Top Worst Ford Scandals In Recent History

1-Ford vs. Firestone: Faulty Tires

Throughout the 1990s, Ford Explorers and other light trucks and SUVs with Firestone’s Radial ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness tires would separate at highway speeds. This defect reportedly caused over 200 deaths⁶ before the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration launched an investigation in 2000. Further probes revealed more than 700 injuries⁷ related to the tire defect.

Under fire from Congress, Ford and Firestone blamed each other. Firestone claimed that the Ford Explorer had a design flaw that made it uniquely dangerous. Ford countered by pointing to lower accident rates in Explorer vehicles equipped with Goodyear tires, implying that Firestone tires were the true culprit.⁸

Firestone recalled 6.5 million ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires that year.⁹ In May 2001, Ford recalled all Wilderness AT tires of 15, 16, and 17 inches on Ford trucks and SUVs. Ford’s recall covered an additional 13 million tires¹⁰ and cost the company an estimated $3 billion—nearly $5 billion when adjusted for inflation.¹¹

2-Ford Super Duty 6-L Diesel Engines

Several manufacturers faced diesel-related fraud scandals in the 2010s, from Volkswagen’s infamous “Dieselgate” to excess NOx emissions in GM’s Chevy Cruze. Ford is no exception. Its own diesel scandal centered on the 6-L PowerStroke V8 engines installed in 2003–2007 Ford Super Duty trucks.

Many Ford Super Duty truck owners reported engine failures attributable to faulty head gaskets, turbos, oil coolers or other components. Exposed internal documents revealed exorbitant warranty costs, millions spent in lemon law buybacks, and “cylinder pressure specs” that Ford employees did not want documented through legal action. 

According to Ford internal documents, warranty repair costs exceeded $400 million by February 2007 – the largest repair rate of any Ford engine.¹² The PowerStroke engine was only 10% of Ford’s total engine volume, but 80% of Ford’s warranty spending on engines and 25% of Ford’s warranty spending overall.¹³ 

The cited internal documents were revealed over the course of individual lawsuits filed by opted-out class action members. One email from John Koszewnik, then-Director of Diesel North American, said that certain repair costs were running “as high as $5 million a month!”¹⁴ 

Even though Ford offered “band aid” repair services for faulty turbochargers and other engine issues, ongoing complaints still led to a class action lawsuit, multi-district litigation and widespread media scrutiny.

A document revealed an incriminating email from then-warranty program manager Mike Fromman: “We unfortunately exceeded our own cylinder pressure specs in normally performing engines.  We don’t want to have our cylinder pressure specs published or documented by having them subpoenaed or we might face a class action.” He later wrote, “I recommend we delete these e-mails.”¹⁵

As for the 2013 Ford diesel class action settlement, members were eligible to receive between $50 and $825 in individual reimbursements if they received a repair, replacement or adjustment service during the warranty period.¹⁶

3-Ford Super Duty’s Weak Roofs Cause Rollover Deaths

Dangerously weak roofs of Ford Super Duty trucks built between 1999 and 2016 allegedly led to multiple deaths from rollover crashes, according to wrongful death lawsuits with verdicts in the billions. Ford was apparently sued more than 200 times over the weak roofs. However, only three ever made it to trial.

In one case, Ford was found 85% at fault for the deaths of Herman and Debra Mills, who had been driving their 2015 Ford F-250 Super Duty when it rolled over. The roof collapsed into the passenger compartment. One plaintiff died in the crash, while the other succumbed to injuries while in the hospital. A jury awarded $2.5 billion in a wrongful death verdict.¹⁷

Ford’s roofs were about four times weaker than what’s legally required. To earn a “Good” rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety—which uses standards closely aligned with current federal regulations¹⁸—a vehicle’s roof must have a strength-to-weight ratio (SWR) of 4.0 or higher. Ford’s roofs, by contrast, scored just 1.1 or 1.2. One company representative admitted that cutting structural components saved Ford $100 per truck. With 5.2 million sold, that amounted to $520 million in added profit.¹⁹In previous Super Duty roof cases, Ford tried to shift blame by arguing that injuries are caused by passengers “diving” into the roofs a nanosecond before collapse, citing studies by “recidivist testifiers for automakers in roof crush cases.”²⁰

4-Ford DPS6 PowerShift Transmissions: A ‘Mechanical Catastrophe’

If you owned a 2011–2016 Ford Fiesta or a 2012–2016 Ford Focus, you may remember the infamous DPS6 PowerShift transmission. Known for violent shuddering, hesitation, and repeated failures, the transmission triggered ‘significant’ litigation, federal investigations, and widespread media scrutiny—effects Ford continues to feel years later.

As Ford acknowledged in its 2024 Form 10-K, “We are currently a defendant in a significant number of litigation matters relating to the performance of vehicles, including those equipped with DPS6 transmissions.”²¹

At the core of these issues was Ford’s decision to use dry clutches in its dual-clutch transmission. Throughout the 2010s, Ford marketed these cars as combining the fuel economy of a manual transmission and the easy driving of an automatic. But dry clutches–unlike wet clutches–had no way of cooling themselves and were prone to overheating, causing several transmission issues.

Over the course of several months, the Detroit Free Press investigated the issue in its series “Out of Gear: Follow the full Ford investigation.”²² Ford engineers told its reporters that the transmission was a “mechanical catastrophe” and claimed they could not object to the dry-clutch design.²³ To make matters worse, the transmission was designed to default to NEUTRAL when issues arose. This setting can cause a sudden and unexpected loss of drive power, which the engineers considered unsafe. 

The engineers were ultimately proven right. Reports of power loss, rear-end collisions on highways and serious accident-related injuries were submitted to federal regulators. A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of affected owners, and those who opted out pursued individual claims under various state lemon laws.

A Ford Powershift Transmission settlement was eventually reached. People who currently or formerly owned or leased a 2011–2016 Ford Fiesta and 2012–2016 Ford Focus car could receive benefits such as: discount certificates of up to $4,650 to purchase a new car, cash payments up to $2,325 or a vehicle repurchase through arbitration.²⁴

5-Ford ‘10R80’ 10-Speed Transmissions

The Ford 10R80 transmission was the product of a Ford-General Motors joint venture to design and manufacture two transmissions: a front-drive 9-speed for small cars and a rear-drive 10-speed transmission intended for use in its larger vehicle lineup.

Ford’s 10R80 transmissions were installed in several models, including 2017–2020 Ford F-150 trucks, 2018–2024 Ford Expedition, 2018–2024 Ford Mustang, 2018–2024 Lincoln Navigator, and 2019–2024 Ford Ranger. However, owners reported issues such as clunking upon vehicle startup, lunging, hesitation, harsh and bumpy shifting, gear slippage, and gears getting stuck. In extreme cases, abrupt loss of motive power from gear shifting issues caused drivers whiplash and even caused accidents.²⁵

The problems sparked three class action lawsuits for 2017–2020 Ford F-150 trucks, of which only one remains active (O’Connor v Ford, after one was dismissed and the other consolidated). The lawsuit alleges that Ford knew of the shifting issues but cannot adequately address them.

Ford initially tried to solve the problem with software updates. A technical service bulletin for 2018 Ford F-150 trucks advised technicians to remedy harsh shifting by reprogramming the powertrain control module. It claims the adaptive transmission shift strategy allows the computer to improve shift quality after learning the transmission’s unique parameters. Resetting this strategy starts a re-learning process that temporarily causes firmer-than-normal shifting.²⁶

According to the lawsuit, the issue lies in the transmission’s internal seals. Without proper pressure on both sides of the seals, the clutches may fail to engage correctly.²⁷

Ford has since issued additional TSBs claiming the shifting issues stem from other components, like the transmission solenoid ID strategy, sticking valves in the main control valve body and axial moment of the clutch cylinder sleeve.²⁸

6-Ford EcoBoost Engine Coolant Leaks

A manufacturing defect in Ford’s EcoBoost engines allegedly allows engine coolant to leak into the engine’s cylinders. Once coolant enters the cylinders, it can cause corrosion, oil dilution and contamination. These effects, along with resulting low coolant levels, can cause overheating, cylinder head cracking at low mileages, engine failure and even engine fires.²⁹

The reported Ford EcoBoost engine issues have caused two class action lawsuits. All together, these lawsuits cover Ford and Lincoln vehicles equipped with 1.5L, 1.6L, 2L and 2.5L EcoBoost engines. The vehicle models in each lawsuit include:

• Miller v. Ford: 2013–2019 Ford Escape, 2013–2019 Ford Fusion, 2015–2018 Ford Edge, 2017–2019 Lincoln MKC and 2017–2019 Lincoln MKZ
• Nelson v. Ford: 2015–2024 Ford Mustang, 2019–2024 Ford Ranger, 2016–2024 Ford Explorer, 2021–2024 Ford Bronco, 2015–2020 Lincoln MKC, 2020–2022 Lincoln Corsair

In a properly functioning engine, coolant follows a closed path through the cylinder head and engine block, absorbing heat before entering the radiator. There, it cools down before circulating through the engine again.

However, a design flaw in the EcoBoost engine’s block and cylinder head allegedly disrupts this process. Instead of circulating properly, the coolant seeps through grooves where the cylinder head attaches to the cylinder block. As the coolant pools there, it degrades the seal and allows the coolant to leak into the cylinders themselves.

According to the lawsuit, Ford responded with superficial “Band-Aid” remedies such as installing coolant level sensors, recalibrating engine software and replacing parts other than the engine block. None of these solve the underlying defect. As a result, vehicle owners and lessees are left paying thousands of dollars out of pocket for repairs and replacements. In the case of Nelson v Ford, one couple had to pay $9,460 out of pocket for an engine replacement.³⁰