Ford's Reoccurring Door Latch Problem Results in Massive F-Series Recall

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky
fords reoccurring door latch problem results in massive f series recall

On Wednesday, Ford Motor Co. recalled 1.3 million F-150 and Super Duty pickups to fix faulty side door latches. In the affected vehicles, a frozen door latch or a bent actuation cable could result in a door that neither opens or closes — nullifying the only thing it’s responsible for.

However, the real risk comes from faulty doors that appear to be functional but latch improperly when shut. Points of entry that may appear to have shut as intended could still have latches that don’t engage with the striker effectively, allowing for a seemingly closed door to swing open suddenly while a vehicle is in motion.

Ford has made plans to install water shields on affected models. Dealers will also inspect the vehicles to ensure the condition of door mechanisms and replace parts if applicable. The recall involves approximately 1,344,605 vehicles in North America, including 1,101,107 in the United States, 222,408 in Canada, and another 21,090 in Mexico. Affected models include F-150s from the 2015 through 2017 model years and Super Duties from 2017.

Door latches appear to be a bit of a sore spot for Ford right now. Earlier this year, the company had to recall 211,000 late model Ford Fusions, Fiestas, and Lincoln MKZs. That issue was an expansion of another door-related recall from 2016 and affected both North America and Europe. All in, Ford’s door problem has garnered multiple investigations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and resulted in millions of recalled units over the last four years.

Through the first quarter of 2017, the reoccurring latch problem has cost the automaker nearly $300 million in recalls. A recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission showed that the automaker expects to lose another $267 million resulting from this most recent issue.

Our advice is to take your F-Series into your dealership as directed and always wear a seatbelt. Ford claims it is unaware of any injuries or accidents associated with the problem.

[Image: Ford Motor Co.]

Join the conversation
2 of 22 comments
  • Svede Svede on Dec 18, 2018

    It's not because the body is aluminum. The issue is ice forming in the latch mechanism. Mine is currently in for the forth time. The first time was pre-recall and the dealership knew nothing about it. Once it got taken into the service bay and sat a few minutes it worked perfectly. The next two were for two different recalls. This latest one after both recalls is because the shielding didn't work on the last one. It's on day three at the dealership with Ford Customer "Care" saying they have additional steps and to have the dealer call them for instructions. Problem with that is I think it's just a dance. They've had it since 7 AM Monday. It's now Tuesday evening and Ford hasn't gotten back to the dealership with what to do. I called "Care" again and they said it could take 24-48 hours for them to respond. WTF? In the meantime there sits my $45,000 truck at the dealership I can't drive in the winter. I hope the class action lawsuit going through the courts results in a decent settlement not for the money but to kick Ford in the gonads.

  • Schurkey Schurkey on Jun 11, 2020

    When I was a Tech in the 1980s, Ford couldn't engineer a decent oil-pan drain plug. By the 1990s, Ford lost the ability to engineer a spark plug. You really think they're capable of engineering something complex? Ford sells a lot of vehicles because consumers graduate (or not) from public schools. (i.e., no experience with the real world, overly-sheltered, never had to research anything important that wasn't spoon-fed to them via "The Internet", incapable of performing due diligence.) GM has problems. They're mostly fixable by firing the top few layers of dead-weight management; and setting appropriate goals for the engineering staff. Ideally, we'd end CAFE, and roll-back emissions standards so that ten speed automatics and cylinder deactivation weren't needed; and we'd end the diversion of resources from those (and other) politically-motivated wastes of time, money, effort, and enthusiasm. Ford needs to build a car-crusher as the final process at the end of each of their assembly lines. No comment on Mopar; once the French get control over them, it'll be a moot point.

  • Nrd515 I bought an '88 S10 Blazer with the 4.3. We had it 4 years and put just about 48K on it with a bunch of trips to Nebraska and S. Dakota to see relatives. It had a couple of minor issues when new, a piece of trim fell off the first day, and it had a seriously big oil leak soon after we got it. The amazinly tiny starter failed at about 40K, it was fixed under some sort of secret warranty and we got a new Silverado as a loaner. Other than that, and a couple of tires that blew when I ran over some junk on the road, it was a rock. I hated the dash instrumentation, and being built like a gorilla, it was about an inch and a half too narrow for my giant shoulders, but it drove fine, and was my second most trouble free vehicle ever, only beaten by my '82 K5 Blazer, which had zero issues for nearly 50K miles. We sold the S10 to a friend, who had it over 20 years and over 400,000 miles on the original short block! It had a couple of transmissions, a couple of valve jobs, a rear end rebuild at 300K, was stolen and vandalized twice, cut open like a tin can when a diabetic truck driver passed out(We were all impressed at the lack of rust inside the rear quarters at almost 10 years old, and it just went on and on. Ziebart did a good job on that Blazer. All three of his sons learned to drive in it, and it was only sent to the boneyard when the area above the windshield had rusted to the point it was like taking a shower when it rained. He now has a Jeep that he's put a ton of money into. He says he misses the S10's reliablity a lot these days, the Jeep is in the shop a lot.
  • Jeff S Most densely populated areas have emission testing and removing catalytic converters and altering pollution devices will cause your vehicle to fail emission testing which could effect renewing license plates. In less populated areas where emission testing is not done there would probably not be any legal consequences and the converter could either be removed or gutted both without having to buy specific parts for bypassing emissions. Tampering with emission systems would make it harder to resell a vehicle but if you plan on keeping the vehicle and literally running it till the wheels fall off there is not much that can be done if there is no emission testing. I did have a cat removed on a car long before mandatory emission testing and it did get better mpgs and it ran better. Also had a cat gutted on my S-10 which was close to 20 years old which increased performance and efficiency but that was in a state that did not require emission testing just that reformulated gas be sold during the Summer months. I would probably not do it again because after market converters are not that expensive on older S-10s compared to many of the newer vehicles. On newer vehicles it can effect other systems that are related to the operating and the running of the vehicle. A little harder to defeat pollution devices on newer vehicles with all the systems run by microprocessors but if someone wants to do it they can. This law could be addressing the modified diesels that are made into coal rollers just as much as the gasoline powered vehicles with cats. You probably will still be able to buy equipment that would modify the performance of a vehicles as long as the emission equipment is not altered.
  • ToolGuy I wonder if Vin Diesel requires DEF.(Does he have issues with Sulfur in concentrations above 15ppm?)
  • ToolGuy Presented for discussion:
  • Kevin Ford can do what it's always done. Offer buyouts to retirement age employees, and transfers to operating facilities to those who aren't retirement age. Plus, the transition to electric isn't going to be a finger snap one time event. It's going to occur over a few model years. What's a more interesting question is: Where will today's youth find jobs in the auto industry given the lower employment levels?