Ford Authority

2022 Ford Bronco Sport Recalled Over Fuel Pump Bracket Issue

Ford Motor Company is recalling select 2022 Ford Bronco Sport models over a fuel pump bracket issue.

The defect: in affected vehicles, the fuel pump control module (FPCM) bracket may not be secured to the fuel tank assembly, which can lead to FPCM failure and cause an engine stall.

The hazards: an engine stall can increase the risk of a crash.

Ford is not aware of any reports of accidents or injuries related to this condition.

Components: fuel pump control module (FPCM) bracket.

Affected vehicles: select 2022 Ford Bronco Sport models produced between August 10th, 2022, and August 11th, 2022.

Number of vehicles affected: 26

The fix: dealers will replace the fuel tank, free of charge.

Owners should: wait for communications from Ford, which will begin December 5th, 2022. The Ford reference number for this recall is 22S66.


  • Ford Customer Service: 1-866-436-7332
  • FoMoCo Recall Number: 22C22
  • NHTSA Toll-Free: 1-888-327-4236
  • NHTSA (TTY): 1-800-424-9153
  • NHTSA Website:

We’ll have the latest on all Ford Motor Company recalls as they’re issued, so be sure and subscribe to Ford Authority for more Ford Bronco Sport news, Ford recall news, and ongoing Ford news coverage.

Brett's lost track of all the Fords he's owned over the years and how much he's spent modifying them, but his current money pits include an S550 Mustang and 13th gen F-150.

Subscribe to Ford Authority

For around-the-clock Ford news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest Ford updates. It's totally free.


  1. Tim

    Quality is not a job anymore at ford

  2. Mike Towpath Traveler

    Looking at the component, on-line, it shows a plastic fuel pump bracket that appears to be secured with 2 screws. So, the solution is to replace the entire gas tank? Ridiculous on both levels, that this company would allow the component go down the assembly line, unsecured…….and their solution is to outright replace the entire fuel tank. Total incompetence, as if these people just got into the car-building business. Henry Ford I and II would have fired these people. At Ford, Quality is Not Job 1, indeed.

    1. RWFA

      LoL. Looks like you know about as much about HF1 and HF2 and their relationship to quality as you do about the complexity of modern vehicle manufacture.

      HF1 never built vehicles this complex or this precise. If you look at the primitive nature of and wide tolerances in the vehicles built under his reign there’s no indication that he would have been better than the industry standard.

      The same holds for HF2, although he had some good people just under him who were known for quality, Ford’s quality by the end of his reign in 1979 was average for Detroit and worse than the Japanese.

      His successor Caldwell understood the role that quality played in operations, customer perception and loyalty and, most of all, profit and survival.

      As to the “Quality is Job 1” ad tagline, this was, in essence a response to the dismal also ran quality level to which Ford had fallen during HF2’s last decade at the company. It was a necessary attempt at o change customer perceptions.

      From the NYT obituary of the ad man (Cox) who coined the Q is J1 tagline and led the ad campaign:

      “it wasn’t until the summer of 1981 that “Quality is Job 1” became Ford’s calling card in marketing.
      Before Cox’s campaign, “Job 1” meant something very different — and sacred — to Detroit automakers. Job 1 referred to the first of a new or redesigned model that rolled off the assembly line.

      The Detroit priority at the time was, “Don’t worry what the car is like, just get it out on time,” author Jeremy Main wrote in his book, Quality Wars: The Triumphs and Defeats of American Business.

      And Ford was very much a disciple of the practice. In 1978, a year before he became CEO of the company, Ford President Philip Caldwell wrote a note to himself before a meeting: “quality – number one.” Caldwell later decreed at the management meeting, Main wrote, that quality would become a new priority for the automaker.

      Donald Petersen, Ford’s president in the early 1980s, who later became CEO and chairman, also embraced the quality push and the slogan was soon plastered across Ford. A 1982 commercial turned the words into a jingle and featured workers describing specific quality updates on vehicles.”

      Lots of things can happen to quality during manufacturing of an extremely complex product produced in a decentralized fashion dependent upon tens of thousands of people across the company and its supply base.

      Poor decisions, and inattention, at many levels, leading to quality fails, can happen at any point of this process. Indeed, such things are usually the result of a combination of these factors involving multiple people where each contributes a little mistake that cumulatively, over time, result in a recallable event or other TGW as seen in internal statistics and external IQS, customer satisfaction results and publicized recalls.

      As to this defect, it affected 26 vehicles, that made it into the field, and is the result of operator error at the 1st tier supplier, itself a global fuel tank expert, where the operator mis adjusted a die gap for the blow mounded plastic tank. The flaw was discovered downstream by a Ford assembly worker.

      The tank is replaced because the tank is defective (incorrect die gap setting during fabrication) resulting in problems in the tank to bracket mount’s stability and durability. (The 573 report says the defect results in a condition which allows the pump assembly to move enough that over time it fatigues the electrical connection hardware and the pump then fails to operate.)

      Such things can happen if the manufacturing process FMEA doesn’t correctly predict the likelihood and outcome of operator error and add failure proofing features to the design or process, and where not 100% possible add downstream checks (themselves not 100% sure.)

      This is the kind of thing that happens in automaking on a frequent basis. Most of it we never hear of because it is discovered and contained at the supplier or within Ford.

      Here a few slipped out and need a field remedy.

      The more interesting thing this defect suggests is, given the small numbers of vehicles recalled (there were undoubtedly more that were caught before shipping and fixed within the plant) is how lean the pipeline is between the supplier facility and the fuel tank installation point on the assy line.

  3. A. LLO McLEAN

    Parts and SCORE 100%
    IDIOT !


Leave a comment