Ford Recalls Many Super Duty Pickups, Cites Potential Driveshaft Issues

Matthew Guy
by Matthew Guy

If any readers have a certain spec of Blue Oval workhorse in their fleet, they best pay attention to a recent recall from Ford. The company is recalling 223,628 Super Duty pickups to deal with an issue of faulty powertrain components. At fault are driveshafts that can apparently fracture under a specific set of conditions.

According to the NHTSA, certain F-250 and F-350 models equipped with gas engines and aluminum driveshafts can suffer problems with underbody thermal/acoustic insulators which may loosen over time and eventually make contact with the driveshaft. This could score or otherwise damage the shaft, potentially leading to failure due to localized overload condition caused by a reduction in material thickness. In other words, the insulators could gouge the rapidly spinning driveshaft and weaken it to the point of fracture. Inadequate adhesion of the insulators to the underbody is pointed to as a root cause.

The NHTSA spells out what could happen in such a scenario, saying a fractured driveshaft may result in “loss of motive power while driving” or unintended vehicle movement while the vehicle is in park if the parking brake is not applied. There could also be secondary damage to surrounding components if things hit the fan. It is also noted that a fractured driveshaft could contact the ground, a circumstance which may cause havoc while driving in addition to the loss of power to the driven rear wheels.

Ford’s Critical Concern Review Group apparently dug into this problem last December, conducting samples and studies to determine the specific problem. Ford is aware of 40 reports received between July 2017 and November 2021 alleging busted driveshafts potentially related to these faulty insulators. Ford is not aware of any reports of accidents or injuries related to this condition. New trucks currently rolling off the line do not have this issue thanks to a rolling change in December which replaced the offending insulator with an under-carpet thermal patch.

Owners of affected vehicles, which were not produced in a sequential group of VINs, will be notified by Ford in early April. Dealers are already in the know, so check with yer friendly service department if you don’t want to wait until just before Easter. So you’ve all ducks in a row, the NHTSA recall number is 22V-087 and the manufacturer recall number is 22S09.

[Image: Ford]

Matthew Guy
Matthew Guy

Matthew buys, sells, fixes, & races cars. As a human index of auto & auction knowledge, he is fond of making money and offering loud opinions.

More by Matthew Guy

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 30 comments
  • Indi500fan Indi500fan on Feb 25, 2022

    Surprising that the driver wouldn't hear the insulation grinding on the shaft if it's enough to start machining the tube. FWIW my 99 Sonoma has an aluminum driveshaft and it's the cleanest looking part on the underside of the chassis. Not sure what they use for a coating (if anything) but it looks like new. Good work, Am Axle Three Rivers! Gone but not forgotten.

  • Clueless Economist Clueless Economist on Feb 28, 2022

    Maybe Ford’s Critical Concern Review Group should look into the fuel in oil issue with the Ranger. Ford is denying they have a problem even when Ranger owners present independent lab analysis of the issue. My Ford dealer even refused to document my request for it to be looked into. They refused to do an oil analysis. And Ford Customer Service refused to do anything unless my engine blows up under warranty. There are over 150 pages with this discussed at https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threads/fuel-in-oil.4803/page-150

  • KOKing I owned a Paul Bracq-penned BMW E24 some time ago, and I recently started considering getting Sacco's contemporary, the W124 coupe.
  • Bob The answer is partially that stupid manufacturers stopped producing desirable PHEVs.I bought my older kid a beautiful 2011 Volt, #584 off the assembly line and #000007 for HOV exemption in MD. We love the car. It was clearly an old guy's car, and his kids took away his license.It's a perfect car for a high school kid, really. 35 miles battery range gets her to high school, job, practice, and all her friend's houses with a trickle charge from the 120V outlet. In one year (~7k miles), I have put about 10 gallons of gas in her car, and most of that was for the required VA emissions check minimum engine runtime.But -- most importantly -- that gas tank will let her make the 300-mile trip to college in one shot so that when she is allowed to bring her car on campus, she will actually get there!I'm so impressed with the drivetrain that I have active price alerts for the Cadillac CT6 2.0e PHEV on about 12 different marketplaces to replace my BMW. Would I actually trade in my 3GT for a CT6? Well, it depends on what broke in German that week....
  • ToolGuy Different vehicle of mine: A truck. 'Example' driving pattern: 3/3/4 miles. 9/12/12/9 miles. 1/1/3/3 miles. 5/5 miles. Call that a 'typical' week. Would I ever replace the ICE powertrain in that truck? No, not now. Would I ever convert that truck to EV? Yes, very possibly. Would I ever convert it to a hybrid or PHEV? No, that would be goofy and pointless. 🙂
  • ChristianWimmer Took my ‘89 500SL R129 out for a spin in his honor (not a recent photo).Other great Mercedes’ designers were Friedrich Geiger, who styled the 1930s 500K/540K Roadsters and my favorite S-Class - the W116 - among others. Paul Bracq is also a legend.RIP, Bruno.
  • ToolGuy Currently my drives tend to be either extra short or fairly long. (We'll pick that vehicle over there and figure in the last month, 5 miles round trip 3 times a week, plus 1,000 miles round trip once.) The short trips are torture for the internal combustion powertrain, the long trips are (relative) torture for my wallet. There is no possible way that the math works to justify an 'upgrade' to a more efficient ICE, or an EV, or a hybrid, or a PHEV. Plus my long trips tend to include (very) out of the way places. One day the math will work and the range will work and the infrastructure will work (if the range works) and it will work in favor of a straight EV (purchased used). At that point the short trips won't be torture for the EV components and the long trips shouldn't hurt my wallet. What we will have at that point is the steady drip-drip-drip of long-term battery degradation. (I always pictured myself buying generic modular replacement cells at Harbor Freight or its future equivalent, but who knows if that will be possible). The other option that would almost possibly work math-wise would be to lease a new EV at some future point (but the payment would need to be really right). TL;DR: ICE now, EV later, Hybrid maybe, PHEV probably never.
Next