Illustration2000 FORD ECONOLINE VAN INCLUDED IN A RECALL BUT THE VEHICLE WAS ALREADY BURNED DUE TO THE DEFECT. *KB
2000 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: 6 of 39 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.
- Vehicle Speed Control. Review the 9 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Suspension. Review the 6 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Electrical System. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
3 crash reports4 fire reports3 injury reports
What owners actually said
39 reportsREC'D NOTIFICATION OF A SAFETY RECALL DATED AUGUST 2007, RECALL # 0S28 I HAVE CALLED REPEATEDLY REGARDING THIS REPAIR, BUT THEY STATE THE REQUIRED PARTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. AS OF TODAY I WAS INFORMED THAT IT WILL BE AT LEAST JUNE 2008 WHEN THIS CAN BE DONE. A 10 MONTH WAIT FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS ON A SAFETY RECALL SEEMS RATH…
Read full complaint
REC'D NOTIFICATION OF A SAFETY RECALL DATED AUGUST 2007, RECALL # 0S28 I HAVE CALLED REPEATEDLY REGARDING THIS REPAIR, BUT THEY STATE THE REQUIRED PARTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. AS OF TODAY I WAS INFORMED THAT IT WILL BE AT LEAST JUNE 2008 WHEN THIS CAN BE DONE. A 10 MONTH WAIT FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS ON A SAFETY RECALL SEEMS RATHER OUT OF THE ORDINARY. FORD 2000 ECONOLINE VAN. *TR
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 ECONOLINE VAN. SHE RECEIVED A SAFETY RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL IN AUGUST 2007. SHE NOTIFIED THE DEALER ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND THEY ADVISED HER TO CALL PERIODICALLY TO SEE IF THE PART WAS AVAILABLE. THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL SWITCH WAS NOT DISCONNECTED; HOWEVER, SHE IS AWARE THAT IT…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 ECONOLINE VAN. SHE RECEIVED A SAFETY RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL IN AUGUST 2007. SHE NOTIFIED THE DEALER ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND THEY ADVISED HER TO CALL PERIODICALLY TO SEE IF THE PART WAS AVAILABLE. THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL SWITCH WAS NOT DISCONNECTED; HOWEVER, SHE IS AWARE THAT IT CAN CAUSE A FIRE. THERE ARE NO FAILURES AT THIS TIME. THE PURCHASE DATE WAS JUNE 2000. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 50,000.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD ECONOLINE 150. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL IN AUGUST OF 2007. THE DEALERS IN HIS STATE ADVISED HIM THAT THE PARTS WOULD BE UNAVAILABLE UNTIL THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2008; HOWEVER, THEY ONLY HAVE PARTS TO REDO THE PREVIOUS REPAIR. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD ECONOLINE 150. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL IN AUGUST OF 2007. THE DEALERS IN HIS STATE ADVISED HIM THAT THE PARTS WOULD BE UNAVAILABLE UNTIL THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2008; HOWEVER, THEY ONLY HAVE PARTS TO REDO THE PREVIOUS REPAIR. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE RECALL NUMBER WAS UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 103,450. UPDATE 04-02-08 *BF
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A SAFETY RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL IN AUGUST OF 2007. SINCE THAT TIME, HE HAS BEEN CALLING FORD EVERY SINCE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE PARTS WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE UNTIL MARCH OF 2008. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE PURCHASE DATE AND …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A SAFETY RECALL NOTICE FOR THE VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL IN AUGUST OF 2007. SINCE THAT TIME, HE HAS BEEN CALLING FORD EVERY SINCE. THE DEALER STATED THAT THE PARTS WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE UNTIL MARCH OF 2008. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE PURCHASE DATE AND RECALL NUMBER WERE UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 54,000. UPDATED 01-29-08. *KB UPDATED 01/29/08 *TR
RECALL ON SCDS FORD MTR CO. AUGUST 2007. AS OF TODATE THIS PART IS STILL NOT AVAILBLE. *CN
2000 FORD ECONOLINE WITH RECALL FOR SPEED CONTROL SWITCH. CONSUMER STATES THAT THE DEALER TOLD HIM THE PARTS WERE BACK ORDERED. HE KEPT CALLING BACK AND WAS FINALLY TOLD THE PARTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN APRIL 2008. *KB
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE IN JULY OF 2007 FOR THE CRUISE CONTROL. SHE RECEIVED ANOTHER RECALL NOTICE IN DECEMBER STATING THAT THE PARTS WERE STILL UNAVAILABLE. THE DEALER HAS NOT OFFERED ANY ASSISTANCE. THE FORD RECALL NUMBER WAS 05S28. THERE IS NO NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMB…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD ECONOLINE. THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE IN JULY OF 2007 FOR THE CRUISE CONTROL. SHE RECEIVED ANOTHER RECALL NOTICE IN DECEMBER STATING THAT THE PARTS WERE STILL UNAVAILABLE. THE DEALER HAS NOT OFFERED ANY ASSISTANCE. THE FORD RECALL NUMBER WAS 05S28. THERE IS NO NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER AVAILABLE. THERE HAD BEEN NO FAILURE TO DATE. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 106,000.
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD ECONOLINE. THE PART THAT IS ON RECALL IS NOT READY OR IN-STOCK TO GET HIS CAR FIXED IN A REASONABLE TIME UNTIL DECEMBER 2007. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 125,000. THERE ARE NO FAILURES AT THIS TIME. UPDATED 01/07/08. *LJ THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN TO THE DEALERSHIP, SO THE CRUISE …
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD ECONOLINE. THE PART THAT IS ON RECALL IS NOT READY OR IN-STOCK TO GET HIS CAR FIXED IN A REASONABLE TIME UNTIL DECEMBER 2007. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 125,000. THERE ARE NO FAILURES AT THIS TIME. UPDATED 01/07/08. *LJ THE CONSUMER WAS TOLD TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN TO THE DEALERSHIP, SO THE CRUISE CONTROL COULD BE DISCONNECTED. UPDATED 12/12/07
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 FORD ECONOLINE. WHILE DRIVING 60 MPH, THE VEHICLE MISFIRED. THE MECHANIC REPLACED THE COIL PACK, HOWEVER, IT FAILED AFTER 1,000 MILES. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE REMAINS PARKED MOSTLY. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 50,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 51,000.
Official recalls
308V051000 · 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.
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.