IllustrationWHEN BRAKES WERE APPLIED IN A PANIC STOP RESTRAINT BELT BUCKLE ON REAR PASSENGER'S SEAT UNLATCHED, CAUSING CHILD IN SAFETY SEAT TO BE THROWN FORWARD, RESULTING IN MINOR INJURY.*AK
1999 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: 18 of 84 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 15 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 14 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Vehicle Speed Control. 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.
5 crash reports4 fire reports6 injury reports
What owners actually said
84 reportsLUGS: NUTS ON LEFT REAR WHEEL SNAPPED OFF, CAUSING TIRE TO COME OFF VEHICLE. CONSUMER WAS TRAVELING AT APPROXIMATELY 35-40 MPH WHEN THIS HAPPENED. *AK
FROM A SPEED OF 45 MPH THESE UNITS WITH REAR DISC BRAKES REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL 14 FEET TO STOP WHEN TESTED AGAINST AN OLDER UNIT THAT IS IDENTICAL IN EVERY WAY EXCEPT IT HAS DRUM BRAKES ON THE REAR. WE ALSO SEE THIS SAME PROBLEM ON THE 2000 MODELS. *AK
WHEN DEPRESSING BRAKES ON WET/SNOWY ROADS VEHICLE WOULD SKID/TRAVELED TO LEFT OR RIGHT, NO BRAKING POWER IN REAR WHEELS. *AK FRONT BRAKE PADS AND CALIPERS WEAR PRMATURELY. REAR BRAKE DRUM RUSTED. THE BRAKE PROBLEM STILL EXIST. *YH
ENGINE REPLACED.
ENGINE - REVS UP WHILE VEHICLE IS IDLING, LEAPING FORWARD, UNEXPECTEDLY. STEERING, PULLS LEFT COONSTANTLY.*AK
SHORTLY AFTER PURCHASE BRAKES FAILED PEDAL WENT TO FLOOR ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BUT WERE TOLD BY DEALER THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WAS COMMON FOR ABS BRAKE PEDAL TO GO TO FLOOR WHEN SITTING AT TRAFFIC LIGHT HOWEVER THEY DID PLAY WITH PEDAL UNTIL IT CAME UP SEVERAL TRIPS TO DEALER NEVER RESOLVED PROBLEM YET WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS A…
Read full complaint
SHORTLY AFTER PURCHASE BRAKES FAILED PEDAL WENT TO FLOOR ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BUT WERE TOLD BY DEALER THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WAS COMMON FOR ABS BRAKE PEDAL TO GO TO FLOOR WHEN SITTING AT TRAFFIC LIGHT HOWEVER THEY DID PLAY WITH PEDAL UNTIL IT CAME UP SEVERAL TRIPS TO DEALER NEVER RESOLVED PROBLEM YET WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS AT DEALER AND COMPLAINED ABOUT BRAKES , TRANSMISSION,STEERING,OUTSIDE RIGHT MIRROR AND SEAT BELT IN MID RIGHT SEAT DEALER FOUND NOTHING WRONG WITH ANYTHING BUT MIRROR WHICH THEY REPLACED HOWEVER TWO HOURS LATER ANOTHER DEALER SAID SEAT BELT WAS DEFECTIVE AND WOULD ORDER ONE A SECOND DEALER SHORTLY THEREAFTER REPLACED LOOSE LINKAGE IN STEERING, AND REBUILT TRANSMISSION WHICH HAD BURNT OVERDRIVE AND DEFECTIVE PARTS IN LOWER RANGE STILL NO-ONE COULD FIND BRAKE PRBLEM UNTIL CRASH WHEN DEPUTY SHERIFF TESTED BRAKE PEDAL 8 TIMES PUTTING PEDAL TO FLOOR FORD MOTOR CO SAYS THE DEPUTY WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO PERFORM SUCH A TEST AND WILL NOT ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THERE IS AND HAS BEEN A PROBLEM THAT IS INTERMITTENT BRAKE FAILURE APPARENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ABS AS THE MECHANICS STATED THE FIRST TIME THE VEHICLE WAS IN WITH THE COMPLAINT
NEW VEHICLE WITH ONLY 6,000 MILES AND ONE YEAR OF SERVICE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD TRANSMISSION PROBLEM. WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER CONSUMERS WHO HAVE HAD SIMILAR PROBLEM
FORD DEALER ANALYSIS, TREAD SEPARATION, THEN BLOWOUT (DOT NUMBER: VDTL 1XB TIRESIZE: 225/75R16)
NOTICED 2 SEPERATE CRACKS OR SPLITS ON THE FRONT LEFT TIRE OF MY VEHICLE. THE CRACKS ARE ON THE SIDEWALL OF THE TIRE ABOUT 1/2 INCH EACH.THEY ARE SEPERATE AND ABOUT A 1 INCH SPACE BETWWEEN THEM. BUT A VERY FINE LINE OR CRACK CAN BE SEEN CONECTING THE TWO FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER.I'VE TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE FIRESTONE DEALER AT…
Read full complaint
NOTICED 2 SEPERATE CRACKS OR SPLITS ON THE FRONT LEFT TIRE OF MY VEHICLE. THE CRACKS ARE ON THE SIDEWALL OF THE TIRE ABOUT 1/2 INCH EACH.THEY ARE SEPERATE AND ABOUT A 1 INCH SPACE BETWWEEN THEM. BUT A VERY FINE LINE OR CRACK CAN BE SEEN CONECTING THE TWO FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER.I'VE TAKEN THE VEHICLE TO THE FIRESTONE DEALER AT BUSTLETON AND STREET RD. IN FEASTERVILLE,PA 19053 IWAS TOLD MY TIRES WERE NOT ON THE RECALL LIST , I MENTIONED THAT THESE TIRES WERE ON THE NEWS FOR BLOW OUTS AND TIRE SEPERATION.THE DEALER THEN SAID IF THE CRACKS GET WORSE TO BRING THEM BACK AND HE WOULD REINPSPECT THEM BUT FOR NOW IT LOOKED MINOR.ALSO I POINTED OUT THAT VERY SMALL CRACKS SURROUNDING THE DIAMETER OF THE TIRES BELOW THE TREAD ON THE SIDE WALL COULD BE SEEN ON ALL THE TIRES. THE DEALER SAID IT LOOKED LIKE DRY-ROT, I THEN COMMENTED THAT THE TIRES WERE NEW WITH VEHICLE AND PURCHASED 11-98 AND ONLY HAD 11,700 MILES ON THEM. THE DEALER SAID TO JUST KEEP AN EYE ON THEM AND IF IT WORSENS TO COME BACK.AFTER THAT I TOOK THE VEHICLE TO JOHN KENNEDY FORD WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED FROM AND TOLD THEM ABOUT THE TIRES. I WAS TOLD THEY WERE NOT ON THE RECALL LIST AND THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO AND THEY RECCOMMENED TO TAKE THEM TO THE TIRE MANUFACTER FOR INSPECTION. (TIRESIZE: LT22575R16)( DOT NUMBER: TIRE SIZE: LT22575R16 )
Official recalls
508V051000 · 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.
00V284000 · Equipment:other:labels
Sep 21, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: BI-FUEL CNG PICKUP TRUCKS AND BI-FUEL CNG VANS, MODIFIED BY CFI CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., FAIL TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FMVSS NO. 303, "FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY OF COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS VEHICLES." THE LABEL AFFIXED TO THE FUEL FILLER DOOR BY THE VEHICLE MODIFIER CONTAINS THE INSPECTION DATE AND EXPIRATION DATE OF THE CNG TANK. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE STATEMENT "SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE FUEL CONTAINER FOR INSPECTION AND SERVICE LIFE."
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THESE VEHICLES DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.
Remedy: OWNERS WILL BE PROVIDED A LABEL WITH THE REQUIRED STATEMENT, ALONG WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR AFFIXING THE LABEL AT THE FUEL FILLER DOOR. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN NOVEMBER 2, 2000. 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.
00V115000 · Wheels:lugs/nuts/bolts/studs
Apr 19, 2000
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: CUTAWAYS AND STRIPPED CHASSIS WITH SINGLE REAR WHEELS. THE LUG NUTS CAN POTENTIALLY BOTTOM OUT ON A SHOULDER ON THE STUDS.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: IF THIS OCCURS, THERE CAN BE AN INADEQUATE CLAMP LOAD TO ATTACH THE WHEEL TO THE AXLE, RESULTING IN NOISE, DAMAGE TO THE WHEEL AND HUB, OR IN EXTREME CASES, LOSS OF A REAR WHEEL WHILE THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE REAR WHEEL ATTACHING STUDS.
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.
98V257000 · Power Train:manual Transmission
Oct 14, 1998
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PICKUP TRUCKS BUILT WITH SINGLE REAR WHEELS AND EQUIPPED WITH 3.55:1 AND 3.73:1 AXLE RATIO. THESE VEHICLES WERE BUILT WITH INCORRECT SPEEDOMETER DRIVEN GEARS, RESULTING IN A LOWER SPEEDOMETER READING THAN THE ACTUAL VEHICLE SPEED BEING DRIVEN.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THIS CAN RESULT IN THE VEHICLE BEING DRIVEN AT AN UNSAFE OR ILLEGAL SPEED SHOULD THE DRIVER NOT REALIZE THAT HIS VEHICLE ROAD SPEED IS GREATER THAN THE SPEEDOMETER INDICATION.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL THE CORRECT SPEEDOMETER GEAR.
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.