We found the following complaints for FORD F-550 SD (2012)
Read complaints for FORD F-550 SD (2012)
We just had to pay an $800.00+ bill for pinched wires under the cab of the truck caused by the manufacturer not properly routing the harness, therefore causing a dead short in the truck and causing the replacement of 4 batteries since june 2015.the service writer said this was done by ford and not covered under warranty!because of the pinched wire the driver had to first step on the brake pedal then turn to key to start
Vehicle shut down completely during normal highway driving at approximately 65 mph.lost engine power and all interior power, including ignition power.
The contact owns a 2012 ford f-550 sd. The contact stated that while driving approximately 20 mph, a loud banging sounded was heard inside the cabin and the engine power reduced substantially. The engine was turned off and restarted, but the failure persisted. An independent mechanic diagnosed the vehicle and detected that the turbo became stuck and the turbo hose disconnected. The hose was reconnected; however, the failure continued. The vehicle was not repaired a second time. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The approximate failure mileage was 45,000. The vin was unavailable. Ma 10/6
The turbo bearing failed in the truck at 21,101 miles.the dealership replaced it, but since then i have spent way too much time at the dealership for problems with this truck that i should not be having.there is also a typewriter ticking noise coming from the engine after oil changes, ford is aware of it, but says it is not a problem.they state that some motors do it, and some don't.again this sounds like a serious quality control problem.i noticed the a/c was not working in april of this year, the first time it was warm enough to use it.it just blew hot air and the truck had about 50,000 miles on it.ford serviced the a/c at 55,019 miles on 22 april 14.the a/c worked for a day and then stopped working again.took it back to ford at the next service and they spent several hours working on the truck and think they have it solved.however, since my bumper to bumper warranty expired at 36,000 miles they state that i owe the bill.took the truck in at 65,000 miles to get the oil changed and the radiator serviced at the regular maintenance intervals.the ford dealership said they could not service the radiator because it was leaking and they don't want to make the leak worse.they said a new radiator installed is $1300.i should not have to replace a radiator at this mileage.i did some checking at the www.ford-trucks.com forums and found that numerous people have problems, with the turbos (f450s and 550s), radiators (all super duty types) and a/c (all super duty types).this frustrating and time consuming to say the least.it has cost my business a fair amount of money already in lost business and the repairs to go with it.i purchased an extended warranty for the motor to 200,000 miles and an extended service plan out to 120,000.this truck has been cared for and serviced only by ford.way too many problems already.
Vehicles pto pressure switch is leaking onto exhaust and per jerr-dan who has a recall for the same complaint on the same vehicle range and application (ref num. 14v-507) this vehicle is not covered? vehicle is a 2012 f550 with a muncie power take of unit with a pressure switch mounted next to exhaust.
Incident #1:it was determined during the assembly process the manufacturer of my expedition vehicle/motor home (mh) was not in compliance with national highway traffic safety admin., dot regulation under 571.108 covering lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Specifically my mh was missing two amber clearance lamps on the front, and two red side marker lamps on the rear. After manufacturer was informed of the violation they corrected the mistake. Incident #2:it was determined 08/07/2012 during the assembly process the manufacturer of my mh was not in compliance with the national highway traffic safety admin., code of federal regulations title 49, part 571: 571.120 for motor homes. The combined weight rating of the tires on the rear axle was 12790, and the combined weight rating of the rims was 13660. The weight rating of the rear axle of my mh was 14706. The combined weight rating of the rear tires was 1916 pound less than the weight rating of the axle-not legal per dot regulations. Therefore, owner asked manufacturer to put the factory dual tires & rims back on the mh in order to be in compliance with dot regulations.incident #3:it was determined 04/30/2014 that manufacturer of my mh was not in compliance with dot& nhtsa (national highway traffic safety administration) regulation 49 cfr part 571 (federal motor vehicle safety standards; cargo carrying capacity).no label on my mh provides the following information:the weight of a full load of water, the unit weight of water and a cautionary statement that the weight of water is part of cargo. Motor home labels must display the maximum weight of occupants and cargo. In addition, for motor homes, the label must show the safety belt equipped seating capacity and must indicate that the tongue weight of a towed trailer counts as cargo. Updated 5/29/14updated 10/30/2014updated 8/23/2017
Incident #1:it was determined during the assembly process the manufacturer of my expedition vehicle/motor home (mh) was not in compliance with national highway traffic safety admin., dot regulation under 571.108 covering lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Specifically my mh was missing two amber clearance lamps on the front, and two red side marker lamps on the rear. After manufacturer was informed of the violation they corrected the mistake. Incident #2:it was determined 08/07/2012 during the assembly process the manufacturer of my mh was not in compliance with the national highway traffic safety admin., code of federal regulations title 49, part 571: 571.120 for motor homes. The combined weight rating of the tires on the rear axle was 12790, and the combined weight rating of the rims was 13660. The weight rating of the rear axle of my mh was 14706. The combined weight rating of the rear tires was 1916 pound less than the weight rating of the axle-not legal per dot regulations. Therefore, owner asked manufacturer to put the factory dual tires & rims back on the mh in order to be in compliance with dot regulations.incident #3:it was determined 04/30/2014 that manufacturer of my mh was not in compliance with dot& nhtsa (national highway traffic safety administration) regulation 49 cfr part 571 (federal motor vehicle safety standards; cargo carrying capacity).no label on my mh provides the following information:the weight of a full load of water, the unit weight of water and a cautionary statement that the weight of water is part of cargo. Motor home labels must display the maximum weight of occupants and cargo. In addition, for motor homes, the label must show the safety belt equipped seating capacity and must indicate that the tongue weight of a towed trailer counts as cargo. Updated 5/29/14updated 10/30/2014updated 8/23/2017
Incident #1:it was determined during the assembly process the manufacturer of my expedition vehicle/motor home (mh) was not in compliance with national highway traffic safety admin., dot regulation under 571.108 covering lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Specifically my mh was missing two amber clearance lamps on the front, and two red side marker lamps on the rear. After manufacturer was informed of the violation they corrected the mistake. Incident #2:it was determined 08/07/2012 during the assembly process the manufacturer of my mh was not in compliance with the national highway traffic safety admin., code of federal regulations title 49, part 571: 571.120 for motor homes. The combined weight rating of the tires on the rear axle was 12790, and the combined weight rating of the rims was 13660. The weight rating of the rear axle of my mh was 14706. The combined weight rating of the rear tires was 1916 pound less than the weight rating of the axle-not legal per dot regulations. Therefore, owner asked manufacturer to put the factory dual tires & rims back on the mh in order to be in compliance with dot regulations.incident #3:it was determined 04/30/2014 that manufacturer of my mh was not in compliance with dot& nhtsa (national highway traffic safety administration) regulation 49 cfr part 571 (federal motor vehicle safety standards; cargo carrying capacity).no label on my mh provides the following information:the weight of a full load of water, the unit weight of water and a cautionary statement that the weight of water is part of cargo. Motor home labels must display the maximum weight of occupants and cargo. In addition, for motor homes, the label must show the safety belt equipped seating capacity and must indicate that the tongue weight of a towed trailer counts as cargo. Updated 5/29/14updated 10/30/2014updated 8/23/2017
Read more
