Ford Expedition 4wd 2004

• Recall 83249 [USA]: Decreased lighting visibility may result in a vehicle crash.
  Sabersport is recalling 16,270 combination corner and bumper lamp assemblies of various part numbers sold for use as aftermarket equipment for various passenger vehicles. These headlamps fail to conform to the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment." these lamps do not contain the required amber side reflectors.
  sabersport will notify owners and offer a full refund for the noncompliant combination lamps. The safety recall began on may 11, 2009. Owners may contact sabersport at 1-909-598-7589.
  this recall only pertains to aftermarket replacement equipment and has no relation to any original equipment installed on vehicles produced by the vehicle manufacturer.In order to determine if your aftermarket lamp assembly is affected by this noncompliance, please review the list of model numbers provided to us by sabersport.The list can be found under "document search" located at the bottom of your screen.Owners may also 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

• Recall 38067 [USA]: Lack of amber side reflectors in the lamps will decrease lighting visibility to other drivers and may possibly result in a vehicle crash.
  Certain tradesonic combination lamps sold as replacement lamps for use on the above listed passenger vehicles. Combination lamps not equipped with amber side reflectors fail to conform with the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.
  tradesonic will notify owners and replace the lamps free of charge. The recall is expected to begin during july 2006. Owners may contact tradesonic at 626-934-8884.
  this recall only pertains to tradesonic aftermarket lamps and has no relation to any original equipment installed on the listed passenger vehicles.For more information on the lamp model numbers, click on document search and view document titled "lamp model numbers."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

• Recall 60842 [USA]: Without the amber reflectors, the vehicle will be poorly illuminated, possibly resulting in a vehicle crash without warning.
  Certain pro-a motors corner lamps, turn signals, and headlights sold as replacement lamps for use on certain passenger vehicles listed above. Some combination lamps that are not equipped with amber side reflectors fail to conform to federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.
  pro-a motors will notify owners and offer to repurchase the lamps. The recall began on april 3, 2006. Owners may contact pro-a motors at 323-838-2988.
  this recall only pertains to pro-a motors aftermarket lamps and has no relation to any original equipment installed on the listed passenger vehicles.For more information on the lamp model numbers, click on document search and view document titled "lamp model numbers."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

• Recall 61822 [USA]: Without the amber reflectors, the vehicle will be poorly illuminated, possibly resulting in a vehicle crash.
  Certain anzo combination headlamp assemblies sold as replacement lamps for use on certain passenger vehicles. Some combination lamps are not equipped with amber side reflectors which fail to conform to federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 108, "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment."
  anzo will notify owners and replace the headlamps free of charge. The recall began may 9, 2006. Owners may contact anzo usa at 909-468-3688.
  this recall only pertains to aftermarket headlamp assemblies manufactured by anzo and has no relation to any original equipment installed on the listed passenger 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.

• Steel wheel fracture investigation # PE08070

  Ford special service vehicle (ssv) expeditions use a steel full face wheel design similar to that investigated in pe03009, rq04007, ea04034 (crown victoria police interceptor) and pe03026 (gm pickups and suvs).A total of 8,251 ssvs (2.2% of total production) were produced within model years 2004-2006 and sold primarily for use by state, federal, and municipal law enforcement (le) agencies.Ford stipulates that the subject vehicles are not suitable for high speed or pursuit operations and also identified a 2004 national institute for justice vehicle evaluation report which also acknowledges this limitation. The full face wheel is fabricated from two pieces: a stamped outer wheel disc and a formed rim.The two pieces, which together comprise the outer bead seat, are joined together with a circumferential weld.A cyclic bending moment occurs in the outer bead seat area as the wheel rotates, resulting in fatigue stresses in the welds heat affected zone that can lead to fracturing (cracking) of the rim material.Because the failure occurs under the outboard tire bead, air leakage may not readily occur when the rim cracks, dependent on how well the bead seals on the rim.If multiple cracks grow undetected and suddenly join into a single large crack, the wheels structure can become compromised leading to rapid air loss.A rapid air loss, especially at higher speed, may lead to a crash. Ford responded to odis january 5, 2009 information request (ir) on february 24.Fords response acknowledges a number of wheel fractures on the ssvs.However, based on its assessment of the pertinent factors, it concludes that the condition does not represent an unreasonable risk to safety.The lack of reports of rapid air loss, no alleged crashes, and their assessment that a cracked wheel can be detected through slow, repeated air loss or vibration, were the bases for fords conclusion.Ford discusses the results of a study it performed on wheels returned from le field use, design revisions it made to the subject wheel, and the outcome of durability testing it conducted on the old and new wheel designs. The counts shown above include a duplicate odi and ford report; the ford counts are unique vehicles alleging wheel fracture(s).Some warranty claims involved more than one wheel replacement.Although the subject vehicles have been in service for a longer period of time than vehicles investigated in the previous investigations of two-piece wheel fracture, odi did not identify any allegations of crashes, rapid air loss events due to wheel fractures or allegations of effects on vehicle control or stability, as were the cases in past investigations where safety recalls were conducted to replace affected wheels.The agency agrees that the ssv is not suitable for pursuit or high speed usage, reducing the potential for crashes or loss of control incidents to be caused by the alleged defect. Ford implemented a shot peening process in june 2006 which reduced the wheels surface stress and significantly improved its durability, and odi is unaware of any failures of shot peened wheels (service part number 7l1z-1015-b).Fords testing showed a slightly reduced durability for the non-shot peened wheels when lt instead of ford approved p metric type tires are used. A safety-related defect has not been identified at this time and further use of agency resources does not appear to be warranted.Accordingly, this investigation is closed.The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that a safety-related defect does not exist.The agency will take further action if warranted by further c
  

  Show Content

• Spark plug ejection from cylinder head investigation # DP05005

  On september 6, 2005, odi received a petition requesting that the agency investigate allegations of engine spark plug ejection in certain model year 1997 through 2004 ford vehicles with triton v-8 and v-10 engines.Odi received a total of 474 non-duplicative complaints on the subject vehicles where the complainant, or the dealer repairing the vehicle, reported that a spark plug detached from the cylinder and/or ejected from the engine.As of december 8, 2005, odi is not aware of any allegations where the alleged defect resulted in a loss of vehicle control, a crash, an injury, or a fatality in any of the 10,319,810 subject vehicles.In addition, odi is aware of only two incidents where the vehicle stalled without restart.Information contained in the odi consumer complaints and obtained from 72 telephone interviews with complainants showed the following:(1) 99% of the complaints were on my 1997 to 2002 subject vehicles.(2) most the complainants reported hearing a loud pop while driving or upon starting up the vehicle followed by a loud, repetitive clicking or popping sound.(3) many of the complainants reported that the popping sound was accompanied by some loss of vehicle power; however, in 99% of the incidents reported, the vehicle did not stall.In the very few incidents where the vehicle did stall, most vehicles could be restarted.(4) only a small percentage of the complainants cited that they smelled gas or a slight burning smell when the incident occurred.(5) in all but a very few incidents, vehicle damage was limited to the engine.In one incident, the complaint reported that the fuel rail was damaged and replaced after one of the spark plugs ejected from the engine; however, the complainant reported that the damage did not result in any type of fuel leak or fire.In another incident, the only incident where a fire was alleged, the complainant reported that no fluid leak was observed, but that a fire resulted after the spark plug had ejected from the engine and he had restarted the vehicle and driven to another location.None of the complainants reported any damage to the vehicle hood.(6) only two complainants reported that they observed what appeared to be some drops of fuel coming from the cylinder where the spark plug had failed or on the spark plug itself; however, each of these complainants reported that there was no smoke or flames as a result of his incident.As the petitioner noted, and odi?S analysis showed, it is possible for a spark plug to detach from the engine cylinder threads in the subject vehicles.However, odi?S analysis of 474 complaints describing such incidents found only a very few alleged any safety-related consequences.None of these showed any evidence of a serious safety consequence.Given the large population and relatively long exposure time of the subject vehicles, the complaint analysis indicates that the risk to motor vehicle safety from the alleged defect is very low.In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that nhtsa would issue an order for the notification and remedy of the alleged defect at the conclusion of the investigation requested in the petition.Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize nhtsa?S limited resources to best accomplish the agency?S safety mission, the petition is denied.
  

  Show Content

Vehicle lost power for 3-5 seconds at highway speeds approximately 65 mph on three separate events. Vehicle slowed down due to power loss while in heavy traffic. Three other times at idle speed in drive and in park engine stalled and immediately restarted. Loss of power steering due to engine not running when stall event happened. I performed inspection of fuel pump relay which is internal to passenger side fuse block. Found inadequate solder joint on integrated relay printed circuit and burn marks on outside of fuel pump relay. Located salvage fuse block same make and model and inspected. Same damage on salvage fuse block assembly. Replaced with aftermarket fuse block with revised solder joint and updated relay.

Vehicle lost power for 3-5 seconds at highway speeds approximately 65 mph on three separate events. Vehicle slowed down due to power loss while in heavy traffic. Three other times at idle speed in drive and in park engine stalled and immediately restarted. Loss of power steering due to engine not running when stall event happened. I performed inspection of fuel pump relay which is internal to passenger side fuse block. Found inadequate solder joint on integrated relay printed circuit and burn marks on outside of fuel pump relay. Located salvage fuse block same make and model and inspected. Same damage on salvage fuse block assembly. Replaced with aftermarket fuse block with revised solder joint and updated relay.

Tl* the contact owns a 2004 ford expedition. The contact stated while vehicle was in a stand still the vehicle was leaking oil on the muffler system and starter. The contact also stated while driving 25 mph, a burning odor was detected coming from the muffler area. The contact stated the check engine warning light was illuminated. The contact stated a local dealer was contacted however the failure had not been diagnosed or repaired. The contact stated that head gasket would need to be replaced. The contact stated that the failure occurred at 75,000 miles and he replaced the head gasket. The manufacturer had been informed of the failure and referred the contact to nhtsa. The failure mileage was approximately 210,000.

Tl* the contact owns a 2004 ford expedition. The contact stated while vehicle was in a stand still the vehicle was leaking oil on the muffler system and starter. The contact also stated while driving 25 mph, a burning odor was detected coming from the muffler area. The contact stated the check engine warning light was illuminated. The contact stated a local dealer was contacted however the failure had not been diagnosed or repaired. The contact stated that head gasket would need to be replaced. The contact stated that the failure occurred at 75,000 miles and he replaced the head gasket. The manufacturer had been informed of the failure and referred the contact to nhtsa. The failure mileage was approximately 210,000.

The gas gauge never works and sometimes the vehicle thinks that it doesnt have gas when it does. *tr

The gas gauge never works and sometimes the vehicle thinks that it doesnt have gas when it does. *tr

Chatter when wheel turned at low speed. Low speed turning , shaking and vibration. *tr

Chatter when wheel turned at low speed. Low speed turning , shaking and vibration. *tr

While driving a 2004 ford expedition 178,000 kept stalling on the highway and streets. I had it towed several times because it won't start back on the next day it would turn on. Had the fuel pump replaced and still having the same problems it turn off on my 18 year old son like 5 times going to school and work where it almost got to the point where we felt it wasn't a reliable due the fact it stalls while on the road or even just turning and almost caused my sons life . Finally we found out it's the relay gets hot and it causes for the car to stop and i'm aware that ford knows about this very frustrating and disappointing they have not done a recall on this the relay can not be change by its self has to be the whole circuit board

Common OBD-II Error Codes

• P0300 [1] Random/Multiple Cylinder Misfire Detected
• P0308 [1] Cylinder 8 Misfire Detected
• P0316 [1] Misfire Detected On Startup (First 1000 Revolutions)
• P0620 [2] Generator Control Circuit Malfunction
• P0320 [3] Ignition/Distributor Engine Speed Input Circuit Malfunction
• C1724 [1] Air Suspension Height Sensor Power Circuit Failure
• C1873 [1] Air Suspension RF Air Spring Solenoid Output Circuit Failure
• C1889 [1] Air Suspension LF Height Sensor Circuit Failure
• C1998 [1] C1998