 |
| 1987 | 91 | 3 | 2 | 71.1 |
| 1986 | 61 | 1 | 4 | 61.0 |
| 1985 | 28 | 1 | 2 | 60.8 |
| 1984 | 15 | 1 | 2 | 55.9 |
| 1983 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 59.8 |
| 1982 | 5 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1981 | 2 | 3 | 0 | — |
| 1980 | 3 | 4 | 0 | — |
| 1979 | 2 | 10 | 0 | — |
| 1978 | 4 | 10 | 0 | — |
| 1977 | 3 | 6 | 0 | — |
| 1976 | 0 | 2 | 0 | — |
| 1975 | 1 | 4 | 0 | — |
| 1973 | 0 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 1968 | 1 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1966 | 1 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1955 | 1 | 0 | 0 | — |
Higher-selling and older vehicles accumulate more reports. Counts are not failure rates and are not directly comparable between vehicles that sold in very different numbers. Older model years have had longer for reports to accumulate.