Illustration1997 FORD ECONOLINE. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO TIRE ISSUES AND REPAIR REIMBURSEMENT.* LD THE CONSUMER DISCOVERED THE TIRES ON HER VEHICLE WERE RECALLED. HOWEVER, SHE WAS NEVER NOTIFIED. RECALL #12T007000. *JB
1997 Ford Econoline
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 Econoline 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
Limited mileage data: 7 of 79 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.
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.
- Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 20 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Tires. Review the 13 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 11 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 reports2 injury reports
What owners actually said
79 reports1997 FORD ECONOLINE VAN. THE SPARK-PLUG BLEW OUT OF THE ALUMINUM TRITON ENGINE DESTROYING THE EXISTING THREADS. FIRE HAZARD. EXPOSED FUEL TO ENGINE COMPARTMENT. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED, THE BRAKES MALFUNCTIONED. THE CONTACT HAD TO APPLY THE BRAKES SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE THEY WOULD ENGAGE. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN INSPECTED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER, WHEN CALLED, STATED THAT THE MASTER CYLINDER MAY HAVE NEEDED TO BE …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING AT ANY SPEED, THE BRAKES MALFUNCTIONED. THE CONTACT HAD TO APPLY THE BRAKES SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE THEY WOULD ENGAGE. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN INSPECTED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER, WHEN CALLED, STATED THAT THE MASTER CYLINDER MAY HAVE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY 89,400. UPDATED 01/04/11*LJ THE CONSUMER STATED THE MASTER CYLINDER WAS REPLACED. HOWEVER, THAT DID NOT RESOLVE THE PROBLEM. THE CONSUMER WAS THEN INFORMED THE ANTI-LOCK BRAKE BLOCK WAS BAD. UPDATED 01/11/11.*JB
AS I TYPE THIS COMPLAINT, I AM LISTENING TO SECRETARY LAHOOD,....IF WHAT HE SAYS IS TRUE I SHOULD HEAR SOMETHING BACK FROM YOU FAIRLY SOON!! I HAVE A COMPLAINT WITH THE V10 FORD ENGINE.....IF YOU GO TO THE INTERNET AND TYPE IN "FORD V10 ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTING" OR ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THAT INQUIRY YOU WILL GET A HOST OF COMPLA…
Read full complaint
AS I TYPE THIS COMPLAINT, I AM LISTENING TO SECRETARY LAHOOD,....IF WHAT HE SAYS IS TRUE I SHOULD HEAR SOMETHING BACK FROM YOU FAIRLY SOON!! I HAVE A COMPLAINT WITH THE V10 FORD ENGINE.....IF YOU GO TO THE INTERNET AND TYPE IN "FORD V10 ENGINE SPARK PLUG EJECTING" OR ANYTHING SIMILAR TO THAT INQUIRY YOU WILL GET A HOST OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE PROBLEMS THAT I AM EXPERIENCING. MY 1997 FORD (MOTORHOME) SPIT OUT A SPARK PLUG SEVERAL MONTH AGO. CALLED FORD, THEY SUGGESTED THAT I HAVE MY MECHANIC INSTALL AN "INSERT" TO REPAIR THE STRIPPED OUT HEAD OR REPLACE THE HEADS.....OFFERED NO OTHER HELP. THE INSERT "FIX COST" $1,000. NEW HEADS WOULD HAVE COST $3,000 EACH. WORK WOULD BE GUARANTEED FOR A WHOPPING "90 DAYS". I OPTED FOR THE $1,000. FIX. AFTER THE FIX, MY WIFE (FIGHTING LUNG CANCER) AND I (RETIRED AIR FORCE-MILITARY) HEADED TO FLORIDA FROM MICHIGAN. WE MADE IT TO INDIANAPOLIS....APPROX 350 MILES. THE NEWLY REPAIRED "HEAD INSERT" ALLOWED THE PLUG TO SPIT OUT AGAIN!! LONG STORY SHORT, WE RETURNED HOME AND HAD A NEW ENGINE (REMANUFACTURED) ENGINE INSTALLED AT A COST OF $5,000. MY MILITARY PENSION CANNOT AFFORD THESE KIND OF MONETARY HITS. I AM ALSO TOLD THAT THIS PROBLEM COULD HAVE EASILY CAUSED A FIRE. WE WERE LUCKY IN THAT REGARD. FORD REPS, BOTH AT THE DEALERSHIP LEVEL AND FORD CUSTOMER SERVICE (THEIR PHONE # LOCATED IN THE FORD SERVICE MANUALLY) DENIED ANY PROBLEMS....YET THE INTERNET IS FULL OF COMPLAINTS. PLEASE TELL ME YOU ARE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM AND ARE TRYING TO FIND SOME RECOURSE FOR THE FORD CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED THE PROBLEMS AND EXPENSE THAT I HAVE. ALL THE MECHANICS THAT I HAVE TALKED TO WERE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROBLEM. THAT ONLY ADDS TO MY DISMAY. WHY HASN'T THERE BEEN MORE PUBLIC INFO ON THIS PROBLEM....WHY HASN'T THIS PROBLEM BEEN ADDRESSED BY FORD MOTOR CO. OR AT LEAST FAIRLY HANDLED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. AT THE VERY LEAST, I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME RECOGNITION THAT YOUR AGENCY IS AWARE AND LOOKING INTO THIS PROBLEM. THANK YOU SO MUCH! *TR
1997 FORD ECONOLINE WITH SPEED CONTROL RECALL. CONSUMER STATES THAT THE DEALER DID NOT HAVE ANY PARTS IN SEPTEMBER. HE STATES THAT THEY STILL HAD NO PARTS IN DECEMBER. AS OF APRIL THEY STILL HAVE NO PARTS TO REPAIR THIS PROBLEM. *KB
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 08V051000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL: CRUISE CONTROL) IN DECEMBER OF 2007. SHE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO GET THE RECALL REPAIRED. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THE PARTS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN JUNE OF 2008. THERE HAD BEE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 08V051000 (VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL: CRUISE CONTROL) IN DECEMBER OF 2007. SHE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO GET THE RECALL REPAIRED. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THE PARTS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN JUNE OF 2008. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 36,887.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A SAFETY RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL IN SEPTEMBER OF 2007. HE HAS BEEN INFORMED EVERY MONTH THEREAFTER THAT THE PART WOULD BE AVAILABLE THE FOLLOWING MONTH. HE SPOKE WITH THE DEALER IN APRIL OF 2008 AND WAS INFORMED TO CHECK BACK IN MAY. THERE HA…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A SAFETY RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL IN SEPTEMBER OF 2007. HE HAS BEEN INFORMED EVERY MONTH THEREAFTER THAT THE PART WOULD BE AVAILABLE THE FOLLOWING MONTH. HE SPOKE WITH THE DEALER IN APRIL OF 2008 AND WAS INFORMED TO CHECK BACK IN MAY. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE PURCHASE DATE AND RECALL NUMBER WERE UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 46,000.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE IN AUGUST OF 2007 FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL. THE SWITCH WAS DISCONNECTED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY PARTS; HOWEVER, THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THEY HAVE SENT SOME PARTS TO ALL OF THE DEALERS. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE IN AUGUST OF 2007 FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL. THE SWITCH WAS DISCONNECTED. THE DEALER STATED THAT THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY PARTS; HOWEVER, THE MANUFACTURER STATED THAT THEY HAVE SENT SOME PARTS TO ALL OF THE DEALERS. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE RECALL NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT APPROXIMATE MILEAGE WAS 123,000.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED TWO SAFETY RECALL NOTICES FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL. WHEN HE TOOK HIS VEHICLE TO FORD ON AUGUST 28, 2007, HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE PARTS WOULD BE UNAVAILABLE UNTIL NOVEMBER. HE THEN RECEIVED ANOTHER NOTICE ON OCTOBER 9, 2007, STATING THAT BECAUSE OF UNFORESEE…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED TWO SAFETY RECALL NOTICES FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL. WHEN HE TOOK HIS VEHICLE TO FORD ON AUGUST 28, 2007, HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE PARTS WOULD BE UNAVAILABLE UNTIL NOVEMBER. HE THEN RECEIVED ANOTHER NOTICE ON OCTOBER 9, 2007, STATING THAT BECAUSE OF UNFORESEEN PART SHORTAGES, THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT BE REPAIRED UNTIL NOVEMBER OR LATER. HOWEVER, THE CONTACT WAS INFORMED THAT THE SPEED CONTROL SWITCH COULD BE DISCONNECTED. HE WANTS THE SWITCH REPAIRED, NOT DISCONNECTED. THE CURRENT MILEAGE IS 84,747. UPDATED 12/12/07 *BF
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO START THE VEHICLE A LOUD CLANGING NOISE WAS HEARD. THE VEHICLE WAS TOWED TO THE DEALER WHO DETERMINED A PISTON ROD WAS BENT DUE TO ANTI-FREEZE LEAKING INTO THE PISTON CYLINDER AND THE ENGINE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED.
Official recalls
208V051000 · 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.
96V193000 · Electrical SYSTEM:12V/24V/48V Battery:cables
Oct 2, 1996
THE BATTERY CABLE HARNESS DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM CONTACTING AND BEING DAMAGED BY THE RIGHT ENGINE MOUNT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THE BATTERY CABLE OR STARTER WIRE INSULATION IS DAMAGED BY SUCH CONTACT, A SHORT TO GROUND CAN OCCUR RESULTING IN OVERHEATING OF THE WIRING AND POSSIBLE IGNITION OF SURROUNDING COMPONENTS.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSPECT FOR CHAFING OF THE CABLE AND WILL ADD INSULATION AND A TIE STRAP TO THE BATTERY CABLE HARNESS.
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.