IllustrationWE WERE ON VACATION AND SMELLED RUBBER BURNING, PULLED OFF AND REAR PASSENGER TIRE WAS SMOKING...APPARENTLY AXLE HAD BROKEN AFFECTING BRAKE LINES WE ENDED UP REPLACING REAR AXLE AND BRAKES. *TR
1999 Ford E-150
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
Limited comparison data
There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all E-150 years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
10–25K
425–50K
1150–75K
875–100K
16100–150K
3150K+
43 reports with mileage · 40 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Steering. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Fuel System, Gasoline. Review the 14 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 14 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
8 crash reports2 fire reports3 injury reports
Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints
14 reportsLTR FM DENIS BITTENBENDER (PA) WRITER IS A QUADRIPLEGIC USE OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT TO OPERATE VEHICLE INVOLVED IN ACCIDENT ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT FAILED CAUSING ACCIDENT REQUEST NHTSA TEST EQUIPMENT DEFECT, REPLY TO THE ALLENTOWN OFC DOT 2004-4251. *LA THE VEHICLE HAD RUN OFF THE HIGHWAY AND RAN INTO A TREE IN WHICH THE VEHICL…
Read full complaint
LTR FM DENIS BITTENBENDER (PA) WRITER IS A QUADRIPLEGIC USE OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT TO OPERATE VEHICLE INVOLVED IN ACCIDENT ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT FAILED CAUSING ACCIDENT REQUEST NHTSA TEST EQUIPMENT DEFECT, REPLY TO THE ALLENTOWN OFC DOT 2004-4251. *LA THE VEHICLE HAD RUN OFF THE HIGHWAY AND RAN INTO A TREE IN WHICH THE VEHICLE VEERED AT A 30 DEGREE ANGLE TO THE RIGHT AN DID NOT RESPOND TO ANY ACTIONS THE CONSUMER TRIED TO PERFORM. ON ANOTHER OCCASION, THE BRAKE UNIT FAILED AND THE MANUFACTURER REPLACED THE UNIT. THE EMERGENCY BRAKE NEVER WORKED PROPERLY AND THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY. *SC IT WAS ALSO POSSIBLE THE VAN HAD A STEERING PROBLEM. *JB
VEHICLE VEERED OFF THE ROAD AND INTO A TREE. *PH THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY DURING THE ACCIDENT. NHTSA DID SOME TESTING BUT COULD NOT PIN POINT THE PROBLEM. A RECALL WAS INITIATED WHICH THE CONSUMER RECEIVED AUGUST 24, 2003, 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT. SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS TO BE OUT OF SERVICE FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO WEE…
Read full complaint
VEHICLE VEERED OFF THE ROAD AND INTO A TREE. *PH THE AIR BAGS DID NOT DEPLOY DURING THE ACCIDENT. NHTSA DID SOME TESTING BUT COULD NOT PIN POINT THE PROBLEM. A RECALL WAS INITIATED WHICH THE CONSUMER RECEIVED AUGUST 24, 2003, 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT. SINCE THE VEHICLE WAS TO BE OUT OF SERVICE FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS THE CONSUMER WAS IN THE PROCESS OF REARRANGING HIS SCHEDULE TO COMPLY WHEN THE FAILURE OCCURRED. FIVE DAYS AFTER THE CONSUMER PURCHASED THE VEHICLE THE BRAKE UNIT FAILED. THE MANUFACTURER REPLACED THE UNIT AFTER SOME INSTALLER/MANUFACTURER DISAGREEMENTS. THE EMERGENCY BRAKE NEVER WORKED PROPERLY. *NM
THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED EXCESSIVE BRAKE PAD WEAR. *NLM
THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED BUT THE VEHICLE DID NOT SLOW DOWN. THE DRIVER APPLIED THE PEDAL HARDER BUT THE BRAKES DID NOT ENGAGE TOTALLY AND THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DETERMINED THAT THE BRAKE ROTORS WERE PITTED AND RUSTED AND THE BRAKE PADS WERE WORN. THE P…
Read full complaint
THE BRAKE PEDAL WAS DEPRESSED BUT THE VEHICLE DID NOT SLOW DOWN. THE DRIVER APPLIED THE PEDAL HARDER BUT THE BRAKES DID NOT ENGAGE TOTALLY AND THE VEHICLE EXPERIENCED EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER WHO DETERMINED THAT THE BRAKE ROTORS WERE PITTED AND RUSTED AND THE BRAKE PADS WERE WORN. THE POWER STEERING GEAR BOX LEAKED. *NLM *NLM
THE CONSUMER STATES THAT WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THE PURCHASE OF THIS VEHICLE, HE HAS BEEN HAVING BRAKE PROBLEMS. (WHEN THE BRAKES BEGAN HAVING PROBLEMS, THE CONSUMER HAD TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO A SERVICE MANAGER AND WAS TOLD THAT THE VEHICLE HAS HARD BRAKE LININGS AND THEY NEEDED TO BE BROKEN IN) THEN AFTER, THE CONSUMER EXPERIENCED…
Read full complaint
THE CONSUMER STATES THAT WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THE PURCHASE OF THIS VEHICLE, HE HAS BEEN HAVING BRAKE PROBLEMS. (WHEN THE BRAKES BEGAN HAVING PROBLEMS, THE CONSUMER HAD TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO A SERVICE MANAGER AND WAS TOLD THAT THE VEHICLE HAS HARD BRAKE LININGS AND THEY NEEDED TO BE BROKEN IN) THEN AFTER, THE CONSUMER EXPERIENCED THE BRAKES BECOMING INOPERATIVE, GRABBING/PULLING(SHARPLY), AND FAILING. ON TWO SEPERATE OCCASIONS, THE CONSUMER WAS EXITING THE FREEWAY WHEN HE APPLIED THE BRAKES AND THEY FAILED, CONSUMER DROVE TO THE SHOULDER TO AVOID HITTING THE VEHICLE IN FRONT OF HIM, AND THE LAST INCIDENT THE CONSUMER WAS AT A STOP LIGHT AND TRIED TO STOP BUT THE VEHICLE HAD GONE THROUGH THE RED LIGHT. THE VEHICLE PULLED SHARPLY TO THE RIGHT, THEN 25-30 YARDS PAST THE INTERSECTION WHEN THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY SHARPLY PULLED TO THE LEFT AND THEN RIGHT AND FINALLY STOPPED. THE CUNSUMER ALSO STATES THAT THE CALIPER SLIDES ARE HANGING UP-COULD NOT DUPLICATE) *SCC
THE BRAKES GRAB OR PULL LEFT OR RIGHT EVERY NOW AND THEN-MOSTLY WHEN ITS RAINING ,HAS RAINED RECENTLY OR IS HUMID .TWICE IT PULLED ME ON THE SHOULDER-ON THE GRAVEL---SEVERAL TIMES INTO THE NEXT LANE --USUALLY JUST MOMENTERALLY -TWICE THE VAN DIDN'T STOP--THE FIRST TIME I DROVE ONTO THE SHOULDER TO MISS OTHER CARS --THE SECOND T…
Read full complaint
THE BRAKES GRAB OR PULL LEFT OR RIGHT EVERY NOW AND THEN-MOSTLY WHEN ITS RAINING ,HAS RAINED RECENTLY OR IS HUMID .TWICE IT PULLED ME ON THE SHOULDER-ON THE GRAVEL---SEVERAL TIMES INTO THE NEXT LANE --USUALLY JUST MOMENTERALLY -TWICE THE VAN DIDN'T STOP--THE FIRST TIME I DROVE ONTO THE SHOULDER TO MISS OTHER CARS --THE SECOND TIME I WENT THROUGH A RED LIGHT--IT PULLED MOMENTERRALLY TO THE RIGHT THEN THE BRAKE PEDAL KEPT BOUNCING--I KEPT HARD PRESSURE ON THE BRAKE --STOPPED 25-30 YARDS PAST THE RED LIGHT---PULLED LEFT THEN RIGHT THEN STOPPED NORMALLY . I PULLED INTO LARRY BYARDS AUTO REPAIR SHOP--LARRY DROVE 1/2 MILE UP THE ROAD & BACK --BRAKES ACTED NORMAL..I HAVE NOT DRIVEN THE VAN SINCE(DEC/20/01)THEN --I'M AFRAID TO--I'M A BILATERAL AMPUTEE(LOST BOTH LEGS IN AN AIRPLANE CRASH) AND ALSO A LOT OF MY CO-ORDINATION..I HAVE 6 DOCUMENTED REPAIR ATTEMPTS OR REQUESTS AND A "LAST CHANCE TO REPAIR "LETTER TO FORD MOTOR CO.FOR THE "LEMON LAW" BUT THE BRAKES ARE STILL NOT FIXED AND THE VAN IS SITTING---WHO WOULD BE LIABLE IF I DROVE THE VAN AND SOMETHING HAPPENED ??? I WANT FORD TO TAKE THE VAN BACK --ITS DANGEROUS !!! THANKS FOR LISTENING, ESKO ALHOLINNA. *AK
WHILE DRIVING BRAKES WILL HOLD SOMETIMES OR NOT HOLD AT ALL WHEN APPLIED, CAUSING DRIVER TO RUN A RED LIGHT, ALMOST RESULTED IN AN ACCIDENT. *AK
VEHICLE IS LOADED AND SHAKING. DEALER REPLACED WARPED FRONT ROTORS, AT THIS TIME ROTORS NEED REPLACEMENT AGAIN.*AK
AIRBAG LIGHT ON. DEALER REPLACED SENSOR, AND SAME DAY LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN. DEALER COULD NOT REMEDY PROBLEM. SWAY BAR HAD TO BE TAKEN OUT AND INSTALLED CORRECTLY/GAS PEDAL WAS STICKING/WET FLOOR ON BOTH DRIVER AND PASSENGER SIDES/ LEAK FROM FIREWALL/FRONT ROTORS AND PADS WERE REPLACED/EXHAUST SYSTEM REPLACED/BOTH OUTSIDE MIRRORS…
Read full complaint
AIRBAG LIGHT ON. DEALER REPLACED SENSOR, AND SAME DAY LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN. DEALER COULD NOT REMEDY PROBLEM. SWAY BAR HAD TO BE TAKEN OUT AND INSTALLED CORRECTLY/GAS PEDAL WAS STICKING/WET FLOOR ON BOTH DRIVER AND PASSENGER SIDES/ LEAK FROM FIREWALL/FRONT ROTORS AND PADS WERE REPLACED/EXHAUST SYSTEM REPLACED/BOTH OUTSIDE MIRRORS REPLACED, WERE NOT STAYING IN POSITION/BUMPER REPLACED 3 TIMES, RUSTING THROUGH,, AND ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS WITH VEHICLE. *AK
Official recalls
509V399000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Oct 13, 2009
FORD IS RECALLING MODEL YEARS 1995-2003 WINDSTAR, 2000-2003 EXCURSION DIESEL, 1993-1997 AND 1999-2003 F-250 SD THROUGH F-550 SD DIESEL, 1992-2003 E-150 THROUGH E-550, 1995-2002 EXPLORER, 1997 AND 2002 MERCURY MOUNTAINEER, 1995-1997 AND 2001-2003 RANGER, AND 1994 F53 VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE TEXAS INSTRUMENTS SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH (SCDS). THE SCDS MAY LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A VEHICLE FIRE COULD OCCUR WITH OR WITHOUT THE ENGINE RUNNING.
Remedy: FORD WILL NOTIFY OWNERS THAT DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS IN LINE WITH THE SCDS. ON 1999-2003 WINDSTAR VEHICLES WITH A LEAKING SCDS, DEALERS WILL ALSO INSPECT THE ABS CONTROL MODULE CONNECTOR AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY. REPAIRS WILL BE COMPLETED FREE OF CHARGE. THE SAFETY RECALL BEGAN ON OCTOBER 27, 2009. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
08V051000 · Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
Feb 4, 2008
FORD IS RECALLING 225,000 MY 1992-2003 ECONOLINE, MY 1993-1995 TAURUS SHO, MY 1992-1998 CROWN VICTORIA, MY 1993 BRONCO, F-SERIES, MY 1995-1997 F-SERIES SUPER DUTY STRIPPED CHASSIS, MY 1992-1998 MERCURY GRAND MARQUIS, AND MY 1992-1995 LINCOLN TOWN CAR VEHICLES. THE AFFECTED VEHICLES WERE PREVIOUSLY REPAIRED USING A WIRING HARNESS THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE VEHICLE CIRCUIT POLARITY.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: AS A RESULT, THE FUSE IS LOCATED IN THE OUTPUT CIRCUIT RATHER THAN IN THE INTENDED INPUT POWER FEED CIRCUIT, AND MAY NOT OFFER THE INTENDED PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF AN ELECTRICAL SHORT TO GROUND.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A NEW WIRING HARNESS, OR REPLACE THE MATING ELECTRICAL COMPONENT. THE RECALL BEGAN ON FEBRUARY 18, 2008. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
07V336000 · Vehicle Speed Control
Aug 3, 2007
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, PASSENGER VEHICLES, SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, AND MOTOR HOMES CHASSIS, THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LEAK INTERNALLY AND THEN OVERHEAT, SMOKE, OR BURN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS COULD RESULT IN AN UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. OWNERS OF THE PASSENGER CARS INCLUDED IN THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED AS AN INTERIM REPAIR. AS SOON AS REPAIR PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED OCTOBER 2007), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON AUGUST 13, 2007, AND MAILING COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 2007. OWNERS MAY CONTACT FORD AT 1-888-222-2751.
01V114000 · Fuel System, Gasoline:storage:tank Assembly
Apr 5, 2001
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: ON CERTAIN VANS WITH AMBULANCE PREP PACKAGES OR OTHER SEVERE-DUTY APPLICATIONS INVOLVING OPERATION AT OR NEAR THE GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT WITH FREQUENT TWISTING OF THE VEHICLE BODY, SUCH AS OFF-ROAD, ROUGH ROAD OR SPEED BUMP EVENTS, THE 35 GALLON MID-SHIP FUEL TANK COULD DEVELOP A CRACK WHERE IT CONTACTS THE FRAME CROSS MEMBER. IF THE FUEL TANK CRACKS, FUEL LEAKAGE COULD OCCUR.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: FUEL LEAKAGE IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE COULD RESULT IN A FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT THE FUEL TANK AND, IF CRACKED, WILL REPLACE THE TANK. INSULATOR PADS WILL BE INSTALLED ON ALL VEHICLES TO REDUCE THE STRESS LEVELS IN THE FUEL TANK. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN APRIL 19, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.
99V046000 · Latches/locks/linkages:doors:latch
Mar 15, 1999
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: UTILITY VANS EQUIPPED WITH THE "60/40" HINGED SIDE CARGO DOORS. THE STRIKERS FOR THE 60/40 DOOR SINGLE LATCH SYSTEM WERE FOUND TO CONTAIN STRESS CRACKS AT THE STRIKER WIRE LOWER STAKE JOINT. STRIKERS WITH STRESS CRACKS MAY NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 206, "DOOR LOCKS AND DOOR RETENTION COMPONENTS."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH, THE DOOR STRIKERS MAY NOT HOLD THE DOOR, INCREASING THE RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE DOOR STRIKER.
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
1DP05005 · 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.