NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
Steering complaints
19 reportsClear category filter118,565 miles · Sep 8, 2014
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED AND REQUIRED EXCESSIVE FORCE TO MANEUVER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 118,565. UPDATED 10/22/14*CN THE CONSUMER STAT…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, THE STEERING WHEEL SEIZED AND REQUIRED EXCESSIVE FORCE TO MANEUVER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 118,565. UPDATED 10/22/14*CN THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE WAS DIAGNOSED BY THE DEALER. THE UNIVERSAL JOINTS IN THE STEERING SHAFT WERE CORRODED. THE 2005 CROWN VICTORIA WAS RECALLED FOR THE SAME THING. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. UPDATED 4/6/2015 *JS
NHTSA ODI #10631468
140,000 miles · Aug 1, 2014
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME LOOSE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THE STEERING SHAFT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 70 MPH, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME LOOSE. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO A DEALER WHERE IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THE STEERING SHAFT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 140,000.
NHTSA ODI #10618222
126,293 miles · Jun 1, 2014
Steering
STEERING COLUMN (LOWER SHAFT) WAS REPLACED BY ALL AMERICAN FORD IN PARAMUS NJ ON 25 OCTOBER 2011 WITH A LATER TYPE SHAFT (PER RECEIPT A 2006 PART NUMBER). STEERING NOW BINDS SEVERELY AT ANY SPEED, PARTICULARLY ALONG THE CENTER, IN MILD TURNS (SUCH AS ON A HIGHWAY). HAVE ATTEMPTED TO LUBRICATE THE U-JOINTS, BUT THE EFFECT IS ONLY…
Read full complaint
STEERING COLUMN (LOWER SHAFT) WAS REPLACED BY ALL AMERICAN FORD IN PARAMUS NJ ON 25 OCTOBER 2011 WITH A LATER TYPE SHAFT (PER RECEIPT A 2006 PART NUMBER). STEERING NOW BINDS SEVERELY AT ANY SPEED, PARTICULARLY ALONG THE CENTER, IN MILD TURNS (SUCH AS ON A HIGHWAY). HAVE ATTEMPTED TO LUBRICATE THE U-JOINTS, BUT THE EFFECT IS ONLY TEMPORARY. VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AT THIS POINT, AND IT IS UNACCEPTABLE THAT A CRITICAL SYSTEM SUCH AS STEERING SHOULD FAIL SO SHORTLY IN THE VEHICLES LIFE SPAN. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10595353
70,000 miles · May 15, 2014
Exterior LightingSteeringVisibility/wiper
THE STEERING COLUMN TIGHTENS UP PERIODICALLY, RESULTS IN HARD STEERING, HAVE BEEN USING WD40 TO LOOSEN UP , NOTICED RECALL FOR 2005 MODEL YEARS AND UP. BLOWER MOTOR SHUTS DOWN PERIODICALLY RESULTING IN LOSS OF VISION FROM LACK OF DEFROSTERS, PROBLEM IS A HARD TO REACH CONNECTOR PLUG UNDERNEATH HOOD,TRIED CLEANING,WILL NOT CLEAR …
Read full complaint
THE STEERING COLUMN TIGHTENS UP PERIODICALLY, RESULTS IN HARD STEERING, HAVE BEEN USING WD40 TO LOOSEN UP , NOTICED RECALL FOR 2005 MODEL YEARS AND UP. BLOWER MOTOR SHUTS DOWN PERIODICALLY RESULTING IN LOSS OF VISION FROM LACK OF DEFROSTERS, PROBLEM IS A HARD TO REACH CONNECTOR PLUG UNDERNEATH HOOD,TRIED CLEANING,WILL NOT CLEAR PROBLEM,NO CORROSION NOTICED.HEADLIGHTS REPAIRED UNDER RECALL, LIGHTING CONTROL MODULE REPLACED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10588498
87,106 miles · Apr 7, 2014
Engine And Engine CoolingSteeringCrashInjury
DRIVING S ON M-10 FROM I-94 TO I-75 ENTRANCE RAMP. I ENTERED THE RAMP AT 25- 30 MPH WHEN THE STEERING LOCKED UP, I COULD NOT TURN THE WHEEL. BEFORE I KNEW IT I HIT THE CURB AND THEN ROLLED OVER APPROX. 3 TIMES DOWN AN EMBANKMENT AND FINALLY HITTING A CONCRETE BARRIER WHICH STOPPED THE CAR. AFTER THE ACCIDENT, THE HEAT SHIELD FRO…
Read full complaint
DRIVING S ON M-10 FROM I-94 TO I-75 ENTRANCE RAMP. I ENTERED THE RAMP AT 25- 30 MPH WHEN THE STEERING LOCKED UP, I COULD NOT TURN THE WHEEL. BEFORE I KNEW IT I HIT THE CURB AND THEN ROLLED OVER APPROX. 3 TIMES DOWN AN EMBANKMENT AND FINALLY HITTING A CONCRETE BARRIER WHICH STOPPED THE CAR. AFTER THE ACCIDENT, THE HEAT SHIELD FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE EXHAUST MANIFOLD WAS FOUND UNDER THE CAR, YOU COULD SEE IT RUSTED OFF AND YOU COULD SEE THE MARKS ON IT WHERE IT JAMMED THE STEERING SHAFT AND THE ENGINE BLOCK (STILL HAVE THE PART). BECAUSE OF THE COST CUTTING IN MATERIALS IN THE MANUFACTURING OF THIS HEAT SHIELD OUT OF SHEET METAL AND NOT OUT OF STAINLESS STEEL IT IS THE CAUSE OF THIS ACCIDENT. NOW BECAUSE OF THIS INFERIOR DESIGN AND THE ACCIDENT IT CAUSED, I'M DEALING WITH TBI, PTSD, PBA, NECK INJURY, LOWER BACK INJURY (WHICH IS AFFECTING MY LEGS MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO WALK). A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE ACCIDENT I GRADUATED WITH A BACHELORS DEGREE IN MARKETING, BUT NOW BECAUSE OF MY INJURIES I AM UNABLE TO WORK. THIS NEEDLESS ACCIDENT HAS CAUSED ME FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, I LOST MY HOME, UNABLE TO PAY MY STUDENT LOANS, UNABLE TO PAY MY BILLS. THIS ALL STEMS FROM SOMEONE AT FORD'S DECIDING TO CUT COSTS IN THE MANUFACTURING OF THE HEAT SHIELD OUT OF SHEET METAL INSTEAD OUT OF STAINLESS STEEL. FORD SHOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT A MAJORITY OF THESE CROWN VICTORIA'S ARE OWNED IN AREAS WHERE SALT IS USED IN THE WINTER. YOU WOULD THINK FORD'S BEING LOCATED IN DEARBORN, MICHIGAN WOULD USE COMMON SENSE IN THEIR DESIGN OF THIS PART, KNOWING SALT IS HEAVILY USED IN SNOW REMOVAL IN MICHIGAN. THEY SAVED A FEW DOLLARS, BUT IN DOING SO THEY RUINED MY LIFE !! I JUST WONDER HOW MANY ACCIDENTS WHERE CAUSED BY THIS POOR DESIGN? I WONDER HOW MANY OTHER LIVES HAVE BEEN RUINED AND DON'T REALIZE IT WAS CAUSED BY THIS DEFECTED DESIGN. I WAS JUST LUCKY TO FIND THE PART TO SHOW WHAT CAUSED THIS ACCIDENT. ..UPDATED 05/20/14 *BF...UPDATED 08/10/15*BF UPDATED 8/17/17*CN
NHTSA ODI #10578715
133,000 miles · Jan 16, 2014
SteeringWheels
BEGINNING IN SUMMER 2013, STEERING BECAME NOTICEABLY TIGHTER WHEN MAKING SLOW SPEED TURNS. NOVEMBER 2013 THE VEHICLE WAS BROUGHT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP TO HAVE AN ALIGNMENT DUE TO TIRES CONTINUOUSLY WEARING ON INSIDE WALLS, WHICH I SUSPECT IS DUE TO THE STEEL WHEEL RECALL (NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 07V079000) BUT FORD WILL NOT HONOR…
Read full complaint
BEGINNING IN SUMMER 2013, STEERING BECAME NOTICEABLY TIGHTER WHEN MAKING SLOW SPEED TURNS. NOVEMBER 2013 THE VEHICLE WAS BROUGHT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP TO HAVE AN ALIGNMENT DUE TO TIRES CONTINUOUSLY WEARING ON INSIDE WALLS, WHICH I SUSPECT IS DUE TO THE STEEL WHEEL RECALL (NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 07V079000) BUT FORD WILL NOT HONOR IF THE CAR IS IN PRIVATE POSESSION. AFTER THE VEHICLE WAS SERVICED, I WAS ADVISED THE STEERING SHAFT WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. UPON RESEARCH, I DISCOVERED OTHER OWNERS EXPERINCING THE SAME ISSUES. FORD ISSUED A RECALL (FORD RECALL #13S08) TO INSPECT AND REPLACE THE UPPER AND LOWER STEERING SHAFT ONLY FOR 2005-2011 MODELS. THE DEALERSHIP ADVISED ME TO CONTACT FORD DIRECTLY, AND I DID. I EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS THAT THIS IN AN IMMEDIATE SAFETY CONCERN AND FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECALL. I WAS ADVISED BY FORD THAT THEY SPOKE WITH THE SERVICE MANAGER AT MY DEALERSHIP AND VERIFIED THAT MY CAR IS INDEED HAVING ISSUES THAT ARE EXACTLY LIKE THE RECALL INCLUDED. I WAS TOLD THAT MY CAR WAS NOT INCLUDED IN A RECALL AND THAT THEY WOULD KEEP MY INFORMATION ON FILE FOR THEM TO REVIEW IN THE EVENT OF A FUTURE RECALL. I AM HAVING AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC REPLACE THE UPPER AND LOWER SHAFT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE HIGH CHANCE IT COULD BECOME DISENGAGED AND RENDER THE VEHICLE INOPERABLE. I STRONGLY URGE THE NHTSA TO INVESTIGATE THIS AND OTHER CASES OF 2004 CROWN VICTORIA (CVPI) OWNERS WHO COMPLAIN OF BOTH THE STEERING ISSUE AND THE RECALL THAT FORD FAILS TO FIX ON THE STEEL WHEELS. THE VEHICLE IS NO LONGER IN FLEET USE, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM OF THE DEFECTIVE STEEL WHEELS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF FORD. THEY NEED TO INSPECT AND REPLACE THE WHEELS JUST AS THEY WOULD FOR ANY OTHER RECALL REGARDLESS OF THE CURRENT OWNER, HOW A RECALL SHOULD WORK. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10560260
68,000 miles · Sep 18, 2013
Exterior LightingSteering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH, THE HEAD LIGHTS FAILED. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT A FEW MONTHS LATER, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY STATED THAT THE STEERING SHAFT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AN…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 55 MPH, THE HEAD LIGHTS FAILED. THE CONTACT ALSO STATED THAT A FEW MONTHS LATER, THE STEERING WHEEL BECAME DIFFICULT TO TURN. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY STATED THAT THE STEERING SHAFT NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND THAT THEY COULD NOT DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE HEADLIGHT FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 68,000.
NHTSA ODI #10544230
126,298 miles · Jul 9, 2013
Steering
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, HE TURNED THE STEERING WHEEL BUT HAD TO INCREASE HIS EFFORT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION AND THEY STATED THAT THE STEERING COLUMN SHAFT WAS CORRODED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BUT THE FAILURE …
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA. THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 10 MPH, HE TURNED THE STEERING WHEEL BUT HAD TO INCREASE HIS EFFORT. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION AND THEY STATED THAT THE STEERING COLUMN SHAFT WAS CORRODED AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED BUT THE FAILURE RECURRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 126,298.
NHTSA ODI #10523864
11,000 miles · Jul 30, 2006
SteeringInjury
2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA LX. 4 DOOR SEDAN. STEERING COLUMN IS NOT ALIGNED WITH FRONT SEAT. THE COLUMN IS 3" OFF CENTER TOWARDS THE DRIVERS DOOR .FORD REPS. TELL ME THAT'S THE WAY THE CAR WAS MANUFACTURED. THAT'S FINE, BUT IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE A HEALTH CONDITION SUCH AS A CHRONIC BACK PROBLEM ITS VERY BOTHERSOME TO THE POINT OF …
Read full complaint
2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA LX. 4 DOOR SEDAN. STEERING COLUMN IS NOT ALIGNED WITH FRONT SEAT. THE COLUMN IS 3" OFF CENTER TOWARDS THE DRIVERS DOOR .FORD REPS. TELL ME THAT'S THE WAY THE CAR WAS MANUFACTURED. THAT'S FINE, BUT IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE A HEALTH CONDITION SUCH AS A CHRONIC BACK PROBLEM ITS VERY BOTHERSOME TO THE POINT OF HAVING TO SELL THE CAR. TOO BAD, I USED TO BE A FORD GUY BUT I AM FORCED TO SHOP AT A DIFFERENT DEALER. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10163923
NHTSA investigations
6PE15028 · Loss Of Headlights
Opened Aug 10, 2015 · Closed Jan 8, 2016
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting; Exterior Lighting:headlights
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation concerning the loss of headlights in model year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles. The subject vehicles share the same architecture and major components.ODI has received 636 unique reports (for all submission dates) related to the alleged defect, with owners describing a loss of both low and/or high beam headlights occurring while driving.ODI identified 4 Vehicle Owner Questionnaire ( VOQ) reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers alleged running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 4173 unique reports related to the alleged problem.There were a total of 11 crashes reported within that group as well as one injury that occurred when the vehicle struck an unseen object on the side of the road when the headlights failed. Ford also submitted 49,843 warranty claims related to headlight failures.Most reports indicate that the headlights failed without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some noted the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.Consumers also noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is physically actuated.On December 21st, 2015 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (15V-861) to remedy headlight failures on (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.According to Ford, the headlights of the vehicle are controlled by the Lighting Control Module (LCM) located in the engine compartment of the vehicle.The LCM uses an internal relay, mounted to a circuit board, to control power to the headlights. The headlight relay is soldered to the circuit board at six different terminals. The original equipment LCMs were manufactured in a manner that resulted in the solder joints fatiguing and/or cracking as a result of repeated thermal cycling and/or vibration, a defect condition. The condition could be exacerbated by manufacturing quality issues such as an insufficient amount of solder, effecting the continuity between the circuit board and the relay terminal, and resulting in loss of headlights while driving.Other lighting functions are unaffected by this condition.The LCM manufacturing processes were revised to address the defect condition and Ford has been conducting a warranty extension program to cover defective LCMs since late 2013.Under the recall Ford will replace any remaining defective LCMs in recalled vehicles with remedy LCMs once they become available.See NHTSA recall 15V-861 for further details on the safety recall.The recall action initiated by Ford addresses the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at SaferCar.gov under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Exterior Lighting
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation concerning the loss of headlights in model year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles. The subject vehicles share the same architecture and major components.ODI has received 636 unique reports (for all submission dates) related to the alleged defect, with owners describing a loss of both low and/or high beam headlights occurring while driving.ODI identified 4 Vehicle Owner Questionnaire ( VOQ) reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers alleged running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 4173 unique reports related to the alleged problem.There were a total of 11 crashes reported within that group as well as one injury that occurred when the vehicle struck an unseen object on the side of the road when the headlights failed. Ford also submitted 49,843 warranty claims related to headlight failures.Most reports indicate that the headlights failed without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some noted the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.Consumers also noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is physically actuated.On December 21st, 2015 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (15V-861) to remedy headlight failures on (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.According to Ford, the headlights of the vehicle are controlled by the Lighting Control Module (LCM) located in the engine compartment of the vehicle.The LCM uses an internal relay, mounted to a circuit board, to control power to the headlights. The headlight relay is soldered to the circuit board at six different terminals. The original equipment LCMs were manufactured in a manner that resulted in the solder joints fatiguing and/or cracking as a result of repeated thermal cycling and/or vibration, a defect condition. The condition could be exacerbated by manufacturing quality issues such as an insufficient amount of solder, effecting the continuity between the circuit board and the relay terminal, and resulting in loss of headlights while driving.Other lighting functions are unaffected by this condition.The LCM manufacturing processes were revised to address the defect condition and Ford has been conducting a warranty extension program to cover defective LCMs since late 2013.Under the recall Ford will replace any remaining defective LCMs in recalled vehicles with remedy LCMs once they become available.See NHTSA recall 15V-861 for further details on the safety recall.The recall action initiated by Ford addresses the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at SaferCar.gov under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Exterior Lighting:headlights
The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened an investigation concerning the loss of headlights in model year (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles. The subject vehicles share the same architecture and major components.ODI has received 636 unique reports (for all submission dates) related to the alleged defect, with owners describing a loss of both low and/or high beam headlights occurring while driving.ODI identified 4 Vehicle Owner Questionnaire ( VOQ) reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers alleged running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's Information Request (IR) letter, Ford Motor Company (Ford) responded with 4173 unique reports related to the alleged problem.There were a total of 11 crashes reported within that group as well as one injury that occurred when the vehicle struck an unseen object on the side of the road when the headlights failed. Ford also submitted 49,843 warranty claims related to headlight failures.Most reports indicate that the headlights failed without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some noted the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.Consumers also noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is physically actuated.On December 21st, 2015 Ford notified ODI that it would conduct a safety recall (15V-861) to remedy headlight failures on (MY) 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.According to Ford, the headlights of the vehicle are controlled by the Lighting Control Module (LCM) located in the engine compartment of the vehicle.The LCM uses an internal relay, mounted to a circuit board, to control power to the headlights. The headlight relay is soldered to the circuit board at six different terminals. The original equipment LCMs were manufactured in a manner that resulted in the solder joints fatiguing and/or cracking as a result of repeated thermal cycling and/or vibration, a defect condition. The condition could be exacerbated by manufacturing quality issues such as an insufficient amount of solder, effecting the continuity between the circuit board and the relay terminal, and resulting in loss of headlights while driving.Other lighting functions are unaffected by this condition.The LCM manufacturing processes were revised to address the defect condition and Ford has been conducting a warranty extension program to cover defective LCMs since late 2013.Under the recall Ford will replace any remaining defective LCMs in recalled vehicles with remedy LCMs once they become available.See NHTSA recall 15V-861 for further details on the safety recall.The recall action initiated by Ford addresses the safety risks of concern to ODI.Accordingly, the investigation is closed.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at SaferCar.gov under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
DP15002 · Loss Of Headlamp/exterior Lighting
Opened Apr 1, 2015 · Closed Aug 11, 2015
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting; Exterior Lighting:headlights
In a letter dated October 2, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) was initially petitioned by the North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc. requesting a defect investigation of an alleged defect condition resulting in headlight and/or exterior lighting failure on 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.ODI analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 605 reports (for all submission dates) alleging headlight failure.The complaints indicate failures of both low beam headlights typically while driving, a defect condition that was evaluated under a prior ODI investigation (PE08066).Most consumer VOQs indicate that the headlights failed suddenly and without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some report the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.In some cases drivers were able to turn the headlights back on after a period of time while others reported the headlights would not come back on at all.Consumers noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is actuated.ODI identified 4 VOQ reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers indicated running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's April 7, 2015 Information Request letter, Ford provided data indicating it has received 3,092 complaints of failed headlights related to the Lighting Control Module (LCM), a device that controls the headlights and other lighting functions.This number includes the complaints Ford reviewed and classified as headlight failure due specifically to the LCM.Within Ford's complaints, there are 11 reports alleging a crash occurred.These drivers reported hitting objects, including other vehicles after the headlights failed causing damage to the affected vehicles.One driver was injured when their car struck an unseen object in the road, jerking the steering wheel from their hands and injuring their shoulder.In total 15 crash allegations were identified, all of which have occurred since ODI's prior evaluation of this issue.This petition has been granted.Preliminary Evaluation PE15-028 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SarchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Exterior Lighting
In a letter dated October 2, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) was initially petitioned by the North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc. requesting a defect investigation of an alleged defect condition resulting in headlight and/or exterior lighting failure on 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.ODI analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 605 reports (for all submission dates) alleging headlight failure.The complaints indicate failures of both low beam headlights typically while driving, a defect condition that was evaluated under a prior ODI investigation (PE08066).Most consumer VOQs indicate that the headlights failed suddenly and without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some report the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.In some cases drivers were able to turn the headlights back on after a period of time while others reported the headlights would not come back on at all.Consumers noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is actuated.ODI identified 4 VOQ reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers indicated running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's April 7, 2015 Information Request letter, Ford provided data indicating it has received 3,092 complaints of failed headlights related to the Lighting Control Module (LCM), a device that controls the headlights and other lighting functions.This number includes the complaints Ford reviewed and classified as headlight failure due specifically to the LCM.Within Ford's complaints, there are 11 reports alleging a crash occurred.These drivers reported hitting objects, including other vehicles after the headlights failed causing damage to the affected vehicles.One driver was injured when their car struck an unseen object in the road, jerking the steering wheel from their hands and injuring their shoulder.In total 15 crash allegations were identified, all of which have occurred since ODI's prior evaluation of this issue.This petition has been granted.Preliminary Evaluation PE15-028 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SarchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
Exterior Lighting:headlights
In a letter dated October 2, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) was initially petitioned by the North Carolina Consumers Council, Inc. requesting a defect investigation of an alleged defect condition resulting in headlight and/or exterior lighting failure on 2003-2005 Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis vehicles.ODI analyzed Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ) complaints received from consumers and identified a total of 605 reports (for all submission dates) alleging headlight failure.The complaints indicate failures of both low beam headlights typically while driving, a defect condition that was evaluated under a prior ODI investigation (PE08066).Most consumer VOQs indicate that the headlights failed suddenly and without warning leaving the driver with no forward lighting, however some report the headlights flickered or dimmed prior to turning off.In some cases drivers were able to turn the headlights back on after a period of time while others reported the headlights would not come back on at all.Consumers noted they were able to hold the flash to pass lever on the steering column mounted stalk to activate the high beams however this is only effective as long as the lever is actuated.ODI identified 4 VOQ reports alleging minor crash or loss of control incidents due to headlight failures.Drivers indicated running off of the road due to a lack of headlights and one driver reportedly struck a deer.No injuries were indicated in the VOQ crashes.In response to ODI's April 7, 2015 Information Request letter, Ford provided data indicating it has received 3,092 complaints of failed headlights related to the Lighting Control Module (LCM), a device that controls the headlights and other lighting functions.This number includes the complaints Ford reviewed and classified as headlight failure due specifically to the LCM.Within Ford's complaints, there are 11 reports alleging a crash occurred.These drivers reported hitting objects, including other vehicles after the headlights failed causing damage to the affected vehicles.One driver was injured when their car struck an unseen object in the road, jerking the steering wheel from their hands and injuring their shoulder.In total 15 crash allegations were identified, all of which have occurred since ODI's prior evaluation of this issue.This petition has been granted.Preliminary Evaluation PE15-028 has been opened to assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.The ODI reports cited above can be reviewed at www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SarchNHTSAID under the identification (ODI) numbers found in the attached list.
PE14021 · Steering Column Shaft Obstruction
Opened Jul 7, 2014 · Closed Nov 21, 2014
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System; Steering
On July 7, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (VOQs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. Since opening this investigation, ODI has received four additional owner complaints.One indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.The other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.Once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.The single incident ODI identified as a possible crash (VOQ No. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.No additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.Information provided by Ford in its September 10, 2014 response to ODI's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.Six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in March 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.Ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.This investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency will continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.The following VOQs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Engine And Engine Cooling:exhaust System
On July 7, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (VOQs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. Since opening this investigation, ODI has received four additional owner complaints.One indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.The other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.Once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.The single incident ODI identified as a possible crash (VOQ No. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.No additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.Information provided by Ford in its September 10, 2014 response to ODI's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.Six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in March 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.Ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.This investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency will continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.The following VOQs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.
Steering
On July 7, 2014 the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) opened a preliminary evaluation based on five complaints (VOQs) alleging incidents ofinterference between dislodged exhaust manifold heat shields and the lower steering shaft/knuckle, including one alleging the interference resulted in a crash on a highway entrance ramp. Since opening this investigation, ODI has received four additional owner complaints.One indicated that the shield was removed before binding could occur.The other three occurred at low speed and produced some momentary steering binding that was overcome by the driver when additional steering effort was applied.Once the shield was repaired or removed, the steering returned to normal.The single incident ODI identified as a possible crash (VOQ No. 10578715) related to this condition could not be verified and the description of the crash in the complaint was not supported by the police accident report.No additional crash allegations have been identified related to the alleged defect condition.Information provided by Ford in its September 10, 2014 response to ODI's information request letter identified 10 additional incidents resulting in a low rate of 1.6 incidents per 100,000 vehicles sold in vehicles ranging from 7 to 11 years in service.Six of these incidents were reported by a single source, a state police fleet that corrected the problems in March 2011 and has not reported any additional failures since.Ford also reported 5 warranty claims, but these incidents occurred at very low mileages and appeared to be caused by loose or missing heat shield attachment hardware rather than the corrosion condition that was the cause of the more recent incidents and the focus of this investigation.This investigation is closed. The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The Agency will continue to monitor complaints and other information relating to the alleged defect in the subject vehicles and take further action in the future if warranted.The following VOQs are associated with this investigation:10643753, 10615584, 10611362, 10610451, 10578715, 10479681, 10471833, 10317493.
PE08066 · Loss Of Headlight Function
Opened Nov 26, 2008 · Closed Mar 24, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting:headlights
THE AGENCY HAS CLOSED THIS INVESTIGATION BASED ON ITS REVIEW OF COMPLAINT REPORTS, FIELD AND TECHNICAL DATA PROVIDED BY FORD AND COMPLAINANT INTERVIEWS. FORD FOUND THAT SOME LIGHTING CONTROL MODULES (LCM) IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES CONTAINED DEFECTIVE SOLDER JOINTS ON THE PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD.THIS CONDITION CAN LEAD TO POOR HEADLIGHT PERFORMANCE RANGING FROM INTERMITTENT OUTAGE AND DIMMING TO EVENTUAL HEADLIGHTS FAILURE.THE FAILURE DOES NOT AFFECT OTHER LIGHTING FUNCTIONS (PARK, EMERGENCY FLASHER, BRAKE AND FLASH TO PASS LIGHTS).THE AGENCY IS AWARE OF A TOTAL OF 306 CONSUMERS COMPLAINTS AND NO REPORT OF CRASH, INJURY OR FATALITY.FORD REPORTS 2,074 WARRANTY CLAIMS RELATED TO HEADLIGHT FAILURE LINKED TO THE LCM DURING THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF OPERATION.ABOUT 12% (247) OF THESE CLAIMS ARE SPECIFIC TO HEADLIGHT FAILURE WHILE DRIVING.THE AVERAGE WARRANTY RATE FOR HEADLIGHT FAILING WHILE DRIVING IS LOW (0.05%).FORD REPORTS A SLIGHTLY HIGHER WARRANTY RATE EXPERIENCED FOR THE CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTOR VEHICLES AND THIS IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE HIGHER DUTY CYCLE OF THESE VEHICLES (HEADLIGHTS ON FOR LONGER PERIODS).A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL MONITOR THIS ISSUE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
DP05005 · 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.
RQ04007 · Fracture Of The Steel Wheel Rim
Opened Aug 2, 2004 · Closed Dec 20, 2004
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Wheels; Wheels:hub; Wheels:hubcap/cover; Wheels:rim
DURING A SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 MEETING AND IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS IN NOVEMBER, FORD ADVISED THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OF THEIR PLANS TO INTRODUCE AN IMPROVED STEEL WHEEL FOR MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE COMPONENT USE ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INDICATING THIS WOULD OCCUR IN DECEMBER 2004.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN INCORPORATES AN ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING PROCESS (SHOT PEENING) WHICH LOWERS TENSILE STRESS IN THE SURFACE LAYER OF THE RIM MATERIAL ADJACENT TO THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD. THEORETICALLY THIS SHOULD IMPROVE RIM DURABILITY BY REDUCING FATIGUE CRACK INITIATION SITES.INDICATIONS FROM FORD?S ACCELERATED TESTING METHODS SHOW AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NEW WHEEL.IN ADDITION TO PRIOR SAFETY RECALL 03V279 AND SERVICE ACTION (SA) 03M03, FORD WILL ANNOUNCE A NEW EXTENDED WARRANTY SA FOR VEHICLES BUILT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 2004 THAT SUFFER RIM FRACTURES IN SERVICE.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN WILL BE USED AS A REMEDY.FORD ADVISES THAT A SA IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING FUTURE WHEEL FAILURES (INCLUDING RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEEL FAILURES) BECAUSE: 1) FAILURE RATES ARE LOW BASED ON FORD?S ANALYSIS, AND 2) DRIVER WARNINGS (REPETITIVE SLOW AIR LOSS, AND OR STEERING WHEEL VIBRATION) ALLOW EARLY AND SAFE DETECTION OF CRACKED WHEELS.ODI HAS RECEIVED 25 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS (INVOLVING 22 VEHICLES) WHICH ALLEGE A RIM FRACTURE OF ONE OR MORE STEEL WHEELS.ABOUT HALF THE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLES BUILT WITH THE REMEDY WHEEL USED FOR RECALL 03V279, AND MOST OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES WERE SUBJECT TO THE RECALL.THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING PERTINENT FORD COMPLAINTS IS MADE DIFFICULT BY FORD?S PRIOR RECALL AND WARRANTY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.THE MANUFACTURER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS, WHICH PRIMARILY INVOLVE FAILURES OF RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEELS, ARE BASED ON ANALYSIS CONDUCTED TO DATE AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSERVATIVE.FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED, THUS ODI IS UPGRADING THIS INVESTIGATION TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA).DURING THE EA, PERTINENT FAILURE REPORTS AND CONSEQUENCES WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND REVIEWED.ODI AND FORD WILL DISCUSS DETAILS FOR CONDUCTING AN AUDIT ANALYSIS OF FAILED WHEELS REPLACED UNDER THE NEW SA.ADDITIONALLY, ODI IS AWAITING FORD?S LAB ANALYSIS OF TWO WHEELS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF VOQ REPORTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE NOTED CRASH EVENT.A DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE AS TO WHETHER FORD?S SERVICE ACTION IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING ONGOING RIM FRACTURES.
Additional source detail variants (4)
Wheels
DURING A SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 MEETING AND IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS IN NOVEMBER, FORD ADVISED THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OF THEIR PLANS TO INTRODUCE AN IMPROVED STEEL WHEEL FOR MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE COMPONENT USE ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INDICATING THIS WOULD OCCUR IN DECEMBER 2004.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN INCORPORATES AN ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING PROCESS (SHOT PEENING) WHICH LOWERS TENSILE STRESS IN THE SURFACE LAYER OF THE RIM MATERIAL ADJACENT TO THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD. THEORETICALLY THIS SHOULD IMPROVE RIM DURABILITY BY REDUCING FATIGUE CRACK INITIATION SITES.INDICATIONS FROM FORD?S ACCELERATED TESTING METHODS SHOW AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NEW WHEEL.IN ADDITION TO PRIOR SAFETY RECALL 03V279 AND SERVICE ACTION (SA) 03M03, FORD WILL ANNOUNCE A NEW EXTENDED WARRANTY SA FOR VEHICLES BUILT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 2004 THAT SUFFER RIM FRACTURES IN SERVICE.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN WILL BE USED AS A REMEDY.FORD ADVISES THAT A SA IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING FUTURE WHEEL FAILURES (INCLUDING RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEEL FAILURES) BECAUSE: 1) FAILURE RATES ARE LOW BASED ON FORD?S ANALYSIS, AND 2) DRIVER WARNINGS (REPETITIVE SLOW AIR LOSS, AND OR STEERING WHEEL VIBRATION) ALLOW EARLY AND SAFE DETECTION OF CRACKED WHEELS.ODI HAS RECEIVED 25 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS (INVOLVING 22 VEHICLES) WHICH ALLEGE A RIM FRACTURE OF ONE OR MORE STEEL WHEELS.ABOUT HALF THE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLES BUILT WITH THE REMEDY WHEEL USED FOR RECALL 03V279, AND MOST OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES WERE SUBJECT TO THE RECALL.THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING PERTINENT FORD COMPLAINTS IS MADE DIFFICULT BY FORD?S PRIOR RECALL AND WARRANTY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.THE MANUFACTURER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS, WHICH PRIMARILY INVOLVE FAILURES OF RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEELS, ARE BASED ON ANALYSIS CONDUCTED TO DATE AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSERVATIVE.FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED, THUS ODI IS UPGRADING THIS INVESTIGATION TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA).DURING THE EA, PERTINENT FAILURE REPORTS AND CONSEQUENCES WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND REVIEWED.ODI AND FORD WILL DISCUSS DETAILS FOR CONDUCTING AN AUDIT ANALYSIS OF FAILED WHEELS REPLACED UNDER THE NEW SA.ADDITIONALLY, ODI IS AWAITING FORD?S LAB ANALYSIS OF TWO WHEELS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF VOQ REPORTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE NOTED CRASH EVENT.A DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE AS TO WHETHER FORD?S SERVICE ACTION IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING ONGOING RIM FRACTURES.
Wheels:hubcap/cover
DURING A SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 MEETING AND IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS IN NOVEMBER, FORD ADVISED THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OF THEIR PLANS TO INTRODUCE AN IMPROVED STEEL WHEEL FOR MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE COMPONENT USE ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INDICATING THIS WOULD OCCUR IN DECEMBER 2004.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN INCORPORATES AN ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING PROCESS (SHOT PEENING) WHICH LOWERS TENSILE STRESS IN THE SURFACE LAYER OF THE RIM MATERIAL ADJACENT TO THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD. THEORETICALLY THIS SHOULD IMPROVE RIM DURABILITY BY REDUCING FATIGUE CRACK INITIATION SITES.INDICATIONS FROM FORD?S ACCELERATED TESTING METHODS SHOW AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NEW WHEEL.IN ADDITION TO PRIOR SAFETY RECALL 03V279 AND SERVICE ACTION (SA) 03M03, FORD WILL ANNOUNCE A NEW EXTENDED WARRANTY SA FOR VEHICLES BUILT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 2004 THAT SUFFER RIM FRACTURES IN SERVICE.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN WILL BE USED AS A REMEDY.FORD ADVISES THAT A SA IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING FUTURE WHEEL FAILURES (INCLUDING RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEEL FAILURES) BECAUSE: 1) FAILURE RATES ARE LOW BASED ON FORD?S ANALYSIS, AND 2) DRIVER WARNINGS (REPETITIVE SLOW AIR LOSS, AND OR STEERING WHEEL VIBRATION) ALLOW EARLY AND SAFE DETECTION OF CRACKED WHEELS.ODI HAS RECEIVED 25 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS (INVOLVING 22 VEHICLES) WHICH ALLEGE A RIM FRACTURE OF ONE OR MORE STEEL WHEELS.ABOUT HALF THE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLES BUILT WITH THE REMEDY WHEEL USED FOR RECALL 03V279, AND MOST OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES WERE SUBJECT TO THE RECALL.THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING PERTINENT FORD COMPLAINTS IS MADE DIFFICULT BY FORD?S PRIOR RECALL AND WARRANTY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.THE MANUFACTURER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS, WHICH PRIMARILY INVOLVE FAILURES OF RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEELS, ARE BASED ON ANALYSIS CONDUCTED TO DATE AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSERVATIVE.FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED, THUS ODI IS UPGRADING THIS INVESTIGATION TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA).DURING THE EA, PERTINENT FAILURE REPORTS AND CONSEQUENCES WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND REVIEWED.ODI AND FORD WILL DISCUSS DETAILS FOR CONDUCTING AN AUDIT ANALYSIS OF FAILED WHEELS REPLACED UNDER THE NEW SA.ADDITIONALLY, ODI IS AWAITING FORD?S LAB ANALYSIS OF TWO WHEELS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF VOQ REPORTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE NOTED CRASH EVENT.A DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE AS TO WHETHER FORD?S SERVICE ACTION IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING ONGOING RIM FRACTURES.
Wheels:hub
DURING A SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 MEETING AND IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS IN NOVEMBER, FORD ADVISED THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OF THEIR PLANS TO INTRODUCE AN IMPROVED STEEL WHEEL FOR MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE COMPONENT USE ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INDICATING THIS WOULD OCCUR IN DECEMBER 2004.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN INCORPORATES AN ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING PROCESS (SHOT PEENING) WHICH LOWERS TENSILE STRESS IN THE SURFACE LAYER OF THE RIM MATERIAL ADJACENT TO THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD. THEORETICALLY THIS SHOULD IMPROVE RIM DURABILITY BY REDUCING FATIGUE CRACK INITIATION SITES.INDICATIONS FROM FORD?S ACCELERATED TESTING METHODS SHOW AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NEW WHEEL.IN ADDITION TO PRIOR SAFETY RECALL 03V279 AND SERVICE ACTION (SA) 03M03, FORD WILL ANNOUNCE A NEW EXTENDED WARRANTY SA FOR VEHICLES BUILT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 2004 THAT SUFFER RIM FRACTURES IN SERVICE.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN WILL BE USED AS A REMEDY.FORD ADVISES THAT A SA IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING FUTURE WHEEL FAILURES (INCLUDING RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEEL FAILURES) BECAUSE: 1) FAILURE RATES ARE LOW BASED ON FORD?S ANALYSIS, AND 2) DRIVER WARNINGS (REPETITIVE SLOW AIR LOSS, AND OR STEERING WHEEL VIBRATION) ALLOW EARLY AND SAFE DETECTION OF CRACKED WHEELS.ODI HAS RECEIVED 25 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS (INVOLVING 22 VEHICLES) WHICH ALLEGE A RIM FRACTURE OF ONE OR MORE STEEL WHEELS.ABOUT HALF THE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLES BUILT WITH THE REMEDY WHEEL USED FOR RECALL 03V279, AND MOST OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES WERE SUBJECT TO THE RECALL.THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING PERTINENT FORD COMPLAINTS IS MADE DIFFICULT BY FORD?S PRIOR RECALL AND WARRANTY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.THE MANUFACTURER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS, WHICH PRIMARILY INVOLVE FAILURES OF RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEELS, ARE BASED ON ANALYSIS CONDUCTED TO DATE AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSERVATIVE.FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED, THUS ODI IS UPGRADING THIS INVESTIGATION TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA).DURING THE EA, PERTINENT FAILURE REPORTS AND CONSEQUENCES WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND REVIEWED.ODI AND FORD WILL DISCUSS DETAILS FOR CONDUCTING AN AUDIT ANALYSIS OF FAILED WHEELS REPLACED UNDER THE NEW SA.ADDITIONALLY, ODI IS AWAITING FORD?S LAB ANALYSIS OF TWO WHEELS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF VOQ REPORTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE NOTED CRASH EVENT.A DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE AS TO WHETHER FORD?S SERVICE ACTION IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING ONGOING RIM FRACTURES.
Wheels:rim
DURING A SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 MEETING AND IN SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS IN NOVEMBER, FORD ADVISED THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OF THEIR PLANS TO INTRODUCE AN IMPROVED STEEL WHEEL FOR MANUFACTURING AND SERVICE COMPONENT USE ON THE SUBJECT VEHICLES, INDICATING THIS WOULD OCCUR IN DECEMBER 2004.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN INCORPORATES AN ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURING PROCESS (SHOT PEENING) WHICH LOWERS TENSILE STRESS IN THE SURFACE LAYER OF THE RIM MATERIAL ADJACENT TO THE CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD. THEORETICALLY THIS SHOULD IMPROVE RIM DURABILITY BY REDUCING FATIGUE CRACK INITIATION SITES.INDICATIONS FROM FORD?S ACCELERATED TESTING METHODS SHOW AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NEW WHEEL.IN ADDITION TO PRIOR SAFETY RECALL 03V279 AND SERVICE ACTION (SA) 03M03, FORD WILL ANNOUNCE A NEW EXTENDED WARRANTY SA FOR VEHICLES BUILT PRIOR TO DECEMBER 2004 THAT SUFFER RIM FRACTURES IN SERVICE.THE NEW WHEEL DESIGN WILL BE USED AS A REMEDY.FORD ADVISES THAT A SA IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING FUTURE WHEEL FAILURES (INCLUDING RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEEL FAILURES) BECAUSE: 1) FAILURE RATES ARE LOW BASED ON FORD?S ANALYSIS, AND 2) DRIVER WARNINGS (REPETITIVE SLOW AIR LOSS, AND OR STEERING WHEEL VIBRATION) ALLOW EARLY AND SAFE DETECTION OF CRACKED WHEELS.ODI HAS RECEIVED 25 VEHICLE OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE (VOQ) REPORTS (INVOLVING 22 VEHICLES) WHICH ALLEGE A RIM FRACTURE OF ONE OR MORE STEEL WHEELS.ABOUT HALF THE REPORTS INVOLVE VEHICLES BUILT WITH THE REMEDY WHEEL USED FOR RECALL 03V279, AND MOST OF THE REMAINING VEHICLES WERE SUBJECT TO THE RECALL.THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING PERTINENT FORD COMPLAINTS IS MADE DIFFICULT BY FORD?S PRIOR RECALL AND WARRANTY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.THE MANUFACTURER COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY COUNTS, WHICH PRIMARILY INVOLVE FAILURES OF RECALL 03V279 REMEDY WHEELS, ARE BASED ON ANALYSIS CONDUCTED TO DATE AND ARE CONSIDERED TO BE CONSERVATIVE.FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED, THUS ODI IS UPGRADING THIS INVESTIGATION TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA).DURING THE EA, PERTINENT FAILURE REPORTS AND CONSEQUENCES WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND REVIEWED.ODI AND FORD WILL DISCUSS DETAILS FOR CONDUCTING AN AUDIT ANALYSIS OF FAILED WHEELS REPLACED UNDER THE NEW SA.ADDITIONALLY, ODI IS AWAITING FORD?S LAB ANALYSIS OF TWO WHEELS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF VOQ REPORTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE NOTED CRASH EVENT.A DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE AS TO WHETHER FORD?S SERVICE ACTION IS SUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING ONGOING RIM FRACTURES.
Illustration