NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
134 reports68,200 miles · Jul 14, 2009
Suspension
PREVIOUSLY REPORTED UNDER RECALL # 98V322000. THIS RECALL WAS LIMITED TO 1994-1999 CROWN VICTORIA FLEET VEHICLES, NATURAL GAS, AND LINCOLN TOWNCAR LIMO'S. A PART SEARCH SHOWS ALL CROWN VICTORIAS FROM 1994-1999 USE THE EXACT SAME PART NUMBER FOR THE BALL JOINTS. THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN FLEET, PASSENGER,CNG, OR LIMO'S…
Read full complaint
PREVIOUSLY REPORTED UNDER RECALL # 98V322000. THIS RECALL WAS LIMITED TO 1994-1999 CROWN VICTORIA FLEET VEHICLES, NATURAL GAS, AND LINCOLN TOWNCAR LIMO'S. A PART SEARCH SHOWS ALL CROWN VICTORIAS FROM 1994-1999 USE THE EXACT SAME PART NUMBER FOR THE BALL JOINTS. THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN FLEET, PASSENGER,CNG, OR LIMO'S. THIS DEFECTIVE BALL JOINT WAS APPARENTLY USED ON ALL 1994-1999 CROWN VICTORIAS EITHER SOLELY, OR INTERMITTENTLY, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ONLY FLEET/COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. FORD IS DEVELOPING A RECORD FOR PERFORMING RECALLS AND/OR REPAIRING DEFECTS FOR THEIR "FLEET CUSTOMERS" WHILE IGNORING THE AVERAGE CONSUMER WHO IS EXPERIENCING THE SAME PROBLEM. IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE ISSUE IS ONE OF SAFETY, BOTH TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE DEFECTIVE VEHICLE AND TO ALL OTHER VEHICLES ON THE ROAD. I BELIEVE FORD MOTOR CO DELIBERATELY SUPPLIED FALSE INFORMATION TO THE NHTSA REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THIS DEFECT. AN INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE CONDUCTED INCLUDING REVIEWING ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THESE VEHICLES. CURRENTLY, MY 1999 CROWN VICTORIA (68,000 MILES) HAS THE RIGHT LOWER CONTROL ARM LAYING ON THE GROUND IN MY GARAGE. I AM FORTUNATE IT HAPPENED WHILE I WAS PUTTING MY CAR AWAY AND NOT THE NEXT DAY WHEN I WOULD HAVE BEEN TRAVELING AT HIGH SPEEDS ON THE OHIO TURNPIKE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10276756
74,000 miles · Sep 10, 2008
Exterior Lighting
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. THE CONTACT EXPERIENCED ISSUES WITH THE EXTERIOR LIGHTING IN HER VEHICLE. THE TURN SIGNALS, TAIL LIGHTS, AND HAZARD LIGHTS STOPPED WORKING. THE HEADLIGHTS AND REVERSE LIGHTS WERE STILL OPERABLE. BOTH THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER STATED THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM TO INSP…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. THE CONTACT EXPERIENCED ISSUES WITH THE EXTERIOR LIGHTING IN HER VEHICLE. THE TURN SIGNALS, TAIL LIGHTS, AND HAZARD LIGHTS STOPPED WORKING. THE HEADLIGHTS AND REVERSE LIGHTS WERE STILL OPERABLE. BOTH THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER STATED THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM TO INSPECT THE VEHICLE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 78,634 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 74,000.
NHTSA ODI #10241690
146,875 miles · Mar 27, 2008
Engine And Engine Cooling
I HAVE 2 CROWN VICTORIA SEDANS AND BOTH HAVE "SPIT" SPARK PLUGS OUT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CYLINDER HEADS. I AM NEITHER AMUSED BY THESE OCCURRENCES NOR SATISFIED WHEN I SPOKE WITH FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE. LISTED BELOW IS THE LAST TIME THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED - THE 4TH BLOWN PLUG. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10222542
81,865 miles · Apr 12, 2007
SteeringSuspension
TL*-THE CONTACT TOOK THE 1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP FOR AN UNRELATED SERVICE. THE DEALERSHIP STATED THAT THE CONTACT HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE BOLTS IN THE STEERING SHAFT. THE TECHNICIAN REPLACED THEM. THE CONTACT FELT THAT THIS WAS A MAJOR SAFETY PROBLEM. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGE WERE 81,865.*AK THE DEA…
Read full complaint
TL*-THE CONTACT TOOK THE 1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA TO THE FORD DEALERSHIP FOR AN UNRELATED SERVICE. THE DEALERSHIP STATED THAT THE CONTACT HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE BOLTS IN THE STEERING SHAFT. THE TECHNICIAN REPLACED THEM. THE CONTACT FELT THAT THIS WAS A MAJOR SAFETY PROBLEM. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGE WERE 81,865.*AK THE DEALER ALSO REPLACED THE RIGHT FRONT BALL JOINT WHEN THE CAR WAS BEING REPAIRED. THE PITMAN ARM WAS REPLACED. UPDATE 5/4/07*TR
NHTSA ODI #10187667
80,584 miles · Mar 21, 2007
Electrical SystemExterior LightingInterior Lighting
BURNING SMELL UNDER DASH)WHEN BRAKE PEDAL AND/OR DOOR WAS OPEN. EVENTUALLY, I COULDN'T START THE CAR AS THE 'BRAKE LIGHTS' WOULD NOT COME ON. I CALLED THE FORD DEALER IN A RAGE THAT THEY HAD IDIOT LIGHTS FOR EVERYTHING ELSE,. AND AS FAR AS I KNEW, HAND SIGNALS WERE STILL LEGAL, THEY TOLD ME TO TURN THE IGNITION 1 CLICK, PUT …
Read full complaint
BURNING SMELL UNDER DASH)WHEN BRAKE PEDAL AND/OR DOOR WAS OPEN. EVENTUALLY, I COULDN'T START THE CAR AS THE 'BRAKE LIGHTS' WOULD NOT COME ON. I CALLED THE FORD DEALER IN A RAGE THAT THEY HAD IDIOT LIGHTS FOR EVERYTHING ELSE,. AND AS FAR AS I KNEW, HAND SIGNALS WERE STILL LEGAL, THEY TOLD ME TO TURN THE IGNITION 1 CLICK, PUT THE CAR IN NEUTRAL, THEN I WOULD BE ABLE TO START THE CAR. AFTER BRINGING THE CAR TO A CERTIFIED ELECTRICAL MECHANIC, HE STATED THAT FORD PUT THE SHORTEST, TIGHTEST WIRE CONNECTING THE BRAKE PEDAL AND AFTER CONSTANT APPLICATIONS THE WIRE SNAPPED. BUT THE BRAKE LIGHTS WENT OUT AGAIN, THIS TIME A DIFFERENT CONNECTION WAS BAD AND ARCHING, CAUSING THE WIRES TO BURN. HOWEVER, DURING THIS TIME, THE DOME, COURTESY, AND HEADLIGHTS WOULD COME ON/OFF PERIODICALLY AND AT ANY GIVEN TIME, AS IF IT WAS POSSESSED. I FINALLY PULLED THE INTERIOR LIGHTS OUT SO IT WOULD NOT DRAIN THE BATTERY. THE LATEST EXPERIENCE WAS THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS WOULD SHUT OFF IN THE OPEN POSITION AND THE BLINKER LIGHTS WOULD GO ON/OFF, SOMETIMES JUST ABOUT ON OR FULLY LIT. IT TURNED OUT TO BE THE BLINKER/ARM UNIT WAS BAD. SINCE THAT WAS JUST REPLACED, I AM HOPING THAT UNIT WAS THE PROBLEM AND THERE WILL BE NO MORE ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS.*AK
NHTSA ODI #10185869
67,658 miles · Jan 1, 2007
Engine And Engine Cooling
ENGINE #3 CYLINDER VALVE SEAT FAILED. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10177457
79,511 miles · Oct 29, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
I OWN A 1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA WITH 79,514 MILES ON IT. APPROXIMATELY 2 MONTHS AGO, I STARTED EXPERIENCING PROBLEMS WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING HOT BUT NOT OVERHEATING AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE A COOLANT LEAK. I IMMEDIATELY REPLACED THE RADIATOR HOSE. IT DID NOT HELP. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO HAVE THE OIL CHANGED AND ASKED THAT THE…
Read full complaint
I OWN A 1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA WITH 79,514 MILES ON IT. APPROXIMATELY 2 MONTHS AGO, I STARTED EXPERIENCING PROBLEMS WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING HOT BUT NOT OVERHEATING AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE A COOLANT LEAK. I IMMEDIATELY REPLACED THE RADIATOR HOSE. IT DID NOT HELP. I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO HAVE THE OIL CHANGED AND ASKED THAT THE COOLANT SYSTEM BE PRESSURE TESTED FOR LEAKS. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE INCREASED TEMPERATURE OF THE ENGINE HAD CAUSED THE THERMOSTAT HOUSING TO CRACK AND IT WAS ALSO DIAGNOSED TO NEED THE INTAKE MANIFOLD REPLACED. I PARKED THE VEHICLE FOR THE NEXT 2 1/2 MONTHS. DUE TO FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS, I COULD NOT AFFORD THE REPAIR WHICH WAS ESTIMATED TO BE $750 -850. NOW THAT I AM ABLE TO MAKE THE REPAIRS, A CALL TO A LOCAL FORD DEALER MADE ME AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE INTAKE MANIFOLD WAS DEFECTIVE, HOWEVER SINCE MY VEHICLE WAS PUT IN PRODUCTION IN DECEMBER 1999, I HAD MISSED THE RECALL DEADLINE. I HAVE OWNED THIS VEHICLE FOR ALMOST 3 YEARS. IN THAT TIME, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION ON THE RECALL OR THE CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST FORD. MY VEHICLE HAS HAD MAINTENANCE PERFORMED BY LOCAL FORD DEALERS AT WHICH TIME, I WAS NEVER MADE AWARE OF THE FAULTY PART. I DON'T FEEL AS THOUGH THIS IS FAIR. I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THIS FACTORY DEFECT, NOR WARRANTY EXTENSION TO HAVE IT REPLACED. IF I HAD BEEN AWARE, I WOULD HAVE HAD THE PART REPLACED. NOW, BECAUSE OF FAILURE BY THE MANUFACTURER TO INFORM THE CONSUMER OF THIS DEFECTIVE PART AND THE RECALL, I AM FORCED TO PAY TO HAVE THIS DEFECTIVE PART REPLACED. THIS IS AN UNEXPECTED EXPENSE THAT WILL DEFINITELY CAUSE A STRAIN ON MY FAMILY FINANCES. NOT ONLY THAT, UPON CALLING TO GET THE PRICE OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD, I WAS INFORMED THAT I MISSED THE EXTENDED WARRANTY DEADLINE FOR MY VEHICLE (DECEMBER 2005). I DO NOT THINK THIS IS FAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF I CAN PURSUE ACTION TO HAVE MY EXPENSES REIMBURSED AND IF NOT, HOW CAN I PURSUE LEGAL ACTION. RESPECTFULLY, OTHA FARRIS, JR. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10172067
Mileage unknown · Oct 4, 2006
StructureInjury
BOTH MY HUSBAND AND I COMPLAINED WHEN OUR CROWN VICTORIA WAS NEW AND ONWARD ABOUT THE FRONT DOORS WERE OPENED TO EXIT THE VEHICLE NOT HOLDING OPEN AND SNAPPING BACK ON THE DRIVER OR PASSENGER TRYING TO EXIT THE VEHICLE. FORD DID NOTHING ABOUT THIS, AND IGNORED THIS PROBLEM. EVEN WHEN WE TOOK OUR VEHICLE IN FOR SERVICE, WE TOLD T…
Read full complaint
BOTH MY HUSBAND AND I COMPLAINED WHEN OUR CROWN VICTORIA WAS NEW AND ONWARD ABOUT THE FRONT DOORS WERE OPENED TO EXIT THE VEHICLE NOT HOLDING OPEN AND SNAPPING BACK ON THE DRIVER OR PASSENGER TRYING TO EXIT THE VEHICLE. FORD DID NOTHING ABOUT THIS, AND IGNORED THIS PROBLEM. EVEN WHEN WE TOOK OUR VEHICLE IN FOR SERVICE, WE TOLD THE ATTENDANT ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND STILL NOTHING WAS DONE TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. WHEN SOMEONE PUTS THERE FOOT OUT TO EXIT A VEHICLE, THEY DON'T EXPECT THE DOOR TO SNAP BACK ONTO THEM. I'VE HAD MY LEG CLIPPED NUMEROUS TIMES, BESIDES MY EAR AND HEAD WHEN THE DOOR DOESN'T HOLD OPEN. I THINK FORD SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT THIS EARLY ON, INSTEAD OF DENYING THE PROBLEM UNTIL THE WARRANTY WAS OUT OF DATE. WE TOLD FORD ABOUT THE PROBLEM DOORS EVEN ON THE NEW OWNERS REQUESTED REVIEW OF OUR NEW AUTO. THIS PROBLEM HAS CONTINUED FROM THE FIRST TIME WE PURCHASED THIS 1999 CV ON TO THIS PRESENT DAY. FORD, WHAT SAY YOU!!! *NM
NHTSA ODI #10169915
91,400 miles · Aug 22, 2006
Engine And Engine Cooling
I BEGAN NOTICING PROBLEMS WITH MY 1999 CROWN VICTORIA IN EARLY 2005. MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT KEPT COMING ON AND IT KEPT USING A LOT OF COOLANT. A FORD TECHNICIAN TOLD ME DURING A RECENT REPAIR THAT IT NEEDED ANOTHER "INTAKE MANIFOLD" AND THAT IT WOULD COST ME $800 TO FIX IT AT THE DEALERSHIP. I ASKED HIM IF IT WAS COVERED UNDER…
Read full complaint
I BEGAN NOTICING PROBLEMS WITH MY 1999 CROWN VICTORIA IN EARLY 2005. MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT KEPT COMING ON AND IT KEPT USING A LOT OF COOLANT. A FORD TECHNICIAN TOLD ME DURING A RECENT REPAIR THAT IT NEEDED ANOTHER "INTAKE MANIFOLD" AND THAT IT WOULD COST ME $800 TO FIX IT AT THE DEALERSHIP. I ASKED HIM IF IT WAS COVERED UNDER ANY WARRANTY AND I WAS TOLD NO. THE OTHER NIGHT I WAS DRIVING DOWN I-35 HEADED TOWARDS DALLAS WHEN THE HIGH TEMPERATURE GAUGE STARTED GOING OFF. I SLOWED DOWN AND PULLED OVER AND WHEN I OPENED THE HOOD, THERE WAS COOLANT SPRAYING FROM THE FRONT OF THE INTAKE MANIFOLD (NEAR THE THERMOSTAT). I WAS ABLE TO COOL THE CAR DOWN BY PUTTING WATER IN THE RADIATOR. HOWEVER, I HAD TO DO THIS EVERY COUPLE OF MILES BECAUSE THE WATER KEPT SHOOTING OUT OF THE TOP OF THE ENGINE. I FINALLY GOT TO A WELL LIT AREA AND WAS ABLE TO ISOLATE THE LEAK. THERE IS A GASH IN THE INTAKE MANIFOLD APPROXIMATELY 2 INCHES LONG. I JUST CHECKED THE INTERNET FOR SOLUTIONS TO MY PROBLEM AND I FOUND OUT THAT FORD WAS SUED IN A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FOR THEIR DEFECTIVE PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLDS. IT TURNS OUT, MY VEHICLE IS ONE OF THE VEHICLES THAT WAS COVERED IN THE CLASS ACTION SUIT. (AND, IT WAS COVERED WHEN FORD TOLD ME IT WASN'T!!!) SO I CALLED FORD TO HAVE THEM COME PICK UP MY VEHICLE AND REPAIR IT. NOW THEY TELL ME I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT MYSELF!? COULD SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME? I DON'T THINK I SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT FORD ALREADY KNOWS IS A DEFECTIVE PART. I MEAN, WHO WOULD MAKE ENGINE PARTS OUT OF PLASTIC ANYWAY? I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE CAN HELP ME BUT IF YOU CAN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I HAVE TAKEN THE REST OF THE WEEK OFF WORK SO I CAN TRY TO RESOLVE THIS. THANK YOU. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10166257
40,000 miles · Aug 16, 2006
Steering
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED ON TWO OCCASIONS, THE VEHICLE'S FRONT TIE RODS WERE LOOSE AND HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE HAD AN OIL CHANGE PERFORMED AT THE SERVICE DEALER ON 08/16/04 WHO NOTICED THE RIGHT TIE ROD WAS LOOSE. THE RIGHT TIE ROD WAS REPLACED, AND THE SAME INCIDENT OCCURRED WITH THE LEFT TIE ROD TWO YEARS LATER. THE …
Read full complaint
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED ON TWO OCCASIONS, THE VEHICLE'S FRONT TIE RODS WERE LOOSE AND HAD TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE HAD AN OIL CHANGE PERFORMED AT THE SERVICE DEALER ON 08/16/04 WHO NOTICED THE RIGHT TIE ROD WAS LOOSE. THE RIGHT TIE ROD WAS REPLACED, AND THE SAME INCIDENT OCCURRED WITH THE LEFT TIE ROD TWO YEARS LATER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT CONTACTED. *AK
NHTSA ODI #10165657
Official recalls
5Nov 6, 2003
ON CERTAIN NATURAL GAS VEHICLES, IF A FLAME FROM A VEHICLE INTERIOR FIRE BECOMES LOCALLY DIRECTED AT THE NATURAL GAS FUEL TANK LOCATED IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE REAR SEAT, THE FLAME COULD DAMAGE THE FIBERGLASS WRAP ON THE TANK WEAKENING THE TANK.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE STRENGTH OF THE TANK IS SIGNIFICANTLY COMPROMISED, IT COULD RUPTURE, INCREASING THE RISK OF A FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL AN INSULATOR BEHIND THE CURRENT SEAT BACK. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN ON JANUARY 7, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
Jul 18, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. THESE VEHICLES HAVE JACKING INSTRUCTIONS WHICH, IF FOLLOWED, COULD CAUSE THE VEHICLE OPERATOR TO PLACE THE JACK ON A FRAME WELD WHEN ATTEMPTING TO RAISE A REAR WHEEL. IF THE VEHICLE IS JACKED UP WITH THE JACK PLACED ON THE FRAME WELD AND IF THE VEHICLE IS FREE TO ROLL (WHEELS NOT BLOCKED OR CHOCKED), THE JACK COULD YIELD AND THE VEHICLE MAY DROP SUDDENLY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS AND ANY PORTION OF THE OPERATOR'S BODY IS UNDER THE VEHICLE, THE POTENTIAL FOR PERSONAL INJURY EXISTS.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A REVISED JACK INSTRUCTION AND STOWAGE CARD AND JACK WARNING LABEL, AS WELL AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE OWNER GUIDE.
Jun 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET DRIVER'S SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
Jun 12, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES USING AFTERMARKET FRONT PASSENGER SIDE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE SOLD BY FORD PARTS DEPARTMENTS FROM JANUARY 1, THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000. THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 209, "SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES." THE EQUIPMENT INVOLVED IS SERVICE STOCK SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, MODEL NOS. H 9977, H 9979, T 9063, AND T 9217, BUILT BY TRW VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS, INC. (TRW) MANUFACTURED FROM JUNE 1, 1998 THROUGH MAY 21, 2000. SOME OF THESE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES MAY HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AS SERVICE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT ON THE VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THE RECALL.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION, THESE SEAT BELTS MAY NOT RESTRAIN AN OCCUPANT INCREASING THE RISK OF INJURY.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THESE VEHICLES AND REPLACE THE SERVICE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES THAT WERE INSTALLED IN THESE VEHICLES FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH JUNE 13, 2000.
Dec 16, 1998
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CERTAIN 1996-1999 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE, FLEET, NATURAL GAS, AND 1996-1999 LINCOLN TOWN CAR LIMOUSINE VEHICLES THAT WERE PRODUCED WITH A LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINT CONTAINING A ONE PIECE BEARING; AND 1990-1996 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE, FLEET, AND NGV VEHICLES AND 1990-1996 LINCOLN TOWN CAR LIMOUSINE VEHICLES THAT HAVE BEEN SERVICED WITH EITHER A BALL JOINT CONTAINING THE ONE-PIECE BEARING OR A FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM CONTAINING A BALL JOINT WITH A ONE-PIECE BEARING. THE ONE-PIECE BEARING WITHIN THE LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINT CAN WEAKEN SLOWLY DURING USE AND EVENTUALLY CRACK. THIS COULD RESULT IN SEPARATION OF THE BALL AND CAP OF THE JOINT, ALLOWING THE CONTROL ARM TO DROP TO THE GROUND.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS WHILE THE VEHICLE IS MOVING, REDUCED STEERING CONTROL COULD OCCUR, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE LOWER CONTROL ARM BALL JOINTS (2).
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
7DP05005 · Spark Plug Ejection From Cylinder Head
Opened Sep 22, 2005 · Closed Jan 4, 2006
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine; Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Additional source detail variants (3)
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
Engine And Engine Cooling
ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, ODI RECEIVED A PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE AGENCY INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTION IN CERTAIN MODEL YEAR 1997 THROUGH 2004 FORD VEHICLES WITH TRITON V-8 AND V-10 ENGINES.ODI RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 474 NON-DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES WHERE THE COMPLAINANT, OR THE DEALER REPAIRING THE VEHICLE, REPORTED THAT A SPARK PLUG DETACHED FROM THE CYLINDER AND/OR EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE.AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2005, ODI IS NOT AWARE OF ANY ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE ALLEGED DEFECT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, A CRASH, AN INJURY, OR A FATALITY IN ANY OF THE 10,319,810 SUBJECT VEHICLES.IN ADDITION, ODI IS AWARE OF ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE STALLED WITHOUT RESTART.INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ODI CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND OBTAINED FROM 72 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH COMPLAINANTS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING:(1) 99% OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE ON MY 1997 TO 2002 SUBJECT VEHICLES.(2) MOST THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED HEARING A LOUD POP WHILE DRIVING OR UPON STARTING UP THE VEHICLE FOLLOWED BY A LOUD, REPETITIVE CLICKING OR POPPING SOUND.(3) MANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE POPPING SOUND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME LOSS OF VEHICLE POWER; HOWEVER, IN 99% OF THE INCIDENTS REPORTED, THE VEHICLE DID NOT STALL.IN THE VERY FEW INCIDENTS WHERE THE VEHICLE DID STALL, MOST VEHICLES COULD BE RESTARTED.(4) ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINANTS CITED THAT THEY SMELLED GAS OR A SLIGHT BURNING SMELL WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.(5) IN ALL BUT A VERY FEW INCIDENTS, VEHICLE DAMAGE WAS LIMITED TO THE ENGINE.IN ONE INCIDENT, THE COMPLAINT REPORTED THAT THE FUEL RAIL WAS DAMAGED AND REPLACED AFTER ONE OF THE SPARK PLUGS EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE; HOWEVER, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE DAMAGE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY TYPE OF FUEL LEAK OR FIRE.IN ANOTHER INCIDENT, THE ONLY INCIDENT WHERE A FIRE WAS ALLEGED, THE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT NO FLUID LEAK WAS OBSERVED, BUT THAT A FIRE RESULTED AFTER THE SPARK PLUG HAD EJECTED FROM THE ENGINE AND HE HAD RESTARTED THE VEHICLE AND DRIVEN TO ANOTHER LOCATION.NONE OF THE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE HOOD.(6) ONLY TWO COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THEY OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE SOME DROPS OF FUEL COMING FROM THE CYLINDER WHERE THE SPARK PLUG HAD FAILED OR ON THE SPARK PLUG ITSELF; HOWEVER, EACH OF THESE COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO SMOKE OR FLAMES AS A RESULT OF HIS INCIDENT.AS THE PETITIONER NOTED, AND ODI?S ANALYSIS SHOWED, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A SPARK PLUG TO DETACH FROM THE ENGINE CYLINDER THREADS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES.HOWEVER, ODI?S ANALYSIS OF 474 COMPLAINTS DESCRIBING SUCH INCIDENTS FOUND ONLY A VERY FEW ALLEGED ANY SAFETY-RELATED CONSEQUENCES.NONE OF THESE SHOWED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.GIVEN THE LARGE POPULATION AND RELATIVELY LONG EXPOSURE TIME OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, THE COMPLAINT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE RISK TO MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY FROM THE ALLEGED DEFECT IS VERY LOW.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT NHTSA WOULD ISSUE AN ORDER FOR THE NOTIFICATION AND REMEDY OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION REQUESTED IN THE PETITION.THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA?S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY?S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.
EA03001 · Cng Tank Explosion
Opened Jan 27, 2003 · Closed Nov 19, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
IN SEPTEMBER 2002, A FUEL CYLINDER IN A NATURAL GAS POWERED VEHICLE (NGV) EXPLODED DURING A FIRE.FORD AND VRTC TEST ENGINEERS JOINTLY EXAMINED THE INCIDENT VEHICLE AND REVIEWED TESTING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE (PRD) WAS PROPER.THE PURPOSE OF A PRD IS TO PROTECT A COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS TANK FROM OVERPRESSURE BY ALLOWING THE CNG TO VENT WHEN THE TEMPERATURE REACHES A SPECIFIC POINT.THE PRD WAS REMOVED FROM THE FAILED TANK AND SUBJECTED TO A YIELD TEMPERATURE DETERMINATION TEST. IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT A DIRECT FLAME (FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE) ONTO THE CYLINDER (LOCATED BEHIND THE REAR SEAT IN THE TRUNK)COMPROMISED THE HOOP STRENGTH OF THE NATURAL GAS CYLINDER, THUS ALLOWING THE CYLINDER TO FAIL PRIOR TO THE PRD RELEASING AT ITSDESIGNED TEMPERATURE.AS A RESULT OF THIS TESTING AND REVIEW OF THE INVOLVED VEHICLE, FORD HAS DEVELOPED AN INSULATOR TO INSULATE THE NATURAL GAS FUEL TANK FROM A LOCALLY DIRECTED FLAME PROJECTING FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE VEHICLE.INSULATORS WILL BE INSTALLED BEHIND THE BACK SEAT ON SUBJECT VEHICLES TO PREVENT FUTURE FAILURES OF THIS TYPE. FORD'S ACTION ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF ODI.THEREFORE, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.
PE02071 · Cng Tank Exploding In A Fire
Opened Oct 1, 2002 · Closed Jan 27, 2003
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
AN EXPLOSION OF A COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) TANK SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OCCUR, AS THE TANK IS FITTED WITH A PRESSURE RELIEF DEVICE (PRD). THIS PRD SHOULD RELEASE THE CNG IN THE TANK, PRIOR TO THE PRESSURE REACHING THE TANK BURST PRESSURE.THE PRD DID NOT RELEASE IN THE SUBJECT WISCONSIN POLICE CRUISER EXPLOSION.NHTSA HAS RECOVERED THE PRD VALVE FROM THE TANK THAT EXPLODED AND TESTING WILL BE NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH WHY THIS TANK SAFETY VALVE DID NOT RELEASE IN THE VERY HIGH TEMPERATURE FIRE THAT OCCURRED IN THE POLICE CRUISER.THERE IS ONLY THE SINGLE KNOWN EVENT, BUT DUE TO THE CATASTROPIC FORCE OF SUCH AN EXPLOSION AND THE POTENTIAL FOR INJURY AND LOSS OF LIFE, THIS INVESTIGATION IS BEING UPGRADED.
DP02007 · FUEL-FED Fires
Opened Aug 22, 2002 · Closed Dec 4, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
THE FARS DATA SHOWS THAT THE RISK OF FIRE FROM IMPACT IN ALL DIRECTIONS IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS THE SAME AS ALL OTHER SEDANS.THE SUBJECT VEHICLES ARE NOT OVER REPRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO THE RISK OF FIRE IN REAL-WORLD HIGH-ENERGY CRASHES.A FURTHER DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATED TO POST CRASH FIRES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS SET OUT IN THE CLOSING REPORT FOR SQ 01-014 AND THAT REPORT IS IN THE DOCKET FOR THIS PETITION.AFTER REVIEWING THE PETITION AND ITS SUPPORTING MATERIALS, AS WELL AS INFORMATION FURNISHED BY FORD AND GM, AND INFORMATION WITHIN THE AGENCY'S POSSESSION FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND OTHER RELATED ACTIONS,NHTSA HAS CONCLUDED THAT FUTHER INVESTIGATION CONCERNING POST-CRASH FIRES IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES IS NOT LIKELY TO LEAD TO A DECISION THAT THE VEHICLES CONTAIN A SAFETY DEFECT.
SQ01014 · Post Rear End Collision Fires
Opened Nov 27, 2001 · Closed Oct 3, 2002
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage
There is no summary currently available
PE00043 · Rear Axle Trailing Arm Frame Mounting
Opened Oct 20, 2000 · Closed Feb 2, 2001
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure
There is no summary currently available
PE99047 · Blow Back During Refueling
Opened Jul 12, 1999 · Closed Sep 23, 1999
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Vehicle Speed Control:linkages
There is no summary currently available
Illustration