NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
33 reports130,000 miles · Jul 8, 2010
Structure
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD E-150. WHILE DRIVING 20 MPH THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE REAR PASSENGER DOOR HAD SUDDENLY OPENED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL MECHANIC WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE DOOR HINGES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THERE WERE NO PRIOR WARNINGS. THE CUR…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD E-150. WHILE DRIVING 20 MPH THE CONTACT NOTICED THAT THE REAR PASSENGER DOOR HAD SUDDENLY OPENED WITHOUT WARNING. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A LOCAL MECHANIC WHERE THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE DOOR HINGES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THERE WERE NO PRIOR WARNINGS. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 130000.
NHTSA ODI #10342014
49,000 miles · Apr 23, 2010
Visibility
MY 2004 F-150 HAS A WINDOW REGULATOR GO OUT FOR THE SECOND TIME THIS IS A REAL ISSUE IT IS A HAZARD TO MY CHILDREN AND A REAL BIG COST TO ME BEING 300 DOLLAR BOTH TIMES I HAD TO REPLACE IT NEED TO BE RECALLED WHAT A BIG DISAPPOINTMENT CAN YOU HELP ME IN THIS MATTER THANK YOU. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10327234
70,000 miles · Nov 18, 2009
Visibility
DRIVING DOWN INTERSTATE IN 2004 FORD F150 XLT WITH APPROX. 70K MILES AND INADVERTENTLY LOWERED REAR WINDOW. WHEN I WENT TO CLOSE THE WINDOW, I HEARD A LOUD CRACK AND REALIZED THAT THE WINDOW WAS NOT GOING BACK UP. AFTER PULLING OFF ONTO THE SHOULDER TO INSPECT WHAT HAD OCCURRED, I SAW THAT MY REAR WINDOW HAD DROPPED INTO THE D…
Read full complaint
DRIVING DOWN INTERSTATE IN 2004 FORD F150 XLT WITH APPROX. 70K MILES AND INADVERTENTLY LOWERED REAR WINDOW. WHEN I WENT TO CLOSE THE WINDOW, I HEARD A LOUD CRACK AND REALIZED THAT THE WINDOW WAS NOT GOING BACK UP. AFTER PULLING OFF ONTO THE SHOULDER TO INSPECT WHAT HAD OCCURRED, I SAW THAT MY REAR WINDOW HAD DROPPED INTO THE DOOR. LUCKILY IT WAS NOT RAINING THAT DAY OR I WOULD HAVE HAD A BACK SEAT FULL OF WATER. I TOOK IT TO A LOCAL MECHANIC WHO SAID THAT FORD'S POWER WINDOW BRACKET REGULATOR, WHICH WAS CRACKED, IS ONE PIECE AND REQUIRED REPLACEMENT BY TAKING APART THE DOOR. $275 WAS SPENT TO FIX THE REAR WINDOW. I HAVE SEEN NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS REGARDING FORD'S WINDOWS. RIGHT NOW I CONSIDER MYSELF LUCKY THAT IT HAS ONLY HAPPEN TO ONE WINDOW, BUT I WON'T BE SURPRISED IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN SOON TO ANOTHER WINDOW SINCE IT APPEARS OTHERS HAVE HAD TWO OR THREE WINDOWS WITH THIS PROBLEM. IT APPEARS TO BE A MAJOR DEFECT THAT SHOULD BE RECALLED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10292850
76,875 miles · Dec 26, 2008
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
REPEATED VEHICLE BRAKE FAILURE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10252853
Mileage unknown · May 19, 2008
Vehicle Speed Control
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD E150. THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL SWITCH WAS DISCONNECTED APPROXIMATELY 6-8 MONTHS AGO. THE CONTACT SPOKE WITH FORD A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE PART FOR THE REPAIR WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR ANOTHER FOUR MONTHS. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 106,0…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD E150. THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL SWITCH WAS DISCONNECTED APPROXIMATELY 6-8 MONTHS AGO. THE CONTACT SPOKE WITH FORD A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE PART FOR THE REPAIR WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR ANOTHER FOUR MONTHS. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 106,000.
NHTSA ODI #10228203
18,000 miles · Jan 7, 2008
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD E150. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKES WERE INOPERABLE . THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE OR DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE AND AS OF SPRADLEY BARR FORD JANUARY 7, 2008, THE DEALER HAD NOT REPAIRED THE VEHICLE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 57,650 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 18,000. UPDATED 02-14-08 *BF THE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD E150. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKES WERE INOPERABLE . THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE OR DIAGNOSE THE FAILURE AND AS OF SPRADLEY BARR FORD JANUARY 7, 2008, THE DEALER HAD NOT REPAIRED THE VEHICLE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 57,650 AND FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 18,000. UPDATED 02-14-08 *BF THE CONSUMER STATED ONCE THE VEHICLE IS DRIVEN FOR 15 MINS. AND THEN PARKED. THE CONSUMER STATED ONCE DRIVING AGAIN BRAKES BECOME NON EXISTENCE. UPDATED 02/14/08 *TR
NHTSA ODI #10214091
Mileage unknown · Dec 29, 2007
Seat Belts
FOR THE LAST 3 MONTHS, MY SEAT BELT WARNING BEEP HAS BEEN ON WHETHER I HAVE MY SEAT BELT ON OR OFF. THE DEALER SHIP WHERE I BOUGHT THIS VAN, WHICH IS BILL COLLINS FORD, HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO HELP WITH THIS PROBLEM. ALSO MY DVD PLAYER STOPPED WORKING AND THE 3 ROW SEAT BELT STRAP HAS BROKE OFF. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10213172
48,000 miles · Dec 27, 2007
Vehicle Speed Control
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD ECONOLINE E150. HE RECEIVED A SAFETY RECALL NOTIFICATION LETTER IN AUGUST 2007 ON THE FORD VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE LETTER IS FRAUDULENT AND MISLEADING AND THE DEALER LEAD HIM TO BELIEVE THAT A REPAIR WAS GOING TO BE MADE DURING HIS APPOINTMENT. THE CONTACT WAS LATER…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2004 FORD ECONOLINE E150. HE RECEIVED A SAFETY RECALL NOTIFICATION LETTER IN AUGUST 2007 ON THE FORD VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE LETTER IS FRAUDULENT AND MISLEADING AND THE DEALER LEAD HIM TO BELIEVE THAT A REPAIR WAS GOING TO BE MADE DURING HIS APPOINTMENT. THE CONTACT WAS LATER INFORMED AFTER THE SWITCH WAS DISCONNECTED THAT THE PART WAS NOT AVAILABLE. HE HAS CALLED FORD EVERY MONTH SINCE RECEIVING THE NOTIFICATION IN AUGUST AND EVERY MONTH HE HAS BEEN TOLD THAT THE PARTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE THE FOLLOWING MONTH. HE HAS ALSO TRIED MORE THAN ONE FORD DEALERSHIP AND HE RECEIVED THE SAME RESPONSE. IF HE CANNOT HAVE HIS CAR REPAIRED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO NEGOTIATE A REFUND. THERE ARE NO FAILURES AT THIS TIME. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 48,000. UPDATED 01/17/08 *BF UPDATED 01/17/08 *TR
NHTSA ODI #10212965
Mileage unknown · May 5, 2007
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
BOLTS FALLING OFF OF BRAKES THAT HOLD CALIPER ON. I HAVE A TOTAL OF 12 2004 FORD E-150 AND 1 2004 FORD EXPEDITION. 3 OF MY E-250'S AND THE EXPEDITION HAS ALL HAD THIS HAPPEN TO THEM. WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BRAKE PADS ARE WORN DOWN TO METAL ON METAL, WHEN BRAKES WERE CHECKED FOR THE PROBLEM, THE BOLT HAD COME LOO…
Read full complaint
BOLTS FALLING OFF OF BRAKES THAT HOLD CALIPER ON. I HAVE A TOTAL OF 12 2004 FORD E-150 AND 1 2004 FORD EXPEDITION. 3 OF MY E-250'S AND THE EXPEDITION HAS ALL HAD THIS HAPPEN TO THEM. WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BRAKE PADS ARE WORN DOWN TO METAL ON METAL, WHEN BRAKES WERE CHECKED FOR THE PROBLEM, THE BOLT HAD COME LOOSE AND WAS CAUSING THE CALIPER TO RUB AGAINST THE RIM. *JB
NHTSA ODI #10189892
37,000 miles · Feb 20, 2007
Wheels
I WAS DRIVING DOWN INTERSTATE 91 IN MASS. DOING 65 MILES PER HOUR AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE UNTIL I FELT A SLIGHT VIBRATION AND WITH NO WARNING MY REAR RIGHT WHEEL JUST SNAPPED OFF. I WAS LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO STOP THE VEHICLE AND KEEP IT FROM ROLLING OVER OR CREATING A PILE UP OF TRAFFIC. WHEN I HAD GOTTEN OUT TO LOOK I FOUND THAT …
Read full complaint
I WAS DRIVING DOWN INTERSTATE 91 IN MASS. DOING 65 MILES PER HOUR AND EVERYTHING WAS FINE UNTIL I FELT A SLIGHT VIBRATION AND WITH NO WARNING MY REAR RIGHT WHEEL JUST SNAPPED OFF. I WAS LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO STOP THE VEHICLE AND KEEP IT FROM ROLLING OVER OR CREATING A PILE UP OF TRAFFIC. WHEN I HAD GOTTEN OUT TO LOOK I FOUND THAT ALL 5 LUGS WERE SNAPPED OFF AND BROKEN. THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF DEFECT WITH THESE BOLTS. MY FEAR IS THAT SOMEONE ELSE MAY GET KILLED. NOW I AM IN A PROCESS OF TRYING TO HAVE IT REPAIRED AND EVERYONE INCLUDING FORD IS PASSING THE BLAME ON SOMEONE ELSE. PLEASE HELP ME. *NM
NHTSA ODI #10183001
Official recalls
4Mar 27, 2009
VAN CONVERSIONS IS RECALLING 52 MY 2004-2007 FORD E-150, E-250 E-350 AND MY 2006 GM SAVANNA 3500 VANS BUILT ON FORD AND GM CHASSIS AND EQUIPPED WITH RICON PLATFORM STYLE WHEELCHAIR LIFTS. THESE LIFTS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 403, "PLATFORM LIFT SYSTEM ACCESSIBLE FOR MOTOR VEHICLES," THE ANTI-STOW INTERLOCK MAY NOT DETECT THE PRESENCE OF A WHEELCHAIR OR MOBILITY AID USER. THE PRESSURE SENSING SWITCH THAT DETECTS THE PRESENCE OF WEIGHT ON THE PLATFORM WAS NOT ADJUSTED TO THE NECESSARY SENSITIVITY LEVEL. THE LIFT COULD STOW EVEN THOUGH SOMEONE OR SOMETHING IS STILL ON THE LIFT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: A LIFT OCCUPANT CAN BE INJURED SHOULD THE LIFT BEGIN TO STOW UNINTENTIONALLY.
Remedy: VAN CONVERSIONS IS WORKING WITH RICON TO CORRECT THE WHEELCHAIR LIFTS FREE OF CHARGE (PLEASE SEE 07E097). OWNERS MAY CONTACT RICON AT 1-818-267-3000 OR VAN CONVERSIONS AT 610-837-0707.
Mar 27, 2009
VAN CONVERSIONS IS RECALLING 74 MY 2004-2007 FORD E-150, E-250 E-350 AND MY 2006 GM SAVANNA 3500 VANS BUILT ON FORD AND GM CHASSIS AND EQUIPPED WITH RICON PLATFORM STYLE WHEELCHAIR LIFTS. THESE VEHICLES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 404, "PLATFORM LIFT INSTALLATIONS IN MOTOR VEHICLES." THE THRESHOLD WARNING SYSTEM MAY NOT DETECT THE PRESENCE OF A WHEELCHAIR OR MOBILITY AID USER IN A CERTAIN SPOT WITHIN THE DEFINED THRESHOLD AREA.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE USER OF THE LIFT COULD BE INJURED SHOULD THE LIFT MOVE UNINTENTIONALLY.
Remedy: VAN CONVERSIONS IS WORKING WITH RICON TO CORRECT THE WHEELCHAIR LIFTS FREE OF CHARGE (PLEASE SEE 07E095). OWNERS MAY CONTACT RICON AT 1-818-267-3000 OR VAN CONVERSIONS AT 610-837-0707.
Sep 13, 2004
ON CERTAIN VANS, A DIODE IN THE ANTI-LOCK BRAKING SYSTEM (ABS) MODULE MAY EXPERIENCE AN ELECTRICAL SHORT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE ELECTRICAL SHORT MAY CAUSE AN ABS MALFUNCTION THAT WOULD ILLUMINATE THE ABS WARNING LIGHT, OR THE MODULE MAY OVERHEAT RESULTING IN A BURNING ODOR, SMOKE, AND/OR FIRE. THIS CONDITION MAY OCCUR WHILE THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN OR UNATTENDED.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL A NEW FUSE IN THE ABS CIRCUIT AND INSTALL A HEAT SHIELD OVER THE ABS MODULE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON OCTOBER 15, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. ALSO FORD IS EXTENDING THE LIMITED WARRANTY (FOR A ONE TIME REPLACEMENT) OF THE ABS MODULE FOR A TOTAL OF 10 YEARS OR 150,000 MILES FROM THE WARRANTY START DATE, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. IF YOUR VEHICLE HAS ALREADY ACCUMULATED MORE THAN 150,000 MILES, THIS COVERAGE WILL LAST UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 2005.
Sep 13, 2004
ON CERTAIN VANS, THE AIR FILTER ELEMENT MATERIAL PROCESS RESULTED IN AN AIR FILTER PAPER ELEMENT THAT CAN SMOLDER OR BURN. THIS CHANGE IN FILTER PAPER COMPOSITION COMBINED WITH THE CONFIGURATION OF THE AIR INDUCTION SYSTEM, MAY ALLOW HOT CARBON PARTICLES TO CONTACT THE AIR FILTER ELEMENT DURING CERTAIN DRIVING CONDITIONS THAT CREATE HOT PARTICLES.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THESE HOT PARTICLES MAY IGNITE THE AIR FILTER ELEMENT WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR AIR INDUCTION SYSTEM DAMAGE OR UNDERHOOD FIRE.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT AND REPLACE THE AIR FILTER ELEMENT. THE RECALL BEGAN SEPTEMBER 27, 2004. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673. ALSO FORD IS EXTENDING THE LIMITED WARRANTY (FOR A ONE TIME REPLACEMENT) OF THE ABS MODULE FOR A TOTAL OF 10 YEARS OR 150,000 MILES FROM THE WARRANTY START DATE, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. IF YOUR VEHICLE HAS ALREADY ACCUMULATED MORE THAN 150,000 MILES, THIS COVERAGE WILL LAST UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 2005.
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.
Illustration