Ford Bronco 1981

• Recall 71942 [USA]: A leaking fuel pump could create a vehicle fire hazard.
  Certain federal-mogul aftermarket fuel pumps sold under the brand names of carter, accuflow, napa, truflow, parts depo, and parts master, shipped between august 2006 and july 2007 for use on the vehicles listed above. The fuel pump diaphragm in certain production runs may have been improperly installed or inadequately tested which may cause the fuel pump to leak.
  federal-mogul will notify owners and replace the defective fuel pumps free of charge. The recall began on october 15, 2007. Owners can contact federal-mogul at 248-354-7700.
  this recall only pertains to aftermarket carter, napa, accuflow, tru flow, parts master, and parts depot brand fuel pumps and has no relation to any original equipment installed on the listed motor vehicles.Customers may contact the national highway traffic safety administration's vehicle safety hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (tty: 1-800-424-9153); or go to http://www.Safercar.Gov.

  Show Content

To ensure accuracy and for your safety, it is recommended to do a free VIN recall check here or here [USA] - UK - Canada.

Bulletins are notices put out by manufacturers in conjunction with the NHTSA to notify the public of manufacturing issues or changes.

• Front brk caliper seizure investigation # PE87015

  Analysis:allegedly, during brake application the disc brake calipersseize, resulting in excessive pull and/or front brake lock-up.Somereports cite a complete loss of vehicle control resulting in unforewarnedand unavoidable travel into opposing traffic lanes.Consumers claim thatservice personnel have consistently attributed the problem to the use ofphenolic pistons which overheat and seize in the caliper bores.Information provided by the manufacturer disclosed the complaint, accident,and injury statistics tabulated above.Other manufacturer-supplied datadisclosed that two design changes with potential relevance to this matterwere made during the production years in question.In october 1981, thespecification of the maximum outside diameter of the piston was decreasedby 0.0250 mm and the minimum inside diameter of the caliper piston boreincreased by 0.024 mm.These changes were made to reduce the possibilityof premature wear of the front disc brake pads.A second design revisionwas made in september 1986 to reduce inadvertent chipping of the caliperpistons during brake pad replacement.Warranty claim data were inconclus-ive in identifying a failure trend accompanied by risk of accidents.The history of bronco brake pull/drift complaints disclosed that ford hadknowledge of the problem.An august 1986, ford truck interoffice letterdiscussed the phenomenon and provided suggestions to remedy the problemin the field.The condition was defined as "recession steer", manifest tothe vehicle operator as drift or pull upon brake application.In fact,the sensation was attributed to a net steer to the left when the frontsuspension moves rearward under braking forces.Conclusion:seizure of the front caliper pistons has not been identifiedas the origin of the alleged problem.Additionally, the historical dataalleging loss of vehicle control, accidents, and injuries do not identifya safety-related defect in either the braking or suspension system of thesubject vehicles.======
  

  Show Content

Tl* the contact owns a 1981 ford bronco equipped with nexen tires, tire: line: nprizah5 n/a, tire size: 235/75r15 n/a, dot number: 8ebn lmel 4318. The contact stated that he purchased four new tires a year ago, and stated that while he was driving at 45 mph, with his mechanic going on to the interstate, the contact heard a loud bang and the vehicle pulled to the right and coasted to the side of the road and noticed the front passenger's side tire was flat. The contact stated that while he and his mechanic were replacing the tire, they noticed that the inside of the tire was slashed. The contact replaced the tire. The vehicle was taken to an independent mechanic where the contact left the vehicle. The contact stated that he took the damaged tire to his residence. The contact stated that he taken the tires back to cruz tire shop where he purchased the tires because there was a warranty of 50 miles and one year of road hazer and was informed they would not replace the tires. The contact mentioned that the tire shop wanted to patch the tire. The tire was not replaced. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The vehicle failure mileage was 68,158 and tire failure mileage was 500.

Steel belts separated in two places: one caused the tread to shift over about 1 inch; the other separation folded under itself, and caused a knot the width of the tread. *ak (dot number: unkk65a402 tiresize: lt23575r15)