Ford recalls nearly 275,000 SUVs over possible brake damage
Ford Motor is recalling 273,789 Lincoln Navigator and Ford Expedition vehicles because of a poorly installed front brake line that may lead to reduced brake function increasing the risk of crash, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in recall dated May 9.
Affected vehicles may have "a bent brake line" that could come into contact with the engine air cleaner outlet pipe, which is a hose used to transfer filtered air from the car's air filter to it engine. As a result, the outlet pipe may become damaged, resulting in a brake fluid leak, causing the vehicle's front brakes to stop working, recall documents state.
"A brake line leak may cause a longer-than-expected brake pedal travel and result in a reduction in the rate of deceleration. If there is a rapid loss of brake fluid or the brake fluid is completely depleted, this can extend the distance required to stop the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash," the NHTSA states in its report.
Ford is not aware of any reports of any accidents or injuries as a result of the faulty brake line.
The recall affects the following models:
2022-2024 Lincoln Navigator 2022-2024 Ford Expedition Assembly issue
The cause of the bent brake line stems from faulty assembly during the vehicles' engine installation process at Ford's Kentucky Truck Plant. An internal review of plant records conducted by the U.S. carmaker's Critical Concern Review Group earlier this year, discovered that modifications to the engine installation process had been make by the Louisville plant in November in order to prevent damage to the brake line.
"Through this investigation, Ford's CCRG discovered that Ford's Kentucky Truck Plant (KTP) had modified the radiator hose stowage process during engine decking. This modification was done to prevent the brake line from being bent and was made starting on Nov. 20, 2024 to ensure proper clearances were met," the recall documents say.
The vehicles included in the recall were manufactured prior to the modification made at the plant.
Warning signs
In the event of a brake fluid leak, the driver may experience an increase in pedal travel, or the distance brake pedal moves when depressed.
"With continued driving, a leaking brake line will cause the brake fluid level in the master cylinder reservoir to decrease," the recall states. When that happens, a red brake warning indicator light will illuminate once the fluid level drops to a dangerously low level.
Remedy
To fix the problem, Ford dealers will inspect the front brake line and, if needed, replace the brake line or air cleaner outlet pipe, at no cost. Owner notification will be mailed May 26, 2025. Owners may contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford's number for this recall is 25S47.
Consumer may also contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline at 888-327-4236 (TTY 888-275-9171) or go to nhtsa.gov. NHTSA's number for the recall is 25V-314.
Sneak peek: Fatal First Date
Trump teases "good news" on Russia-Ukraine war
Wisconsin judge pleads not guilty to obstructing immigration agents
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Auto sales see 'return to normal' while trying to shake off tariffs
While Ford (F) posted a 16% year-over-year increase in May auto sales — bolstered by employee pricing discounts — how have other automakers been trying to get ahead of tariff impacts? CarGurus director of economic and market intelligence Kevin Roberts joins Asking for a Trend's Josh Lipton to talk more about auto price forecasts as car brands navigate President Trump's tariff policies and proposals to tax steel imports. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Asking for a Trend here.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Autonomous vehicles should have to pass a driver's test, just like anyone else
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that nearly 40,000 people died in motor vehicle crashes last year, and millions more were injured. Automotive and technology companies have been working for years to develop autonomous vehicles in part to help reduce the number and severity of car crashes. As many as half of fatal crashes involve speeding and drinking. Autonomous vehicles do neither. Yet the momentum toward broad deployment of these autonomous vehicles has stalled amid persistent consumer fears about safety since the first high-profile fatalities in 2018. In April, the Department of Transportation announced a new automated-vehicle policy intended to speed up the rollout of these vehicles across the country. However, the agency did not address the most significant barrier: the lack of a national safety performance testing standard. Just as every licensed driver can sometimes cause an accident, so will autonomous vehicles. That doesn't mean we shouldn't deploy them to realize their benefits. But it does mean they should meet an objective safety standard, one that we all agree improves roadway safety over the status quo. Last December, the federal highway agency proposed a program called AV STEP, but it is only a voluntary review and reporting framework. The federal government does not provide guidance on how autonomous vehicles should be tested, and AV STEP would not change that. The absence of a national safety framework hinders wider adoption and public acceptance of autonomous vehicles, curtailing their clear promise to society, even as other nations are moving quickly to encourage adoption and to measure safety. First-time drivers of any age must pass a basic test, but self-driving vehicles do not. Does that make sense? Waymo, a subsidiary of Alphabet (formerly known as Google), operates robotaxis in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Phoenix, providing 250,000 autonomous rides weekly. In March, the company added service in Austin, Texas in partnership with Uber. Waymo and Zurich-based insurance giant SwissRe recently studied third-party insurance claims from 25.3 million miles driven by Waymo vehicles. They found an 88 percent reduction in property claims on car accidents and a 92 percent reduction in bodily injury claims. Waymo's record shows the benefits to public safety that would come from autonomous vehicles. Yet a recent survey, conducted by AAA, found that only 13 percent of drivers would trust riding in a self-driving vehicle. Six in 10 drivers report being 'afraid' to ride in a self-driving car and just 13 percent of drivers prioritize autonomous vehicle development as a top vehicle technology initiative, down from 18 percent in 2022. We work at Mcity, a public-private research partnership at the University of Michigan devoted to transforming mobility. We have a solution to help overcome consumer concerns and provide the industry with a shared, trustworthy benchmark: autonomous vehicle safety assessment tests. As states have basic requirements for driver training and on-road competency evaluations, the auto industry and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should support autonomous vehicle competency tests for on-road driving. We've developed a comprehensive two-part methodology to do that. The autonomous vehicle 'Driver's Licensing Test' evaluates autonomous vehicles via on-road competency tests, just like millions of new drivers every year. We have roughly 50 tests and hundreds of driving scenarios. The 'Driving Intelligence Test' evaluates autonomous vehicle decision-making and response by challenging autonomous vehicle software with a diverse set of the most dangerous driving scenarios. Mcity has proven our two-part protocol using open-sourced autonomous vehicle software in our fleet of research vehicles. In addition, we've put a range of commercial autonomous vehicle systems through the Driver's Licensing Test, identifying several behavior deficiencies that required refining the autonomous vehicle algorithm to improve driving safety. Mcity's safety assessment tests do not have to be done in Ann Arbor. Industry or third parties can use our test methodology at adequately configured sites nationwide to conduct thousands of the rarest, most dangerous driving scenarios. Successfully passing these tests and self-certifying would mean manufacturers, regulators and the public would have confidence that autonomous vehicles meet or exceed essential driving performance tests for safe operation. Importantly, our tests do this while ensuring proprietary AI data remains securely in the hands of innovators. The potential benefits of driverless vehicles remain enormous: safer driving with fewer, less severe crashes; more efficient, lower-cost shipping; and expanded access to personal transport for Americans who need it most, such as the elderly, those with disabilities and those who don't or can't own or operate their own vehicle. These benefits will not be fully realized unless autonomous vehicles are on our roads in significant numbers. And that won't happen unless consumers trust that these vehicles are safe. Henry Liu is director of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, which includes Mcity. He is the Bruce D. Greenshields Collegiate Professor of Engineering and director of the Department of Transportation's Region 5 Center for Connected and Automated Transportation. Greg McGuire is managing director of Mcity. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
EVs Are Rewiring Risk For Manufacturers
The internal combustion engine (ICE) has been steadily improving for more than 100 years, giving us cars that are almost unrecognisable from those early, groundbreaking days of the Ford Model T. This, in turn, has made driving a faster, safer, more fuel-efficient, and more enjoyable experience for everyone. Now electric vehicles (EVs) mark a fundamental shift. One that not only paves the way to innovative changes in how passenger vehicles are designed, built, and maintained, but that will also kickstart a whole new era of risk for manufacturers. Driving this transformation are three key factors, the first of which is consumer dynamics. To date, EV adoption has actually been slower than many projected with only a quarter of car buyers seriously considering going fully electric due to concerns around cost, range and charging time. This has seen the manufacturing industry double down on addressing these concerns with new models that travel further and charge faster. The second factor is battery innovation. Right now, lithium-ion is found in 90% of US EVs, but their performance and safety features don't completely meet all customer requirements. Interest in alternative designs is therefore accelerating too – from iron- and sulphur-based lithium variants to sodium-ion and hydrogen cells. All have their own advantages and disadvantages, leading manufacturers to invest in understanding how they perform in the full life cycle of a user experience. The third and final driver of change is the supply chain itself. EVs use up to three times more chips than ICE vehicles and therefore rely heavily on materials sourced and processed overseas. China alone accounts for 70% of global battery production. Add in geopolitical volatility, tariff controversies, ongoing labor shortages, and localized incidents like the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, and it's clear: EV supply chains are more stretched and unpredictable than ever – requiring flexible and proactive risk mitigation frameworks to match. There are new, less familiar threats for manufacturers to counter too. While ICE and hybrid vehicles actually catch fire more frequently, EV fires tend to burn hotter and longer – with several high-profile cases making the news and rocking consumer trust. Responding to this risk requires specialized equipment and training for staff, along with a deeper knowledge of chemistry, housing, and fire suppression. Then there's cyber. EVs are, by nature, software-defined machines that are deeply integrated with networks and cloud platforms. From code-level bugs to coordinated hacks, this opens up new areas of potential vulnerability, all capable of causing costly reputational damage and liability claims. Even product recalls are changing. In contrast to ICE vehicle breakdowns, EV issues can often be fixed with over-the-air updates and patches. Yet while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) still classifies these events as recalls, the cost and customer experience are entirely different. This, in turn, forces insurers and manufacturers to re-examine the way they calculate risk along with how they structure mitigation strategies going forward. So how should the manufacturing industry respond? First and foremost, by empowering risk managers to lead in this evolving environment and become a central part of a broader, stronger, more connected ecosystem within their own companies. One that connects stakeholders across R&D, supply chain, operations, IT, and even government relations to create a comprehensive framework for analysing and responding to risk. The way manufacturers deploy data must evolve too. Unlike with ICE vehicles, firms don't have decades of EV insights to fall back on in their decision-making and planning. So instead, they should lean into forward-looking indicators, using machinery data on the shop floor to identify quality risks and limit the likelihood of product liability and recall. Leveraging smarter building data in areas like fire protection and structural soundness will also be vital, as will utilizing supply chain visibility information and scoring models for business tax. Encouragingly, much of this data is already available today; it now just needs to be viewed with a risk lens. Rather than simply present data at renewal time, manufacturers and brokers should therefore engage in an ongoing dialogue with carriers about emerging threats, evolving mitigations, and the specific steps they are taking to reduce exposure. This will help shape limits and premiums that fit the realities of their operating landscape. In fact, this ability to focus on the future is, perhaps, the most important shift of all. As EVs become an ever more frequent sight on our roads and in our factories, the passenger vehicle market will be defined by both new methods of manufacturing and new approaches to risk. The firms that lead this new era will be those with their eyes on the road ahead, not in the rear view mirror.
